ML20148R040

Notice to Aslab of New Info to Amicus Curiae Brief of Electric Util Cos Nuclear Transportation Group Re DOT Final Rules on Highway Routing of Spent Fuel Shipments.Fr Excerpt Encl

ML20148R040
Person / Time
Site:	07002623
Issue date:	01/23/1981
From:	Trosten L ELECTRIC UTILITY COMPANIES NUCLEAR TRANSPORTATION, LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE
To:
References
NUDOCS 8101290049
Download: ML20148R040 (24)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:k ,[a3/r/ i .i .m g, -i ~' g\\ JAti 2 l1981 wM, ,k.. Abrieg 4 9,jMet of 1 N ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c, 6 f NUCLEAR REGULATORY, COMMISSION f N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR /c 4 .In the Matter of ) ) j -DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket-No. 70-2623 l ) l (Amendment to Materials ) i e F' l License SNM-1773 for Oconee ) k( f[I,[h' Nuclear Station Spent Fuel -) Transportation and Storage ) S N i At McGuire Nuclear Station) ) } t JANE nsap-{i i NOTICE TO APPEAL BOARD OF' EN#" NEW INFORMATION MATERIAL TO BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE' O ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS OF THE d ELECTRIC UTILITY COMPANIES NUCLEAR TRANSPORTATION GROUP The Electric Utility Companies Nuclear Transpor-tation Group, which filed a Brief Amicus Curiae to the Appeal Board on December 22, 1980, hereby notifies this Board of a development material to the information contained in that Brief. At pages 13-15 the Group referred to the pending Department of Transportation's (" DOT") rulemaking for highway routing of spent fuel shipments in Docket No. HM-164. On January 19, 1981, the DOT published the final rules in that I docket. 46 Fed. Reg. 5298. The Group's December 22 Brief noted that DOT had concluded in its publication of the proposed rules that the risks from extreme spent fuel transport incidents were negligible. That position has t ( 8101290 0

. been affirmed in the publication of the final rules. In its statement of considerations the DOT states: The Department of Transportation has examined the transportation of radio-active materials exhaustively since issuing the ANPRM nearly two and a half years ago. This process has included the review of over 1600 public comments and 2000 pages of transcripts from public hearings in addition to a number of risk assessment studies on the subject. On the basis of these comments, documented risk studies and past accident experience for radioactive material transport, the Department has concluded that the public risks in transporting these materials by highway are too low to justify the unilateral imposition by local governments of bans and other severe restrictions on the highway mode of transportation. Other modes of transport generally do not appear to offer alternatives which clearly lower public risks to the extent that use of the highway mode should be substantially restricted. DOT also believes, however, that these currently low risks will be further minimized by the adoption of driver training require-ments and provisions of a method for select-ing the safest available highway routes for carriers of large quantity radioactive materials, as accomplished in this rule. The estimated low risks in transporting radioactive materials also support the belief that the present packaging requirements are adequate to protect the public. A detailed discussion of DOT's packaging requirements was presented in the [ A] NP RM. As was clearly pointed out in the proposed rules, this rulemaking is not an examination of packaging requirements, the adequacy of which is assessed by DOT and NRC on a con-tinuing basis. There has been no new docu-mented evidence presented during the puclic ) Comment process to show that the current packaging requirements result in unacceptable risks to the public. 46 Fed. Reg, at 5299.

, A complete copy of the DOT's Federal Register notice is attached to this submittal, for the Appeal Board's convenience. Respectfully submitted, kuwk u TAufru Leonard M. Trosten M. Reamy Ancarrow Michael F. McBride LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MacRAE 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-7500 Attorneys for Electric Utility Companies Nuclear Transportation Group January 23, 1981

'. v 5298 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.12 / Monday. January 19.1981 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION sUPPLaMENTARY WORMADON: publlC [nterest and environmental Research and Special Programs I. Background organizations, the motor carrier The history of these amendments is industry, the shipping industry, bridge Administration and turnpike authorities. Federal 49 CFR Parta 171,172,173,177 summarized in the Notice of Proposed agencies, and Congressional officials. In Rulernking (NPRM] of lanuary 31.1980 I6 A dt. Nos.171 59, (45 FR 7140). Individuals interested in addition to the many individual citizen ~ ,N this docket should review that comments. Based upon these comments y 'j, publication as well as the Advance and the Department's own judgment an Radioactive Materiais; Routing and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NPRM was pubished on January 31.

1980, Driver Training Requirementa (ANPRM) of August 17,1978 (43 FR 36492) since references are made to both The NPRM set out specific proposals AGENCr.Matedals Transportation Bureau (MTB), Research and Special documents. To set the context for the for routir.g certain typesof radioactive Programs Administration. DOT.

present discussion. however, the most materials shipped by highway, and important background items relating to driver training requirements. The stated i ACDO c Final rule. these amendments are briefly purpose of those proposals was to ?' summarized here- . reduce the possibility of exposure and suussAnr.These amendments establish In 1978, truck shipments ofirradiated inadvertent releases in normal and i 3 4 j routing and driver training requirements reactor fuel (spent fuell from accident situations in transportation. for highway carriers of large quantity packages of radioactive materials. Such Brookhaven Na tional I abora tories' Long and to clarify the scope of permissible Island facility were lnterrupted by an State and local actions. The four month carriers are required to follow highway ~ amendment to the New York City public comment period scheduled in the 1 routes designated by appropriate State Health Code.The Health Code NPRM was subsequently extended to agencies. In the absence of State action, amendment had the practical effect of five months. The Materials carrfers are required to use Interstate banning most commercial shipments of-Transportation Bureau (MTD) conducted System highways subject to the specific conditions set forth in the rules. In radioactive materials in or through the seven public hearings from late March City. Associated Universities. Inc., to early June of 1980. The seven hearings addition, carriers are required to which operates Brookhaven National were held in Philadelphia. Atlanta' prepare written route plans for eventual Laboratories, asked DOT whether that Transportation. Irradiated reactor fuel ordinance was preempted by Federal

• (O' submission to the Department of

,d du ed transportation safety requirements public meetings in Akron Ohio. Eugene, must be shipped under a comprehensive Issued under the Hazardous Materials Oregon and Union City. California. The physical security program approved by Transportation Act (HMTA)(40 U.S.C. Department has recieved and reviewed the Department to be equivalent to that 1801 et seq.). On April 2d.1978. DOT mr 1.000 puWe comments on the s established by the Nuclear Regulatory ~ published an Inconsistency Ruling (43 January 31 notice. In addition, over 1.600 Commission. FR 10054) in which it viewed the City's pages of transcripts from the snen Motor vehicles carrying an ^ Health Code-amendment as an extreme public hearings have been reviewed as radioactive material for whic routing requirement intended to protect well as statements mace at the three .plicarding is required. other than those the very dense urban population found public meetings, containing large quantity packages as inside the City. DOT concluded that the Decause of the great interest idrntified in the regulations, must HMTA could preempt local generated by these routing proposals comply with a general routing rule to requirements such as New York City and because of the many and varied minimize radiological risk. Also had implemented, but becausa highway issues involved. DOT has decided to contained in this document is a routing authority had not yet been include an extended discussion of public Departmenta' policy statement which exercised under the HMTA the City's comments as a supplement to the final addresses the appropriate role of Health Code was not preempted by rules document. Although principal Federal. State and local governments in HMTA requirements. Since this ruling a comments are di. cussed in this the regulation of radioactive materirl number of other State and local preamble inclusion in the docket of a transportation. governmenta have either passed, or supplementary discussion of public trnetiva caTe February 1' 1982. proposed, legislation that severely comments allows the Department to ADDRESm Copies of public comments restricts transportation of certain provide more detailed responses than and supporting documents (Final radicactive materials through their would be practical in the preamble. For Regulatory Evaluation and jurisdictions. those readers interested in public Environmental Assessment: Supplement ' The Department of Transportation comments on the Advance Notice, a d to Docket HM-!S4: Summary and subsequently published the ANPRM summary is provided on pages 7141 and Antlysis of Public Comments) are entitled " Highway Routing of 7142 of the lant try 31 NPRM. In [ avtilable for inspection and Radioactive Materials: Inquiry" in addition to the supplement of public I1 r5 production at the following address: August.1978. The public was invited to comments, all individual public Dockets Branch / DOT /RSPA/M13 comshent on the need and po' ssible - Room 8420. 400 7th Street. S.W - methods for establishing routing comments and all public hearing transcripts are available for inspection Wa shington, D.C. 20590. (202) 426-314& requirements pertaining to highway at the address previously !!sted. carriers of radioactive materials under Other essential backgro md F2C PURTHER INFOMMATION CONTACT: i lohn C Allen. Office of Hazardous the HMTA A public hearing was held la information covered by the NPRM [ contunction with the ANPRM on Includes an analysis of the existing DOT j l Mzterials Regulation. (202-472-2728) or November 29.1978 in Washington D.C. safety program for the transportation of i i Douglas A. Crockett. Office of the Chief The Department received over 550 radioactive materials. DOT accident i Counsel. Research and Special Programa comments from a broad cross-section ofexperience with nuclear material i Administration (202-755-4972). 400 7th Strtet. SW. Washington D.C. 20590. the public including representatives transportation a technical discussion of from State and local governments, projected public risk from the transport f f i

Federal Register / Vol. 40, No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 5209 of radioactive materials in the United industry. Some maintain that State and DOT remains firm in its belief that the States, the Nuclear Regulatory local restrictions have been applied impact of piecemeal State and local - Conunission (NRC) physical security mostly to nuclear fuel cycle shipments restrictions on the transportation of all program for shipments of spent nuclear such as spent fuel and have not radioactive materials. including non-fuel fueLby its licensees, DOTS frustrated shipments of cycle materials, signifies a need for interrelationship with NRC's transport radiopharmaceuticals or other nationally consistent routing rules. requirements, and an extensive "necessary'* small quantity It is also the Department's discussion of the proposed routing and radioisotopes. They suggest that DOTS determination that public safety can be training requirements. The present stated intention of provuing uniformity improved through a nationally uniform document will reference some of this and consistency, at least in part, to rule that ensures the use of available information. However, those discussions ensure shipments of needad nuclear highway routes that are known to be will not be restated here except as they medical materials is based on an invalid safe for large quantity radioactive relate to substantive public comments. perspective, materials. In developing this rule, three II. General Discussion The Department has examined many basic conclusions underlie the approach o helocalrutriens for The Department of Transportation has matarial transportation and continues t l) oute selection should be based on examined the transportation of some valid measure of reduced risk to eve at many usuMn unnecusary radioactive materials exhaustively since ns ns n e an8pmadonof au the public, issuing the ANpRM nearly two and a half years a~g6:This process has types of radioactive materiale, including (2) Uniform and consistent rules for route selection are needed from both a bcluded the review of over 1600 public standpoint. and practical and safet{ould be carefully - comments and 2000 pages of transcripts e t a pport s. xampl, the (3)I. cal views s from public hearings in addition to a Society of Nuclear Medicine presented number of risk assc.ssment studies on-the following comments at the Chicago considered in routing decisions since the subject. On the basis of these hearing on April 3,1980. routing is a site-specific activity unlike other transport controls such as marking comments, documented risk studies and The Society has great concem for the and packing. past accident experience for radioactive proliferstion of State and local statutes and With respect to the first conclusion, material transport, the Department has ordinancas enacted to control the DOT is of the opinion that an concluded that the public risks in. tran8portation of radioactive n'aterials into, assessment of risk to the public should f n transporting these materials by highway y*gd tio,njt can include a consideration of both normal 9 {, are too low to justify the unilateral in the transportation of these medical radiological exposure which is inherent imposition by local governments of bans necessines constitutes one of the moet in the transportation of radioactive and other severe restrictions on the rapidly increa.ing and artous impediments materials as well as a consideration of highway mode of transportation. Other to nuclear medicine health care delivery with potential accidents which could result in - modes of transport generally do not which we are faced. Thus, the Society views additional radiological exposure. appear to offer alternatives which with favor those portions of tMa docket further, an assessment of risk to the clearly lower public risks to the axtant which wt11 provide for uniformity of public from accidents involving large that use of the highway mode should be regulauan, on a national basis, while still quantity radioactive materials should substantially restricted. DOT also providing for adequate state and local input include a balanced consideration of believes, however, that these currently in the implementation of the final rule. factors which affect both the likelihood low risks will be further minimited by The Society points out that over 3.300 of an accident as well as the the adoption of driver training medical centers, hospitals and clinics in consequences. requirements and provisions of a the U.S. are engaged in nuclear Many commenters seem to be method for selecting the safest available medicine, and it estimates that ons out concerned only with consequence - highway routes for carriers oflarge of every two patients admitted to particularly high consequence accidents quantity radioactive materiala, as hosptals require some type of" nuclear involving large quantity radloactive accomplished in this rule., medicine procedure." materials in a heavily populated urban The estimated low risks in transporting t adioactive materiale also The petroleum Equipment Suppliers center. Local authorities, for example, Association, a trade association are c.o. ncerned with postulated " worst-sup rt the belief that the present accidents because of a fear that pac ging re4uirements are adequate to representing 251 companies that supply protect the public. A detailed discussion go de and services to over 10.000 their emergency response capabilities uf DOT's packaging requirements was companies engaged in petroleum drilling are insufficient for such hypothetical presented in the NpRM. As was clearly and production point out that the catastrophes.ne Department. also is - concerned with such events and la pointed out in the proposed rules, this relatively small quantities of l'ndustrial rulemaking is not an examination oL. isotopes which its members ship are mindful of the large economic consequences estimated for such packaging requirements, the adequacy often covered by State and local hypothetical events by a recent draft of which is assessed by DOT and NRC restricdonat environmental assessment completed on a continuing basis. Dere has been no Increasingly, state and municipal for the NRC by Sandia National new documented evidence presented governments are enacting routing restrictions Laboratories (Transportation of during the public comment process to. and prohibitions and requirements for Radionuclides in Urban Environs: Draft show that the current packaging prenotification and escorts. The rising tide of Environmental Assessment", July,1980). " a an o a es a o requirements result in unacceptable These estimates relate to a scenario risks to the pubbc. yt w 1en y assumn 6e woM creme the use of radioactive sources by (oil and gas Many commenters question the need well) service companies, but to actually accident for certain truck shipments of for these routing rules and some view destroy the sbility of these companies to spent fuel and polonium in densely them as nothing more than a method of provide these services. Without these pJpulated urban areas. One could accommodating the transportation services the exploretion and production of oil conclude from the study that a way to requirements of the nuclear power and ges in this country will effectively cease. lower the possibility of such high Y

i 1 5300 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations consequences is to reroute the Federally-provided regulatory " hazardous materials and other modes of shipments away from urban areas framework. The D'epartment believes transportation. entirely. However, the study also that in the interest of uniformity and By issuing these regulations the Indicates that this may not be the best safety,it is both appropriate and Department has made the determination alternative if one considers overall risks practical for many routing decisions to that routing requirements can improve to the public, since routes that avoid the be made at the State level. The fifty safety-not only by providing fo-the ij urban areas may have much higher State governments are in a better use of the ssiest highway routes. but accident rates which increase the position than the Federal govemment to also by addressing the safety impacts of chance of a severe accident occurring la respond to local concerns and likewise narrowly conceived local actions. In the first place. It is DOTS opinion that are in a better position than the 23.000 or order to fulfill the mandate on public policy for the routing of so local jurisdictions to consider overall hazardous material routing, it is DOT's 'i radioacdve materials should be liased safety impacts from routing decisions. responsibility to set out a national ) not only upon a concern for worst-case To ensure adequate consideration of framework within which legitimate local l accident consequences, but also upot all Iccal viewpoints, DOT believes an concerns can be addressed; To establish -) other factors which contribute to the advisory group primardy composed of this framework the DOT has the overall risk involved in transporting local officials should be established in authority to make the basic decision as 1 large quantity radioactive materials. each State to periodically review the to what radioactive materials pose a i This policy la embodied in this effectiveness of the State / local significantly serious risk such that q' rulemaking by requiring use ofInterstate consultation (discussed in more detail j highways which generally have much elsewhere in this document). routing controls are necessary, and how these materials should be routed. The lower accident rates than other roadways, while at the same time III. Federal / State / Local Role in Routing Department has made these decisions in requiring that cities be avoided where Radioactive Materials a Meeg ad a Wehynopsis j t now f0ll0W8' i asible by using eitherInterstate The Hazardous Materials 1 First, a general routing rule is !l ltways or State-designated bypass Transportation Act grants DOT the establithed for all radioactive material routes to minimf re the possibility of authority to regulate the transportation shipments by highway which require a jl w rse-case addents. f hazardous matuf als. Among other waming placard. These include many of l With respect to the second things, section 105(a) of the HMTA the thousands of shipments of specifically identifies routing as ane radiopharmaceuticals, industrial [a 1 d n ti in erest form f regulation that the Secretary isotopes, and low-level wastes that are {' Providing for uniformity and consistency may deem necessary and ap repriate made annually.The general rule in routing. DOT is providing a national for the safe transportation o hazardous ,1 framewory for highway routing of . materials.Sefore the issuance of tho' emphasizes that the carrier choose i i w w c State ANPRM for Docket HM-184, the routes which minimize radiological risk i ra ajeria Department had not implemented by cansidering such factors as { 1 This framework is needed because of routing regulations for any hazardous population, accident rates, and transit time. the current patchwork of conflicting , material under this clear authority Second. special requirements apply to State and local routing requirements.11 granted by the HMTA. A general routing motor vehicles transporting large is recogmzed that tnere may be local - provision does exist at 49 CFR 377.9 situations which are so unusual,that providing guidance to carriers and quantity packages of radioactive drivers of placarded motor vehicles. materials. These requirements include they cannot be adequately accommodated within this framework

• That provision predates the issuance of preferred routing, written route plans i !!I and driver tralmng certification.

These situations can be called to tbs the HMTA and has not yet been Preferred routes are identified as ) 'I {i attention of the Department thmugh adopted in regulations issued under the Interstate highways and State-oxisting administrative channals that authority of that Act. designated routet may involve either special or general However, a number of actions by The Interstate highway system lays .rulemaking. However, because of the State and local governments relating to the basic Federal framework for I i role of the State governments in a specific hazardoua material providing safe and efficient routes for ! J designating routes and the nature of the (radioactive material) and a specific large quantity radioactive materials. routing guidelines being provided to the mode of transportation (highway) have States which stress the participation of raised the question of whether more-Accident rates along these roadways are sharply lower than on any other local govenments, DOT does not expect specific Federal routing requirements t,pe of roadway, Several studies also such situations to be n.unerous. should be issued. The DOT must support the safety and efficiency of the l The third conclusion, wh.ich concems consider the overall safety impact of Interstate highway system for the

i the need for localinput in routing on hazardous material transportation.

carriage of hazardous materials. In i piecemeal, uncoordinated local actions' 1 ' i; decisions, also serves as a basis for the The ANpRM and the NPRM made clear comments to Docket HM-164, the NRC V : !! routing rules developed under this the Dttpartment's intention to consider developed a hypothetical case study of ,rulemaking. Routing as a safety control only routing requirements for routing altematives using information i for the transport of any hazardots: materialis different from the more radioactive materials shipped by generated by NUREG 0170 (" Final f highway, the focus of most State and Environmental Statement on the h; traditional safety conrols such as local actions, rather than undertake a Transportation of Radioactive Materials packaging package marking. vehicle by Air and Other Modes". December, i placarding and 'oading. Routing is comprehensive regulatory proceeding to 1977). Both the NRC case study and i i L consider all classes of hazardous largely a site-epecific activity which materials and all modes of ' NUREC 0170 are discussed extensively 4, ' cannot be entirely accomardated at the transportation. The fact that this in the NPRM and in the Final Regulatory Federal level. Therefore, DOTis - Evaluation and Environmental proceeding considers only one hazard encouraging a decentralized decision-class and one mode does not rule out Assessment prepared in support of this making process in this area within a future Federal actions for other document. The case study clearly shows that use of Interstate highways generally y 1 i ns 4 S

~ ~ -. l e Federal Register / Vol.~46. No.12 / Monday. lanuary 19. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 5301 result in lower radiological risks from benefits of using a more circuitous, providing for the safety and wdfare of the transportation of radioactive secondary road around the city. all its communities. The safety impacts. materials. Also, pilot tests were

4. Use of the Interstate highway of a routing decision on all communities conducted for the Federal Highway system may necessitate circuitous travel within the State can be assessed.

Administration to apply routing criteria. resulting in some increase in normal There are a number of other developed for all hazardous materials. radiological exposure and,in some advantages to the exercise of route (" Development of Criteria to Designate cases, higher accident risks. More direct designation authority at the State level. Routes for Transportating Hazardous . non. Interstate routes may exist which States have the capability to incorporate Materials by Highway", July,1980). could provide greater safety to the localinput directly into their routing. These tests were performed with the public. analyses through existing State help oflocal officials in Nashville. The task which confronted DOT in administrative and lawmaking j Tennessee and Seattle. Washington and this rulemaking was to provide for a procedures. At the same time States the results clearly demonstrate the more site-specific analysis to resolve have the capability of working with the advantages of theInterstate highways these situations while at the same time Federal government and are familiar as compared to other roadways in maintaining national uniformity and a with implementing regulations under a

• 1 mialmMaa risks associated with safe, viable transport system for nuclear variety of Federal programs. States often

~ hazardous material transportation. materials. have the greater manpower and g Carriers of large quantity radiomive Many commenters feel that local technical training necess to perform ii materials are required to use Interstate governments should be responsible for a routing analysis which a equately g beltways when possible to avoid city , routing within their {urisdictions. First, considers all factors related to public - centers. Carriers are allowed off the they argue thatloca governments have risk. For example, many States exercise e Interstate system only to follow a State. the primary responsibility for protecting authority under the NRC's Agreement designated route: in a documented case the health and safety of their citizens. State Program to regulate possession ) f b fu I and therefore should determine if routes and use of certain source and by-or vee a o tr ve and & rough meir jurisdicuons are roduct nuclear materials. Many States from a pick up or delivery site not acceptable. it is the town, city or county ave radiation safety officials as well as

j located on an Interstate System which provides laitial emergency knowledgeable transportation officials i2 highway' response to protect health and property available to collaborate on a routing 3j The Department believes that use of in the event of an accident. Secondly, analysis.

. i Interstate hignways ensures a safe route they argue that route selection is a site.

States not only have the capability to il of travel for large quantity radioactive specific process and that local officials consider local viewpoints on route selection. but also can address concerns ji " materials. However, the Department are the most knowledgeable oflocal ' .I recognizes the limitations of relying. roads and local conditions. However, of tunnel, turnpike and bridge solely on the Interstate System and, as ~ DCyr sees serious problems from both a authorities. The Department does not already msntioned, the inherent site-practicaland safety standpoint seek to force the use of all such fadlities i I specific nature of routing. nereis a associated with placing ultimate routing for nuclear material tmnsportation. clear need for a mechanism to authority with each of the 23.000 local Rather this rulemaking establishes a accommodate these factors.Several jurisdictions in the country. system by which the State can consider examples serve to point this out: local Jurisdictions are inherently the use of these facilities on the basis of { L Most points cf origin and limited in perspective with respect to overall risk to the public. A State destination for large quantity establishing routing requirements. While government, after a careful evaluation of radioactive materials shipmenta are not the Department recognizes that local the total risks to the public, may j located on interstate highways-governments are accountable only to conclude that a safer route is available Additional safety benefits may be their own citizens. such a ilmited and that certain facilities should be realized if access routes between th* secountability has some undesirable avoided. Interstates and these points a e effects. For example, a routing Many commenters have reservetions designated by the State-restriction in one community may have about the role of the States and the

2. The low accident rate associated adverse safety impacts on surrounding efficacy of the State route designation i[

with interstate hi jurisdictions. Also, some communities in process. Probably the greatest national average.ghways is based on a determining that they do not have the reserva tion is shown by local officials I DOT recognizes there are situations where accident rates will appropriate expertise or manpower to who are concerned that the States may be higher for a particular segment of an perform a routing analysis may find not actively pursue local interests before f' attractive the option of completely routes are designated. ne State il Interstate than for a nearby alternate prohibiting the transport of radioactive Planning Council on Radioactive Weste t i toute. materials through their juriedletions. Management submitted comments 3.The accident este is not the only This has already happened in some supporting the concept of State. important element to consider in cases. Uncoordinated and unilateral designating routing. However, the assessing nsk to the publio-one must local routing restrictions placed on Council, composed of State and local j also consider the consequencespf a . carriers of radioactive materials would officials, strongly encoursged DOT to serious accident. even though tee. simply not be conducive to safe. " develop appropriate mechanisms and + probability of that accident may be transportation. There is a clear need for procedures to enable local poeticipation 1 nmall. Therefore. the popul.tfon along national uniformity and consistency. in routing decisions." 4 the route of travel should also be DOT believes that the role of State The Department also wants to ensure ' considered.Since Interstate highways governments is the key for ensuring that that local comr. unities have input into f' serve to connect popul# tion centers. the the safest highway routes are used by the State route selection process. DOT [ benefits of using an Interstate highway carriers of large quantity radioactive believes that the key to incorporation of t with its lower accident rate going materials. A State government has a local viewpoint into routing decisions is through a city should be carefully much broader perspective than local the cooperation between State and local examined and compared with the governments since it is charged with governments before designation of e-mr e, w ~,+--,

1 \\ 5302 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations routes. The Department has considered Frenotification least four days before arrival at the establishing specific guidelines for A number of reasonable a State boundary. The notification would States to follow to ensure a formalized. have been made in support o7" ents identify the shipper, carrier receiver, the procedure for local consultation. prenotification: To aid the State in its material to be transported, ud the times However. there is great difficulty route designation activity; to ensure of departure from origin and arrival at associated with this approach given the bettet enforcement by utilizing State and the State boundary. The licensee would variations in organizational struciare local enforcement personnelin addition have to immediately notify the State 4 and administrative processes from State to Federalinspectors; and to more governor if the transportation schdule to State. rapidly facilitate emergency response changes by more than six hours. Instead, the Department is taking two. capability in case of vehicular accident. The confidentiality of information i steps to ensure ' hat consi& ration is Prenotification on a case-by-case basis concerning the exact schedule of such j given to local viewpoints. First, ths final for all shipments of radioactive sensitive shipments (i.e. dates and times - fI rules contain a general requirement that materials would result in a severe of shiptnents) would have to be the States consult with affected local burden not only on shippers and carriers protected by the governor's office as if it Jurisdictious before establishing a but also on the governmental units were national security information (see -!I preferred route. DOT believes that the receiving this voluminou information proposed 10 CFR 73.21 la the NRC States mast adequately consider local with a doubtfulincrease in safety. Many NPRM). Although treated as nl Input, especially in light of the rou*ing commenters agreed with DOT. except confidential the informationcould be guidelines which necessitate the for shipments of certain high-level passed on to local officials as long as it [l, accumulation of local data relating to radioactive materiais. In most cases, the is tranferred under the security I acddent rates population desire for prenotification by State and conditions descnbed by NRC in its characteristics and other information local officials centers around spent fuel proposal Other shipment information that would require local cooperation. and certain other nuclear waste would not be considered confidential However, the Department also materials. Cenfidentialinformation could be understar da that reasonable differences On Jun 30,1980. Congress enacted declassified ten days following the of opinion may exist in this' sensitive legislation (section 301 of the NRC departure of the shipment (or the last area. As a result. DOT believes that Authorizatio'n Act. Pub. L 96-295) shipment in a series) from the State. each State should establish an advisory directing the NRC to develop regulations The second set of prenotification - group composed largely of city and which will require its licensees to requirements proposed by NRC in its county c!ficials.The purpose of the provide State governments with NPRM would apply to any other nuclear group weald be to meet periodically, advance notification for certain wastes that are required to be shipped recommend to the Stcte appropriate shipments of nuclear wastes. The NRC in Type B packaging. This categsry of methods of consulting with local luued an NPRM on this matter on materials includes large quantity Jurisdictfons, and review the December 9.1980 (45 FR 81058), radioactive waste shipments which also diectiveness of those measures in } r posing to require prenotification for are subject to the routing system actual practice. Such State advisory ucenses shipments of all wastes established in this docket. The NRC groups would provide a valuable required to be shippe,d in Type B would require advance notice of oversight function that should help to packaging, which !ncude spent fuel. The shipment to the governor at least four continually improve the State routing NRC has asked for the public to days before the beginning of an program. comment on the NPRM before March 9, ei timated seven-day period of departure State officials commented that the 1981. Since these proposals would apply from the shipment origin. Information to preferred routing system places.s large to a substantial iumber of shippers and be supplied would include the point of } burden on State governments and carriers regulated by DOT. a discussion origin, the estimated seven-day period { requested cicar guidance from DOT on of the proposed requirementsbears on or periods of arrival both at the State routing decisions. The Department also de issue of prenotification raised in boundary and at the shiprnent believes this to be extremely important comment on the proposals for highway destination, and a point of contact for in the interests of both national routing made in this docket by DOT. schedule changes. Prenotification uniformity and safety. As a wit. DOT In its NPRM. NRC proposed two sets information for nuclear wastes, other 8 is preparing a publication ene J of prenotification requirements. One set' than spent fuel as dnuibed previously. f' of proposed requirements concerns would not be cc udered sensitive "Cuidelines for Selecting Preferred - shipments of spent fuel in quantities information ano the State governor i H1 hway Routes for Large Quantity greater than 100 grams mass. Such would not have to protect its } 8 Shipments of Radioactive Materials (" DOT Guidelines") which is discussed shipments are large quantity shipments confidentiality.The NRC estimates that f subject to the routing requirements over 24.000 waste shipments, including in more detail elsewhere in this established by DOT in this docket when spent fuel, will be subject to these preamble. y transported by highway. This treatment advance notice requirements annually. IV. Prenotification and Time-of Day of spent fuel separately from other although only a small portion will be Restrictions nuclear wastes is necessary because large quantity shipments. spent fuel shipments are also subject to The NRC prenotification proposals l An extremely large number of physical security requirements which would not apply to two particular f commenters favored some type of the NRC has imposed to guard against groups oflarge quantity radioactive requirements relating to prenotification theft and sabotage. Information materials shipments. First, nonlicensee and time-of. day controls. The concerning exact schedules used in shipments of nuclear waste, primarily } t Department notes that most State spent fuel shipenents therefore must be those in support of DOE research and ) l officials strongly endorsed these considered sensitive. In the NPRM the development activities, are not covered E measures. In light of these public NRC proposes to require licensees to by the NRC prenotification propouls. comments the Department has carefully notify the governor of each State Second. radioactive materials that are i ,i reconsidered both types of controls. through which a shipment wtll pass at not waste products (primarily large [, Vl P. i hl l \\l i ..;J p1 sj

4 Federal Register' / Vol. 48, No 12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rides and Regulations 5303 ~ source teletherapy shipments and are concerned with high-level nuclear the previously mentioned prenotification possibly some other large source wastes and spend fuel.There are and time-of. day restrictions, the medical and industrial isotopes) also are practical as well as safety problems Department does not believe that public not covered by the NRC prenotification associated with uncoordinated time safety concerning the transpcrtation of proposals. restnctions. For example,it has been radioactive macerials can be measurably Further, there remain some estimated that the average shipment improved by such State and local unanswered questions concerning the distance for a large quantity package of actions. nature of a prenotification system-radioactive materials is approximately The Department has noted that the what specific materials should be 2.200 kilometers. This implies travel rationale supporting the need for various covered. how early the advance notice through a large number of State, county State and local actions often hvolves should be given, how the State or local and municipal jurisdictions. Evec if he concerns in three areas: the adequacy of governments would handle what may be. various time restrictions for these the emergency response system for voluminous paperwork, and what jurisdictions were known in advance by hazardous material transportation: information is necessary. Congress has the carrier, delays enroute could be questions over liability for nuclear provided an indication of what is numerous. Some commenters argue that materials involved in highway ap xopriate in this controversial area the delays caused by certain time accidents; and doubts over the and the NRC is considering reposals restrictions are justified on the basis of effectivenessof the Federal enisrcement which will not be made fina for some the increased accident risks which exist

time, during rush hour traIBc in an urban area. of regulations, As a result, many citizens, as well as some State acd local Another recent development also may However, the Department must also

. prove useful to DOT in determining t e consider the added risks of normaj officials, believe that additional controla j h efficacy of a prenotification system.The radiological exposure accruing to the at the State and locallevel are justified. Puget Sound Council of Governments vehicle driver and bystanders at any no matter how fragmented they may be. i (PSCOC)is conducting a study in temporary delay site. This may be a The Department does not subscribe to prenotification for certain materials as more important consideration from the this philosophy. Even in cases where part of a comprehensive regional study standpoint of overall public risk, criticism snay be justified, piecemeal of hazardous materials transportation especially when one considers that State and local action instituted because under contract to DOT. PSCOG will several temporary delays could occur of a concern over these issues and present its findings on the effectiveness for each shipment. Also, there may be limiting the carriers' ability to function and practicality of advance notice to additional security problems related to would not solve the problems. In fact. DOT in early 1981. the temporary delay of spent fuel steps are now being taken by DOT and First, the NRC intends to publish an The Department does see some need ~ other Federal agencies to improv Two other facts also should be noted, shipments. Federal, State and local cap,bilities in ,l atlas of allhighway routes that have for a coordinated effort to carefully these critical arena. 1: ' been approved for shipment of spent examine the transportation oflarge With respect to emergency response, ' 9l"! fuel. This information therefore will be quantity materials during periods of the Department of Transpo tation has publicly available to all State and local heavy rush hom travelin large urban prepared a comprehensive. raining dj governments and other interested areas. DOT believes that the States can program for responding to radioactive 41 parties. Second. the existing NRC address this situation as part of their material transportation accidents. This ll physical secunty program for epent fuel route designation program by providing training program " Handling Radioactive reqmres confidential notification and for suitable alternative routes to avoid Materials T ttation Em coordination with affected local officials certain heavily traveled highways is directed t fi t-on.the.sce e during peak travel times. This would emergency service personnel such as (locallaw enforcement agencies) concerning approved routes. amount to a time of day restriction on local Ure. po11ce and ambulam In light of these considerations DOT certain highways, but would not require rganizations.ne comprehensive has decided not to take final action at the hazardous material be unnecessarily training package consists of slides, 'this time concerning prenotification. h delayed in one area. tapes, student workbooks andinstructor order to prevent a possibly severe inconsistency between NRC and DOT V. Othee Transportation Controls guides. It is a simple and straight-transportation requirements, the DOT Realted to Routing forward instruction kit to provide local will have to wait at lesat until final rules The notice of proposed rulemaking and State personnel with a basic-are issued for NRC licensees before also eddressed a number of other State understanding of the subjects of undertaking a rulemaking proceeding to 'nd !ocal actions geretally related to radiatio'n and associated hazards. consider specific prenotification tne routing of radioactive materials. his packaging required for nuclear material, i l9 quantity shipmenta. In its furthe-included not only prenotification and transportation reguladuns, protective requirements for other types of large time-of-day restrictiona, but also escort measures and procedures, and planning s consideration of prenotification. DOT reyulrementa, restrictions pertaining to and preparedness for transportation will clso consider the role of escort . special personnel or equipment and any accidents. DOT has been coordinating i vehicles provicted by State or local othar action which would have the the development of this training program governments.This subject is addressed effect of unnecessarily limiting the~ for the past two years with emergency later in this occument in the general transportation of radioactive materials service personnel as well as State and discussion of the preemptive effects of through a jurisdiction. For the most part, local officials. This 6 to a hour training Docket HM-tB4. DOT views these transport controls - package supplernents the 20 hour differently from the site specific nature t aining program already available to D'*N#7 T'8M.088 of routing in one important aspect. emergency response personnel Many commenters are also strongly in ~ These requirements are not directly responding to other hazardous material favor of some kind of time.of-day related to chars teristics that are transportation emergencies. ne entire restriction for nuclear material peculiar to a specific geographical training program wt!! be distnbuted to transpoctation. Again, most commsmters heation. With the possible exception of governors of each State upon request. /

.l 5304 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.12 / Monday, January 19. 1981 / Rules and Regulations A booklet entitled " Response to planning document " Guidance for If the origin or destination of the Radioactive Materials Transportation Developing State and Local Radiological radioactive materialis an indemnified ~ Accidents"is also nearing completion. It Emergency Response Plans for facility such as a nuclear power plant,- was distributed as an interim edition in Transportation Accidents /'. Federal. the provisions of the Pnce. Anderson Act the spring of 1980 and the response from agencies including DOT, NRC. FEMA, State radiation control program DOE and the Environmental Protection (42 U.S.C. 2.210) assure a source of funds directors and emergency management Agency have callaborated on this effort property damage claims. The law to cover certain personalinjury and authorities has been very favorable. It is to provide State and local authorities extends to persons other than the intended to provide local emergency with guidelines to develop effective licensee, such as the carrier, who may response authorities with basic response plans. A preliminary guidance be liable for an accident. Insurance Information on the first steps to take at document will be published in the 1 the scene of an accident until the arrival Federal Register for public review and - la provided by a combinat coverage up toS560 million per accident of State or other radiological response comment during the.first quarter of 1981. private insurance policies and indemnity teams. - A committee composed only of State agreements between the licensees and The Federal Emergency Management and local officials has been organized to the NRC. Agency (FEMA)is the agency primarily provide direct input into activities The Federal Highway Administration responsible for coordina ting Federal conducted by this task force. The (FHWA)is nowin the process of assistance to State and local Interorganizational Advisory governments that are developing plans Committee, composed of State civil determining appropriate levels of l for responding to radiological accidents defense and radiation contml financial responsibility for motor at both fixed nuclear facilities and at the carriers of hazardous materials. On July scene of transportation accidents. FEMA authorities and local emergency 1.1980, the President signed the Motor has taken a number of steps toward this management officials, should prove to end. Recently proposed rules 45 FR be an effective sounding board for Carrier Act of 1980 (Pub. I. 96-296) into 42341) were published on proc (edures planning and guidance documents law. Section 30 of the Act, among other developed by the task force, things, establishes minimum levels of and criteria for reviewing and approving It should also be noted that the financial responsibility for motor the adequacy of State and local plans carriers transporting hazardous and preparedness. FEMA has also routing scheme established by this materials in interstate or intrastate established the Federal Radiological docket will enhance State and local commerce (applicable to vehicles with a emergency response planning.The gross weight rating of 10.000 pounds or Preparedness Coordinating Committee International Association of Fire Chiefs, more). The purpose of section 30 is to (FRPCC) condsting of a number of in its comments to Docket HM-164, separate Federal agencies including states: assure the public that a motor carrier DOT. This committee is coordinating all maintains an adequate level of financial Federal assistance and guidance to ... we fuHy support Docke HM-tp. responsibility sufficient to satisfy most various State and local agencies for Highway-Routing of Radioactive Matertala, claims covering public liebility, property developing and testing emergency for the following reasons: - damage and environmental restoration.

t. Some nation-wide method for the routin The minimum lev'els set in the Act response plans. The FRpCC of radioactive truck shipments is necessary. g Include 55 million for each vehicle responsibilities b this area include the ~ For each local jurisdiction to impose specific following.

routing requirements would present an operated by carriers oflarge quantity -Establish policy and guidance to untenable situation. However, under the radloactive materials and certain other , other Federal agencies [yh"8",I8$"*',N'$8*[d hazardous materials. DOT has unlimited -Develop preparedness cri:eria e,j authority to adjust this level upward and -provide direct assistance to State input.De key here,le to requ re local may also adjust downward to not less and local governments juttsdiction input. than $1 million for each vehicle for an -Review and approve State

2. The requirements that the carrier file a radiological emergency plans and route plan with MTB !s very important. In this initial two. year period.

preparedness way Mill will be able to provide data on The FHWA's Bureau of Motor Carrier routes, amounts. and shipment frequencies-Safety (BMCS) issued an ANpRM -Implement a program of public ms data will then be used by the local fire - (Docket No. MC-94. 45 FR 57876) education d entitled Minimum I.evels ot Financial -Develop and manage an emergeacy ; pQ%f e their emersucy moponse Responsibility for Motor Carriers on response training program includiry Questions over the adequate August 28,1980. The purpose of the fleid test exercise materials availabildv of funds to reimburse local notice is to obtain public comments and j -lasue guidance for radiation Jurisdictions and individuals affected by data and to eventually make any instrumentation systems. nuclear transportation accidents seem to necessary adjustments to the minimum The Department of Transportation is be another impetr :o various State and levels scheduled by Congress to go into providing assistance to FEMA in the preparation of Federal guidance to State local actions. Fine responsibility for effect on July 1,1981. I and local governments for use in nuclea7 transportation accidents really Many commenters have also developing the transportation portions depenCs upon accident specific factors suggested that doubts about Federal of radiological emergency response and will usually be settled in the courts. enforcement efforts have resulted in' ' plans. DOT will also assist FEMA in its Some of the factors affecting financial increased State and local regulatory review and approval of State and local responsibility include the nature of the activttles. The major criticism of accident itself the shipper or carrier commenters to this docket is that the plans and in the evaluation of exercises involved, the type of radioactive preemptive effect of DOTS routing rulas to test those plans. will eliminate or frustrate enforcement In support of this effort, a Federal material involved and the geographic efforts at the State and local level. It is interagency task force was recently location of the accident.For most types contended that State and local organized. The task force, with of radioactive materials the extent of financial liability and the types of costs enforcement is needed to supplement participation by State and local to be teimbursed would be determined the Fec'eral inspection effort. authonties, la preparing an important by the applicable State tort law, Although it is clese thet this rulemaking will preempt certain State

Ma6 = - + Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rtdes and Regulations 5305 ard local actions, DOT does not believe, criminal penalties under their own consider certain information In route this will reduce enforcement efforts at legislation and the levels vary from selection and to provide general any level States have been increasingly State to State. guidance to the motor vehicle operator active in the enforcement of Federal The Department believes that much is as to routes used. While State regulation 1 highway siety and hazardous material being done in the areas of emergency is circumscribed as regards routes used transport regulations. Many States have response planning and training carrier by such carriers adoption of adopted the Federal Motor Carrier financial responsibility, and regulatory 1 in.825 a) will permit a State to Safety Regulations and the Federal enforcement. Furthermore. both local directly e(nforce that provision without-Hazardous Materials Regulations as and State expertise have been solicited necessary recourse to Federal strongly encouraged by DOT. Most to help in the process of strengthening enforcement personnel. The same States already have enforcement varfous programs. DOT certainly purpose is t,erved by the limited local systems in place to carry out the recognizes the legitimate concem and regulation permitted for placarded ) provisions of these regulations. A acknowledges the expertise of State and carriers of both large quantity and less number of States have initiated local ofIlcials in these areas. However. than large quantity shipments. Routing substantial hazardous material training independently applied restrictions restrictions for unplacarded motor programs for law enforcement and other. which frustrate the ability of a motor vehicles are not necessary. The personna!. DOT has provided training to carrier to safely and expeditiously move preemptive effects of the final rules in State and local personnel at its nuclear materials are not the proper - this docket are intended to occur at the Transportation SafetyInstitute in ap roach to enhance over-all public effective date of the rules. Oklaborna City. Such State-level sa ety,it is DOT's opinion that State enforcement activities will not be &,d local concerns can be mom The basic justifica tion for publishing a bampered by these final rules. In fact, it adequately satisfled nder programs. statement concerning the preemptf ve is DOT *s contention that enforcement, coordinated at the Federallevel which effects of Docket HM-104 was ~ enhanced by the States routing function, incorporate Stats and local viewpoints. .qiiestioned by many commenters. %e particularly at the State level, will be HMTA expressly preempts State and provided by this rulemaking. VI. Preemptive Effect of Docket HM-184 local requirerpents that are At the Federal level, the Department's Because de extensh nam oW " inconsistent" with HMTA requirements, both the law itself and BMCS has the primary responalbility for [a ta e mlation p regulations issued under it. DOT has ensuring compliance with the Hazardous Materials Regdations by dlH fradi previously established procedures to motor carriers. BMCS is now authorized mat a s. e need for an permH H to intupret the HWA's 210 bazardous material or safety understandable interface between preemptf ve effets when so requested - specialists in the field and expects Federal and State regulation of by State orlocal governments, or by i l additional positions next fiscal year. radioactive matsrials transportation. other interested persons. These ,j' BMCS ta now adminhtering a four-State DOT believes that certain regulatory pr cedures, codified in Part 107 of 49 i demonstration program which funds actions by State and local govemments CE offer a less exposin alternatin .j approximately100 additional State should not be taken. To explain this for tes Ivin8 p eemptive issues than j f inspectors. Also, pending before view, DOT aets out its policy on the. Utigatfon althought such issues are Congress is the Commercial Motor relation of State and local regulation to. ultimately judicialin nature. It la Vehicle Safety Act which. if enacted

• the Federal requirements in Part in in a apparent that,new rules which deal.,

would authorize a % State graut new appendix to that part. An appendix extensively with matters of regulatory program that could result in a total of appears to be a more appropriate concern to State and local governmts, 2.2.00 State inspectors for motor carrier method of stating this licy than the such as those published in this Dock '. safety. Moreover, the NRC's regulatory text used in e January 1980 will necessitate guldance from DOT as enforcement staff of over 100 laspectors notice of proposed rulemaking. and an to the preemptive effects on State and is directing its inspection efforts. appendix permits a more extensive local authority. DOT believes that thfs ~ increasingly toward the transportation .discussionof the policy.The section.by. guidance will be considerably more activities of their licensees.This will section analysis appearing later in this usefulif provided, as far as possible, enhance the overall enforcement preamble details the specific reasons for before the rules become effective. The the policy. Some program particularly for transporters of discussed here, generallasues will be part in appendix is intended to serve this purpose. nuclear fuel. cycle materials-ne structure of the amendments to Underlying the appendix are several A number of commenters note that Part in accommodates State regulation conclusions about the Federal. State penaltfes were not mentioned in the ' mf carriers' routes in defined relationship in thr: area of radioactive i January 71 NPRM and suggest the need circtunstances, as well as some limited materials transportation. First, as fg for such. Penalties for violation of local regulation. Briefly', an appropriate opressed in the Part 107 preemption 'I radioactive materials transportation State-wide agency may designate routes procedures, DOT belleves that requirements under the HMTA are the for motor vehicles transporting large " inconsistent", as used in the HMTA, same as prescribtid for other hazardous quantity radioactive materials. Local refers to State and local rules that materials. Civil penaltf es may include a governments,1f permitted by State law, directly conflict with HMTA maximum floe of $10,000 for the may exclude such motor vehicles from requirements, and also to those that are occurrence of each violation for each locations from which they are excluded "an obstacle to the accomplishment a'nd day. Criminal penalties may include a by Part 177 or by State action consistent txecution" of the IDvfTA i fine and imprisonment up to 57.5,000 and with Part 177. For placarded vehicles (I 107.2.00(c)(2)). Herefore, the policy five years. Clvil and criminal penalty carrying lesser quantitir / h etive statement in the appendix concerns actions can be take against container materials, both State and c characteristics of State and local manufacturers as well as shippers and governments may adopt i 177.W, ragulatory activity that are necessary to carriers of radioactf ve materials. In verbatim. Section in.825(a), established addition, the States provide for civil and in this rulemaking. requires a carrier to effect. or to avoid hindering, accomp!!shment of the goals and \\ \\

A 5306 Fed:ral R: gist:r / Vol. 48. No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations purposes of the part in amendments. Those amendments balance recommend to the State appropriate - these circumstances on an Individual complementary national. State and local consultative methods and to evaluate basis, as the need is shown. the effectiveness of those methods in interests in regulating motor carriers to actual use. This is particularly important DOT's decision against required use ensure that public health and safety are in States that are likely to impose of escort vehicles is discussed in the - served by Federal. State and local rules frequent routing decisions or to deal section-by section discussion of the new that are widely applied and understood with particularly controversialissues. appendix to part 177. However, an and that are based on a comprehensive examination of factors affecting An odhoc advisory body may suffice in obvious relatforiship exists between radioactive materials transportation States that are unlikely to take frequent prenotification and the voluntary

safety, routing action. For example, a State that provision of escort vehicles by expects only limited traffic in larga jurisdictions through which a large '

This rulemaking does not delegate quantity shipments on an acceptable quantity shipment rnay pass. DOT Federal authority to regulate motor . Interstate route may wish to conduct an intends to examine situations where an carriers, a fact that has been initialreview of the routes of travel escort might be provided voluntarily by l The rules published in Docket ISf-164 using an advisory body convened for a local jurisdiction, under circumstances Inisunderstood by many commenters. that specific purpose. Another in which the presence of an escort is not define and make Federally enforceable consideration related to the State-local a precondition to passage through the the use of Interstate System highways consultative process concerns routing jurisdiction, and in which the transport for carriers of large quantity radioactive actions which local govermnents believe vehicle is not delayed at the materials.They also make Federally should be taken within their juttsdictional boundary Escort vehicles enforceable those routes designated by jurisdictions. A local jurisdiction which in some cases may also be provided by appropriate State agencies, based on shippers of spent fuel under the existing DOT's own determination that such requ&sts State action for example to shift traffic from an urban segmem of NRC physical security program for routes, if derived from an adequate Interstate highway, should identify local jurisdictions. In view of this. DOT transit through some heavily populated safety analysis like the " DOT potential alternate routes to the Guidelines" are likely to result in a appropriate State routing agency and intends to examine the possible impact further reduction of radiological risk that state wh> those other routes may be a of such voluntary, locally provided is reBable and reasonably related to the better choice for routing large quantity escort services on the DOT routing rules. costs of evaluating, enforcing and using shipments. A State advisory body might existing NRC physical security rules and eelected routes. Further. DOT has concluded that route designations that be able to provide a useful preliminary proposed iiRC prenottfication rules. do not meet the conditions outlined in evaluation oflocal requests of this kind VII. Section5y-Section Discussion of and to identify any need and possible Final Rules the part in appendix are unreBable snethods for further State-local + " tools for minimizing radiological risk, consultation. Summary of Changesfrom NPRAf may result in unconsidered safety Commenters also raised questions There are severalimportant changes impacts, may unnecessarily burden 'about the effect of this rulemaking on from the proposals issued in the NpRNf j comroe.rce, and generally result in a the local authority of Indian tribes. DOT based upon the Department's review of confused patchwork of safety regulation believes that, where an Indian tribe has the pubue comments. First, new that is not conducive to compliance. In the appendix DOT has not effective routing authority similar to that provisions are added to part 172 to aid attempted to specify in detail the exercised by a counterpart State agency, shippers, carriers and enforcement process to be used by a State agency in it should be exercised as described in personnel in the identillcation of g route designation except in two the part in appendix. Tribal regulatory radioactive materials shipments which a respects. A safety analysis as described authority over motor carriers must exist are subject to the preferred routing must be performed to ensure rehable separately from the Part in system. These provisions include a new u r amendments, since those amendments shipping paper entry and a white I results, and the designating State agency do not delegate any such authority The placard background applying only to I must consult with affected local or neighboring State jurisdictions. State source of tnbal authorityrnay differ shipments involving a large quantity consultation with affected local from that of State authority,in that package of radioactive materials. ( furisdictions la necessary to ensure that tribal authority is recognized by treaty Secondly, new definitions for " State y the information used to perferm a safety or Acts of Congress. Consequently, it is routing agency,"" preferred route", and g analysis is the best available. It is possible that limits on tribal authority " State-designated route" are added to t t may occur as a result of Federallaw irnportant. for this reason, that the, the regulations. These definitions are consultative process between the State other than the BiTA. Rather than a added to answer questions concerning ) rcuting agen y and local governments question of HMTA preemption, trtbal the appropriate routing agency routing authority may involve a question designated by the States and the manner j be both substantive and thorough. t.oncluded that an appropriate method HMTA and other Federallaw. In by which States exercise their authority la considering this need, DOT has . of the proper relationship between the to designate preferred routes. for effecting the consultative process specific situations, it may be necessary The wording of both the general should include public notice and. to examine other Federallaw to opportunity for comment. pubuc hearing determine the practicallimits on tribal ' routing rule (proposed I in.825(a)) and when appropriate, and direct notice to authority to impose routing controls on the preferred routing rule (proposed i affected local juridictions. To ensure motor vehicles carrying radioactive i In.825(b)) have been modified that these processes are adequate, DOT materials. In the part in amendments, somewhat. Although the effect of the also b,rlieves that a standing advisory DOT is treating Indian tribes as it treets general routing rule remains the same. body consisting largely of local officials States. DOT recognizes, howevn, that the criteria for the carriers to use in who are concerned with routing issues specific factual and legal circumstances selecting a route has been revised to i should be establish in each State to may differ from those that affect State make the rule more manageable and authority and la prepared to examine enforceable. Several points concerning the preferred routing rule may not han 3i I i 1

Federal Register / Vol. 40. No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Bules and Regulations .5307 been clear in the NpRM and should be' !.arge Quantity Shipments of the routing guidelines provide for emphasized. Radioactive Materials" (DOT substantial local input in themselves. It is important to emphasize that the Caldelines) la incorporated by reference Much of the data necessary to perform finalrule establishes the Interstate in i 171.7. Repeated reference has been the routing analysis wal bo generated highway system as a self. functioning made to the need for State and local from local sources: accident rates. Federally presenbed routing network involvement in routing decisions on the population statistics, conditions of g capable of providing for the safe one hand, and the need for uniformity roadways, emergency response movement of nuclear materials even if and consistency of those decisions on capabuities, property values, evacuation the States choose not to designate ' the other. Many commenters. capabilities, and location of facilities 3 routes. However, because the level of particularly State ofBcials, support the such as schools and hospitals which safety provided through use ofInterstate preferred routing system for large require special consideration. highways may be improved by site-quantity nuclear material to Nevertheless, the Department believes it specific evaluations. DOT believes that accommodate this goal but only if DOT essential that the State specifically the States should be extended as much provides clear and practical guidelines provide for a process of consultation flexibility as possible in their route for use by State authorities. The DOT with appropriate local authorities, designation process. For example, the Guidelines are latended to fulfill this !!nal rule does not require a carrier to function. I m.B Definiuons use Interstate beltways or bypass routes In developing the guidelines, the A number of commenters suggested when other routes have been designated by tha States as substitutes.h States Department has drawn upon two recent that DOT specifically identify the research projects. The first is a study agency in each State that would have can consider the need for completed for the FHWA entitled the authority to designate preferred circumferential routes to avoid urban " Development of Criteria to Designate routes. As stated previously, the areas on a more site-specific basis in Routes for Transporting Hazardous Department has no authority to do so, tbr own routing analyses. The beltway Materials by H!ghway".This research The designation of routes for large provision still applies to carriers using project involved a study of all factors quantity radioactive materials is an Interstate System preferred routes when which contribute to the selection of authority which only the States can the States have not designated another highway routes for all hazardous exercise for themselves. Each State has route. This flexibility is consistent with - the routing guidelines being developed materials classes. The most important legal and organizattunal peculiarities i for the States, factors related to the lowermg of public relatings to the regulation of radioactive r sk are then selected as the basic Another change to the preferred ma terial transportation. Often, authority routing rule is the reference to the DOT criteria upon which an agency should is divided among various agencies Routing Guidelines as criteria for States base its highway routLng decisions, within the same State. Consequently. to use in designating preferred routes. Although the Department does not each State should determine foritself consider this generic research to be -the appropriate routing agency within final the study does establish a the general definition, established by x co th gui elines rovide meeodology which can be useful after i 171A th' cl b P pr>cej further rrtitunents are made relating to The definition of" State routing perfo a analysis that is both more the particular class of hazerdous agency" includes interstate compacts understandable and flexible than the materials for which routing is to be and appropriate Indian tribal authorities evaluated. criteria presented in the January 31 (ses the discussion of i In.825(b) NPRM. With this la mind, the Department relating to Indian lands). As specifically The last major change between the initiated another research project to mentioned in the NPRM. this definition proposed and final rule involves develop routing cdteria oriented excludes a bridge / tunnel / turnpike inconsistency between Federal and 8Pectftcally in the pecultar authority unless that authority also is State / local transportation requirements, characteristics of radioactive meterials empowered to impose such rules Proposed paragraph (d) of i 177.825 has transportation. ' Ibis study is being concerning radioactive materials I been deleted. Instead of addressing this conducted for the Materials transportation on State highways topic in the routing rule itself. DCr has Transportatien Bureau and is titled generally Routes designated by a State chosen to include an expanded " Guidelines for Selecting Routes for. touting agency may be enforced by that discussion of DOT policy in a separate Highway Shipments of Large Quantity agency, or by any other appropriate appendix to Part 177 as mentioned Radioactive Materials". N routing State agency.This definition may apply a prevlously, guidelines developed thus far provide to more than one agency in a single h remainder of the fina5 rules are flexibility to the appropriate State and Stata sharing responsibility for basically unchanged from the NPRM. tribal routing authorities, either to de. designating preferred highways. designate the use of an Interstate Two other definitions are added. & except for redesignation of certain. highway and provide an alternative, or first is the definition of a " preferred paragraphs. W following section-by, section discussion provides a synopsis to identify other appropriate routes. route". A preferred routs includea i of DOT's rationale for each section Further refinements in the guidelines are " State-designated routes" which is also Including reference to substantive public expected after the completion of pilot defined in i 171A A definition for State-comments. A more detailed discussion tests to be conducted with the help of designated routes is necessary to clearly e of public comments is provided in the two State governments in January 1981. ' show the criteria the State must follow previously mentioned docket it is expected that the guidelines wili be in establishing preferred routes: supplement. published and made available to State application of DOT routing guidelines or i ut.7 lac 5rporat/on ofStatetoudng agencies shortly thereafter. an equivalent routing analysis, prior guidelines byitference Another important element of the consultation with affected local guidelines relates to recommendations agencies, and coordination with h publication " Guidelines for for the soliciting of local input into adjoining States to ensure continuity of Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for rcuting decisions. It should be noted that routes. E

. _h ' s 5308 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.12 / Monilay, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations l172.203(d)(1)(iii) Shippingpapers i 177.810 Tunnels routes without being hampered by Foridentification and enforcement a Section 177.810 la revised to except locally imposed constraints which may requirement is added to i 172.203 to radioactive materials from requirements be counterproductive. One proper factor require the shipper to enter "Large that restrict their transportation through that a State agency would consider in quantity" as part of the hazardous urban vehicular tunnels used for mass oute designation is the potential property damage to the tunnelitselfin ^ material description on the shipping [aspo},gadddE ts ar i to the event of an accident. paper.This wul alert the carrier that he has received a package of radioactive i 177.825. This action is being taken to in the absence of a State routing facilitate achievement of the basic agency's action to review the status of materials for which routirg controls are required and that a route plan must be objective of the general routing rule to tunnels and simuar faculties located ) minimize radiological risk and to allow within its jurisdiction, a large quantity prepared. the States flexibility to designate carrier wul generally be limited to such ~ j I?2507andl172.527 Placarding preferred routes for garge quantity facilities that are part of an Interstate shipments. The States, in exercising System highway. Other placarded Vehicle identification requirements their routing prerogative under this rule' carriers could use such facilities only are added to Part 172 to require a white may determine through their routing after considering the safety factord-background for the RADIOACITVE analysis that a safer route exists which specified in new I 177.825(a)- warning placard. The white background does not require the use of tunnels and i 177.B25(a) Generalroutingrule ' will aid er.forcement persontel to other such faciilties. In that case, the ^ paragraph (a) of this section is { distinguish between large quantity - States may reimpose restrictions for styments and other placarded large quantity radioactive ruaterials. adopted with some change in wording from that proposed. The basic objective I sh'pments for which preferred routing is Many commenters questioned the of the general routing rule remains the nat required. rationale behind the exception for same: the carrier must examine all Public comments strongly favored radioactive materials in i 177.810 as avadable highway routes and choose a some method of distinguishing between opposed to restrictions for other route that minimizes radiological risk to vehicles which contain large quantity hazardous materials. The State of the public. In making this determination, packages and vehicles which do not California, which retains control over the curriet must consider available contain large quantity packages but the shipment of hazardous materials information on the most important which still require the RADIOACTIVE through its tunnels, held that it is factors which contribute to the warning placard. DOT considered imperative that the State ruaintain the minimization of radiological risk. These severalmethods of accomplishing this, flexibility to prohibit such factors are identified in the fmal rule as The white placarri backgroundis transportation.The Maryland pulation, accident rates of available - determined to be the most passive Department of Transportation objected (ghways, transit time, and the time of to the proposed revision of l 177.810 and day and day of week dunng which the system considering effectiveness and took the position that any vehicle shipment occurs. cost of implementation. The white required to display.'.e RADIOACTIVE The NPRM also included such factors background system has been used for placard shoul( act be permitted to as terrain, physical features, weather come time to distinguish certain traverse an urban vehicular tunnel used conditions, and effectiveness oflocal hazardous materials shipped by rail for for mass transit. DOT does not believe emergency planning. These factors have the purpose of car handling. that this is necessarily the case from a been deleted from i 177.825(a) of the I m22(b)and(c) Shipper's health and safety standpoint. final rule for various reasons.The responsibility forphysica/ security, and Traditional locally imposed restrictions influence of terrain and phyacal n tunnel traff frequently focus on features on public risk from lill"8 M8F6# explosives and flananable gases, for transportation is largely accounted for Without change from the proposals in which the confinement provided by a by considering accident rates of the the NPRM, the Department is adding tunnel may act to exacerbate the risk. In alternative roadways. It is not believed provisions to i 173r(b) to require cases involving radioactive materials, that these factors should be singled out shippers of irradiated reactor fuel (spent the fact of confinement does not operate for special consideration by the carrier i fuel) to provide physical protection to increase overall risk. since thsy are only two factors which under either a plan now required by the For large quantity shipments, it is contribute to overall highway accident. NRC (see " Physical Protection of DOT's position that tunnel restrictions rates. Weather condition is a factor over Irradiated Reactor Fuel in Transit",45 should not be based merely on the which the carrier has no control, has FR 37399, June 3,1980, and to CFR Part nature of the facility but on the overall little advance knowledge of, and could

73) or a plan approved by MTB. Also, a risks between available routes, and that often change during actual -

provision is added to i173r(c) to such restrictions should be imposed only - transportation. Determining the .regaire shippers of a large quantity by an agency with State-wide effectiveness oflocal emergency package of radioactive materials to file responsibilities that permit adequate planning would be a difficult burden to consideration of othe alternative place on the carrier in light of the a copy of the route plan prepared for routas. Thus, use restrictions on tunnels. subjective judgement that would be - r that shipment within 90 days following ' and similar facilities should not be necessary and the lack of available the shipment with DOT. The Department determined solely by facility operators, information to the carrier. It is the intends to consolidate the infor tion but rather their use should be available Department's belief that effe'etive contained in the route plans ani supply for consideration as possible emergency response planning is an it to interested parties. For further altematives in the State procedures activity that all communities should be discussion of route plans and physical leading to route selection. 'Ihe involved with. As already discused, security see the discussion of amendment to i 177.810 is necessary for DOT and FEMA are collaborating to 1177.825(c) anr1 i 177.825(e). States to be able to evaluate the site-provide an emergency response training respectively, 6pecific risks involved over various and preparedness program to achieve I 1

J ^ ~ Federal Registor / Vol. 40. No.12 / Monday January' 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 5309 this end. Economic factors such as of populations residing in rural areas, modify the preferred status of those property values have not been included and they see in the rule a discriminatory segments for which there is a more because they generally follow stance regarding sparsely populated acceptable alternative. As a basic population density and are not areas. In directing carriers to select system, however, even in the absence of otherwise readily available to carriers. routes which minimize radiological risk State action, the Interstate System The last major change to the general DOT does not agree that it is merely highways are well suited for the use routing rule involves the replacement of shifting a burden from one group of required by the rule. It also serves as a the term " risk radiological exposure to persons to another, although it is true measure for use 'uy the States in their the fewest persons" with " minimize that population density is one factor the designation of some additional radiological risk." Risk minimization is carrier must censider. Rather. DOT highways which provide an essentially the basic goal to be achieved. Certainly expects to see a decrease in the amount equivalent or greater level of safety. Umiting exposure to the fewest people of exposure to all persons in the general This basic system of highways as possible is one element of reducing population. primary routes also supports emergency ' verall radiological risk. but it is not the The Department once again would response planning by increasing the o only consideration. like to point out that this general routing confidence of planners in their Many commenters reviewing this rule applies to thousands of shipments knowledge of routes of travel. section took exception to what they involving relatively low-hazard The requirement that carriers oflarge called the non-specific. unquantifiable radiopharmaceuticals, and other quantity radioactive material packages criteria carriers and drivers must medical and ladustrial isotopes. These use an Interstate circumferential or evu. ate in choosing a route which will shipments often involve multiple bypass route around a city was minimb radwlogicat risk. There was pickups and deliveries. Interchanges - generally recognized by commenters as general agreement that placarded with other modes of transportation, and a reasonable precaution. This vehicles carrying other than large the comingling of radioactive materials requirement did not. however, receive quantity packages of radioactive with non-hazardous materials on the unanimous approial. materials should not be forced to same vehicle. A general requirement to One commenter suggested that the use comply with the very specific routing accommodate a great number of of beltways would not automatically rules established for those shipments, shipments in such a complex result in the1[ voidance of all heavily However, no one offered a more transportation environment will populated areas.The City of Baltimore - acceptable rule to govern general necessanly involve some vagueness. routing requirements. While most of The rule is intended to guide motor expressed its opinion that during peak- ' hour traffic patterns. It may be less those persons commenting on this-carriers by specifying important factors section considered the lack of recisei to consider in evaluating a number of hazar ious to direct shipments over an measurable factors to be an a vantage available routes. Interstate through route rather than over a beltway and wanted this option left $e ei?o "YUN e i 177.825(b) Preferred Routes for Large open to the States in their modification es American Trucking Association (ATA) Quantity Radioactive Materials of Interstate highways and designation expressed its concern over the rule's in the notice of proposed rulemaking of other preferred routes. Comments implication that only one possible route DOT discussed its reliance on the froc. the State of Massachusetts pointed could qualify.The ATA went on to state Interstate System of highways as being to situationswhere some metropoltu that, given the dynamic state of affairs . the pdmary roadways over which areas have multiple beltways and they of the prescribed criteria. the optimum radioactive materials shipped under a feared that the rule as proposed nu,ght route could vary even during the course. route plan are to be carried. The general allow for routing over the shorter of actual transportation, and carriers designation as preferred highways is, circumferential route, even though a would find thettiselves subject to the therefore, granted to these highways second route, with superior design whim and fancy of respective State and based upon an overall performance standards and lower population density, local governments in issuing citations rating with respect to lower accident is avauable. for unacceptable route selection. rates and their capacity for reducing In response to these comments, DOT DOT does not expect that any of the transit times. For the most part, publid must reaffirm its belief that packages of suggested actions of carriers or comment expressed support for this large quantity radioactive materials can compliance personnel will occur with proposal as weu as the related provision be transported over any Interstate such frequency that the value of the rule which allows States the prerogative to highway, and most other comparable as a general statement of meaning or ' modify the preferred status of Interstate routes, with a confidentlevel of safety. intent wiu be diminished, especially in highways and designate othat roads as However, this does not imply that ij ligh' of the improved wording of the acceptable alternatives.' reasonable routing rules should not be rule. For clarification purposes DOT Some commenters argued that specific imposed by State governments which does acknowledge that more than one segments of the Interstate System are increase this level of confidence. route could qualify as an acceptable not as safe as statistics indicate for the Consequ.endy, in applying a rule which l ) alternative and It is not incumbent on system as a whole and that DOT should addresses the broad nationalinterest the carrier or driver to make detailed not make such widespread designations DOT has chosen to direct carriers to use calculations in selecting the most without performing a mile by mile urban Interstate circumferential appropriate route. review of the roadway, The NPRM beltway in the belief that, when The public interest group Rural recognized that each mue of the entire considering both normal and accident America was alarmed by DOT's 41500 miles ofinterstate highway is not conditions of radioactive materials emphasis on routing vehicles canying so consistent in design engineering or transputation, an aggregate benefit will such materials in a manner that might accident history that there would be an be realiied. States are encouraged to affect the health and safety of small even correlation of the system's parts exercise their option to designate other towns and rural people. Such a policy, equal to that of the whole.That is one of streets and highways as preferred routes they said, reflects the Department's the reasons why an option is extended and to modify the status of Interstate failure to recognize the needs and rights to the States which enables the'm to highways. Such action, if justified, could ~

..d i j 5310 Federal Register / Vol. 46, f*!o.12 / hionday, January 19, 1981 Rules and Regulations include the direction of traffic onto prnmpt such tribal rutrictioos because the Interstate through routes or onto a Hazardous Materials Transportation Act denial of the carrier request or petition. specific laterstate bypass. Each of the does not expressiy apply to Indian lands. will perform a routing analysis simJlst to above referenced comments regarding that prescribed by the DOT Routing l beltways, then. would seem to be Indian commenters did not voice an Guidelines. DOT will reevaluate the satisfied through a responsible objection to the transportation of final rules in the first year after they j exercising of the State's prerogative to radioactive material across their lands ,become effective and will consider designate routes and modify the status per se.The comments were orfented whether or not they need to be modified

• t ofInterstate highways. Tha guidelines toward allowing the route-designation to provide other methods of dealing with developed by DOT to assist the States in option with the Indian tribes the same circuitous travel their selection of preferred highways, as for the States. It is pointed out that One final point on the State and forsimilar use by local units of many Indian reservations are located designation of routes should be made.

government in their consultation with near mining or milling activities Commenters have questioned whether the States, is also an effective means by associated with nuclerr materials as such a State-designate route would be which comprehensive, safety related well as Federal disposal sites for established on a shipment by shipment routing decfslons can be made. radioactive waste materialt Further, basis or be a generic route established la commenting on which radioactive many Indian lands are crossed or are in t handle shipments on a continuing materials should be restricted to proximity to highways used for basis. Es of the opinion that the preferred highways few persons took transportation of all types of nuclear appucadon of the M,nmung materials. guidelines or some other equivalent 4 exception to the choice oflarge quantity The ap licability of the IBITA to , routing ana sia by a State routing packages. As a matter of fact there was widespread agreement, among those Indian tn$allands will depend on the persons acknowledging the need to specific facts and laws involved. fy 's t 's ablish f ,use transport radioactive materials, that the Generally, however, DOT does carriers oflarge uantity rad!oactive Interstate System of highways and recognize the special sta tus of Indian - " ck W d equivalent roads are the most tribal governments in the Federal route ar not n id d to s pment appropriate routes for large quantity system. Accord!ngly, the final rules 8P' 'p packages. As pointed out in the NPRM, allow Indian tribal governmenta to n m tua n Docket HM-169 will probably eliminate exercise routing authority in a similar Section VI.D. of Appendix A to Part the term "Large Quantity" For routing manner as provided for the State N purposes, some multfpie of A, values governments. This is accomplished by i 177.a25(c) Route Mans (see the discussion on package curie including appropriate Indian tribal limits in Docket FD6169,44 FR 1852, authorities in the dermition of" State An essential component of the final January 8,1979) will very likely be used-routing agency"in i 171.8. rule la the route plan prepared by the to identify radioactive material While the Interstate System of carrier or its designated representative. packages now described as large. preferred highways wdl permit the This document must be prepared by transport of radioactive mnterials carriers of large quantity packages in quantity packqges in i173.339.

• between any two points, DOT -

compliance with the preferred routing Severalindian organizations expressed a concern that the NPRM recognizes that in some instances this system established in i 177.825(b). A failed to recognize 'the unique legal may involve an excessive amount of similar requirement already exists for status of Indian inbal,, governments and ti.me and mueage thereby reducing the carriers transporting packages of Class tribally-ownedlands. Specifically they overall effectiveness of the safety A or Class B explosives. Admittedly, I contended that Indian tnbes are, in objectives intended by this rv!emaking. there are a great number of variables to elfect, quasi. sovereign governments However, rather than prescnbing an be considered in route planning when I possessing rights of self-government arbitrary numerical percentage increase one looks at the aggregate of total I under the terms of various treaties with against which carriers would have a packages, multiple sbipping loca tions. the Federal government As such-blanket approval to use non. Interstate and widespread destinations. However. organizations such as the Council of System highways, DOT believes that the for rny particular shipnient the routing ) 1 Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) States are fully competent to deal with possibilities are somewhat limited by maintain that Indian tribes have the such actual cases as they arise and will the safety critena established by DOT respond to them in an appropristo and the practical alternatives such as same prerogative as State governments. to designate preferred routes for large fashion. It is anticipa ted that particular available roadways. Accordingly, DOT quantity radioactive materials across situatichs which involve a regular flow does not forsee any severe triballands. of materials will come before the State administrative burdens being required Commenters from Indian In the form of requests or petitions from of carriers beyond their capacity to organizations support their arguments carriers seeking the designation of perform, nor does it expect that carriers k, from the legal standpoint that DOTS , preferred highway for a certain non-will be indiscnminate in their selection N of routet. Certainly DOT recognizes the i preemptive authority may be limited by Interstate highway. Considering the key. interest of sMppers in routing decisions k tribal ownership rights. CERT contends role played by the States in designating and expects that they will be very

• *
• indian tribes do not lose tftie'to the is the most reasonable method to influentialin the final selection.

f( that: routes, itis believed that this approach land on which Staie or interstate highway address circuitous travel that may result However, carriers remain the party with rights.of way are obtained through nettotiated ~ occasionally from use of the Interstate ultimate responsibility for compliance E b agreements between the tribes and the State System. Also, this willlikely result in with i 177.825(c) and they are cautioned government,Thu. a tribe may not have the selection of a route based on a to carefully evaluate any route plan documented measure of pblic riak submitted for their adoption by other Ya tNe rather than one based on an arbitrary The proposal to require the parties. i me o e ea endangers the health and safety ofits people. percentage figure. It is expected that the The DOT may not he ce the authority to Stater in considering the approval or preparation and filing of route plans for l large quantity radioactive rnateriah i 6 as# 9 a* n e, "w ~. - y

~ t e Federal Register / ol. 48, No.12 / Monday, [anuary 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations S311 packages drew a considerable an:ount There was an almost unanimous call discretion of the carrier and that the of public comment. For the most part, from State and local officials, as well as carrier training program should be l persons who would be the beneficiaries interested persons seekinginformation inspected and certified by DOT, Others I of the information contained therein contained in the route plan prior to the commented that the proposed training supported the proposed requirentent actual transfer of the radioactive was not specific enough. Some while shippers who would be materials. These requests will be commenters also expressed their belief responsible for the administrative filing satisfied in part by the previously that DOT should be responsible for of the route plans seriously questioned mentioned NRC rulemaking which will establishing the entire tralmng program, the need for this information by DOT or necessitate the prenotification of any addressing the minimum number of any other unit of government. The interested State in which spent fuel or a bours required and details on the actual objections can be synopsized as follows: Type B waste shipment is to be content of training materials. that the States have not expressed any transported. On the other hand, some shippers and interest in such data: that DOT seems to Other commenters Interested in the~ carriers criticized the proposed tra'ning want the data only for purposes of specfBc form and substance of DOT's requirements as urtnecessary and, in passing it on to the States; and that the mp r t the States requested some cases, duplIcative of existing filing of such informuson cou:d lead to clarification and updating as to how this training requirements. Al*o,it was inf rmation will be provided and to, maintained that truck drivers should not $ "*,[o [l *'yI",t*dhty', DOT b Mptietary what agen.The agencies of primary be expected to become experts on i interest in ese reports is expected to hazardous materials regulations or on s In answer to these comments be those organizations in the various the properties and hazards of _ fails to agree that the States are not, States which are empowered to radioactive materials. There was a interested in the data which can be designate preferred highways. fe,1]ng that the additional cost of extracted from wntten route plans, that Consequently, they.will be the principal providing driver training just for the propnetary information would not be addressees. In addition, copies will be protected, or that the potential for furnished to the Office of the Governor transportation of one particular type of ' hazardous material could result in the sabotage would increase by any of each State, to the tribal governments, noticeable degree. Quite to the contrary, and to the extent possfble any other loss of some transportation service for then materials. DOTis of the opinion that the States organization or interested party and other units of government extending specifically identified by any of the ,((ul f' be on dt att driver all the way to cities and towns have aforementioned. All other persons expressed a very affirmative desire to would be free to inspect these reports in ,"g N,8 mq g {am b ff d share completely in the accessibility of the Offices of MTB, or may acquire p9 , me detailed information contained in the. copies of them. drivers transporting another hazardous matenal. Docket 161-115 (44 FR 12828, rIo ei fd i .s?4d/ 'Driverfromng March 8.1979) proposed training for oc da a eir role in compliance and emergency DOT has added one provist' n to the drivers of certain tank trucks carrying o response preparedness activities related route plan requirement that requires the. flammable cryogenic liqulds. The ~ to protection of the local public health carrier to submit a supplement to an Department a intention m, Docket HM-and safety. Many of these jurisdictions riginal route plan when the carrier is tot has been to develop an effective suggest a requirement for duplicative forced to deviate from the route plan for driver training program that is filing of route plans with allinterested emergency or other masons. The co6sism we eat kr ege units of government.Such a burdensome supplement must be submitted to the liquids and possibly for other types of i filing requirement has not been adopted, shipper within 30 days following the hazardous rnaterials in the future, and DOT believes it can meet the needs deviation and must document the reason The current DOT stance on hazardous of local government through its periodic for the deviation and the route actually materials driver training, as established reports and answers to specific inquiries used. This supplement da required when by HM-115, is to require that training be regarding any of the reportable the canter must lean the preferred provided for the material involved and route temporarily even in cases to that the training program be gf nnadon.

• - access rest, fuel or vehicle repair stops implemented within the general With respect to pmprietary Information and security, infonnation unless the facility used is actually guidelines provided by the Department.

which DOT can be expected to relcase ' located along the preferred route. Any driver training requirement must be Requirements pertaining to driver able to accommodate the many g on bese shipments will deal with training and certification are variables involved in hazardous statistical accounting of packa8e incorporated in these final rules with materials transportation such as: the s contenta, routes need, identification of only minor changes from that preposed. different materia', and different P origins and destinations an/ like-These requkements are redesignated as associated hazards: the varying level of Effectively this is no rnore i.mation i in.825(d) (see i 177.825(b)(3) and knowledge and experience of trud f than is currently available to those who i In.825(c) in the MPRM). The large drivers: and the wide difference in the wish to monitor the shipping activities majority of commenters favored some effectiveness of various n ethods of of the relatively few facilities at which type of driver training requirements for Tah:rg. For this reason, it is believed , large quantity radioactive materials operators of vehicles carrying large that the driver training requirement must packari are handled. Also, any quantity radioactive matedals. Most of be of a general nature and that it is the \\ infr.ation for which confidential the criticism of the driving training Department's role to set out the major tr'atment is requested and justified may requirements tavolves the extent of requirements which allow the flexibility I i protected from disclosure under 49 training to be' required and the method to develop an individualized training LFR 107.5. DOT remains firm in its of enouring that adequate training is program that will accomplish the safety belief that the requirements for provided. objectives desired. It is not believed that preparation and filing of written route Many commenters maintain that DOT certification of the individual plans are reasonable and necessary, training should not be left to the driver training program is needed at this \\

5312 F1dzr21 Register / Vol. 48 No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations time. Compliance with the driver training rqquirement for large quantity by personnel specifically designated by radioactive materials, just as for any or under the authority of those agencies that military shipments can and do have other hazardous materials requirement to preserve national security). A number. accidents, and could pose a grave threat under the HMTA will be the subject of of commenters expressed their to the communities through which they tra vel. } safety inspections conducted by MTB, disapproval with the provisions of this BMCS and vnzious Stste enforcementregulation which effectively designates The question of DOT jurisdiction and personnel The enforcement of the driver NRC as the lead agency for matters authority over such governmental training program will also be aided by involving transportation security for transportation activities was rnost. the requirement that the driver be spent fuel. recently discussed by MTB in its Docket furnished with a certificate stating that While the responsibility for HM-145A, Notfce No. 78-6 (43 FR 22828, such training has been provided. prescribing physical protection May 25,1978), Transportation of In response to commenta from carriers requirernents applicable to special Hazardous Waste Materials. In that and shippers, DOT believes that driver nuclear materials and highly irradia ted document DOT restated its training for radioactive materials im spent fuel offered for transportstion by determination not to exercise its necessary as a reasonable precaution NRC licensees has been relegated to the authority over Federal, State or local for large quantity shipments and that - NRC, through the memorandum of government ngercies that carry truck drivers would not have to become understanding (MOU) currently in effect hazardoua maeuals as a part of a regulation specialists in ceder to com between DOT and NRC (44 FR 38690, governmental function, using with the training objectives. Further, ply. July 2,1979. DOT believes that the government employees and vehldes. Hazardous ) Materials Regulations should The Department believes that such costs ner,essary to establish a training program should not be high or result in contain a specific rule which requires transportation continues to be scarcity of f ervice. To some extent, DOT those shippers not otherwise licensed by conducted in a responsible manner, NRC to comply with safeguards Also, no new information has come to agrees with the contention that some of' .the proposed requirements duplicate designed to ensure physical security of the attention of DOT regarding the existing training requirements in the spent fuel' actual occurrence of serious incidents Hazardous Materials Regulations This DOT recognizes that a considerable involving hazardous materials is true of the requirements proposed in amount of for hire" transportation,of transported by this class of carriers. the NpRM (1177ms(c)(1) {li) and (iv))_ spent fuella performed under secunty Therefore,it is the opinion of DOT that relating to the motor carrier safety arrangements la support of operations an extension ofits regulations to the regulations and the operating and conducted by the DOD and DOE,in the degree sought by these commenters is handling characteristics of the vehicle. case of shipmants escorted by personnel unnecessary at this time. ~ Existing li 1U.804 and 397,1 now specifically designated by or under the A matter closely related to the above require that drivers be familiar with authority of those agencies, for the involves shipments made by motor carrier safety regulations, purpose of national security, a broad governmental agencies through common including those in Part 397 for hazardous exception is granted in materials. Minimum requirements for all in.806(b) which frees c{ m{ 173.7(b) and or contract carriers without escorts o mon and provided by such agencies. Essentially, truck drivers, including provisions contract carriers from compliance with bse sWpments must be in the Hazardous Materials Regulations. vehicle, are addressed in Part 391 This exception was issued with the comphance W DTs m@ general relating to the operation of the motor ements for "Qushfications of Drivers". understanding that it could be revised at safe transportation. Cer+ain exceptio Consequently, the proposed training some subsequent date if time and however, do permit DOD and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco ana Firearms (ATF) I requirements relating to these areas experience demonstrated the need. In to make shipments of hazardous beve not been included in the final the more than 30 ye.'rs that this amendments. exception has been la force the DCYT le materials in packagings not otherwise i not aware of any Instaace where the presenbed by the regulations. Of + I 177mS(e) Physicolsecunty public health and safety have been particular concern to the matter at hand f jeopandized because of scipper or is the treatment of physical security n7uirementsforspentfuel paragraph (e)is added to this new carrier noncompliance with the specHic cootrol, applicable to unescorted shipments of spent fuel made by or on P section to incorporate the requirements requirements of the Hazardou behalf of the DOD or DOE. Highly h proposed in i 177ms(b)(4). The effect of Materials Regulations.The DGT. irrediated spent fuel elements pose [ this paragraph is to require motor therefore,is not inclined to remove the identical biological and radiological I carriers to transport shipments of exception at this time since the original risks regardless of their origms; be it the i irradiated reactor fuel in compliance conditions ofissuance still remain. reactar vessel of an electrical power with a physical protection plan The proposal that DOT more closely plant, nuclear submarine or research established by the shipper. These plans, regulate packages oflarge quantity approved by DOT or NRC, may radioactive materials shipped by or' facility. Other factors also remain sometimes involve transportation under the direction of the DOD and DOE rela tively constant. For instance, requirements different from those attracted a great deal ofinterest and h4bways retain their same Cs l specified in i In.825 but designed to commenL Some commenters were characterfstica regardless of who uses assure at least an equal measure of surprised to learn that,in additjon to the them. spent fuel casks are of the same protection to public safety, and take exceptfona for national security in basic designs, and in many cases it is precedence over the other rules ii 173.7(b) and 177.806(b), shipments quite conceivable that the carrier, transported by the military and other vehicle and driver used to transport published in i 177.825. Shipments ~ affected by this paragraph include those government agencies, using their own shipments for an NRC licensee one made by any NRClicensee, and personnel and transport vehicles, are week would subsequently be employed consignments from the DOD and DOS not subject to the Hazardous Materials by a DOD or DOE contractor to perform-transported by for hire carriers (except Regulations and urged the inclusion of a similar service. The same conclusions defense-related shipments accompanied such agencies as regulated carriers. that justify requiring a licensee to Others followed this topic by indicatingprovide physical protection in compliance with a plan established '{ ~ l P l I

4 Federa Register / Vol. 46, No.12 / Monday, January 19,1981/ Rules and Regulations 5313 ~ under regulations prescribed by the NRC materialis required by Part 172 to be routing rules that are enforced by the apply to others who ship spent fuel. placarded. and if so, whether the State police. The State agency must be Consequently, the final rule is adopted material is a large quantity radioactive able to exercise this authority on all in the same form as proposed, thereby material. Section VI concerns public roads in the State regardless of requiring the respective departments radioactive materials generally. the boundaries of local jurisdictions (unless they perform the transportation Sections Icnd /I-Section I states the such as cities and counties, or special with their own vehicles) to either submit purpose of the appendix. Section 11 authorities such as operate toll roads. copies of their physical protection plans defines " routing rule" for purposes of This broad authority is necessary for to MT'J for approval, or, when necessary the appendix. Emergency action by two reasons. First neither the appendix to preserve the national secnrity, State or local authorities to deal with provide an escort of personnel immediate threats to public health and nor Part 177 delegates regulatory authority over motor carriers. State law specifically designated by or under their safety, as where a highway is authority. Shipments ofirradiated impassable,is not a routing rule. Also. must provide that basic regulatory reactor fuel by DOE in support ofits the definition excludes rules of the road authority. Sacond, the State agency must research and development activities are that apply to vehicles without regard to be able to consider any public highway not generally considered by DOT to be the hazardous nature of their cargo. in its route selection process with carried out t6 preserve national security " Routing rule" does refer to knowledge that the lowest risk route (as opposed to defense-related gove ental action that so affects or may be sheted and its use enforced. shipments made by both DOD and DOE) but commerce as to selectively A local Jurisdiction is not likely to ~ and are therefore subject to this redirect hazardous materials traffic. c nsider all the routing options that Department's reguladans. .SectionIII--discusses State and local affect it and is not normally responsible .A number of commenters criticized rules that affect motor vehicles for considering the impacts ofits own the exception for physical security of transporting large quantity radioactive rules on other Jurisdictions. Similar spent fuel shipments and some even materials.. problems can occur at the State level expressed their belief that it merely Stata rules. A State cannot make The total, number of State agencies allows spent fuel to be shipped under. transportation between two points concerned with transportation of

• he cloak of secrecy and accurity impossible by highway. The radiological radioactive materials, however, is

~ ' thereby avoiding DOT safety rules. It is risks in transporting large quantity considerably more limited than the difficult for DOT to follow the logic of radioactive materials by highway are number oflocal urisdicuons that this contention when one considers Wat small and total preclusion of shipmenta conceivably mig t exercise routing the NRC security rules are much more cannot be justified on that basis. A. authority, a factor which reduces the stringent than the DOT safety rules prohibition on use of Interstate System potential for confusion and enhances proposed for large quantity radioactive highways is iustified only where an compilance. ,j materials. (The NRC physical security equivalent alternatt route is specified A closely related criterion in Section i [ program is discussed on page 7144 of the. that offers risk minimization at least - HM-164 NPRM).Nevertheless, this may equal to the forbidden Interstste III.A.2. specifies that route selection by - t be a c cot point in the near future. DOT segment.Because of their average a State agency be preceded by I has be notified by NRC that NRC accident rate and usual design features. consultation with affected lurisdictions. i licensees shipping spent fuel may be part 177 requires use of Interstate Impacts of routing decisions must be required to follow DOT's preferred System highways unless a safer route is - considered regardles6 of the jurisdiction rmting system. including the use of designated by an appropriate State in which they may occur. Affected State-designated routes. The licensees routing agency after consulting with jurisdictions wdl include such entities as would be relieved of the requirement to local jurisdictions and evaluating the cities and counties, and may also obtain prior route approval from the actual routes involved. include neighboring States. Where i NRC as long as they use preferred The fact that a route may be neighboring States are affected. the routes. In addition. the licensees would designated for use on a temporary basis impacted local jurisdictions there must have to continue to adhere to all other for a Ilmited time does not invalidate a be consulted, preferably through a l a ar g ' i requirements in the NRC security demonstrated safety benefit and is program including continuous encouraged. For example,if justifled by j cuons o ocal con t na that I monitoring of shiprnent, communication safety analysis, a State agency can affect or may be affected by traffic in I with local law enforcement agencies, designate alternate routes in support of hazardous materials. Without ] vehicle immobilization features escorts. time-of. day restrictions in congested consideration of local views on such and prenotification to both the NRC and areas. A State agency might specify a matters as accident rates, risk ~ riossibly to State goverdorn. safer route to be used instead of an minimf2ation efforts are hampered. - ~. ~..

• % NPen&,

. Interstate-System highway segment or The criterion does not specify the instead of a State-designated route consultation process, although some A new appendix is added to Part 177. during periods of peak local traffic, local governmenta in commenting asked It sets out DOT policy and advice on . Criteria in Section III.A.2. of the that the process be spelled out. DOT i ifow State and local governments can appendix describe necessary features of believes that the rulemaking process { exerchus their own authority over motor preferred highways designated by used, like the basic rulemaking authority carriert in a manner that will be - States. One criterion is that preferred : of a State agency,is largely a matter of consistent with rules in Part 177 / routes are, designated by a State agency State law. To ensure reliable results. I concerning radioactive materials. with authority under State law to however,it would be appropriate to Sections I and 11 are introductory. Impose its routing rules anywhere in the provide public notice, opportunity to j Sections III. IV and V discuss the three State.The rules must be similarly comment, and a hearing if justificil(as in r catmMes of radioactive materials enforceable by State authority informal Federal rulemaking) and to shipments, previously addressed in the anywhere in the State although not individually notify and request preamble, which depend on whether or necessarily by.the same agency. One comments from those local lurisdictions not the motor vehicle transporting the Stats agency. for example, could impose which can be identified as likely to be J

. / 5314 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations ~ affected by the routing decisions under uniform applicatio consideration, DOT also believes that each State'to aid compuance).n is in tended (in part from the early arrivalof a transport I in.825(a) should should establish an advisory group not be subject to interpretations that vehicle or the late arrival of an esecrt vehicle. composed largely of city and county vary between jurisdictions. Local officials. The purpose of the group variations in the language of ( 177.825(a) Earlier in this document. DOT stated its intention to further consider would be to meet period!cally, would invite varying interpretation and recommend to the Stata appropriate application of the rule. Section requirements for prenotification to State methods for consulting with local 177.825 uniform (. More stringent regulation ofa)is intended to be nationa governments oflarge quantity shipments, following completion of an jurisdictions, and review the effectiveness of those.neasures in placarded motor vehicles is not NRC rulemaking on prenotification for actual practice. Such State advisory _ necessary given the hazard level shipments of riuclear waste. Because the voluntary provision of escort vehicles by groups would provide a valuable involved, and will impose unnecessary local governments is closely related to burdens on commerce that do not oversight function that should help to continually improve the State routing provide a reasonable safety benefit. prenotification issues. such voluntary ' program. f'OT views adequate, A State or local routing rule that escort serycles will also be reconsidered substantive local consultation as attempts to regulate radioactive at that time. essentjal m State route designations. materials that are permitted by Part in Shipping paper entries and other to be carried in an unplacarded vehic hazard warning devices bearlittle State routing rules that are not preceded rules are unnecessary,that part. Such {e by adequate local consultation are is not consistent with special relationship to local safety given the very problems. In fact. the utility of such unreliable and inconsistent with the Part 177 amendments estab!Ished in thislimited hazard involved. measures heavily depends on their docket. A failure in local consultation Section VI-Section VIconcerns a - universal recognition. Varia tions in. wiu Jeopardize the enforceability of variety of other State and local rules hazard warning devices dilute the State route designations for large that are associated with routing rules. effectiveness of those required by Parts ~ State and local rules cannot conflict 172 and 2n, which are understood quantity carriers. Another criterion in Section III.A.2.with physical security requirements nationally and internationall specifies that the State designation is Imposed by the NRC. Part in permits a hamper emergency response.y, and may preceded by a comparative risk analysis carrier to vary from its requirements if State and local requirements for filing of possible routes. A comparative necessary to comply with the NRC _ toute plans or other documents analysis is essential to ensure that risk physical security program. By making containing shipment specific information i is indeed being minimized. The " DOT NRC physical security rules enforcea ble pose a potential for unnecessarily Guidelines" provide a basic analytical under the ID iTA. DOT Intends that delaytng motor vehicles, in many cases technique that tnay be used to minimiza State and local rules also permit such requirements are redundant with radiological risk. A more sensitive necessary variances. Federal requirements concerning safety analysis based on that technique also is State orlocal rules that require . and security ney are not likely to special personnel, equipment or escort measurably enhance local emergency acceptable. I.ocolrules. Loc.algovernments may are not consistent with Part 177. response capabilities. When applied at a regulate the routes of carners of targe Precautiorts of this nature are taken State or locallevel, they are likely to quantity radioactive ma terials, but only under NRC rules to ensure the physical result in an inefficient u - security of spent fuel shipments, with preparedness resources.se of emergency in support of State and Federall designated preferred high ways.yLocal which local or State rules may conflict. Accident reports imposed by State or prohibition of motor vehicles Their imposition for transportation local governments that are necessary to transporting large quantity radioactive safety alone serves little purpose and ensure immediate ernergency assistance L materials is consistent with Part177 poses serious difficulties for carriers, are consistent with Part in. Accident only so far as the vehicles' presence is The existence of State and loca! reports required at a later time are forbidden by Part 177 (or by State routeeffectively dictate the continuous use ofrequirements for spe 'f designations consistent with Part 177 (which references il 171.15 and 171.18). i On the other hand. Part 177 presumes).the equipa:ent in all jurisdictions. Reports submitted to DOT are publicly that no local routing rules will apply to Varying requirements between . available, and States may make pnor motor vehicles on preferred highways-jurisdictions pose additional problems arrangements for DOT to provide them that may necessitate equipment changes with copies ofincident reports as they where Federal and State route desig tation is exclusive, or to vehicjes and delays en route, or avoidance of an become available. The appendix does at locations off the preferred highways otherwise desirable route. Containment not concern general accident report under circumstances permitted by Part and packaging equipment are requirmucuiA such as a State 17* (e.g. a fuel or repair stop). themselves exclusively set by Federal requirement that any motor vehicle Sections IVand V-Section IV reguladons. Specialpersonnel and accident involving injury or substantial y concerns rules that 4pply to placarded escort requirements pose similar property damsge be reported to the motor vehicles which do not contain aproblems. State and local escort State police during a stated period ,l q large quantity of radioactive material. requiraments in particular are a source following the accident. Section V concerns rules that apply to of delay in transportation if the escort is Prenotification was discussed anplacarded vehicles. not required for the entire fourney. previously in the preamble.' A State orlocal routing rule that Whether an escort vehicle is provided Prenotification requirements by State i attempts to regulate placarded vehicles by the er.rrier or by a local furisdiction,and local governments. if found ? not transporting large quantity if presence of an escort vehicle is a necessary, will be establish 4 l radioactive materials is consistent with condition of entering the jurisdiction. the nationally umform manner.ed in a I Unless DOT g Part 177 only if the rule is identical to transport vehicle is likely to have to stop reaches and acts on a conclusion th l.5 '~ i 177.825(a). De language of that at jurisdictional boundaries to establish prenotification rules are necessary. at esction is by necessity general Since communication with the escort vehicle. beyond those Congress has directed it also is likely that delay will result NRC to impose on certain radioactive I wastes, independent State and local 1 \\ I

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No.12 / Monday, January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 5315 prenottilcation requirements are not The primary operational effect of shipping paper requirements for large consistent with Part 177.

• these rules is to require or encourage

' quantity shipments. Also, this estimate Lastly, because of the importance of-use of the Interstate System by carriers does not include possible additional expediting radloactive materiels of radioactive materials. Although insurance costs to State and local bridge shipments, due to the risk and added carriers transporting packages and tunnel authorities. MTB requested. 'nonnal dose attendant to delay, other containing a large quantity of but did not receive. any quantitative forms of State and local regulation that radioactive materials are generally data on this subject. affect motor carriers of radioactive required to use either the interstate Because of thelevelof costs materials should not result in , System or State-designated preferred anticipated and the limited potential for unnecessary delay (see i 177.853(a)). A highways. carriers transporting environmental impact. MTB does not delay is unnecessary unless it is packages containing lesser quantities consider the preparation of an required by an exercise of' State or local are likely also to tend to use the environmentalimpact statement or a regulatory authority over a motor Interstate and preferred highways regulatory analysis necessary for these o vehicle that so clearly supports public especially in areas of heavy population. amendments. As mentioned, a more health and safety as to justify the safety. Adoption of the preferred routing detailed examination of costs and. detriment and burden on commer e system which utilizes Interstate System environmentalimpact is available in the caused by the delay (such as in an highways and State-designated Final Regulatory Evaluation and ' enmrgency). /, highways forlarge quanuty radioacdve Environmental Assesment. materials is determined to be the DOTIntends to conduct an evaluation 1 J9?.9 Routingforhazardous appropriate course of action for routing. of the final rule a year following its materic/s This alternative has the potential for the effective date. This evalua.on will The Bureau of 5fotor Carrier Safety is. greatest safety impact and is feasible consider the rule's efficacy as regards revising 49 CFR 397.9 of the Federal and cost effective considering the public health and safety, and its actual Motor Carrier Safety Regulations in marginal safety benefits involved. effects on carriers, and State and local DOT agnes ea amendments published elsewhere in this ccidents in denset high consequence,, Federal Register issue. This will direct a ly populated urban jurisdictions, with particular attention to the motor carrier's attention to the new areas should be of great concern. but not any difficulties that have appeared s routing requirements for radioactive to the extent that public polley on during the rule's implementation. As materials in i 177.825.The amendment haz rd us matenal rating should be part of that evaluation, notice wi2 be is neede'd to prevent an inconsistency f nnulated solely on the basis of published to solicit public comment. and between routing provisions required for av iding such worst case accidents. a direct solicitation of comments win be radioactive materials in i 177.825 and For example, the high consequence made to the States and to interested those required for other hazardous . estimates of the 1980 Urban Environs groups such as the National Covernors materials in li397.9(a).. Study n m ced earuer may be nduced Association and the NationalI.eague of ' i substantially by avoiding the city but Cities. As previously indicated, DOT VII1' Environmental and Econ'omic overall public risk may actually increase also will be reexamining prenotification Impact if the carrier is forced to use poor, as well at its relation to escort vehicles . voluntarily provided by State or local DOT has prepared a Final Regulatory )e# ehf[e s$a le governments somedme fohg i ve e it Evaluation and Environmental s 8 Assessment (DOT Assessment)la precaution to minimize t e possibility of support of these final rules (copies may " worst case" accidents by requinng ue pun cah rulu for dat waste I be obtained from the Dockets Branch of a circumferentialInterstate highway shipments-An advance schedule for l previously cited). It is clear from the - if it is available. If one is not available, a both proceedings will appear in a future available technicalinformation State may conduct a routing analysis to Federal Register publication of the DOT referenced in the Assessment that examine availability of other routes for Regulations Agenda. radiological risks in transportin8 ' comparison with the Interstate through Work on the DOT Cuidelines, i route. referenced herem, will be continued and radioactive materials resultingfrom Overall radiological effects of this rule the document is expected to be released both normal exposure and accidents are include a reduction in totallatent cancer in the first half of 1981. following pilot i very low. Even if one allows that the risk estimates developed by these fatalities attributable to normal dose tests early in ee year. technical risk studies are and a lesser reduction in the annual in considaration with the foregoing. 49 j underestimated by an order of. latent cancer fatality accident risk CFR Parts 171.172.173. and 177 are (based on NUREG 0170 projections). amended as follows: magnitude. the piojected overall risks Some additional reduction in PART 171--GENERA 1. INFORMAT10N, from the trans rtation of radioactive radiological consequences should result materials wo d still be extremely low, from State designation of preferred REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS Furthermore, one cannot Ignore highways. A slight increase in

1. In i 171.7 paragraph (d)(?.3) is added historical accident experience which is 4

9 shown to be quite good for radioactive nonradiological consequences may to read as follows: result from routing on preferred urban l material transportation when compared bypasses or circumferentials. Overall. I 171.7 Matter incorporated ty nfance. to other hazard clams by MTB's environmentalimpacts should be Incident reporting system (1971-1980). negligible. (d} * *

• Although historical experience by itself Economic costs are expected not to (23) USDOT. "Culdelines for Selecting l

may not necessarily be the best method exceed $330.000 annually under 1985 Preferred Highway Routes for Large of projecting future events, the low !evels of shipping activity and mostly Quantity Shipments of Radioactive j historical accident rates do tend to would consist of costs for driver training Materials" support the research conclusions that and route plan preparation and filing.

2. In i 171.8 the following definitions the risks in transporting nuclear material Some additional cost may result from are added in the appro by highway are low, the new placard background and alphabetical sequence:priate e

r I i

2 S316 Fidital Registir / Vol. 46. No.12 / Monday. January 19 1981 / R lu es and Regulations j 171.s Detinitions and abbreviationa. I 172.507 Specialplacarding provisions: Highway. subchapter shau be filed within 90 days " Preferred route" or " Preferred Each motor vehicle used to transport a f receipt from the carrier): highway"is a highway for shipment of o package of large quannty radioactive (2) A statement identifying the name garge quantity radioactive materials smaterials (see i 173.389(b) of this and address of the shipper, carrier and { designated by a State routing agency. subchapter) must have the required consignee; and wh ch an al e ate hf way RADIOACTIVE warning placard placed (3) A copy of the shipping paper or the been designated by such State agency j"g'g*529uare background as desenbed indescription of the radioactive material s not uired by ll In.402 and in 203 of r as provided by 11n.825(b) of this

5. In i 172.527 the section heading and aubchapter.

paragraph (a) are revised to read as PART 177-CARRIAGE BY PUBUC . follow 3: HIGHWAY State-designated routo'. means a I 172.527 Background requirements for preferred route selected in accordance certain pescards, '. Section 177.810 is revised as with U.S. DOT "GuideUnes for Selecting (a) Except for size and color, the follows: Preferred Highway Routes forlarge square background required by !In.810 veNeular tunnela, Quantity Shiprnents of Radioactive Materials" or an equivalent routing i 172.510(a) for certain placards on rail Except as regards radioactive i C*#* 7 ,ggy'v n[a materials, nothin contained in Parts large quanu[ty radioacun materials, analysis which adequately considers overall risk to the public. Designation a p ckage of 170-189 of this su chapter shall be so must have been preceded by substantive construed as to nullify or supersede must be as foumus. regulations established and published consultation with affected local i jurisdictions and with any other affected under authority of State statute or j Sta'es to ensure consideration of all PA3T ' 73-SHIPPERS-GENERAL municipal ordinance regarding the kind. [ t 1 character, or quantity of any hazardous [ impacts and continuity of designated REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS l AND PACKAGINGS material permitted by such regulations toutes. s y to be transported through any urban vehicular tunnel used for mass [ r.

6. In 117322 and paragraph (paragraph (blis tevised transportation. For radioactive

,, State routing agency" means an c)is added to read as c entity (including a common agency of follows: materials, see i In.825 of this part. i more than one State such as one

8. Section in.825 is added in Subpart j 173.22 established by Interstate compact)

SNpper's responalhlitty. A to read as fallows: which is authorized to use State legal process pursuant to I in.825 of this (b) Prior to each ship:nent of fissile Iin.825 Rout.ng and training subchapter to impose routtag radioactin materials, and Type B or requirements for redsoectrve matertats. requirements. enforceable by State large quantity packages of radioactive (a) The carrier shall ensure that any agencies, ort carriers of rudioactive material (see i 173.389 of this motor vehicle which contains a materials withcut regard to intrastata tubchapter). the shipper shall notify the radioactive material for which jurisdictional bourdaries. This term also consignee of the dates of shipment andplacarding is required la operated on includes Indian tribal authorities which expected attival The shipper shall also routes that minimize radiological risk. have police powers to regulate and notify each consignee of any special The carrier shall consider availaoie enforce highway routing requirements loading / unloading instructions prior toinformation on accident rates, transit his first shipment. For any shipment oftime. population density and activities, within their lands, i irradlated reactor fuel the shipper shalltime of day and day of week during t provide physical protection in which transportation will occur. In PART 172-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS compliance with a plan established performance of this requirement the s under-TABLE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (1) Requirements prescnbed by the motor vehicle contains radioactive l carrier shall tell the driver that the COMMUNICATIONS REGULATIONS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or materials and shallindicate the general

3. In i 172403 paragraph (d)(1)(lii) is (2) Equiwlent requirementa approved route to be taken. This requirement does amended by adding the following by the Associate Director for Hazardous not apply when-Materials Regula tion. MTS.

(1) There la only one practicable sentence at the end of the paragraph: (c) Within 90 days following highway route available, considering i 172.203 Additional descrfption acceptance by a carrier of any package. operating necessity and safety, or requirementa. containing a large quantity radioactive, (2) De motor vehicle is operated on a material (see i 173.389(b)) for preferred highway under conditions ( i (d) * * * ' transportatico by public highway. the described in paragraph (b) of thie i (1)... shipper shall file the followtng section. l Information with the Associate Director (b) Unless otherwise permitted by this (ill) * *

• Tor the shipment of t

f r Hazardous Materials Regulation, section. a carrier and any person who packages contairdng large quantity 1 AfrB (this paragraph does not apply tooperates a motor vehicle containing a radioactive materials (see i 173.389(b i !s packages shipped in comp iance with package oflarge quantity radioactive of this subebapter). the words "Large ) ) physical secunty requirements of the material as defined in i 173.389(b) of quantity" must be entered in associatioti i U.S. Nucles: Regula tory Commission inthis subchapter shall ensure that the with the basic description. I 10 CFR Part 73): vehicle operates over preferred routes { i ~ (1) %e route plan required under that an Interstate System bypass o 1177.825 c),of this subchapter any 3 t Section 172.507 is added to read as suppleme(nt to the route plan pr(epared in follows: s beltway around a city shall be used { accordance wea j in.825(c) of this when available, (1) A preferred route consists of-5 ~ } }

c-- s i Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.12 / Monday, January 19. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 5317 (i) An Interstate System highway for (2) The driver has in his immediate alternate route for the duration of the which an alternative route is not possession a certific te of training as prohibidon: or designated by a State routing agency as evidence of training required by this

2. It does not meet all of be following provided in this sectan, and

'section, and a copy is placed in his "I[,'fThe rule taistablished by a State (ii) A State. designated route selected qualificadon file (see i 391.51 of this by a State routing agency (see i 171.8 of title), showing-routing agency as defined in 5171.8 of this ,ubchapten this subchapter)in accordance with the (1) The driver's name and operator's (b) The rule is based on a comparative DOT " Guidelines for Selecting; Preferred license number: radiological risk assessment process at least . Highway Routes for Shipments of Large (ii) The dates training was provided: as sensiuve as that outlined in the " DOT Quantity Radioactive Materials". (iii) The name and address of the Guidelines": (2) When a deviation from a preferred person providing the training: (c) The rule is band on evaluation of route is necessary (including emergency (iv) That the driver has been trained "O %'("'$b " N's c r,and deviation, to the extent time permits), in the haards and characteristics of d s bs consideration of views from each affected routes shall be selected in accodance large quantity radioactive materials: and jurisdiction, including local jurtsdictions and with paragraph (a) of this section. A (v) A statement by the person other 6tates: and motor vehicle may deviate from a providing the training that information (d) The rule ensures reasonable continuity w preferred route under any of the on the certificate is accurate. of routes between Jurisdictions. following circumstances: (3)The driver has in his immediate B. Loco / muting rules. A local routing rule (1) Emergency conditions that would possession the route plan required by . that applin to large quanuty radioacuve ~ make continued use of the preferred paragraph (c) of this section and . materials is inc naistent with this Part ifit route unsafe. operates the motor vehicle in - g$,[,*,fo'e",i # [6 b ponadon uo (ii) To make necessarf rest, fuel and accordance with the route plan. . L Authorized by Part in,or vehicle repair stops. (e) A person may transport irradiated

2. Authorized by a State routing agency in (iii) To the extent necessary to pick reactor fuel only in compl. lance with a a manner consistent with Part in, up, deliver or transfer a large quantity plan if required under i 173r(b) of this IV Quantities o/mdioact/re materio/s package of radioactive materials, subchapter that will ensure the physical required to be p/acoded. A State or local (c) A carrier (or his agent) who security of the materia */ariation for routing rule that applin to a radioactive operatcs a motor vehicle which contains security purposes frorr une requirements

• • j/l,*','

,8 ] ch b a package of large quantity radioactive of this section is permated so far as. material as defined in i 173.389(b) of necessary to mset the requirements requires placarding, is inconsistent with Part this subchapter shall prepare a written imposed under such a plan. or otherwise in unless it is identical to I inm3(a) of this part. route plan and supply a copy before imposed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory V./todioactive materials /or which departure to the motor vehicle' driver Commission in 10 CFR Part 73. placardiegis notrequired. A State or local and a copy to the shipper Ibefore

9. In Part 177 AppendLx A is added rouung rule that applies to a radioactive departure for exclusive use shipments, after i 177.870 to read as fouows:

material for which Part 172 does not require or otherwise within fifteen warking days following departure). Any variation Appendix A to Part in-Ralationship placarding is inc usistent wtc thfe pan. VL Othern/otedState andlocalrules. A Between Routing Requirements in Part in State or local transportauon rule is between the route plan and routes with State and Local Raquirements. Inconsistent with Part in if it-actually used, and the reason for it, shall be reported in an amendment to the

1. Purpose. 'th appendix is a statement of A. Conflicts with physical secunty route plan delivered to the shippper as.

the Department of Transportation policy requirements which the Nuclear Regulatory regarding the relauonship of State and local Commission has estab!!shed in to CFR Part soon as practicable but within 30 days rules with Federal rules in Part in of this 73 or requirements approved by the following the deviation. The route plan subchapter for routing motor camers Department of Transportation under shall contain. transporting radioact we matertals. The i173r(b)of this subchapter: (1) A statement of the origin and purpose of this appendix la to advise e State B. Requires additional or specal personnet, fjy,'l,mment b destination points, a route selected in '9 ppm'ngo'ycy 8 i an exe tu g, ,,t,, compliance with this section. au planned stops, and estimated departure laws in a manner that th Department of paper entries, placards. or other hazard and arrival times; and Transportation considers to be consistent waming devicer with rules in Part 177 (see 49 U.S.C 1811(a)). D. Requires filing route plans or other (2) Telephone numbers which will This appendix and Part 177 do not delegate documents contaimns informadon that la access emergency assistance in each Federal authority to regulate motor camers. specific to individual shipments; State to be entered. D. Definition."Rouung rule means any P. Requires prenouficadon; (d) No person may transport a action which effectively redirects or F. Requires accident or incident reporting package of large girantity radioactive otherwtu signmcandy rutricts or delays the 00e a es y nacenary fgr material, as defined in 1173.389(b) of "[]*ent b],p ,(g y o motoe ,,g C. Unnecessarily delayeransportanon. this subchapter, on a public highway unlest-" which applies because of the hazardous (se U.S.C 1803,1804.1808,49 CFR 1.53 and (1) The driver has received within the nature of the cargo. Permits, fees and sunilar App. A to Part1) requirements are included if they have such Note-The Materials Transportation two preceding years, written training effects. Trame controls are not included if Dureau has determined that this document on-they are not based on the nature of the cargo, will not result la a mefor economic impact (i) Requirements in Parts 172,173, and such as track routu based on vehicles weight under the terms of Executive Order 1:nt and 177 of this subchapter pertaining to the or size. nor are emergency measures. DOT implementing procedures (44 FR 11034), radioactive materials transported; HI. Large quantity radioactive inatorials. A. not require an environmentalimpact (ii) The proEerties and hazards of tne Ate routing ru ; A State routing rule statement under the National Environmental radioactive materia;s geing transported; which applies to large quantity radioactive Polley Act (49 U.S.C 4321 et seq.). A materials is inconsistent with Part in if-regulatory evaluadon and environmental an (iii) Procedures to be followed in case

1. lt prohibits transportetton of large assessment is available f ar review in the quanuty radioscuve matenals by highway docket. Review of recordkeeping of an accident or other emergency.

between any two points without providing an requirements under the Federal Repcrts Act J 9 L e h r

3 -5318 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.12 / Mond Budget prior to the effective date of thisis required by the Office of hfanageme ay January 19, 1981 / Rules and Regulation docurnent. of nonsubstantive nature and intended to12N s lssued in Washington D.C. on January 13 s simply clanfy existing provisions, a full - 1981. regulatory evaluation is not cons L D. Santman, necessary. For the same reasons.idered { Director. Materials Transponation Burea el dia amendment for notice and comment publicauon (n oce, ai-tast ru.a t.ss st a4s."1 could not reasonably be anticipated to result p} u. In the receipt of usefulinformation.

• • • C00" " '***"'

(49 U.S.C. Joe 49 CFR 1.48(b) and 30180) '~ (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistanc FederalHighway Administration Prografo Numbee 20.217, hiotor Carrier e 49 CFR Part 397 i on: January 13.1981. s (BMCS Amdt.No.80-11 h=th L Pierson, ExemptionRadioactive Materials; Routing (n ooc. es.' wo ru saw coos av.4 s.m a4s em) ~ &sw AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). DOT. Actron: Final rule.

SUMMARY

Federal Motor Carrier SafetyThe FHWA is amending the Regulations to exempt radioactive materials from the routing provisions necessaryin order to remove thecontained in 49 CFR 397.9. Thh action is I 3 authority to establish routingpossibility of duplicative rules. The 1 k Materials Transportation Actisrequirements under the Hazardous ~ delegated to the Director. Materials Transportation Bureau, Research and I SpecialPrograms Adm!nistration. DOT A finalrule contained in Docket HM-164 published elsewhere in this issue is 1 issued by AfrB which addresses this' F g routing. Removalof anyimplied reference to radioactive materials p touting from ( 397 9 will avoid b the same subject.duplicative Departmental regulations on [ arrscTivt oATE: ~ effective February 1.1982.This rule becomes ji FOR FURTHER INFORMAT10N CONTACT: i L. Mr. Joseph J. Fulnecky, Bureau of Motor \\ Carrier Safety, (202 Gerald M. Tlemey. ) 426-1700: or Mr.) } Cotmsel Office of Chief \\- Highway (202) 426-0348: Federal 4 Transportation. 400 Seventh Street. SWAdministration. Department of Wnshington. D.C. 20390. } l397.9 fAmendedJ { For the reasons set out in the summary 49 CFR 397.9 Routes, is _ amended b paragraph (y adding at the end of ~ (a) * *

• Th!s paragraph does nota) the following sentencee

~ \\4 apply to radioactive materials (See t $ 177.825 of this title). ~' {' ? this document does not contain e algnificNote-The FHWA has determined that I reguladon according to the criteria ant octablished by the Department of ~ l Transportation pursuant to F.xecutive Orde j. r ' i 3 ) v I s s ~ _m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}