ML19253D002
| ML19253D002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Audin L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-333, FOIA-79-A-25E NUDOCS 7912120501 | |
| Download: ML19253D002 (2) | |
Text
.
fCvhW
~
y*
/l/ VMDL(.
LD
,,,,, A' 10/22/79 Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Co::::ission APPEAL OF INITIAC 101A DECIS10O 7 0 ME( p.&
Washington, D.C. 20535
/ y> *
Dear Sir:
This letter concerns an appeal from an initial FOIA decision regarding FOIA-79-333.
I appreciate receipt of the initial documents and your efforts to fairly apply the information law, but I wish to appeal several deletions relevuut to routing of spent fuel shipments. Please consider the remainder of this letter as my formal appeal. Should you need clarification of any of its contents, I nay be reached by phone at the following numbers:
- until Thursday evening, 10/25: (914) 941-0648
- Friday, 10 26, 3 to 5 pm: (602) 888-0178
- Monday, 1 29, 9 am to 5:30 pm: (212) 532-9152 The last number may be considered for use after Monday as well. I'm sorry NRC was unable to reach me by phone for clarification of my initial request.
The deletions I wish to appeal concern only the routing of spent fuel shipments. While I can understand withholding much other material that was deleted (com::unications methods, LLEA contacts, safe havens, etc.)
as related to the security of individual shipments or to the competitiveness of shippers, the routes themselves do not fall under either category.
Similarly, the Freedom of Information Act does not allow exemption from disclosure of data previously made public.
In the case of spent fuel shipments, the possible pathways are highty limited by the weight and nature of the casks and contents. For example, use of the IF-300 cask mandates use of rail lines but, in one case, only one such line serves the two points between which the cask must move.
Similarly, knowledge of NUREG-0561 infers the most acceptable route (if there are several choices). Finally, virtually all of the data on rail, truck and barge routes is public information through state transport departments.
Therefore all routes for spent fuel are discernible with knowledge of'anly the cask, starting point, destination and NRC regulations. The only possible exceptions to that rule would be:
a.) a deliberate decision to use a hig ly uneconomical mode for a given cask (e.g., moving the NLI 12 by rail instead of truck) b.) following an uneconomically circuitous route (highly udlikely by a private company) c.) the case of a reactor and destination both accessible by both (since no barging of spent fuel is probable in the near future,
[k rail and barge so that a rail cask could move by either mode
/
this possibility is also remote).
y Pc::'d Cff. EDO Date....Mh4 7.2..:.:.:.:
15,1 12 2 Tim e...........//. h.;....J
_.__ _. _ 7 91212 0 M
a
^^ '.
~m-
.. ~~2Q '
g pe s
'"~", API EAL FROM FOIA DECISION 79-333 page 2
"~
could be made that numerous options exist for truck routing An argument between two distant points, but common sense dictates that the most 2
economical route is most likely, considering the cost of cask rental and truck leasing. Similarly, the route which exposes the fewest people to danger would also have priority. Familiarity with NgREG-0561 and
' ~ ~ '
a highway cap can deliver the logical route to anyone wishing to spend the time analyzing such a situation.
The obvious conclusion to the above discussion would be that anyone can determine, with a high degree of probability, the route to be taken between two known points. To delete routing data is, then, an inconvenience for the concerned inquirer and not an aid to the security of the shipment.
That security is enhanced by exemption of the precise date of the shipment, the safe havens suggested and the specific LLEA liaisons, along with their preparations for handling an incident.
I do not challenge your deletion of such data.
If there is any doubt about the prior publication of routes, the economics of routing and the limitations on cask usage by given reactors, I refer to the following documents, all of which touch upon those concerns (the first two cover it in great detail):
1.) " Current Status and Future Considerations for a Transportation System for Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste", 1978, AGNS 2.) " Capabilities of U.S. Domestic Transportation Systems for Shipnent of Radioactive Waste, 1977, NAC 3.) " Fallout on the Freeway", 1974, Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM) 4.) "Radwaste on the Roadway", 1977, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) 5.) " Nuclear Cargo in North Carolina: What are the risks?", 1977, North Carolina Public Interest Research Group (NCPIRG)
Numerous studies have been performed and made public by state and regional agencies concerned with spent fuel shipments, many of which detailed routes.
See the attached correspondence for examples for such detailing by both utilities and a state department of transportation.
The claim of routing as security information is obviously not valid in light of such prior public discussion.
The claim of proprietary or " trade secret" coverage of routes is similarly invalid since the use of all rail, highway and barge paths are open to all shippers, and the market conditions (e.g., cost of fuel, tolls, leasing) dictate the same results regardless of who signs the bill of lading.
Therefore, the parts of USC 552 and 10CFR9 that were cited cannot be
\\541
\\23
y,an.n> c f _'.' ",~1:Zr.t_, _
-n. w ~~g.
~
_i 1 - - --
Oh 3
\\
~
~ ~~
m
- ^,gW*
ArrgAL FROM FOIA DECISION 79-333 page 3 utilized to exempt r utes of spent fuel shipments.
I request that such re.tes be provided in the documents previously supplied to me and that all future such requests include routing data as non-exempt inforn:stion.
~*
4. -
Your continued attention to my appeal and requests is greatly appreciated
~~
a
- Yours, l-h G "'
d
{
d Lindsay Audin One Everett Avenue Ossining, N.Y. 10562 Attachments :
- response to routing interrogatory from attorney for Nine Mile Point
- response to routing interrogatory from N.Y. Dept. of Transportation
=
1541 124 9
i--
^~
4 NEW YOR K STATE DEPARTMENNF TRANSPORTATION u -
w.m.m c. Hennessy. commis,;on.,
1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, New York 12232 s(,
May 14, 1979 e
L. A. Enterprises 1 Edward Avenue Ossining, New York 10562 Attention:
Mr. Audin:
Dear Mr. Audin Enclosed is the information you requested regarding size and weight statutory limitations for vehicles traveling in New York State.
You requested routing from the connecticut State line to the Buffalo area, but you mentioned your final desf. nation as West Valley.
Provided that your vehicles are legal weight and size, we can suggest the following routes:
Conn. State line to Buffalo 17-390-36-63-20.
Conn. State line to West Valley 17-219-242-240.
v If you find that these vehicles are over size or over wei ht, you will 6
have to obtain a Special Hauling Permit for each move.
The fees and means of obtaining these permits are also described in the enclosed materials.
1 If we can be of any further assistance, please contact the undersigned.
i' Very truly yours,
+
JOHN H. SHAFER, Director Traffic and Safety Divisien 5
4 BY l a
i N
/
\\'
Donna Gregory Administrative Section JilS:DCarb Enclosure cc
\\Sh\\
\\1b
,. /m -
~~~ "
,;.a -.f>,..is g y
.e w...
' s' I
'**"~#
g r-.q ) +.:g gy i
fgy W
_ : _n.=
,pf e i
gy
~
~-<r ggg
" - - il
..r-
~ ~ 1Ugust 9,1974 l-
.~ q
= - -
q
= =
A.
Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc.
'D TI 0
0 S-
- lE.
121
.~ P. O. Box 146
,w e j\\
l
- 7 w
.';w Morehead, Kentuc y 40351
~s o
k
~
I.
' Hittman Nuclear & Development Corp.
.h
-s 9190 Red Branch Road e
DS U6 Columbia, Md.
21045 g
4-N
' (19)
Q. What are the typical routes taken by the carriers when trans-porting solid radioactive wastes from the Nine Mile Nuclear Station N
T to West Valley, New York and Morchead, Kentucky?
~
3
'.L
')
s' q Y m. m m z T m c. ;a.: ;.s.- r.
. ' ' ~ ~ ~. } M,,. 7-
- a j
~
,i A. Solid Waste
, D.9 n :, w-
. ::r-r.:.: v : ci a
v
,r.t.
178 Miles 3
Route to West Valley, New York I
c104 West to Rochester to U.S.15 to alternate 20 Wert, N.Y. State 98 West, N.Y. State 39 West, U.S. 219 South to NPS facility at
[a West Valley.
b
,.}
.nf. g..,
,, g c
?.
gRoute to Morehead, Kentucky.
1
. U.S.104 West to U.S.15 to U.S. 20 South to Interstate 90 to
- Interstate 271 to Interstate 77 to Interstate 64 to Kentucky Highway 4
' 32 into Morehead.
(20)
Q. Why don't casks have an established use-life?
A. As explained during our recent conference, there la not sufficient experience with casks currently in use to meaningfully predict their use-life. However, the rigid inspection performed on such casks, as described in the reply to question 5 through 8, willIns'ure that casks are suitable -at all times for the intended service and will, as a practical matter, determine when maintenance becomes excessive t
and the casks should be retired.
We trust the above information will be of assistance in your research project.
Yours very truly,,
M i
Walter J.
ett Senior System Attorney WJB/pst Enclosure
\\541 126
.m-e.
e e
w s
een ge -
O e-e eiO"