ML20148U385

Requests Approval of Proposed Route as Outlined in .Route Must Be Approved No Later than End of Jul 1997 in Order to Make Timely Preparations for Shipments in Sept. Copies of Past Correspondence Encl

ML20148U385
Person / Time
Site:	National Bureau of Standards Reactor
Issue date:	06/19/1997
From:	Rowe J NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERL
To:	Shankman S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20148U392	List: ML20148U385
References
NUDOCS 9707100168
Download: ML20148U385 (3)

Text

Y~

l$/dl ? % 9 //

t Y.-'

• UNITE] STATE] DE7ARTMENT OF COMMERCE

, National Institute of Standards and Technology June 19, 1997 ("'"#/ Gaithersburg, Maryland 208990001 ht Susan F. Shankman r" ~ '

p Chief, Transportation Safety and Inspection Branch

's Spent Fuel Project Office, NMSS h-/ ~ ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Ms. Shankman:

In response to your letter of February 27, 1997 and after careful analysis and discussions with the staff of the Federal Highway Administration, NIST has determined that its originally proposed route is the preferred and best route. ,

In making this determination NIST has considered traffic patterns, distance, and historically preferred routes as allowed by DOT regulations. As stated in the enclosed letter of June 18, 1997, "It is clearly the intent of the regulations that motor carriers should take into consideration all factors available to them . . that reduce time in transit." FHA agrees with NIST that the most direct route is not necessarily the preferable route since regulations allow, " ... [a] reduction of the time in transit by avoiding areas prone to heavy traffic patterns and/or delays."

Accordingly, based on the factors listed below, the time in transit will be less than for the more direct route and the exclusive use of Interstate highways. The advantages of the proposed route are: )

I

1. It avoids heavily congested areas which would cause con.siderable delays.

j l

2. It bypasses three dense metropolitan areas. '

i

3. The routes selected within South Carolina are the

" historically preferred" routes by the State.

4. It is a proven route, that has successfully been used nine times before.

NIST respectfully requests approval of its proposed route as outlined in our letter of October 15, 1996. NIST must have an approved route no later than the end of July 1997 in order to make timely preparations for shipments in September. Enclosed are copies of past correspondence. If you need more i information, please contact my Deputy, Tawfik Raby at 301-975-6257. Thank you  !

for your consideration.

erely M. Rowe (

' Director NIST Center for Neutron Research enclosure Ill.llillWilllOI,lWilllWElllllll t t 4 & A &

• b 9707100168 970619 fDR ADOCK 0500 4

• 3 8

/Nf

<Ot , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

=- National Institute of Standards and Technology g4 d/- Gachersburg, MarWnd 208990001 )

I l

October 15,1996 Dr. William D. Travers Director, Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Advance Route Approval- Docket No. 50-184 ,

l NiST requests approval of the following proposed route for shipment ofits research reactor spent fuel. This is the same route that was used in nine shipments before. De following information is provided.

1

a. Cargo description (1) Dere will be 40-84 fuel sections per shipment depending on the cask used. The fuct is MTR-plate-type research reactor element. Each shipment will contain approximately 2-5 Kg U-235.

(2) Any of the following three licensed shipping casks will be used depending on availability.

(i) BMI-1, Certificate of Compliance #5957 (ii) GE-2000, Certificate of Compliance #9228 (iii)NAC-LWT, Certificate of Compliance #9225 (3) For the BMI-1, the loaded weight of the transport vehicle is approximately 29 tons and the weight of the loaded cask assembly is approximately 12 tons.

For the GE-2000 the loaded weight of the transport vehicle is approximately 34 tons and the weight of the loaded cask assembly is approximately 17 tons.

For the NAC-LWT, the loaded weight of the transport vehicle is about 46 tons and the weight of the loaded cask assembly is approximately 29 tons.

b. Anticipated Schedule (1) Approximately four shipments are anticipated in 1997.

(2) The duration of each shipment from point of origin to destination is about one day.

(3) The tentative schedule is for two shipments in April,1997 and two shipments in July, 1997.

%l b 2_ %

~

)

c. Route Information (1) Shipments will originate at the NIST site,1-270 and Quince Orchard Road,  !

Gaithersburg, Maryland with destination to U. S. DOE facilities at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina.

(2) The proposed routing is:

NIST - I-270 - I I I 77 - I I SC-121 - SC DOE-SRS.

(3) 'the estimated distance over the proposed route is about 725 miles.

(4) The estimated travel time is about 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> based on an average speed of 40 miles per hour.

(5) The designated heavily populated areas which would be traversed on the proposed route are:

(i) Roanoke, Virginia.

(ii) Gaithersburg, Maryland to the edge of Germantown, Maryland (I-270 and Maryland Route 118).

d. Physical Protection Arrangements Planned for Heavily Populated Areas (1) At Roanoke, Virginia, arrangements will be made with the local law enforcement.'At Gaithersburg, Maryland, escort will be provided by the NIST Police.

(2) Communications will be provided between the transport and escort vehicles and between the transport and the transport company communication center.

Ifyou need additional information, please contact my deputy, Tawfik Raby, at 301-975 6257.

Sincerely, d

. Michael Rowe  !

Chief, Reactor Radiation Division l

-m--- v

,. os/16/sv 0s:09 G202 ses 7908 m A-uc-acS-HF0 Itool l

O

- uiDeponment I

orhrspananon 4o0 am si s.w. '

Weenmeen. D.C. 2062 i

feesNI W M i 1

JLh i 81997 1

• i Refer to: HSA 10 Mr. J. Michael Rows i

Chief, Reactor Radiatkm Division i United States Department of Commerce ,

j >

National inshtute of Standards and Tecnnology Galthersburg, Maryland 20899-0001  ;

1

Dear Mr. Rowe:

1 2

I j This is in response to your March 17 letter requesting our interpretation of the factoI j that a rnotor carrier transporting Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials may consider in <

selecting preisfred routes that reduce time in transit pursuant to the requirements ofl l CFR Section 397.101(b)(2). Specifically you ask whether you may take into consideration avoiding densely populated areas such as the Washington, D.C. Capita!

j Beltway, in selecting a preferred route for transportog shipments of reactor spent f from Galthersburg, Maryland to Savannah River, South Carolina. '

l i '

l 3 i

Secten 397.101(bX2) provides that "The motor carrier or... shall select routes to re i time in transit over the preferred route segment." It is clearty the intent of the -

i regulations that motor corriers should take into consideration alt factors available to

! them when making the selection of preferred routes that reduce time in transit. In situat ons like the one you describe, where the most direct route would traver populated areas, the carrier may take into consideration factors that may cause 4- transportation delays common to that route, cuch as traffic congestion, commuting t patterns, time in transit, and day of the Week. As a result, the regulations would allow the rnotor carrier to select an altomative preferred route which is not the most direct route to their destination, but results in an overall reduction of the time in transit by avoiding areas prone to heavy tramc pattems and/or delays.

1 >

I hope this information is helpful.

2 Sincerely yours, I m G hW  ;

Rose A. McMurray, Director Office of Motor Canier Safety and Technology 4

i 1

l  : . , .  !

, , UNffED STATES DEMWmAERf7 0F CORAREERCE asselones insetane et Standards and Toshnetegy

' (/  %. % mes.mm March 17,1997

Rose A. McMurray

Director, Of5cc of Motor Carrier Safety i And Technology U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Adminieration i Room 3419,400 7th Street, SW

Washington,DC 20590 1

Dear Ms. McMurray:

On October 15,1996 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) applied to the l Nuclear Regulatory Comminnion (NRC) for route approval for shipment of the NIST ras i

reactor spent fuel from Gaithersburg, MD to Savannah River, SC. In a response dated February

, 27,1997 with a carbon copy to you, NRC referenced requirements established by the U.S.

Federal Highway Administration. Specifically referenced are those paragraphs explaining preferred routes and " time in transit", 49CFR397.101(b), (b) (1), and (b) (2).

i It appears from the NRC response that travel time was calculated solely on the basis of dimacc i

traveled. In proposing it's route, NIST took into account both distance and traffic patterns in

determining travel time. 'Ibe route implied in the NRC letter passes through four heavily

populated areas. In contrast, the NIST selection bypasses the three most heavily populated areas.

j Congestion within these areas can add significantly to the time in transit. Discussions with a member ofyour staffindicated that it would be prudent to consider avoiding such routes as the l l Capital Beltway in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, a route through which the shipment  !

4 must pass on the basis ofdi*a~ only. NIST has therefore concluded that an extra 120 miles is  ;

i more than compenW for by avoiding travel through additional dense metropolitan areas. For these reasons, NIST has determined that its proposed route is preferable and conforms to the

requirements established by FHA. It is the same route previously approved by NRC and used nine times in the past.  !

l Wer %%Ily request your assistance in verifying that the factors discussed above can be used in determining preferred routes. We would greatly appreciate a prompt sc, pense so that we may I re-apply to the NRC for route approval. If you need further information, please contact my deputy Tawfik Raby at 301-975-6257. 'Ihank you for your consideration.

j Sincerely,  ;

l i

. Michael Rowe

. Chief, Reactor Radiation Division ec: Susan F. Shankman, NRC NLciir

.