ML20134K922
| ML20134K922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/01/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134K911 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508300511 | |
| Download: ML20134K922 (71) | |
See also: IR 05000731/2008001
Text
nm
o
el / P
G/ 5/ / C e
OJ
ul M t V ' 'i v y r q ,113
R bNe (Doca nie n / Noam
'
UN11ED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR
Sponsored by
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
,
LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
PAGES:
259 - 329
DATE:
THURSDAY, AUGUST 1,
1985
f3(.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Rgorters
8508300511 850823
444 North Capitol Street
1OCFR
Washington, D.C. 20001
PT9.7
(202)347-3700
NATICNWIDE COVERACE
!
9330D00 101
259
,
() WRBwrb
<1.
'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-
'
,
'
2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
3
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
>
. ,
[
'
and
4
c
,
li
,e
5
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
6
' sponsored
7
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR
>
.8
Thursday, 1 August 1985
9
Americana Congress Hotel,
'
10
Chicago, Illinois
11
The seminar was reconvened at. 8 :00. a.m. , pursuant
12-
to notice, He ard G. Shealy, presiding.
'h
'
13
14
.!
15
,
3
16
-17
18
. .e
'
19
.
'4/
20
'
,
?? ,
21
'
22-
-23
'
.-
'
24
25
s
.
,y'
_
' { _: i
r
i
,
!
9330 01 01
260
,m
(,_)WRBeb
1
PROCEE' DINGS
2
MR. SHEALY:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
3
I am Heyward Shealy, and I will be chairing
4
Session V this morning on insp.ection activities.
5
Yesterday we heard presentations on regulatory
6
roles of the federal agencies, the Department of
7
Transportation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and they
8
will discuss further their regulato'ry' roles with respect to
'
9
inspection activities.
I know that many of us are
.
10
interested in this because at the state level and the local
11
level we many times ask questions, who-is inspecting these
12
shipments?
(_)j
/'
13
Our first speaker this morning will begin by
a
14
giving us an overview of the Department of Transportation
15
activities in the inspection area.
We have with us John
16
O'Connell who is Acting Chief of the Hazardous Material
17
Enforcement Division of the ;l aarch and Special Programs
I
18
Administration within t}E ';e n
tment of Transportation.
19
John, will you come up, please?
20
MR. O'CONNELL:
Thank you, Heyward.
I
21
I will try not to keep you too long here.
It has
22
been my uncanny ability the last few speaking engagements
23
that I've had to be put on here at eight o' clock in the
24
morning, right off the bat, you'know.
I don't know why that
g-)
's)
~
25
is, but bear with me, please.
m
_ _
-_
_
..
_
- __
_ _ _ . .
-
.
- __.
. - .
.9330 01 02
261
,m
.! )WRBeb
1
This morning's topic is inspection activities,
2
and in the time allotted to me I will just give you some
.
3
information about the Department of Transportation's
4
involvement in the inspection of spent fuel shipment.
5
The Department has five major operating
6
administrations, all of which have inspection and
7
enforcement authority as delegated by the Secretary of
8
Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation
9
Act.
'
.
10
We enforce the hazardous materials regulations
'
11
that are found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
!
12
Parts 100 to 199, with respect to a variety of hazard
.()
13
classes, anything from an aerosol can to tankers full of
14
gasoline to radiopharmaceuticals and other radioactive
15
materials.
Spent fuel is just one of the materials
16
under the radioactive class that we have some involvement
17
with.
18
Three of the Department's operating
19'
administrations are principally involved in spent fuel
20
inspections, and those are the Research and Special Programs.
,
21
Administration, whom I work for, Ed Pritchard's
,<3
,
22
organization, the Federal Railroad Administration, and
I
23
Gerald Gregory's organization, the Federal Highways
l>
l
24
Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.
em
,
\\]
25
We got involved specifically with spent fuel
i
I
_.
-
.
_ - - -
_.
.
._
. -
_ . _ _ _
-- _
- ,_
9330 01 03
262
()WRBeb
1
shipments just about two years ago, at the time when new
2
movements were being contemplated.
At that time the
3
Director of the Materials Transportation Bureau, one of
4
RSPA's principal organizations, called together
5
representatives from the three modal administrations and
6
expressed his desire that the Department provide an
7
inspection presence at each of the shipping locations prior
8
to the first shipment being made.
9
Now the other fellows may be able to correct me.
10
I know our organization has only been involved at initial
11
movements.
There may have been some' inspection made at
12
other movements in a series, but we've been only involved in
()
13
the initial inspection -- the inspection of the initial
.
14
movement.
15
The Director's reasoning in asking us to do this
16
was that he felt with the Department of Transportation
17
working alongside the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
18
Department of Energy, all aspects of a transportation
19
movement, security and safeguards, container integrity,
20
radiation levels, vehicle safety, proper documentation,
21
marking and labeling, would be monitored for compliance at
22
one time, and any problems encountered could be corrected
23
before the movement took place.
24
The Department has a coordination mechanism in
,-())
,
25
place with these other organizations to receive advance
.
-
-
- - -
-
. . - . - . . -
.
-
--
-
--
~
.
9330 01 04
263
(.
Tss) WRBeb
1
notification of upcoming shipments, and the three groups
2
represented here from the Department do have an in-house
3
coordination process to provide coverage.
4.
RSPA's Hazardous Materials Enforcement Division
5
has a full-time radioactive materials enforcement
6
specialist, Jim Schuler, whom I'm sure a lot of you know,
7
who is here today.
He is primarily--
In addition to the
8
inspection work that he does for us, he does quite a bit of
9
radioactive materials inspection monitoring at airports and
10
going to shipper facilities, but as pertains to spent fuel,
11
his primary role is to assist the Federal Railroad and the
12
Federal Highway people at a site where a spent fuel movement
A
7,y
13
is going.to take place.
14
One of his contributions thus far has been to
15
work with the shipping facility in reviewing all the
16
required paperwork to make sure all applicable
,
17
transportation requirements have been complied with.
18
To date, the DOT has been involved, along with
19
either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department
20
of Energy, in conducting the following inspections:
21
In September '83, we were at West Valley, New
22
York;
23
August 1984, Round Hill, Nebraska, Nebraska
24
Public Power;
g-V)
25
September '84, Chalk River, Canada, the Canadian
--r_
9330 01 05
264
I)WRBeb
1
Atomic Energy Control. Board;
2
November '84, Monticello, Minnesota, Northern
3
States Power;
4
And in June
'85, Jim was down at Surry, Virginia,
5
down at the Virginia Electric Power facility.
6
To my knouledge, no major problems have been
7
encountered in any of these movements, any of the
8
inspections.
Discrepancies that did arise, and there were
9
some, were noted and corrected prior to the movement being
10
made.
I think that is the whole intent of the inspection
11
program with respect to spent fuel.
12
In the case of the Nebraska and Minnesota
[ )i
13
ship'ments, both of which were rail shipments, there was also
l rip inspection provided by Federal
14
inspection, a post
t
15
Railroad people and Jim Schuler when the material arrived at
16
Morris, Illinois, where they were going to be stored.
17
That's really all I have.
If you have any
18
questions for me, I will entertain them right now.
19
Otherwise, I will defer to Darrell and Ed.
- .
20
MR. SHEALY:
I am sure we may have some questions
_
21
for John.
We will, however, hold all questions until the
22
end of our presentations.
23
I want to thank John for giving us that overview
24
of DOT activities in the inspection area.
25
Our next two speakers really need no
.
_
_ .
--
._.
-
_
.
9330.01 06
265
m
(,)WRBeb
1
introduction.
They were with us yesterday.
They will be
2
talking about carrier inspections with respect to rail
-
3
transportation and highway transportation.
4
We will first hear from Ed Pritchard, who will
5
discuss-the Federal Railroad Administration activities in
-
6
rail inspections, and then we will hear from Darrell
7
Gregory, who will discuss the highway transportation
8
inspection.
9
Ed.
10
MR. PRITCHARD:
Thank you, Heyward.
11
Good morning.
Is everyone wide-eyed and
12
bushy-tailed for our trip this morning?
I see people
()
'
13
shaking th.eir heads and groaning.
~
14
What I am going to give you is again a brief
15
outline of what the Federal Railroad Administration -- what
16
our activities are, and what we have done on our past and
17
present nuclear waste movements.
18
The FRA is comprised of a field staff of
.
19
approximately 325 inspectors all across the United States,
20
and of those 325 inspectors, 34 of them are full-time
21
hazardous material personnel.
22
Within the FRA we have five disciplines of
2:3
inspectors.
We have what is referred to as the motor power
24
and equipment inspectors who are responsible for the
O,
25
complete inspection of all rolling stock of the United
__
- _ - _ - - .
- . . .
-.
- . -
- - - - .
- - -
-
,
_
. - -
9330 01 07
266
g
(_)WRBeb
1
States railroads, along with the locomotive.
2
We also have operating practices inspectors who
3
go out and monitor the carriers' operating rules, their
4
training procedures.
They deal with signal protection,
5
hours of service, accident reporting.
6
We have track inspectors who monitor the nation's
7
tracks.
We have federal track standards.
8
And in addition, we have signal and train control
9
inspectors who go out and monitor the signal systems
10
employed by the various railroads.
11
And the last discipline would be hazardous
12
material inspectors, of which there are 34.
n
(_)
13
During the last year, in fact starting in August
14
of '84, as John mentioned earlier, since that time we've had
15
approximately 12 spent nuclear fuel movements from Nebraska
16
and Minnesota combined, going into Morris, Illinois.
And
17
the FRA's policy on the maiden move of each of those was to
18
inspect the entire track route from origin to destination.
19
Included in that complete inspection of the track
20
was a complete inspection of signal systems, along with the
21
rail carrier's operating rules, and the equipment to be
22
used.
We looked at every piece of equipment that was
23
employed in that train.
24
We also looked at the billing and placarding
(^)
v
25
documentation before the shipment was made.
And again with
-
.
9330 01 08
267
n
(_jWRBeb
1
the aid of RSPA--
As John mentioned earlier, we had the aid
2
of Jim Schuler, who conducted full-scale readings on the
3
cask and again assisted our inspector in the documentation.
4
Now that was on the maiden voyage.
5
The policy of the FRA now that we've made the
6
maiden voyage is we still conduct a full equipment
7
inspection on each move that is made.
In addition to that,
8
wo also do a full documentation and check the casks to make
9
sure they are properly placarded.
10
Regarding the track and signals, we drop down to
11
what we refer to as a periodic inspection, of which--
Our
12
inspectors have scheduled track inspections across the
e,
(_)
13
country.
.
14
FRA will retain this polic) as long as we have
15
our personnel and money to make these necessary inspections.
16
That basically is exactly what we are doing right
17
now.
And we will be glad to entertain any questions
18
afterwards.
19
Thank you.
20
MR. GREGORY:
Good morning.
21
As a representative of the Federal Highway
22
Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, I thought to
23
begin with I would give you a very brief overview of what
24
our radioactive monitoring capabilities are.
gs
L.)
25
We have a very small field staff, as many of you
9330 01 09
268
l)WRBeb
1
know.
They are scattered among '/C-some-odd field and
2
regional offices throughout the United States.
3
However, each field office does have the
4
capability of -- by instrumentation, of monitoring beta and
5
gamma radiation levels on radioactive material shipments.
6
However, these particular instruments are not, in our
7
opinion, suitable for surveillance or long-range detection
8
projects.
'
9
So with that in mind, approximately a year ago
10
the agency purchased three state-of-the-art instruments from
11
one of the major manufacturers to use in a pilot program for
12
surveillance and detection of radioactive material movements
(k
13
by highways.
The instrument is very versatile.
It can be
14
used on a stationary basis; it can be mounted in, fo'r
15
instance, a state police cruiser and used similar to the way
16
moving radar is used.
17
As I mentioned, it was a pilot project.
We've
18
been very pleased with the results that we have obtained
.
19
from it.
While it was not used or has not been used to date
20
in a particular movement of spent nuclear fuel, it
_
21
certainly, by its very being out there, is monitoring that.
22
However, we have found that in the movement of
23
radiopharmaceuticals it is an excellent tool.
It is so
24
good, in fact, that we will probably purchase some more
25
devices for each one of the regions and, in addition, we
9330 01 10
269
q:
'b,WRBeb
1
loan them regularly to states that wish to become involved
2
in this type operation.
3
. Additionally, at least two of the states in our
4
Region I, which is the northeast region, have been so
5
impressed.with it that they have elected on their own to
6
purchase similar type machines.
So we feel this is an
7-
excellment method of monitoring all types of highway
movementsofradioactivematerfals.
8
9
In addressing the particular movement of spent
10
nuclear fuel you have heard my two colleagues mention the
11
system that we operate under.
It is virtually the same in
12
Federal Highways.
We coordinate with John's office in
13
RSPA.
When we receive notification from thqm of the
14
movement of spent fuel, we will assign field staff and try,
15
in every instance, to send one of our regional hazardous
16
material specialists, but certainly a field representative
17
to conduct a physical examination on the initial move on the
18
equipment.
19
To those of you that were here yesterday some of
20
this will be repetitious, but on the drivers, we will
21
inspect driver qualifications to be sure the driver is
22
medically qualified to operate in interstate commerce.
We
23
review his hours of service to determine that he has
24
adequate hours available for the move.
O
25
We inspect, physically inspect, the equipment
9330 01 11
270
,m
(_)WRBeb
1
with primary emphasis on the areas of steering, suspension,
2
tires, brakes, lighting and coupling devices.
3
Under the hazardous materials regulations we
4
obviously will inspect for proper placards, shipping papers,
5
that they meet the necessary requirements, that the blocking
6
and bracing is adequate, and that the driver has his
._
7
certificate of training for movement of radioactive
8
materials, and has a written route plan.
9
As John mentioned, to date we are quite pleased
10
with the results in that there have been no major problems
11
encountered.
Now that is not to say that there have been
12
no problebs but there have been no major problems
'. )
13
encountered.
14
Certainly if defects are observed on the
.
15
equipment or in the driver in any way, steps are taken
16
immediately to correct them.
17
We have found, quite frankly, that the attitude
18
of the carrier involved in these particular shipments is
19
excellent.
To say they are cooperative doesn't give them
20
enough credit.
They have many, many reasons for being
21
cooperative, but the fact remains that they have extended a
22
great deal of cooperation to us.
In most instances they
23
have dedicated equipment; that is, equipment that moves
24
solely in that type of movement.
They use the same
7s
'd
25
equipment over and over again.
9330 01 12
271
I)WRBeb
1
And the same holds true with the drivers.
In
2
most instances, the carrier we find will assign a senior
3
driver or drivers if it is a sleeper-berth team, one that is
4
very conversant with this type of movement, one that has a
5
wealth of experience in the type of equipment that is being
6
operated, and use them solely in dedicated service.
7
As far as the Bureau's activities, we are there
8
on every initial move and as Ed mentioned in the Federal
9
Rail, we go back on a spot-check basis in coordination with
10
NRC and DOE to inspect the equipment.
11
Again I would like to reiterate that overall,
12-
we've been very pleased with what we've seen.
We feel that
O)
(_
13
a grea' deal of effort is being expended, not only from the
14
federal level but from the industry level.
They are
15
cooperating 100 percent.
16
And as John and Ed indicated,
I,
too, will be
17
happy to answer any questions if you have any.
18
Thank you very much.
19
MR. SHEALY:
Thank you, Ed and Darrell, for
20
explaining to us the Department of Transportation
21
activities in the inspection area.
22
We will move on now to another federal agency,
23
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And to explain to us
24
their role in inspection activities, we have Al Grella.
25
Al has quite a long list of credentials here.
9330 01 13
272
'
s
( ) WRBeb
1
He has had a number of years of experience in the nuclear
2
field.
I will just touch on some of these.
3
He has worked in Region I of the Atomic Energy
4
Commission as a radiation specialist.
He worked for some 11
5
years with the Department of Transportation in various
6
capacities as a radiological engineer, and also as chief of
7
the Technology Division which had responsibilities for the
8
transport regulatory program for nuclear material, and
9
R&D programs relating to safe transport of hazardous
10
materials,
11
He has been with the Nuclear Regulatory
12
Commission since 1979, and he is a Senior Health Physicist
,,
.
(_)
13
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
14
So Al will come up and explain to us NRC
15
activities.
16
MR. GRELLA:
Thank you, Heyward.
17
Good morning, everybody.
18
By now we have been hearing a lot about packaging
19
and the whole activity of spent fuel transportat. ion.
My
l
!
20
chore today is to try to explain what NRC's activity has
l
21
been in the inspection of spent fuel transportation,
!
22
particularly in the last several years.
23
I would like, as the others have done, to explain
24
a little bit about the organization of the inspection
s /
25
program in our agency.
- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
. _ _ _
_
__
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
9330 01 14
273
(m_)WRBeb
1
(Slide.)
2
The NRC has five regional offices around the
3
country as shown on this map.
In each of those regions we
4
have many inspectors.
Regional offices at one time were
5
responsible solely for inspection and enforcement.
Several
6
years ago that changed.
Each of the regional offices became
7
the regional office of the agency rather than regional
8
inspection and enforcement offices.
9
So within each of those regional offices we have
10
quite a few inspectors who inspect many aspects of the uses
11
of material as well as the operation of reactors or fuel
12
facilities.
().
13
In each of those regions there are inspectors
.
14
inspecting operating reactors as well as the radiological
'
15
protection aspects of licensed facilities.
It generally
16
breaks out into three types of specialization.
17
We have inspectors who look at fuel facilities,
18
of which there are not too many, the material licensees, of
19
which there are very many, hospitals, academic institutions,
20
industrial labs who are licensed to use material, and the
21
reactors themselves.
So in each of those areas there will
22
be those three specializations, and generally there are
23
health physicists assigned to inspect radiological
24
protection.
25
Several years ago, actually in 1979, the
,
__ __ _
. _ _
_ _ _ . _ _ _
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9330 01 15
274
7N
im) WRBeb
1
responsibilities of inspectors changed somewhat in that
2
transportation was added to the list of things that they
3
were responsible to inspect.
We do not have, and have not
4
had generally inspectors dedicated only to looking at
5
transportation, so this meant we had to train each of our
6
inspectors who are assigned to inspect transportation, had
7
to train them in the transportation regulations and all of
8
the DOT regulations actually.
9
In 1979, we also adopted a very simple,
10
one-paragraph change to Part 71 whereby we imposed DOT
11
requirements on all of our licensed shippers.
12
So that we have had considerable activity in the
n
i(_)
13
past several years in training our inspectors to inspect
14
transportation activities of licensees.
15
The major'activitiy in transportation generally
16
involves low-level waste, so that I think a larger
17
percentage of our routine inspection efforts in
18
transportation is looking at the transportation activities
19
relating to transportation of low-level waste, and this
20
particularly has been the case since '79.
21
Along came 1983, and a number of large shipment
22
campaigns of movements of spent fuel began.
23
In those regional offices there have been three
24
regions involved with the inspecting of spent fuel
(3
L)
25
shipments.
The Region I office in Philadelphia, King of
.
L
9330 01 16
275
()WRBeb
1
Prussia, was involved with the shipments from West Valley
2
and two licensees in the Region I area.
3
The Region III office here in Glen Ellyn is
4
involved with the inspections, two points of origin and
5
destination in this region, namely Morris, Monticello, and
6
Dresden.
7
And in only one case has another region office--
8
The Dallas or Arlington, Texas, office has been involved in
9
the origin inspection of last year's shipment from Cooper to
.
10
Morris.
11
So we have a number of health physicist
12
inspectors who are in the reactor inspection side of the
r~
i
13
house who had considerable involvement in inspecting spent
s
14 *
fuel shipments.
And I will give you some of the figuros on
15
that shortly.
16
(Slide.)
.
17
This is sort of a schematic, certainly not to any
18
geographic scale, of these campaigns in the last couple of
!
19
years.
And I've got a Vugraph on each of these campaigns.
20
I might mention that in the handout materials,
21
there are copies of both of these Vugraphs, and I am not
22
using them necessarily in the same order that they are in
'
23
your handout.
I
24
As you can see here, they are broken down into
'
25
campaigns that are on-going, of which there are I believe
!
l
!
9330 01 17
276
(m_) WRBeb 1
two at the present time.
Four of these campaigns have been
2
completed, one as recently as last month.
And there is one
3
campaign which will involve a DOE shipment which is planned
4
I believe for later in the year.
5
So the major point of origin and destination
6
sites have been West Valley, New York, and Morris, Illinois.
7
In two cases the movements were out of the storage facility
8
back to actual reactors, which is Point Beach.
9
I think this is fairly self-explanatory.
10
This type of activity, these campaigns, was
11
certainly not a normal thing.
The pattern of commercial
12
spent fuel shipments in the past decade has been that there
()
13
haven't been too many shipments, and all of a sudden there
,
14
was this large increase.
15
I believe Lee Rouse will be going into spent fuel
16
shipments, and I am not sure he is going to cover the
17
reasons for why there have been a number of shipment, but he
18
probably will.
It mainly has to do with a court order that
19
ordered the decommissioning of the West Valley site.
It
20
ordered the removal of all of the fuel out of the West
'
21
valley site I believe by the end of this year.
!
22
And then in the other case I guess the
23
restrictions that had precluded General Electric from
24
receiving fuel, several years ago those restrictions were
(g
,-)
j
25
lifted and this resulted in a number of shipments
L
-
c330o01 01
277
m
-(,)WRBeb
1
beginning to start to come back into Morris.
2
Generally I think John O'Connell pointed out that
3
DOT management had requested the presence of DOT inspectors,
4
at least during the early stages and initial shipments, and
5
I think it was pretty clear that higher management in NRC
6
pretty much had the same view at the time, that we should
7
spend a considerable effort in putting inspection resources
8
into looking at the' shipments at the point of origin and
9
destination early in these campaigns.
10
In fact as it turned out, at the beginning of a
11
campaign it almost is a 100 percent effort.
We are there
12
for most of the inspections at the point of origin and
-
()
13
receipt.
Generally we tend to phase this down as the
14
campaign gets along, particularly if there are no problems.
15
And as the others have stated, there have been relatively
16
minor problems and our inspection experience reflects the
17
same conclusions, that the problems have been essentially
18
minor.
19
But we have expended a considerable effort in
20
inspecting quite a few of these shipments, probably on the
21
order of 50 percent as it averages out.
But at the
22
beginning of any campaign we are usually there most of the
23
time, at either the origin or destination location, or both.
24
But we try to at least say that we are making on a
25
statistically significant basis.
-
.
. _ _ .
-
- --
c330 01 02
278
m
(_)WRBeb
1
(Slide.)
2
These campaigns aren't in any geographical or
3
chronological order, but I'll just run through these.
4
Interspersed with each of these slides I've got some
5
picture.
I don't think anybody has actually had a picture
6
up here yet of a spent fuel cask or a fuel assembly, and
-
7
I've got some of these.
8
Here is a campaign that was completed last
9
November, some 114 shipments in the NLI cask which holds one
10
PWR element or two BWR elements.
I believe it has been used
11
mostly for PWR elements, one cask in each highway shipment.
12
And of the 114 shipments our inspectors out of
' (_)
r
13
Region I inspected 56 of those at West Valley, and 21 were
j
14
inspected b'y our Glen Ellyn office at Point Beach.
15
I believe that the empty casks -- I'm not s'ure of
16
this; I'll check with the Wisconsin people.
I believe the
17
Wisconsin health people have probably gotten into inspecting
,
18
some of the empty casks after they were unloaded at Point
19
Beach.
20
Is that still the case?
_
21
VOICE:
Both empty and full.
22
MR. GRELLA:
In fact, we provided some training
23
to that group back in December of '83 I believe.
l
!
24
I think in the beginning we were doing a little
gs
!V
25
inspection of empties, but we haven't gotten into that.
L
c330 01 03
279
D'
d WRBeb
1
(Slide.)
-
2
This~is a picture of a presumably unirradiated
3_
fuel assembly.
4
(Laughter.)
5
I don't know whether it is a PWR or a BWR, but it
6
is just to'give you an idea of what a fuel assembly looks
7
like.
Whether it is a PWR or a BWR I'm not sure.
8
VOICE:
BWR.
9
MR. GRELLA:
I suspected that it was.
10
This is a picture of the NLI cask which holds one
11
This is the cask without its thermal
12
shield, and we will have some other pictures which will show
()
13
that.
.
14
(Slide.)
-
15-
This is the same cask with the thermal shield on
16
it,-and we will see that some more.
I don't believe this is
17
going to be at Morris.
I understand that there will be an
18
IF-300 cask down there on display.
19-
(Slide.)
20
Now West Valley to Oyster Creek.
A different
21
cask was used, the TN-9.
This hold seven BWR elements.
-22
There were 33 highway shipments completed as of July, so
23
this campaign just got finished.
Again one cask to each
24
highway vehicle.
25
Four of those shipments were inspected at West
c330 01 04
280
,
()WRBeb
'
1
Valley by Region I staff, and 33 of them, in fact all of
2
them, were inspected at Oyster Creek.
3
And in this case we had this high percentage
4
because in this case we trained our resident inspector.
5
Each of our operating reactor plants has at least one
6
resident and sometimes two as resident NRC inspectors.
They
7
are mainly involved with looking at the operational aspects
-
8
of the reactors.
But they were given some training and
9
survey techniques, and they have been performing some of the
10
destination receipt health physics inspections at Oyster
t
11
Creek.
4
12
That campaign just finished early in July, last
()
13
month.
.
14
(Slide.)
15
Here is a picture of the TN-9.
It has many fins
16
on the outside.
'
17
(Slide.)
18
The next few are some pictures of cask operations
19
at West Valley.
This particular cask has a boot surrounding
'
20
it as it is lowered into the pool.
The interface between
21
the cask and the boot is filled with distilled water as the
,
!
- _
22
cask is lowered, and this prevents contact with the pool
23
water, which does have some contamination in it, with the
-
24
cask surface.
1
4
2
25
This is an extremely important technique for this
!
-
- -
-
- - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
,_ _
c330 01 05
281
/~
( j) WRBeb
1
cask in that one of the chronic problem areas, if you want
2
to call it that, with cask operation involving immersion in
3
spent fuels is this problem of cask weeping in which the
4
phenomenon involves the cleaning of the cask after it is
5
removed; they are steam cleaned, bone dry.
And the shipment
6
goes down the road and the contamination actually will weep
7
from the fissures and pores of the surface of the cask and
8
upon receipt it is sometimes found to be above the' DOT
9
limits.
10
However, we have done considerable work in
11
reapplying the regs. and using a provision in the
12
regulations on determining the officiency of wipe sampling
(q .
_;
13
so that in many cases, upon resurvey at destination to
14
a'scertain whether the survey technique was greater than the
15
efficiency assumed in the regulations, which is 10 percent,
16
some of these higher readings can be brought into
'
17
compliance.
18
But this technique of isolating the cask surface
19
from the pool water in the case of a cask like this is
20
extromely important.
21
(Slido.)
22
This picture is the fuel rocoiving and storage
23
area at West Valley.
They've got some workers standing
24
abovo one of the casks hanging vertically there.
25
(Slido.)
-
__
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
. _ _ _ .
l
'
c330 01 06
282
(3
V WRBeb
1
Again this is another picture of the TN-9.
And I
'
t
2
think most of you would agree that keeping that surface of
3
that cask isolated from contaminating pool water ought to be
4
a pretty good idea.
5
(Slide.)
6
This is a picture of tha cask on its vehicle
7
showing the canvas box-type cover that in this case has slid
8
to the side.
This is at West Valloy.
9
(Slide.)
10
This is the cask on the vehicle as it
11
essentially appears during transportation.
12
(Slide.)
13
The samo cask was used earlier for a campaign of
14
shipments of BWR fuel to Dresdon, again seven DWR acsemblics
15
in a cask.
16
There were 31 shipments, and 25 were inspected by
17
Region I at Wost Valley, and 26 Wore inspected by our Region
18
III staff at Dresden.
19
(Slide.)
'
20
Again hero is another picture of the cank.
,
21
(Slide.)
22
This is an actual picturo I guess DOE usos in ono
,
l
23
of its press kits showing the transport vehiclo as it is
24
leaving the Wost Valloy plant.
ipO
l
25
(Slido.)
l
l
l
[
. .
. - . . . .-
_ . - _ _ _ _ . -
- . - -_
. _ . _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _
d
i
[
4
j
0330 01 07
283
f
!
Owaeeb
1
nere is enother ca geian thae finished--
1 ehink
2
'this was the first one of all, shipments from Morris,
.
f
3
actually leaving Morris going back to Point Beach.
I am not
l
4
familiar with all of the details but due to reracking of the
~
f
5
storage pool, Point Beach was able to essentially call back
l
6
some of the fuel that was in storage at Morris.
'
7
So again 109 shipments were made in the NLI cask,
i
8
one assembly per cask.
And the Region III people expended
,
!
'
9
considerable effort.
They inspected 61 of those at Morris,
l
[
10
and 60 at Point Beach.
It is a little easier,
11
resource-wise, to go down to Morris than it is to Point
l
12
Beach.
But fortunately, at least from the inspectors'
[
O
13
staadooint, ooiaa to Morris or oresden is noe too 1ono a
'
f
14
trip.
!
l
'
15
(Slide.)
4
!-
i
16
Again here is another picture with the thermal
'
]
-
<
l
17
shield.
!
!
I
18
Some of you may know that I'm the biggest packrat
!
19
with slidos, obtaining slides from any source that I can
1
I
j
20
find around the country.
!
'
21
(Slide.)
?
22
Rail shipments.
This is on-going, I guess the
'
23
only current on-going campaign.
Thirty shipments are
!
!
24
planned.
They began late last fall.
There was a lot of
j
- O
l
l
25
press coverage and certainly public interest in these
.'
l
i
I
I
i
-- - - . - - .
.
- .
-
. -.
r-_____-____-__-
_ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
_
___
a330 01 08
284
(
WRBeb
1
shipments.
2
This shipment involves two of the IF-300 rail
3
casks on a special train.
There are 18 BWR assemblies in
4
each of those casks, so a considerable number of fuel
5
elements can be moved in each shipment.
Ten have been
6
completed through June, probably more by now.
7
In this case our Region III people inspected
8
eight of those at Monticello and eight at Morris.
9
I believe this transport system will be on
10
display, although I've got a number of pictures of it here.
11
(Slide.)
12
Here is the actual IF-300 hanging vertically.
()
13
(Slide.)
-
14
I ought to get Chuck MacDonald up here to explain
15
this slide.
It is a cutaway that has been used for training
16
on the IF-300.
17
This cask can hold 18 BWRs or I believe seven PWR
18
elements, and it uses an integral uranium shielding material
19
inside the cask.
20
(Slide.)
21
I guess it is the largest licensed cask that is
22
in use in the United States for commercial fuel.
23
(Slide.)
24
The same cask system.
I believe three of the
25
existing four casks were used.
Only four of them have been
.
_,
-
--
-
--
._ _- - .
- _ .
-
. _.
0330 01 09
285
)WRBeb
1
built.
They were used in one special train shipment last
2
August.
And I believe 30 of these are planned.
I am not
3
aware as to the reason why there aren't more going on at the
4
present time, but initially I remember 30 were planned.
5
There was this one first shipment last August of three
6
casks, a special train.
,
7
There are some excellent pictures of that in
8
black and white in this very good document which I saw
9
myself for the first time yesterday.
It has some excellent
10
pictures of it that are very well done.
11
Again in this case one of our other regional
12
offices, Region IV, with inspectors out of Arlington, Texas,
,
I)
13
inspected that shipment at Cooper Station in Nebraska.
And
.
14
it was inspected by the Region III people at Morris.
-!
l
15
(Slide.)
16
Here is another picture of it.
17
(Slide.)
18
And a couple of more pictures of the rail cask
I
19
itself.
l
20
(Slide.)
_.
21
(Slide.)
22
I guess this is--
I believe this is on-going.
23
This campaign just began.
As you can see, 81 shipments are
24
planned which I guess will complete the removal of the
j
25
commercially owned fuel out of West Valley.
Eighty-one
L
0330 01 10
286
rm
w,)WRBob
1
shipments in the NLI casks are planned, and as of the middle
!
2
of July, two had been made.
And each of those was inspected
3
at both points by our Region I staff.
4
These are fairly short shipments in terms of
5
geography, as you might be aware.
6
(Slide.)
7
Again the NLI cask.
I'm not sure how many of
8
these were built.
I believe it's three or four in number.
9
(Slide.)
10
With the removal of all the commercially owned
11
fuel out of West Valley, that will only leave some 125
12
assemblies that essentially are government owned material.
/ .
(_)
13
They had been acquired as ,the property of the former
14
operator, Nuclear Fuel Services.
They became the property
15
of the government.
DOE will be making two shipments of
16
these to Idaho, I believe, as part -- probably part of a
17
demonstration project for dry storage.
18
I believe that one cask is being fabricated for
19
each group of elements, 85 BWR assemblies and 40 PWR
20
assemblies.
And I believe one of them was actually
,
21
fabricated and may be onsite.
22
This will I think complete the removal of all the
23
assemblies out of West Valley.
I understand it has been
l
24
scheduled for later in the fall, but I am not sure if that
fs
N-]
25
schedule will hold.
.
t
l
_
_
_
_
_
.-
-
'
'
'
287
c330 01'll
n
(i
f3
( ) WRBeb
1
These I bel'ieve will be moved by rail.
They are
2
obviously going to be pretty big casks to hold that many
f
3
elements.
4
(Slide.)
<5
So to sort of summarize the campaigns, these are
,
6
the numbers in terms of -- and this is in your handout
,
7
material -- the number of' planned and completed shipments,
L
,
8
and the number of NRC inspections and the region that did
9
them.
,
'
10
It is pretty clear that we probably had -- we
11
definitely had over a 50 percent effort in the number of
'
12
inspections that we made at both origin and destination.
i f'
13
And this is not something that comes easily.
It comes out
,
14
of the hide of your routine programs.
These resources for
!
15
making inspections have to be diverted from our routine
s
16
programs.
17
(Slide.)
l
18
But we definitely, policy-wise, do not -- try not
'
,
19
to convey >the impression that we are going to make 100
.i
20
percent inspections.
We try to cover as many as we can
21
early in the campaigns and if there are no problems we'll
22
phase that down.
23
(Slide.)
24
Prior to actually inspecting these shipments our
f-b
25
inspectors go out and make pre-shipment inspections, looking
<
t
4
- - .,- , _ , _ . . . , _ ,
- - . .
, ,
.,---.,--,.,_,_y,-__.
_ , , . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . , , , , . _ , , , - . . , . - , , _ - - , .
_ . , , -
_
t - - p <
e330 01 12
288
I)WRBeb
1
at how the licensee is getting ready for handling the fuel.
2
And the key documentation that we're looking at is, one, the
3
certificate of compliance that Chuck MacDonald talked about,
4
which contains all the requirements for the use and
5
maintenance of the cask.
6
And we look at the in-plant procedures that have
7
been developed to implement the requirements of the
8
certificate.
We look at the procedures that have been '
9
implemented to carry out the quality assurance program that
,
'
10
has to have been approved by our agency.
11
So that the pre-shipment inspections are made at
12
both the origin location and destination location.
<1
(
13
(Slide.)
.
14
I am not personally in the safeguards area; and
>
15
safeguards was well covered yesterday, but these
16
pre-shipment inspections involve looking at both the safety
17
aspects and the safeguards aspects.
18
So as I said, we are looking at the adequacy of
,
19
preparations for following the certificates of compliance
20
and of procedures, and involves the training and e'ven the
'21
testing of the load-handling devices, the lifting devices
22
for the casks.
23
(Slide.)
24
In terms of the pre-shipment safeguards
\\
O
P
25
inspections, I don't want to go into these because they were
,'
, - , - - -
- , - . -
-
_
,
o
c330 01 13
289
,y
,
( ,1WRBeb
1
covered in detail, although I would like to correct one of
2
the items on the first bullet on this slide.
3
The inspection itself does not involve approval
4
of the route.
This is a Headquarters function, as Bob
5
Nulsen pointed out yesterday.
It is an administrative
6
approval given by NRC Headquarters.
It is not a function of
7
the inspection.
8
The inspection does look at whether the route has
9
been approved, obviously.
And some of our regional people
10
are involved in getting the information that leads to thc'
11
route approval.
12
(Slide.)
- (
' '( )
13
As far as when we go to inspect a shipment at
14
origin we are looking at all of the security provisions as
15
well as the safety provisions.
We are looking at the
16
documentation and paperwork, the loading and testing of
17
handling equipment, various communications aspects, cask
<
18
labeling, vehicle placarding, and also, most significantly,
19
carrying out independent radiation and contamination
20
surveys.
__
21
And of course these measurements are over and
22
above what the licensee is doing, what the state may be
23
doing or the DOT may be doing.
So if you are getting the
>
24
idea that these shipments are well inspected by a lot of
f-b
25
people, that is a correct one.
There's a lot of look-sees
, , .
s
-.
--
-
9330 02 01
290
,
k)WRBeb
1
at these shipments at both ends.
2
And during transportation, we do not make safety
3
inspections during transportation.
Our inspections for
4
safety purposes are confined to the point of origin and
5
destination.
6
I don't have any slides of checklists but to give
7
you some idea of what they're like, there are a couple of
8
checklists in the orange document, the Illinois document,
9
and we use forms similar to that, which are
10
information-gathering forms where the inspector signs off,
11
checks and signs off on each point that he has inspected.
12
And these are used at point of origin and destination.
It
13
is a pretty common technique to use some sort.of a
-
14
checklist to perform your inspections.
,
15
(Slide)
16
And at destination the same thing, although we
17
don't look at as many things, but again, most importantly,
18
we are conducting independent radiation and contamination
19
surveys, looking at whether the vehicles are still intact,
20
and mainly by questioning, verifying that the security
21
procedures were followed.
And again we use checklists for
'22
that, too.
I
23
(Slide.)
l
24
While I was at DOT I got a lot of good advice and
{}
25
some slides, and this is also good advice for all
r
9330 02 02
291
.
\\e' WRBeb
1
inspectors.
2
(Slide.)
3
That's the end of the slides.
4
Thank you very much.
5
MR. SHEALY:
Thank you, Al, for that very
6
informative presentation.
_
7
We have now heard from the two federal agencies
8
on inspection activities, and it is now time to move to the
9
state experience with inspection activities.
10
John Cooper, will you come up, please?
11
Our next speaker is John Cooper, who is manager
12
of the_ Office of Waste and Transportation Management.
John
.O
N-
13
is with the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.
14
MR. COOPER:
I flew in this morning.
I have had
15
enough trucks and trains.
16
Illinois has had 286 spent fuel shipments since
17
August of 1983.
18
(Slide.)
19
And in the period of some 700 days, a little over
20
700 probably, 286 is about one every two to three days.
And
21
for an area that is controversial, it certainly does serve
22
to keep it, you know, in the public eye.
23
And I thought I would approach--
In fact, we
24
approached our program by addressing what we thought were
}
25
the issues involved in spent fuel transportation, and they
.
-
_
-
9330 02 03
292
WRBeb
1
really seem to revolve around cask safety, transportation
2
safety, the ability of the state to respond, and the degree
3
of its response, and local preparedness, which is not the
4
least of these.
Local preparedness seems to be very common
5
issue in hazardous materials safety and transportation in
6
general.
7
So in developing the programs for these we
8
involved a number of the state agencies.
9
(Slide.)
10
I have simply outlined them here, and there is
'
11
really no need to read them individually.
,
12
" Rail" may be somewhat confusing to you.
It is
13
'under the jurisdiction in Illinois of the Illinois Commerce
,
14
Commission.
15
The Department of Transportation covers highways.
16
The State Police is the enforcement agency.
.
17
The Emergency Services is the disaster agency
'l
18
which is the coordinating agency.
19
And they all operate under the direction of the
"
20
office of the Governor.
21
And since we have multiple modes of
.
22
transportation--
We did have no barge shipments which is
23
good because we have no Illinois Navy.
('}
24
(Laughter.)
25
But we did involve all of the applicable
.
.
-
-
.
. - .
9330 02 04
293
- iRBeb
1
agencks.
2
(Slide.)
3
We developed a program of really inspecting the
4
entire shipment and doing some escort, and this outlines
5
really the purpose of it.
6
The program was derived or designed to address
7
the issues.
We didn't attempt to put in any new permits.
8
We didn't attempt to put in any new restrictions.
We did
9
attempt to ensure that each shipment met all applicable
10
standards, and we used the Department of Transportation
11
standards for both packages and vehicles, the Commerce
-_
Commission standards for trains, and of course the radiation
12
.
13
safety standards for the shipments.themselves.
14
We inspect at the point of origin and on trains,
15
at the point of receipt.
We don't go out of the state so
16
that we didn't inspect the Point Beach shipment at Point
17
Beach.
18
We did do some cooperative work with the State of
19
Wisconsin, so they didn't have to run into Illinois and we
20
didn't have to run into Wisconsin.
c
21
We also provided an escort.
We found it would be
22
very difficult for us, in a very limited period of time, to
23
initiato a program to really train local people, so we
)
24
simply substituted state people for local people, and we
'
25
used the health physicists there for the purposes that we've
9330 02 05
294
.r\\
V WRBeb
1
outlined.
2
We did subsequently do some training for our
3
local agencies.
4
(Slide.)
5
We did very limited training of them.
6
Essentially we taught them what they would have to do to do
7
their normal job if there were an incident, even an incident
8
where a cask perhaps left a roadbed but was uninjured.
9
We had an incident in the state a couple of years
10
ago where a nuclear med technician rolled a truck -- not
11.
rolled a truck but rolled a vehicle with a couple of
12
diagnostic packages of radioisotopes.
They were really
13
pretty small.
And he was injured and he got turned down at
14
the same hospital that he came from.
We thought that really
15
shouldn't have happened, so we really addressed the local
16
training, our interface with them.
17
We also added some requirements for them.
We
18
have had--
In Illinois we have two seasons up here, winter
19
and construction.
Either way it doesn't help the
20
shipments.
So we have asked local agencies to respond to us
21
on road conditions and local conditions.
22
And then there is the shipment route that goes
23
directly to a fairground.
(}
24
I will try to outline now the problems, and
25
problems probably are not the right idea, but essentially
-9330 02 06
295
WRBeb
1
the findings that we've had from the spent fuel program, and
2
I've broken them down into three categories:
3
The vehicles themselves, whether they are truck
4
or train;
5
The shipment itself, which is really the package,
,
6
the radioactive material;
_
7
And the routing considerations.
8
The program is not designed to write items of
9
non-compliance.
There haven't been that many fines levied.
10
It was written essentially or developed essentially to
11
prevent non-compliance items and to see that they're
12
corrected before the shipment has left.
They don't
t
'
13
necessarily get reflected in non-compliance statistics, and
.
14
that is somewhat a mistake for people who look at
15
non-compliance items; it says they are very low for spent
16
fuel shipments.
They are not reflected in the pre-shipment
17
inspections.
18
The inspections are done by the state police, by
,
19
the Department and by some associated agencies.
And we have
20
done them so far 100 percent, not without some
21
difficulties.
The first winter happened to be a fairly cold
22
one here.
23
(Slide.)
(}
24
Let's start with vehicle problems.
25
Most of the shipments of the 286, I think at
,
.
9'330'02:07
296
WRBeb
1
this point' about 273 have been truck, and about 13 have been
2
train,.so most of the data is on trucks.
3
We. haven't broken these out in numbers of items
4
that we found;'we've broken them qualitatively rather than
5
quantitatively.
We went through an exercise to see what,
6
out of 286 shipments, the shippers or carriers or state
7
agencies or other agencies, for that matter, could learn
8
from this particular exercise.
9
And after this many miles on the highway, it is
10
kind of nice to have the inspectors figure out"what-they
.
11
really did know.
12
The vehicle problems run the range from leaking
-
13
airbrakes -- and tha,t doesn't mea'n very many shipments; we
/
14
probably had'only'a few leaking airbrakes -- to lights, to
15-
some that are administrative, one of the last in the series,
16-
.somebody let his license expire, inoperative communications
17
equipment, and broken trailers.
18
Flat tires are not necessarily an incident unless
i-
19
you can't deal with them and they stop the shipment.
Mixed
20
tires.
21
I put on on trailer overhaul simply because it
22
had so many things wrong with it that they finally--
In
23
fact, I don't even remember what they cited them for and
]{}
24
stopped them,-I think generally a broken trailer.
25
There are several things that contribute to
.
t
.
!:
,
9330'02 08
297
i
(~'s
h.'l WRBeb
1
problems with vehicles.
One is that they do take an
2
intensive beating in campaigns.
I have heard described
3
that the vehicles used for spent fuel shipments are probably
4
the cream of the crop, and that is very likely true.
5-
Compared to the vehicles that are seen at the sportsmen
6
details that have bolts that are screwed by hand, they are
7-
not trailers, they are falling apart.
8
.But they do take very extensive long-haul
9
beatings, and they show up.
.
They also are subject to fairly severe weather-
10
11
conditions.
All but one leaking airbrakes could be directly
12
traced to loading and attempting to move vehicles in
fT
\\~l
13
sub-zero weather, 29 below zero or 30 below zero in part
14
of the country.
And gaskets and 0-rings don't seal in that
15
kind of weather.
16
Contrasting that with the next slide, which are
17
shipment problems--
18
(Slide.)
i
19
Of course one problem is that the secretaries who
20
put these together tend to like to make things come out
21
even, and they do a really good job on it, and they did on
22
this especially.
23
Actually the list of the vehicle problems is
<
k
24
significantly longer than the list of the shipment
[(}
25
problems.
Most of the problems revolve around the
L
.
9330 02 09
298
WRBeb
1
placarding, the shipment papers, and notification.
And we
2
have had some problems with both timing and adequacy of
3
notifications, a couple with contaminated empty casks, and a
4
few shipments that we looked for that really weren't there.
5
Were I a shipper, the last thing I would do would
6
be to forget to tell the state police that I wasn't going to
7
lue there.
.
.
8
Most of the safety items are tied up with the
9
vehicle itself; very few safety items were with the cask.
10
We have had no casks out of specifications.
The
~
11
contaminated casks were empty casks.
And there are some
12
lessons in that.
A
i-)
13
Shipping papers really were out of specifications
8
14
every time that the shippers changed the coordinator for
15
shipments.
And for the entire series, if there is one
16
lesson there, it would be either don't change your
17
coordinators constantly, or train the ones that you do
18
change.
19
(Slide.)
20
On the roadway, I have a third group, and that
21
includes both the highway and the rail shipments.
The
22
problems really are broken into route conditions, permits,
23
and routing instructions.
There are still some shipments
24
that have come through with no routing instructions.
There
[ }-
25
are some which have come to the border with inadequate
9330 02 10
299
.
\\
WRBeb
1
permits or no permits, or overweight permits.
2
And there are several things on the routing that
3
really--
We have had one split rail on a route.
4
Michigan and Illinois are not like other areas.
5
They have really two seasons.
Chicago has two seasons, the
6
major one, which is construction.
And surveying a road at
7
the initiation of a set of shipments really doesn't verify
8
that it is going to be in that shape all the way through.
9
And it is one reason that--
10
In fact, we have two sets of shipments coming
11
through the state from essentially the same point of origin
12
in Virginia.
One is a commercial set which comes to the
(~m
N-
13
state on I-74, the interstate across the middle of the
.
14
state, and one is a Department of Energy set which uses
15
I-80.
I won't pick at the Department of Energy for their
16
route, -- I'm not a shipper -- but they managed to bump into
17
four different toll highway authorities, one of which has
18
been very controversial.
So the commercial I-74 shipments
19
have had probably a dozen or fifteen with less problems than
20
they have had with three.
.
21
They also had some unspecified bridges, so they
22
can' t move overweight shipments over them without special
23
escorts.
24
And really I think it is worth using experience
,/ }
25
on routes rather than drawing on some sort of static
I
9330 02 11
300
WRBeb
1
indication.
2
(Slide.)
3
If we can look at the lessons that I think we've
4
learned, for shippers--
of course it is easy to draw
5
lessons for shippers because we're not shippers.
We don't
6
own trucks and we don't make things run that way.
7
I have mentioned continuity of personnel.
We
,
8
really can't plot the problems with both labeling and
9
placarding, notifications, shipping papers, every time
10
shinpers change personnel, and they seem to do so fairly
.
11
frequently.
12
Routing experience I think we've mentioned.
13
There are a number of routes that have been used.
I think
~
14
at one point we had something like six in operation across
15
this state, and we are not the only state by any means.
16
Weather seems to have been ignored as a serious
17
problem.
The coldest shipment we did was at 29 below,
18
with the wind chill at something like 80 below, and it is
19
really very difficult to make vehicles even operate in that
20
weather.
It is very difficult to make them operate below
21
zero.
It is difficult in terms of airbrakes.
Most of the
22
airbrake failures really are failures of hoses to connect or
23
to be able to connect.
~)
24
Suspension, placards and labels are all-weather.
(G
25
Most of the shipments, by the time they have
c_
. .
9330 02 12
301
s
('r') WRBeb
1
reached Illinois, regardless of their beginning, have had to
2
stop and use commercial telephone service.
They haven't
3
been able to do their communications with radio telephones.
4
And we have had a fairly interesting look at the
5
control.
Decentralized control of a shipment at the
6
beginning really doesn't work all that well.
We have had a
7
number of shipments which have had to stop and wait for
8
placards and in some cases for light assemblies.
Light
9
assemblies will normally go out; it is a fairly common
10
thing.
State police are really relatively generous.
They
11
normally, for tail lights, will simply require those to be
12
fixed on the spot before they run.
They don't really hang
[~
13
the drivers for that, but they really do expect them to be
'
.
14
fixed.
15
We have had campaigns which have started out very
16
well and halfway through have had the drivers, newer drivers
17
or drivers that have been there, had their training expired,
18
maintenance expired, trailer license--
In one case the
19
trailer license expired.
20
A surprisingly difficult problem was review of
21
the items and corrective action, depending on where the
22
shipment originates.
Now for those that originate in the
23
state, we have had no problem at all.
For some which have
/~N
24
originated actually in Europe and come through Virginia,
O
25
we've had a very difficult time getting, for instance,
. . _ ,
-
.
-- -
-_. .
.-
,
9330 02 13
302
, g
\\<l WRBeb
1
the current placards rather than the placards which have
2
been obsolete for several years.
3
(Slide.)
4
For our state we have undertaken a program.
.
5
Communications are probably one of the most difficult
6
problems we really have.
Both we and the state police have
7
waited for shipments which didn' t come.
8
We have had to train a number of inspection
9
personnel and most of the people who are automatically
10
placed in transportation inspection are really not used to
11
the requirements for spent fuel.
There are requirements for
12
the casks apart from the DOT requirements.
They are solely
Or
.
vehicles.
13
I
14
We have worked with some of the people who have
15
come out to inspect them and have come out with the wrong
16
equipment, who have worked in several states and did not
,
17
show up with the proper equipment.
18
We have had to develop interagency cooperation,
19
primarily between our groups and the state police, but also
20
for communications.
21
We have also attempted to develop some
22
contingency plans.
The first winter we had some very icy
23
roads.
The tollway authority in this area will not let
(}
24
trucks go over them.
In fact, they have truck bans on the
25
tollways and elevated roadways subject to very severe winds
9330 02 14
303
WRBeb
1
and ice.
So safe pavements were a problem.
'
2
Safe pavements do have to be safeguarded.
In
3
original discussions they were safeguarded so well that they
4
wouldn't tell us or the truck and that I think is going a
5
little too far, I think.
6
(Laughter.)
7
There has been cooperation now between state and
8
federal shippers and it works fairly well, and of course I
9
don't think locals can be ignored.
We did already do a
~
10
local training program and incorporated it into the state
11
inspection program.
I think they have only involved
12
themselves about twice with regard to road conditions.
(~/
~\\
,
A-
13
Thank you very much.
.
14
(Applause.)
15
MR. SHEALY:
Thank you, John, for sharing with us
16
your experience with inspecting shipments of spent nuclear
17
fuel.
-
18
John, will you join us up here, because I am sure
19
that shortly there will be someone who will want to ask you
20
some questions.
21
Our last speaker will discuss with us the
22
development of state capabilities, the MCSAP program.
l
23
Darrell, now you are on again.
Tell us what that
i
24
is.
25
MR. GREGORY:
Thank you, Heyward.
l
l
i
9330 02 15
304
(~\\
^w) WRBeb
1
I would like to spend the next few moments giving
2
you a very broad brief overview of the Motor Carrier Safety
3
Assistance Program.
Now I am sure that there are many of
4
you in this audience that are very familiar with it, but
5
in all likelihood, there are a significant number that are
6
not.
7
In January of
'83,
the United States Congress
byr fact,
8
passed the servtee Transportation Assiscance Act of '82.
It
9
did a number of things.
It was the Act that added the
10
five-cent-a-gallon fuel tax, but the area that impacted the
11
Motor Carrier Program most significantly was that it
12
authorized a grant-in-aid program for the first time to the
13
states that qualified as having or are in the development
14
process of a Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.
15
Its scheduled start was FY '83, which it did in
16
October of '83.
The fundirg was authorized for five years,
17
fiscal '83 through fiscal
'87, on a 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50
18
million dollar basis over the consecutive five years.
19
The allocation that finally came down, in other
i
20
words, the hard dollars that were actually spent on the
21
program or authorized to be spent, is somewhat less than the
22
authorization.
23
One of the requirements of the Act was that the
24
states adopt the federal regulations on safety, highway
{}
25
safety, or have equivalent regulations in place.
And quite
9330 02 16
305
(-
\\</ WRBeb
1
frankly, we at the federal level have encouraged the states
2
to adopt the federal regs, simply for a uniform and
3
standardization policy.
4
The program initially is--
When a state
5
initially comes into it, it is slanted toward a roadside
6
inspection, a roadside inspection of commercial vehicles,
7
both interstate and intrastate.
It is a labor-intensive
8
program.
It is not intended, as some of the other programs
9
that have historically come down through the years, as
10
equipment-oriented although there are certainly provisions
11
for a state purchasing that type of equipment if they feel
12
it is necessary to have a successful program.
(
13
The funds come directly out of'the Highway Trust
'
14
Fund.
They are not appropriated by Congress.
They come
15
directly out of the Highway Trust Fund which the highway
16
users pay into.
17
We are very pleased that the program has
18
progessed to where it has to date, and we are also very
19
pleased that while the initial authorization was to end in
20
'87,
from the Department's standpoint, they have asked for
21
authorization to go beyond FY
'87, well into the '90s.
22
The program breaks out into two phases.
The
23
first one is the development stage.
The spectrum of where
{}-
the states are in motor carrier safety enforcement is from
24
25
one end of the gamut to the other.
Some states have a very
'i
. . .
-. . . - - -_~
.
,
,
. , . . - . .
9330 02 17
306
g
5%
WRBeb'
1
viable on-going, very worthwhile program while other states
2
have somewhat less than that.
3
So there is a provision in the system, in the
4
. program, that a state may come in for what is called a
5
development grant, and this simply means that the federal
6
government will authorize up to S50,000 to a state for a
7
one-year project, although it can be renewed, the
8
development grant can be renewed.
We will pay the states
9
S50,000 to develop what they see that their state needs in a
10
motor carrier program.
11
Now I failed to mention early on and I should
12
have that this is an 80-20 program.
It is 80 percent
(~h
Nl
13
federal and 20 percent state f'unds.
It can be a hard match
14
or it can be a soft match.
In other words, the states can
15
authorize or allocate a flat 20 percent of whatever the
'
16
federal grant is back into the program, or they can match
17
it with equipment, salaries, overhead; things of that
18
nature.
'
19
Al'1 right.
The development grants can be
20
extended fot_at least one year and, depending on where the
'
21
state is, in some instances into the third year.
But in no
22
instance can the development grant exceed $50,000 per fiscal
!
23
year.
24
The other side of the coin is the implementation
{}
25
side.
Now when the program geared up, as I mentioned, some
.
-
c330 02 01
307
,a
Sc) WRBeb
(
1
states had a very viable, on-going program; others did not.
2
Those that did did not use the development system but went
3
immediately into the implementation system.
4
In that system they were allocated a percentage
5
of the funds that were available.
They sent in what we call
6
a State Enforcement Plan that was reviewed both by our local
7
offices, the regional office, and the headquarters office,
8
and we worked with the states to attempt to get them as much
9
funding as we possibly could.
The formula that is applied,
10
as I mentioned, is a percentage of the gross amount that's
11
available less the development states.
12
Now for FY '85, we have 21 states in the
13
development category, and 28. states that. ate currently in
14
implementation.
Now our projection for '86 is that the 28
15
in implementation will increase to 35.
16
Now those of us who were in on the ground floor
17
when the program evolved or was born, I must confess that
18
some of us missed it because in long-range planning we
19
thought if in the first year we had ten states in
20
implementation we would be very fortunate; if in the second
21
year we'd have 12 to 15.
As you can see with the projection
22
in FY '86 of 35 in implementation, this program has
23
skyrocketed.
(}
24
We are very pleased with the results that we've
25
obtained so far.
Quite frankly, the first year that we were
c330 02 02
308
7,
s
WRBeb
1
in it, fiscal
'83, due to some circumstances that the action
2
agency, the Federal Highway Administration, and the states
3
had no control over,
i.e.,
funding, in real-world costs that
4
year kind of dwindled down to about four months.
The states
5
only had four months in that program.
_
So really, although it started officially in FY
6
7
'83,
from a real-world standpoint, FY '84 was actually the
8
first full year that we were in it.
9
The mission of the program is quite simple, to
10
reduce highway accidents by commercial vehicles, all
11
commercial vehicles, not only those engaged in interstate
12
commerce but those engaged in intrastato commerce.
It I
i
-
w
13
believe was an attempt by the federal government that
i
14
finally realized that there is no way that we should not
.
15
take advantage of the state enforcement capabilities.
By
16
bringing in the states in a motor carrier inspection
i
17
program, we increased our inspection capabilities a
18
hundredfold.
19
We are in the process of developing a data base
,
20
among states where states can interchange information.
They
21
can obtain information from us; we can obtain information
22
from them.
23
We believe that from an Administration
24
standpoint, the Federal Highway Administration standpoint,
{}
25
it is a very excellent on-going program.
We are quite
i
__
c330 02 03
309
WRBeb
1
pleased that from all indications, the Department feels the
2
same way, and they are asking for additional funding
3
throughout the '90s.
4
Safe highway transportation is certainly a goal
5
that--
While we may never achieve perfection, it is a goal
6
I believe of every state agency that is interested or
7
engaged in highway transportation.
Certainly at the federal
8
level it is a goal that we can work for.
We feel very
9
strongly that this Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
10
is a very effective tool.
We have asked for it for a number
.
11
of years, dating back to the late '60s, and finally got what
12
we were asking for in '83.
13
Again I can't emphasize enough that we are
14
pleased with the progress that we've seen so far.
It is a
15
program that we not only think will work, we know it will
16
work.
17
Thank you.
18
(Applause.)
19
MR. SHEALY:
Thank you, Darrell.
20
Now the time has come that we can ask questions
21
of our speakers.
I do ask that when you have a question
22
that you please use the mikes.
There are two mikes in the
23
center aisle.
The two front rows can use this mike here.
24
Please identify yourself, giving your name and
25
the organization that you are affiliated with.
a330 02 04
310
V WRBeb
1
I do ask that our invited designees be given an
2
opportunity to ask questions first, from the front of the
3
auditorium.
4
We are now entertaining questions, and please
5
direct your question to one of our speakers.
6
MR. TEDFORD:
I'm Charles Tedford, Tempe,
7
8
I would like to direct a question to you,
9
Heyward, and to Al Grella also.
10
Would you sort of outline for us where the
-11
current spent fuel storage facilities are in the country?
12
Morris I understand is the only one for commercial spent
13
fuel, but what ab.out the DOE facilities?
And maybe a word
14
about how much of that capacity is used, and where it's
15
full.
16
MR. SHEALY:
I'll let Al start on that, and maybe
17
I can fill in some.
18
Al.
19-
MR. GRELLA:
I'm afraid I will have-to pass on
20
that one.
I only have only a very general awareness on DOE
21
fuel storage.
22
On commercial fuel it would be my guess that
23
mostly all the fuel in storage is at reactors other than
24
what is at Morris.
25
MR. ROUSE:
Lee Rouse, NRC.
e330 02 05
311
(3
1
WRBeb
1
Tomorrow morning I'll be spending a very few
2
minutes, but I will cover that particular topic with respect
3
to the sort of status for LWR fuel in the United States.
So
4
why don't we just hold that one until tomorrow?
5
MR. TEDFORD:
That's only part of my question.
I
,
6
asked for a summarization of where DOE has storage
7
capabilities today, and is Morris the only commercial
..
8
storage site?
9
MR. GRELLA:
G.E. Morris is the only storage
10
facility right now, commercial, outside of the reactors,
11
other than West Valley, which is moving fuel back to the
12
reactors.
O-
DOE currently does not have any storage locations ,
13
14
for-any significant quantity of LWR fuel, and part of that
15
demonstration program is to develop storage technologies.
16
They're moving some fuel up to Idaho and storing it there
17
for demonstrating dry storage.'
!
_18
MR. SHEALY:
I might add a little to that.
!
I
19
The Savannah River plant being in my state, we do
$
20
receive some spent fuel from Chalk River, we do receive some
.
j
21
'from overseas that comes into Portsmouth, Virginia, and is
!
I
22
shipped to the Savannah River plant.
As far as I know, this
..
!
23
is government-owned fuel that is returning to this
i
24
country, and is brought to the Savannah River plant for
[}
i
25
further reprocessing.
And those average one or two
!
!
!
!
k
'c330 02 06
312
(
i
WRBeb
'l
shipments per months, something like that.
2
MR. FUNDERBURG:
Bob Funderburg, State of Idaho
3
Radiation Control Office.
I don't have questions as much as
4
I have a statement.
5
What concerns me, first, is the current
6
inspection criteria of the programs that are set up for
7
inspection.
A truck goes through the State of Washington to
8
Idaho, and it can be inspected by the State of Oregon and,
9
in turn, inspected by the State of Idaho and, in turn,
10
inspected by the State of Washington.
And this happens.
11
It seems to me like there's a lot of redundancy
12
in inspections.
There ought to be some kind of uniform
13
inspection program where, if it is inspected in Oregon, it
14
will be given a pass or something so that he could proceed
.
15
after that to his destination.
16
The other item concerns the Federal Railway
17
Administration.
I'm responsible for emergency response in
18
the State of Idaho, and I don't know who the Railway
19
representative is.
I don't think there is a federal law
20
that requires the railway to notify the state of an accident
21
on the railroad involving radioactive materials.
I would
22
encourage a bit closer work between the Federal Railway
23
Administration and the State Radiation control offices.
24
MR. SHEALY:
Does anyone care to follow up on
(}
25
that?
E
.a330 02 07
313
-
,
br' WRBeb
1
MR. O'CONNELL:
I'm not the most knowledgeable
2
person with respect-to the gentleman's first comment, but I
3
believe there may be some people out there who can help him
4
out.
5
There's an organization called the Commercial
6
Vehicle Safety Alliance, which is a group of states that
7
have joined together in conducting inspections of hazardous
8
materials and other materials.
I believe that one of their
9
objectives is to issue some type of a pass, or a sticker, or
10-
some type of documentation when one state does an
.
11
inspection, so that there isn't a duplication of effort.
12
Now, I'm not sure ,what states are involved.
But
O.
-13
to,the extent that states do belong to this organization,
14
there is a mechanism in place to avoid redundancy of
15
inspection of vehicles.
16
MR. SHEALY:
I would like to add a little bit to
.,
17
what Bob says.
18
I understand what he's saying, and I think that
19
at the state level phase of the situation where our
20
policy-makers, our decision-makers are asking us, you know
21
"Aren't you inspecting these vehicles as they cross the
iS
22
state border of your state?"
And thisja situation that
23
we've been asked many, many times by a decision-making
24
politician in our state.
And it's a situation, you know,
[}
25
that keeps recurring.
9330 03 01
314
WRBeb
1
MR. PRITCHARD:
We'll get in touch with you and
2
tell you who with FRA to get in touch with.
-3
MR. GREGORY:
Just to amplify on what John said,
4-
one of the primary objectives of the Motor Carrier Safety
5
Assistance Program is to address just exactly the concern
6
that the gentleman from Idaho expressed.
7
Now, what we have done is: as John mentioned,
8
there is a commercial vehicle safety line which the majority
9
of the western states were originators of, and they and the
10
Federal Highway Administration have agreed on a uniform
11-
inspection procedure in which a sticker is issued to the
12
power unit good for a ninety-day period.
That tells any
p/
x
s_
13
other inspecting agency in another state or the same state
14
that unless they see an obvious out-of-service defect-on the
15
vehicle when they stop it, that the vehicle has been
16
inspected and passed by an agency that has agreed to a
17
standardized vehicle safety inspection procedure.
18
So there is a mechanism in place for that.
19
MR. McDONNELL:
Larry McDonnell, State of
'
20
Wisconsin Radiological Program.
21
I have two questions, one for Darrell Gregory.
22
You mentioned that there was a pilot program in
23
several ctates, and you have obtained the use of
i
24
instrumentation.
I wonder if you could comment as to the
{}
25
specific type of instrumentation and the name.
f
-.,
L
9330 03 02
315
.,n
'kJ WRBeb
1
MR. GREGORY:
Sure.
It's Eberline.
I can't give
2
you the model number.
It's the same model the Air Force
3
bought tdo use on airbases for radioactive detection
.\\/
'<
4
capabilities.
And we have been extremely pleased with it.
5
The firm is out of New Mexico, and we work very, very
6
closely with them.
7
Quite frankly, we initially had some calibration
.
,
8
problems, but they sent their field people in, and once the
9
thing was up to speed we have been very, very happy.
>
10
MR. McDONNELL:
Thank you,
11
The second is more of a comment than anything
12
else, and it is directed toward Al Grella, and it has to do
- D
4J
13
with uniform inspections.
14
We have found that inspecting well over 100
<
.
15
casks, both empty and full, that there's a great deal of
16
confusion as to the interpretation of the regulations with
17
regard to removal and examination.
Some of this stems from
18
assigning'a deficiency number for everybody's measurement.
19
And I think that there's a great deal of uniformity that
20
needs to be obtained by not only the people in the states
21
inspecting these casks but also people in the federal
.
22.
government.
And I would hope that these comments that were
23
made in the DOT rule promulgation will be taken to heart and
,
- 24
that somebody will do'something'to clarify these
(}
'
25
measurements.
f
-
-
,
)
9330 03 03
316
'
(~'\\.
LJ WRBeb
1
MR.'GRELLA:
I couldn't agree more heartily with
2
your comment as far as the need for uniformity as well as
3
complying particularly with the rules for surface
0
4
cyntamination.
We've been working on this problem for a
5
couple of' years, and hopcsfully we've,had some success.
6
On June 10th there was an information notice.
I
_
7
don't know if you've seen it: .I have a few copies with me.
8
It's titled " Clarification of Several Aspects of Removal of
.
9
Radioactive Surface Contamination from Transport Packages,"
10
and it deals with averaging of wipe samples, use of high
.
11
efficiency wipe sample methods, racking of packages, and
12
exclusive use surveys for surface contamination.
In it we
(D
13
have quoted directly the text of letters of' interpretation
14
that we directed to DOTand their reply, and this information
15
notice has been coordinated with them.
So hopefully this is
16
going to help to answer some of the questions on applying
,
17
those aspects of the surface contamination regulations.
18
I couldn't agree with you more that they are very
19
difficult to apply, particularly in these areas of averging
20
samples and efficiency.
.
,
21
I have four or five copies with me.
22
Unfortunately, it was distributed only to power reactor
23
facilities, although I understand State Programs does
24
distribute information notices to the states.
So you may
}
25
you may have gotten one from that source by~now,
f
, - -
-
w
,
9330 03 04
317
_
T 'u/ WRBeb
1
MR. SHEALY:
We're ready for the next question.
2
MR. AAROE:
Bill Aaroe, West Virginia Health
,
3
Department.
4
I would hope that you people can refresh my
,
5
memory as to what percentage of spent fuel shipments are
.
.
6-
being inspected by which agency.
And then I have a comment
.,
7
about that.
,
8
I was going to suggest that there be better
9
coordination arranged, so that the states the shipments were
10
to be routed through would be contacted, and there would be
11
coordination established to a greater extent.
,)
-
12
MR. GRELLA:
I would just comment on the shipper
kl
13
part of it, not the inspection part of it.
,
14
As I indicated on one of the slides and in the
15
handout, at least in terms of the seven or eight campaigns
16
that have been o,n-going since July of '83, NRC has inspected
17
well over 50 percent of the shipments at both origin and
18
destination.
We're looking at the shipper requirements
19
primarily.
20
MR. SHEALY:
Any further comments?
21
MR. O'CONNELL:
As far as rail shipments go, I
,
22
think there is 100 percent inspection of those.
I'm not
23
sure of the percentage of the highway shipments.
All
,
4
24
initial shipments are being inspected, and I think there is
' ( )-
,
N_.
25
a periodic re-inspection.
As far as percentages, I really
'9330 03 05
318
zf3 :
kJ WRBeb
1
can't give'you any.
2
MR. SHEALY:
Any other questions from the front?
3
MR. MOBLEY:
Michael Mobley, Tennessee.
4
I guess this is for you.
5
How do you answer the question that you posed
6
there with respect to the shipments that come into the
7
state?
I have a real problem.
I have the same question
8
asked of me.
9
Given the level of activity that we've seen here
10
relative to spent fuel shipments, the requirements that are
11
put on it, and the concerns that I have from a technical
12
standpoint and a radiological health standpoint, I really
.t}
k-
13
have a problem saying that I am going to dedicate manpower
'
e
14
for looking at shipments coming into the state, given these
15
other types of radiation problems that I deal with where
16
people are really being exposed.
17
It is real difficult for me to try to say I'm not
18
really concerned about these shipments when there seems to
19
be a lot of concern about, for apparently no real reason.
20
What do you tell your people?
21
MR. SHEALY:
Well, I sort of agree with you.
22
We have to feel that we do have some assurance that someone
23
has inspected this shipment at the point of origin of, if
24
it's coming in from overseas, at the appropriate port, some
(}
25
port authority, whether it's the Coast Guard or whoever.
9330 03 06
319
g
\\zJ WRBeb
1
If this is not done, and we have no assurance that it has
2
been inspected, we do go out and inspect these shipments.
3
I agree, it does take time and effort, but we
4
have to react and respond to the concerns of the people in
5
the state.
6
MR. MOBLEY:
I understand that concern.
But the
7
problem I have is that in dealing with radiation problems
8
the concern I think is maybe in the wrong area, when there
9
are other radiation problems that are impacting on people
10
every day, and we have manpower that we have to spread out,
11
and it's very diffi-cult to deal with.
12
The other point -- and I want to make sure I get
jq
J
13
this point over: I harped on this a little bit yesterday.
i
14
The other thing is the concern for the potential for
15
shipments that are outside all of these inspectica
16
activities, all of these regulatory activities, and these
17
would be shipments by DOE and DOD.
I don't think that that
18
was commented on yesterday, but there is a potential for
19
shipments other than nuclear or other radioactive materials
20
that are not covered by any of these standards.
And I
21
wanted to be sure that I made that point.
22
MR. HARDEMAN:
Jim Hardeman, State of Georgia.
23
This question, I guess, is directed at all the
()
24
individuals on the dias.
L,'
25
Mike opened up something when he was talking
1
r
-9330 03 07.
320
rT.
. kl
e WRBeb
l-
about dedicating resources of manpower to the inspection
2
effort, and I really don't have a good feeling for what kind
3
of devotion of resources we're talking about here, what kind
4
of commitment both of manpower and dollars.
5
So maybe you all can clarify your experience over
6
the past few years as to what type of resource commitment
7
we're talking about to do these inspections.
8
MR. GRELLA:
I don't have any ready figures on
9
man-hours.
But I think if you think in terms of the number
10
of shipments that we're inspecting, let's say 50 percent of
11
300 -- say 150 out of 300 shipments, and you consider that
12
each of those inspections involves at least a minimum of a
13
work day and probably more, it involves traveling out of
14
state, this can give you some idea of the inspection
15
resources.
16
Now, in the case of groups of inspectors that are
,
17
involved, in the case of Region III these resources are
18
coming out of-a group of health physics inspectors who
19
inspect op,erating reactors.
There are five or six health
20
physicists in that group to cover the health physics aspects
21
at the number of reactors in Region III.
22
Now, as I pointed out, these are not going to be
23
inspectors only of transportation.
So that this time is
24
coming out of the total effort.
And it does affect the
(}
25
ability to carry out the percentage of work planned to do
,
. . - _
-
_ . _ - - . . , _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - . _ . _ - _ ,
--
WRBeb
1
for the routine program.
2
I don't have any readily available figures on
3
staff hours.
But in the case of Region I,
the inspection at
4
one destination was started by the resident inspector.
5
Again, the resident inspector is all things to all people,
6
he has more things to do, there are constant demands on his
7
time.
We have one fuel facility inspector in Region I who
8
does carry out the other inspections, plus another person.
9
And this has involved, if I had to pick a figure, probably
10
20 to 40 percent of the staff.
11
These are just some very off the top of the head
12
estimates.
13
MR. O'CONNELL:
As far as the Department of
.
14
Transportation goes, I'll speak for my organization, the
15
Research and Special Program Administration.
We are the
16
only organization in the department that does not,have any
17
field staff.
We have a very small inspection staff, eight
18
people working out of Washington.
We do quite a bit of
19
traveling.
We operate like a field office, but we're
20
located at the headquarters.
21
Of those eight people, we have one person that
22
devotes his total inspection time to radioactive materials.
23
He goes to airports and monitors materials,
f
24
radio-pharmaceuticals and other radioactive materials moving
(q>
25
through the airport facilitios.
He goes to a lot of shipper
9330 03 09
322
~ (^)
i>-WRBeb
1
facilities to look at shipments before they move.
2
We were directed to get involved in this, so we
3
found the time to supply a man to go out to do this.
4
The gentleman from Tennessee brings up a good
5
point.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is concerned with
6
radioactive materials exclusively.
The Department of
7
Transportation has, I think, maybe fifteen other hazard
8
classes or hazardous materials that we're also involved in
.
9
looking at.
10
In terms of specific time, I would say probably
11
two days: one man, two days.
Our man goes out to wherever
12
it is to do the inspection.
So he has got airfare and other
13
expenses.
He works with the local Federal Railroad and
14
Federal Highway Administration person who normally doesn' t
15
have to travel as far because he's located within the
16
regional office.
Again, that's probably one to two people
17
from the modal administration; again, about two days,
18
depending on how much there is to look at.
19
MR. SHEALY:
Thank you, gentlemen.
20
MR. MOBLEY:
Let the State answer that question,
21
too.
22
MR. COOPER:
I just did some figures on that and
23
sent them up to the Director, who is sitting in front of
^
24
you.
I don't remember the total figures.
I'm sure he
{}
25
hasn't read them yet.
And they are misleading.
'9330 03 10
323
WRBeb
1
(Laughter.)
2
If I had to rank all the statistics for
3
inspectors, obviously No. I would be a state trooper,
4
because that's where most of the items are; No. 2 would be a
'
5
railroad inspector--
That would probably be a state
6
hazardous materials trooper who can do vehicle and radiation
7
safety work; his time is probably the lowest because he has
8
got district offices all over the state.
Essentially, his
9
time is inspection time, which really amounts, on a truck
10
shipment, to a matter of two or three hours per shipment.
11
You might not really think that a truck would
12
take that long.
It doesn't, once you find them.
But they
k-)
13
are moving targets and are very difficult to locate.
14
There's more time hooking things together than inspecting.
15
For our department, on a truck, one man
16
essentially has blown a full day; if it's in the winter,
17
probably a day and a half, because of frequent breakdowns
18
due to weather.
19
Transportation statistics are all over the place,
20
depending on who does the inspection.
And that's one reason
21
why we went for 100 percent for trains.
A train takes about
22
three days.
23
At one point we had about 40 percent of the
24
shipments delayed by a period of half a day to a day just on
25
time coming in.
People who are doing that are essentially
.
. . , . _ . - .
.._..,.m
,,-,
_
W
'9330 03 11
324
p ),
t
(-
WRBeb
1
shot and unable to do something else for about six hours.
'
2
And the same thing happens, to a lesser extent,
3
with the state police officers because they are police
4
officers.
5
We have essentially have an inspection team of a
6
trooper and one of our inspectors.
I think our allocation
7
last year of 286 was about 730 days lost -- or hours
8
consumed in the inspection activity.
9
MR. SHEALY:
Thank you, gentlemen.
10
We're on a very tight schedule this morning, as
11
all of you realize.
12
VOICES FROM THE AUDIENCE:
No; no.
()
13
,MR. SHEALY:
I think we have time perhaps to
l
14
entertain one more quick question, a short question.
15
MR. MAHER:
Mine is a comment.
I would like to
1
16
respond to the gentleman from Idaho who had a question about
!
l
17
state notification.
i
l
18
It is a matter of public policy to notify states
19
through their designated agencies, and Idaho has recently
20
enacted an 801 call system, and we have that published in
!
!
21
our emergency response plan for state notification.
You are
22
covered, regardless of whether it's a legal requirement or
23
not.
n
24
Thank you.
(m)
25
MR. SHEALY:
This concludes this morning's
9330 03 12
325
m
k<J WRBeb
1
session.
I'd like to thank our speakers.
Let's show our
2
appreciation.
3
(Applause.)
4
MR. SHEALY:
I'd like to turn the program over to
5
Steve Salomon.
6
MR. SALOMON:
Thank you very much.
7
I'd like to welcome you all to one of the most
8
interesting parts of the seminar.
If you look in your blue
9
folder under your name you'll see some letters, either R,
I
10
or EP. These letters represent the assignments in the
11
discussion groups.
R is for routing, I is for inspection,
12
and EP is for emergency preparedness.
The assignments are
(K-
13
for everyone except federal staff.
They preserve balance in
14
size and geographical distribution, and so on.
Large
15
delegations are split evenly.
16
These assignments are suggestions, and you are
17
not bound to stay in any particular discussion group.
Your
18
assignment may change if you wish.
But we tried to retain
19
some balance in that regard.
20
One of the main purposes of the discussion group
21
is to learn more about the regulatory roles and
22
responsibilities in NRC and DOT and the interface of these
23
federal activities, the state and local governments, and the
f'}
24
Indian activities related to spent fuel transportation.
For
xs
25
this reason we have assigned technical support staff to each
9330 03 13
326
.
_ {'o/~1
-
WRBeb
1
group.
However, issues that may be discussed can included
2
institutional, socio-economic and economic, in addition to
3
the technical issues.
4
The chairperson of each discussion group, with
5
the aid of the group, may.wish to begin the discussion by
6
listing the issues for that particular discussion group, and
7
then ranking them.
There's a blackboard in each one of the
8
discussion group rooms to act as an aid.
'
9
The rapporteur for each one of the discussion
10
groups will present the group's findings, conclusions, and
11
recommendation tomorrow morning.
12
Also, we have provided extra time tomorrow
13
between eight and nine so that the discussion groups can
14
continue, if they wish.
,
15
I would like to introduce the chairman of the
.
16
rapporteurs of the technical support staff for each one of
17
the discussion groups.
The first one, selecting and
18
designating alternate highway routes, which will meet in thu
19
Lincoln Room, which is on the third floor.
To find it after
20
the break, go out into the Francis I room, which is the
21
reception area, and you'll see the bank of escalators.
Go
22
up the escalator and through the corridor.
There are three
23
swinging doors there.
Bill Thompson will be at the top to
24
assist you in finding the room.
(}
25
The chairman for this session is Hal Borchert,
r
9330 03 14
327
c' WRBeb
1
Director of the Nebraska Division of Radiological Health.
2
The rapporteur is Nancy Kirner, Supervisor, Radioactive
3
Materials Control Unit, Washington Department of Social and
4
Health Services.
5
Williams Andrews from Battelle Pacific Northwest
6
Labs and John Allen of Battelle Columbus will be the
7
technical support staff for that discussion group.
8
The second discussion group, Effective
9
Inspections, will meet at the Grant Park Room, which is on
10
the third floor next to the Lincoln Room, up the escalator
11
and through the corridors.
The chairperson is Terry Lash
12
substituting for Dan Williams.
Terry is the Director of the
13
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.
And the rapporteur
14
is George Bruchmann, Chief of the Michigan Division of
15
Radiological Health.
Technical support staff is Al Grella
16
from Inspection and Enforcement, NRC, and James Shuler,
17
Hazardous Materials Enforcement Division of DOT.
18
The third discussion group,
Emergency
19
Preparedness and Response, will meet in the Plaza Room on
20
this floor.
To get to the Plaza Room, go out into the
21
Francis I reception area and turn right and go right through
22
the corridor and you'll get to it.
The chairperson is Karim
23
Rimawi from New York, the rapporteur is William Dixon,
24
Administrator, Siting and Regulation Division, Oregon
(}
25
Department of Energy.
The technical support staff is
_ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
9330 03 15
328
O=
\\<l WRBeb
1
Vernon Wingert from the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
2
FEMA.
3
Remember, the breakout rooms are also available
4
from eight to nine tomorrow morning, on Friday, to continue
5
with the discussion, if you wish.
ai
6
The discussion groups will break out this morning
cLE
7
wetti 11:30 promptly, and people will mount on the busses
8
which will be outside on Michigan Avenue.
As soon as the
9
first bus is filled it will take off, and then the
10
subsequent busses will take off.
Be sure to keep, and have
11
your ticket with you.
If anybody still wants to go, tickets
Cancolyd buggAVS
Or_0 ae-or Beverly
1
12
are still on sale outside.
See Garl:
13
Smith at the registration desk.
,
14
There are eight exhibits to see: the Morris
15
facility; the rail cask; two vans, one from NRC Region III,
16
a radiological van, and also the Illinois Department of
17
Nuclear Safety has been kind enough to have a van there as
18
well.
19
The Illinois State police will have their
20
hazardous materials patrol car there.
Also, Burns
21
International will have a security vehicle, and Northern
22
States Power has offered an escort vehicle.
23
Are there any questions that anybody might have
24
about the discussion groups?
25
(No response)
P
9330 03 16
329
,
s,
,
(
)
' _ ' WRBeb
1
(Administrative announcements were made.)
2
MR. SALOMON:
We'll break now, and the meetings
3
will begin at 10:00 o' clock.
4
(Whereupon, at 9:55
a.m.,
the seminar was
5
recessed to the breakout sessions.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(a,
( ./
13
-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,r)
24
C/
25