IR 05000731/2008002
| ML20134K935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000731 |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134K911 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508300519 | |
| Download: ML20134K935 (258) | |
Text
,_M, 1, y,_~_, a- .~ .
S6bc des c o m e n f 50m
- D i
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
I SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR Sponsordd by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION im
'N
.
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 1 - 258 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1985
^
- ' ) -
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, IN OfficialReverters 8508300519 850823 444 N rth Capitol Street PDR 1OCFR Washington, D.C. 20001 PT PDR C62)347-3700
_ __
NATIONWIDE CCVERAGE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- '~
t cz, j':t-}n-j
'
&6hc Des c o m e n / Soo n>
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR Sponsore'd by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 1 - 258 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1985 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, IN Oficial Repcrtes 8508300519 850823 444 North Capitol Street PDR 1OCFR Washincton, D.C. 20C01 PT PDR (202) 347-3700
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NATIONWIDE CCVERACE _ _ _ _ _
20 01 01 1 WRBeb 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4 and 5 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6 Sponsored-7 SPENT NUCLEAR PUEL TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR
.
8 Wednesday, 31 July 1985 9 Americana Congress Hotel 10 Chicago, Illinois 11 The seminar was called to order at 9 :00 a.m. ,
-12 Richard E. Cunningham presidin s 14 '
c ( c, h 15 gy fl1 16 [hd &w -
4 - c0-
O j
A fc 19 cff d h ld $ch d C4
22 us mas . can
! 49 4 M'h / C TJ
'
t 24 hh f Z -[f$$/
i I
l 9.320 01 01
-
RBeb 1 PROCEEDINGS i
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentleme I'm Dick Cunningham, a member of the Nuclear 4 Regulatory Commission staff, and I will chair this first l 5 session on spent nuclear fuel transportatio I do want to welcome you to this semina We do 7 appreciate this very fine attendance we have and appreciate ;
I 8 your coming here on a rainy Chicago mornin j 9 We from Washington categorically deny any 10 regulatory responsibility for Chicago weather, but I i 11 understand Terry Lash has ordered the weather to clear up 12 by tomorrow afternoon for the visit to the G.E. Morris tO
facilit . 14 Incidentally, if you have not already made
.
15 arrangements-to participate in the field trip, I'd advise 16 you to do so if you want to go, because tickets will be
17 available and spaces on the buses will be available for 18 attendees first and then participants as space is 19 availabl We do have a fair number of seats available on 20 the buses; hopefully we can accommodate all that want to go 21 on the trip.
! 22 Before beginning the scheduled program, I do 23 want to introduce one or two people: one, Wayne Kerr, who l
is Director of our Office of State Programs, had the
. (} 24 He 25 difficult task of trying to arrange this meetin ,
.RBeb 1 started about six months ago and surveyed all the hotels in 2 Chicago, both on the North Side and out nsar the airport, 3 and none were availabl We had to delay the meeting about 4 six weeks until we could find any space open to hold this 5 meetin I know it's a difficult and thankless task, but 7 we do want to thank Wayne and members of Region III for 8 what they have don I'm also pleased to see we have here with us a 10 past Commissioner of the former Atomic Energy Commission
'
11 who is presently, among his many other activities, the 12 President's representative on the Southern States Energy O
\/ Board, Mr. William Dow Without further comment, we do have a very tight 15 agenda, so without further comment I'll introduce Mr. John 16 Davis who is Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear 17 Materials Safety and Safeguard John will outline some of 18 the objective of the semina Joh MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Dic I would like first, of course, to repeat Dick 22 Cunningham's welcome to you to this seminar on spent fuel 23 transportatio To be frank, we at NRC were somewhat overwhelmed
}
25 when we learned that the total attendance would be about
20 01 01 4 WRBeb 1 twice what we had originally though But the seminar 2 should be all the more productive because of this large 3 attendance and, of course, because of the presence of each 4 of yo The seminar is composed mainly of public 6 officials with large responsibilities and busy schedules, 7 and we appreciate the response of all participants to our 8 invitation and the time you're taking to learn and 9 contribute to the understanding of how spent fuel transport 10 is regulated and the issues it entail Transportation of spent fuel is controversial;
'12 if.it were not, you wouldn't be her Recent spent fuel
'
shipping campaigns, as well as government proposals to site
. .
14 a large spent fuel storage facility and repositories for 15 the final disposal of spent fuel and high level waste has 16 fanned interest in this important issu Several government agencies are involved with 18 the management, the regulation and the transport of spent 19 fue This seminar, however, is directed at the regulatory 20 aspects of transportatio At the federal level this is 21 primarily the domain of the Department of Transportation 22 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commissio We feel it is important to distinguish between
.() 24 the roles of the federal agencies that have regulatory 25 responsibilities and those of other agencies, such as the
9320 01 01 5 RBGb 1 Department of Energy and the Federal Emergency Management 2 Agency as well as the nuclear industry itself, which have 3 other responsibilitie All have important 4 responsibilities for safe transport of spent fue However, in some recent public meetings we've 6 been impressed that the federal agencies are viewed by some
7 as all cagp.ng about the same general responsibilit This 8 is clearly not the cas And this is the reason why this 9 seminar is being sponsored by DOT and NRC: we are the 10 regulator The seminar is about the regulatory rules, 12 regulatory objectives and regulatory issue Understanding the difference between regulatory 14 functions and the responsibilities of others is important 15 for understanding how we achieve safety in transporatio Enhancing that understanding is a major objective of this 17 semina Regulatory responsibility for safety in the 19 transport of radioactive materials is shared by a number of 20 agencies at the federal, the state and the local leve These responsibilities, as established by legislation, are 22 often broad and overlappin They also have the potential 23 for being fragmente Perhaps the regulatory structure for (}
25 transportation can best be characterized as a complex
_
9320 01 01 6
[]
!RBeb
. 1 mosaic of shared responsibilit This means that we all 2 must be concerned with the coordination of work among the 3 regulatory agencies at all levels, so that there is no 4 possibility that something important to safety will be 5 overlooked under the assumption that someone else is 6 addressing i The roles of the agencies must be clearly 8 defined so that the government officials, the regulated 9 industry, and members of the public understand who is 10 responsible for what, 11 Our speakers in this seminar will describe all 12 aspects of the DOT and NRC regulatory roles, particularly ('/ *
13 in the areas of packaging, routing and emergency 14 procedure In addition, the roles of NRC and state and 15 local law enforcement agencies in the protection of spent 16 fuel shipments against sabotage will be examine We hope to provide a better understanding of 18 what we do, why we do it, and what we expect to accomplish 19 in the futur Speakers from the state and local 20 governments and Indian tribes will help to identify the 21 interfaces between federal and other regulation of spent 22 fuel transport, and show how each participates to assure j
23 public safet (} 24 It must be our continued objective to assure 25 that all safety issues are covered while avoiding
>
- , - , , - - - - - - - ,- ,,-p , --
320 01 01 7 WRBeb- I conflicting requirements; hence a more specific objective 2 of the seminar is to identify any gaps that may exist in 3 the regulatory structure of spent fuel transpor Another important objective of our seminar will 5 be to clearly define and expore issues of greatest concern 6 to the regulatory agencies and to officials of states and 7 local jurisdictions through which spent fuel shipments will 8 pas We will hear the views of those involved in 9 administering the routing rules and resolving routing 10 conflict .
11 We will have reports from those who are
,!
12 addressing the public concerns about emergency 13 preparedness, and those who are involved in making
.
14 inspections effective for assuring compliance with 15 transportatio'n regulation While the seminar itself is not likely to be the 17 arena in which difficult issues can be resolved, it does 18 provide an opportunity for each of us to gain insight on i
19 the issues from varying perspectives and thereby enhance 20 ourabilitytofindacceptablesolutionsdf q 21 I therefore urge your very active participation 22 in discussion groups on tomorrow's agend The findings of l
23 these discussion groups will be reported back to the entire 24 group in Friday morning's sessio While we do not intend (])
'
25 to publish formal proceedings of the seminar, we have
l 9320 01 01 8
'
RBob 1 arranged for a court reporter to prepare a transcript of 2 the main session The transcript will be available in the
!
3 Public Document Rooms of both the NRC and DO Because the regulatory system is complex and 5 spans the nation, the involved organizations must devote
- 6 extra effort to working together on a regular basis to 7 assure that the activities, the decisions, and the policies 8 of each mesh realistically and wisely with those of the 9 other Working together to meet common goals efficiently 10 and effectively is perhaps the greatest challenge for all 11 of u We hope that the seminar will provide a basis g
,
('
13 for concluding that ths federal agencies are responsive to 14 expressed concerns and are helpful in resolving problems 15 for which they share responsibility with state and local 16 governments and the Indian tribe This gathering is a 17 step in our continuing effort to forge effective working 18 relationships in which all must play an acive role.
l
'
19 Singularly, each regulatory agency such as the 20 NRC has limited jurisdiction, limited capability, and l 21 limited resources, although each is committed to l
j 22 maintaining the safety of the syste An objective 23 therefore is to consolidate our collective effort to be (} 24 sure spent fuel transport is properly regulate Perhaps the most important objective, and that l
l
!
L
.
9320 01 01 9 RBeb 1 of greatest value in this seminar, is the opportunity to 2 become better acquainted with each other on a more personal 3 basi It is an opportunity to cement working 4 relationship We have found that knowing the people 5 involved in decision-making often provides a foundation for 6 trust and is a valuable asset in problem-solving, 7 particularly in a time of crisi Key members of the NRC and DOT staffs will be 9 here during the semina In addition to participating with 10 them in the scheduled discussion sessions, I hope you will 11 have a chance to meet and become acquainted with them on a 12 more personal basi O 13 ,
Let me close by emphasizing our determination 14 that the expected increase in radioactive material 15 transportation will be accommodated without compromising 16 the primary objective of protecting public health, safety 17 and the environmen We all share this common objective.
,
18 We also expect that the state, local and Indian l
,
19 authorities will continue to play important roles in l
l 20 reaching this goal and that after this conference, we will i
- 21 be able to work together with a clear picture of the 22 mechanisms of the requirements involved in carrying out the
[
23 responsibilities that all can share between federal, state, l
I l (} 24 local and Indian jurisdiction Gathering together in this seminar to discuss l
l t
9320 01.01 10 RBeb 1 issues, to recognize common goals, to understand individual 2 responsibilities and to share information on new 3 developments as well as cementing relationships is a step 4 in the right directio We hope it will strengthen the 5 foundation upon which continued progress can be base Again it is a pleasure to be her It is a 7 pleasure to have you here at this semina MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much, Joh Rather than take questions, at least in this 10 session, after each speaker, I would prefer to wait until 11 the end of the show after all speakers have had a chance to 12 speak, and then take questions from the audience as time is g-
\- 13 availabl I know many of you will have very detailed 14 questions, technical questions, and please bear in mind 15 that we will go into much greater depth as the seminar goes 16 on in some of the technical areas of specific interest to 17 yo It is indeed a pleasure to have with us M Cynthia Douglass, who is administrator of the DOT's 20 Research and Special Programs Administra. tion. I know Cindy 21 had to work very hard to make this seminar because of some 22 things that are happening in Washington, and she finally 23 did manage to do i So Cindy, it is a particular pleasure to have
{}
25 you here with u ,9320 01 01
"hRBeb 1 MS. DOUGLASS: Thank you, Dic I'll tell you somethin I am very glad to be 3 here today because I feel very strongly about this 4 meetin I first want to say that I see this as a real 5 opportunity for all of us to really commit to working 6 together on this major issue that is facing our country, 7 this nuclear transportation issu Not only do we need, 8 the federal government, need to work with you-all and you-9 all need to work together on this problem, but we at the 10 federal level need to recommit to working together in 11 coordinating our efforts in not creating any sort of 12 confusion at the state level or local level with regard to (^i 3"J 13 the federal rules and regulations on nuclear 14 transportatio I think this seminar and this type of activity 16 give us a great opportunity to really start working 17 together on nuclear transportatio What Dick said, I did make a big effort to get 19 to this meeting today, and I intend to stay for the full 20 two and a half day That is how important this meeting is
<
21 to m Let me demonstrate my commitmen You don't have 22 an opportunity very often to demonstrate this kind of a 23 commitment, but let me tell you about what happened in fl 24 Washingto v
! 25 A little over a week ago, a week and a half ago, L_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'9320 01 01 12 RBeb 1 I got a phone call from Congressman Florio's staf He 2 decided to have a hearing on nuclear transportation, and we 3 were discussing dates when we could have the hearin We 4 thought about settling on Monday, July 30th, and I said, 5 well, you know, that's a fine date; in fact, I will testify 6 any day between now and July 30th, or I will testify on 7 Friday-- I will. testify on Monday, the 29th, Tuesday, the 8 30th, or Friday, the 2nd of August, on nuclear
'
9 transportatio ,
10 A few days later I got a phone cal The 11 hearing was set for Thursday morning, August 1s I was 12 really upset over this because I felt very strongly that I O 13 should be'at a Congressional hearing on nuclear
~
14 transportatio The Department of Transportation has a 15 story to tell, and we should be ther At the same time I also felt that I had a 17 4 longstanding commitment to the states of this nation, and 18 .to the Tribal Nations, and I felt that I_had to be her So anyway we worked and worked on how we could
, ,
20 work this ou What I have ended up doing is George (
21 Tenley, who is the chief counsel of the Researchand s
"
22 Special Programs Admnistration, issgoing to be there at s (
23 Congressman Florio's hearing tomorrow mczning, and he is () 24 going to testify on DOT's role in nuclear transportatio He will do an absolutely outstanding job, and I have full s
- _ _ _ _
.
.. . .
,
,
x ,
"
>
,; / ' -
y , ,
.,.
i 9320101 01 13 L, l, it
'WRBeb
'
1 confidence in tha And I get to be here, and I'm glad that I am
[ 3 going to be here, and I look forward to getting to meet all I
4 of you and begin working with yo I think that this is 5 goingsto provide a good opportunity for all of u RSPA -- that's the agency that I am the J7 admi nistrator of -- is with the Department of 8 Transportatio It is what we call a modal administration
'
/
9 within the Departmen I report to Secretary Dol And my 10 agency has responsibility for hazardous materials 11 transportation and pipeline safety, and for a number of 12 other interesting issue :) 13
.
We have recently decided to reorganize the 14 Research and Special Programs Administratio A number of 15 you might be familiar with the Materials Transportation 16 Bureau within the Reearch and Special Programs 17 Administratio We have decided that we will abolish the s
18 Materials Transportation Burea That Bureau was 19 responsible for both pipeline safety and hazardous 20 materials transportatio In its stead we are going to create two offices, 22 an Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation, and an 23 Office of Pipeline Safet Both of those office directors (} 24 will report directly to me, and I believe that that will 25 enhance both the pipeline safety area and the hazardous
..... .
.
.
.
-9320 01 01 14 RBeb 1 materials transportation are And I feel that that is 2 going to have a significant impact on our progra Al Roberts, who is here today, -- and I want all 4 of you to get to know A He is going to be the director 5 of our Office of Hazardous Materials Transportatio Allan 6 and I are in the process of reorganizing that office 7 entirely, and one thing that we intend to do is to create a 4-
'
8 new office within Al's office which would be responsible
,
9 for a number of coordinating and liaison functions for the 10 states and for the federal government and for our Research 11 and Special Programs Administration, and for the whole
_
12 Department of Transportatio ~
~
13 We are not sure what we're going.to call this >
14 office yet; we haven't settled on a nam ,
But it will be 15 something like the Government and Private Sector Inistives 16 offic And the idea will be to enhance our relationships 17 internally within the Department of Transportation, to 18 enhance our relationships to the other federal agencies 19 responsible for hazardous materials transportation, and 20 also to enhance our relationships with the state We intend to-- We think and we would like to 22 increase our staff in that office and really show that we 23 do have a commitment to working with the states and others () 24 on hazardous materials transportatio I see this seminar 25 as another important step in this partnership progra WRBeb 1 Some of the activities that the Department of 2 Transportation has sponsored in furthering this partnership 3 in hazardous materials transportation have included the 4 State Hazardous Materials Enforcement-Development Program, 5 the SHMED program, and several demonstration projects in 6 fostering emergency preparedness planning at a number of
'7 locations around the countr We have al'so been heavily involved in the 9 specific area of this seminar, namely transportation of 10 spent nuclear fue We have been in close touch with some 11 of the states individually as well as with organizations 12 which represent the views of groups of states, for example, O' 13 the Western Interstate Energy Board and the National 14 Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association
.
15 of Towns and Township We have also been working with the National -
17 Congress of American Indians and have participated at their 18 last annU4l n
/ wou)eeting in Spokane, Washingto And I'm glad 19 to see that so many people that we have worked with are
.
20 able to be here toda Now, let me also say that I see this workshop, 22 again, as just the beginnin Because what I would like to 23 do is -- and we've been talking about this; I would like to () 24 see us now, after this workshop, go out and expand this 25 effort and do some regional workshop This is a great
,. . - _ - _ - - - ,. _ - _ __ - .-
20 01 01 16 WRBeb 1 starting point, but I think we're going to have to get down 2 and have some regional meetings and get to know the people
, 3 even better than we would be able to at a national kind of 4 worksho I have an advantage in the Research and Special 6 Programs Administration because I do have a variety of 7 different program One of the programs that I have 8 responsibility for is pipeline safet In the pipeline safety program we do have 10 regional pipeline safety offices and inspectors, and we 11 have about -- I think it is about seventeen people out in 12 the states, and those people are divided into regions and
7 N] 13 they work with a group of state and the state inspectors in
,
14 those state That relationship has worked out so well; we
16 have regional meetings every year, we have national 17 meetings once a year, and our regional inspectors get to 18 know all of the people in the state that work on pipeline i
l 19 safety and they know the problems and they know the l
,, 20 politics; they really do gain an understandin And I 21 think that enhances our federal pipeline safety program.
i 22 When I was on Capitol Hill as a staffer, I used i 23 to sit and listen to testimony, and everyone would come up -
L I
() 24 - the industry, the states, and the federal government 25 would all come up and say that this pipeline program is a
-. .-.- _ - - - -
.
9320 01 0'1 17 b'n.RBeb 1 model on how the federal-state relationship should be and 2 how a program can work very wel While I don't think it's possible to have the 4 exact same kind of framework in the hazardous materials 5 area, I would like to see us move -- you know, expand our 6 federal-state relationshi I think it is going to be very 7 ke As Dick Cunningham mentioned, DOT and NRC 9 together are really the federal regulatory agencies 10 concerned with safe transportation of spent nuclear fue The Department of Energy, with whom we all work very 12 closely, is really not a regulatory agency, it really is a
<- .
\s) 13 major shippe DOT operates under the authority of the 15 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which empowers the 16 Secretary of Transportation to promulgate and enforce 17 safety regulations on the transportation of hazardous 18 material of which, of course, spent nuclear fuel is on The Secretary has, in turn, delegated her 20 authority to various operating administrations within the 21 Department of Transportation, with RSPA playing a principal 22 and, in many respect, coordinating and focussing rol Except for the bulk transportation by water, 24 which is the responsibility of the Coast Guard, the role of
-{~}
25 promulgating regulations for hazardous materials for all
r-
-9320 01 01 18
/
(3-d'RBeb 1 transportation modes rests in RSP .2 Enforcement of hazardous materials regulations, 3 on the other hand, is delegated severally to the operating
. 4 administrations such as the Federal Highway Administraton, 5 the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, the Federal Railroad 6 Administratio And, of course, we work with the Federal 7 Rail Administration and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety 8 to make sure that we do coordinate and that there aren't 9 any gaps or overlap The principal components of our regulatory 11 program are rulemaking, enforcement, training and, to some 12 extent, emergency respons The regulations as they apply 13 to spent fuel transportation govern the packaging and 14 operations of shippers and carrier Foi packaging, DOT 15 has incorporated the NRC standards for certain types of 16 package We, obviously, are going to get into a lot more 17 detail on how NRC and DOT work together and are split in i
l 18 authority in the workshops later today and through the next 19 few days.
l l 20 In enforcement, each of the operating l
l 21 administrations, again, is responsible for the inspection
.
22 appropriate to its mod Again, RSPA works with the BMCS 23 and we work with Federal Rail Administration to make sure 24 that things don't fall through the gap Sometimes we come
!(}
25 into play where there's an intermodal shipmen So we at i
.. _
_ - .- -. . . . . - . - . -_ .--
d I
l 9320 01 01 19 RBeb :1 DOT do coordinat ~
2 In training, DOT sponsors a program in line with 3 its safety regulatory mission of accident preventio We 4 provide for training of enforcement personnel at our I
5- facility at the Transportation Safety Institute in Oklahoma
! 6 Cit We have expanded that to now allow, and work with, 7 the Transportation Safety Institute to take the-training
!' 8 programs to the states; and that has worked out very, very .
i 9 wel In addition, we have also developed technical 11 material which can be used in curricula provided by other 12 organization O 13 A fourth, and important, component of our safety f
l 14 program is the emergency preparedness and response.
.
15 Because our primary mission is in prevention, our role in
$ 16~ emergency response is really a supporting on The Federal
17 Emergency Management Agency within the federal government 18 is the primary agency reponsible for emergency response.
l 19 And, again, we work with FEMA and we are right now in the i
20 process of working extra hard with FEMA and with others to 21 coordinate our activities.
. 22 We do have some assistance materials, though, at t
! 23 the Department of Transportatio For example, you all
-
}} 24
might be familiar with our emergency response guideboo That guidebook we have distributed to over a million and a
. _ . . . _ , . _ , . . ~ . _ . _ - . _ - . .__ . _ , _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ . . . . _ _ , - . . . _ _ -
I
- -9320 01 01 20 l (~)
\w;RBeb 1 half people -- fire people and policemen -- and that 2 project has been, I think, very useful -- or that book, 3 rather, I think has been very useful; the feedback we've 4 gotten on that has been very goo That's only a brief sketch of DOT's regulatory 6 progra And, again, we will go over that in greater 7 detail as the workshop develop We are here to share with you the specifics of 9 our program, and, equally importantly, we are here to 10 listen to your concern '
11 I know that some of the issues are very 12 controversial, especially with regard to spent nuclear fuel
'
(D s/ 13 transportatio I am hopeful that when we leave here we
~
'
14 will all have a clear understanding of our respective 15 responsibilitie Nuclear spent fuel does exist, and it must move 1 in transportation unless somehow we can store it 18 permanently at the site, which, at this point, is not i
'
19 possibl My interest is in how can we work together to
- 20 achieve our primary objective? And our primary objective l
'
21 is the safety of the citizens of this countr I think we also have a responsibility to educate 23 the public as to the facts regarding nuclear
'
~N 24 transportatio Nuclear transportation has been carried (O 25 out safely in this country, and it is our commitment -- and
._
9320 01 01 21 RBeb 1 by "our" I mean the federal and the state enforcers, 2 regulators and planners -- it is our commitment to the 3 public to see that that safety record continue And I'm here to commit to doing tha Thank yo MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you-very much, Cind We're especially pleased to learn that you'll be able to 8 stay with us for the whole two and a half day That's 9 wonderfu We have a large number of participants and 11 observers drawn today from rather diverse background As 12 you can see, if you look at the list of attendees, l^ .
\- participants come from all.the states except Alaska, and
14 they hold a variety -- or, rather, you hold a variety of 15 positions in government specializing in areas such as 16 public health, transportation, highway control, and 17 community administratio Therefore, before hearing from our next 19 speakers, I will take a few minutes to briefly describe 20 spent fuel transportation related government programs and 21 some of the broad issues as we at NRC understand the I'll do this to help provide a common undsrstanding about 23 matters that will be discussed in much more detail late At the risk of being too fundamental, I will ({}}
25 start with commercial power reactor fuel itself.
t
l 9320 01 01 22 O This fuel consists of uranium oxide in ceramic
' k .JRBeb 1 2 pellets sealed in Zircaloy rods varying in length from 12 3 to 14 feet depending on whether they are to be used in 4 pressurized water reactors, or PWRs, or boiling water 5 reactors, BWR About 200 rods are tied together at top 6 and bottom in a PWR fuel assembly and about 60 in a BWR 7 assembl These assemblies are also referred to as fuel
.
8 bundles or fuel element The capacities of transportation casks are 10- usually defined in terms of the number of fuel assemblies 11 they can hol However, when used in a power reactor--
12 Well, fresh fuel itself, first, is relatively innocuous 13 from a radiation safety standpoint, but when it's used in a 14 nuclear power reactor highly radioactive isotopes, or 15 fission products, are formed in the fue These fission 16 products collectively produce intense radiation requiring 17 careful handling procedure Spent fuel -- that is, the fuel that has been 19 used in a reactor -- is shipped in casks which weigh in the 20 range of 25 to 100 tons depending on capacity, with the
,
21 larger casks being shipped by rai The casks employ metal to shield gamma radiation 23 emitted from the fission products and a hydrogenous They
{} 24 material, such as water or resin, to shield neutron must be designed to dissipate heat generated by the
25
- _ .- -- _ - - _ _ .-. ,
9320.01 01 23
- p 1 1
wRBeb 1 radiation and be configured to prevent accidental nuclear 2 criticalit Finally, they must.be designed to prevent 3 loss of contamination during normal transport or in the 4 event of accident While spent fuel is certainly not the only 6 material transported, it encompasses most of the issues 7 associated with transport of other radioactive materials as 8 well as some that are unique to spent fue Therefore, as 9 a simple expedient, and mainly because of time, the seminar
<
10 is directed at spent fuel transpor Furthermore, it is directed at transport of 12 spent fuel generated in the civilian nuclear power program 13 as opposed, for example, to shipments which might take 14 place under DOE and Defense program I believe you will find it helpful to keep in 16 mind some of the major responsibilities of federal agencies
.17 involved in transportation of commercial spent fuel as the 18 seminar progresse My summary of these responsibilities 19 is brief and does not cover, certainly, all the
. 20 responsibilities for nuclear materials assigned to federal 21 agencies, but they are the major ones concerned with 22 commercial spent fuel transpor DOT activities have already been well covered by 24 Cindy Douglas Briefly, as it applies to spent nuclear
.{}
25 fuel transport, DOT regulates the safety of vehicles and
- RBeb 1 the route spent fuel travel DOT also operates an instant 2 response center, as Cindy pointed out, which receives 3 notification of accidents in transportation and, in turn, 4 notifies other federal agencies and coordinates emergency 5 response assistance to state and local government DOT 6 also provides training and assistance to states in these 7 and related matter The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates the 9 safety of spent fuel shipping containers and physical 10 protection of spent fuel against theft and sabotag '
11 With respect to container safety, major elements 12 of the NRC program involve engineering analysis and x- 13 certification that containers are designed to meet 14 performance standards, quality assurance requirements 15~ through all phases of design, fabrication and use of the 16 containers, maintenance requirements to keep the containers 17 up to performance specifications during repeated use, and 18 inspection to assure that casks are fabricated and used in 19 accordance with all regulatory requirement In addition, the NRC conducts a research program 21 directed toward assessing and confirming the adequacy of 22 its regulation The protection of spent fuel shipments against (Y 24 theft and sabotage is an important NRC responsibilit (-)
25 Rules governing safeguards are currently under review to
9320 01 01 25 RBeb 1 determine the appropriate balance between safeguards 2 requirements and the risks of sabotag A proposed new 3 rule on physical protection of spent fuel during 4 transportation has been published for public commen This 5 proposed rule will be a subject of much more detailed 6 discussion later in the semina The NRC has issued a policy statement on its 8 role in the event of a transportation acciden The 9 statement recognizes the states' primary responsibility for 10 emergency response in the event of an acciden The NRC 11 will provide technical analysis and advice upon reques To help assure readiness to assist states in the 12 event'of accidents, NRC maintains an instant response 14 center at NRC-headquarters with corresponding facilities in 15 each of the regical office Periodic drills at the 16 centers provide NRC staff with experience by reacting to 17 realistic accident scenarios, including establishing
,
18 communication links with appropriate state officials and 19 recommending appropriate protective measures as neede The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or
~21 FEMA, evaluates emergency response plans of states and 22 assists states and local governments with preparedness 23 training to increase their capabilities for effective
/~T 24 response This is a broad charter which includes (/
25 transportation emergencie .
20 01 01 26 WRBeb 1 The DOE role in transportation,.under the 2 provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 3 includes taking title to spent nuclear fuel at the reactor 4 site and transporting it to a storage or disposal site and 5 attending to all aspects of long-term care from that point 6 on, including further transportation if necessar DOE also has responsibility for the development 8 _of a new generation of containers for transporting spent 9 fuel and high-level waste to DOE storage facilities or a 10 responsit In addition to its responsibilities under NWP ,
7 12 DOE also maintains about thirty emergency response teams at-13 field locations throughout the country which will provide 14 technical assitance to evaluate and contain hazards at a 15 transportation accident site upon reques With this brief summary of federal roles, I 17 would like to say just a few words about our past 18 experience and present issue During the past 25 years there have been over 20 5000 shipments of spent fue Although there have been 21 some road accidents, there has never been a loss of 22 containment or a known radiation injury resulting from
'
23 shipmen As we look toward the year 2000, however, we kow O 24 that spent fuel shipments will increase subste.ntiall A 25 new generation of casks will be developed to make these
9320 01 01 27 OWRBeb 1 shipment The case for public safety cannot rest on the 3 past excellent record alone; we must congdJnue to assess 4 the adequacy of our regulatory requirements to assure 5 safet Such assessments, however, must be timely to avoid 6 costly changes in new cask design or delay in schedule We must also gain public confidence that we are in fact 8 providing adequate safet Failure on any one of these 9 points could be a major impediment to achieving the 10 objectives of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for eventual 11 disposal of spent fuel and high-level wast _
12 Based on inquiries we have received and on
'
. 13 meetings with state and local officials, my perception is 14 that the main public concerns with transportation of spent 15 fuel are route safety and the ability of state and local 16 authorities to respond adequately to emergencies in the 17 event of an accident 18 Route safety issues mostly focus on local 19 conditions which appear to make accidents more likely or 20 the consequences greate Clearly, local authorities must 21 respond to all accidents involving spent fuel, and do so in 22 a manner which assumes some breach of containment, 23 regardless of the very small likelihood of this happenin At issue is the level of training and equipment 25 necessary to do the job properly; costs and access to RBeb 1 training are important consideration These concerns, in turn, give rise to issues 3 about state and local governments' role in route approval 4 as well as the relationship between route safety as 5 regulated by DOT and approval by NRC as presently provided 6 in its regulations for protection against theft or 7 sabotag Container safety itself seems secondary to these 9 concerns; however, there is a continuing program with 10 public understanding and acceptance of the adequacy of cask 11 safet I believe this difficulty is mainly due to the 12 fact that performance standards in our rules, which are
") 13 specified in engineering terms, and the forces experienced 14 in real world severe accidents appear quite differenc As 15 you will hear later, we have research under way to evaluate 16 and explain this complex relationshi These and other issues are interrelated, they 18 are not the exclusive responsibility of a single regulatory 19 agency or of other organizations engaged in spent fuel 20 transport; however, some have more direct responsibility 21 for addressing well-defined issues than do other The seminar agenda is intended to develop in 23 more detail the regulatory roles which I've summarized and 24 explore related regulatory issues which I've touched upon, (])
25 as well as some that I have not touched upo RBeb 1 Therefore, having the goals of the seminar 2 outlined by John Davis, and the regulatory roles as 3 summarized by Cindy Douglass, and my comments on some 4 background information which hopefully will be helpful in 5 the course of the seminar, it's indeed a pleasure to turn 6 to our speakers representing state and local governments 7 and Indian tribe The first speaker is Mr. Karim Rimawi, Director, 9 New York Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protectio Mr. Rimaw MR. RIMAWI: Thank you, Dic Allow me to share with you some experiences that ('
'
13 we've had in New York State and some of'the conclusions we 14 have arrived at as a result of these experience over the last two years, a large number of spent 16 reactor fuel shipments have tranversed the New York State 17 highway Since October of '83, these shipments totalled 18 over two hundre These originated in one of three sites:
19 West Valley in western New York, Brookhaven National Lab on 20 Long Island, or Chalk River in Ontario, Canad The large volume of activity was aided, if not 22 caused by two court decision The first decision required 23 owners of spent reactor fuel that was stored at West Valley () 24 since the early '70s to remove their fue As a result, 25 750 fuel assemblies had to be moved to sites in Wisconsin,
-=. -
.
.
9320 01 01 30 (h
\-$RBeb 1 Illinois, New Jersey, Idaho, and the Ginna reactor site 2 near Rochester, New Yor The shipments to Wisconsin, Illinois and New 4 Jersey have been complete Shipments to Ginna have 5 starte In all, 179 shipments have been made, with about 6 60 more expected to be moving before the end of 198 Prior to the start of these shipments, DOE, who 8 is the manager of the West Valley site, its contractors at 9 the site, and some of the utilities concerned had 10 information meetings to which the public, the press, and 11 the local and state government representatives were invited 12 to discuss the shipment These meetings proved to be of
.
,
O 13 great value in reducing the 'public opposition to these j 14 shipments.
'
15 All shipments leaving West Valley are inspected 16 onsite by DOE staf NRC staff inspected su.ne of these 17 shipment The State Department of Transportation inspects 18 the vehicles used for highway safet The second court decision was made by the
20 Supreme Court when it decided not to hear an appeal by the 21 City and State of New York, thus letting stand a decision 22 by the U. S. Court of Appeals that found the DOT rules on 23 transportation of ratioactive materials to be valid, 24 including the preemption of all state and local regulations (]}
25 that are not consistent with these rules.
_ - , - .
-. _
- - . . - _ . _ - - - . .- _ -._ - ,_ .- , . _ - - -. .
. _ _ __ _ . _ .
320 01 01 31 WBsb 1 This court decision made it possible to resume 2 the shipments from Chalk River, Ontario, to Savannah River
!
3 in South Carolina via Interstate Route I-81, which travels 4 New York State north-south going through Syracuse and 5 Binghamto Previously these were virtually blocked by a 6 number of local action These shipments, which 7 traditionally traveled through New York State on I-81, had 3 to be diverted to Michigan and the Bridge Authority between 9 Canada and the U. S., and a county in northern New York 10 State adopted rules prohibing the When Michigan banned the shipments, they 12 traveled east through Ontario and Quebec, then south into O' 13 Vermont to Connecticut, and then west into southern New 14 York State into Pennsylvania on Route I-8 When Vermont 15 found it might be difficult to safeguard the conrtrol l 16 information on these shipments, a route was proposed that 17 would take the shipments into New York State on I-87 in the j 18. eastern part of the State to Albany, then southwest to
19 Binghamton where it would pick up Route 81.
l LJ This would have taken these shipments through.
l l 21 busy city streets in Albany and Binghamton, New Yor This
!
22 led the State of New York to object to having these 23 shipments go through.
"
() 24 Since the DOT rule was aimed at developing a
.
25 uniform, safe and efficient national highway routing
. _ _ , _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ __
. _ . _ , _ _ _ _ . _
. . _ . . - - _ - _
. . . __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
$
i o 9320 01 01 32 i
p
\-dRBeb 1 framework for the transportation of ratioactive materials, 2 such a situation hopefully will not occur again.
1 ,
'
3 The preemption of local rules also led to the j 4 resumption of shipments from Brookhaven National Lab on 5 Long Island to the City of New Yor Previously the i
l 6 Brookhaven shipments had been suspended in '76 when the New i
! 7 York City Department of Health adopted regulations that i
"
8 restricted the movement of such shipments through the city i
- 9 without a special permi i i
10 Prior to the start of the Brookhaven shipments, 11 the proposed rules which pass through densely populated
,
12 areas generated strong opposition in New York City and a '
(:) 13 number of other communities mostly north of the cit This
I 14 opposition led to a number of measures by the State and the
! -
'
. 15 City of New Yor The City commissioned a study by a consultant to
,
17 explore modes of transport, focusing on barring the 18 shipments to Connecticut, and requested the Department of
, 19 Energy to postpone shipments until the study was 20 complete The City agreed to pay for the cost of
21 expanding the storage capacity of Brookhaven National Lab 22 that was required because of the delay.
i 23 The study developed by the consultant for New York City examined a number of alternatives for barging the l
(} 24 25 fuel to various port The most appropriate route was i
! ,
..,_,_,_
,
_ _ _ _ _ , . . _ _, , ,_ .. , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _
.e- .. __ _ , , , , , . . _ . , _ , _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9320 01 01 33 RBeb 1 determined to be that utilizing a chartered ferry from 2 Orient Point, Long Island, to New London, Connecticu This was determined to reduce the risk by 9 percent while 4 increasing the costs by 17 percent when compared to 5 trucking the fuel through the city of New Yor On December 24, 1984, New York Cicy filed an 7 application for a non-pre-emption determination with the 8 Department of Transportation, using the consultant's 9 report to support its applicatio Later, New York State 10 joined the city in its applicatio New York State also provided the State of 12 Connecticut with a copy of the consultant's report and
'O
- 13 asked for their cooperation in considering the alternative 14 rout Connecticut did not agree; they retained a 15 consulting firm of their own to review the New York City 16 proposa Needless to say, the Connecticut consultant's 17 review resulted in conclusions opposite to those arrived at 18 by the New York City consultan The Connecticut route was found to result in 40 20 percent higher risk than that of trucking the spent fuel 21 through a portion of New York City when the risk to truck 22 drivers is added to that of the general publi To date, the Department of Transportation has () 24 not ruled on the non-pre-emption reques As it became obvious that the Brookhaven
9320 01 01 34 RBeb 1 shipments would start, many local governments along the 2 route requested prior notification, and expressed their 3 intent to provide escorts to the shipmen At the same 4 time, a number of community groups and legislators asked 5 the Governor to establish a state routing commissio In order to eliminate potential delays and 7 confusion with a multiplicity of escorts as the shipments 8 moved from one local jurisdiction to the next, the state 9 police escort the shipments from Brookhaven to the o
10 Pennsylvania borde The state police escorting the 11 shipments also inspect them for radiation levels and for 12 highway safet '
,
)
'-
-
13 In addition to the state police, the New York 14 City police, together with staff from the city radiological 15 health program, escort the shipments within the city 16 limit Some of the counties north of the city also 17 escorted some of the shipment At the state level we feel it is not necessary 19 to have a radiological health specialist accompany the 20 shipment as long as the system exists by which the 21 radiological health staff would be notified promptly in the 22 event of any abnormal occurrence along the rout The state also convened an inter-agency task
'~', 24 force to develop response plans and procedures for 25 responding to emergencies involving the transport ot'
9320 01 01 35
'O radioactive materials,
'-CRBeb 1 The task force includes 2 representatives from a number of state agencies as well as 3 local governments' representative The plan will 4 emphasize the role of local government is responding to 5 such emergencie Since the probability of an accident involving a 7 shipment of spent reactive fuel is very small, it is more
. .
8 likely'that the plan and the trained staff in different 9 areas of the state will be relied upon in responding to the 10 more probable accidents involving routine shipments of 11 radioactive material The public pressure also led to the large level 13 of bills that were introduced into the Senate and Assembly ,
14 proposing a variety of requirement These include escort 15 by state police of all shipments, requiring a permit prior 16 to all shipments of any radioactive material, charging a 17 fee of $1,000 per truck carrying ratioactive materials, and 18 establishing the routing commissio However, only one 19 bill passed both houses and will be sent to the Governor 20 for signatur The bill proposes to create a Hazardous Material 22 Transportation Board of 15 members with nine voting and six 23 non-voting member The board decisions require an
{} 24
affirmative vote by eight out of nine voting member Thus, it would appear quite unlikely that the board would
9320 01 01 36 t")
\
%..RBeb 1 make decisions that might be controversia Recently the Brookhaven shipments have been 3 delayed due to a controversy involving the casks use The 4 cask had been certified by U. S. NRC in mid '60 However, 5 the NRC certification had expire When NRC was asked to 6 renew the certification, it raised a number of questions 7 concerning performance claims stated in the application 8 that were felt not to have been supported adequatel The controversy that followed resulted in DOE suspending 10 the use of this cas Since a large part of the driving force for many 12 of the efforts relating to the shipment of spent nuclear 13 fuel is the public perception of hazards associated with 14 the shipment, such controversy can only erode public 15 confidence and lead to more anxiet In conclusion, route selection is a federal 17 responsibility with direct involvement and input in terms 18 of review and evaluation of suggested routes by the state 19 and local jurisdiction The route selection criteria 20 should be applied uniformly nationwide, and should not i
21 return to the choice of the path of least resistanc Except where warranted by national security 23 reasons, uniform procedures should be adopted by all
{} 24 federal agencies concerning route selection, 25 prenotification, surveys, escorts, and many other issue .
9320'01 01 37 RBeb 1 All casks used for shipping spent fuel should undergo the 2 same evaluation and certification criteria, regardless of 3 the shipping sourc Preferably all casks should be
'4 certified by one agenc I say this recognizing the 5 differences in responsibility among the different federal 6 agencie Prior notification should be made to the state 8 by all shippers, including the Department of Energy and the 9 Department of Defense except when warranted by national 10 security reason The state should use its own judgment on
.
11 notification of local jurisdictions along the 12 transportation route if the required confidentiality can be
'
13 maintaine Escort by the state police is preferabl We 15 see no need for duplication by local staff nor 16 accompanyment by radiological health personne States should develop emergency response plans l
l 18 and procedures for dealing with such shipment Local 19 rules should be an integral part of such plans.
L
! 20 Training relating to rules and regulations, t ,
l 21 route selection and evaluation and emergency procedures i
! 22 should be provided to state and local representatives.
(
23 Workshops such as this one and specialized training courses i
(} 24 sponsored by the federal agencies have been of great help 25 and should continu RBeb 1 Public information sessions prior to the start 2 of the shipments are of great valu Periodic sessions of
,
3 this nature can only hel Thank yo MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much, Kari I believe with your paper we can begin to see 7 the very complex interrelationships between s. tate and 8 federal government, between one state and other states, and 9 the state and the local communit Now for a somewhat slightly different 11 perspective on the whole problem of transportation, it is 12 my pleasure to introduce Mr. Robert Holden who is the (O kJ 13
'
Natural Resources Researcher, National Congress of American 14 Indian Mr. Holde MR. HOLDEN: Thank yo Good mornin In presenting the Indian 18 perspective, I must say that Indian Tribes are not unlike 19 state They are individual entities that have similar 20 common concern I would like to give you some general 21 observations of some of these concerns that the Tribes
!-
22 have, and also the basis of the Tribal Government i 23 participation at this semina Non-Indians call us native Americans or American
,
}
25 Indians but we have other names for ourselves: Lakota,
4320 01 01 39 4 WRBeb 1 Chahta, Chikasha, Tsa La Gi, Haudonoshone These would 2 translate into English as Sioux, Choctaw, Chickasaw, 3 Cherokee, and Iroquoi Today, all of the Indian populations represent 5 only a minute portion of the Tribes and Bands that once 6 inhabited this country now called the United States of 7 Americ Not that long ago this fledgling country now 8 called the United States of America sought peaceful 9 coexistence with many of the Indian Nation Therefore, 10 numerous treaties and agreements were made between the 11 United States and Indian Nation _ 12 In exchange for vast amounts of land, the U. S.
'
13 government promised to respect tribal autonomy, cultural 14 integrity, to protect these people from further 15 encroachment as well as to provide for the health, 16 educa? ion and other services for the signatory tribe These agreements and treaties have long been the subject of 18 discussion among the institutions of the U. S. governmen The President and the Executive office have 20 directed Indian policy at various times in recent histor Andrew Jackson was the Commander-in-Chief in 1831 when the 22 Supreme Crout refused to accept the case of the Cherokee 23 Nation versus Georgi The major issue here was the 24 Georgia had tried
'} sovereifnnatureoftheIndianNation to impose state laws within the Cherokee Territor .
. . . ._ . -_ . .
9320 01 01 40 RBeb 1 Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the 2 Cherokee Nation was a " distinct political society... capable 3 of managing its own affairs and governing itself."
4 According to the court,~ Indian Nations were " domestic 5 dependent nations," as in the relationship of a guardian 6 and his war This trustee-beneficiary relationship imposes a 8 fiduciary duty on the trustee whereby the U. S. government 9 assumes the legal responsibility to manace the lands and 10 funds in the best interests of the beneficiary Indian In 11 the eyes of the law, the standard for maintaining such a 12 duty is a high on O 13 In 1832, Georgia was still trying to impose its
,
14 laws on the Cherokee Natio The laws in question required 15 that a non-Indian could not live within the Cherokee 16 Territory without state permissio Chief Justice Marshall 17 responded that:
18 "The words ' treaty' and ' nation' are 19 words of our language, selected in our 20 diplomatic and legislative proceedings, by 21 ourselves, having each a definite and well f- 22 understood meanin We have applied them 23 to Indians as we have applied them to other 24 nations of the eart They are applied to-(])
-
25 all in the same sense."
__
_ __ __ __ .__ _ _ _ - . - _
r-9320 0' 01 41 RBeb 1 It is the result of this case, Worchester versus 2 Georgia, that evoked Mr. Jackson's statement:
3 " John Marshall has made his decision; now 4 let him enforce it."
5 The Cherokees may have won big in that battle
.6 but lost the war because Mr. Jackson succeeded in removing 7 them, along with many other Indian Tribes, to Indian 8 Territory in Oklahom According to federal case law, Congress has the 10 power to legislate in Indian affair We are no doubt the 11 most regulated people in the worl An entire section of 12 Code, Title 25, is devoted to Indian la Some em the U. 7
-
13 of this legislation represents good faith attempts by 14 Congress to deal with Indians honorabl Some are mere 15 pretexts designed to take away Indian land and resources 16 and worse, to assimilate a traditional people into the 17 dominant society so we would be only a memory in the dark 18 pages of histor This short historical analysis may seem a bit 20 confusin The Indian people have never fully accepted the 21 role of wards of the U. S. governmen We are a strong-t 22 hearted peqfe who have survived what few other races could 23 tolerate without losing their cultural identit Tribal governments have jurisdiction over nearly D~j
,
25 fifty million acres of land, or more than three percent of
__ _ _ _ .___ - - - . - . _ _ - - _ - _ RBeb l- the land within the U. S. border Tribal governments have 2 jurisdiction over 43,410,186 acres of rangeland and 3 forests; 1,829,118 acres of dry farmland; 913,000 acres of 4 water reservoirs and lakes; 45,352 reservoirs and 5 impoundments; 3,199 natural lakes and ponds; and 12,000 6- milesofperennialstffm Not to bore you with statistics, but Indians own 8 one-third of the nation's low-sulhur coal, 25 to 50 percent P-9 of all uranium, depending on which study you decide to go 10 with, and two to four percent of the oil and ga When 11 OPEC Nations were charging S40 a barrel for oil, Indian 12 Tribes received an average of $2 a barre When the market
'
.
13 price of coal was $7 a ton, the Tribes were receiving 20 14 cents a to Tribal residential and economic development, 16 including incrasing mineral extraction activities, requires
,
17 strong Tribal governmental capabilities to protect the 18 environment for the generations to com Today we still win and lose in the Supreme 20 Cour Though Tribal governments have lost some aspects of 21 criminal jurisdiction, the highest court has recently 22 reaffirmed Tribal civil jurisdiction within reservation 23 border (} 24 President Reagan issued an Indian Policy 25 Statement on January 24th, 1983, which reaffirmed the (eh cf
___ - _ ___ - __ _______________ ____
%_
9320 01 01 43 RBeb 1 government-to-government relationship of Indian Tribes with 2 the United States; expressed the primary role of Tribal 3 governments in reservation affairs; and called for special 4 efforts to develop reservation economie The President agrees with us that tribal 6 governments, like state and local governments, are more 7 aware of the needs and desires of their citizens than is
.
8 the federal government and should, therefore, have the 9 primary responsibility for meeting those need The 10 President called for federal agencies to offer specialized 11 assistance and expertise to Tribes to create a positive 12 environment in Indian Country.
.O 13 The Environmental Protection Agency accordingly 14 developed an Indian Policy which was issued just prior to 15 the start of this Administration's second term The 16 Department of Energy has been working with several Indian 17 Tribes in the repository siting process as mandated by 18 Congress under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 198 The National Congress of American Indians, which 20 is the oldest, largest, and most representative 21 organization serving American Indians and Alaska Native 22 governments and individuals, is coordinating a mid-August 23 meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexic This meeting.will 24 bring together Tribal governments, federal agency (])
25 representatives, state representatives, and other
.
9320 01 01 44 O
\-URBeb 1 interested parties.'
2 This meeting is one in a series of meetings that 3 allows us to disseminate information and provide technical 4 assistance to American Indian governments regarding nuclear 5 waste management repository site selection and 6 transportation issue We are very fortunate that the Department of 8 Energy has provided us with a grant and worked with us to 9 address the concerns the Indian Country faces today 10 regarding these important subject A relationship is now developing between Indian 12 Nations, the Departments of Transportation and Energy, and O *
13 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the 14 transportation of nuclear wast The Department of 15 Transportation is responsible for the routing of hazardous 16 material across the country.'
17 Preliminary Department of Energy routing plans 18 reveal that regardless of the first or second repository 19 site or monitored retrievable site location, transporting 20 nuclear waste without crossing Indian reservations or 21 tribally-owned land is highly improbabl Many Indian l 22 Nations believe it is incumbent on the NRC and DOT to 23 implement an outreach program similar to the one DOE has (} 24 been mandated to carry ou I commend the NRC for inviting
! 25 the Indian Tribal representatives to this important I
T 9320 01 01 45 dRBeb 1 meetin I must add here, however, that some Indian 3 Tribes and the NCAI resently had to respond to changes in 4 10 CFR, Part 60, proposed by the NR The proposed changes 5 would serve to limit participation by an already narrow 6 category of Indian Tribes in the NRC high-level waste 7 geologic repository licensing procedure The proposed 8 change would preclude participation by tribally-sanctioned 9 organizations which may be requested by more than one 10 tribal government in the interest of cost-saving and
.
11 information-sharing and technical assistanc Most importantly, the proposed change would
-
13 preclude the participation of Tribes that are not at this
,
14 time "affected" Tribes under the Nuclear Waste Policy Ac There are only three Tribes at present that have petitioned 16 for and received "affected" statu Most Tribes.in the 17 first and second repository states have not petitioned for 18 "affected" status and some have just become aware that they 19 are potentially affecte Indian Tribes, excepting the three mentioned, 21 are years behind the states in receiving financial 22 assistance to address siting and transportration issue Though this may be an error to be laid at the feet of (] 24 Congress, it may be one that the federal agencies may
,
_
25 attempt to correct through discretional policy procedure ,
.
320 01 01 46 RBeb 1 Ancther concern of the proposed change in the 2 regs is that they may further limit participation by Tribes 3 that have land and usage rights that arefot the subjectof
4 congressionally-ratified treatie Secton 2(2) of the 5 Nuclear Waste Policy Act mentions both federally defined 6 possessory or usage rights and congressionally-ratified 7 treaties, the latter being one method of establishing I 8 reservation boundaries and Indian Countr Indian Country is defined in Section 1151(a) of 10 the United States Code, and the Court has interpreted it to 11 mean to * nelude all reservation lands, with the term 12 " reservation" being a' term of art meaning all Indian lands O 13 which are subject to r'strictions e against alienation, 14 notwithstanding the issuance of any paten In 1871, in an appropriations act, Congress 16 restricted its future treaty-making with Indian Nations and 17 Tribe Since that time, nearly 30 million acres have been 18 federally defined as reservations or Indian Country, 19 through congressional settlement, Executive Orders, 20 administrative procedures and court decision Also, since that time, Congress has passed 22 numerous acts recognizing the property and usage rights of 23 Tribes, including NEPA, the National Environmental Policy () 24 Act, the American India Religious Freedom Act and the 25 Archaeological Resources Protection Act, all of which
.
9320^01 01 47 O
\-wRBeb 1 recognize Tribes, their rights and property, irrespective 2 of their establishment metho Since the NRC rule and the Nuclear Waste Policy 4 Act address, in the first instance, property that would be 5 affected by nuclear waste, the focus here should be on the 6 character of that property and related jurisdictional 7 systems, rather than on the precise manner in which they 8 were federally defined or recognize What the Tribes ask is that all of the 10 representatives of the federal agencies participatng in 11 this meeting -- the states included -- keep in mind the 12 trust responsibility of each agency and that the Tribes O 13 continue to'be included in future meeting Several Indian Nations sacrificed hundreds of 15 thousands of acres for the people of this country when they 16 allowed the government to take land for experimental 17 project during initial research and development of nuclear 18 weapon Lands belong to the Confederated Tribes and Bands 19 of the Yakima Indian Nation, the Nez Perce Reservation, the 20 Umatilla Reservation, the San Ildefonso Pueblo and the
-
21 Santa Clara Pueblo, to namo a few, are still under 22 government control.
23 Sacred sites and areas of traditional cultural i
24 significance are located on those fodoral roservation [}
25 Indians have no doubt rose to the occasion whon national l
- - - _
I I
! 20 01 01 48 l
Beb 1 security interests were at stak A Taos Pueblo elder sat 2 on his roof one afternoon with his back to the su He was l
l 3 speaking to a young non-Indian lady who wanted to write a l
l 4 story on the Taos Pueblo peopl "You know how it i People come here and they 6 want to know our secrets of lif They ask many
.
7 questions but their minds are already made u They 8 admire our children but they feel sorry for them.
l l 9 They come to our dances but they are always wanting l
'
10 to take picture They come into our homes expecting l
11 to learn about us in five minute Our homes, which
- 12 are made of straw and mud, look strange to the ( 13 They.are glad they'do not live her Yet they are 14 not sure whether or not we know something which is l
15 they key to all understandin Our secret of life 16 would take forever to find ou Even then, they would l
17 not believe it."
l 18 Many of you wonder why we refuse to give up 19 Tribal identify, why we cling so tenaciously to our ignds
'
P 20 and traditional tribal way of lif It de a believe, a 21 feeling, and it is very difficult, maybe impossible, to r
22 explain this believ This land is our home -- our i
23 ancestral hom Many Tribes have storios of their origins 24 and those stories relaq'e y that the people came up from the (])
25 earth or wore made from the earth, our Mothe And here L*
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .
,9320 01 01 49 i)
' wRBeb 1 our forebears were born, and our children will be born here 2 and their children's childre I do not intend to pronounce a revelation by 4 saying that because of our beliefs we have regenerated 5 ourselves through times of extermination, repression, 6 religious persecution, and forced assimilatio The 7 Creator put the Indian people here just as he put all of 8 you her If it is the will of the Creator that we truly 9 become the Vanishing American, as we have been called, then 10 it is meant to b Meanwhile, let us work together on this problem 12 that brings us together at this tim The source of (O 13 radiation, uranium, was created the same as the trees, the 14 grasses, the mountains, the rivers, four-legged animals and 15 the winged creatures, it wwas here before any of us wore 16 here, it is hero now, and it will surely be here after we 17 are all gon Let us sock an answer togethe Thank yo (Applauso.)
21 MR. CUNNINGilAM: Thank you very much indood, 22 Mr. Iloiden, for a very intorosting discussion on the tribal 23 perspectivo of this problo {} 24 And now our timo is running shor It is indood a pleasure to introduco the !!onorablo Robert Smith, Mayor
_ _ _ _ __
r 9320 01 01 50 WRBob 1 of Piscataway, New Jerse Mayor Smit '
14
16
18
20
22
O 4
_ _ - _ . - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ . . _ . . ___m . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
.
- 9320 02 01 51 O waawre 1 a^roa sa ra
- 1 tw re weetea to xeow wae wee
2 sending those shipments out of New York State through my 3 town; and now I kno I'm a second-term mayor of Piscataway Township
- 5 and, before that, a councilma I mention that to you i
6 because I wanted to put it in the context of Will Rogers'
l l 7 comment that once a man holds public office he's absolutely
!
' 8 no good for honest work.
i l 9 (Laughter.)
!
- 10 Hence, I'm here toda I'd also like to know, because I couldn't find i
12 out before the program began, who is out ther And maybe iO 13 veu ooeta av = now or a aa eett e- .
-
14 How many of you are federal, in some way federal
! 15 government operatives? Would you raise your hands?
16 (Show of hands.)
l 17 How many are state government operatives?
18 (Show of hands.)
.
19 How many are local government operatives?
20 (Show of hands.)
21 How many are here from consulting groups?
i 22 (Show of hands.)
J l 23 And is there anybody here from other public j
<
24 organizations?
!O j 25 (Show of hands.)
i
- !
i i
i
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9320 02 02 52 1 Now I know who to pick on, whoever is here in ()WRBwrb 2 least number I would like to begin my remarks with a 4 disclaimer, and that is that I represent the most narrow, 5 the most parochial, the most prejudiced point of view, that 6 I have the most misinformation; and I mention that to you so 7 you can evaluato my comments in the spirit in which they're 8 g iven .
9 (Laughter.)
10 My comments are a distillation of my recent 11 experience in Piscataway Township, and to tell you about 12 that experience I, of courso, have to tell you a little bit 13 about Piscataway Townshi (]) ,
14 We're a town of 43,300 of the happiest citizens
'
15 in the Stato of Now Jersey; wo are the high technology 16 capitol of the State of Now Jersey, with more than 200 major 17 corporations and 35,000 high technology jobs; wo havo moro 18 computers por squaro inch than just about any other place on 19 the East Coas We're also the homo of tho medical 20 facilition of the University of Medicino and Dontistry of 21 Now Jorsoy, and wo havo two of Rutgers University's 22 campusos,LivingstonCelluhhandtheBushCampus,whichis 23 basically all their scienco f acilitio In addition to that, wo have excellont 25 recreational facilition and cultural activitios and a
____ - -
-_ __ _ ______________
9320 02 03 53
[JWRBwrb i 1 fantastic school syste In short, you're about coming to 2 that conclusion, I'm sure, that wo are the closest thing to 3 paradise on God's eart In the fall of 1984, we were notified that spent 5 nuclear fuel rod shipments would be transported through 6 Piscataway Township, the ones from West Valley, New York, 7 utilizing route Interstate-287, unfortunately, while 8 Routo287 was undergoing major reconstruction and bridge 9 replacemen In addition to Piscataway Township as a playor, 11 players also included Governor Thomas phqp', Governor of our 12 State of New Jersey, Congressman Jim Porter, and the New 13 Jersey Turnpiko Authority, and all the local towns and the (])
14 country governments along the rout *
Our main concern was the transport of those 16 110,000 pound vehiclos over highway bridges that were in 17 nood of replacomont, so that a catastropho like that which 18 occurred in Now England with the I-95 bridge that collapsed
"
19 would not happen on Intorstato-287 in our are Lot me got to the bottom lin All of the 21 shipmonts have boon transported, thoro have boon no mishaps, 22 thank God, and wu're going to pay oursolves a little bit on 23 the bac Perhaps part of this result is duo to the small 24 offorts of local governmont O kl 25 For the local officials who are out thoro, I'd
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ - _ - _-
._ __ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ __ _ . . _ _
9320 02 04 54 ( ) WRBwrb 1 like to distill my experiences, especially: what do you do l 2 when the word comes down " Surprise, spent fuel rods are l
l 3 going through your community?" And I think the first l r
'
l 4 question you have to face is how is it that you as a local
.
5 official are going to handle it?
l 6 You'll probably receive several months to a
{ ,
L 7 year's notice of the shipments, and it appears to there's at 8 least three alternative approaches.:
9 Alternative A, lay down and di :
10 (Laughter.) j l 5 11 Now, it seems to me that that's clearly a 12 mistak () 13 , Alternative B, create a public relations panic in 14 your citizenry; and that, clearly, in my opinion, is a 15 mistak Alternative C, try to handle it responsibly, 17 which includes, I believe, the following things that you can
.
18 dos 19 First, try to inform the public as to exactly 20 what is propose Deal with the issues associated with cask ,
21 safet Make the public aware of who's in charge of the
'
'
22 decision-making process associated with the transport.
- 23 Throw the routing issues on the public table for discussion, i i i
] 24 and fully bring forth the emergency response issues I()
j 25 associated with transpor .
!
,
_ _ - . . _ _ - - . - . _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ - . . - _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ , - - - . -
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
!
.
9320 02 05
!
1 As in any process that invol'ves public ()WRBwrb 2 discussion, this approach will probably involve the most i
l 3 pain for all officials on all level No pain, no gain.
,
4 .However, it is in the interest of everyone's
,
l 5 credibility that there be a full discussion of each and 6 every issu Chances are that the various levels of 7 government will be in somewhat adversary roles, and perhaps ;
8 this tension between the government levels results in safer ;
9 and more efficient transport; or at least I hope that's the 10 case.
11 The next major conclusion from my experience in i 12 Piscataway is the question of who's in charge -- or, as we
() 13 say in'the political business: bad-guy, good-guy game There is no elected official, whether it be a l
l 15 governor, a congressman, a U. S. senator, who will admit to 16 any authority in decisions associated with the transport of 17 spent fuel rods.
,
18 (Laughter.) .
-
19 They will write letters to those damn bureaucrats 20 in Washington or criticize the action of the courts; they 21 Will lift their arms into the air, look you in the eye and i 22 say "I tried my best."
i 23 As a matter of fact, my congressman, when I f 24 approached him to becomo a participant in the controversy I
j 25 associated with the transport through Piscataway, he told i
i
'
t
- '
/~
'( h)WRBwrb 1 me a story about the NR He said he had a friend who was a 2 senior civil servant in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 3 and this senior official was sent to work on a farm to get 4 some first-hand environmental experienc The farmer 5 decided to give him a tough time, so he showed him to a 6 large pile of manure and a four-acre field, gave him a 7 pitchfork and a shovel and told him to get on with i *
8 The f armer was surprised to si s that the whole 9 lot was spread by the end of the first da The next day the f armer decided to give the civil 11 servant a simpler tas He told him to sort a huge pile of 12 potatoes into small, medium and larg At the end of the () 13 morning the farmer came back to the NRC officia He was 14 sitting with his hands on his head and very few potatoes 15 sorte The farmer said "What are you doingI" And the NRC 16 official said "Look, I'll spread bullshit, but these damn 17 decisions are driving me crazy."
18 ( La ug h te r.. )
19 That's what my congressman said about the NR In answering the question "Who's in charge?" I 21 think you need to know the rule The first rule is the doctrine of pre-emptio Pre-emption means that when the federal government
,_ 24 legislates over an area which it has been interpreted to
-
25 have authority under our constitution, its legislation
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
9320 02 07 57 1 pre-empts state, county and local government laws.
(])WRBwrb 2 Therefore, if you plan going to federal court to challenge 3 routing decisions, or to challenge on the basis that state 4 and local legislation supercedes federal law, you are in for 5 a 99.9 percent deadlock lose If that is the case, why are the courts so 7 frequently approached by state, county and local 8 governments to challenge federal authority? And the answer 9 to this is that these governments wish to appear to their 10 constituents to be " fighting" in their constitutents'
11 interes This is the arena in.which most of the good-guy, 13 bad-guy games are played.
(])
14 So wh'o is in charge?
15 I had the pleasure of going to Washington during 16 the event that I described earlier and meeting with 17 representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Within the first thirty seconds of our conversation, the 19 of ficial with whom I spoko said "I am in charge and I make 20 the decisions."
21 As our conversation continued, this official 22 indicated that he had made the decision in the absence o' a 23 decisio This required a little bit of interpretation on 24 my par It seems that any governor can express to the O 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission a " state preferred route."
9320 02 08 58 i WRBwrb 1 That designation will get a lot of consideration if it's not 2 unreasonabl If there are any governors in the room, I know 4 you'll be very unhappy if this becomes public informatio In our particular situation, the governor's 6 response to my request to my request for his intervention 7 initially was that he had no authorit The next response 8 was that we were suing the federal government to accept the 9 state preferred route -- and, by the way, his state 10 preferred routo was going through Pennsylvani *
11 (Laughter.)
12 And his third response was that he was unwilling O 13 to coaetaer a1teraete routee wi. tate ese se te er new 3ereer 14 other than the one designated by the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commissio Governors do not want to designate a state 17 preferred route, because this will antagonize a group of 18 their constituent However, local officials out there, i 19 bear in mind that they do have the ability significantly to l
l 20 affect the routing decision.
21 Another area of distilled comments from my 22 experiences routing issues, or whose ox is going to get
!
23 gored.
- 24 In the New Jersey situation, Governor $$ n d while-O 25 expressing dissatisfaction with the use of Route 287, was I
<
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
9320 02 09 59 t's
's ,/ W R B w r b 1 unwilling to designate any other state preferred route other 4 2 than the one going through Pennsylvania -- which was 3 unacceptable, of course, to Pennsylvani Piscataway 4 Township reacted with reluctance by proposing an alternate 5 route, which generated a great deal of controvers As an aside for the local officials who are going 7 to propose alternate routes, you really want to use a major
'
8 highway or a state turnpik The alternate proposal that we suggested created
- 10 no end of controversy, and the governor did his best not to 11 respond to the alternate route suggestion until the last 12 possible momen And for those people who are taking down () 13 notes, this is one of the great laws, in' fact, we call it 14 Mayor Smith's Law of Alternate Route Proposals
- It is 15 likely that if the proposed alternate route passes closely 16 to the governor's or the congressa:n's home town it will 17 probably not receive favorable consideratio (Laughter.)
.
19 This very nicely illustrates the major issue of i
'
20 our routings if any route selected is going to make people 21 unhappy, who evaluates whose unhappiness is most acceptable?
22 You will be told that there are federal
-
23 guidelines which give direction to the selection of
_ 24 transportation routes, and they are published in the Federal
,
'
\>
25 Registe However, local officials, do not fail to ask the
i _ _ - . _
~ . . , _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ , _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . , _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . - - - . _ . . _ - - - - . . . , - .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
9320 02 10 60 ()WRBwrb l' follow-up question: What weight will be given to state 2 preferred routes if requested by the state government?
3 I can remember running into the New Jersey State 4 Commissioner of Transportation the night before 1 was to 5 meet with the NRC to discuss routing issue And when I 6 explained that they might be willing to consider alternate 7 routes if the state requestod them, his response was "Oh, 8 really? Did they really say tha~t? Let me know what's 9 happening on this."
10 Now, I don't know whether that's inadvertence, 11 ignorance or what, but there seems to be a lack of knowledge 12 out there about what it is that the state declaring a () 13 designated route can d And let me to wish to all the 14 local officials out there: may your ox never be gore The last category of distilled comments I've 16 entitled " Emergency Response" or " Holy God, What Happens 17 If..."
18 One of the most important things you can to do 19 as a local official is to fully explore with the federal and 20 state officials the security and emergency response 21 proceduros associated with the transpor And you'd better 22 put it in the back of your mind that you're not going to be 23 told everything because of the security aspects of the 24 transportatio In addition, this information should be O 25 shared with the local fire companies, the rescue squads, the
- _ - - _ -
9320 02 11 61 1 police departments, so that they're aware of how they may or ()WRBwrb 2 may not fit into the pictur What I've found was that local emergency response 4 officials are overwhelmed by the what-if scenarios 5 associated with the transport of spent fuel rod And by 6- your sharing information on this issue you are performing 7 perhaps one of the best services that you can perform as a 8 local officia Well, the shipments are over by about four to six 10 weeks now, and after all this what are my conclusions on 11 this?
12 Well, I guess the first comment would be to () 13 relate to you the very famous comment of Will Rogers in 14 which he said "The further away I get from Washington, 15 D. C. the more faith I have in our country."
16 (Laughter.)
17 Now, that's not all that funny to the federal 18 official But I'm really not thinking of the NRC people or 19 the DOT people or the DOE people, because my personal 20 experience with the NRC was, You guys are straight-shooters, 21 you know, you gave me answers, "I'm in charge, tell me the 22 truth." The people I think you have to watch out for are 23 the elected officials, and especially governors: they're 24 very, very shifty characters.
O 25 (Laughter.)
.
9320 02 12 62 (},WRBwrb 1 The second conclusion -- that's in a humorous 2 vein -- is that the public relations and education effort of 3 federal, state and local governments has to be dramatically 4 improve You've heard all the comments this morning that 5 spent nuclear fuel rod shipments are going to increas They have increased as there is more experience with 7 operating experience of nuclear power plant .
8 I think most people don't realize -- and maybe ,
l 9 I'm wrong in my assessment of the situation, but it appears 10 to me there are 225 million Americans out there who don't 11 believe in us, who don't believe in the federal government, l 12 who don' t believe the federal government is working in their 13 interests, they don't believe in the state efforts; they ({ )
14 have a tiny little belief in local government only because 15 they know the names of the people involved, and they see 16 them in and out of office f airly frequently, and it gives 17 them some feeling of control over the situatio So we have a serious credibility proble I guess the strongest recommendation I can make 20 to all of us is: like it or not, even though we may appear 21 to be in an adversary position, as the years progress I 22 think we all have to come to vork together as a team to 23 educate the public about spent nuclear fuel rod transpor There are 225 million Americans who appear to be O
\s 25 tolerating the nuclear optio I don't run into people who
9320.02 13 63 O""=~rb 1 c e "9 ' e = the eereet "a eer ' 1 ve ""c1eer oo er -
2 it doesn't happe Spent fuel rod shipments are rubbing 3 salt in the wound to a lot of the people who are antagonized 4 by the entire issu Education is the way to do i Have a good on (Applause.)
8
10 ,
12 0 13
.
.
' 15
17 l
l' 18
,
20
.
l
23
25
9320 03 01 64 1 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much indeed,
{}WRBeb 2 Mr. Smit You obviously are where the action i I am very grateful to you for spreading the blame 4 on elected officials rather than just picking on 5 bureaucrat We have come to the end of our presentations for 7 'this sessio We were supposed to close at 10:3 We are 8 few minutes behin I think we have time for one or two 9 question This is not a democratic seminar, by the wa We 11 will give preference for questions from the forward part of 12 the group where the designated invitees are sitting, and (} 13 work our way toward the back of the room during the course 14 of the sessio *
15 If you do have a question, I suppose, following 16 the standard procedure, you will be asked to give your name 17 and affiliation since the proceedings are being recorde Are there any questions?
19 Yes, si MR. RAMATOWSKI: I am Peter Ramatowski, 21 representing the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
_
22 Reservation.
23 My question is to the gentleman from New York, l
24 and is in regard to the consultant study, and difference 25 between the New York State consultant and the Connecticut
.
9320 03 02 65 1 consultan {)WRBeb 2 This administration is taking a policy of 3 establishing that the value of human life is inversely 4 proportional to the risk the individual is willing to tak How can they judge the life of the drivers very highly if 6 they are willing to drive hazardous materials?
7 Do you understand the implications?
8 MR. RIMAWI: I'm not really sure I understand 9 your question, but if you are considering it in terms of 10 risk to the driver or to the general public, if you look at 11 it in terms of absolute numbers, it is very smal What you 12 are looking at here is you're comparing numbers, one small ('T 13 number to another small number.
,
U 14 MR. RAMATOWSKI: The point was, though, that the 15 change in the value of one route as opposed to the other was 16 based on the safety of the driver being added to the
,
17 equation.
I 18 MR. RIMAWI: Oh, I'm sorr The procedure 19 described by DOT for evaluation or for comparing the 20 different routes, if we look at the risk of exposure along
'
21 the transport routes, we look at exposure not only to the l 22 public but to cars on the highway and people who have homes 23 that a truck goes by, but also include the truck driver who i
24 is driving that truc So if you look at the total i /~T
\/ 25 exposure, overall exposure, that's one number.
!
,
L
. .. ._ - . . - . - . - _
r l
I 9320 03H03 66
!
1 The other number that was obtained was obtained
{])WRBeb 2 from the public along the route, but not including the truck 3 drive MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think there will be 5 opportunities to discuss this some more later on, how these 6 types of evaluations are mad And I think some of these 7 questions as to the value of human life will be in that 8 discussio That of course is something that is very 9 difficulty'. But there are always risks associated with any 10 activity undertaken by ma The risks, as Mr. Rimawi 11 pointed out, are very small, especially in comparison with 12 other risk Are there any other questions at this moment?
[}*
14 In the back of the room ther Yes?
15 MS. ZALMAN: My name is Rachelle Zalman, of the 16 Illinois Safe Energy Alliance, and I am also here 17 representing the Interstate Radwaste Transportation 18 Coalitio I just have an informational question to clear up 20 some confusion I hav Yesterday I made a point of contacting, actually 22 rather at the last minute, a number of individuals at all l
23 levels of participation in the situation, what they would be
!
! 24 interested in in the conferenc And when I contacted the
!
l 25 Mayor and the Director of Emergency Services of Aurora, they
- _ . .- _ - _. .
9320 03 04 67 1 didn't know about i {}WRBeb 2 And I just have a question-- They do know about 3 it no I just have a question about how the notification 5 about this went ou MR. CUNNINGHAM: My understanding of this, and 7 perhaps you can talk to Wayne Kerr in the break, was that 8 first we wanted a seminar with people that are involved in 9 making decisiens about transportation, so we did have a list 10 of invitee NRC invited people through notification to the 11 Governor's office and DOT invited people that they had 12 contacts with als () 13 In addition to that, the meeting was published in 14 the Federal Registe And more detailed information can be
,
15 provided by Wayne Ker We are now well into the brea I think we had 17 better stop at this poin Let's se We will begin again 18 in 15 minutes, at five minutes to 11:00.
! 19 (Recess.)
,
20 MR. RAWL: We are running a little behind time,
,
21 and I would like to get this session ur.Jerway if I could.
!
l 22 I am Richard Rawl, and I am with the Office of l
l 23 Hazardous Materials Transportation of the RePoarch and 24 Special Programs Administration of DO I om going to be 25 the sesssion chairman for this particulse session.
, .
_ _ . - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ - _ _ _
_.. ______, _._._,_,_____._. _ _ _ _ . . . _ - .
9320 03'05 68
[a)WRBeb 1 What we have lined up for you is a sterling cast 2 of damn bureaucrat One of the first objectives that we 3 wanted to accomplish at this seminar was the presentation of 4 information on what the federal requirements in certain 5 areas really ar As a part of the damn bureaucrats, we get 6 blamed for a lot of things, and first of all, we wanted to 7 get it straight what we should be blamed for and what we 8 should not be blamed fo The purpose of this session specifically is to 10 present information on what the federal safety regulatory
>
11 requirements are that pertain to shippers and carriers of 12 spent fuel, including the physical security requirement f'}
v 13 These requirements are imposed by either the Nuclear
- 14 Regulatory Commission or the Department of Transportatio The responsibilities between the two agencies are 16 delineated by a Memorandum of Understandin A copy of the 17 Memorandum of Understanding has been included in the packet 18 of information that everyone hopefully has receive Dick Cunningham gave you some details on the 20 responsibilities of both DOT and NR To recap briefly on 21 that division of responsibility, NRC has primary 22 responsibility for the packaging requirements, for fissile 23 in greater than Type A quantities of radioactive material Now Type A quantities is a relatively small
/
,
\- 25 amount of materia It is basically the amount of material
o 9320 03 06 69 (~'}WRBeb 1 that would go in a package of radiopharmaceuticals, for
\_/
2 instanc The NRC has packaging responsibility for 3 materials greater than that quantity, and also for the 4 physical protection of materials loss in transportatio DOT has packaging requirements for Type A smaller 6 quantities of radioactive material We also have a whole l
7 host of regulations that govern shipper and carrier action For example, for shippers of radioactive materials, 9 including spent fuel, we require that they follow certain i l
10 packaging requirement The packages have to be marked, 11 shipper paper descriptions have to be provide Labeling 12 and placarding in routing all comes within the purview of 13 DO Since this seminar is to concentrate on spent 15 fuel, we do not'have a specific speaker on the DOT 16 requirements that govern such things as shipping papers and 17 labeling and markin We do have speakers that will give us 18 information on the DOT carrier requirements, including the 19 basic safety requirements as well as those which pertain to 20 spent fuel and other hazardous material The speakers will describe in detail for us what l
22 the NRC and the DOT requirements are, and we will cover the 1 23 physical protection activities as wel Our first speaker is Mr. Charles MacDonald, who
/'T i (-) 25 is chief of the Transportation Certification Branch of the
'
__
9320 03 07 70 1 NR Mr. MacDonald is responsible for the package design ()WRBeb 2 and certification program at NR He has held that position 3 since 1972, and prior to joining the Atomic Energy 4 Commission in 1963, he was employed by Combustion 5 Engineerin He is a graduate of the S. Merchant Marine 6 Academy, showing how far back his transportation experience 7 goe He is an active member of the American National
9 Standards Institute Committee N-14, the Transportation of 10 Radioactive Material .
,
11 Mr. MacDonal MR. MAC DONALD: Thank you, Ric Good morni6 (} 13 I an impressed by the number of 14 new faces that we have in the audience, and also the beauty 15 of the room which we have this mornin I appreciate the opportunity to address packaging 17 requirement Included in the material that you received is 18 a medley of Vugraphs which will form the basis for my 19 presentatio These are three sheets of disjointed a
20 Vugraph I hope to bring them together in my presentatio In the time that I have I plan to provide a broad 22 overview of the shipments of radioactive material, the 23 packaging strategy that applies to those shipments, the
,
24 requirements and implementation of that strategy, and some
'
25 past and present activities related to safe transport of
- - . _ .
. . . _
9320 03 08 71 1 ratioactive material.
{)WRBeb 2 (Slide.)
'
3 First I would like to present some results of a 4 study sponsored by DOT, NRC, DOE, and FEM The study was 5 to determine the magnitude and characteristics of 6 radioactive material shipments in the U. The study was 7 conducted by SRI International, with Sandia Laboratory as 8 technical monitor The charts that you have and what I will be 10 showing are the results of the sampling of 14,600 NRC and 11 Agreement State licensee This part of the study indicated 12 the shipment of some 2.8 million packages containing nine 13 million curies of radioactivity.
('}
14 In looking at the package type, we note that a 15 small percentage of the packages were Type B, but they 16 contained 90 percent of the curies shippe Sixty-four 17 percent of the packages shipped were Type A and contained 18 eight percent of the curies shippe And 15 percent of the 19 packages shipped were limited or small quantities and, while 20 not showing up on the chart, did contain approximately 1,000 21 curie The results do not includedthelimitednumberof 23 spent fuel shipments made during the perio We should 24 note, however, that a spent fuel cask is a Type B package, 25 and that the 3.5 percent Type B packages represents
_ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. . . _ .
9320'03 09 72 r
1 approximately 95,000 shipments -- 95,000 packages during (])WRBeb 2 that yea It may also be of interest to note that 13 4 percent of the packages shipped contain 90 percent of the i 5 curies in special form or non-disparsible radioactive 6 materia Medical is the largest shipper of radioactive
!
7 material, with 62 percent of the packages shipped, and 34 8 percent of the curies, and that radiography accounts for 56
{ 9 percent of the curies shipped, and three percent of the 10 package The highway mode continues to be the predominant 12 mod There is a fair balance between the packages shipped 13 and the curie There were approximately 3900 shipments by (])
14 rail during this perio Most shipments were singlo-package
[ 15 shipments made by non-exclusive-use vehicle The' average i
16 shipment was 1.4 packages per shipment for about 1.96 17 million shipments per yea l
- 18 (Slide.)
L l
19 There have been a large number of radioactive f 20 material shipments over the year However, it should be
!
! 21 kept in perspective that radioactive material shipments
- represent only a small percent of all hazardous material 23 shipments, and spent fuel shipments are even a smaller 24 percen'tag j l-h i 25 Experience has been that no Type B package,
!
i
!
!
I i
(
9320 03 10 73 (~)WRBeb 1 which includes spent fuel casks, has ever failed to perform v
2 as designed in accident We of ten say that the overall 3 safety is equal to package integrity plus transport 4 control (Slide.)
6 As with many strategies, the basic strategy for 7 assuring safety in transport of radioactive material is 8 simpl As the activity to be shipped increases, the 9 requirements increas Requirements are 10 performance-oriented, stating both the conditions and 11 the acceptance standard Requirements are expressed so 12 that the demonstration of compliance may be by test or (~') 13 analysi ,
v 14 The activity is expres'ed s in curies, based on the 15 radiotoxicity of each radionuclid This strategy is 16 consistent with the recommendations of the International 17 Atomic Energy Agency, making the regulations 18 compatible with domestic regulations of most of the 19 international communit (Slide.)
21 As the strategy evolves it becomes more comple Here were have added three basic plateaus: limited to small 23 quantities, Type A for the Type A quantities and Type A 24 packaging, and Type B for Type B quantities and Type B em
\- 25 packagin Spent fuel casks are on this upper platea ~()WRBeb 2 Introduced are the Al/A2 value An Al/A2 value is the 3 maximum activity, based on its form, permitted in a Type A 4 packagin A Type A package is assessed to normal 5 conditions of transpor The normal conditions of transport which must be 7 considered are heat, cold, pressure, vibration, water spray, 8 free drop, corner drop, compression and penetratio The 9 conditions are applied separately as required for a 10 determination that there be no reduced effectiveness for the 11 packagin Exceeding the Al/A2 value, a Type B package may 13 be require A Type B package, which includes a spent Euel (},
14 cask, is assessed in normal conditions of transport and the 15 hypothetical accident condition The hypothetical accident conditions which must 17 be considered are free drop, puncture, thermal, and 18 emergenc These hypothetical accident conditions are
, 19 applied in sequence to determine the cumulative effect on l
20 the package, and to demonstrate that adequate containment
!
21 and shielding is provided and subcriticality is maintained.
'
22 (Slide.)
j 23 As we complete the picture, it is very vivid.
I 24 , Here we have included the acceptance standards we just 25 discussed, introduced our qualiti assurance, operating
L_
9320 03 12 75 1 controls, and fissiles, all of which apply to spent fuel ([)WRBeb 2 cask This is the Vugraph included in your handou For 3 completeness, we have added a few extra item Enough of thi (Slide.)
6 I am frequently asked what the requirements are 7 for packaging and transport of radioactive materia My 8 initial response is there is no absence of requ'irement A comprehensive set of regulations has been 10 established by both DOT and the NR In general, the DOT is 11 responsible for regulating the safety during the actual 12 transport of the package, and for packages excluding fissile
'(} 13 up to the Al/A2 valu The NRC is responsible for regulating the design, 15 manufacture and use of fissile and Type B package The NRC 16 also has requirements for physical protection in transport 17 which will be discussed later in this sessio (Slide.)
>
19 Together the DOT and the NRC regulations are 20 intended to assure safety in transpor The implementing
.
21 NRC requirements are in 10 CFR Part 7 The basic safety 22 objective is to ensure adequate containment of radioactive 23 material, control of the radiation emitted by the contents,
'
24 and prevent nuclear criticalit This is consistent with 25 the packaging values we discusse . . - .
,
9320 03 13 76
~
/ TWRBeb 1 A complete revision of Part 71 was published in V
2 the Federal Register in 198 This was to achieve 3 compatibility with the regulations of the IA Z I believe 4 this is the first time that an NRC regulation was also 5 subject to the Plain English revie Part 71 consists of subparts A through H, and 7 several table Subpart A includes the purpose, the scope, the 9 definitions, and requirements for a licens Exemption Part 71 covers all radioactive 11 materia The primary purpose of Subpart B is to provide an 12 exemption for the quantities that are subject to the DOT
{} ,
13 requirement General license and conditions for use of 15 NRC-approved packages, the specification of packages, 16 fissile packages, and foreign packages are included in 17 Subpart Subpart D addresses the information required in 19 applications for package approval submitted to the NR Package approval standards are included in 21 Subparts E and Subpart E includes the general standards 22 for all packages, lifting and tie-down requirements, 23 external radiation standards and requirements for fissile 24 packages, and the acceptance standard Subpart F includes the normal conditions of
r_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
9320 03 14 77 f")WRBeb 1 transport and the hypothetical accident condition x_-
2 Quality control and quality assurance are 3 included in Subparts G and Subpart G includes the 4 preliminary determinations that must be made prior to the 5 initial use of a package, and the routine determinations 6 that must be made prior to each shipment, the records to be 7 maintained and the requirements for advance notification are 8 also include Subpart H described the OA requirements that 10 apply to all the activities conducted under Part 71, while 11 Table A-1 the main table to Part 71, includes the Al/A2 12 values for each radionuclid (} 13 Subparts A through H are intended to cover all 14 packaging aspects of all Type B packages and spent fuel .
15 cask .
16 (Slide.)
17 The submission of an application to the NRC 18 initiates the package review proces The application is 19 independently reviewed by the NRC engineering staff to 20 verify that all design requirements are me A certificate 21 of compliance must be issued by the NRC before a Type B 22 package or spent fuel cask fabricated to that design may be 23 used by a license Subsequent users of fissile and Type B packages O)
k- 25 for which an NRC certificate of compliance has been issued
9320 03 15 78 f')WRBeb 1 are required to register with the NRC prior to the use of a
2 the packag This requirement applies to both NRC 3 licensees and to Agreement State licensee Annually NUREG-0383 is published which includes 5 all the certificates of compliance issued by the NRC and 6 also a listing of those who are registered to use the 7 various package Of the approximately 220 certificates of 8 compliance issued, five are for spent fuel casks which may 9 be used for the shipment of current generation spent fuel 10 assemblie The approval issued by the NRC identifies 12 the design approved, the authorized contents, and other
{} 13 conditions applicable,to the desig The industry 14 determines how many packages will be fabricated to these 15 design However, a quality assurance program for 16 fabrication must be in place and the NRC Office of 17 Inspection and Enforcement notified prior to the fabrication 18 of a spent fuel cas NRC licensees are also required to maintain 20 and use packages in accordance with the NRC-approved QA 21 progra (Slide.)
23 This is a typical spent fuel cas I am showing 24 this because I sense in looking at the requirements, there O
s/ 25 is no indication as to what a fuel cask looks lik This is
l .
9320 03 16 79 1 the nature of the performance-type requirement ()WRBeb 2 In part, this raises the question whether the 3 current critoria for cask designs are sufficient to meet 4 accident conditions involving the transportation of spent 5 fuel and high level wast (Slide.)
7 I believe the answer is Ye Following the organization of the NRC in 1975, 9 the Commission embarked on a reevaluation of its transport 10 regulation The results were published in NUREG-0170, the 11 Final Environmental Statement on the transportation of 12 radioactive materials by air and other mode (} 13 Considering the information developed, the public 14 comments received, and the safety record associated with the 15 transportation of radioactive materials, the Commission 16 determined in 1981 that its present regulations provided a 17 reasonable degree of safety, and that no immediate changes 18 were needed to improve the safet However, the Commission indicated that prudence 20 dictates that regulatory policy concerning transportation of 21 radioactive materials be subject to close and continuing l
22 revie As part of this review, a study was initiated to l
23 more fully investigate the response of large shipping casks f 24 to severe highway and railroad accident condition (Slide.)
9320 03 17 80 1 The MODAL study undertaken for the NRC by
/]WRBeb 2 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory seeks to determines 3 how well packages designed to meet NRC performance criteria 4 will withstand forces generated in the worst sorts of 5 accident The study is based on data on severe non-nuclear 6 accidents that have actually occurred, supplemented by data 7 on various package test program Comparing the forces resulting from severe 9 accidents with those the casks are designed to withstand 10 will give a measure of the degree of protection af forded by 11 casks that conform to regulatory requirement Any accident 12 which produced forces in excess of those the casks are 13 designed to withstand may be studied in more detail to 14 assess the potential for release of radioactive materia The probability of such an accident actually 16 occurring will be evaluated and the resulting risk to public 17 health and safety will then be compared with the risk 18 previously calculated in NUREG-017 Another objective of the study is to provide a 20 document which relates regulatory performance criteria to 21 real-world accidents in simple, straightforward languag The two-volume MODAL study contractor report is 23 scheduled to be completed this summe Volume One is to 24 contain the main text, the conclusions and the 25 recommendation Volume Two is to contain the data and
c320 03 01 81 T'sWRBeb 1 analysi Prior to publication, the study will be subjected V
2 to peer review by one or more major universitie Thank you for your attentio (Applause.)
5 MR. RAWL: Thank you, Chuc With that understanding of the packaging 7 requirements that are in place and are imposed on spent fuel 8 packages, this leads us into the requirements that are 9 imposed on the carriers of these package Our first speaker on this subject is Mr. Darrel 11 Gregor For the past five years he has been chief of the 12 Field Programs Branch of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (} 13 of the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of 14 Transportatio And boy, that's a great alphabet soup when 15 it gets abbreviate He is basically responsible for the oversight of 17 all of the Motor Carrier Safety field operation Prior to 18 coming to BMCS in Washington, he served six years as a 19 Field Safety Investigator in Missour He was officer in 20 charge in Nebraska, a hazardous material specialist in 21 Washington, D. Prior to that, he spent time with 22 Consolidated Freightways on safety requirements, and prior 23 to that, 12 years with the Kansas Highway Patro Mr. Gregory will explain to us what some of the 25 motor carrier safety requirements are for transporting spent
,-
e320 03 02 82 1 fue ()WRBeb 2 MR. GREGORY: Thank you, Ric It is a genuine pleasure for me to be asked to
,
4 appear here today to address such a broad section of 5 interested groups, and I do appreciate the opportunit I am going to cover the highway movement 7 requirements, and I think you should know early on that for 8 the past several years, the tranportation of hazardous 9 material, and especially radioactive material, has been a 10 high priority for a program emphasis area within the Bureau 11 of Motor Carrier Safety, both from a safety management audit 12 standpoint that the field staffs conduct, and from roadside () 13 inspection ,
14 The requirements that I wanted to cover will 15 cover all carriers of hazardous materials, including the 16 movement of spent nuclear fue We in the Bureau would kind of like to hitch our 18 star to the RAM transportation, and it was alluded to by 19 Chuc We would like to point with pride to the record that 20 the transportation of radioactive material has gained over 21 the past several year It is an excellent record, and it 22 is one that we should all be very, very proud o Our requirements are found in 49 CFR, Parts 300 24 to 39 And the first one that would apply or does apply is O 25 found in Part 387 which is a financial-responsibility
.
c320 03 03 83 1 requiremen It came on board about 1980 to '82, depending
[vJ WRBeb 2 on which financial-responsibility action you want to 3 addres What it does in pure king's English is place an 5 insurance requirement on carriers that transport certain 6 types of hazardous materials, including radioactive 7 materia This was an attempt by Congress to legislate X 8 amount of dollars, which they did, that each carrier must 9 have when he moves hazardous material, in our case 10 radioactive material, in interstate or foreign commerc We next jump to 391, which are 12 driver-qualification requirement There are written 13 requirement A driver must pass -- must take a written (J't
'u 14 test on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation He 15 must be given a road examination by an individual who is 16 qualified by the carrier in the type of equipment --
17 utilizing the type of equipment that he will be operating in 18 this movemen There are medical requirement The driver must 20 meet certain medical standard He must be examined by a 21 physician, either a medical doctor or an osteopat And 22 these cover a broad gamut of medical requirements from blood 23 pressure to eyes to heart, the whole nine yard The carrier is required to make a background P>i N- 25 investigation of the driver to determine previous
c320 03 04 84 1 employment, to check with previous employers to see type of (])WRBeb 2 individual he wa The carrier is required to make a driving record 4 inquiry to states that the driver may have held a driver's 5 license i This brings up another subset and another concern 7 that we have that this symposium does not directly address, 8 but I think it certainly impacts and that is the multi-state 9 licensing of driver That is a very serious problem that 10 we face in the highway, transportatio And again in pure and simple English, that's a 12 driver going into the State of Kansas and acquiring a (")
%)
13 driver's license and then going north to the State of -
14 Nebraska and acquiring another driver's license and not 15 telling the State of Kansas about i He now runs on two or 16 more driver's licenses and depending on which one he's got 17 the most points on, he gives the trooper that stops him the 18 other licens This is a very, very serious problem that is 20 being looked at but certainly does need to be looked a There are no simple solution A lot of people are 22 advocating a better driver's licens Well, that's fine 23 right up front, but then you start talking costs to 24 implement such a thing, and it gets almost 25 cost-prohibitiv c320 03 05 85 ('T WRBeb 1 But I think every one of you, especially you N/
2 state people, should be well aware thar y,that is a problem 3 and it does impact the movement of hazardous materials and 4 radioactive material The next area is part 393, which is in our 6 regulations entitled Parts and Accessorie And very simply 7 put, this is the requirement that the vehicles have certain 8 specified parts and accessories, i.e., brakes, lights, good 9 tires, the steering in proper condition, and things of that 10 natur We have accident-reporting requirements found 12 under 394, in which carriers are required to report to the 13 Department, to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, accidents (~))
%
14 that meet certain criteri *
15 395 is generally called, for those of you 16 old-timers, the HOSO requirements or, more specifically, the 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> of service requirement We regulate the hours of 18 service, both the daily hours, the aggregate hours, and the 19 weekly hours that a driver may operate a vehicl For instance, we have no driving after the tenth 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />; he must take eight hours consecutive in an off-duty 22 statu We limit the number of hours, depending on the type 23 of operation, that a driver can operate; no more than 70 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in any eight consecutive day Part 396 covers inspection and maintenance and
c320 03 06 86 1 simply sets down some very broad, general guidelines that ()WRBeb 2 the carrier must follow, some reporting requirements that 3 they must maintain on inspection and maintenance of 4 equipmen One of the first things that we see when a 6 carrier gets in trouble from a financial standpoint is that 7 the inspection -- or the safety goes down, to Safety is 8 kind of an embryonic thin You can sometimes see it but 9 many, many times you canno So unfortunately many times we see that when the 11 bucks get tight, why the safety program, translated i.e.,
12 the inspection and maintenance program, starts getting (}
.'
13, affecte Instead of getting a preventive maintenance 14 inspection at 20,000 miles, the carrier will decide well, I 15 can up it to maybe 40,00 So these are some of the areas that we constantly 17 monito Part 397 covers routing and other HM i 19 requirement We have a requirement that a driver stop and
'
20 check his tires, for instance, every 200 miles, and things 21 of that natur As was alluded to earlier in the program, the 23 Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety is responsible for those
( 24 . portions of the ASMAT rates that are found in 171 to 177
~ C:) 25 , that concern highway movement, and I will just touch on i
t
.
c320 03.07 87
/~')WRBeb 1 those very briefly.
V 2 They contain marking requirements and packaging 3 requirements as Rick mentioned, shipping paper requirements 4 and placarding requirements, but they also contain some 5 specific requirements concerning RAM movements including 6 highway route controls, which was mentioned earlier, some 7 driver training requirements for drivers that are 8 transporting radioactive material, blocking and bracing, and 9 some requirements that are placed on a carrier for use of 10 exclusive-use vehicles, both before and after the us So those very briefly and very generally are the 12 highway requirement Again they are found in 49 CFR, Parts 13 390 fo 397, on the motor carrier side, and in the hazardous
{}
14 materials side, 171 to 17 Thank yo (Applause.)
17 MR. RAWL: Thank you, Darre The idea that we are trying to present here is 19 how the various requirements of DOT interact and how the 20 regulations cover all aspects of transporting spent fue As Darrel has referred to, we have the general body of the 22 regulations which apply to shippers and cover many of the 23 actions that a shipper has to perfor And we have seen 24 from Darrel some of the motor carrier safety requirements 25 that apply to highway movemen .
a320 03 08 88 1 If a movement is going to go by rail, the same ([ ) WRBeb 2 sort of a division of regulatory assignment exist Specific requirements are imposed on the rail carrie And 4 to address this issue we have with us Mr. Ed Prichard from
'
5 the Office of Safety Enforcement of the Federal Railroad 6 Administration, which is also part of DO Ed is responsible for field inspection and 8*' enforcement activities, and he is with the agency in 9 Washingto His education is in civil engineering and 10 environmental engineering, and he has been in his present 11 position at DOT for two year For five years prior to that, he was the District 13 Supervisor with the Federal Railroad Administration in (])
14 Chicago, and eight years before that he was a field
'
15 inspector assigned here in Chicag Prior to that he was i 16 with private industry, both the Bureau of Explosives and the 17 Pennsylvania Railroa Ed tells me that he is a native Chicagoan, so if 19 he disappears and we can't find him some time tomorrow, we f
20 can probably locate him at the Cubs gam MR. PRICHARD: Thanks, Ric Good mornin It is good to be back in Chicago, i
23 of course the weather is wet and rainy, but I can tolerate 24 that.
,
25 In the very short period of time that I have I am _ _ .- . ._ _
o a320 03 09 89 1 going to give you what the rail carrier requirements are for (")'TWRBeb
%
2 the movement of not only radioactive material and hazardous 3 materials, but hazardous materials in genera Those 4 requirements are found in Part 174 of 49 CF Basically they require the train crew to have 6 documentation onboard the train of any hazardous materials 7 being transported, including radioactive materia And of 8 course that documentation originates from the shipper, and 9 his requirements are in 17 In addition to the documentation, we have train 11 placement requirements, and that deals with all hazardous 12 materials except combustibles, but basically with ('; 13 radioactive material there must be a separation by at least 14 one car from the engine or occupied caboose, plus a 15 separation again of one car from*any placarded car in the 16 trai In addition to that, the rail carrier has what is 18 referred to as a 48-hour rule to expedite the movement of 19 all hazardous materials in train yards, and the rail carrier 20 must forward each shipment of hazardous materials promptly 21 and within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> -- Saturdays, Sundays and holidays are
'
22 excluded -- after acceptance at an originating point or 23 receipt at any yard or transfer statio In addition to the regulations in 49 CFR on the O
\~/ 25 hazardous material end of it, the rail carriers also have
_ _
c320 03 10 90 (JWRBeb 1 safety regulations comparable to the Bureau of Motor 2 Carrier Safet They have an accident-reporting 3 requirement, that they must report to FRA any damages 4 exceeding $470 And in addition to that, the Materials 5 Transportation Bureau also has a reporting system of any 6 unintentional release of hazardous material The railroad carriers also have federal freight 8 car standards which deal with the trucks, wheels and brakes 9 on freight cars, the Power Brake Law and Locomotive Safety 10 Act which deals with the locomotives propelling the trai And we have an Hours of Service Act that the carriers must
,
12 comply with, and Track Standards, which.was instituted back () 13 in 1974, dealing with the class of track that the carriers, 14 if they maintain a certain speed, have to maintain a certain
'
15 standard of trac We have signal-to-train control requirements that 17 the carriers must mee In the Operating Practices Branch, I 18 we have blue flag, rear-marker devices and employee training
.
l 19 and testing the qualification of train crews.
.
20 That pretty much sums up, and those requirements,
,
21 in addition to the hazardous materials requirements, are
!
l 22 covered in Part 49 CFR, Part 200 to Part 30 And that is 23 where you will find what I just mentione Thank yo O 25 (Applause.)
-. - -
_
_- . .
a320 03 11 91
-
WRBeb 1 MR. RAWL: Thank you, E In addition to the packaging and the carrier 3 requirements that DOT places on movments of spent fuel, the 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission also exercises responsibility
-
5 over the physical security of spent fuel when it is in 6 transi We have with us to address those issues Mr. Carl 7 B. Sawyer, who is a staf f member of the NRC Division,of
.
8 Safeguard Carl joined the Atomic Energy Commission in 1971,
,
10 and has been with the NRC since its inceptio For the past 11 several* years he has been associated with the development of 12 the protection requirements.for radioactive material () 13 shipments and, most recently, has been pctive in the NRC 14 rulemaking procedurd for the protection of spent fuel 15 shipment ,
16 Car MR. SAWYER: Thank you, and good mornin (Slide.)
19 My co-speakers here have been talking in terms of 20 safety, that is safety requirements for protecting against 21 such things as accidents, human error, and acts of natur We turn our attention now to another perspective which is 23 that of protection against a deliberate malevolent act, in 24 this particular case, sabotag (Slide.)
,
c320 03 12 92 (q,jWRBeb 1 Before 1979, there were no protection 2 requirements and we depended entirely for physical security 3 upon the durability and the structural nature of the 4 casks which you have heard describe However, in 1977, one 5 of the studies that ye were conducted projected or at least 6 did not rule out sabotage that might release up to 14,000 7 grams of respirable material from a preassembled truck 8 cas In the scenario studied, tens to hundreds of 10 pounds of explosives in a sophisticated configuration would 11 be require The charges would have to be placed by a 12 person skilled in the use of explosive Attacks not r~
(,) 13 involving sophisticated explosive configurations were judged 14 unlikely to release spent fuel from the cas The particles of material ejected from a cask 16 would b3 of various size The vast majority of the release 17 would fall to the ground in the immediate vicinity of the 18 cas However, a small fraction of the released material, 19 particles having a diameter of a few microns, -- that is, 20 particles perhaps to the order of a size of a fog droplet or 21 a little smalle These particles would form a cloud and 22 fall to the ground very slowl Particles of this size have the property that if 24 inhaled, they tend to remain in the lungs for long periods O 25 of time, years or even decade Now these are particles
a320 03 13 93 A
(_)WR3eb 1 that most analysts believe would be responsible for any 2 large-scale health effect The study went on to calculate the radiological 4 health effects from a release in a heavily-populated urban 5 are Population densities studied ranged from 60,000 to 6 200,000 persons per square mil The radiological health 7 ef fects were characterized as tens of early fatalities and 8 hundreds of latent fatalities, early fatalities being those 9 that occurred within a year, latent fatalities being those 10 that occurred thereafte The study pointed out that the calculated early 12 fatalities, being closer to the detonation site, would () 13 likely succumb first to blast effects rather than to 14 radiological effect The study also took great care to point out that 16 the respirable release estimates were subject to large 17 uncertainties because there was little relevant data 18 available at the tim The NRC response is indicated in the third 20 bulle An interim rule was issued and set forth 21 approximately ten temporary requirements, and these 22 requirements are still in forc The requirements are to 23 remain in effect until the additional research has been
,g
, 24 carried out and the NRC can reassess the situation.
\_] 25 Two scparate research programs were carried out,
c320 03 14 94 ()WRBeb 1 one sponsored by NRC and the other sponsored by the 2 Department of Energ These programs are now complet They each consisted of a series of explosive 4 experiments, some using models, some using full-scale casks, 5 some using small explosives, some using full-scale 6 explosives, some using irradiated surrogate material and 7 others using spent fue Releases of spent fuel or 8 surrogate material, both respirable and larger particles, 9 were measure Health-effects calculations were made based on 11 the experimental release Respirable releases were found 12 to be in the range of 18 grams for the NRC study, and 34
, (mx_) 13 grams for the DOT stud These results are of course in 14 marked contrast to the upper bound of 14,000 grams that 15 prompted issuance of the interim rule now in effec The corresponding calculated health effects are 17 no early fatalities and one to four latents for average 18 conditions; 14 latents if one assumes the most unfavorable 19 of the meteorological conditio Based on these results, the NRC began to reassess 21 the interim requirements for the protection of spent fuel, 22 and in June of 1984, the Commission issued a proposal for 23 new requirements that would cover scent fuel shipments, and 24 those are the subject of the n' ext slid (Slide.)
_ _ _ _
a320 03 15 95 l}
't -WRBeb 1 Here we see a comparison of the current 2 requirements with those that were proposed following 3 completion of the research, and I will scan through them 4 briefl Before a shipment is made, a licensee must gain 6 NRC approval of the route he intends to use, and he must 7 provide or arrange for an armed escort in the cit A 8 communications center must be maintained and manned while 9 the shipment is in progres Before the shipment begins there must be advance 11 coordination with local law enforcement a'uthorities, 12 generally the state police.
( 13 Schedule information concerning the shipment must
.
14 be protected against unauthorized disclosure until th*e 15 shipment is complete The transport vehicle is equipped with radio 17 telephone capable of communicating with the communications 18 center previously mentioned, and an immobilization device 19 that can instantly disable the vehicle for a period of about 20 30 minute There are various additional requirements:
'
22 unarmed escort, surveillance at all time There is a requirement that a licensee planning a 24 spent fuel shipment must notify the governor of the state
\
25 before he transports spent fuel in that stat .
F
.
c320 03 16 96
i / WRBeb _ There of course are. inevitable procedures and 2 instructions, and the vehicle may make no casual stops en 3 rout Once again we can give a little attention to the 5 requirements that we intended to drop in consequence of the 6 lower release estimates from -our research progra We invited-- The Commission invited public 8 comment on this rule and we received 32 comprehensive 9 letters of comments such as shown her I 10 (Slide.)
11 Eleven of them were from the state (Slide.)
O (_/ 13 The letters of comment that we received covered 14 the full spectrum of possible positions, and here we attempt 15 to characterize the comments that objected to the proposa Inasmuch as the proposed rule is based on 17 technical arguments, it is only natural that many of the 18 comments should address that subject, and both states and 19 others who commented have voiced many technical concern Probably most of the-- The most frequent
,
21 comment charged that there was one or more irregularities in 22 the research supporting the modified rulin By this I mean 23 irregularities in experimental technique, instrumentation (mg 24 and measurement accuracy, data processing, perhaps omissions ci 25 of some kind, or inconsistencie There are perhaps 20 to
-
'c320 03 17 97 (O_)WRBeb 1 30 comments in this particular are Commenters were also concerned with the fact that 3 our peer review extended only to the exposure aspects of the 4 studies, and did not address such things as the 5 experimental techniques, instrumentation, and health 6 effects, et ceter However, the general response to those concerned 8 is.that we felt comfortable with our knowledge of the
'9 radiological matters, but not comfortable with our knowledge 10 of exposure techology, and accordingly, the aspects of 11 the study dealing with the exposure technology w;re 12 submitted for review to the U. S. Army Ballistic Research () 13 Laborator Another popular set of comments charged that 15 worst-case scenarios were not examined, and there are two 16 classes of thes The first is concerned that we have made 17 the wrong choice in some critical area such as the wrong 18 site for carrying out sabotag The other class of comment points out that one or 20 more additional links in the scenario chain would 21 significantly increase the sabotage consequence Still another group of comments charged that 23 cancer fatalities are really an insufficient criterion for
,- 24 rulemakin We used health effects as our primary 25 criterion, but our commenters suggest that in this
-
i e
b320 04 01 98 1 WRBeb 1 particular proceeding that we should consider such things 2 perhaps as property damage or cleanup cost States have also had a number of concerns which 4 seem to me to be unique to their particular situation, and 5 many of these comments were non-technical in natur Some 6 states, for example, perceived significant safety-side 7 benefits from the current safeguards requirements, 8 particularly the route approval requirement and the police 9 coordination requiremen Some states argued that their citizens tend to 11 discount the technical arguments which we have put forward, (~)
u 12 'and they believe their citizens see only that security is to 13 be relaxed and are concerned that their citizens may object 14 to this relaxatio Still another set of comments contend that there 16 is a close connection between our current requirements and doc /C4 r 17 the Na W nal Waste Policy Act activities that will be coming 18 up in the futur They are concerned, for example, about
'
19 the increased number of shippers and whether new casks that 20 may be designed in the future will be as sabotage-resistant 21 as the current cask _
22 We are now considering these comments and are in
The status of this 23 the process of preparing a final rul rulemaking proceeding at this time can probably be 25 summarized as follows:
c-b320 04 02 99 1 Thus far, the drafting of the final rule ( )WRBeb 2 continues to be guided largely by technical argument All 3 concerns are made visible, but the technical arguments are 4 given greatest weigh The technical comments we have 5 received thus far have not caused us to change our position 6 that current requirements should be moderate We have prepared and circulated a draft final 8 rule for review by NRC staff analysts and NRC middle 9 managemen In that draft, all but a very few of the 10 technical comments we have received are addresse Responses to those remaining are being develope In closing, I hope to gain from this seminar () 13 information and ideas that will enable the rule to achieve 14 its objectives of sound, physical protection and yet gain 15 widest acceptabilit Thank yo (Applause.)
18 MR. RAWL Thank you, Car l 19 Before we epen the floor to questions, I have one 20 announcemen I am going to embarrass Mr. R. D. Ross by
21 requesting that he call his office as soon as possible.
!
! 22 I would like to point out that there are a number
,
23 of publications which cover some of the topics we have been
!
24 discussing this mornin There are sign-up tables out in
'
j () 25 the foyer area just in front of the meeting room here, and I
!
.
i
r b320 04 03 100 1 there are some publications which are specific to packaging ( )WRBeb 2 and packaging requirements which you might wish to sign up 3 for to get more specific details than we are able to cover 4 in the limited time available her Specifically the NRC has available NUREG-0170, 6 the environmental analysis document, a directory of packago 7 certificatos, NUREG-038 You can obtain copies of Part 71, 8 the packaging requirement You can obtain the report that 9 Chuck used for some of his statistics on the shipment survey 10 of radioactive materials traffi And there is also a J1 three-page sumnary of spent fuel and high level wasto 12 transportation requirement (~)
(>
13 From DOT you can sign up for the Green Book that
.
14 we distributed which is a review of the DOT regulations 15 which will cover in detail subjects we have not really 16 dwelled on here, which are the DOT requirements that are 17 applicable to all shippers of radioactive material Now I would like to open the floor up for 19 question I would just again repeat that we would like 20 each questioner to give their name and affiliatio If it 21 is a general question, make it a general question, and if it 22 is specific to one of our speakers, please so indicat MR. MOBLEY: I'm Mike Mobley, of Tennossc The first presentation on spent fuel packaging
\> 25 requirements stated that Part 71 regulations cover all
.
<
.
b320 04 04 101 1 radioactive materia I believe that is a misstatemen It ((])WRBeb 2 only covers radioactive material regulated by the NR I believe that's true, is it not?
4 MR. MAC DONALD: Part 71 includes the fissile 5 regular Type A quantities of radioactive materia It does dyren w r-6 apply to NRC licensees and it applies to the PEMA state 7 licensee l 8 DOT in its regulations references Part 71, and by 9 that f act 173.7 of DOT regulations also apply to DO We 10 did not discuss that aspect this morning in the broad 11 overview that I gave, but it does impact by virtue of the 12 Title 49 DO requirement () 13 Does that help?
,
.
14 MR. MOBLEY: You got to my next questio I would point out very specifically that there is 16 material, radioactive material, that is not regulated by the 17 NR The statement covers all radioactive materia Then my next question was going to be based on 19 DOE shipments of spent nuclear fuel specificall Since 20 most, if not all, of the shipments in the future are going 21 to be done by DOE, you know, all of these requirements that 22 we're discussing here may not be applicable at all to DOS 23 shipper MR. RAWL: I would like to address both of those O
kl 25 question ._ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
,
!
! b320 04 05 102 i
1 First of all, with the cooperation that has ( )WRBeb
-
2 developed between NRC and DOT, DOT requires that NEC
,
3 regulations be applied to all radioactive materials in transportatio If you're referring to radionuclides such :
r 5 as radium which is not covered under the Atomic Energy Act, i 6 if one wanted to ship a Type a quantity of radium, one can 7 only do it in an NRC-approved package because the DOT 8 requires tha *
9 The other aspect-- We are trying to concentrate 10 here in our presentations on transportation that is
-
11 occurring today and will be occurring in the immediate 12 futur As a result, I think we can focus on packages that 13 are being certified by NR (]) '
l 14 We do recognize of course that the Department of
! i l
15 E6ergy has the authority to self-certify spent fuel cask :
I 16 The language in Title 49 which authorizes that is very l
!
It states that those packages must be evaluated I 17 specific.
l 18 against standards that are equivalent to 10 CFR 71, and in a ;
19 manner which is equivalent to the analyais which NRC 20 applie ;
21 So whilo I understand the thrust of your question
l 22 which is concerning who is going to certify spent fuel 23 packages when the shipments increase greatly in the future, 24 there are two parts to tha We require equivalents, and 1
- ]
j 25 right now, there's a very small number of packages that ;
i
e
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
b320 04 06 103
~'
1 have been approved by DOE that are being use (U)WRBob 2 MR. MOBLEY: Well, the point I would like to 3 make there specifically is that a great increase in the 4 number of spent fuel shipments will be occurring or may be 5 occurring in the very near futuro, and a great number of 6 those shipments will be by DOE and could be specifically 7 exempt both from DOT requirements and will be specifically t0 h 8 oxompt foe any NRC requiromont MR. MAC DONALD: If I may make one other comment, 10 under the Nuclear Wasto Policy Act, DOE will take title to 11 fuel at the utilitie The Nuclear Wasto Policy Act is not 12 ontirely clear as to what cortification those packages might (~) 13 hav The NRC and DOE have a procedural agroomont in which v
14 there is full intent of the DOE to submit those package
- 15 designs going to be used in 1998 to the year 2000 to the NRC 16 for cortificatio I don't particularly know the dato of publication 18 in the Fodoral Register but it was ther Wo do have the 19 agroomont and it is the DOE intention to havo their spent 20 fuel casks cortified by NR MR. MOBLEY: Thank yo MR. RAWL In the back of the roo MR. LASH: I'm Terry Las I am director of the 24 Illinois Department of Nuclear Sofot (~)
'
25 My question portains to the last speakor from the l '- ' . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b320 04 07 104 1 NRC, considering the proposed modification of the rule.
{}WRBeb 2 This is a matter of great interest to the State of Illinois, 3 as well as to other state I am not sure I fully understood what the 5 response is going to be from the NRC and I would like some 6 clarification, both with regard to substance and to 7 procedure in applying the rul Regarding procedure, the question is if the NRC 9 did not recommend any further changes to the proposed final 10 rule, does that mean that it will be published in the 11 . Federal Register as a final rule without any further 12 consideration from state conferences in particular?
(} 13 And secondly, how does the rule treat certain 14 procedural comments that were made dealing with such things 15 as the requirenent to maintain a 24-hour communication 16 center by the carrier?
17 MR. SAWYER: With respect to the last question, 18 the requirement for a communication centor is one of those 19 that is proposed to be dropped insof ar as the current draf ts
,
20 ace concerne These current draftn are circulated among 21 staff analysts and middle managemen We still have the 22 arduous task of obtaining agreement from senior management, 23 and final authority from the Commissioners themselve MR. LASH: May I ask as a follow-up whether those 25 who have commented on the proposed rule in the Federal
b320 04 08 105 1 Register will be given adequate notice so that they may make ()WRBeb 2 their views themselves known to the Commissioners before 3 they make a decision on the proposed final rule?
4 Because I can assure you that your response is 5 not satisfying to us in Illinois and that wo want to 6 vigorously argue for rotention of some procedural 7 requirements now, and in fact strengthening them, and we 8 wish to have ovary single possible opportunity to convinco 9 the federal authorities not to relax thoso standard (Applauso.)
11 MR. SAWYER: My own personal view in this matter 12 is that any comment that we rocoive within the reasonable 13* futuro can be incorporated and considorod before the final (])
14 rule goes forward for consideration by senior management and 15 by the Commissio Certainly to the extent of my influence 16 that would happe MR. LASil: I would explicitly request hora that 18 we be notified when the materials are sent to the 19 Commissioners for decision, and that we have an opportunity 20 to present our own views in our own languago and in our own 21 mannor to the Commission for its full consideration beforo 22 adoption of the final rul MR. RAWL Thank yo MS. QUIGG: I am Cathorino Quigg with tho O 25 Illinois Stato Energy Alliance in Chicag I have a
b320 04 09 106 1 question for the panel.
(])WRBeb 2 We heard on television yesterday about a highway 3 chemical truck fire in Houston, Texas, which melted part of 4 the steel structure of a bridg This accident points up 5 the inadequacy of the cask fire test standard of 6 withstanding a 1475-degree fire for one-half hour because 7 our railroads and highways are filled with chemical trucks
. 8 whose contents burn at higher than 1475 degrees and for 9 longer than one-half hou As a matter of fact, the 1475-degree one-half 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test is the same fire standard as for the wall between 12 your house and your garag I would like to know what is the federal ({}
14 government going to do to upgrade and improve this seriously
'
15 deficient fire standar MR. MAC DONALD: I will try to approach the 17 questio We went through the regulatory requirements and 19 standards that we hav We indicated that they were 20 performance-type standard I would like to dispel any 21 M0l[00 no...ieg that anyone might have that a spent fuel cask would 22 only withstand 1475 degrees F. for 30 minute These 23 requirements are meant to be discriminatory requirement One of the purposes of the MODAL study was to 25 take a look at the real-world type accidents, comparing
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b320 04 10 107 ( )WRBeb 1 those to the packages that result from the regulatory 2 standard It is hopoful that this part -- and whether or 3 not it will pick up that particular incidont or not I'm not 4 sur It will be looking at the tunnel fire in Californi That was one that we could very readily relate to, and I'm 6 not familiar with the circumstances of the other 7 requiremon But wo also havo requirements in Part 71 that a 9 package withstand water spray equivalent to a heavy rain for 10 30 minuto It does not mean that if you put a spent fuel 11 cask package in water spray for 45 minutes that all bots aro 12 of So that attitudo, that viewpoint, should be dispelled () 13 somowha But wo do nood to look at the real accident 15 conditions, which we are doing, and wo will be comparing 16 thoso to the various--
17 MS. QUIGG: May I ask then that you notify the 18 public and other interostod people the degroo of firo and 19 the longth of timo to which the casks can actually withstand 20 the fire? I think it is important that wo know tha MR. RAWL Chuck alluded to the problom of 22 perception of tho enginooring standards that are used in 10 23 CFR 7 That's a problem that wo have oncountered timo and 24 timo agai The standards are dosigned to provido O 25 ropoatable insults to the packago that result in ovaluations
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
l l
'
b320 04 11 108 l
l f;WRBeb 1 of dif ferent designs to the samo criteria.
- us ,
2 The 1475 at 30 minutos is not a low-temperature 3 fire for a relatively short period of tim That is a 4 thormal input that is defined in engineering torm The 5 Fodoral Railroad Administration has tank car standards for 6 insulation that require a highor temperature fire for 100 7 minutos, for exampl On tho surfaco, as you obnorvo, that 8 is a sorious deficiency in the Typo B packaging standards, 9 but I ropont that that is on the surfac Tho Fodoral Railway Administration has undorway a
. 11 roscarch and developmont contract with an indopondant 12 contractor which in costing them quito a bit of money to ovaluato tho dif ferences botwoon tho tank car standards and (} 13 I don't think I am 14 the standards for a Typo B packag lotting any cats out of tho bag to lot you know that they ,
16 found out that tho highor temperature firos and longer 17 duration fires that aru oncountered in the rail modo do not 18 havo a serious impact on tho spent fuol cask For examplo, a torch firo is requirod for the 20 rail tank car because the rail tank cars failuro modo makos 21 them suscoptibio to torch firo Tho spont fuel cask is 22 such an onorgy-absorbing body that it has no offect 23 whatsoevor on tho intogrity of the packag Tho samo thing is appliod to the longer duration 25 cool fir The mechanisms for rolosso aro such that tho
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
, b320 04 12 109 1 integrity of the cask is really not brought into questio ()WRBob 2 So the explanation of why just the temperature or 3 just the duration or the combination of thoso things appears 4 to bo worso in the type of tosts is one of explanation of 5 tho dif foronco betwoon -- for bridging the gap betwoon what 6 happuns in the real world and the soverity of thoso 7 onginooring conditions and the packago intogrity that is 8 requirod to pass thoso engincoring condition MS. QUIGG: Well, I understand that somo of the 10 oldor casks usod load that molta at 620 degroos I hopo 11 that they are no longer boing use I do havo one additional questio I would liko to know what changos in the spent (])
14 fuel cask dosign and rogulations are boing made to l
15 accommodato high-lovol spent fuol which is hottor from a 16 thormal and a radioactivo standpoint than the typical spont 17 fuel and is becoming incroasingly common in the United l
18 State MR. MAC DotlALD: llaving performanco typo 20 standards, tho dosignor must know the charactoristics of tho l
l 21 s hi pmo nt s, the docay hoat that ho may have, the radiation 22 that may bo omittod from the All thoso conaldorations
'23 would havo to bo includod in the desig The approval 24 documont for the particular doston has limitation O'- 25 Thoro are burnup limitations that ono can havo
__ ________ ___ ____ ______
b320 04 13 110 i
1 currently in the spent fuel casks there are limitations on (}WRBob 2 the enrichmont; there are limitations on the decay heat that 3 ono might hav All thoco must be below tha MS. QUIGG: Thank yo MS. PAGE: My namo is Edith Pag I am with the 6 office of Technology Assonsmont in Washingto My question 7 is addressed to Mr. Sawyo .
,
8 Ono of the comments submitted on the proposal to 9 chango the rulomaking on routing and notification was that 10 thoro was insuf ficient -- or disagrooment among the peor 11 reviewors of the second rosoarch that was undertake I 12 would liko to know what the poor review process is in tho normal routino proceduros for the NRC studio (} 13 14 MR. SAWYER: Rosaarch papors and reports aro 15 subjected to poor-review situation One of those 16 situations is whon thoro is substantial disagroomont among 17 NRC analysts as to what the results should b The cocond situation, and tho one which wo found 19 oursolvon confronted with in the sabotago study han to do 20 with doon the NRC staff really boliovo that it has tho
,
.
21 oxportino to review the material beforo it in the caso of 22 oxplosivo tochnolog Our answor was no, and of course wo did the poor 24 review on that basi MS. PAGE: Then you did not speak to-- When you P
b320 04 14 111 1 were making the comments on the study, you did not speak to (}WRBeb 2 how you planned to address that particular commen Are you 3 thinking of resubmitting it for outside peer review, or will 4 the procedure from now on be strictly internal to the NRC?
5 MR. SAWYER: No, Ma'a We will-- As matters 6 now stand on this particular day, our response to that 7 comment would be essentially as I have explained i It is 8 in two parts:
9 The first part is that the NRC staff felt
, 10 competent to review the non-explosive aspects of those 11 studie .
12 The second point is it did not feelcapgfbleof reviewing the explosive aspects and submitted them for
{} 13 formal peer revie MR. RAWL: Well, if there are no other .
16 questions, I thank you al We do have another questio VOICE: (Inaudible)
19 I have a comment, or a question directed to 20 Mr. Sawye In your consideration of this new rule, the 22 changes in the rule, what I hear is that the drafters of 23 this new rule are so invested in their craft that state 24 comments that deal with human lives, environmental quality ( 25
.. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _. . _. _ . - - . .
,
)
b320 04 15 112 1 are given dismissal out of hand, that technical comments are ()WRBeb 2 the only thing you consider, and there is not really a lot 3 of use in making comment Given that the NRC needed to work with the j 5 states, I'd like to see a reconsideration of that attitude, 6 because this is very frightening when we hear that we have 7 no voice, and that whatever we say is not going to be
'
i 8 considered, and that the draf ters are going to go ahead with i
9 tha '
Tha t's al MR. SAWYER: .In partial' response to these i 12 comments, if I may: The situation that I was faced with in (} 13 a 15-minute presentation, as I explained at the outside, is 14 to give an overview of the current status 6f our rulemaking
! 15 procedur It apparently achieved one of its objectives in
! 16 that people are thinking about what the consequences of the 17 current course of action are.
-
18 The other thing I would have you consider is that 19 we are talking probably fifty or sixty individual l
20 identifiable comments that will be comprehensivly addressed; 21 most of them are already, in the draf And we are i
22 certainly prepared to discuss these with any interested
!
23 party at the detailed technical sessions which are planned 24 for that purpose a day or so hence.
! 25 MS. MC NABB: I'm Marilyn McNabb from the
,
f i
- . _ , -_ - _ . - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . , _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . , _ , - _ . , _ . , _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ . ,
M b320 04 16 113 1 Nebraska Energy Offic I wanted to follow up on the (}WRBeb 2 Tennessee questio As I understand it, DOE shipments under the 4 Nuclear Waste Policy Act -- well, first of all do not have 5 to follow DOT regulation Is that right?
6 MR. RAWL: No, Ma'a Any shipment that the 7 Department of Energy makes using a common carrier must be-in 8 accordance with the DOT regulation MS. MC NABB: So it must follow DOT regulations?
10 MR. RAWL: That's correc MS. MC NABB: As to the NRC regulations, except 12 for the cask regulations, my understanding is that they do (} 13 ,
not have to follow NRC regulations with respect to the *
14 .itten seven-day notification to the governor Is that 15 right?
16 MR. RAWL: The requirements of the Department of 17 Energy for package certification and physical protection are 18 that they must be performed in a manner equivalent to those 19 required by NRC, not that they would follow the NRC 20 regulations -- Let me restate that -- not that they be 21 identical but that they be equivalen MS. MC NABB: Let me try it one more tim For example, with the written notification to the 24 governors for the shipments that are now being shipped,, DOE 25 is not required to give written notification to governors of
,
b320 04 17 114 I'\WRBeb 1 the state Is that right?
O 2 MR. RAWL: As I understand it, that's correc MS. BOYLL: I'm Jamie Boyll of the Nuclear Waste 4 Policy Council of Mississipp I would just like to reiterate a public concern 6 that has already been stated about cask safet It is my 7 understanding that casks will withstand a projectile force 8 of 60 miles per hou I know that there is a German .
-
fasfor Mee=tler cask that is able to withstand a projectile of 650 10 miles per hou I am concerned that with tornadoes, the question 12 of sabotage, the question of crush forces, especially in 13 rail where there could be up to 550 tons of crush force
,) .
14 between cars, that perhaps some of these casks might be 15 breached anywa MR. RAWL: The regulations are constantly 17 basically being reevaluate The International Atomic 18 Energy Agency has recently revised its regulations, and its 19 regulations form the basis of all major countries in the 20 worl That was a five-year project under which experts 21 from all around the world were asked to provide comments, 22 technical evaluations, research and development projects, 23 any type of information which would lead one to the 24 conclusion that the basic regulatory requirements need to be () 25 strengthened or change _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _
9320 05 01 115 1 That effort, which lasted five years, has G("'s WRBagb 2 resulted in a 1985 edition of the international regulations 3 and the U.S. will, of course, be looking at those 4 regulations to adopt U.S. requirements that are consistent 5 with the .
6 There have been some small changes in those 7 requirements for tightening package For example, there 8 is a crush test that has been adde It was found out that 9 only.small, lightweight packages are subjected to crush 10 forces which may impose a threat to the package integrit Other changes were made such as a 200 meter submergence 12 tes (~ 13 The regulatio'ns are under a constant state of
\-)/
'
.
14 evaluation and they are being change But many of the 15 things that have been mentioned which are perceived 16 deficiencies have not been able to be shown in an analytical 17 manner to be deficiencies in the regulations which result 18 in lower safety than what should be require I would like to remind the panel 20 that I know a lot of the tests were done by simulations of
'
21 my'models by necessit There was a modeling simulation of 22 the incident at Three Mile Island and I believe the
- 23 statistical analysis was that that occurrence could happen 24 only one in one million times but it did occu ,
( 25 MR. RAWL: Thank you.
,
L
9320 05 02 116 (") WRBag b 1 Well, we have run into our lunchtime quite a
~a 2 bi I think we have had a good discourse and an expression 3 of opinions and comments and questions from the audienc I 4 would like to point out that immediately following the break 5 we will have a continuous videotape showing of three 6 10-minute presentations which will be in the four monitors 7 around the room her Everyone is invited to stay and watch 8 this or to have lunch and come back, since it will be 9 on-goin We will reconvene at 1:30 for the next sessio Thank yo ,
12 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the conference was 13 recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.)
{a'}
15
'
18
20
22
24 o
(_) 25
.
9320 05 03 117 1 AFTERNOON SESSION
{ }WRBagb 2 (1:30 p.m.)
3 MR. COOK: Ladies and gentlemen, at this time I 4 would like to welcome you to the session on routing of spent 5 fuel shipment My name is John Cook and I work on 6 transportatibn issues for NRC's Division of Fuel Cycle and 7 Materials Safet Before the session begins in earnest, there are a 9 few announcements regarding housekeeping arrangement (Announcements made.)
11 MR. COOK It is a pleasure for me to chair this 12 session on routing, which I know is an area of great 13 interest to state and local authoritie By way of a very ( }-
14 brief introduction to this session, the speakers we have 15 arranged this af ternoon will discuss transportation safety 16 and DOT's routing rule as well as physical protection and 17 NRC's safeguards written approval proces So we will i
18 attempt to establish for you the distinction that safety
.
! 19 plays in routing as well as the role that safeguards plays
!
'
20 in routing.
21 We will also discuss the issues that have arisen 22 in the implementation of these rules.
I 23 Also, we will hear the results of a survey on 24 prenotification requirement This session will conclude
,
O- 25 with a panel discussion on routing issues, in which we will i
-- . -- - - . - . _ -.
.
9320 05 04 118
,7^]WRBag b 1 be joined by the state, Indian and local representatives O'
2 from this morning's session with the exception of Mr. John 3 Eaton from the Ohio Disaster Services Agency will be 4 replacing Mr. T-im Mdaulcy. ## # ' ' d *
l 5 There will be an opportunity for you to ask 6 questions after the speakers have given their presentations 7 and also during the panel discussio As we have a very ambitious schedule for this I
9 session, I would like to immediately introduce our first 10 speaker, Ms. Elaine Economides, from Department of 11 Transportation's Office of the Chief Counsel, who will 12 discuss DOT's routing rules.
(~S 13 Af ter concluding the remarks on the routing rule, G
14 Elaine has also agreed to present the first of a two-part 15 discussion on the interrelationship of DOT and NRC routing 16 rule Ms. Economido MS. ECONOMIDES: First I would like to say that 19 copies of both my papers are in the packet of materials you 20 received in registratio Since that provides all the 21 detail as to legal citations, dates, documents, references 22 to the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulation, I am 23 going to delete that kind of detail from my discussio Also I may pass over certain portions which go into levels n
(J 25 of detail appropriate for a written document but which would
9320 05 05 119 f'/hWRDagb 1 be excruciatingly boring in an oral presentatio s_
2 This morning we heard a great deal about the 3 highway routing rule and, indeed, it is something which has 4 created a great deal of conversation, if not controvers It was in January of 1981 that DOT issued this 6 final rule on highway routing of radioactive materials, the 7 rule which is commonly referred to by its docket number as 8 HM-16 The principle purpose of HM-164 was to establish 9 nationally applicable standards for the safe highway routing 10 of radioactive material My presentation today is going to review the 12 legal history of that rule, describing substantive 13 provisions and discuss its impact on certain stato and local (' }
14 rules also involv'ing highway routin First I would like to address the source of DOT's
16 authority to issue such regulation This authority is 17 derived from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the 10 HFiA, which authorizos the Department of Transportation to 19 designato certain quantities and forms of material as 20 hazardous and to establish regulations governing -- to 21 insure the safety of transportation of those hazardous
l 22 materials in commerc The substantive regulations adopted under the 24 HMTA are known as the Hazardous Materials Rogulations or (O x/
-
25 HM I will be referring to sections of the HMR throughout
i 120 i
{}00506 1 ' WRBagb 1 my tal '
2 And within DOT, as has been said before, the 3 primary responsibility for issuance and interpretation of 4 these regulations has been delegated to the Materials 5 Transportation Bureau of the Research and Special Programs
. 6 Administratio My paper discusses at length a portion of the 8 HMTA which deals with the relationship of Federal rules 9 adopted under this law with state and local rule This morning one speaker discussed what 11 pre-emption mean In this case, Congress provided a 12 provision within the HMTA which did not completely pre-empt (~}
13 the field in favor of Federal regulation and said the i
'
14 provision of the statute says that any state or local 15 requirement which is inconsistenu with Federal rules is 16 pre-empte Clearly Congress did not intend that the
!
17 Federal regulatory system should completely pre-empt the i
j 18 field and recognized that there was an appropriate role for !
l 19 state and local government So long as those rules were l
l 20 consistent then it was possible for those too to become part
!
21 of a safety regulatory program of national applicabilit Now under a further provision in the Act, even
23 though a state or local rule is inconsistent and therefore i
l 24 pre-empted, Congress recognized that there would be
! !
25 instances where for unique local circumstances application l i
l I
l
- . - . - - - - _ - - - _ ._ -
9320 05 07 121 ()WRBagb 1 of a rule of national applicability did not make sense 2 because of these unique local conditions and, therefore, 3 provided for those circumstances that the Department could 4 waive pre-emption so long as, in addition to demonstrating 5 unique local condition, the inconsistent rule provided an 6 equal or greater level of safety and did not unreasonably 7 burden commerc The Department has adopted procedural regulations 9 for issuing advisory opinion on the question of whether a 10 state or local rule is inconsistent and also issuing 11 administrative rulings on whether or not it will grant a 12 waiver of pre-emption.
(~D 13 The first on the question of state or local rulo xJ ,
14 is inconsistent are known appropriately enough as
15 inconsistency ruling and I will be discussing some of those 16 later in my presentatio The second form of proceeding is a 18 non-pre-emption determinatio The speaker from New York 19 this morning made reference to such an application by the 20 City of New York; indeed, our first non-pre-emption 21 proceeding is open at the moment and wo expect to be issuing 22 a ruling on that by early Septembe Now this discussion of regulatory authority, 24 while somewhat lengthy, does provide the background (')'
25 necessary for an understanding of the development of both
-. -
. _ , - , - - ._-.
9320 05 08 122 P^gWRBagb 1 the substantive provisions of HM-164, the appendix to that (_/ -
2 rule and how we have interpreted the pre-emptive effect of 3 the rul So now I would like to provide a little history 5 on the development of the rul It was in 1976 that the 6 City of New York amended its health code in such a way as to 7 effectively ban the highway transportation of most 8 commercial shipments of radioactive materials through the 9 cit This had a profound effect on the Brookhaven 11 National Laboratory, located on Long Island, because the 12 only way to proceed by highway from Long Island is to go 13 through New York Cit Therefore, a ban on highway v'
14 transportation in the city was, in effect, a complete
,
15 cessation of transportation from the Brookhaven La ,
16 Therefore, the operators at Brookhaven requested 17 an administrative ruling from the Department of 18 Transportation and an inconsistency. ruling on whether or not 19 the New York City ban was pre-empte At that time the Department had not adopted a 21 highway routing rulo, had not adopted any policy position 22 with regard to the appropriateness of routing subject to 23 regulation because the Department had exercised no action, 24 no regulatory authority with regard to the question of (G
_) 25 routin There was nothing on which to base the finding of
--
9320 05 09 123 P' WRBagb 1 inconsistenc (_}/
2 Therefore, we were compelled to issuo in the 3 first inconsistency ruling the finding that New York City's 4 ban on transportation was not inconsistent and was not 5 pre-empted under the regulatory system as it then existe However, the Department clearly recognized the 7 implications of this decision; there were already more than 8 200 bans and other severe restrictions on the highway mode 9 of transportatio A departmental ruling which said, in 10 effect, there is nothing in the body of law now to prevent 11 the continued proliferation of these bans and it could only 12 lead to complete impasse in this form of 13 Congressionally-recognized interstate commerc ,
14 Thorefore, in its inconsistency ruling, the 15 Department announced its intention to examine whether there 16 were a need for routing regulations at the Federal leve This, in effect, was the beginning of HM-16 Within months of the publication of this first 19 inconsistency ruling, the Department published an Advanced 20 Notice of Proposed Rulemakin Hundreds of comments were 21 received, these were reviewed and incorporated into the 22 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, af ter which the Department 23 conducted at least eight public hearings, reviewed more than 24 1600 public comments and finally issued HM-164 as the final () 25 rul .- _ _ _ . . - - -. -
.
9320 05 10 124 As adopted, the final rule very much resembled
~
WRBagb 1 2 the proposed version but there were a few differences and I 3 will be commenting on some of thos The preamble to the final rule stated the 5 Department's conclusion on the basis of the extensive public 6 comment which was received in the docket, documented risk 7 studies as well as past experience with radioactive material 8 transport, based on all of this the Department found that 9 the public risks in transporting these materials by highway 10 were too low to justify the unilateral imposition of bans 11 and other severe restrictions on the highway mode of 12 transportatio Moreover, other modes of transport
.
13 were generally found not to offer alternatives which lowered 14 public risk to such an extent as to warrant substantial 15 restriction of the highway mod Moreover, the Department also concluded that 17 these already-low risks could be further reduced by adoption 18 of driver training requirements and provisions for a method 19 of selecting the safest available highway routes for 20 carriers of large quantities of radioactive material On this basis, DOT adopted the final rule which 22 actually contains two routing rules: the first, a general 23 which applies to all placarded shipments of radioactive
!
24 material except for large quantity, and then a specific
--
) 25 routing rule which applies to placarded shipments of i
_ _ _ _ _ . . - - . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _
9320 05 11 125
[^)WRBagb 1 radioactive materials which contain large-quantity V
2 radioactive materia The general routing rule is set forth and is 4 cited in a quote that I made in the pape I am not going 5 to read it, just the relevant portion which is that carriers 6 of placarded shipments that insure that any motor vehicle
'
, containing that is required to be operated on routes that 8 minimize radiological ris This reflected somewhat of a change from the 10 proposed rule, but the basic objective remained the same, 11 that the carrior examine all available highway routes and 12 select one which minimizes radiological risk to the public.
(N 13 In making this determination the carrier must consider ( ,
-
14' available information on the most important factors which 15 contribute to the' minimization of radiological ris The 16 rule identifies these factors as population, accident rates 17 on available highways, transit time and the time of day and 18 day of week during whlch the shipment occur The proposed rule had also considered such 20 factors as terrain, physical features, weather conditions 21 and effectiveness of local emergency planning, but these 22 were deleted from the final rule for specific stated 23 reason The influence of terrain and physical features on 24 public risk from transportation is reflected in documented sj 3 25 accident rates of the alternate roadway Since these are
.-- - -
9320'05 12 126 (WRBagb 1 only two of several factors which may contribute to overall
~.;[d 2 highway accident rates, the Department didn't believe they
.3 should be singled out for consideration by the carrie Similarly, chronic weather conditions, chronic 5 winter snowfall or ice conditions are reflected in overall
.6= highway accident rate Short-term weather conditions, on 7 the other hand, are a factor for which the carrier can't l
8 control, the carrier has little advance knowledge of and
,
9 which can change during the course of a single shipment; 10 therefore, consideration of short-term weather conditions 1 would be speculative at bes And insofar as determining the effectiveness of
- g 13 local emergency planning, this was necessarily such a
'
14 subjective judgment that the carriers would lack the
15 necessary information and indeed any determination made on 16 that would be subject to opinio The Department stated that effective emergency 18 response planning is an activity that all communities should 19 be involved in and to further this the preamble to the rules 20 also cited several Federal efforts to assist communities in 21 this are And I might add that this is indeed an area where
- 23 there has been increasing activity, not only by DOT but by
, 24 many of the other Federal agencies since the time of the () 25 publication of HM-164 as the final rul /im/ WRBagb 1 The last major change to the proposed general 2 routing rule involved the replacement of the phrase " routes 3 that risk radiological route exposure to the fewest persons" 4 with the phrase that is in the final rule " routes that 5 minimize radiological risk." ,
6 The basic goal of the general routing rule is 7 risk minimizatio While limiting exposure to the fewest 8 people possible is one element of overall risk reduction, it 9 is not the only consideration; ceveral other factors, not 10 merely the number of people exposed, must be considere Now my paper goes on with further comments and I 12 will leave you to read those to yourself, this is more of a 13 detailed history of what went into the rule, (m)
v *
. 14 The general routing rule applies to thousands of 15 shipments involving relatively low hazard 16 radiopharmaceuticals and other medical / industrial isotope Their transportation frequently involves multiple pick-ups 18 and deliveries, interchanges with other modes of transport 19 and comingling with non-hazardous materials on the same 20 vehicl A general routing rule which can accomodate such a 21 great number of shipments and such a complex transportation 22 environment necessarily involves some vaguenes By 23 adoption of the general routing rule, DOT intended to guide 24 motor carriers by specifying those important factors to be ry ( ,/ 25 considered in evaluating a number of available group . _ - - _ _
_ - _ - . - - _ _ _ . - . - -- . _ _
.
~9320H05 14 128 WRBagb' 1 While the general routing rule engendered a great 2 deal of public comment, clearly the most controversial 3 feature of HM-164 was the establishment of specific routing 4 requirements for large quantity radioactive materia Now 5 in a subsequent rulemaking the term "large quantity" was !
'6 changed to " highway route controlled quantity." This
!
7 revision was necessary to ensure the compability of the HMR
.
8 with the latest revised international standards for 9 transport of radioactive material While there are some 10 difference between values for large quantity and highway 11 -route controlled quantity, the differences don't materially 12 affect the implementation of HM-164.
i 13 Under 164, specific routing requirements were j 14 established for highway shipments of highway route i 15 controlled quantity radioactive material such as spent 16 nuclear fue Briefly stated, the specific rule requires
,
l 17 carriers of -- I'm going to say spent nuclear fuel, it's a 18 much shorter phrase -- carriers of spent nuclear fuel to 19 operate over interstate system highways selected to reduce
,
20 time in transit except where an available interstate system 21 beltway or bypass allows them to avoid urban center Carriers are allowed off the interstate system only under 23 the four specific circumstances described in the rule: the 24 first being to follow a state-designated alternate route; () 25 second, in docunented case of emergency; to make necessary
.-
_
9320 05 15 129
. WRBagb 1 stops for fuel, rest and vehicle repair; and finally, to 2 travel to and from a pickup or delivery site not located on 3 the interstate system highwa Now clearly a state-designated alternate route is 5 something I am going to be discussing in more detai In 6 the other cases, to pickup and deliver materials, for rest, 7 fuel stops and emergency, the rule which the carriers must 8 follow is the general routing rule which I described 9 befor If it is necessary to leave the interstate system, 10 it's not a case of all bets are off, there is a rule which
-
11 applies and it is the general routing rule which applies to 12 other placarded shipment Again, in the paper you will be
-
13 able to see some of the comments and the determination that 14 went into the decision to use'thi Generally DOT has discussed the technical basis 16 for its reliance on the interstate system of highways and 17 generally the designation of these highways is based on an 18 overall performance rating with respect to lower accident 19 rates and the capacity for reducing transit tim The less 20 time the stuff is in transit, the less time for the 21 possibility of an accident; the more circuituous and lengthy
'
22 the route, the longer it is in transit and the greater the 23 period of time during which an accident could occu For the most part, public comment expressed () 25 support for the proposal and also for the related provision
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
9320 05 16 130 f- WRBagb 1 allowing states the prerogative of modifying the preferred
-
2 status of interstate highways by designating other roads as 3 acceptable alternative Now I would like to turn to the process of state 5 designation of alternate preferred route, and I would like 6 to start by saying that a state routing agency is defined as 7 any entity which is authorized to use state legal process to 8 impose routing requirements enforceable state-wide on 9 carriers of radioactive materials without regard to 10 interstate boundaries and it specifically includes Indian 11 tribal authorities which have lease powers to regulate and 12 enforce highway routing requirements within their lan That specific language is included in the definition of 14 terms that's contained ~ in the HM Therefore, when I 15 continue to talk about state-designated roads and state 16 routing agencies, think of me as using state and the more
,
17 generic political science terminology of a self-governing
18 polipy as opposed to the more limited sense of one of the
, 19 50.
- 20 The DOT recognized when we adopted the rule 21 requiring the use of interstate systems that not all 22 segments of the interstate system highway were of equal I
23 caliber, that indeed there were areas where non-interstate 24 routes provided much preferable alternate route DOT () 25 further acknowledged that the task of identifying preferable
9320 05 17 131 WRBagb 1 alternative local routes was best performed by the state and 2 developed a mechanism for state designation of alternate 3 route Many commentors felt that local governments
,
5 should be responsible for routing within their 6 jurisdictio First they argued that local governments have 7 the primary responsibility for protecting the health and 8 safety of their citizens and therefore they should determine 9 whether routes through their jurisdictions were acceptable 10 and they argued that as route selection was a site-specific 11 project, local officials were the most knowledgeabl However, the Department saw both practical and
,g 13 safety problems associated with placing ultimate routing V
14 authority in the tens of thousands of local jurisdictions in 15 this countr The Department noted that local jurisdictions 16' are inherently limited with respect to events, we clearly 17 know'now from Mayor Smith's talk this morning; because they 1,8 are accountable only to their own citizens, local
'
19 governments may not take sufficient account of the adverse L 20 impacts of their decision And uncoordinated unilateral 21 restriction would simply not be conducive to safety, indeed,
22 it was the proliferation of these that caused us to develop
!
- 23 164 in the first place.
! 24 Further, the Department believed that state
( )- 25 governments could provide the key to ensuring that that the L
0320 05 01 132
[3 WRBwrb 1 governments would provide the key to ensuring that the V safest routes were used to transport high-level radioactive
3 material A state government has a much broader 4 perspective than local governments because it is responsible 5 for the safety and welfare of all its communitie A state 6 cannot only assess the safety impacts of a routing decision 7 on all communities but can also address the concerns of 8 tunnel, turnpike and bridge authoritie States thus have the capability, through existing 10 administrative and lawmaking procedures, to incorporate 11 local input directly into their routing analyse At the 12 same time, states have the capability of working with the 13 federal government and are familiar with implementing 14 regulations under a variety of federal program Now, clearly, there is concern among local 16 governments who commented that there be some protection to 17 ensure that they would have this input into the process, and 18 that there be some assurance that routing decisions be made 19 on an objective basis, and, therefore, the definition of 20 what constitutes a valid state designated route -- the 21 definition which appears in the regulation -- addresses 22 these factor A state designated route means a preferred route 24 which was selected on the basis of a comparative safety () 25 analysis, either an analysis using the guidelines which DOT
c320 05 02 133 WRBwrb 1 had developed for the purpose or an equivalent 2 routing methodolog But it must be a routing analysis 3 which adequately considers overall risk to the publi Moreover, designation of the alternate route must 5 have been preceded by substantive consultation with affected 6 local jurisdictions as well as any other affected states 7 in order to ensure consideration of all safety impacts, and 8 also for the more practical reason of. assuring continuity of 9 the designated rout There is no requirement for DOT approval of a 11 state designated rout I'm going to address the approval 12 process more in my next paper, but that point cannot be made g 13 of ten enoug Now, HM-164 has a number of other provisions 15 requiring additions to the shipping papers, requiring a 16 placard with a white background to be easily identified as a 17 shipment that was under route contro There were 18 requirements that were added for ensuring that drivers 19 receive training which was appropriate, training not only in 20 the requirements of the federal safety rules but properties 21 and hazards of the radioactive material being transported, 22 and the procedures to be followed in case of an accident or 23 other emergenc Finally, HM-164 requires that motor carriers n
(_) 25 transport shipments of spent fuel in compliance with a
- _ = - __ - _ - . . - . - - . . _- . -
c320'05 03 134 WRBwrb 1 physical protection plan established by the shippe Now, 2 these are the physical security regulations which were i 3 discussed earlie And, again, this is an area where DOT i
4 and NRC will intersec And we'll be discussing that 5 late But I wanted to mention that as a feature that was 6 considered in 16 Now, I mentioned the appendix to the rul The 8 appendix to the rule, which is now the appendix to Part 177 9 of Title 49, is not a regulation, it does not impose 10 obligations to the act; it is a policy statemen And in it 11 the Department sets forth its policy on how it would 12 interpret the pree.mptive effect of HM-164 on state and local 13 routing rule It was not meant to be a regulation but, 14 rather, to provido guidance to state and local governments 15 contemplating rulemaking action as to the likelihood of such 16 action being deemed inconsisten So it was meant to have 17 advance guidance to let the world know how we intended --
18 how we expected to interpret the preemptive effect of this 19 regulatio Appendix A contains a number of specific examples
. .
21 of types of regulatory activities that would generally be 22 considered inconsisten I've listed some of them in my 23 paper, and you can refer to that, and also to the appendix 24 itself, of course, directly for more detail.
-
() 25 Now, following the adoption of HM-164 and the
.
- , ~ - . . - . - - -. -. - . - - - - . - - , , , , - , - . . _ - _ . - - - - - - . . , ,-, -
n320 05 04 135 WRBwrb 1 flurry of litigation that it prompted, the question 2 inevitably arose as to the consistency or inconsistency of 3 specific state and local rules on transportation of 4 radioactive material More than a dozen inconsistency rulings 6 proceedings have been initiated since that tim And in 7 November of 1984 the Department issued nine related 8 inconsistency rulings, all dealing with state and local 9 restrictions in Michigan, New York and Vermont which had 10 effectively blocked the transportation of spent fuel which 11 Canada was treaty-bound to return to the United State Indeed, this is the situation Mr. Rimawi was describing this
.
13 mornin ~
14 Those rulings expanded and refined DOT's, earlier 15 statement on what it regards as appropriate or inappropriate 16 matters for state and local regulatio A review of the
'
17 f findings of those rulings should provide a better 18 understanding of DOT's view of the regulatory role of state 19 and local governments, and it will also reveal what might be 20 anticipated in future inconsistency ruling Rather than deal with each one separately, since 22 they have so much in common, I'm going to very quickly go 23 over the kinds of regulatory provisions that were dealt with 24 and what our ruling wa You can read it at more length in
,.
_
) 25 the pape r
'
0320 05 05 136 WRBwrb 1 On the question of definition, regulatory
2 definition of radioactive material, a number of 3 jurisdictions established their ow In many earlier l
4 inconsistency rulings, DOT has said without question that 5 the federal role in hazard class definition is exclusiv If there is to be any meaning to system of safety 7 regulation, there must be a common vocabulary; we cannot l 8 have the same words defined differently in different I
9 jurisdiction Therefore, especially in an area involving 10 high-risk, or perceptions of great danger, it is clearly l 11 critical that there be a common languag And, therefore, 12 any state or local requirement which involves a different
, 13 definition we would find to be inconsistent.
,
O 14
-
Now, in terms of a different approach, assertion 15 of an intent to regulate, all seven jurisdictions either 16 implied or expressly stated an intention to regulate the 17 transportation of radioactive material We found that 18 there was no reason to find this inconsistent; indeed, the 19 way the HMTA was composed, it left the congressional intent 20 clear in drafting; it makes it beyond question that Congress 21 intended there should be a role for state and local
22 governments in the regulation of hazardous materials 23 transportation and safet So a mere assertion of intent to 24 regulate creates no proble () 25 With prenotification and permit requirements, a
.__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __
0320 05 06 137
?~xWRBwrb 1 different view was take Where the state and local U 2 prenotification requirement was the same as the federal 3 requirement, the provision was found to be, in effect, an l
4 adoption of the federal rule and, therefore, consisten Where it differed from the federal requirements, either by l 6 requiring the same information to be submitted to different 7 parties or by requiring submission of additional 8 information, documentation and/or certification, it was 9 found to be inconsisten In reaching these findings, DOT relied on the 11 exiressed congressional intent in enacting the preemption 12 provision ". . .tc preclude a multiplicity of state and local g3 13 regulations and the potential for varying as well as V conflicting regulations in the area of hazardous materials
15 transportation."
16 This nationally uniform system of highway routing 17 would be completely nullified if interstate carriers of 18 radioactive materials were unable to proceed until they had 19 satisfied the infinitely diverse advance notification and 20 permit application requirements of every jurisdiction along 21 the route to be travele There are also provisions dealing with additional 23 equipment, personnel, escort Again, we took the samo 24 approach as with the prenotification and permits.
() 25 A more serious one was additional packaging and
c320 05 07 138 J-x WRBwrb 1 container requirement In one case, a state agency imposed G
2 additional design and test criteria on shipping casks used 3 to transport spent fuel over certain major bridges and 4 waterway Asserting that federal standards were inadequate 5 to meet local conditions, the state chose this method to 6 overcome the perceived federal inadequac In prior rulings the Department firmly establish 8 the exclusve federal role in hazardous materials containment 9 system The unilateral imposition of design changes on a 10 shipping container as complex as a spent fuel case is 11 incompatible with safe, efficient transportatio If, as the state alleged, the federal standards
,3 13 are inadequate, there are other alternatives to the L) .
There is, of 14 imposition of independent design requirement course, a petition for a waiver of preemption which I 16 mentioned before, the preemption determination, there is a 17 petition for rulemaking seeking to have the federal standard 18 changed, or there is the designation of alternate highway 19 routes which avoid the major bridges or the areas of risk 20 which were alleged by the stat So for these reasons the additional design and 22 test requirements were allowed to be deemed inconsisten Finally, in two cases state requirements included 24 express provisions regarding the inspection of radioactive O)
( 25 materials transport to ensure compliance with applicable
[
c320 05 08 139
,7 m WRBwrb 1 state and federal law While noting that a state rule was (
2 applicable only if it is not inconsistent, the Department 3 found that such prgivisions
, represented a legitimate 4 exercise of the state's inherent police power State enforcement of federal and consistent state 6 regulations on radioactive materials transportation is a 7 critical element of a regulatory system of national 8 applicabilit Accordingly, both provisions for state 9 inspection were found to be fully consistent with the HMTA 10 and the federal regulation In conclusion, the Department has devoted several 12 years to developing HM-164 and to defending it against c 13 various challenges to its validit To date, no evidence g
14 has been presented which rebuts the Department's conclusion 15 that, when federal rules are complied with, high level 16 radioactive waste can be transported over any interstate 17 highway and most other comparable routes, with a confident 18 level of safet As I said, much of what I spoke of in the first 20 paper is going to be relevant to the second topic which I 21 will introduce now; and that is how the DOT and NRC routing 22 rules work together, the merger of transportation safety and 23 physical security requirement There are three principal areas of regulation () 25 which are addressed by both agencies: packaging and
a320 05 09 140 WRBwrb 1 container standards, highway routing, and physical 2 protectio And I'll discuss each of thes The packaging requirement and certification, of 4 course, was discussed by Mr. MacDonald in this morning's 5 sessio DOT and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission e.xercise 6 their respective regulatory authority over radioactive 7 material in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding 8 which was signed by the two agencies six years ag This Memorandum of Understanding provides that 10 DOT will develop design specifications and performance 11 requirements of packages of radioactive materials other than 12 fissile materials, not exceeding Type A quantities, and for 13 low specific activity radioactive material It further O)
\,
'
14 provides that NRC will develop safety standards for design 15 and performance of packages for fissile materials and for 16 quantities of radioactive materials, other than low specific 17 activity material, exceeding Type A limit In developing their rules, each agency agreed to 19 act in consultation with the othe Or, to put it in 20 simpler terms, given the expertise of the NRC with the 21 high-level radioactive material, as opposed to DOT's 22 experience in regulating the transportation of lower levels 23 of radioactive material, this appeared to be a reasonable 24 division of. responsibility to ensure that there would not be 25 duplicato -- or, worse -- conflicting regulatory ( })
a
.
0320 05 10 141 WRBwrb 1 requirements, that indeed there would be one federal rule, 2 and each of the two bodies working together would ensure a 3 single federal standar Spent nuclear fuel is fissile material which 5 exceeds Type A limits and muut be transported in a Type B 6 packag Therefore, in accordance with the Memorandum of 7 Understanding, the regulations governing the design and 8 performance of Type B packages are set out by the NR The NRC packaging standards are contained in Part 10 71 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations and cover 11 licensing and approval of package designs, as well as safety 12 standards, tests and quality assuranc It also places a 13 specific requirement on each NRC licensee who transports O 14 licensed material to comply with the applicable requirements 15 of the DOT regulations.
I 16 The DOT regs contain a similar provisio Packaging regulations are contained in Part 173 of the 18 Hazardous Materials Transportation reg and they authorize 19 the use of Type B packages which meet the NRC standards of 20 Part 71 and which have been approved by the NR An exception to this requirement involves 22 packaging made by or under the direction of the 23 U. S. Department of Energ Because DOE is not subject to 24 the licensing requirements of the NRC, it is not therefore () 25 subject to the packaging standards contained in those
__
_ _ _ _ _ . - ___
c320 05 11 142 WRBwrb 1 regulation Therefore DOT adopted a requirement to address 2 this matte Under that regulation, packagings made by or 4 under the direction of DOE may be used for transportation of 5 radioactive material when they have been evaluated, approved 6 and certified by DOE against packaging standards equivalent 7 to the NRC standards, and by a method of evaluation which is 8 equivalent to that used by the NR Mr. Rawl spoke of this much better, since it is 10 his field, this mornin I will only use this, then, as an 11 echo of the much more expert description that he provided us 12 with.
,s 13 But that, in effect, is the way the DOT and the C-) 14 NRC packaging rules work togethe The routing requirements, of course, I have just 16 discussed in my first pape A motor carrier of highway 17 route controlled quantity is responsible for preparing a 18 written route pla At the time the rules were adopted, DO 19 recognized the interest of shipper in routing decisions and 20 acknowledged that shipper would be very influential in the 21 final selection of route Nevertheless, we emphasized that carriers remain 23 the party with ultimate responsibility for compliance with 24 the routing plan requirement and, because of this, carriers () 25 were cautioned to carefully evaluate any route plan
,
._
c320 05 12 143 WRBwrb 1 submitted for adoption by other partie This caution is particularly relevant for 3 carriers of spent nuclear fuel because under the NRC 4 regulations on physical protection, the licensee, not the 5 carrier, is responsible for submitting a route plan for 6 advance approval by the NR Whether developed by the carrier or by the 8 licensee, a highway route plan must comply with the 9 requirement in HM-164 to select preferred routes which 10 reduce time in transit, except where an interstate bypass or 11 beltway around a city is availabl I should not, however, that the DOT rules do 13 allow deviations when necessary to comply with NRC 7-s b 14 safeguards requirement . 15 " Preferred route," of course, is an Interstate 16 system highway for a state designated alternate rout I've 17 discussed the exceptions and when the general routing rule 18 applie When such deviations from a preferred route is 20 necessary, the transporters select their routes in 21 accordance with the general routing rul There are other factors which also must be 23 considere Deviations from preferred routes which are 24 predictable must be included in a transporter's route plan.
() 25 After a route has been selected in accordance
c320 05 13 144 WRBwrb 1 with the requirements -- and I have not read all of them:
2 that level of detail is better read than heard -- a written 3 route plan must be prepared containing a statement of the 4 origin and destination points, the highway routes to be 5 used, all planned stops, and estimated departure and arrival 6 times, and the telephone numbers which will access emergency 7 assistance in each state to be entere Again, I will say there is no requirement for DOT 9 approval of the route pla There is, however, a 10 requirement for NRC approva The purpose of the NRC approval is to ensure that 12 the proposed route does not include any segment where the 13 physical security of the shipment might be compromise O- 14 While both the DOT and NRC regulations are concerned with 15 protecting the public from exposure to radiological risk, 16 the DOT rules address risks which are inherent in the 17 transportation of this hazardous materia The NRC rules 18 address the risks of deliberate interference with the 19 shipmen While NRC's regulatory concerns may be 21 distinguished from those of DOT, the two are, nonetheless, 22 clearly related and must be considered togethe It is for 23 this reason that DOT included the provision in HM-164 24 permitting variation from the DOT routing requirements for () 25 security purposes so far as necessary to meet the
,
!
_, - . . . --- - . _ . - . . _ - . _ _ - . _ , , _ - . . . - - _ _ - - . - -
.
c320 05 14 145 WRBwrb 1 requirements of the physical security pla However, we're 2 not aware of any instance to date where a shipment of spent 3 fuel has had to deviate from the requirements of HM-164 for 4 this reaso Nevertheless, the contingency has been 5 provided fo Now, Mr. Nulsen, who will be speaking after me, 7 will be describing the process of route survey, and he will 8 specifically go into the approval -- the NRC approval of the 9 rout But I want to state once again that DOT does not 10 approve route selectio The physical protection requirements were 12 discussed by Mr. Sawyer this mornin I will note that the G DOT regulations require a shipper of spent nuclear fuel to (_) 14 provide physical protection in compliance with a plan 15 established under the requirements prescribed by the NRC or 16 equivalent requirements approved by DO Again, the second 17 provision assures coverage of those persons who are not NRC 18 licensee In conclusion, the DOT and the NRC regulations 20 applicable to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel have 21 been developed through close consultation to ensure 22 consistency of federal safety standard The DOT has given 23 great attention to the issue of consistency among federal, 24 state and local safety regulations, and I would like to () 25 assure you that no less attention has been devoted to
._. _ _ __ . . - - - _ _ _ . . _ - - . _ .
c320 05 15 146 WRBwrb 1 ensuring the same degree of consistency among federal 2 agencie Thank yo (Applause.)
5 MR. COOK: Thank you, Elaine, for that clarifying 6 discussio I would now like immediately to introduce
-
8 Mr. Charles Nulsen, NRC Division of Safeguards, who will 9 give a presentation on NRC practices in the approval of 10 spent fuel routing for safeguards purpose ,
11 Mr. Nulse MR. NULSEN: Thank you, Joh (Slide.)
O 14 I would like to warn you before we start the 15 presentation that I appear to present the route survey 16 procedures of NRC, and not the requirement I'm going to 17 talk about a very narrow band of NRC safeguards 18 responsibility and not the broader responsibilities that I 19 think you have heard other speakers talk abou (Slide.)
21 Within the Division of Safeguards I have been the 22 man responsiole for route survey I have also been the 23 man responsible for the route approval And I have to 24 reflect back on an earlier speaker this morning, the () 25 Honorable Robert Smith of Piscataway, and I'm about to tell
.
c320 05 16 147 WRBwrb 1 you I've had a lot of conversations with Bob Smit In
'
2 listening to him, I couldn't help be a little concerned, 3 during the lunch hour, as to whether I was the manure 4 spreader or the take-charge gu I hope it was the latte (Laughter.)
6 The route surveys by NRC are made to fulfill a 7 regulatory obligation under 10 CFR 73.3 And, of course, 8 as has been indicated before, that is a safeguards 9 regulation and not safety, although the two are intertwined 10 to a certain extent, and a lot of the safeguards 11 requirements do have some safety effect The NRC requirements require, among other things, 13 two things that we're concerned with right now: one is s
O 14 advance approval of routes, the other is advance 15 arrangements with the local law enforcement agencie (Slide.)
.
17 The approval of routes is based upon the DOT 18 routing rule; that is, we look at Interstates and state 19 designated route The advance arrangements with the 20 local law enforcement agencies is another requirements, and 21 I bring it up at this time because these arrangements are 22 made during our route surve The route survey starts with an NRC licensee 24 writing in to us to ask for a route approva And in his () 25 letter requesting the route approval he does detail certain
c320 05 17 148 WRBwrb 1 dat The licensee gives us the amount of spent fuel and 2 the types, whether it is BWR or PWR or research reactor 3 fuel; he lists the casks to be used, and he lists the 4 route And generally the routes are indicated by "Take 5 I-80 to I-91 and go south on I-91 to I-95." Please don't 6 try to follow me on a regular map, you'd get los But the point is that the proposed routes usually 8 come in in a written form as opposed to a map with the 9 routes outline The licensee also gives us the time and dates of
. 11 shipment And I think, as has been indicated before, those 12 times and dates of shipments are safeguards information, and 13 they're safeguarded until ten days after the shipment is O 14 completed or af ter a series of shipments is complete (Slide.)
16 Going back to the last slide, the licensee
'
17 generally has to give us enough time to conduct a route 18 survey and get it approved so that he can notify the 19 governors of states it goes through seven days ahead of 20 tim Part of the requirements for a licensee is to 22 have contingency plannin Part of the contingency planning 23 is making contact and advance arrangements with the LLEA, 24 the local law enforcement agencie These contacts are made () 25 by telephone prior to the surve Generally speaking, if we
_ - - - - _.
9320 06 01 149 f3WRBwrb 1 are going to conduct our first route survey in a state, we (l 2 will not only contact the LLEA but the listed governor's 3 representatives; and it depends upon him whether we notify 4 them on subsequent surveys, as to whether we do tha We schedule meetings along the routes with the 6 local police, and the meeting is a get-acquainted visit and 7 a briefing we give the state police, or they give u And 8 in at least one instance when I made the survey I was quite 9 surprised, we had an appointment to meet the chief of the 10 state highway patrol up in Pennsylvania, and generally you 11 just walk into his office and you have a pleasant 12 discussio But he had his whole troop waiting for us in a 13 little auditorium there, and he said "Would you mind giving 7-V) 14 a briefing to my people?"
15 So we perform that service as well as getting 16 acquainted and discussing his capabilitie (Slide.)
18 Now I have outlined a sort of step-by-step 19 procedure that we follo During the pre-survey actions, of course, we 21 receive a letter from the licensee asking for our approva As indicated earlier, we make our contacts with the 23 LLE And we have a file in our office of all the contacts 24 we've made for the six years we've been doing this, and it () 25 is pretty much an up-to-date fil And if we have never
- - - _
9320 06 02 150-hmWRBwrb 1 been in the state, we insist that we come in and have a (_)s 2 mutual briefin If we have been in the state previously 3 and the person we contact is someone we have known and we ,
4 have talked with -- and we do have frequent telephone 5 conversations with these state police -- we ask him if 6 anything has changed that might preclude an actual
-
7 on-the-ground visi The route survey, the actual route survey is now 9 being conducted by staff in the NRC region Up to two 10 years ago, the NRC headquarters staff actually conducted the 11 survey And when I say " conduct the survey," you get in a 12 rent-a-car with a radio-telephone and actually ride the g3 13 proposed rout We found that it was more effective and
'
L_)
14 cost-beneficial to have the staff in the regions that are 15 already out there run the surve They collect the data for 16 us, and it comes in in written form and we put it together 17 when we are assessing whether we will approve the route or 18 no The actual survey itself is a two-man surve We 20 have a driver and an observer, or note-take The observer 21 also runs the radio-telephon We have a radio-telephone 22 along so that we can indicate the dead spots in 23 communication along the rout We have an AT&T 24 radio-telephone directory, and as we approach a city where () 25 there is an operator, we try fif ty miles out, forty miles
,
9320 06 03 151
~
WRBwrb 1 out, thirty miles out, until we get good receptio But the 2 radio-telephone communication spectrum is part of the data 3 we collec We also take note of safe havens: that is where a 5 truck can go in case of emergency, either a mechanical 6 emergency or maybe he feels that somebody is following hi And the safe havens are generall weigh stations, state 8 highway maintenance compounds, the visitors' areas that many 9 states have, picnic area But we also try to make the safe 10 havens someplace where there is a telephon We also note and locate fuel and food stop That's a matter of convenience for the carrie f 13 We make a highway analysi A highway analysis 14 not a safety analysi We try to find'out where there is 15 construction, we try to find out places on the highway where 16 the truck might have to stop or slow down; and the reason we 17 do that is that we feel if a truck has to stop or slow down 18 it makes it more vulnerable to any attempt at hi-jackin I indicated how we test the communication Then during our LLEA contacts we have a little 21 checklist and we ask the state police their capabilities in 22 an emergency, whether they have radiological teams l
23 available, are their people trained to react to radiological
!
i 24 emergencies, whether they have helicopters available for () 25 communication And we note all thi .
.. _ . . .. . .
-.
9320 06 04 152 WRBwrb 1 Now, what is the final product of this route 2 survey?
3 Well, the final product really is about a 15- to 4 20-page. document, such as the one I have her The 5 . document has with it a summary of LLEA response 6- capabilities, it lists and locates all the safe havens, it 7 lists and locates all the fuel and food stops, it gives the 8 routing with the mileag The routes are done on a strip 9 map type thin It also gives all the LLEA telephone
'10 numbers and.the communications capabilities; it draws a
. 11 little arrow where there are dead spots and where the 12 commnications is goo Now, what do we do with this final document?
O 14 The final action we take is the NRC letter of 15 route approva If we approve the route we indicate up 16 front that it is approve We also give a few caveat One 17 is that highway safety is a licensee and carrier 18 responsibilit We also have a little note there to remind 19 the licensee of their obligation to notify the governors or 20 the governors' designee in the states that they cros And, 21 of course, we also reiterate the fact that dates and times 22 are safeguards informatio The final package of approval is our little strip 24 map, and we attach this to the letter of approval, and this () 25 can be used by the carrier for the driver's emergency
- ._
-- . - - - - . - - --
- - . - -. - _- . .- .- _.. -
9320 06 05 153 WRBwrb 1 response procedure Now, that is our procedure that NRC uses for the 3 spent nuclear fuel route survey (Applause.)
5 Thank you, Chuck, for your remarks and your 6 experience'with routing approval ' I would now like to introduce our next speaker, 8 Mr. John Allen, formerly with the Department of 9 Transportation and now with Columbus Laboratorie MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Joh (Slide.)
12 First of all, I would like to thank NRC and DOT
- ,f g . 13
,
for asking me here today to give this presentatio *
\_/
14 This study entitled: The Assessment of State and 15 Local Notification Requirements for Transportation of l 16 Radioactive and other Hazardous Material This study was l
17 conducted by the Battelle organization, Battelle HARC, 18 located in Seattle,in conjunction with Battelle Columbus t
19 Laboratories, principally for the U.S. DOT with 20 participation by Sandia National Laboratories, l
21 (Slide.) ;
22 Now, there are a number of reasons why DOT was 23 interested in pursuing the issue of notificatio First,
-64 24 as we all know, there has been a grown of notification () 25 requirements during the last ten or twelve years, and there D
.. - _
9320 06 06 154 WRBwrb 1 have been a lot of arguments put forth and reasons for 2 having shipment-specific information ahead of time at the 3 state and local leve My own feeling is that it really 4 boils down to two positions: the advocates focus on the need 5 for informatio There are a lot of reasons why they want 6 this information which I'll get into in a moment, 7 but it really boils down to a need for information transfer 8 to the state and local level And this was made clear to 9 me personally from my three-year involvement as a project 10 officer when I was with DOT: it was hard to separate the 11 routing issues from the notification issues and the need for 12 more information at the state and local leve . 13 So there's no question about the sincerity of 14 state and local governments' desire for this informatio On'the other side of the fence, the opponents, 16 principally the regulated industries, shippers and carriers, 17 view this as a potential burden on commerc And so what 18 this boils down to is, DOT looked at the issue and decided 19 that it needed to have more information about the extent and 20 nature of the notification requirements, and requested a 21 stud The study really boiled down to two basic tasks, 23 and that was an inventory of the state and local laws and 24 some kind of analysi And it was stressed by DOT " Don' t () 25 get involved with the policy implications of the
- .
- - _ . -
. - .
!
9320 06 07 155 WRBwrb 1 notification issue, just try for a very straightforward 2 assessment of what's out there, what laws have been passed, 3 what did they say, and look at a couple of individual 4 notification laws in more detail, and see if it has any 5 meaning for DOT as a regulatory agency in handling this 6 issue."
7 The inventory consisted of-- This is the overall 8 stud We're trying to lead into a discussion here of spent 9 nuclear fue The overall study was very comprehensive: it 10 involved all state and local facility notification 11 requirements: that's every type of local government --
12 c>unty, municipality, township or what-eve Facilities gmg 13 included bridges, tunnels and turnpikes primaril It
. \._)
14 covered all hazardous material classe There are various 15 opinions on just how many hazardous material classes there 16 ar You can get Al Roberts' opinion, but I guess there are 17 about seventeen radioactive materials in one hazards clas And it really includes everything else -- co'.rosives, 19 inflammables, compressed gases, explosives, and so o And there are three types of notification 21 requirements that DOT asked us to look int One was 22 prenotification, which was the thing that most people are 23 talking about when they say notification: that's the advance 24 notice of shipment Also periodic notification, which is-( ) 25 an after-the-fact type of summary report on a monthly,
9320 06 08 156 17~ WRBwrb 1 annual or semi-annual liasi And also per-trip reporting, 4 -
2 which, again, is an aftar-the-fact report for each 3 individual shipmen .So we included all these notification 5 requirements in the analyri As far as the analysis, we looked at a number of 7 things: the purpose of the various state and local laws, the 8' form, timing, the commodities covered, and so o And then 9 we got into some of_the individual case studies where we 10 tried to look at some of the requirements in detai One 11 involved the NRC notification system: this has been touched 12 on already: and the other included about fourteen state and 13 local and facility case studie ~
14 The focus here today la on the NRC notification 15 syste (Slide.)
'
17 There are a couple of reasons why we looked in 18 detail -- or why DOT wanted to look in detail at the NRC 19 study. --excuse me; at the NRC notification syste First
'
,
20 of all, it's the only federal level shipment notification 21 syste Really that's a misnomer; it's actually a state 22 level notification system with oversight by a federal 23 agency, the NR The NRC really does not'become all that
'
24 involved in the notification process, it's really a matter () 25 of the licensees submitting information directly to the
9320 06 09 157 WRBwrb 1 state governments, with oversight provided by the NR The second reason is: the state and local 3 emphasis on nuclear as compared to other hazardous 4 material (Slide.)
6 We found about a total of -- or, exactly 136 7 notification requirements of various types throughout the 8 United States at all level These don't total up to 136, 9 but they give you an idea as far as commodities covered, and 10 where the emphasis lies from the state and local perspective 11 as far as laws that have been passe It's sort of like an inverse pyramid: you start 13 at the bottom considering all hazardous materials, which is O 14 the vast bulk of the materials being shipped -- gasoline, 15 compressed gases, propane, and everything else, and you only 16 have a very small number of state and local laws that cover 17 notification for those material And as you move up the 18 list here you get into waste of various types, and 19 radioactive materials, you have the hazardous wastes, and 20 it picks up a few mor (Slide.)
22 So as far as the case study, what we're going to 23 do is present very quickly, since we're in a little bit of a 24 time crunch, the background of the notification system, O 25 establish the shipment data base and review the shipping
9320 06 10 158 WRBwrb 1 experience under the system, and survey state implementation 2 and use of this data for the state survey, and then the 3 finding (Slide.)
5 I won't read all thi But the background of the 6 NRC notification rule starts with June 1980 when Congress 7 directed the NRC to develop a state and local notification 8 system for certain types of nuclear wast NRC put out the 9 notice in December of 1980, and the final rules were 10 promulgated in January of 198 They came up with two sets of rules: one, Part 71 12 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and Part 73 cs 13 on spent nuclear fuel. .They separated spent nuclear fuel
. ;
'
14 from other nuclear waste because of the security aspects of 15 schedule information relating to spent nuclear fuel, which 16 we'll get into in a momen As a matter of fact, the focus of this case study 18 is on Part 73, spent nuclear fue And the rules became
-
19 offective in July 198 (Slide.)
21 Many of you representing states are familiar with 22 the requirements because you see the notification But, 23 quickly, what is covered is spent nuclear fuel in 10 CFR 24 Part 73; not all spent nuclear fuel, but most of the spent I 25 nuclear fuel that is of concern to state government . - . . _ '
WRBwrb 1 To whom the notification goe Each state
'
2 through which the shipment will be mad It goes 3 specifically to the governor's designee; and, again, we'll 4 cover that later; and to the appropriate NRC regional 5 offic It must arrive four days before entry into the 6 state, so far as notification to the stat It is mailed 7 and must have a seven-day postmar Information that is require As you would 9 expect, identification of the parties involved --
10 the shipper, the carrier and the receiver; a description of 11 the material, as required by the DOT hazardous material 12 shipping requirements; identification of the origin and 13 destination; and the routes through each state, and, finally O 14 schedule inform'ation is require *
15 As you can see at the bottom, schedule 16 information is protected until at least ten days after the 17 shipmont is completed or the last shipment in a series is 18 complete Schedule information must include the actual 19 time of departure from the origin and the time of entry into '
20 the state, and must be accurate to within plus or minus six 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> Schedule updates may be made by phone, but it l
23 must be done using some kind of a code procedure to protect
.
! 24 the schedule in fo rma tio And cancellations must be made by
() 25 the licensee if the shipment does not take plac _ - .. . .. __ _ _ .
- - -
9320 06 12 160 WRBwrb 1 (Slide.)
2 As far as the shipment data base, what we're 3 really looking for, we're going back and looking at past 4 shipping experiences, trying to get a handle on which states 5 and which experience in handling notification so we can go 6 on to the state surve Two sources of informatio One is the NRC 8 Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, which was
, 9 just discussed, the route approval program and safeguards 10 regulations, and the DOT Research and Special Programs 11 Administration has a data bas.3 based on the route plans 12 that are required to be filed in accordance with HM-164 by 13 the shipper within ninety days after the shipmen And DOT 7_
~
14 has taken this information and computerized it, and that 15 information is used to cross-check NRC dat Most of the case studies involving spent 17 nuclear fuel covered a 20-month period from July 6, 1982, 18 which was the effective date of the rule, until April 1, 19 198 Two points on this, on the shipment data base, 21 are importan One is, it does not include non-NRC licensee 22 shipments, primarily Department of Energy contractor 23 research and development shipments, which are not NRC 24 licensees and therefore not subject to this rule, and, () 25 secondly, this does not include any shipping campaign that
9320.06 13 161 7 wWRBwrb 1 was under way at the time of the study, or had not been
.o 2 completed because of security requirements,-so therefore
'
3 does not include the West Valley shipments; which is a very 4 important thing to keep in mind, because -- well, think of 5 this whole presentation in terms of pre-West Valley, because 6 a lot of things have changed because of the West Valley 7 shipment (Slide.)
9 This is the gist of the data base that was 10 available for this 20-month time perio Looking at Column 1, for example, we have the 12 origins and destinations: there are six that are shown here, 13 and then there are all other There are quite a few other () 14 origins and destination As you can see, most of them
-
15 involve principally shipments to Idaho Falls or Aiken, South 16 Carolina, to federal facilitie Looking at the first one, Plattville, Colorado, 18 to Idaho Falls, Idaho, there were 36 shipments in this time
- 19 period.
i-l 20 The number of shipments in a series in Column 3 i
21 is very importants there's only on And the reason why 22 that is important is because the NRC's notification 23 requirements only require one notification per state for a
- 24 shipping campaign or a shipment series.
>
() 25 So, in other words, what the licensee does is i
.
9320 06 14 162 WRBwrb 1 provide a schedule to the states through which he'll be 2 travelling; and that is the notification, he doesn't have to 3 re-notify unless there's a schedule change And that's an 4 important thing to keep in mind because it substantially
. 5 lessens the burden that some people may think is placed on 6 the license So looking across to Column 4 and using the DOT 8 data base, we can identify the states through which the 9 shipment has passed from its origin to destinatio Column 5 is simply Column 3 times Column 4: the 11 number of shipment series times the number of states 12 involved will give you the total number of notifications for 13 each origin and destination poin And that's what we'r O 14 af ter, we're not af ter the shipments, we're af ter the total 15 number of notification Similarly, going down: Portsmouth, Virginia, to 17 Idaho Falls, there were 25 shipments going through 18 12. states, for a total of 204 notification And on down 19 the lin The totals, for a total of 134 shipments during 20 the 20-month period -- only an average of seven a month:
21 there were really not that many -- and a total of 355 22 notifications should have been received.
l 23 That's another point I wanted to mention: you can 24 never verify that the states actually receive the
.
(]) 25 notificatio Although personally I feel it's almost i
I i
9320 06 15 163 WRBwrb 1 impossible in today's shipping environment for licensees to 2 get away with not making notification, there was no way to 3 actually verify that the states did in fact receive the 4 notificatio But these are the number of notifications 5 that should have been receive (Slide.)
7 This displays the number of notifications and the 8 shipments by stat It's listed in rank order by the number 9 of notifications per stat And, again, we're looking at 10 Virginia, of course, is No. 1, Idaho, Ohio, Illinois, 11 Indiana and Iowa as the top si As a matter of fact, the 12 top ten really involve a major east-west route for many 13 of the shipments going from Portsmouth, which are import C:) -
14 shipments of spent nuclear fuel going over to Ida'ho Falls, 15 Idah Another reason for some of the states showing 17 up where they do is the major north-south shipments during 18 this time, and the Chalk River shipments, before they were 19 stopped and became subject to the inconsistency ruling that 20 Elaine discussed, involved a fair number of shipment And 21 that's why a number of eastern corridor states are liste i l
22 What we did was, we wanted to go talk to the
'
23 states that had most experience in receiving notification We went to the top 15 states, and they received 94 percent () 25 of the notification So we figured that was a pretty
'
_
___ _ - - _ _ _ _
i
!
9320.06 16 164
,
WRBwrb 1 comprehensive way of getting a handle on how the states were i
2 using the informatio So these 15 states became the ,
j 3 subject of a survey, much of which was conducted by a i 4 telephone.
5 (Slide.)
6 One point here is, as far as who to talk with i l
7 within a state, there are a lot of differences of opinion, j 8 as we all know, within a state on various issues, and it's
- 9 certainly true of notification for hazardous materials
!
!
) 10 shipment l
'
11 What we did was use the list of governors'
12 designees as published in the Federal Register in 1982, the
!
!
-
13 governor-designated individuals within certain agencies that i
!
i 14 were to receive notificatio And this just displays the l
l 15 breakdown of fif ty states and the agencies that received 16 these notification You see radiological health and ,
i
!
!
17 emergency response are the principal agencies, generic
- 18 agencies, to receive these notification i 19 At this point I want to say that those two 20 combined include 30 out of 50 states, and both those !
j
.
'
'
21 agencies have generic responsibility for emergency response i
- 22 or specific radiological responsibilities for emergency
.
'
- 23 respons So it's an indication by specific action taken by
'
24 states as far as designating the agency to receive the
]() 25 notification of where they place the importance of this
!
!
!
i I k
'
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _
9320 06 17 165
?^sWRBweb 1 notification information, and that is in the area of U 2 emergency respons (Slide.)
4 The quostions that were asked in the context of 5 the stato governments included savon area Wo were 6 interostod in hearing about the internal processing or the 7 administrative handling, what they normally do at the time 8 they got tho informations wo woro interostod in who they 9 subsequently notify once they got this information; the 10 method of communications what specific action is taken other 11 than filing information or subsequently contacting another 12 stato agoney; and then the last throot the benefits, the e3 13 problems, and unofulnoss involve opinions on the part of the U *
individual who was intarviewed.
.
15 (Slido.)
16 Theno aro the results of the study in a nutshel A lot can bo said about their responses, but not in the
'
18 timoframo wo'ro working with her As far as administrativo handling, a typical 20 proceduro would bo to log in, and all the states do that:
21 almhtallstatosmakoasubsequentnotificationsomowhoro, 22 and wo'll talk about that in a minut Most statos, 14 out i 23 of 15, file the informatio Ono state just destroyed it, 24 or at least exprossod that their policy is to destroy tho () 25 information ton days af ter the shipmont as no longer
,
.
l l 0320 06 01 166 i
1 neede Five out of the 15 states make periodic summaries ()WRBwrb
!
2 of some type to the governor's office or elsewhere, and only 3 4 out of 15 take other specific actions; for examplo, 4 escorts or inspection purpose The method of notificatio The states where the 6 enforcement type agency is receiving the information, these 7 are law enforcement computer system Mail is used by three 8 states, and some kind of secure teletype and telephone is 9 used by most of the other Two states did not have pass on 10 the notification information, so there is no response.
11 (Slide.)
12 As far as subsequent notifications; in other (]) 13 words, what the governor's designee did with the 14 information, who did he pass it on to, the first line should 15 read "To other state agencies but not locals." And there 16 were six states that fell into that categor They received 17 the information, say, emergency response would receive 18 it, they would pass that information on to the enfoccoment 19 type, to the public health type, or what-eve And that's 20 about as far as it would g And it's not distributed to 21 any lower leve Five states send the information to other state 23 agencies and some local government Some of these 24 governments include the local police, fire chiefs, county i
I O 25 emergency coordinators and country sheriff _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
c320 06 02 167 1 The principal reason for not passing the ()WRBwrb 2 information along from the states to the local levels, even 3 where specifically requested by various local officials, was 4 security, because of the schedule information in particula Now, other information could be sent along, but not 6 schedule information, because that has to be protecte Nevertheless, even the other information wasn't gonorally 8 sen't along unless requeste Two states provide the information to local units 10 within the same state agenc This usually occurs with 11 enforcement type agencie If the state police received it, 12 they would pass information on to the local subdivisions 13 along the route traveled, but that would be i And then (])
14 two states did not make any further notifications, they just
.
15 filed i (Slide.)
17 As far as specific action taken other than 18 filing or subsequent notification, eleven of the states 19 really took no specific action. --and this is specific 20 action on a routine basi Inspection The State of Illinois did use 22 information routinely for inspection They also used the 23 information for escort Several other states also planned 24 occasional escorts based on informatio Again, this is O 25 pre-West Valley type shipment And one state,
c320 06 03 168 A
- ) WRBwrb 1 South Carolina, used information for occasional route 2 compliance checks; they checked to see whether they were 3 following HM-164 route requirements or state route 4 requirement (Slide.)
6 As far as the benefits of notification 7 identified by state officials, we just asked what the 8 principal benefits were, we did not ask for first, second or 9 third choic But in cases where they responded, where 10 there was more than one choice, the information is displayed 11 in this matri It's pretty obvious that shipment awareness 12 and emergency response are far and away the primary benefits () 13 seen at the state level from shipment notificatio Shipment awareness in this context...It's more or 15 less a term -- I suppose you could come' up with another 16 terms we just came up with shipment awarenes It includes 17 the benefit of having knowledge of shipments taking place, 18 so the agency can respond quickly to inquiries from the 19 media, from the general public, or from whoever wants to get 20 informatio It was mentioned several times by different 21 state representatives that they believed that the shipment 22 awareness really enhances, actually enhances public 23 acceptability within their state to some extent, because it
_ 24 gave them the feeling that the state had somebody close to l
-
25 the people handling the information, and it wasn't a
_ _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
a320 06 04 169 1 far-away federal agency or entity making shipments under the ()WRBwrb 2 shroud of secrec Even though that may not be the case, 3 that's the kind of response we got from the state peopl Emergency response also was a major benefit
-
5 perceived for having this information ahead of tim (Slide.)
7 As far as problems with the NRC system, really 8 there were no serious problems that were identified by state 9 official Most of these are minor, are considered mino Schedule changes and updates were the primary ones, and the 11 reason for this is the one notification per shipment series 12 rul Obviously if you have a shipment series that lasts (]} 13 over two or three months, you're goi.ng to have some schedule 14 updates; and that happened fairly frequently, evidently, and 15 was identified by a number of state Another is non-licensee shipments that are not
.
17 covered under the rule, principally DOE shipment The notification period was thought not to be 19 adequate by two states: one thought it was too short, the 20 other thought it was too lon Lack of standard report format and the 22 administrative burde Six states did not identify any problems with the 24 syste The last question was really an overall opinion
.
a320 06 05 170 ('WRBwrb) 1 on the part of the governor's designee or the person who was 2 referred to by the governor's designee, generally if they 3 felt the information was usefu Twelve said yes, 4 definitely; we had two toward the middle, wavering, not 5 really sure, and then one actually said they didn't feel the 6 information was that usefu His name shall rbmain 7 confidential to protect his jo ( Laughte r. )
9 (Slide.)
10 Finally, the conclusions from this case study, 11 again, are a relatively straightforward assessment of 12 what's out there, and how states are using this ()
'
13 informatio There is really limited shipping experience, 15 there was only an average of 7 shipments per month during 16 the study perio So we have to keep that in min There
17 just haven't been that many shipments to really test the 18 system.
I 19 There is general support among the state program 20 officials for thi And, again, this whole study was done
,
21 from the perspective of state program officials; it was to 22 get an idea of how the people that had to administer the 23 notification requirements felt about the syste Third, states generally did not pass on O 25 notification information to local official , - , - - _
- - --. - _- - , - . - - . . . - . _ . . . . . .
m320 06 06 171 l)WRBwrb 1 Security is a primary concern because of the NRC 2 safeguards requirement The primary benefits are shipment awareness and 4 emergency repons Five, few states take specific action other than 6 filing or notifying other state agencie And, last, there has been little identifiable 8 burden on industry,so far, for two re'asons: one, there have 9 really not been that many shipments, and, secondly, the one 10 notification per shipment series rule really limits the 11 amount of paperwork and the coordination of on state 12 official () 13 Lastly, DOT is interested in following up on some 14 of the findings of the study: generally, the notification 15 issue and information gathering, or information transfer 16 from the federal to the state level on hazardous material 17 in general, including radioactiv And DOT and DOE are both 18 interested in further investigation of different ways --
19 identification of alternatives as a means to provide 20 hazardous materials shipment information withou 21 pre-notificatio This study did the first three on this 22 list, but there are other ways to collect in f o rma tion ,
23 including route plan filing, highway counts, weigh station'
24 counts, carrier studie Some of these have already been O 25 looked at in DOT demonstration projects for generalized
.
c320 06 07 172 ( ' )WRBwrb 1 materials, and they've been reported on with a fair amount 2 of success, and DOT and DOE programs are looking further 3 into these result Thank yo (Applause.)
6 MR. COOK: Thank you, John, for that very 7 interesting report on a very comprehensive stud I see that we are running behind schedul I 9 would like to ask at this time if Mr. Holden and Mayor Smith 10 would rejoin the panel for the panel discussion at this 11 tim We have a very brief opportunity for questions, ( 13 particularly from our state invited designees at this tim Please use the microphone, identify yourselves, 15 and to whom the question is directe MR. HARDEMAN: Jim Hardeman, State of Georgi My question is for Ms. Economide Do the provisions of HM-164 apply to private 19 carriers; in particular, DOE shipments with DOE vehicles and
2,0 DOE drivers?
21 MS. ECONOMIDES: In the case of DOE shipments 22 that are accompanied by their own personnel for security l
23 purposes, they are subject to HM-164 requirements under a
, 24 exemptio I discussed that at some length in the paper I i
l O'
25 gave.
l
- - . . . - .. - _ . - - . _ . - . - _- .._.-. :
c320 06 08 173 ()WRBwrb 1 MR. HARDEMAN: The second type, they are all 2 involved in physical protection requirements, assuming that 3 they use their own vehicles? _
'
4 MS. ECONOMIDES: It's not just the vehicles, it's
'
5 also the trained security personnel who go along with i ~
'
6 It is just a matter.of private carriage, but there are other 7 factors which are involve l I
8 MR. HARDEMAN: The statement that you have in l
- 9 there says 10 "Because federal agencies are not subject to 11 NRC licensing requirements, DOT i*ncluded in its routing 12 -
rules a requirement for equivalent physical protection !
() 13 to be developed for consignments from federal agencies :
14 when transported by for-hire carriers who are* subject l
! I l 15 to DOT regulation." I 16 I read that as saying if they transport their own l 17 and are not using for-hire carriers, they're exempt from 18 those physical protection requirement t 19 MS. ECONOMIDES: I can't commen This is ,
l 20 probably an area that is better answered by someone who is l
! 21 involved in the daily operation rather than by my attempting i
! 22 to give a legal interpretatio .
23 I'm afraid you stopped me on that on There are !
i 24 many people who are probably better qualified to respon ;
t i() 25 I'm afraid I have to plead ignoranc ;
i
_ . . - ~ _ . . . _ . . -.- - ._ - . ._ . _ . _ - _ . - - . - _ _ - - _ - - -
,
v l 0320 06 09 174 !
()WRBwrb 1 MR. MOBLEY: Michael Mobley, Tennesse A couple of question One of them may not be 3 answerable.
l l 4 Has there ever been a hi-jacking attempt of a l
l 5 spent nuclear fuel shipment? !
l j 6 MR. NULSEN: I don't keep track of those things, l
l
'
\
7 but there has been none brought to my attention that I know I
I 8 of.
l l 9 Did you say a highway hi-jack; is that what you l
10 said?
11 MR. MOBLEY: Ye !
12 MR. NULSEN Oka f () 13 .MR. MOBLEY: The second -- I guess I'll make a l- 14 statement out of it rather than a question -- is just to ;
!
15 point out safeguards -- as I understand it, safeguards is 16 not for protection of the public from the material, it's 17 protection of the material from terrorism or hi-jacking or !
18 sabotage or theft; it's not an item for protection of the 19 public from the materials being transporte !
20 MR. NULSEN: We safeguard the public against 21 radiological releas The safeguards is to prevent a group 22 of terrorists or somebody getting ahold of the cask and 23 blowing it u And the protection is against peopl MR. MOBLEY: I was always under the impression O 25 that safeguards was to protect special nuclear material
. _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _
_ _ ,
0320 06 10 175 ()WRBwrb 1 from terrorists rather than to protect people from the 2 material itsel MR. NULSEN: We protect unirradiated fuel against 4 theft, if that's what you're talking abou We protect the 5 spent fuel against radiological sabotage, and that is 6 against health effects of the peopl MR. MOBLEY: But the real concern is somebody 8 getting ahold of the materia MR. NULSENs Only unirradiate Now, it is true that we don't want a group of 11 terrorists to get ahold of spent fuel and take it someplace 12 else and sabotage i But it's against the radiological () 13 . effects against people that we're protectin MR. COOK: I'm afraid we have time for just one 15 more questio MS. QUIGG: I would like the record to show that 17 I considor the NRC and DOT answer to my spent fuel fire 18 standard question to be gobbledy-goo Since you say the cask can withstand a fire 20 of higher than 1475 degrees F., I would like to know if you 21 have conducted, performed fire tests with actual spent fuel 22 in casks to prove that spent fuel and their casks can 23 withstand fires of 2000 to 2200 degrees F., because those 24 are typical chemical fire temp 3rature O 25 As a matter of fact, the diesel fuel from cask
- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
i l
l i
c320 06 11 176
,,~,
- (_)WRBwrb 1 trucks burns at higher than 1475 degrees.
<
2 If you have conducted these tests, which
, 3 government documents should I refer to for records of those i
4 tests?
5 MR. COOK: I'm afraid we have to move on to the
, 6 panel discussion at this tim .
7 VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: No answer?
8 MS. QUIGG: Do I get an answer?
9 MR. COOK I believe the question will have to be 10 subsequentl , 11 MS. QUIGGs In addition to that question I would 12 like to know, since they say a cask can withstand higher
'
() 13
,
fire temperatures than 1475 degrees, I would like to know 14 where is your proof?
15 MR. COOK That's not a subject for this i 16 semina We'll have to move o I'm sorry.
l l
17 MS. QUIGG: I'm not reassured by this.
18 MR. KERR Wayne Kerr, NR I think if you could get ahold of the people that l
20 addressed that subject this morning, they'd be the more l
21 appropriate ones to give you some answer The panel that's up on the dias now cannot answer 23 the questio ,S 24 MR. COOK: The panel discussion on highway
\_)
25 routing issues will be moderated by Dr. Sherwood C. Chu from l
l w__-___--_____________-_________-__-____ - _ _ _ . _ ._. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)
c320 06 12 177 r'S ( j WRBwrb 1 DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials Regulatio Dr. Ch DR. CHU: Thank you, Joh You're doing such a 4 great job that -- and the fact that we're running out of 5 time, makes me wonder why we should be doing this-6 change-ove In any case, we do have some views re; resenting 8 the state and local governments as well as to Indian tribes 9 in reaction to the subject matter of this afternoon's 10 session on the routing of spent fuel transportatio The first speaker will be Mr. John W. Eaton, 12 Nuclear Operations Office of the Ohio Disaster Services () 13 Agency, and he will speak on behalf of the state governmen Mr. Eato MR. EATON: After listing to the speaker this 16 morning from the State of New York, I thought perhaps he 17 might have been using some of my notes because they were so 18 simila I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because all the 19 states share the same problem Also it was mado aware to me that the 21 perspectivos which I have some from a particular section of 22 governmen I don't have 611 the answers for other parts of 23 the government: the legislature obviously has their own g~ 24 motivos for doing what they do, and the executive branch (_)
25 also; but what I'm going to relato deals only with the
0320 06 13 178
/~T (_) WRBwrb 1 agency which I am affiliated with, the Disaster Services 2 Agenc We deal specifically with planning and response to 3 radiation accident In the last year in Ohio we saw a very 5 significant increase in the number of radioactive material 6 shipment Now, this was due to several factor The first 7 of them, of course, was the West Valley, New York, shipments 8 crossing the state, mostly all the way across from east to 9 wes Another factor involving shipments was our 11 prenotification legislation which we do have still in effect 12 in Ohi It has been challenged, but it's still in-effect () 13 right no It's under appea Hopefully it.will coincide 14 with the NRC requirement We do use it, and we are very 15 concerned -- our governor is specifically very concerned 16 about shipments of radioactive materia We think the 17 information which we receive under our prenotification law 18 and it's transmitted by computer, closed-circuit computer, 19 to the law agencies in the state, specifically the sheriffs 20 and the highway patrol post Also, the governor said he wanted the shipments 22 monitored; so we do tha We have people assigned for that 23 purpose no In fact, most everyone in the nuclear section 24 got a chance last fall to monitor some of these 209 O 25 shipment .
.
9320 07 01 179 ()WRBeb 1 The shipments from West Valley have caused a 2 great deal of concern, not only to the state but to local 3 communitie In the northeastern part of Ohio we had 4 several communities band together and introduce a lawsuit to 5 stop the nuclear shipments because they thought they weren't 6 prepare It was heard by a Federal District Court Judge 7 and he ruled that there was no standing, no legal standing 8 for the allegations that they presented, so that was thrown 9 ou That doesn't mean that everything is hunky-dory 11 within the State of Ohi We still have a lot of opposition 12 to shipments of radioactive material and proposed shipments () 13 of radioactive materia *
14 (Slide.)
15 Now not all of the 200 shipments which crossed 16 Ohio were from West Valle You can see a breakdown here of 17 the different types of materials shippe The only trouble 18 encountered by most of these high-level shipments that I can 19 remember, we had one flat tire, and one of the trailers 20 carrying radioactive material had one of the emergency 21 lights that was ou When a vehicle carrying radioactive material 23 enters the State of Ohio, it is stopped at the border and 24 monitored, and the Highway Patrol also performs inspection 25 of the vehicle, and.then they escort it across the stat _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ .
.
9320 07 02 180
-
(_) WRBeb 1 Our agency also has a response team, in case of 2 nuclear accidents, to respond to accidents throughout the 3 state.-
4 (Slide.)
S We have a training course for local responders 6 who respond to nuclear accidents which is incorporated in 7 the FEMA training and sponsored by them, by the federal
- 8 governmen And we teach that all across the stat Emergency responders of course are the first ones involved 10 at an accident scene, and are very interested in shipments 11 of this type, and other hazardous material We have been offering training in Ohio for a q_) 13 number of years for hazardous materials and specifically
_
14 radioactive materials, so we had a pretty good start before 15 these large shipments started coming acros One of the other concerns we had, some of our 17 state government officials are very distressed about the 18 high number of shipments they expect to cross Ohio due to 19 the temporary repositories in Tennessee that are going to be l 20 opene They think there are going to be great numbers of *
,
21 shipments crossing our particular state since we happen to I 22 be in a direct path from some of the other locations where t
l 23 fuel is now located.
! 24 In addition to that, the National Academy of I
'
] Sciencefreport indicates that there will be possibly
l
_ __ - -
9320 07 03 181
,-
(,) WRBeb 1 thousands of shipments of spent fuel when the permanent 2 repositories are opened, so I expect to see a lot of 3 legislation proposed and things of that nature in Ohio; not 4 necessarily that we agree with it, but it is for those 5 concerned citizens of Ohi (Slide.)
7 We have produced a radiological response plan for 8 transportation accidents in Ohio in accordance with FEMA-Aff-9 guidelines, FEMA Reg. For those of you who are familiar 10 with power plants it is kind of a NUREG-0654, for 11 transportation hazard And we have this in draft copie It has been reviewed by the Governor's office and accepte () 13 In this particular plan we have other state 14 agencies who are tasked with responsibilities dealing with
'
15 their particular expertise in order to cover any type of 16 radiological acciden It also outlines notification of the federal 18 sector to respond to the same type of accident (Slide.)
20 In addition to the plan, we have an interagency 21 agreement with several state agencies for hazardous 22 materials, not only tadiological but other types of 23 hazardous material And in case of an explosive, the fire
- 24 marshall will be notified by any agency receiving the
'
l 25 notificatio In case of spills, our Ohio EPA would be
I
!
9320 07 04 182
,f (_) WRBeb 1 notifie In the case of radiological, the Ohio Disaster 2 Servicos Agency is notifie You can see that the number of responses to 4 radiological accidents has also increased in the last few 5 year Now, one of the other aspects which I would like 7 to cover is the interest in spent nuclear fuel shipments in 8 the local communitie We have worked with several regional 9 governments and planning commissions in our large cities 10 that are very interested in trying to come up with a better 11 routing for hazardous materials through their particular 12 area.
in (_). 13 Now, a lot of sincere effort and work has gone 14 into thi They have a big following of local governments 15 and personnel who are interested on these planning 16 commission And I often wonder to myself what response it 17 will have for the final ruling It seems that a lot of the 18 effort is spinning the wheels and they're not really getting 19 anywher It is very difficult for them, first of all, to 21 come up with a realistic proposa They go through a lot of 22 statistics gathering and producing alternate routes, taking 23 different statistics from road segments, populations, and 24 all of that, and then they finally come up with a change in 25 the routin Well, when they start to vote on it, we find
.
9320 07 05 183 g
(,) WRBeb 1 that every community still has their own pet projects, or 2 they can't usually agree on what they really want to do, or 3 what the proposal should b I guess it has to be -- it must be a federal
, 5 decision in most cases on whether shipments of radioactive 6 material will go through communities or around communitie And as long as they stick to the interstates, I don't think 8 there is any way that they are going to change that in the 9 local communitie But they are very interested and they 10 feel that they need some type of' inpu And I hope that the 11 rules the way they are right now will give them that outlet 12 to participat t' .
t s 13 (Applause.)
14 MR. CHU: ' You have heard our next speaker before, 15 earlier this mornin He is Mr. Robert Holden of the 16 National Congress of American Indian Mr. Holde MR. HOLDEN: Thank yo I hope I was able to give you some insight this 20 morning into the unique relationship the Tribes have with 21 the federal governmen We also have a unique relationship 22 with the environment, and it is called " Culture."
23 In ceremonies and daily life we try to recognize 24 the forces and beings that exist around u Different
,7 s\
(/ .
Tribes do this in various ways, but the commonality is that
.
9320 07 06 184 (~)
(m/ WRBeb 1 food, medicine, sometimes animals in their local area, 2 usually in ceremonie Without these helpers these 3 ceremonies cannot be performe If an unusual occurrence, an accident, was to 5 occur in a sensitive area, the impact on the cultural 6 lifestyle could be hampered or severely altere A few years ago a tanker truck transporting
8 chemicals -- the specific type I am not sure of --
9 overturned on a highway on the Flathead Reservation in 10 Montan The chemicals were released into a stream and 11 killed every living organism in that strea There was 12 nothing done by the state, nothing done by the federal
/"N (,) 13 agencies, nor was there a Bureau of Indian Affairs 14 investigatio The concerns the Indians have is that if this 16 type of occurrence happened, say on the Columbia River or on 17 the Wisconsin River, the Indian Tribes that have treaty 18 fishing rights on these rivers would lose their most 19 important resourc The salmon are known as the first food 20 to the indigenous people of Washington State or inCrevuLJo
.i A side note is that fishing is an important 22 commercial industry both to Indians and non-Indians in that 23 are It is conceivable that a spill into the waterways
- 24 would cripple a major economic resource of many peopl Some of the Tribes we are in league with are in
9320 07 07 185
.g
\_/ WRBeb 1 the initial stages of providing tribal transportation 2 office Even before these offices were in place, 3 notification to Indian local law enforcement agencies of 4 shipments routed on Indian land should be implemente Sometimes the Indians get bogged down in 6 jurisdictional issue We have what you call a checkerboard 7 jurisdiction in many area If you picture a large 8 checkerboard you will see that sometimes the state will have 9 jurisdiction for a mile, you go another mile and the Indians 10 will have jurisdiction, and then it will go back to the 11 stat In some areas there is joint jurisdictio Sometimes there is cross-deputizatio t~)
'
\_/ 13 So we get bogged down in these issues, so it 14 makes it very difficult to come up with an elaborate scheme, 15 an elaborate plan to d'al e with transportation issue Also some of the deficiencies of the Nuclear
,
17 Waste Policy Act itself are hindering all but about three 18 Tribes in the transportation proces We -- I say "we,"
19 that is, the Tribes in the National Congress of American 20 Indians -- are working to clarify the interpretation of the 21 Act, and other Tribes want to participat ,
22 We are trying desperately to bring the Tribes up 23 to speed, but until that time, believe me, we are interested 24 in communicating with state agencies and local agencies on 25 these shared issue '9320 07 08 186
.
x-) WRBeb 1 Thank yo (Applause.)
3 MR. CHU: You have also heard earlier from this 4 next speake He gave us his views on the application 5 of public administration as they applied to the state and 6 local government, and he will now talk to us about routin Mayor Robert Smit MAYOR SMITH: I think I pretty well summarized an 9 awful lot of the routing issues as far as the local 10 governments are concerned, this mornin What I would like
'
11 to do is really give you a 30-second summary of that, and 12 then throw a really dumb idea on the table.
f~)
(~/ 13 By way of summary, I think the local issues come 14 *down to a matter of informatio As information develops 15 for the local people, issues make themselves more or less 16 eviden The kinds of information that we need -- and this 17 is an information checklist, if you will, if you want to put 18 it in that kind of a categorization: What's the past 19 history? How is it that the current transportation need 20 developed?
21 Secondly, how was the route selected, and what 22 role did the state agency and the Governor of the state have 23 in the selection of that route?
r- 24 Thirdly, what are possible alternate routes?
()3 25 Fourthly, what are the advantages and
T 9320 0'7 09 187
,
,
(_) NRBeb 1 disadvantages of these potential alternate routes and 2 the actual proposed routes, including things like structural 3 characteristic In the New Jersey case, the New Jersey Turnpike 5 sought relief in federal court because they said the New 6 Jersey Turnpike roadway didn't have the structural 7 capability of handling the weight loads associated with the 8 vehicle Secondly, are any of the roads undergoing 10 construction? And if the roads are undergoing construction 11 or reconstruction, to what degree? Perhaps there's a 12 difference of degree between the alternate (_) 13 What are the population densities along the 14 routes? What are the lengths of the routes? Whose ox is 15 being gored; that is, who lives along the routes?
16 And, of course, lastly, local respons Do the 17 local people in the towns, the law enforcement officials, ,
18 the fire companies, rescue squads, et cetera, do they really 19 have the information that they need?
20 In your packet today there is a brochure entitled 21 "Information Package on Spent Nuclear Fuel Rod Shipments for 22 Law Enforcement Agencies." And on the first or second flap 23 it says "What assistance can law enforcement agencies
- 24 provide?" And the first two I thought were characteristics G
25 of some of the local issues and the problems that we fac (~
(_/ WRBeb 1 N , render life-saving assistance as 2 necessar I'm sure if it's a simple automobile accident 3 type situation, the local police can handle tha But if 4 there's a rad safety issue, the question becomes do local 5 law enforcement officials have that degree of 6 sophistication?
7 Item 2, Follow state radiological emergency 8 procedures as applicabl The question there for the local 9 people is, Can a state radiological emergency response team 10 get to your area; how quickly can they get to your area; are 11 they aware of the conditions in your area?
12 So they become some of the local emergency I 13 response issue In any case, I think we had more time to develop 15 most of these ideas this morning, and what I would like to 16 do in the remaining three-and-a-half minutes that I have is 17 to throw a really dumb idea on the tabl After listening to our program for I guess about 19 six and a half hours now, some of the speakers and some of 20 the questioners have at least influenced me to believe that 21 there is some degree of frustration out there either amongst i
22 state agencies or among local governments or citizen group In New Jersey, one of the very good things that I-s 24 think we did in past years to deal with the issue of 25 credibility-- Because the NRC and DOT, even though they are
r 9320 07 11 189 l g
k, WRBeb 1 not, they are perceived to be the enem What was done in 2 New Jersey was to institutionalize challenge and dissent; 3 and they d'id that in what is called an Office of Public 4 Advocat It has resulted actually in less lawsuits, less 5 of a feeling among the citizens and towns that there is Big 6 Brother -- in that particular case it was the State of New 7 Jersey -- that is running their lives and they have no 8 relie The average citizen can't get the information 10 they really need to deal with issues associated with spent 11 fuel rod transpor It was alluded to in an earlier 12 panelist's comments that the towns, quite frankly, have a 13 great deal of difficulty dealing with the type of 14 information that they need, and I even detected that among 15 the state agencies, that there's a great deal of frustration 16 out there in state agencie Perhaps there should be a separate office in the 18 federal government, an Office of Public Advocate with regard 19 to radiological safety and/or spent fuel rod shipments that 20 state agencies and local governments and citizen groups can
,
21 turn to as a neutral source of information and/or advic That may help to build the credibility of the 23 federal government in that there is this creative tension; 24 it may provide a very good resource for state and local (~S G'
25 governments for information; it may help us to not re-invent
9320 07 12 190 WRBeb 1 the wheel over and over and over again, and it's really in 2 the American spiri Why don't we give the Indians, the locals and the 4 state governments an even chance? It's a though (Applause.)
6 DR. CHU: Thank you, Mayor Smit That last 7 point was a very fascinating ide We are at the point now where we are supposed to 9 be coming back from our break; however, I thir.k I will 10 exercise the prerogative of the moderator and keep it open 11 for a little while and throw open the discussion on the 12 subject of this session.
.
13 Let me first ask the speakers, or, for that 14 matter, other members of the panel as to whether they want
.
15 to elaborate or ask questions of each other on the 16 presentations so far this afternoon?
17 Are there any questions on the part of the people 18 on the dias?
19 (No response.)
20 DR. CHU: I will now ask for questions from the 21 floo I will practice what Dick Cunningham called the 22 non-democratic response to questionin Yes, sir, i j 24 MR. SINDERBRAND: My name is Carl Sinderbrand, 25 I'm from the State of Wisconsi I have two questians for l
)
____
9320 07 13 191
..
x WRBeb 1 Ms. Economide The first has to do with routing decision As I 3 understand the first inconsistency ruling that DOT ever
)
4 issued related to the City of New York prohibition on 5 highway shipments, the basic essence of it was that in the l l
6 absence of DOT rules covering a particular subject area, 7 state regulations or local regulations were to be deemed 8 inconsisten In light of the fact that--
10 VOICES FROM THE AUDIENCE: We can't hea Use ,
11 the mike, pleas MR. SINDERBRAND: I won't repeat the introductory
/'
13 commen My question is: .
14 In light of the fact that to date DOT has only 15 promulgated routing rules for the highway mode of 16 transportation, would it be DOT's position that with respect 17 to other modes, and particularly rail shipments, that the 18 states would have the flexibility to establish regulatory 19 requirements which are now preempted under HM-164 for 20 highways; and those would be such things as accident 21 reporting, route designation, driver training and perhaps 22 contingency planning for unintentional interferences with 23 the shipmen I have a second question, but maybe you could 25 respond to that one firs . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
9320 07 14 192
-
\r' WRBeb 1 MS. ECONOMIDES: Well, ycur question addresses 2 routing requirements, information selection and other 3 thing Clearly, in some instances these do have the effect 4 of routing restriction I can only speak hypothethically 5 her I will say that it is within the realm of also a 6 different standard of preemption in the Federal Railway 7 Safety Act which does contemplate state action, so long as 8 it is compatible with the whole regulatory system and does 9 not impose an unreasonable burden on commerc I'm not in a position to put forth a binding 11 statement as to departmental policy and, therefore, I would 12 say that we have no pre-judgmental bias against such action, 13 other than pointing out that there is a different degree of 14 historical state action in highway regulation as opposed to 15 rail and other interstate mode Having identified those as some of the factors 17 that would be considered, and now getting back to your 18 original question about the standard of interpretation of 19 I -1, that was the first inconsistency ruling, a very narrow 20 construction of the languag We have since issued an 21 additional fifteen rulings, each one of which has expanded 22 the body of policy and interpretatio Thus, while although the language of the first 24 inconsistency ruling says that there is nothing in the (~}
v 25 intent of the act or regulation, we would no longer follow
9320 07'15 193 WRBeb 1 that standard but would look to whether the issue had been 2 addressed within the regulatory system, and does it also 3 include areas where a question had been addressed and a 4 decision had been not to impose regulation And that's why 5 I would distinguish I 2 through 16 from I - MR. SINDERBRAN H: My second question is a little 7 shorter; that is, in the series of November 1984 8 inconsistency rulings, one of the prevalent themes in a 9 number of the rulings was that DOT considered state permit 10 and associated fee requirements to be inconsistent with the 11 HMT Less than six weeks after those rulings, the First 12 Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a decision involving g
V 13 a New Hampshire permit and fee system which found that,that 14 was in fact consistent with the HMT In your opinion, are the inconsistency rulings in 16 the New Hampshire case reconcilable, or is it just that the 17 judicial opinions today establish a more restrictive concept 18 of preemption than DOT does?
19 MS. ECONOMIDES: No; I think those positions are 20 clearly reconcilabl In the First Circuit Court case that you refer 22 to, the New Hampshire Motor Transport case, the Court upheld 23 the New Hampshire transportation permit fee that was imposed 24 on all areas of hazardous materials and hazardous waste It was not limited to a single commodit It was $25 for a
9320 07 16 194 Y
. {N WRBeb
'
1 one-year permit and $15 for a single tri It was 2 applicable to all carriers of hazardous materials, and it 3 was supported by evidence of there being actual expense 4 incurred in connection with those activitie So it is broad-base It was implemented in a 6 manner which made compliance with state requirements 7 feasible and practicabl The difference in the way the permit and the fee 9 requirements that we examined in the context of 10 non-inconsistency rulings was that those were limited in 11 their scope, and it was clearly targeted at a particular 12 commodity, radioactive material, despite the presence of 13 other hazardous materials which posed at least equal and, in 14 many cases, far greater risks of transportation and
'
15 accident The impact of the manner in which the permits 17 were required to be applied for, it was not a simple matter 18 of plunking money out on the table, it was a permit that was 19 granted at the discretion of the issuing authorit So that 20 for many. reasons it was clearly different from the type of
.
21 permit the First Circuit upheld in the State of New 22 Hampshire.
- 23 The words identified and pointed to why they had 24 the effect of being routing restriction There were
[}
! 25 routing rules which were for the purpose of discouraging I
<
f 9320 07 17 195 fs (
!
N)WRBeb
-
1 the form of transportation of this particular identified 2 class of materia So I would say there are clear differences 4 between the First Circuit case which -- in that case you 5 could say that what they were dealing with was a record 6 collection device as opposed to a form of routing 7 restrictio And that's the differenc So I will say that they can be reconcile DR. CHU: We'll take one more questio Are there any more questions?
11 MS. MCNABB: I have another question about how
,
12 the Department of Energy under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act l
'
13 works into the regulatory scheme.
..
14 This is the equivalency regulations for DO .
15 This statement doesn't sound to me like HM-164. Maybe there
@
l 16 is some wayjinterpret it such that it may become HM-16 This is the statement: "They always should, to 18 the maximum practicable extent, use interstate or limited
!
19 access highways." It doesn't say state alternate routes.
l l
!
20 It doesn't sound like HM-16 MS. ECONOMIDES: Can you further identify what i
22 you're reading from?
23 MS. MCNABB: This is the Department of Energy 24 equivalency rules for their transportation, for spent fue )
25 MS. ECONOMIDES: Are we talking about safeguards
.
20 07 01 196 I WRBwrb 1 requirements here, because the equivalency is with 2 certification, and evaluation which goes with the 3 certificatio Are we talking equivalent safeguards 5 requirements?
6 MS. MCNABB: Well, it seems logical that we're 7 talking safeguards requirements; but I'm not sure mysel MS. ECONOMIDES: Righ And we have to accept 9 the relationship between the safeguards requirements and the 10 routing rul Where it is necessary to deviate from the 11 routes required by HM-164 for safeguards purposes, that is a 12 recognized allowable deviation, and HM-164 provides for this O, -
13 contingenc MS. MCNABB: Okay; that help Thank yo Really, my question is for civilian spent fuel, pod 16 not for spentA shipments by DO Does HM-164 apply?
17 MS. ECONOMIDES: Yes, it doe MS. MCNABB: Thank yo DR. CHU: I want to thank the panelists on the 20 dias for a very inscructive sessio Let me remind you about a couple of thing Mayor Smith made reference to the local's concern about 23 emergency response as one of the prime topics of interest.
() 24 We will be having as the next session emergency response Also, tomorrow in one of the break-out sessions emergency
. ___ __ . _
a320 07 02 197 WRBwrb 1 responses will be discussed: I want to remind you about 2 that; as well as routin Let me now turn this over to Joh I suspect 4 that people are getting ready to do the break already.
,
5 Thank you.
'
6 MR. COOK: I want to thank all the speakers for 7 their participation, and to all of you for your cooperation
.
8 in this sessio We will reconvene for the next session in fifteen 10 minute Thank yo ,
12 (Recess.) g[
s 13 MR. LICKUS: My name isjLickus and I'm with the 14 NRC Region III Office which is out in Glen Ellyn, Illinoi + k i t<
15 My function at Region III is basically safary liaison 16 office In that capacity it's my job to promote dialogue 17 with the state I'm really happy to see the attendance at 18 this particular conference because I think this kind of a 19 session is going to do just that, promote dialogue between 20 the states and the NRC and other federal agencies on items 21 that are of particular interest to state This final session we have today is going to deal 23 with shipping activity in general and emergency response
.
{} 24 from the federal perspectiv Since I saw what happened to the last chairman
. - _ . _ . -_. _ _-_ -.
320 07 03 198 I WRBwrb 1 who tried to make some administrative announcements at the 2 end of his speech, mine are going to come at the beginning 3 while you're all her (Administrative announcements.)
5 Since we're running behind schedule I think I'll 6 forego my joke on regulator You can see me afterwards in 7 the back if you want to hear i To not take up any more time, since we're behind 9 schedule, I've asked our speakers also to Xeep their remarks 10 as brief as possibl We'll follow the sane format as the 11 other presentations so far today, and we will hold all our
_
12 questions until the end, and hopefully we will be able to
\# 13 give you brief but very informative information on the 14 subjects at han Our first speaker is Robert Luna from Sandia 16 National Laboratorie Mr. Luna is going to give you a 17 characterization of the type and amount of spent fuel that 18 is being shipped, and he is also going to substitute for 19 Mr. Allen who is second on the agenda during this session, 20 and he's going to talk to you about the analyzed 21 characteristics of a spent fuel acciden Mr. Lun MR. LUNA: Thank yo And I want to thank the
~5 24 DOT and the NRC for asking me to speak toda It's always (D 25 good to talk to people from the states and localities and
m320 07 04 199 WRBwrb 1 find out what is on their mind and what's happening in the 2 area, so that we can be more responsive to their needs and 3 interest (Slide.)
5 The first item I'm supposed to talk about today 6 is the question of what spent fuel is and how much goes 7 wher .
8 We have heard a lot of definitions of spent fuel 9 already this morning, so I really don't intend to spend a 10 lot of time on an official definition of spent fue I'll 11' kind of give you a thumbnail sketch, and there is a legal 12 definition on the scree So I'm not going to spend a great
\
' 13 deal of time on tha .
14 The first Vu-graph kind of gives you an 15 indication of where spent fuel is generated in this country 16 toda And while I realize that we were talking about LWR, 17 light water reactor, fuel, in general I think it is useful 18 to remember that there are other sources of spent fuel being 19 shipped around the countr And we're going to talk a 20 little bit about those later and how uuch there i Spent fuel arises out of research reactors that 22 are typically associated with universities and research --
23 R&D facilities; production reactors for producing (} 24 radio-pharmaceuticals that are used in -- preparing 25 radio-pharmaceuticals for use by commercial companies;
. - _ _ _= _ _____ _
=n320 07 05 200
'
\' WRBwrb 1 military reactors produce spent fuel which is shipped 2 around; likewise the primary subject which I think most 3 people are interested in today is produced by LWRs, light 4 water reactors, from' boiling water reactors and pressurized 5 water reactor And, in addition, there is also a HTGR, a 6 gas-cooled reactor spent fuel campaign which you'll see 7 later, shipping fuel from Colorado to Idah All of these reactor types generate spent fuel, 9 and the spent fuel that is generated is of fairly diverse 10 shapes and forms, but it all is united by the fact that it 11 is typically thermally hot and is a potent source of 12 radioactive contamination.
'
(~. '
13 (Slide.)
i 14 The key issue here, the reason why spent fuel is 15 spent is that the fissile content is too low to keep the 16 reactor going in an efficient manner, or there are too many 17 fission products, or for some reason you can't meet the <
18 economic and research needs of a facility that's going o And while I don't think it is really necessary to 20 point out, I want to point out that " spent" does not 21 necessarily mean benign; spent fuel, in fact, produces a 22 great deal of thermal energy and produces a great deal of 23 radiation, alpha, beta, and gamma, if the material is
{} 24 uncla The principal key, as somebody talked about this i
. . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
n320 07 06 201 WRBwrb 1 morning in one of the questions, to bow hot it is relates to 2 how much burnup there is, what the energy level was at which 3 the fuel was operating, and how long it has been out of the 4 reacto Very high burnup fuel that has been in a reactor 5 pool cooling off for a long period of time may be less 6 energetic than newer fuel of lower burnu There's a trade-off among these various 8 parameters that specify what'the fuel is lik One of the 9 more important ones in shipping campaigns is how old the 10 fuel is, how long has it been out of the reacto Typically, spent fuel casks are designed for 12 180-day fuel; that is, that's been out of the reactor for 13 180 days: it's typically very hot, produces a lot of thermal 14 energy and produces a lot of radiatio After five years'
P 15 cooling or ten years' cooling, which is typical of the NWpA 16 type shipments, the levels are down considerably from those 17 level (Slide.)
19 The material that is in spent fuel are things 20 like fissile material And here's a spectrum of the 3 21 fissile materials you might find in reactor fuel elements, 22 U-235, plutonium-239, uranium-23 You have typically 23 encapsulating materials to control and contain the fission products, and these encapsulating materials have very high (} 24 25 integrity normally -- stainless steel, Zircaloy, aluminum
a320 07 07 202 ()WRBwrb 1 and magnesium are typical materials that you might find as 2 encapsulants for the fue That makes the fuel what is 3 known typically in DOT parlance as a "special form" 4 material; that is, the material is not subject to being 5 ground into a powder or releasing the constituents as a 6 whole, but it remains to be just a radiation sourc There are structural materials that hold the 8 various fuel pins togethe These can be made out of 9 Zircaloy or stainless steel or other material And in the 10 reactor, under irradiation, these materials become 11 radioactive in themselves and produce additional kinds of 12 radiation doses that are different from what the fission () 13 products ar And then we have the fission products, which 15 typically are classed as the inert gases like krypton; 16 volatile materials -- volatile fission products: cesium, 17 rubidium, iodine, and some others; and refractory materials, 18 europium, uranium, plutonium, things like tha In oxide 19 form those materials are very, very high melting and not
,
20 typically able to be vaporized, except at extraordinarily 21 high temperature And then, as I indicated earlier, the radiation 23 products, the neutron activation products -- cobalt-60, 24 plutonium-238, plutonium-239 -- that are produced in the O 25 process of irradiation of the fue .
c320 07 08 203 ()WRBwrb 1 (Slide.)
2 This circular is out on the table there, some 3 sample I don't know if all of you in the front have 4 received copies of i But it, in fact, answers all of the 5 information I think I was asked to present today, and so I'm 6 going to show you a little bit of what is inside the 7 document that you may have seen out fron (Slide.)
9 One of the things it has in it is a list of the 10 states that have spent fuel -- approved spent fuel shipment 11 routes; that is, the states aie show (Slide.)
() 13 Here's a map which shows the various routes among .
14 states -- among reactors, responsitories a*nd/or 15 inter-reactor transshipmen (Slide.)
.
17 This will blow you aways in a Vu-graph it is 18 really hopeles If you get your own copy I'm sure you will 19 enjoy this table as much as (Laughter.)
21 I have circled some areas that I think are 22 somewhat interestin The two circles up here in the corner 23 kind of give you an indication of research reactor fuel that 24 is shipped from university reactors to reprocessing plants O 25 that the DOE operates in South Carolin The number in the
0320 07 09 204 ()WRBwrb 1 first box up there is six shipments of 10 kilograms, and the 2 second box down, under Columbia, Missouri, is eight 3 shipments of 42 kilogram So that is one of the kinds of 4 spent fuel that is going around -- being shipped around the 5 countr Down here at the bottom where I have imports, 7 for instance, at Ogdensburg, Ne4 York, is shown one, and 8 Portsmouth, Virgini The Ogdensburg shipments you heard 9 about today with regard to the DOT rulings and the import 10 shipment And, again, these imports are spent fuel from 11 research reactors, in general, that are coming back to the 12 United States who supplied the fuel for the various ('8 (_) 13 reactor The numbers in those boxes, the first one is 14 15 shipments of...it looks like 69: I can't even read it 16 myself, it is so smal And then the next one is 120 17 shipments of 708 kilogram And then down at the bottom, 18 for instance, down here under Tuxedo, New York, is 19 listed, I think, a production reactor where 20 radio-pharmaceutical materials are produced by operation of 21 the reacto And, again, this material, the spent fuel, is 22 shipped back to Savannah Rive And it's four shipments of 23 12 kilograms eac I've also highlighted some of the shipments 25 across the middle, back and forth from Morris, Illinois,
,
L
a320 07 10 205 ()WRBwrb 1 where you're going to be tomorrow, indicating Morris to 2 Genoa, Wisconsin, for instance: there were four chipments of 3 938 kilogram You get the pictur On this side are the places where the fuel is 6 coming from, and at the top are the places where the fuel is 7 going to, so you can get a box score of where material is
"
8 coming from and going t And these can be related to the 9 routes that are shown on the map that I showed earlie (Slide.)
11 Another source of information on where spent fuel 12 is coming from and going to is the DOT data base in this () 13
~
are This is a printout, albeit not a very clear one, 14 of the output of that data base, which is a publicly 15 available piece of informatio This comes from the 16 post-notification of material under HM-164 in which you can 17 find out who's carrying it, sho owns it, where it comes 18 from, where it goes to, when it went, and what the material 19 was that was being shippe In this particular series I don't have a spent 21 fuel shipment, but it gives you the route of the shipment at 22 the bottom.
,
,
23 (Slide.)
24 If you take the data from that -- and we've had
'
25 one of our contractors, IAL, look into the DOT data base --
.
I
!
'
.
L
.a320.07 11 206 p-(_)WRBwrb 1 you can extract information like this to learn what has 2 transpired in the pas For instance, common carriers: there's a number 4 of shipments there; private carriers are indicated her (Slide.)
6 And then there are shipments by the NRC licensees 7 and DOE related shipments shown her I'm just passing through this quickly bec6use of 9 the tim If you're interested, I can answer questions or 10 provide you with copies of the report when it gets 11 publishe (Slide.)
() ,
13 . You can do some breakdowns on whether it's a 14 large quantity of spent fuel or DOE shipment And remember 15 that the HM-164 data base only has highway route controlled 16 quantities in it which can be spent fuel or some other 17 stuf So you have to pick and choose among the entrie '
18 (Slide.)
19 This one is points of origin, showing New York, 20 no doubt as a result,of West Valley; Idaho, because it's the 21 center of nuclear development for DOE; Illinois, which is no 22 doubt related to Morris; Pennsylvania, related to Three Mile 23 Island; Tennessee, Oak Ridge; Maryland -- I don't know why; 24 Colorado, because of the HTGR; Virginia, because of 25 shipments out of Surry, I guess, and then other a320 07 12 207 e
(_)rWRBwrb 1 (Slide.)
2 Now, if you're interested in the future, what 3 shipments are going to occur in the future of spent fuel, I 4 would say that in the longer run-- In the short run you 5 might expect shipments of spent fuel to be about the same as 6 they were in the last few years; that is, perhaps as many as 7 a couple of hundred shipments, and it will go among the same 8 kind of places we've seen befor If you're interested in future information, what 10 kind of fuel is going to go on, I suggest that you look at
'
11 the responsitory EAs, environmental assessments, that are 12 getting written for the NWPA by DOE; which is a string of ( 13 initials that won't qui .
18
20
22
'
(~)
_
9320 08 01 208 h 'WRBeb (._,l 1 I suggest that you also look at the mission plan 2 for the commercial waste management program, again a product 3 of DO And this document here, for instance, is a source 4 of some information with regard to what reactor discharges 5 are going to be, and that is input information to the kind 6 of shipment data that is going to have to be handled in 7 terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Ac So that is sort of a bird's eye view, as quickly 9 as I can, of what spent fuel is and where it has gone, and 10 where it might go is still up in the air until a repository 11 and MRS questions are settled in greater detai (Applause.)
t'
(_)j 13 By popular acclaim I am going to come back and do 14 an encor ThenexttalkIamdoingikforGeorgeAllen, and 16 George regrets not being able to be here, since his travel 17 schedule finally caught up'su'n him and he wasn't able to 18 'get on the airplane te c Chicago because he couldn't 19 get off the airplane coming from somewhere els (Slide.) .
21 The first Vugraph here gives you my expectation 22 of the answer to the question of what-might an accident 23 involve, and I would like to explain this a little bi My expectation of what an accident involving
Q.,I 25 spent fuel involves is that an accident involving a
.
9320 08 02 209 (O (,/ WRBeb 1 shipment is likely to involve some amount of damage, 2 economic damage, to the vehicle that is carrying the spent 3 fue It is likely to involve-- A serious accident is 5 likely to involve injuries to the driver of the truck or to 6 anyone or anything it happens to run into, since it is 7 carrying the 80,000 -- it will be carrying the 80,000-pound 8 maximum load in all probability that is allowed under 9 current state law And I wouldn't be surprised that in some 11 situations there wouldn't be some deaths as a result of the 12 accident, but I don't expect that any of those deaths or-(^s .
' injuries or the damage is going to be a result of the s)m 13 14 nuclear material that is containe I expect that if there is an accident that there 16 will be delays in the shipment getting from one place to 17 another, and those delays are translated into greater 18 exposure to the people surrounding the cas The cask after 19 all, by law, is allowed to have a emanation rate of ten 20 millirems per hour at six feet from the cas The longer that cask sits someplace, not going 22 anywhere, and as long as it is surrounded by people, then
,
23 the people nearby are going to be receiving a dose of 24 whole-body radiation, and that mounts u And while it is a 7-s
%.).
25 relatively low level, it is part of the radiation hazard
E 9320 08 03 210 I \
\ / WRBeb 1 pictur When you start talking about the kind of ,
3 accidents that you-all are really interested in, and the 4 kind we've been hearing about this morning, you enter into 5 what I would consider -- you get out of the expectation 6 business and you get into the postulation business in which 7 you say to yourself how is it that I am going to receive 8 harm from the contents of the spent fuel cask?
9 And in that regard we are really talking 10 risk-analysis kinds of evaluations where we're talking about 11 events that happen or are likely to happen so infrequently 12 that I think few of us are ever likely to see a spent fuel () 13 accident that causes a release of radioactive materia ,
14 In the first place, the accident rates for
.
-15 ordinary truck transport are on the order of three-tenths to 16 one accident per million miles - per million kilometer And that depends on the roadway type, and is heavily biased 18 by reportabilit Trivial accidents with ten- to 19 twenty-dollar fender bending or something like that 20 typically don't get reported so they are not in this data
! 21 bas In some states reporting is better than others, so it 22 is hard to say exactly where this number is, but 23 three-tenths to one accident per million kilometers is not a
-
24 bad numbe (
25 Also remember that this is ordinary heavy truck
- -
- _ - _ - . - _ . , . _ _ _ _ _
9320 08 04 211 ('O
._) WRBeb 1 transport and not the kind of escorted shipments that we're 2 talking about for spent fuel, with special drivers and 3 constraints on how and where they might operat So the 4 number of basic accidents you'd expect is probably high for 5 this special type of shipmen Now at current shipment levels, which is a few 7 hundred shipments a year, where you might have a million or 8 so kilometers of travel in five years or so, you expect to 9 see one or two spent fuel accidents or accidents involving 10 spent fuel transpor And in fact, if you look at the HMIR, 11 the Hazardous Material Incident Reports, again a 12 publicly-available source of information from the DOT, what I)- 13 -you find is that there have been a couple accidents 14 involving spent fuel transportation in the last five to ten 15 year So the information that we have from the Incident 17 Reports kind of confirms what the basic accident rates are 18 that we're working fro Now at 3,000 metric ton shipments, 3,000 metric 20 tons of spent fuel beir.g shipped every year, as might occur 21 after NWPA happens, -- and that's a ballpark number -- you 22 might expect to be doing a million kilometers of shipment 23 a yea That means you might expect one accident involving g-) 24 spent fuel in each year of shipment at those rates.
LJ 25 So now what we are saying is as sure as you're a
_ _ .
9320 08 05 212 (~S
, ( / WRBeb 1 foot high, there is going to be an accident involving spent 2 fuel transport some time in every year that we see the 3 shipping at this high rate.
j 4 However, one of the things.that gets to be fairly 5 important is the fact that because of the way that spent
!
6 fuel casks are certified, and Chuck MacDonald went into this 7 in some detail this morning, there is reasonable reason to 8 believe that in more than 99.9 percent of cases of the
!
l 9 accidents that are likely to be seen, the accident 10 environment, crush, puncture, impact, fire, are unlikely to 11 get over the threshold of the certification tests to start 12 with for fire and impact.
l O
\_- 13 So we're talking about one chance in a thousand l
!
14 or so that given an accident occurs, that you will see
l 15 anything, any kind of environment that might even lead to a i
16 releas So what I say to you is that since there is a 17 possibility now to be like a 26-year campaign of moving j 18 spent fuel to a repository, and given the probability of l
l 19 getting up to environments that are serious, my expectation l
'
20 is that we are probably not going to see any serious spent 21 fuel accident I would say my own personal expectation is that 23 there will be non As an engineer I have to reckon with rs 24 the probabilities that say there's going to be a tenth or a
~ (J 25 hundredth of an accident over that 26-year perio I don't
-. - . . . . _ - -
, - _ - - _ - . - - - . - -. _
, __ . - -_... . _ _ _ _ .
.
-9320 08 06 ,
213 WRBeb 1 get too excited about that hundredth of an acciden So we are in this position where we're 3 postulating, where we're talking about the event that might 4 occu (Slide.)
6 In the description of technical activities, 7 having postulated the fact that an accident is possible, we 8 then look into trying to decide how it might occur, what its 9 probability is, what its releases might b And that kind 10 of information was considered in this document which was 11 turned out by Sandia in-- Well, it started in '80 and was 12 produced in-- I don't know when it was first printed but it ( 13 was reprinted in '8 This document contains the results of a seminar 15 which we got together, a dozen or so experts in spent fuel 16 cask accident environments and things like that, to try to 17 get their best estimate, their best wisdom with regard to 18 what kinds of environments might breach a cask and how big 19 those breaches might b (Slide.)
21 The panel of experts talked about the maximum 22 hole is something that they postulated in this workshop as 23 being the most they could imagine would occur under any 24 accident they could imagine or have ever thought abou They looked at environments leading to release,
9320 08 07 214 WRBeb 1 particularly impact and fir They also looked at the 2 question of crud, which is one which I haven't discussed 3 befor Crud is the stuff that gets on the outside of the 5 spent fuel rods as the result of being in the reacto It 6 consists principally of activation products, cobalt-60, 7 things like that that are gamma emitter That material is 8 on the outside of the rods, and in a heavy shock or a heavy 9 thermal environment, it might be dislodged and it might come 10 out of the cask with the water that is in the cask, if there 11 is any, or it might come out of the cask if the cask is 12 pressurize And then we talked about the breaching of the 14 fuel elements and the release of the volatiles and the other
.
15 materials that are in ther (slide.)
17 The methodology that was used is on the next 18 slid And there will be a quiz on this after the progra (Laughter.)
20 Has everybody got that?
21 This is basically a fault-tree way of looking at 22 the events that can lead up to a release of materia This 23 is all in the report, and if you are interested in this you 24 can get the report and eyeball i But it starts down here at basic events, fire,
9320 08 08 215 l
~\} WRBeb 1 impact, et cetera, and works up with the conditional 2 probabilities and the conditions that have to be present in 3' order to get to the top event, which is the release of the 4 crud in this cas (Slide.)
6- This one is-- Actually the last one dealt with 7 both crud and fission product And this one is the same thing except it deals in 9 longer-term effects; that is, what happens if nobody goes 10 after the cask after a couple of hours of whatever 11 environment it is i And again, it works up through these 12 various conditional probabilities to the top even Let's have the next on (Slide.)
'
15 The postulations then go into looking at the 16 kinds of materials that come out, looking at inhalation of 17 air-borne material, cloud shine, the radiation that comes 18 from the clouds and passes over, ground shine, what is on 19 the ground, ingestion of material, and direct radiation from 20 exposure of the fue (Slide.)
22 And it leads to numbers that you can use in a 23 risk analysis which show that the probability of this event 24 in so small -- that the risks become very small compared to 25 the normal risks, the normal risks you get in just
9320 08 09 216 q
\w) WRBeb 1 transporting from place to plate where nothing happens, and 2 you expose a lot of people to very, very low levels of 3 radiatio From the standpoint of emergency response, which 5 was the other thing I was supposed to talk about, is these 6 kinds of motherhood statements which relate to the event, 7 that if you have an accident -- if there is an accident 8 with the spent fuel transport, what is it that you would 9 like to see happen at that accident?
10 Well, what you would like to see happen is you 11 would like to see it reported promptly, and you would like 12 to see there be good crowd control, and you would like there A
\J
-
13 to be some kind of survey capability that somebody could
,
14 employ to verify that radiation levels were at the proper 15 level for the shipment, and you would like to have fire 16 fighting go on to cool things off and get a fire that might 17 occur out very rapidl Fires, by the way, only account -- only occur in 19 about 1.6 percent of all serious accident And what you would like to see happen is 21 preventing the spread of the material that's involved by 22 daming the fluids that come out or covering the dusts that 23 come ou You would like to have some level of hospital (')
s-
25 awareness; that is, where they are and who can treat
9320.08 10 217
/~T
\vY WRBeb 1 ' radiation accident people, or people suspected of radiation 2 contaminatio And you would like to have then some cleanup 4 procedure Now if this sequence of events seems to look 6 familiar, I would suggest to you that it corresponds 7 one-to-one with the kind of things you would like to do in 8 any emergency response to a hazardous materia And that I 9 think is one of the things that we need to make very, very 10 clea So in summary of this part of the program, I want 12 to make a couple of points:
\l 13 First, there will be accidents and incidents, but 14 I expect that they will not be very frequent, on the order 15 of one a year perhaps, under the heaviest shipment scenarios 16 that you might imagin The radioactive label on the shipment involved in 18 an accident, even a trivial one, will make it especially 19 noteworthy and probably greatly increase the potential for 20 chaos to reign at the accident sit Prompt action, typical of any emergency response 22 activity, will be important to save lives that are acutely 23 in dangered, to put out fires, to channel the material that
{} 24 might be leaking, to control the crowds and to control their distance from the event, and to call in experts to get an
9320'08 11 218 r)WRBeb (, 1 idea of what you're really faced with, to be sure that yo don't have a lea And my expectation is that if you have a good 4 emergency response capability in existence to handle 5 hazardous material accidents, and if it is exercised very 6 frequently as I certainly expect it will be, that you are 99 7 percent of the way to being able to handle a radioactive
.
8 emergenc Thank yo (Applause.)
11 MR. LICKUS: Thank you, Rober Thank you twic Our next speaker is a co-worker of mine in the ( 13 Region III office in Glen Elly His name is Monte 14 Phillip .
"
15 Monte is chief of the Emergency Preparedness 16 Section in NRC's Region II And Monte is going to be the 17 first on the agenda here in this particular session, to give 18 you a perspective on the NRC's role in emergencies and, in 19 particular, in responding to transportation emergencie MR. PHILLIPS: Good afternoo (Slide.)
22 Basically what I would like to do is to go over 23 the NRC's Statement of Policy regarding our response to any 24 type of transportation accident, of which a spent nuclear 25 fuel accident would come under that headin (D (_/ WEBeb 1 The first thing to remember is that we are not in 2 charg The states are in charge, or the local governmen Therefore, our response is strictly limited to what we are 4 requested to provid The initial phone call would come in through our 6 Headquarters Operations Center or, if it came into the 7 regional office, it would be for' warded to the Headquarters 8 operations Cente Their phone number is Area Code 9 202-951-055 When we get a notification from either a carrier 11 or a state government or a local police agency that there 12 has been an accident or that there has been an event (~)
(- 13 involving the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or any 14 other type of transportation accident, our first response is 15 to call up the state agency that is responsible'for that 16 general radiation monitoring program in the stat For 17 example, in Illinois that would be the Department of Nuclear 18 Safet When we make that phone call we make sure that 20 they're aware of the accident because that is not always the 21 cas We also make sure that we offer to provide l 23 assistance, whatever they may reques We are capable of l
< 24 evaluating quite a few thing We have a rather large cadre
,
25 of health physicists, instrumentation, and we have the l l
L
9320 08 13 220 WRBe availability to get that accessed to the state as soon as
-
2 possibl We also notify the other federal agencies that 4 are involved or can be involved in an acciden The 5 Department of Energy has monitoring equipmen The 6 Department of Transportation would want to be aware of the 7 even And the Federal Emergency Management Agenc A lot of this activity is specified in the 9 Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, FRERP, and I 10 think vern is going to talk with you about that later o We try to gain an understanding of what occurred, 12 why it occurred, whether there has been any type of ( 13 container breac If there is any suspected leakage or 14 potential for leakage from the container, we will send a 15 tea Now that may sound contradictory to what I said 17 earlier about not coming unless we're invite We are 18 actually performing two separate role The team that will 19 be sent will be a fact-finding team under our Memorandum of
.
20 Understanding with the Department of Transportation to 21 investigate the cause of the suspected leakag .
22 One of the other aspects, the last one on the 23 slide here, is to respond to a lot of requests for 24 informatio Whether we like to admit it or not, as soon as 25 the press or the public hears that there has been an
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
9320 08 14 221 O
\ul WRBeb 1 accident involving radioactive material, we are one of the 2 first agencies called, on the presumption we know everything 3 there is to know about radioactive material It is not a 4 safe presumption but they still make i So one of the activities that we will be trying 6 to do is to gain information on what has gone on and what is 7 going o (Slide.)
9 We also want to ensure that the state or whoever 10 is responding to the event is made aware of exactly what 11 that shipment contain As you already know, all shipments 12 contain shipping papers and the shipping papers are fairly
-
13 explicit as to exactly what the material and activity' i However, in not all cases can the shipping papers be found 15 or identified as the result of an acciden We can identify through dif ferent channels the 17 name of the shipper, the destination of the cargo, the name 18 of the carrier, and determine exactly what that activity 19 wa I have already touched on the next subject which i
21 is the Memorandum of Understanding where we go through and 22 investigate anything that involves potential leakag The last one on there, " Provide recommendations 24 for emergency response personnel on radiological issues if
- 25 requested, or if the need is recognized," I would like to l
L_
.. .. . _ _ - -
9320 08 15 222
hw/ WRBeb 1 kind of focus on what we mean by "if the need is 2 recognized."
3 If we have a site team or a team of individuals 4 that is responding to the site, or if we are notified that 5 "Well, there is no real need; we don' t think it is a big 6 problem but of course it is leaking this green fluid out of 7' the side of the container," we may in fact make a j 8 recommendation, based on that information, td whoever the 9 responsible individual is at the sit That's a 10 take-it-or-leave-it type recommendatio But primarily our response with resources is 12 based strictly on their reques When we are requested we O
(_./ 13 respon If we are not requested, then it depends on 14 whether or not the container has been breache And this 15 doesn't just apply to spend nuclear fuel; this applies to 16 any transportation accidents involving any radioactive 17 materia Now the details of how we would respond and who 19 gets activated and that kind of stuff I am going to talk 20 about when we talk about our transportation drill which 21 comes up in about two more talk (Applause.)
I
! 23 MR. LICKUS: Thanks, Mont Next we are going to hear about the role of DOT
,
l O 25 in responding to emergencie And presenting that speech
!
_ _ _ . _ _ . . - . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _
-- - . _ . . - - _ _ _ _ . , _ .
- -_ -
-
9320 08 16 223
'D will be Elvin P. Sill who is with the office of Emergency
's_/ WRBeb 1 2 Transportation, Department of Transportatio MR. SILL: Thank yo Good afternoon, ladies and gentleme What I would like to do very briefly this 6 afternoon is to give you a short overview of the 7 Department's emergency preparedness program organization and 8 functions, and then try to relate that to you in order that 9 you can understand how it will hopefully help you in 10 responding to radiological emergencie (Slide.)
12 This basically is the DOT emergency preparedness O(s . 13 coordination channel And I apologize for the 14 Copernicus-ness nature of the rank of the office of 15 Emergency Transportation position in OE I assure you we 16 are not the center of the DOT univers The reason I wanted to show you this chart 18 basically is to explain to you that the Department does have 19 an extensive and operational emergency preparedness 20 progra One of the key elements as far as emergency 21 response to radiological emergencies would be the role of 22 the Emergency Coordinator These people are located in 23 each of our ten regions, and also in each of our major 24 departmental administration O-25 The Department's emergency preparedness program
r
, 9320 08 17 224
'
(~)
(/ WRBeb 1 is basically designed to meet two types of emergencies, a l
2 national defense emergency and the natural or the 3 technological disaster type emergenc We are prepared to 4 do both of those program The primary categories of emergency response 6 functions for the purpose of this briefing I am going to 7 divide up into three areas: the emergency transportation 8 program, which I will discuss at length; the hazardous 9 materials transportation program, which the hazardous 10 materials folks have discussed in detail all day and will 11 continue to discuss; and the Department's emer'gency medical 12 service program, which I am not going to say much abou I O
\_) 13 do think it is worth mentionin Many of you at the state and local level have hPad 15 access to the National Highway Traffic safety 16 Administration's program with regard to medical helicopters 17 actuation, state training programs, and so forth for 18 emergency medical service This is an ancillary program 19 and it is available, and in a radiological emergency it 20 would be a very, very potent management tool to address the 21 problem.
l 22 What really is the U. S. DOT role in emergency j 23 response situations? Well, as I said, there were the three 24 main categorie I am going to talk primarily about the l 25 Office of Emergency Transportation and what we d We could
__ . ._ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ . ~ _
, c320 08 01 225 O)
\_ WRBeb- 'l do several thing e 2 First of all, we assist the state and local 3 governments if requested in major non-defense radiological 4 emergencie We participate in the Federal Radiological 6 Emergency Response Plan, FRER And I am not going to go 7 into great detail on the concept or the structure of that 8 plan because my FEMA colleague will address that following 9 my presentatio We participate in the Federal Radiological 11 Emergency Coordinating Committe This is a committee of 12 12 or 13 principal federal agencies who have been instructed to
) 13 work together in conjunction with the outcome of the Three 14 Mile Island disaster several years ago, and develop a 15 coordinated federal response to these types of emergencie This committee had several subcommittees which 17 are working subcomittees that are working in important areas 18 such as the standardization of approaches in trainin There is an emergency response subcomitte They have an 20 agend They are working very hard to come to grips with 21 many of the problems that you have heard discussed here 22 today.
i l 23 The Department is very active in all of those I
24 subcomittees as well as the committee.
[(
l 25 We can assist the states through the threat in
. . _ - -
_ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ ...- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ . _ _ .
.
e320 08 02 226 WRBeb 1 the evaluation of local emergency response plans and 2 exercise One of the major roles of the DOT Regional 3 Coordinators that I have mentioned earlier is to work with 4 the states in both the exercise mode and the development of 5 state emergency evacuation plans, the transportion leg of 6 those plan We also participate in a group known as the 8 Regional Assistance Committees, or RACs, which are basically 9 committees of local federal officials who participate under 10 the general aegis of the FEMA regional official, who come 11 together and work closely with the states in evaluating the 12 various aspects of the FRERP emergency response plans, and
13 they are also available to state and local officials as 14 require What is the DOT part of the FRERP national plan?
16 The FRERP national plan requires that major 17 participating agencies also have their own emergency 18 response plan for non-defense emergencie The DOT has such 19 a pla It is an operational pla It is effective, and it 20 is part of the overall planning and guidance materials 21 furnished through the FRER What does it do?
23 Well, it outlines DOT's response rol It makes 24 organizational assignment It says who will do what, when, 25 where and ho It provides for the allocation of
_ . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - ______ __ __-__ _ - _
'
c320 08 03 227
/~T (_) WRBeb 1 capabilities as required in various types of emergencie It includes and is built upon this earlier concept that I 3 was talking to you about concerning the DOT emergency
,
4 preparedness progra Within the structure of that program is a Crisis
'
6 Coordinator concep That concept is basically functional 7 in natur If there is a major mobile disaster, crisis, or 8 whatever, and it is determined that it is of a magnitude of
,
9 a regional or national nature that requires the Department
, 10 to go into an emergency mode, we will determine, based as I 11 said on a functional decision, a Crisis Coordinator for the
] 12 Departmen That person will be responsible for pulling () 13 together and deploying the departmental assets in addressing l 14 whatever the problem is at han The DOT portion of the FRERP plan incorporates 16 that concept, so we can move quickly and we can move 17 efficiently to deploy Department assets as necessary.
- 18 The DOT role is primarily, if not 100 percent, an 19 offsite rol They are not involved in the actual concerns 20 associated with an accident within the confines of a nuclear 21 power plan We address the transportation le Okay, what are our capabilities? What can we do
23 for you if you are in trouble out there?
24 Well, we can do several thing First of all, l -
(
- 25 our Emergency Coordinators, our ten Regional Coordinators,
-. - - - ,- , _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . , . - - . , - . _ . , , - _ - _ - _ , . . - . - . . . - _ - _ _ . , _ , . - _ . . . , . , , - _ . , _ . - . - , _ - - _ , . _ . - . . . _ . _ _ - _ . -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c320 08 04 228 (g m) WRBeb 1 are on the groun They are working daily with state and 2 local official They know each othe The contacts are 3 built u They know what the requirements ar They know 4 what the resource capabilities of the localities ar If transportation is needed and it is impossible 6 or difficult to get through local consignments, then the DOT 7 local Emergency Coordinator can assist state and local 8 people in obtaining these asset We can supply 9 specialized transportation-related expertise and guidance as 10 require And you have already heard several of the NPD 12 people talk about their emergency hazards guide Tney (~
\_-) 13 have the training programs that are going o They have the 14 DOT Emergency Information Center for reporting accident They have a data base which is available to assist in the 16 management of an emergenc We can provide technical transportation inputs 18 into the state emergency plan We do that all the tim One of the best preemptive emergency response techniques I
- L-20 know of is to make sure overy4h as a good effective state 21 and/or local emergency pla This is doubly important 22 because in many cases these plans have to be effective to 23 hold up in court, and we do work with the state and local 24 people and are continuously working with them.
(-s\b do 25 Wegliaison with stato and local agencies
c320 08 05 229 (')
\ / WRBob m 1 constantl And we provide a myriad of special assistance 2 through on-going DOT emergency and safety program So 3 these are some of the things that we can do and are doing 4 under our responsibilities of the FRERP pla We also have extensive on-going emergency as well 6 as safety relationships and interfaces with all of the major 7 federal agencies including FEMA, NRC, DOE, EPA, Health and 8 Human Services, the DOD, and many other federal agencies, 9 federal interagency committees, states and local 10 government In summary, what can wo say that DOT stands for?
12 Well, I think it is safe to say that the O-
\ 13 U. S. DOT is committed to a coordinated, effective federal 14 radiological response program to assist stato and local 15 governments and to protect the public health and safet Thank you very muc (Applause.)
18 MR. LICKUS: Thank yo Next on our agenda we havo Vernon Wingert, who is 20 the Emergency Management Officer, Technological Hazards 21 Division of the Fodoral Emorgency Managemont Agenc Vernon 22 is going to give us a presentation on omorgency responso 23 programs and planning.
p 24 Vernon.
\-)
25 MR. WINGERT: Thank yo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
l 9320 09 01 230 O
(/ WRBob 1 (Slide.)
2 I would like to thank the NRC and DOT first of 3 all for allowing FEMA to be a participant in this semina I would like to refer also to comments that John 5 Eaton of Ohio, the Stato of Ohio, mado earlier in a former 6 panol prosentatio He cited three aspects of federal er O 7 assistanco that the State of Ohio was actually usin One 8 was staff salarios for omorgency personne Tho second was h6V ~
9 the guidance document, FEMA h And thirdly was some of 10 FEMA's radiological training program John, you gave my speech, so thank you very 12 much, (m)
m 13 (Laughter and applauso.)
'
14 Don't you wis (Laughter.)
16 As you can soo, the focus of my prosontation will 17 be on FEMA's role in providing assistanco and coordinating 18 fodoral assistanco to stato and local governmon My aim is
19 that after I got through with this presentation, you will 20 have an understanding really of two things:
21 Ono, a botter understanding of the framework in 22 which wo view our coordination business with other fodoral 23 agencies, and wo do a lot of that; r- 24 And secondly, that you will be aware perhaps of (_)3 25 some assistanco from FEMA that you woron't awaro of beforo
. - _ _ _
9320 09 02 231
,.
(-) WRBob 1 that you might be able to utilizo in order to develop and 2 add to your own stato and local government program I will look at FEMA's role in providing this 4 assistance in three context The first one is the 5 integrated approach to managing omergencie Just a few minutes ago Bob Luna was talking about 7 wouldn't it be nico to integrato radiological transport 8 planning of hazardous materia I'd say Amen to that, and 9 that is precisoly the direction that we're heading for under 10 this concept of IEM Secondly, we look at the coordination framework 12 for providing federal assistance in two respects:
(_) 13 First is the day-to-day assistanco that we, 14 provide stato and local governments, most of which you are 15 probably aware of, in terms of training resources, FEMA 0Revs G 0-- 5, the guidance document, financial assistance, and
17 assistanc That is coordinated through many other types glVof,S 18 a committee that Atien mentioned, the Fodoral Radiological
,
19 Protection Coordinating Committee, -- Try saying that quite 20 a few times -- what we call FRPCC for shor And the second context which is associated with
22 the FRER Again Elvin and Monto both mentioned tha That's the Fodoral Responso Plan for all radiological p 24 omorgencies including transport accident J 25 And then finally I will go into an explanation
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
9320 09 03 232 WRBeb 1 and a description of some six types of federal assistanc And I understand that you are mainly interested in money and 3 training resources, so those are two I will emphasiz I 4 will just briefly mention the other fou .
5 (Slide.)
6 The basis for FEMA's broad coordination with 7 other federal agencies is not only for transport accidents 8 involving radioactive material which, by the way, I am going 9 to refer to as transportation accidents from now o It is 10 given under the Executive Order 1214 And under this 11 order, it gives FEMA authority to do two things really:
12 One, to coordinate all civil emergency and civil () 13 defense functions of executive agencies on behalf of the 14 President; 15' And two, to try to seek the active participation 16 of state and local governments and the private sector, in 17 this case shippers and carriers, in building a national 18 emergency management syste one other directieIL I would like to mention which 20 is not listed there, and that is the directive of December 21 7th, 197 That one I believe mentions the fact that after 22 the Three Mile Island accident, authority was given to FEMA 23 to do coordination in the radiological area, and that is 24 tru There was a Presidential Directive given and endorsed (-)
\-
25 by the office of Management and Budget that gave FEMA the
! 9320 09 04 233
'
WRBeb 1 lead role in coordinating all radiological emergency 2 planning and respons j i
l l 3 So based upon really those two authorities and I
l 4 selected other statutes, that is why we are in this
j 5 busines j l
6 Again to emphasize the IEMS concept, the 1 l
P '
7 Integrated Emergency Management System, this isamethod which i 8 has evolved over the last three years, and this is the 9 method that we use to implement the proper coordination, l 10 including the coordination of radiological emergencie Conceptually IEMS refers to the integrated 12 approach to emergency management wherein both common and
,13 unique elements of emergency preparedness are addressed for
.
14 all emergency phases mitigation prior to the emergency, i
15 preparedness prior to the emergency, response, and recovery 16 if that is neede Heretofore FEMA and other federal agencies have 18 developed hazard-specific program For example, we 19 developed hazard-specific guidance for state and local ( 20 governments for dam safety, hurricanes, FEMA response to 21 transport accidents, NUREG-0 4 for power plant accidents, 22 and so fort So the entire approach up to now has been
!
'
23 hazard-specific emergency managemen So what we are trying to do is to get away from 25 that approach and to look at the integrated framework for ,
, 9320 09 05 234
,.
(_/ WRBeb 1 emergency management and Identify the common elements that 2 are basic to managing any .sergenc For example, we helped state and local
4 governments build emergency operating center We helped 5 pay for that at a hundred percen We helped build 6 emergency operation centers and the communications and 7 capabilities in those centers, both fixed facilities and, 8 in some cases, mobile in van They are applicable to any 9 kind of emergency for directing the control functio Whether it's a hurricane in Miami, a transport accident, 11 a hazardous material accident, a power plant accident, it 12 really doesn' t matter; that is the core capability common to O
(,) 13 al'1 emergencie You yourselves, as emergency staff, are the most 15 important resource for emergency management.- And in many 16 cases, having been a state and local emergency services 17 employee for about eight years, I'm quite familiar with your 18 work, and in many cases you have to do with what you hav Many of you do double-duty; that is, you work with natural 20 hazards, man-made hazards and transport accident Unique elements of transport accidents are more 22 in the radiological natur That is really unique in terms
!
'
23 of having to detect -- you can't see radiation, of course, 24 so you have to be able to detect and measure radiation, f-)
%J 25 assess the accident in terms of its consequences, and make l
!
_. -_ _ _
't 9320 09 06 235
. ,m i_) WRBeb 1 actions, protective actions according to certain 2 protective-action guideline These are unique elements 3 that are not addressed in any other kind of emergenc IEMS as an implementation strategy is reorienting 5 and reshaping many of FEMA's emergency programs and 6- activities, especially those impacting state and local 7 government Specifically the following IEMS initiatives
" 8' have been or are being implemente We have developed an integrated funding 10 mechanism, a comprehensive cooperative agreement, integrated 11 guidance, -- we're moving in that direction right now --
12 integrated planning which we're encouraging for state and () 13 local governments called EOPs, or Emergency Operation Plans, 14 and integrated trainin And I will explain two or three of
.
15 thes (Slide.)
17 Oka I am not going to spend much time on 18 thi Elvin did a good job introducing thi I 19 I said there are two foci for our coordinatio One is the day-to-day program assistance to state and local
,
21 governments, apart from an actual emergency, and this is 22 coordinated through the FRPC There are ten agencies in 23 this coordination mechanism, and we coordinate it at the 24 national level because of policy and programs through the
.?
25 FRPCC committee in Washington, and through RACs in the ten
,.
-
9320 09 07 236 g
'wJ WRBeb 1 centers in the region FEMA chairs both of thes There are a variety of subcommittees attached to 3 this, including a subcommittee on Transportation Accidents 4 that just deals in topics that we're addressing her And 5 one of the unique things about this subcommittee that is not 6 true of the other subcommittees is we have membership on 7 this other than federal agencies, like Sandia National 8 Lab Jim McClure of Sandia is a member of this 10 subcommitte The Western Interstate Energy Board of Denver 11 is a member of this, as well as the Southern States Energy 12 Boar And it is co-chaired by -- and this is unique, too; (G
_/ 13 this is the only one that is not totally chaired by FEM L 14 It is co-chaired by DOT, Wendell Carrid,ter, and FEMA,
~
15 mysel The agency responsibilities that Elvin was 17 talking about on his Vugraphs of DOT and Monte with his 18 Vugraphs of NRC are pulled together and assigned by FEMA to 19 these agencies, and the agencies are responsible for 20 implementing thes Let me just give you one or two 21 example In terms of technical risk analysis, the NRC, 23 because of its regulatory responsibility for transportation 24 accidents, would be the agency responsible for doing tha '25 FEMA does not do that; it does not have the technical
9320 09 08 237 q
k / WRBeb 1 expertis In terms of Protective Action Guidelines or PAGs, 3 we look to the Environmental Protection Agency to do tha (Slide.)
5 oka This is the second coordination framework 6 of FRER Again this has been mentione I think I am just going to skip down to the FRERP 8 document itsel The draft FRERP was developed and field tested in 10 an exercise at the St. Lucie Power Plant in Florida in March l'1 of '8 This exercise demonstrated the viability of the 12 FRERP for a major radiological accident at a power plant, O)
(_ 13 and this was most important for our context here in the 14 viability of FRERP's concept of operation for all types of 15 radiological accidents, including transport accident The successful test of the FRERP permitted the
.
17 plan to be published as the operative federal plan in i 18 September of 1984.
,
19 Now I would like to mention just one thing that 20 we felt encouraged the state and local governments to 21 develop all these good plans and test them, and so fort I 22 would like to note that we are trying to get our act 23 together also, that we are trying to develop effective rS 24 response plans, and not only that but we have put a lot of V
25 resources and efforts into testing these plan ) WRBeb 1 Thero are over four hundred FEPs from many 2 different agencies, more than these ten here, involved in 3 that exercise at St. Luci Now the concept of operatio The " cognizant 5 federal agency" is a fancy term for two thing one, the 6 CFA in an accident would be the agency that would have the 7 lead in terms of civil, directly-controlled response in 8 concert with state and local governments that either 9 regulate the activity -- in this case for transport actions 10 that would be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or an NRC 11 Agreement Stat That is appropriate in this concep So it is either NRC or an Agreement State in ( 13 terms of regulation, depending upon'what type of 14 radioactivity is involved, and secondly, the carrier or the 15 shipper involved in the acciden So if the Defense 16 Department is shipping the material they would be the CFA, 17 DO If the Department of Energy is the shipper of the 18 material, they would be the CF If the basic support needed for state and local 20 governments was offsite monitoring assistance, then there is 21 a plan for that that is incorporated in Section 3 of the 22 FRERP called Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment 23 Pla And you may have known about that since the old IRAP,
- 24 Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan, now integrated in 25 FRER ,
k/WRBeb 1 Finally, if multiple agencies are involved in an 2 omergency, FEMA would provide the overall coordinatio In 3 the actual emergency you may have one or more of these 4 response tracks implemented by federal agencies through the 5 FRERP assisting local government (Slide.)
7 In terms of the transportation program of FEMA, I 8 would like to emphasize three aspects of the progra First of all, in terms of both FEMA and other 10 federal agencies, there is no regulatory requirement at all 11 for you to develop plans or test the plan So the entire 12 program is voluntar O ( /- 13 Secondly, in terms of a planning basis, there is 14 a planning basis that we have developed, and it is h6V-15 incorporated in FEMA Rev. This planning basis 16 encompasses a wide spectrum of transportation accident At 17 one end of the spectrum there are accidents with a high 18 probability of occurrence but low hazard potential 19 involving, for example, a low specific activit At the extreme end of the spectrura there are 21 accidents of very low probability but high hazard potential 22 involving, for example, a Type B shipment that may be 23 subjected to very severe accident forces which result that e- 24 part of its radioactive contents are released from its b)
25 packaging.
._
9320 09 11 240 (~) - Ef-
\m/ WRBeb 1 The guidance criteria contained in FEMA .5 2 are based on this planning basis and provide for a 3 preparedness posture which, if implemented, is applicable to 4 the whole spectrum of transport accidents, including spent 5 fuel accident Finally, in terms of our current emphasis, we are-95 P-7 encouraging state and local governments to take FEMA Rev. 5 8 to develop and implement a transportation program in their 9 state that is commensurate with the criteria in that 10 documen In terms of program assistance, I am only going 12 to address two of these, funding and trainin (Slide.)
14 The funding mechanism for all kind of emergencies 15 FEMA has put together is the CCA, the Comprehensive 16 Cooperative Agreemen It is like a block grant approac Okay? So we threw all the technical assistance for every 18 type of hazard into this one funding mechanism and basically 19 it is up to you as to what you're going to do with thi Now you will find categories in the CCA called 21 REP, Radiological Emergency Preparednes So if you want to 22 make use of this funding mechanism, you can do so now for 23 transportation accident In terms of assistance, it offers es 24 emergency management assistance, assistance that is
'\.)
25 basically staff salarie That is the most important
r-
.9320 09 12 241
\ / WRBeb 1 assistance, obviously, and probably many of you -- your 2 salaries are paid 50 percent by FEMA if you are emergency 3 service official Secondly, training and education assistance is 5 available, and money to do that at 100 percent federal 6 share, and that is to develop and operate your own training 7 programs, 'and that could be for transportation accident State and local direction control and warnin We don't have any funds currently projected for FY '86 for 10 this, but if we do, you can make creative use of that under 11 some circumstances and use th'at money to develop mobile vans 12 or emergency operation centers or vans that could be a part r)'
(m 13 of hazardous material emergencie .
14 Population planning and disast*er improvement 15 grant I'm just going to go ahea (Slide.)
.
17 oka Again our training program has been 18 reworked, stood on its head, and reintegrated, and there is 19 an integrated radiologic'al training progra How many of you are familiar with this training 21 program or have been a part of it already?
22 (Show of hands.)
23 Oka Quite a few of you hav Essentially it 24 is oriented this way:
. The training for radiological officers is to
9320 09 13 242 k_.) WRBeb 1 enable them to create and develop and operate a state or 2 local radiological progra A radiological monitor, as that word implies, 4 enables state and local officials to be able to use 5 radiological instruments to detect and to measure 6 radiatio A radiological response team enables a team to be 8 developed and have the training capabilities to respond to 9 radiological emergencie The " train the trainer" approach is quite an 11 innovative approac What we're doing to increaee the 12 audience, the target population for these courses is to
,
!s) 13 train you to go out and teach the cours And so in terms 14 of our projections -- in terms of our schedule right now, 15 through the " train the trainer" approach we aim to reach 16 10,000 to 20,000 persons in the radiological monitoring 17 course over the next three to five years, 100,000 persons 18 over the next five years in radiological response teams, 19 10,000 persons over the next three to five years in terms of 20 certification for radiological officer There is a new program which was developed at Oak 22 Ridge to train hospital emergency department managemen This is tor hospital emergency personnel that handle 24 radiation accident victim )3
'
\-
25 And finally, the radiological emergency respcnse
9320 09 14 243 ,
% ) WRBeb 11 cours This is the ORECO, the ORECO course up in Las 2 Vega They use actual radioactive material They do 3 simulate radiological transport accidents and provide 4 -intensive training and field exercise in actually addressing 5 that acciden In conclusion, through the formulation and 7 implementation of IEMS, FEMA has reoriented and integrated
- '
8 the content and delivery of assistance to state and local 9 governments on all types of hazards including transportation 10- accident Given the availability of resources identified 12 and described in this presentation, I encourage you with () 13' respect to state governments to take full advantage of 14 resources to develop and enhance your own capabilities to 15 effectively respond to transportation accident ,
Thank yo (Applause.)
18 MR. LICKUS: Thank you, Ver Our last speaker today is going to be Monte 20 Phillips who is going to give you some information on a 21 recent transportation emergency exercise which was held in 22 our region with cooperation from the State of Illinoi Mont MP. PHILLIPS: I am going to try to be brief (-)S because technically I see I have all of two second /^)
\m/ WRBeb 1 First of all, let me kind of explain the NRC 2 emergency response concept: Base team operation, site team 3 operation, headquarters operation, which would apply for any 4 type of emergency that the NRC becomes involved in, whether 5 or not it has to do with transportation or a power plant, or 6 whateve Most of the state governments have already 8 received copies of our emergency response plan, and a lot of 9 the utilities also have a copy of our emergency response 10 plan which delineates all of this stuf But basically we 11 have three facilitie In Headquarters we have what is known as the ( 13 Ope. rations Cente In the region we have what is referred 14 to as the Base Tea And at the site of whatever the event 15 is we have what is known as the Site Tea The Site Team is primarily involved with review 17 and evaluation of exactly what events are occurring at the 18 site, and providing information back to the Headquarters and 19 the region, providing the overall coordination of
,
20 activities, and in the case where what we refer to as the 21 Director of Site Operations is employed, they are in charge 22 of the overall NRC respons The Headquarters Operations Center is the 24 counterpart of the NRC Headquarters group that activities 25 their Response Center and they basically are involved in
9320 09 16 245 () WRBeb 1 all the activities done by the Site Tea And they are in 2 charge of events until the Site Team arrives and the 3 Director of Site Operations is appointe If we don't have an emergency of a level 5 sufficient to warrant activation of both of those groups, 6 then the technical term would be " standby mode," and the 7 NRC Base Team which is located in a regional office, in our 8 case Region III -- that's in Glen Ellyn, Illinois -- would 9 be in charge of the overall response to the emergenc The reason I want to kind of go over that is
-
11 because for transportation events what we have essentially 12 done in our regional emergency response plan is to classify () 13 all types of transportation accidents into the same type of 14 a system that is used for reactor accidents, namely, 15 notification of nuclear event, alert, site emergency, and 16 based our response on those events similar to the way we 17 would base our response on reactor event So depending on the classification we would 19 assign, based on what we were notified of at the time of the 20 emergency, we would go into one of our response modes which 21 are either standby, in which case the region is in charge,
. 22 initial activation, in which Headquarters is in charge and a 23 Site Team is dispatched to the location of the event, and 24 then expanded activation, at which time the Director of Site
,
O 25 Operations is appointed at the site and takes over for all
.
9320 09 17 246 g)
(_ WRBeb 1 responsibilities for the emergenc The reason why I want to kind of go over that is 3 that before I get into the scenario for the event we used on 4 April 30th of this year, I wanted you to kind of have a feel 5 for what centers were activated, and wh I have also provided a copy of the scenari It 7 is on the back table in the other room, along with a copy of 8 the policy statement of NR Briefly what the scenario involved was a spent 10 fuel shipment coming up along Interstate 57, which is not an 11 approved route, having an accident with a bridge abutment, 12 and the spent fuel cask coming off into Brent Lake, which is () 13 a rather large lake that several communities use for 14 drinking water, and it then proceeds on down and eventually 15 joins the Mississipp (Slide.)
17 At 7:34, the Regional Office was notified of the 18 emergency, so to speak, by the Department of Nuclear 19 Safety for the State of Illinoi And the reason why I want 20 to key on the fact that we were notified by the Department 21 of Nuclear Safety which, as I talked about earlier, is the 22 cognizant agency for the State of Illinois, when we received 23 that notification we asked them at that time if they were 24 requesting assistance, and their answer was Ye So that is 25 the reason why the rest of this exercise even takes plac .
0320 09 01 247 r
! )y WRBeb 1 If the answer had been no, our activity would have been 2 rather brief and probably " helping hand" in natur Again the notification came to the Regio So 4 the first thing we did was to make the linkup with 5 Headquarters, the duty office One of the primary problems that comes out of any 7' transportation accident, and for that matter, it sometimes 8 comes up with facilities accidents, too, is the matter of 9 communication Most accidents don't happen close to a 10 phone, and even if they did happen close to a phone, the 11 odds are that the phone would be on the blin So_the net result is you really only have one () 13 point of contac You can mak'e that point of contact with 14 Site or you can make that point of contact with the state 15 agency that is in charge of the emergency and hope that they 16 have a rather extensive communication networ Most states
,
17 do through the State Polic In Illinois they have their own emergency 19 services vehicles which contain a rather elaborate 20 communications system which they can dispatch to the scene 21 which provides several phone So one of the reasons why we 22 chose Illinois as the state we wanted to participate with 23 us was because of the advantages of all the material 24 that Illinois had to offe Also Illinois had an Transportation Act Emergency
c320 09 02 248 ('T .
(_) WRBeb 1 Plan on the books at the time, which most states didn' t at 2 the tim Based on the information that the cask had gone 4 into the lake, we went to what we refer to as the standby 5 mod This was discussed with Headquarters, and you will 6 notice that at 7:51 we recommended going to standby, and 7 they concurre And at that point the Regional Response 8 Center was in charge of the activitie I don't want to go over this entire scenario in 10 total detail, because like I say, I have it on the handout, 11 and there are a lot of copie There are about several 12 hundred on the back table -- of what type of information go o
V 13 o ,
14 But basically the decision was made to send a 15 Site Team because it did involve a spent fuel accident, and 16 it did involve material that potentially could be leaking 17 because it was in the lak As a result, a Site Team was prepared and sen We can respond just about anyplace in our region in about 20 six hours at the lates It would depend a lot on where 21 we're going and what mode of transport we would us In 22 this case we would use helicopters to get to Brent Lake 23 because it is in the midst of central Illinoi One aspect of the scenario that did kind of throw
. () 25 us off I have to confess, when they sent the shipment up l
i l
l L
. . - _ _-
a320 09 03 249
,-
, s_/ WRBeb 1 the unapproved route, we were very quick to pick up on that, 2 and we went off into the safeguards type emergency plan, and 3 the scenario writers promptly told us that they had made a 4 mistake and put it on the wrong road, and as a result, we 5 weren't supposed to consider that type of thin But those are the sorts of things that we do look 7 a We look at where it is and why it's there, and how it 8 _got ther We contacted the shippe You will notice that 10 the shipper contacted me at 8:2 Later on we had the identification of all of the 12 material that was in the shipment, which I believe is on the
,
f-13 next lin At 8:42 we got the information on the fuel 15 assembly, which goes over basically 33,000 megawatt-days per 16 metric ton burnu Enrichment was 3.2 percent, and how long 17 the cooling was involved in that particular activit Eventually we ended up making a recommendation to 19 the state involving the use of water in the state from 20 around the lake, that under the circumstances we wanted that j 21 activity basically curtailed, to go on stored water for a i
'
22 while while we checked out the removing the cask that 23 possibly was leakin One of the features of the expertise that was O-25 brought into play, since the cask was now underwater, you
,- - - -
-
._ ._ - -
c320 09 04 250
\e( l WRBeb 1 need people to survey the cask with instrumentation capable 2 of going underwater, and we were using diver A lot of 3 states don't have that capabilit And in fact one of the -- I think it was the 5 destinatio Even Morris would have divers and 6 instrumentation that was utilized for this particular even The primary thing we learned out of this exercise 8 in Region III was that again communication was a major 9 proble It is very difficult to communicate with only one 10 phone lin You are constantly barraged by the pres I 12 assume that that problem would occur also at the sit ) 13 I am already onto the second slide, so you didn't 14 see it in the first slide, but the emergency starts with us 15 being notified at 7:34 and we got our first news inquiry 16 at 8:2 So it can come very quickl And you have to be in a position to be able to
,
18 answer,the questions with factual answer And 19 communications is a real proble It is still a proble I 20 hope we can get it solve I want to sum up our basic concern with any type 22 of an emergency in communication We want to be able to 23 communicate with you, and we want to make sure you have the 24 right phone numbers, the right contact So if you have a 25 copy of our emergency plan, when you look over that, if you
--
.
a320 09 05 251
/^S Am ) WRBeb 1 have any change of phone number, please notify the local 2 regional office of any changes that have been made, or if 3 there is legislation or change in the contact point, please 4 notify us so we know who the right people to talk to ar For example, we would not want to call up the 6 agency that's involved in an emergency response that does 7. not handle nuclear accidents but they handle some other 8 version, but that's the contact point we would hav So I 9 want to emphasize that poin I am going to try to be very brief by ending 11 no As I said, the scenario is on a handout sheet in the 12 back, and I hope I have plenty of copie If not, I am sure
,ne (_) 13 Roland will take a list of names of those who didn' t get one 14 and I'll have some more printe Have a nice dinne (Applause.)
hDY El%.
17 MR. LICKUS: Thank you, Verno Before we get into the questions and answers, I b
19 would like to ask either Steve Splomon or Wayne: Are there 20 any last-minute administrative announcements you would like 21 to make before this thundering mass of humanity heads for 22 those doors? While we have them?
23 Steve.
,3 24 (Administrative announcements.)
d 25 MR. LICKUS: Note on your agenda: this morning
c320 09 06 252 fs (_) WRBeb 1 we started at 9:00, and tomorrow we start at eight o' clock 2 in the mornin So set your alarms for an hour earlier and 3 don't party so hard tonigh Tomorrow is a very full day, and it's a tight 5 agenda, so please be prompt, please be on tim Let's take some cuestions while we've got this 7 fine body of expertise up her First, from the designated invitee Does 9 anybody have any questions for these people?
10 VOICE: (Identification inaudible.) I have a 11 question for FEM pg$4-hC?~
12 Regarding Rev,5, three months ago I asked for a () 13 copy of this and was told there was none available, that 14 they were going to make a copy by xeroxing thi It was not 15 don They indicated to me that * 5 is being revise Can you give me some date at which we can get a 17 copy of it, please?
18 MR. WINGERT: If you come up here right now I'll 19 give you a cop (Handing document.)
21 We have a problem in terms of our publication Those of you who are familiar with FEMA's operations know 23 that we are short in our budget this fiscal year which ends 24 September 30t I personally have requests for about 1500 ( 46f-25 copies of FEMA Rew. We have saturated state and local
-e-d j ;f SonNover it ,n lS S ,u/G
- - - - ._ . -_ _ ._. _
.
- l
,
9329 90 91 . 252,1 i
WRBe,b 1 governments with three thousand copie Requests are coming 2 in faster than we can handle, and we have zero money for 3 publicatio We xeroxed about fifty copies of FEM 5 * 5, l 4 and maybe yours is in the mai If so, give that one back e 5 to m (Laughter.)
7 VOICE: Is it being revised?
8 MR. WINGERT: Yes, it is being revise I spend 9 quite a few hours each week in a little conference room 10 where we're putting together a revised draft based upon the
11 comments from state and local governments and from the I
12 private sector, the Association'of American Railroad It 13 , will go to the Subcommittee for review and will be noticed 14 .in the Federal Register for your comment, and I expect the
,
15 final copy will be out, not as a Christmas present but in 16 January or February of '8 VOICE: There was a question that came up a 18 little while ago, and the reply, about the operational 19 response to a transportation accident, was somewhat 20 controversial in that it appeared to recommend that 21 emergency responders pay a lot more attention to their own 22 radiation doses than the federal guidelines sugges Can you tell us more about that stance? Are the 24 previous federal radiation emergency response guidelines 25 still in force? Are they being looked at? Are they being
.
O t
-- - , , , , - , , - . , , _ - , - - . , - . , , - , . - -
- , -- - ---- , , , - - _ e- .---,, . . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
,
a c320 09 07 253 Il
\_f WRBeb 1 revised? What's the situation there?
2 MR. WINGERT: I listened to your question for 3 about 15 second At that point you hadn't identified who 4 you wanted to respon I was hoping you wouldn't identify 5 m But le.t me see if I can respond to tha This package is called the brass packag The 7 concern that he's addressing is whether or not FEMA or other 8 federal agencies are recommending an emergency worker suit 9 up, wear a fully encapsulated suit to respond to a
,
10 radiological accident, a transport accident, even if lives 11 are endangered.
12 Now, that document has been withdraw There is () 13 no federal policy -- there is no FEMA policy on this issue 14 right no I am not aware of any coordinated federal
.
15 polic You referred to some policy, but I'm not aware of 17 that.
l
%r. M 8. N h b,*
'
18 EO;GE There's a long-standing policy that 19 suggests that life-saving takes priority over concern about l
[ 20 your own radiation exposure
!
21 MR. WINGERT: Oka I can give you my own 22 personal vie This is what I would recommend: if you are 23 approaching an accident in which there is the presence of i
'
24 smoke, toxic materials, and so forth, and there are lives I
25 in danger, and you have a suit you can put on very', very t
_
~
c320 09 08 254 p
Tu) WRBeb 1 quickly, or you've already come with a suit, go ahead and 2 wear your suit, and do the first thing, which is to deal 3 with the person in nee Second, if you don't have a suit handy, and you 5 arrive on the scene and there are lives in danger, and it's 6 a radiological transport accident, knowing everything that I 7 know about accident data and the low radiological risks 8 associated with an accident, I would first, personally, 9 attend to the victims, and not worry about my sui Third, I understand that it is becoming common 11 practice for emergency officials to impose the requirement 12 to bring suits that many of them do have, and almost
,-.
( 13 regardless of the incident they're going to have to have
.
14 them availabl And if there's an indication of, not 15 radiological hazards or toxic materials but plumes, and you 16 can see smoke, for Heaven's sake wear your suit, and do the 17 first thing that is most important: care for the victim Nyt - 6i IWF .
18 gIC04 The second question is about the model 19 state's program for emergency respons The NUREG document 20 that NRC turned out suggests a model state program that 21 would cost as much as SS millio That study is supposed to 22 be accompanied by another study late And I wondered 23 whether FEMA is in the process of trying to suggest anything 24 along the lines of a model state progra Os 25 MR. WINGERT: Let me provide the framework tor
z c320 09 09 255 t;
's I WRBeb 1 your question, and perhaps somebody from the NRC can answer 2 the question better than myself, since they did the studie The NRC did two studies associated with state and 4 local governments for radiological transport accident For 5 the first one, NRC contracted with Indiana University to 6 review the existing capability of state and local 7 governments to address radiological transport accident .
8 They wanted to assess what the current capabilities are; did 9 they have plans, were they testing plans, did they have
.
10 radiation protection, did they train, and so fort The 11 study was done in '81, I believ secondly, they did a study -- something to the ip .
(_) 13 effect of an unconstrained review of state and local 14 government capabilities to respond to radiological transport 15 accident What they were looking at there was not the 16 existing capability within existing resources of state and 17 local governments -- money, manpower, and so forth, but an 18 unconstrained review; in other words, cancelling out any 19 consideration of manpower, money; what would be the optimum
'
20 state and local system for handling radiological transport 21 accident Rockwell in California did that stud There was a third study planned, but that was not 23 done by NR FEMA s 5 really became the third optio In terms of FEMA doing a study or taking action A
kb P-~
25 on that, we developed FEMA Revi5 for coordination of the
r-c320 09 10 256 WRBeb 1 federal agencie And we think that represents a realistic 2 set of capabilities for state and local governments and 3 federal agencies to handle these accident Would someone from NRC like to comment on those 5 studies?
6 (No response.)
7 MR. LICKUS: Any other questions? We can take 8 maybe one mor VOICE: Jim Maher, Director of the Mississippi 10 Emergency Management Agenc I'm concerned that Mr. Wingert has given a little 12 bit of a false impression about the funding levels and how o)
(_ 13 those funds can be used and are available to FEMA; for 14 example, the 100 percent EOC money, which, to my knowledge 15 has never been availabl Also, there is a very distinct line drawn between 17 the various programs that FEMA funds, and across those lines 18 it is almost impossible to pass fund So, with that, if you have any further comment 20 I'll turn it back to yo MR. WINGERT: When I got to the CCA part I failed 22 to mention -- I may have mentioned, but I don't think I did 23 mention that these were all projections for FY 86, I was not
<3 24 talking about this yea And the program levels of funding V 25 matches that FEMA would apply are, at best, projections of
.c320 09 11 257 ()WRBeb 1 right now what we intend to do for FY 86, 2 So in terms of your comment about FY -- about the 3 current match, that is correc There was one other point I missed that I would 5 like to respond t There was an item I did not address in 6 terms of what you said, I believ MR. MAHER: 100 percent EOC fund You gave the 8 impression that there was money for RE In this centext 9 REP is power plant planning for the local and state 10 governments which there is a need for on the federal sid It all is funded either out of state money or out of 12 arrangements either in law or regulation or otherwise with () 13 utilities to fund those thing All the other planning for
~
14 transportation accidents we take out of our own hid MR. WINGERT: Oka I understand what you're 16 sayin What he said is true, and what I said is tru Let me tell you why both things are tru There was not a category called REP until FY 8 CCA started in FY 8 You do not get funding for REP 21 activities as a categor That is why in my vu-graph I had 22 radiological emergency preparedness and CCA at the top, and 23 I said you could get funding to do REP activities through 24 the CCA programs, such as radiological protection planning, O 25 training and educatio I did not mention REP as one of
c320 09 12 258 WRBeb 1 those categories in which there is Federal Emergency 2 Management fundin So the gentleman is correct, there is 3 no line item: funding for RE REP is funded indirectly;
. 4 okay?
5 What is said in those guidelines is that if you 6 want to use CCE funds for REP, do it through the other 7 program contexts, such as the emergency management syste That's the most important one to you all because that pays 9 half of your salaries; that is, those of you who are funded 10 by FEM '
11 So all you do is indicate that you want to 12 participate in this fund; have people, in terms of salaries
-
13 funded, and they will do certain functions such as planning
14 for transportation accidents, and I guarantee you won't have 15 any proble ,
MR. LICKUS: Oka I think we're about out of 17 tim There is another chance for you to discuss emergency 18 preparedness issues, and that will be during one of the 19 break-out sessions tomorro So please do it the Thank you for your attention, and have a good 21 evenin (Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the seminar was 23 adjourned, to reconvene at 8:00 a.m. the following 24 day.)
25