ML19305C775
| ML19305C775 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305C776 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-166, NUDOCS 8004100429 | |
| Download: ML19305C775 (33) | |
Text
__
f,p***as...
5 R}(
3 5.Muirlj
% Oxf U NIT E D STATES N UCLE AR REG UL ATORY COMMISSION In th's m atte r of:
PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF IRRADIATED REACTOR FUEL IN TRANSIT i
Piace:
Bethesda, Maryland I
l Date:
March 31, 1980 Pages:
1 - 33 8 0 0 410 045;tg INTERNAT!CNAL VensATiM REPectrEns. INC.
)
499 SCUTH CAPITCL STRED", S. W. SUITE 107 j
WASHINGTCN D. C. 20002 ll02 484 3550 t
- MCA nas nc.
1/1 l
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
t r
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
o I
a I
~~x l
In the Matter Of:
6 PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF i
7 IRRADIATED REACTOR FUEL 3
f IN TRANSIT 9
to
x i
i East West Towers i
Room 550 i
33 4350 East West Highway l
r Bethesda, Maryland i
14 i
i 12 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, for 17 I
presentation of the above-entitled matter, at 11:30 a.m.,
13 i
i John F. Ahearne, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
19 20 BEFORE:
j JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission l
C JOSEPH HENDRIE, Commissioner
- I PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner
- 2 s
- nregy
- cuu%,gpe,,
a-v.
j e
o sac:.. c.
f PRESE!iT L.
Bickwit, General Counsel L.
Evans M.
Fonner 4
}
Mr. Davis I
Mr. Hanrahan 6
Mr. Cornell 7
l l
1 1
i 9
l 10 II l
i:
6 1
13 I4 13 f4 17 13 f
19 20
- 1
+
4
~.2 t
6 4
i m ece % < twee aw am e,
l me e u m N.t*
t t**
M
4 0
7a43 sc.
I l'
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Our second meeting this I
morning has to do with Section 8166, Physical Protection 3
of Spent Fuel or Irradiated Reactor Fuel in Transit.
4 Kevin?
I I
MR. CORNELL:
I would like to turn it over 6
to Mr. Davis.
l I
MR. DAVIS:
In June of 1979, the Commission 3
amended Part 73 to provide immediately affected require-j i
9 ments for the physical protection of spent fuel in i
to transit and currently we issued a guidance in the form I
of NUREG 0561to:assistin carrying out these new I
t f:
i requirements.
Both the amendment and the guidance l
13 were published in the interest of public health and
!s safety without the benefit of a public comment period l
15 and that which initiated the rule with information 14 in a draf t Sandia report which suggested in the unlikely event of a successful sabotage, the breaching of the 18 cast and the dispersal of contents in a highly populated i
19 i
area, serious consequences could result.
1 At the time of publication in June of 1979, g
- 1 the public was invited to submit its views and comments.
After reviewing the comments received, and t$dng into account from the experiences we have gained NMSS believes 3
g that a number of changes in the amendments to parc 73 o
- m o... ' epe.ru aum mes '=c
3 uca sc I
I dnd in NUREG 0561 should be considered and in this briefing this morning we will consider those changes.
I L. J. Bud Evans, who is the Chief of the Regulatory
~
4 Improvements Branch Division of Safeguards, NMSS will I
be the principle briefer.
Now, before turning this over to Bud, I do i
7 l
wish to request prompt Commission action on this matter.
l 1
We believe that the changes that the Staff 9
i recommends are appropriate and should be promptly to implemented.
In addition, there is litigation currently 11 in the hearing stage which will be impacted by your decision on this particular matter.
13 An early decision will assist-the resolution i
i of the routine issues in this case and the record in g
this case is due to be closed in the later part of 33 g,
April.
j 18 So, anything that you can do promptly, will l
l t,
be appreciated by the staff, i
- g Mr. Evans will proceed with the briefing.
l 1
- )
MR. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Davis, i
4 Before we get into the specific substantive M
changes that the Staff is proposing to make in this 24 rulo I would like to quickly go over some of the 2
background, some of which John touched on and some of I
. w aea.% supe.,
a -..
1
. e c m c=a t.
= =.,
O nos 9c.
3 l
i i
which he did not.
I First of all, as he mentioned, the Commission I
approved this rule in an interim state in June of last f
i year.
They did so without the benefit of public comment.
l They made it effective immediately, or you all did, and l
I then you asked that we go out and get the benefit of 0
7 I
public comment and revised it based on that comment.
I l
The rule that you h' ave before you incorporates j
i 9
I our responses to those comments, but it is still interim in to nature --
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It has in fact a very I:
interesting title, it la an interim amended rule in 13 final form.
1s MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, exactly.
That is the l
12 point that I wanted to make.
It is not a final rule i
14 from the point of view of being permanent and that 17 i
will result after we get the results of confirmatory j
la i
research which is presently ongoing and scheduled to 19 be completed the middle of next year.
,0 After we get those results, we will come and f
1 recommend either that these requa.rements be made 7
permanent or that they be modified or even that they
- 4 be dropped depending on the results of the research 3
and I thought that was important background to keep in iwes=. m.%vape m. h !%
4 l
~
..cz sc l
1 mind as we go through this we anticipate the longest f
I i
length of time that these requirements will be in effect i
s would be till mid 1981.
l 4
Givn that background, I would like to highlight e
~
someof the major changes that we are proposing to make
,i 6
in the initial interim rule.
The next handout shows these, I believe the one shown in the first bullet is the one that will I
7 attract the most attention and have the most impact.
10 l
What we are saying here is that if there is a higher j
11 i
level of security provided to a' shipment and if NRC l
13 i
approves a route through a highly populated area, we II I
will allow the shipment to go through a highly populated 14 area.
13 Now, this is a change from the old rule.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, the old rule 17 mentioned was precipitated by raising the issue of the i
i Sandia study.
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir.
0 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ncw, I gather imbedded l
7; in this paper there is comment upon some additional, I
=
is it a further product of that same study which
- 4 indicated the effects '*ece not as severe?
2 MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, that is true.
A s
l maro espear' h tac
.I-
. oc:Aex=Q Q 0 cFO
- o 5
l nsas no.
t I
number of commenters raised that as being a possibility.
I Our position at this point is that we don't know if the first draf t or the second draf t of that report is accurate and that is why we have the confirma-t I
tory research ongoing.
i 6
t So, therefore, we have decided to permit the 7
option at these increased security levels and with l
NRC approval of routes to allow these shipments to j
I 7
go through cities, i
10 We anticipate this to allow them to use j
11 l
l interstate roads which generally go through or i
I:
l immediately around urban areas where, like the Washington l 13 Beltway, you cannot get around Washington, D.
C.
I 1s except on very, very secondary roads if you do not 13 at least use the Beltway.
CHAIR &W AHEARNE:
But what I am trying to 17 get clear in my mind is to what extent is this driven j
by the later draft of the Sandia report, because the i
,9 i
first proposed rule and immediate effectiveness of 3
the rule seemed, in large measure driven by the j
g earlier draft of the Sandia report.
=
MR. EVANS:
The second draft leaves one
- 4 to say that maybe we do not need to totally avoid l
urban areas, but to some extent, yes, I would not want 2
.eaf on% Verea m am :.c,
~
6 l
p.au we.
l i
i to place our entire weight on that though Lecause we l
I believe even if you believe the results of the first l
I draf t that with the increased security levels, the 4
appxnal of the route that we have provided for e*
adequate protection of these shipments when they go 6
i through urban areas.
l I
t CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In other words in asking 8
my question is, has the first draft been the same as the second draf t, would you have gone out with the 10
?
proposal to go immediately with the effective rule 4
11 1
1 or in the second draft was the same as the first draft would you be heading for this change?
I MR. EVANS:
The answer to the first question 9
g is no, we probably would not have proposed an immediately ef fective rule.
g l
g The answer to the second question and it j
13 may not be what you anticipate, probably we still i
19 have proposed this change in the rule because we believe
- o that it provides enough protection whether you believe II the first draf t or the second draf t.
i O
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In further study you U
referred to and the reason that you expect that there I*
will be no longer than May of ' 81 or the summer o f ' 81 is begause the Sandia report went into file??
i
-. = r a-x
9 I
nez sc I
I I
t MR. EVANS:
No, sir.
We had confirmatory I
research at Battelle which is ongoing where they will j
actually sabotage a spent fuel cast and see how much I
4 dispersal occurs from that sabotage.
i 3
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But you will get the 5
Sandia report in final at some stage?
t MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, although we do not I
know the schedule for that.
That has been changing quite a bit, so we do not know when we will get that, g
i and I do not know if it will be before mid '81 I g
cannot give you a firm answer on that.
j g
Unfortunately, that work, as you may well 14 know was done for DOE and we don't really control the 13 timing of it.
9 Id CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Go ahead, I am sorry.
17 MR. EVANS:
The second area that I think is i
i 18 important for you to note is the fact that we have l
19 changed the definition of highly populated area.
20 We have done this based on the Census i
,I Bureau's definition to allow those areas that involve two contiguous political jurisdictions two contiguous towns which had by the Census Bureau definition a highly
's populated area, namely a hundred thousand or more in
~
population to be classified as such, based en cur criteria i
O sa4t NC.
i 1
l The actual effect of this was to increase by I
40 to 50 areas throughout the country which would be i
so designated as highly populated areas.
l 4
A e
I The total number of areas in the country now l
l is around 180 given that change in definition.
The third area --
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:,Could I ask a question?
g I gather that the definition itself is not in the rule, to it is in the guidance?
l tt MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir.
That was the case with I
1:
the last rule as well.
I 13 CHSIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I know.
What is t
14 i
the exact definition that will be in the guidance?
i IS MR. EVANS:
It is the same definition that to the Census Bureau uses -- now I do not have the
!7 exact words with me, we can certainly get those to you.
We have piggy backed on the Census Bureau.
f I8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I guess it would be
- 0 nice to know.
Now, you mention in here that it would 21 expand it to 180?
~
MR. EVANS:
Approximately 180, yes sir.
2:
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
From what under the old --
- 4 MR. EVANS:
Approximately 130 to 140 under 2
th e o l'd, it is an increase of between 40 and 50 areas.
- . m re s >e
- e. m x
sasz
- c.
l t
I t
l The third area that I would like to mention I
that is a change is we have added performance objectives s
to the rule so that both the public and the licensees j
4 i
know what NRC expects to be accomplished with the l
I l
specific security requirements that are in the rule.
i e
I will get into the specifics of those changes on the i
7 next handout.
8 I
Finally, I would like to jump down to the j
9 i
last bullet, because I believe that is the only other one that is really significant and that deals with increase in the explicitness of the escort requirements 1
l that are inc 2ded in the revised rule.
These involve two things:
First, the config-9 urations for the escorts in urban areas have been y
explicitly delhmated in the rule and second of all, g-we have been more explicit in delineating the duties l
ta which the escorts must be able to carry out if a threat i
i 19 does exist.
- 0 Now, given that, what I would like to do is
+
1 show you the overall structure of the rule and then get down to the specific requirements that are contained 2
in the rule.
I' We look at the next handout and it is an
~
cutlige of that. rule.
e
= e- % :%
b
.G
10 I
n as wm I
i l
t i
First, up front we state the exempt quantities I
from the rule.
That is 100 grams or less.
Basically, 2
it boils down to samples and that is about all that s
are excluded and the reason for the 100 grams or less is that you will have no immediate fatalities from 6
a perfect sabotage within an urban area.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:,Are there many of those,
shipments?
10 MR. EVANS:
To date, there haven't been t;
any, but we anticipate some now that we providad this I;
exemption.
In the past, there have been several 13 shipments ar9und the 200 gram level which could be 14 split in two shipments and that might happen.
The performance objectives that I mentioned 14 earlier is the second part of the rule.
These basically 37 boil down to five things.
l l
13 First, minimize sabotage possibilities, l
19 particularly in urban areas.
l
~0 Second, provide for early detection at attempts to gain control or to sabotage a spent fuel-i
~
shipment.
Third, to notify the LLEA immediately 4
upon perceiving a threat.
2 e
u
11 I
sa43 NC.
6 l
i 1
\\
Fourth, impede that sabotage threat until 2
LLEA arrives, and l
3 Finally, if the control of the shipment is I
4 lost to facilitate recovery of that shipment.
e=
6 So, those are the objectives of the rule i
b I
we are dealing with.
i 7
i Now, the rest of the rule deals with specific j
8 They are divided into two portions l.
i security requirements.
1 The general ones, that means general to all of the modes; road, rail, and sea, and then we have the modes specific requirements as they are shown there.
i l
t Now, we will get into the specifics of all U
l these with the next two handouts.
i 9
y The first one deals with the general require-L g
ments to all modes.
17 I think there are four areas that are of la particular interest to all of you on this particular 19 handout.
- 0 The first deals with instruction to escorts.
Il The rule now is very explicit.
That the escorts must O
do four things:
U They must constantly be looking to determine whether there is a threat.
If they see something that is a p,ossible threat, they must immediately assess it
. - x I
0 t
O as48 nc.
t I
i i
as well as call the LLEA and let them know that such i
a possible threat exists and if the threat turns out i
to in fact be there they must implement contingency i
I procedures which are written out prior to the shipment in which they are trained in, prior to the shipment.
3 7
The second area that I think is important f
g for you to focus on is the communication center.
We l
have required that there be a communications center for t
to every shipment and that it maintain continual knowledge f
11 of the status of the shipment.
l f:
It gives us backup communication with the j
i 13 LLEA..
l The third area that is important to note is Id I3 that NRC approves routes and the things that are 4
involved when they appmm*
routes includes actually II contacting the LLEAs along the route, determining U
their response times, if their assistance is needed, determining what capabilities they can bring within
.g the various response imes to get there.
- 1 Looking for any safeguards problems such as communications dead spots which may be there along M
the route, encouragement of alternative routes, so 4
if a problem develops with the primary one, they have
~J t
=
apene
=c
~
13 0
s pa43 NC.
l an alternative route to use.
Looking for construction I
problems along the route, such as bridge limitations 3
l and finally identifying safety havens that a spent 4
fuel system could use if it has some kind of problem j
3 i
along the route.
6
}
The final area that I think is an important l
7
{
change is training area.
t We have the initial training requirements of
{
10 Appendix D to assure that all escorts are trained all f
I escorts that would go into urban areas are trained in g;
3; the use of weapons.
Which you will see from the next 13 slide they are now required to have in highly populated I
t.
1.
areas.
13 In particular, as regards to road shipments, 14 I think there are two areas that you all need to consider.,
17 The first is that the escort requirements 6
18 are now dif ferent for urban areas than they are for 19 non-urban areas.
.g If the shipment is in an urban area, one of t
two things --
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is your definition of
- ~
urban area --
24 MR. EVANS:
The same as highly populated,
- 2 iampnie%6 vemamew avessvta=L M l
assam.u m y.t.
wm er
14 O
8 saaz se.
i I
1 I
I yes, sir, I am using those interchangeably.
i If you are in a highly populated area, one l
3 1
of two security configurations must occur by this rule.
j i
If you use private escorts, you must have two escort l
3 r
vehicles with the shipment, one in front and one behind 6
7 the shipment, and they must each have armed escorts with 3
them.
9 If you use the LLEA to accompany the shipment, l
10 you must have an LLEA vehicle with the shipment as well g
t 11 as an escort in the transport vehicle.
l i
1:
So, those are the two options for the highly i
i I3 populated areas.
I 14 From the shipments that are not within a 1
13 highly populated area, you can use those two options 14 if you wish, if you are going through a number of I7 i
highly populated areas along your route with not too la I
many unpopulated areas, then you might just keep the I
same level of security throughout the whole shipment.
- 0 On the other hand, if you have long 1
I stretches of unpopulated areas to go through, you can then go to where you have an escort in the cab with the driver or you have two escorts in an escort vehicle
.:4 with only the driver in the cab or as I mentioned you, 2
e
- = e e o
.,t=efw h 's me muti. c.a. - A rour t e n.i-t sr
15 o
a nas ne i
li can have any of the highly populated areas.
So, for I
non-populated areas, you have four options that can occur.
4 The second area of road shipments that I r
i think is important deals with immobilization and 6
basically what we say is that the cab or the trailer l
7 r
of the transport vehicle must be equipped with a 3
I device to give you a minimum of 30 minutes delay.
9 to That is not a change from the old rule, i
i but I call it to your attention, because it is an 11 integral part of the security plans and why we have i
i l
less security when the shipment is in non-populated
,{
13 i
I pq7 abul areas.
d 14 areas, other than highly I
a 13 In the road and sea shipments, I think there I4 is one provision that needs to be called out Exiprobably t7 only one and that is that any time those shipments i
r is are in urban areas, there will be two armed guards.
i 19 Any time they are in non-urban areas, there
- o will be one escort, he does not have to be armed, but i,
- 1 he must maintain museil12333 of the shipment and he l
=
must be capable of notifying the LLEA to gain response.
That, I think covers the highlights of the 24 changes we have made, where the rule is today,.and "J
n m.m..atweer am %c.
de ER.'The Ca**4t. N 1 e %f?T SF V
16 I
sa4K N C.
I I
i 1
I we will entertain any questions that you might have.
I 2
CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Yes, if I can just work f
i my way through.
I have some questions on 166.
You j
l mentioned that one of the things you do is take into 1
i account the experience gained during the several months you members have beet effative.
How many l
7 t
shipments have we had ?
3 MR. EVANS:
We have had 43 shipments to 9
date.
g i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Were there any significant t-problems with applying the proposed or the existing --
j l
13 MR,.
EVANS:
The major problem has been the l
14 issue of how do you stay on roads that are considered i
13 safe from the point of view of our safety people and I
14 from the point of view of the DOT has in its materials, l
II CRAFT rule they just issued.
l l
13 l
When you are going around urban areas, some-t l'
times you get down to some fairly secondary roads.
D that have a lot of sharp turns in them and have heavy 3
trucks.
Sometimes their bridge limitations, that
'~
kind of thing and that is one of the reasons that we 4
want to provide the option to use interstates going 2
through highly populated areas, t
'eeacza46 e m ene am %
f as Elh7T9e ON f"*H". i e wrPt W m e c ca
~
17 r
O ancz we.
l t
t t
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You mentioned, picking up s
on that point but also in the rules and discussing in l
several places, the likelihood of a conventional traffic I
accident is reduced on these interstate highways.
I i
Is the probability of accident for mile 6
7 travelled really much less c3 interstate than the l
g probability of per mile travelled on the alternate 9
routes?
i to MR. EVANS:
I do not have the exact figures, i
11 Mr. Chairman, what I do know that in justifying the 1
hazardous materials revisions that were issued by DOT 13 recently they stated that interstate highways wera f
14 preferred routes for hazardous materials because I3 of that reason, mainly that accidents were less.
I Id do not know the exact figures on that.
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
For my own use, I would is appreciate if you could get that.
'9 Now, you do mention in here that there will
- 0 be passage through these heavily populated areas on 21 approved routes, what criteria will we use for improving the routes?
MR. EVANS:
All right.
Now, there are a
- 4 number of criterion.
I think the easiest thing to do 2
s
- e ace. s se m am %
18 l
= cz se I
i i
4 is give you a handout that we prepared which lists them.
These are contained in the guidance document j
that will be issued prior to this becoming effasd3e.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
For those people who don't f
3 6
have them, you might read them.
l t
7 MR. EVANS:
All right.
Criterion include l
3 Availability of communications; I
likelihood of swift LLEA response; 9
i 10 avoidance of tactitly disadvantageous positions; availability of appropriate rest and-II refueling stops; U
goed transportation safety design features; Id These are things that we feel interstate highways are I'
preferred in order to satisfy these criteria.
i to In addition, there are the criteria of 17 l
minimizing travel time and length, interfaced with is I
approved road and railroad, absence of construction.
l 19 I
and/or maintenance operation; avoidance of severe 20 weather conditions and avoidance of close proximity 21 l
to international boarders.
=
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You mean you would see
(
=
the staff then approving sets of routes based upon
- :4
-this criterion?
'J s
e* emes /emmam. %=se+was x l
. - o s
9 nsc.s ~<c. A I
i l
i.
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir.
I f
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, there were apparently a number of comments on the rail section which you have 4
in here on Page 18.
It says some question the need I
i for significant measures for rail casts and you go 1
i on to say that similar uncertainties planned by both i
h I
road and rail shipments would like to acquire higher I
9 level of adversary resources if established cannot be ruled incredible and you decided that interim protection measures for rail should be taken in force.
I i
Ii The discussion seems to read as though j
i you had concluded that there is a different level-g of risk associated with rail versus road, but your g,
- 3 conclusion was thct that didn't lead you to mitigate g4 and to reduce the rail requirements 17 MR. EVANS
I think what we were trying to la say there is that while one could make a plausible case 19 for a need for additional adversary resources in order 20 to sabotage a rail shipment We did not have a basis I
1 upon which to say that a rail shipment could not be C
sabotaged.
U Therefore, we felt that there'still needed to be protection unintained for rail shipments.
Now, the requirements are somewhat different i
<.m, n ~. w x t
m u-,m. v.e. s. m.,
i
saas sc.
90 i
i U1 that you of course don't have escort l
vehicles with them and you don 't require a special 2
train which another commentor or several other commentors ;
i 4
would recommend those kind of things.
l t
We tried to steer a course that we felt l
assured us that '-
as one of the performance l
7 objectives 3
t 9
The likelihood of sabotage would be minimized
{
to however not a course where we require such a high level l
it of security that it would not be cost effective.
It I:
was a balance.
{
i 13 CHSIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I think your arguments j 14 in here are a little weak why you keep the rail.
On t
13 Page 23 I notice that you make the statement regulations to without exception carry the approval of the majority II of the Commissioners.
While true, I think it misses the point.
f is 19 I think the regulations to that exception carry the
[
.g approval of the Ccmmission, when the majority of the 3
Commisioners vote in a given direction, that then is the Commission.
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, we will change that.
- 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE
And I think you really
".3 should say so.
s
% %,,. = -
x I
O W M O O *. am 'st
o nas sc.
.l I
i On Page 25, you note that you disagree with I
the contentions that special trains are needed to meet the requirements.
Do the railroads, agree s
I t
or disagree?
3 i
MR. EVANS:
The railroads do not believe i
6 you need special trains, and in fact they have been 7
transporting spent fuel without special trains.
s (Commissioner Bradford 11:55) 9 arrived i
10 l
CHAIPMAN AHEARNE:
You know of no cases f
11 j
where the railroads have insisted on special trains?
i 33 MR. EVANS:
I am not aware of any no sir.
I 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You mention that NRC
- 3 contested the local ordinance regulating the transport g4 of nuclear materials through New York City and you then 17 went on to mention that a US request for preliminary i
l la injunction was denied, was there any other further 19 Court action on that?
- 0 MR. EVANS
No, my understanding is that II I guess I am not the most knoaledg. 61e in this area.
U Maybe I should turn this one over if we have a lawyer here that is familiar with that, let us do
's it that way.
- 1 MR. FCNNER:
I suppose I am a person more -
m ee iv,
ave-m r e
22 ma43 M C.
I i
i familiar with it than anyone else here.
The Department l
of Transportation was asked for a finding in that case and they came up with the finding that they did not feel that it was a preempt situation and that is where l
y i
it stopped and apparently there has been no further 3
7 action.
The case is more or less in limbo.
i MR. EVANS:
My understanding is that they 9
in issuing this draft rule on hazardous material 10 transportation that once that goes final they would f
then feel that they were in a position to prampe.
f I:
That is not anticipated by the way until l
1 13 the middle of 1981 or approximately the same time will I
14 make a decision on whether to go with the permanent 13 rule.
I' MR. BICKWIT:
On that point, I was a little bit concerned with the discussion of that issue and I
I think we could leave ourselves more flexibility on r
19 the preemption question.
As I read it, it was pretty, l0 it had an absolute ring to it that there was really 1
i
^
no possibility of preempting state or local activities i
in this area until the DOT regulation becomes final.
That maybe the case as a legal matter, I 4
am not clear that that is the case.
That that case is
- 2 e
'= sp. enas vere.m o - ete.s x c
[
f de e 4.48**"E FNW'. E e Wr'T t,
23 8
noz we.
i i
r t
there and I am inclined to think that there is some flexibility and that we ought to preserve it.
l t.
MR. EVANS:
We will make that change.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
On Page 30, Bud, you are l
I 6
talking about the local governnent approving licensing i
i 7
a major response.
You say the purpose of the require-l 1
l ment is listed in 0561 to provide for the development 3
9 of plan to be used by drivers, escorts et cetera.
10 The larger question of emergency plans and emergency preparedness and emergency response are I2 judged beyond the scope of these interim safeguards l
13 requirementss i
i i
la What do you see as being required to address la those and to what extent in many ways these are at la least to some extent their actions be taken by drivers, 17 escorts, et cetera, in the event of an emergency.
13 MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, we have checked into l
19 this with the state programs people who have tried
- o to make some kind of judgment on what direction we i
21 i
ought to take.
The bottom line of it is to date FEMA and 2
the state program people in their discussions have
- 4 -
not addressed security matters.
2 e
teacmastsaae=8 =mmys %t l
C) N G Q. n e M '17 3
=
24 nsas ns They have stayed strictly on the safety i
side of the house.
2 i
It would appear to me that we as a Commission l
2 i
i t
are going to have to decide what policy we want to 4
i i
take in regards to security matters in this arena.
I 6
- l Obviously with DOT, a decision was made and a memorandum of understanding developed where since 7
i y
we had security expertise and DOT did not, we would maintain that kind of emergency planning and that kind l
- g of requirement for roots.
l g;
And in fact, their draft rule specifically 12 states that they will defer to us in the security area.
l I
is I po not know whether that is the direction j
l 14 that we should take or not.
I think we would have to 13 say that the staf f is exploring that right now, and 14 hasn't gone through the cracks, it is just that they I7 have been so busy on the safety side they have not 5
I8 focused on this part of the concerns in regards to l
0 l
emergency planning.
MR. HANRAHAN:
It seems to carry a mixed bag.
It seems on the one hand that we are talking about safeguards where you think in terms of security
'~
but yet there are safety implications here with the 4
public which deals then clearly gets into the 2
emerggncy preparedness area and if the concern is
~ %
r..mm%
aus e ON tr'T 't?
t n
~
masa %%.
I the dispersal of the material that is different than I
I safeguards.
2 i
MR. EVANS:
I agree with you and as I say I
4 the problem is that they have been so focused and I l
should not just say safety.
What I should say is that they have been so focused on fixed sight safety, l
they just did not get into the transportation side 3
and how it splits up.
I 9
I i
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Kevin, is that something that you will be getting to in the near future?
l MR. CORNELL:
Are you talking about the l
g g3 negotiations with FEMA?
g4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And the transportation 13 emergency.
14 MR. CORNELL:
They are in their preliminary 17 stages, I&E has a lead in those negotiations and j
18 they are only just beginning and the other negotiations l
i 19 are farther down the road, I don ' t think they made much
'O progress on that.
i
- 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That finishes it for me, Joe?
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
As I look back on
- 4 our leap to protect spent fuel of last year, I have about concluded that it was a little precipitous a
maromas omese amx l
26 l
- *as w e.
i and that the perils that derive from this transportation I
1 are in my view somewhat less than the measures we 2
1 instituted by that immediately effective rule would 4
indicate how we cleaned up and we are in the process f
3 l
now of cleaning up some of the dif ficulties created j
6 i
l by that leap to regulation.
7 Is it your impression that this will leave things in a reasonable state within the next year while
- 3 we thrash along and think some more about this sabotage business?
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir it is.
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If we adjust Part 73 4
l i
la on the basis proposed here with minor modifications 13 does that strike you as leaving practicality and S
I4 transportation in reasonable shape?
That is. are the I7 things that really seem to be hurting people who have l
1 I8 to move spent fuel that are not in someway reasonably l
A 39 addressed here that you know of ?
i
'O MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, it will eliminate
-1 i
any of the major problems that have been called to our attention to date through the number of shipments that have either occurred or the ones that are being
- 4 proposed over the next year.
2 s
le4% vene P= h 'ac i
27 C
0 n as wm i
1 I
i I
4 We are not aware of any other problems.
2 l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, we will continue i'
2 to have this difference between the commercial sector 4
and the government operations on spent fuel.
If you l
had -- what sort of commentary -- you noted in the discussion of the rule here that wss fine.
What sort l
7 of comentm7 have you had from our friends at DOE?
i I
l MR. EVANS:
Well, the DOE position is still i
that this material does not need to be protected.
i g
3 Now, one side comment I might make on that I;
is that in the DOT rule they will in effect require j
i 13 an equivalent protection between NRC and DOE.
So --
l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Which level being?
13 MR. EVANS:
Whatever level we are at when i
to their rule becomes final.
17 Now, as I mentioned, one nice thing about i
i 18 the timing of these rules right now is that our l
i I9 confirmatory research will be completed at approximately l
.g the same time they intend to finalize their rule.
- 1 So, at that point we may have no protection of spent fuel if that is the way the confirmatory research goes, or we might have the same level in
's either case the level of protection with DOE would 2
be eqwivalent through the mechanism of their DOT has i
i., s % %,
r- _ x I
sus e Ome*gn, N.1.
- SJfft '97
28 3
asas NC.
s t
I t
its materials with.
MR. HANRAHAN:
I see that, again, the t
I I
difficulty here, we are talking about protecting the j
i 4'
shipment and if it is protecting someone who desires getting the material itself, that will be it, that j
is the protection against the most sophisticated i
i 7
l sort of threat in that it requires a lot of other 8
facilities to extract that plutonium.
go Then again the sabotage of the shipment i
it to disperse pushing products and so forth around the l
1:
Capitol Beltway are we applying the same sort of i
13 rawdramats heing applied to other hazardous cargos j
14 which cause --
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Cargos that we regulate?
I4 MR. HANRAHAN:
That anybody regulates.
37 MR. EVANS:
That is a question thattss raised i
I I8 itself a number of times.
The ACRS has asked us to I'
look into that.
Some people say it is beyond the
- o scope of our charter.
Some people say that we ought
.i to be releasing information on that.
I guess the bottom line of that issue is
~
that the DOT rule will increase the protection require-
- 4 ments from a non-security point of view of all hazardous 2
I l e % <spearme 4 -s m ps ' <
t es e CA88'*4A N 5e WFT WT
29 nsas As f
I i
i I
i' materials beyond what it is today.
But from a security I
i point of view, no, there are not these kinds of l
3 I
requirements with other materials which may be just 4
as dangerous.
[
3 i
f I do not know how we address that problem j
6 given that it is not within the scope of our charter.
That is the problem that we are living with 8
today.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
- g i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No.
j I
g.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
I 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me just ask --
i 14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If I can just comment, 13 Peter, if I can get a 30 second in, that it seems to 14 me that some adjustments in the rule made immediately
^"I 17 effective have long been needed in the present sense l
18 seem to me to be a reasonable ground to stand on for l
I9 another time which will probably run a year in a M
few months.
Probably DOT's proceeding works along i
j l
while the work goes on on our side so I simply
~,
~
like to note for you that I intend to sign off on that as proposed with the sort of minor adjustments that
- 4 have been discussed here.
2.
Thank you, Peter.
.. v 1
m m e w s n n oca m
30 s az sc.
t i
i l
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On Page 8, you suggest I
r that the immobilization provision can be complied with l
1 i
by immobilizing the trailer or the tractor or both; 4
does it really, if you simply immobilize the tractor, does that solve the problem?
Or is it the trailer that 4
you are really worried'about?
7 MR. EVANS:
No, our understanding of it is s
{
that in either case, you will have a 30 minute delay.
So you are not going to lose that shipment for 30 minutes.
There is a coupling device between the cab and the g
trailer that you need, which will assure you that
- 3 you get that 30 minute delay.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So, part of the
- 4 4
13 requirement is that it is pretty hard to uncouple.
Id MR. EVANS:
That is just a fact, it is not 17 in the requirement, but that is the way that it is la occurring.
I i
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess if it is not part 30 of what is in the requirement hinges on something that II is not in the requirement, it probably ought to be.
E MR. EVANS:
I think the bottom line is that U
we would require a 30 minute delay.
That is crucial,
- 4 and that is what the requirement says regardless of --
2 o
' mp=. o
..ee..
m nses.g v.
.i e
6 E3eN M O N.SS WM ' 97
31 i
o nez se.
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And it can be met.
l MR. EVANS:
By many different mechanisms, yes, 3
sir.
A COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On Page 13, you I
I allow for unanticipated changes in rail ship routes, 6
is there any requirement that goes with that that the local law enforcement agencies be notified for those changes?
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, that is one of the i
g changes that do require advance notification, you must be able to notify the LLEA and they must so do.
l l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The more serious jg j
l 9
question I had had to do with the changes that had to 13 do with heavily populated areas.
Is it fair to say I
I4 that there is no upper limit on that that pursuant 17 to this change the largest cities; New York, Chicago,
,I i
la what have you are -- you would now say that spent fuel i
I 19 could move through those?
We would say that, however,
,i i
there is a local ordinance which bans it --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Leaving that point aside, as far as NRC is concerned.
- 4 MR. EVANS:
As far as NRC is concerned, yes, 3
- sir, i
- mw
-e 6,e
- e. h c.
due @ M ff*W* L
.- u -
32 r
4 0
sadt N C.
I I
g I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
When you say through it i
though, it would be through it in the same sense that the Beltway is through Washington; is that correct?
4 MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, you would use this criteria, I am not sure that you got a chance to see 6
these, which would help us in terms of minimizing some of the concerns that you may have, a
3 i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now, would these,
~
9 i
in effect, keep the cargo off the basic street network g
and that is an absolute matter, that is not discretionary I
with the licensees?
g a
MR. EVANS:
Well, no, it is not discretionary 14 with the licensees, we have to approve the route or i
u they can't use it and we would not approve such a route.
14 If you were thinking that there is going to be 17 a shipment of spent fuel driving down 16th Street to i
18 the White House, that is not going to happen.
l 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I was just l
20 going by the sentence that it is now available at the i
II option of the licensee --
i MR. EVANS:
But, based on that criteria.
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There is another section.
1
- 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let me spend 2
a-litgle time with these and let's not take the time here.
t
, ~a.
e, am c.
es e W N. 3. e %rTT ' 97
[~
33 b
nsas sc, 4
,I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, thank you, 1
John, Bud.
E 2
l' I would ask two things, if I could to EDO 4
would you clarify with the Energy Department when j
3 I
will the Sandia work be done?
l And NMSS could you I guess you are the link i
7 i
l on the Sandia report.
i 8
l MR. EVANS:
Yes, we will do that.
9
]
to CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you get me a briefing on the later Sandia report, because we had one on 12 the earlier one.
j 13 Thank you.
l ta (Meeting was adjourned t
12 12:45.)
S to I
t
}
18 f
19 20 I
II r
e.so 4
3 e
, m m t w me =--- n x e
i en m m m.nn m m