ML20133H452
Text
.
M ALLINCK RODT NUCLEAR s AINT Lo uis 7. M t s so u n t U.s.A.
. CENTR AL l 8980 CO R PO R ATIO N etm c." nu. ewn m February 10, 1960 Dr. Charles E. Luke Division of Licensing and Regulation U. S. A tomic Energy Coenuission Washington 25, D. C.
SUBJECT:
Shipping Regulations
REFERENCE:
Telephone Conversation of January 27, 1960 Dear Dr. Lukes In the referenced conversation you said the AEC is putting i
a new regulation in force requiring a licensee to obtain a j
fim committment from the carrier that be will not place our nuclear shipment on the same truck with some other licensee's shipments and also that our shipment would not be transshipped 4
( transfernd from one vehicle to another).
i As a result of this conversation, I asked our Traffic Departusent to investigate this requirement with some carriers l
who have handled various shipments for us.
i The carriers stated that the requirement of no transshipping would be very difficult for them to agree to frem the standpoint i
of cost and sobeduling difficulties.
Also, several days delay would result from the extra loading and unloading that would l
be required at each normal transfer point.
Shipments from our Banatito Plant to Lynebburg, Virginia, j
were used as an example.
C.E.S. would bring an empty Killion i
trailer from St. Louis to load at our plant.
This trailer j
would then stop at Crystal City, oonplete its loading and i
return to St. Louis.
All freight, exoopt our nuclear shipment, j
would be removed and the trailer taken to Killion e tenniaal s
i for reloading.
The trailer would then go to Killion's 1
Enoxv111e teruainal where the non-nualear freight would be removed.
The trailer would be transferred to Rutherford's i
Enoxville tensinal for loeding to Lynchburg.
At Lynchburg the non-nuclear freight would be removed and the trailer i
taken to the consignee of the nuelsar shipment.
i.,.q l
gug g o n t.n a reaar Ano ts Ao No enooucan or Nucts An ru sts PDR FOIA FLOYD96-343 PDR
_________________________________j
1 Dr.- Cha r lo s 5'. Luxe Shipping Rot.ations February 10, 1960 Page Two--
For a 600 lb. normal LTL shipment Hematite to Lynchburg, the freight charge is approximately $20.00.
It is apparent from the above description that the carrier would require mueb more than $20.00 worth of effort to avoid a transshipment.
Exclusive use charges for a Hematite to LynchburE shipment are approximately $600.00.
The carriers did state that they would be willing to certify that our nuclear shipment would not be loaded on the same j
truck with another nuolesr shipment.
l
/
A l side issue resulting from the inquiry by our Traffic Dwartment was concern expressed by the carriers as t>4hs a
safety of these shipments if such stringent regulations are required.
For small shipments, as exampled above, exclusive use of the vehicle appears unnecessarily expensive te us and our customers.
Delays encountered in LTL non-transshipments would add additional cost to us in the case of shipments for which we must pay the lease charges.
On the basis of the above discussion, we feel that the i
non-transshipment requirement is undel,y restrictive and propose to rely on the administrative control of the carrier and his certification that our nuoloar shipment would not be loaded on the same vehicle with anothe: nuclear shipment.
Respectfully yours, MALLINCERODT WDCIEAR CGtPORATION L. J. Swallow l
Hematite Plant LJ5/jr t i
1
.s t
a r
a
. i M.m i
I en.
m o
-