NUREG/CR-6672, Transcript of August 16, 2000, Evening Public Meeting on Package Performance Study and NUREG/CR-6672, at Convention Hall, Mountain View Casino and Bowling, 1750 Pahrump Valley Boulevard, Pahrump Nevada. Pages 1-81

Transcript of August 16, 2000, Evening Public Meeting on Package Performance Study and NUREG/CR-6672, at Convention Hall, Mountain View Casino and Bowling, 1750 Pahrump Valley Boulevard, Pahrump Nevada. Pages 1-81

ML22011A128
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/16/2000
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
C BAJWA NRC/NMSS/DFM/3014155341
References
NUREG/CR-6672
Download: ML22011A128 (41)

Text

1 1 UNITED STATES 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 ******

5 6 PUBLIC MEETING 7 PACKAGE PERFORMANCE STUDY AND NUREG/CR-6672 8

9 10 11 12 13 Wednesday, August 16, 2000 14 15 16 Conference Room 17 Mountain View Casino & Bowl 18 1750 Pahrump Valley Road 19 Pahrump, Nevada 20 21 22 The above-entitled meeting commenced, pursuant to 23 notice, at 7:00 p.m.

24 25 2

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 [7:00 p.m.]

3 MR. CAMERON: Good evening, everybody, and welcome 4 to the NRC's public meeting on spent fuel transportation.

5 My name is Chip Cameron. I'm the Special Counsel 6 for Public Liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 7 I'm going to serve as your moderator for tonight's meeting.

8 In a few minutes, Dr. Susan Shankman, from the 9 NRC, who is up at the table, is going to give you a formal 10 welcome and also talk a little bit about what the NRC's 11 responsibilities are in regard to spent fuel transportation.

12 What I'd like to do is just cover three things 13 real briefly with you before we go to the substance of 14 tonight's program. One thing is objectives of the meeting.

15 The second thing is ground rules for the meeting. The third 16 item is to just go over the agenda very briefly with you 17 tonight.

18 I just want to emphasize, we have some important 19 information for you tonight, but we're going to keep our 20 presentations brief so that you can spend most of the time 21 tonight in discussion with all of you.

22 In terms of objectives for the meeting, we want to 23 inform you of the NRC's responsibility for the 24 transportation of spent fuel. We also want to tell you 25 about a study that the NRC did on spent fuel transportation

3 1 risk and also talk a little bit about a new study that we 2 have initiated that is going to take a look at spent fuel 3 packages and what happens under accident conditions.

4 We'll be talking about all those issues tonight.

5 We also want to answer any of your questions that you might 6 have and hear any comments that you might have on the NRC's 7 spent fuel transportation risk program.

8 IN terms of ground rules for the meeting, when we 9 do get into the discussion period, if you have a question or 10 a comment, just signal me, and I think I'll be able to bring 11 this microphone out to you or you can come up to the 12 standing mic.

13 Please state your name and affiliation, if 14 appropriate, because we are keeping a transcript over here 15 and, of course, that transcript will be available. Carey is 16 our stenographer tonight. And state your question or your 17 comment and we'll try to give you some information on that.

18 I would just ask you to try to be to the point, 19 but since we don't have a big crowd tonight, I think we'll 20 have plenty of time for people to talk. But I do want to 21 make sure that everybody has an opportunity to talk and also 22 that we give your attention to whomever has the floor at the 23 time, and that will also help us keep a clean transcript if 24 only one person at a time is talking.

25 In terms of the agenda, we're going to start off 4

1 with Dr. Shankman, who is going to briefly talk about NRC 2 responsibilities in the area of spent fuel transportation.

3 We're then going to go to Mr. Robert Luna, who is right 4 here, and Bob is a consultant for Sandia Labs, who contracts 5 on spent fuel transportation risk studies.

6 He is going to talk about the spent fuel risk 7 transportation study that was completed in March.

8 Right after that, we're going to Rob Lewis, from 9 the NRC staff, to talk about a new study which is going to 10 look at the performance of spent fuel packages.

11 We'll try to do this fairly efficiently, so then 12 we can go out to you for discussion.

13 I would thank all of you for being with us tonight 14 and I hope this is informative for you. I know there's a 15 lot of other issues of concern here in Nye County in terms 16 of the high level waste program.

17 We really want to focus on transportation tonight, 18 but we're always glad to listen to your concerns and 19 questions about other issues and if we can provide you with 20 information on those other issues, we'll do that, but we do 21 want to really get the information out to you on 22 transportation.

23 And with that, what I'd like to do is to introduce 24 Dr. Susan Shankman. Susan is the Deputy Director of the 25 Spent Fuel Project Office at the NRC. It's a dedicated

5 1 office with a mission to all issues related to spent fuel.

2 She has been with the NRC since 1982, so approximately 20 3 years.

4 In her career with the NRC, she has been involved 5 with the materials licensing program, but also with the 6 reactor program. So she has a pretty good overview with 7 what the Commission does and activities that affect spent 8 fuel transportation.

9 She has a doctorate from the University of 10 Southern California, but she never goes far from her New 11 York City roots. Right?

12 MS. SHANKMAN: Right.

13 MR. CAMERON: Susan Shankman.

14 MS. SHANKMAN: Good evening. I'm glad to be here, 15 and I will be brief. As Chip says, we're going to be brief, 16 in his instructions to us in the introduction.

17 I am with the Spent Fuel Project Office. So just 18 to tell you that the Spent Fuel Project Office is part of 19 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and our office is 20 particularly concerned with storage of spent fuel and 21 interim storage as opposed to repository storage, and our 22 office is also concerned with transport of spent fuel and 23 other radioactive material. So that's the part of the 24 Commission that I'm with.

25 And just to -- some of you may already know this, 6

1 but just to reiterate that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission is an independent Federal regulatory agency and 3 in this sense, independent means that we make our decisions 4 on scientific and technical merit, and that is the basis of 5 what we do.

6 The mission of the Commission is simply to protect 7 public health and safety in the use of radioactive material 8 that is licensed by the Commission.

9 As Chip said, we deal with reactors, with medical 10 uses, with commercial uses, like watch dials and smoke 11 detectors and other places where radioactive material is 12 found. We regulate that use.

13 How do we do that? It's easy to think of it just 14 this way. We set standards that are then, if someone meets 15 our standards for the use of radioactive material, whether 16 it's use, possession, transport, then we issue approvals to 17 do that, licenses, certificates.

18 Then we set against those standards those people 19 who have a license or a certificate from us and then we look 20 if they are meeting those standards. If they are not 21 meeting the standards, then we enforce compliance with those 22 standards and we have stopped people from shipping, we have 23 stopped people from operating radio pharmacies, we have 24 stopped people from administering diagnostic tests that 25 they're doing, and we have shut down nuclear power plants.

7 1 So that is how we enforce compliance, until they 2 come into compliance.

3 And to do all this, we need a certain base of 4 information, technical information, scientific assessments, 5 and what we're talking about tonight is part of that 6 program. I'm going to talk about a study just completed in 7 which we looked at routine transportation and accidents in 8 transport of radioactive spent fuel. We only looked at that 9 small portion.

10 There are -- in fact, the old estimate is about 11 three million radioactive shipments a year in this country.

12 We're doing a little assessment and so far we've come up 13 with nine million and we're still looking at it.

14 So radioactive material is shipped all the time in 15 this country and most of it, of course, is not spent fuel.

16 That's a very small portion of the radioactive material that 17 is shipped. Most of it is medical and commercial.

18 So the research that we're talking about in terms 19 of the future has to do with looking at package performance, 20 packages in which spent fuel is shipped. Package 21 performance in severe accidents, and Rob Lewis will tell you 22 how we're planning to do that and why do we need your help.

23 Just a brief slide. You may all know this, but 24 I'd like to remind people that transportation of spent fuel 25 is not a one-agency activity; that high level waste and 8

1 spent fuel, there has to be a shipper, which is somebody 2 licensed to ship it, and that's usually a nuclear utility, 3 or it could be the Department of Energy.

4 Then there's the carrier, whether it's a railroad 5 or a truck company. Then there is the regulators who set 6 the standards for the transport, and, again, that's NRC, 7 U.S. Department of Transportation, and the states. The 8 states, including Nevada, have a very big role in transport 9 and we can talk about that if anybody has any questions.

10 Then there are emergency responders, and those are 11 local people who have been trained from the U.S. Department 12 of Transportation, and tribal responders, also. And HAZMAT 13 teams, you may be familiar with them, as well as Federal 14 assistance which is available to train people.

15 There are also advance notifications of governors.

16 And we have a rulemaking out right now to see how to notify 17 proper authorities. So that's not part of our regulations 18 right now. However, as a courtesy, we have done that.

19 So what, as a manager, what am I hoping that we 20 get out of today? What I'm hoping we get out of today is a 21 little information going out from us and a lot of comments 22 coming back from you all.

23 The information that we have will be on the 24 studies that we've done and, as Chip said, Bob Luna is going 25 to talk about a publication that we developed, that we hope

9 1 to developing into a more plain English, not bureaucratic, 2 acronym document. So we'll talk about that document and 3 what we can do to make it more of a public brochure rather 4 than a scientific paper.

5 The other thing is we'll talk the study that I 6 talked about, on which we want comments from you all on what 7 we should be doing, and continue the dialogue on transport.

8 It's an ambitious project that we're embarking on 9 and we need to spend our dollars wisely, so we need your 10 help.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Great. Thanks, Susan. And 13 Susan, of course, is going to be here and ready to answer 14 any questions or listen to comments that you have when we 15 get done with the presentations.

16 This is going to be -- the next presentation is 17 going to be on spent fuel transportation risk and the study 18 the NRC recently had completed by Sandia Labs.

19 Bob Luna is going to do this presentation. He's a 20 consultant to Sandia National Labs, who the NRC has used to 21 develop the central transportation risk studies.

22 He has a Ph.D. from Princeton University and he's 23 a mechanical engineer by training. He has been involved for 24 16 years alone in the transportation risk field with Sandia 25 Labs. He is retired now, I believe, from them, or he is a 10 1 consultant to Sandia. He's also on the editorial board of 2 the International Journal of Radioactive Material 3 Transportation.

4 Bob, I would just turn this over to you. The 5 handouts for this presentation are right over there, if 6 anybody needs one.

7 MR. LUNA: This is my first trip to Pahrump and so 8 I'm pleased to be here and pleased to see the new faces. I 9 see a lot of faces that we saw earlier in the week in Las 10 Vegas.

11 The paper I'm going to give you tonight or talk to 12 you about tonight is a condensation, the talk I'm going to 13 give you is a condensation of a paper and the paper that I'm 14 going to talk about is this one, which was in the packet 15 that was sent out by the NRC earlier. It has about 20 pages 16 in it.

17 This paper is based upon this document, which is 18 called the reexamination of spent fuel risk estimates. And 19 so you see I'm condensing this into this and then I'm 20 condensing this into this talk, to keep it at a reasonable 21 pace.

22 So what's this about? The idea that I want to 23 talk to you about tonight really has two parts. The first 24 thing is I want to solicit input from you with regard to the 25 content of this paper. I want to know whether or not you

11 1 think it's readable, whether it's useful, whether it tells 2 you something you want to know.

3 The other thing I'm going to talk to you about is 4 I'm going to give you a very brief introduction or a very 5 brief description of what's in this report, highly 6 condensed, so that you have an idea of the work that has 7 transpired.

8 Again, this is the cover of the report we're 9 looking at.

10 Now, the title of the large report is "A 11 Reexamination of Spent Fuel Risk Estimates." So the 12 question you should ask yourself or perhaps I ask myself is 13 why should we reexamine these risks.

14 Well, the reason for the reexamination really had 15 about five parts and they're up here on the slide.

16 Obviously, there is significant public concern about the 17 shipment of spent fuel and the safety of those shipments.

18 Two, NRC has oversight of the spent fuel safety 19 and those issues, and so they have a reason to want to 20 understand what the current state of risk is with regard to 21 shipments.

22 Three, most people expect that there will be an 23 increase in spent fuel shipments over the next few decades 24 to meet the repository program in the United States, 25 although it's certainly not clear exactly how that's going 12 1 to be prosecuted and when.

2 And, four, the spent fuel characteristics that 3 have been looked at in previous reports and evaluations of 4 risk are really likely to be a little different in the next 5 few decades. The fuel is likely to be a bit older and have 6 some different radiation characteristics, which implies that 7 the casks in which they are going to be shipped are likely 8 to be a little different to optimize the number of 9 shipments.

10 The sixth reason is basically that a reexamination 11 was in order because we are better able to look at the 12 techniques, the response of casks, using more modern tools.

13 High speed computers have increased the capability to look 14 at details and structure a thermal analysis and, in 15 addition, there's some better understanding of some of the 16 internal processes.

17 Now, I'm going to give you some results from the report, but 18 the principal authors of the report are sitting here in the 19 room and if you have a question that I can't handle, which 20 is likely to be almost any question, these guys, Doug 21 Ammerman, Jerry Sprung, and Joe Kotsi are available to talk 22 in detail.

23 Let's talk a little bit about the history here.

24 On this slide, you see four reports. The first report, over 25 here on my side, is the final environmental statement on the

13 1 transport of radioactive materials by air and other motives.

2 This was published in 1977 by the NRC and looked 3 at about two dozen kinds of radioactive material shipments, 4 spent fuel being one of those. It made some estimates about 5 what the risk was of shipping spent fuel during that period.

6 The second report is the transportation of 7 radioactive in urban environments, which was a subset of 8 this study to look at shipping through very high population 9 density areas, and you should be thinking New York in that 10 case.

11 The third study is what is usually referred to as 12 the modal study, which was a reevaluation of the accident 13 risk of shipping spent fuel. That was done in 1987. The 14 goal there was to apply modern tools, at that time, to look 15 at the response of casks to the kind of events that might 16 happen in transportation accidents.

17 That study showed that the risk estimated in 1977 18 for accidents was probably about one-third high; that is to 19 say, this report thought that the actual risk was about 20 one-third less than what was shown there.

21 And the last document there is the one we're 22 talking about here, the current document, and down at the 23 bottom here is what the word "future" means and is what Rob 24 Lewis wants to talk to you about tonight, as well; that is, 25 the package performance study, which is the next iteration 14 1 of the kind of analysis that was done in the modal study.

2 Now, in the way of review, and I'm sure that you 3 all know this, spent fuel, this is a boiling water reactor 4 fuel element. The basic content of the fuel element is fuel 5 pellets, which are uranium oxide. They are stacked in a 6 cladding, a zircalloy cladding, to make up the fuel pins, 7 and the fuel pins or fuel rods go into and make up a fuel 8 assembly which goes into the reactor and participates in 9 producing power, producing steam to produce power.

10 When the uranium fuel value is spent, the fuel is 11 said to be spent, it's put in the spent fuel pool and it's 12 held until it cools or until it can be shipped either into a 13 storage facility or into a final repository.

14 The fuel is shipped in casks which look something 15 like this one that's up on the screen. The basic features 16 of the cask are that they are very heavily shielded in order 17 to maintain -- keep the radiation to a reasonable and 18 regulated level external to the cask.

19 It has a lid to put the material in, which is 20 bolted and held in place and sealed, and the basic function 21 of this cask is to make sure that the shielding stays intact 22 and the containment of the spent fuel stays intact through 23 all kinds of conditions that occur in transportation, up to 24 and including severe accidents.

25 Now, what was done in the risk study and is

15 1 contained in the documents we've talked about is a risk 2 assessment. And when we talk about risk assessment, we're 3 talking about answering three questions; what can happen to 4 this cask when it's in transit, how likely is that event to 5 occur, and how serious are its consequences.

6 And we apply those three questions to the accident 7 risk and we also apply it to non-accident risk, because 8 there are risks during shipments that occur completely 9 incident-free as a result of this external radiation field 10 that surrounds casks that I talked about earlier.

11 In the non-accident case, when we ask the question 12 what can happen, well, what can happen does happen. There 13 is a low level radiation field around the cask and it's 14 limited to ten millirems per hour, and I'm sure everybody 15 understands what a millirem is, and that could be your next 16 question after I get finished, limited to ten millirems at 17 6.6 feet; that is to say, two meters from the cask.

18 Now, ten millirems per hour is a dose which is --

19 you accumulate in -- well, natural background dose here is 20 about 300 millirems per year and this is ten millirems per 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />. So it's a very small fraction of the annual dose and 22 if you stood next to this cask for an hour, you'd get like 23 1/30th of the annual dose, annual background dose in this 24 area.

25 The next question we ask is how likely is this 16 1 radiation field to happen. Well, this radiation field 2 occurs all the time and if there is someone near the cask, 3 then that person will receive a radiation dose.

4 And what we do is, we're down to -- we look at all 5 of the situations in which people might be exposed to the 6 radiation and we look at what its consequences are, and the 7 consequences of radiation exposures come in units and 8 they're called units of person rem; that is, we sum up the 9 total number of people exposed and the total dose that each 10 person receives and that is a measure of the risk from 11 radioactive material from spent fuel shipping.

12 Now, in the accident risk case, the process is a 13 little more interesting. When we ask the question what can 14 happen, we rely on things like event trees and event trees 15 show a sequence of events that might involve a cask and get 16 you to a place where a cask might be compromised as a result 17 of an impact or a fire or something like that.

18 So the impacts -- the event tree gets you to an 19 understanding of the scenario or what might happen. It 20 takes you to the place where the experts, like Jerry and 21 Doug and Joe, calculate cask response as a result of big 22 impact, high speed impacts or huge fires, and they look at 23 whether or not a cask might fail and to contain the material 24 -- that is, the seals might fail or something like that --

25 they look at how much might get out.

17 1 They also look at how likely that event is and the 2 likelihood of that event also comes off the event tree and 3 allows you to put a probability of an event on the event 4 itself.

5 And then when we look at how serious are its 6 consequences, we do it the same way we did before. We look 7 at the total number of people who are exposed and we sum up 8 all of the doses that they received.

9 But in the accident case, what we do is we look at 10 all the accidents that might occur and we weight those 11 person rem by the probability of the event.

12 So if an event is very, very, very unusual, then 13 the dose that comes from that event is a very small number.

14 So having described the basic process on how you 15 do risk assessment, these are the results that come out of 16 this document. And the results are in the accident risk 17 case, it shows the comparison of the dose that was -- the 18 risk that was estimated in this study, which is the 19 right-most column on each graph, and the risk that was 20 estimated in 1977, in the first document that I showed you.

21 As you can see in this diagram, the risks are --

22 you'll have to take my word for it, at least briefly -- that 23 the risks, both of these risks are, in fact, quite small.

24 And in addition, the improved capability to estimate risk 25 that we have now suggests that the risks that were estimated 18 1 in 1977 really overstated the risk to the population.

2 The risk estimates here are really quite a bit 3 smaller for this for both truck and rail.

4 And this is the results for the non-accident case 5 or the incident-free transport. Again, the doses and the 6 dose risks that are estimated in the more modern study are 7 lower than those that were estimated in the 1977 study, but 8 the difference is not quite so dramatic.

9 So the next question is -- the summary of the risk 10 situation is the first shipment risk, both incident-free and 11 accident risk, are lower than 1977 estimates. And I see the 12 people from Sandia looking at the slide and wondering what 13 regulations IONS are.

14 The yearly dose for typical shipments in the next 15 few decades is quite a bit below 1977 estimates and the 1977 16 estimates were found by the NRC, and I'll quote this and 17 it's in your handout, that "present regulations are adequate 18 to protect the public against unreasonable risk from the 19 transport of radioactive materials" and that regulatory 20 policy concerning transportation of radioactive materials be 21 subject to close and continuing review.

22 That was what the NRC said in 1977. These 23 reports, the reexamination report, the package performance 24 study that Rob is going to talk about, are all part of that 25 continuing activity by NRC to look at the risk from

19 1 shipments.

2 And this is the last slide. Basically, I've told 3 you what's in this report. I would urge you to look at it.

4 I would urge you to look at this report, which has some of 5 the results in it, greatly condensed.

6 And what we'd like to have -- and what I'd like to 7 have, as an author of this discussion draft, is your views 8 about the level of detail in the report, its 9 understandability, the points of concern, any points of 10 concern about its content that you might have, and the 11 overall tone of the presentation in the report. You can 12 also comment on the overall tone of my presentation, if you 13 want.

14 That basically is what I wanted to talk to you 15 about. Again, I would like your input about whether we have 16 gotten enough information in this report and whether or not 17 we've done it correctly.

18 Chip?

19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much. I know people 20 are going to have a lot of questions for Bob about the 21 presentation that he just did. Some of you may not have had 22 much of a chance to look over the report in terms of giving 23 us comments on understandability and level of detail, but we 24 hope that we can at least get some idea of that from you 25 tonight.

20 1 We have one more very brief presentation to give 2 you the total picture here and then we want to turn it over 3 to you for discussion.

4 Our next presenter is Rob Lewis, from the NRC 5 staff, and Rob is going to talk about the new study that's 6 been initiated, what's called the package performance study.

7 Rob is a nuclear engineer and he works in the 8 NRC's Spent Fuel Project Office. He's been with the NRC for 9 approximately eight years. He got a graduate degree, a 10 Master's Degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University 11 of Arizona, and he has an undergraduate degree in physics.

12 One of his chief responsibilities at the NRC now 13 is he is the project manager for the study he is going to 14 talk to you about, and he's been the project manager for 15 this study since its inception.

16 Rob?

17 MR. LEWIS: Thanks. I will talk a little bit 18 about the package performance study. We're having the 19 meeting tonight, the timing of tonight's meeting really has 20 to do with the package performance study, because we're at 21 an important decision point for the package performance 22 study. We're at the end of what we call the scoping phase.

23 That is designed to try to define what we'll be 24 doing for the next couple of years.

25 We've done several studies and this one is coming

21 1 out. There are four main studies that NRC has done, '77, in 2 1987 we did the modal study. We just published the 3 reexamination study, which Bob just talked about. And the 4 package performance study is the next and it will be 5 completed in three to four years.

6 One thing I would like to point out here is that 7 the package performance, in 1987, we updated the severe 8 accident part of the 1977 project, and the package 9 performance study can be thought of the same way. We're 10 updating the severe accident part of the year 2000 project.

11 So what is this package performance study? Well, 12 it's a study of spent fuel transportation accidents, both 13 truck and rail. As I mentioned, we want to build upon what 14 we just finished in the year 2000 reexamination study.

15 We'll only be looking at severe accidents in this 16 study and the way this study is different than past studies 17 is that this study will try to incorporate some means of 18 testing casks.

19 We would like to do a test where -- in the 2000 20 reexamination study that was done, they looked at all kinds 21 of accidents, many, many different kinds of fires and 22 collisions that casks could be involved in.

23 And in the package performance study, we'd like to 24 do a test to make sure that the way we looked at those many 25 types of accidents was appropriate. We want to make sure we 22 1 have a good level of confidence in the way the year 2000 was 2 conducted.

3 Another major thing we're looking at, and there 4 isn't a bullet to talk on this point, but I wanted to make 5 it as a -- we want to update the accident data and the 6 accident sequences data that we have. The modal study, that 7 was from the early '80s and it's been 20 years since then, 8 so it just makes good sense to take a good look at that and 9 see if that's still valid information.

10 And we are using the public participation approach 11 to try to design the package performance study. As we step 12 through the package performance study milestones, we want to 13 reach out to the public and make sure that everybody 14 understands what we're doing and that we're doing the best 15 things, in people's minds.

16 I have a full slide on public participation in a 17 moment.

18 So why are we here today? Like I said, we just 19 finished a major milestone. We finished the scoping study, 20 which is on the table and probably has also been mailed to 21 several of you. It's attachment one to this letter that's 22 on the table.

23 And what that scoping study -- many of you 24 remember, last year, we had several meetings to collect 25 views on what we should be doing in the package performance

23 1 study. And what this scoping study does, this issues and 2 resolution report actually is the name of the document.

3 What that does is it took the collection of the 4 views that we heard and what we think we can do to help 5 respond to those views in the study.

6 And we're here tonight to collect feedback on how 7 well that study reflected the views that we heard the last 8 year. We're also here to find out if the options we present 9 in that study would help respond to those concerns that were 10 raised last year.

11 We also want to make sure that if anybody has any 12 new concerns that aren't reflected in this report, that you 13 let us know those.

14 Now, we don't expect everyone, of course, to give 15 us all their comments on that report, it's 50-something 16 pages. We won't expect everybody to give all their comments 17 tonight, but we are collecting written comments. If you 18 have written comments, you can give them to us. The address 19 for my address and the Sandia people's address is on page 20 three of the report.

21 I skipped something. I want to introduce the 22 authors of the report, the issues and issue resolution 23 items, that are here tonight to answer any questions you 24 might have. Jerry Sprung from Sandia, Doug Ammerman from 25 Sandia, and Joe Kotsi from Sandia.

24 1 Doug is the structural reviewer, the collisions 2 person. Joe is the person that did the fire comments, and 3 Jerry did the balance. Their manager is also here tonight, 4 Ken Sorenson, from Sandia.

5 As I mentioned, public involvement is a very 6 important part of this project and this is just one step in 7 our public involvement process. I'm sure we'll be out again 8 as we proceed with this study.

9 We have established a web site. You can go to the 10 web site, ask questions, maybe look at the frequently asked 11 questions to see if your question has already been asked, 12 and the interactive -- and all the documents that we -- we 13 put all the reports that we write on the web site. We don't 14 hold back anything. We'd rather have it on there than not.

15 And workshops, as I mentioned, we were hear last 16 year, we're here again tonight as a follow-up to that. We 17 were in Las Vegas last night and next month we'll be holding 18 another workshop in the Washington, D.C. area, for the 19 Washington, D.C. people that are working on these types of 20 issues.

21 And we have a mailing list. If you received this 22 from us in the mail, then you're already on our mailing 23 list. If you didn't and want to be on the mailing list, 24 please leave your name and address with Jim. We mail 25 something once a year, so don't expect to start receiving a

25 1 newsletter every week or something. But if you want to keep 2 in touch with the project in a way other than the web site, 3 we'll make sure that you have this opportunity.

4 And that's all I have for now. We will be happy 5 to try to respond to any comments that people have.

6 MR. CAMERON: Good. This will make things easier 7 for us, I think. I just wanted to say that we do have a lot 8 of resources in the room, not only the people you heard from 9 from NRC and Sandia, but also other NRC staff. We also have 10 representatives here from the Department of Energy and 11 Department of Transportation.

12 So if you have questions, let's try to give you as 13 much information as possible.

14 There is one person on the NRC staff that I would 15 like to introduce because he is -- he's our local site 16 representative, Bob Hadder. Bob, can you stand up? And we 17 have three on-site representatives in Nevada now. They are 18 stationed here in Las Vegas. And if you want to talk to Bob 19 and get his number, please do that after the meeting. But I 20 just wanted to make sure you everybody knew Bob.

21 Rob, just one more point. As Rob stated in our 22 September 13 meeting, we're going to have people from the 23 government agencies around the table. I just wanted to note 24 that it will be government agencies, but also people from 25 industry and also people from citizen groups who have 26 1 concern about this in the Washington area.

2 On that note, I would just say that we do have 3 some representatives from Citizen Alert in Nevada, a 4 citizens group with us tonight who will be -- I'm sure we'll 5 be hearing from tonight.

6 But they do have some of their material over there 7 on the table, if anybody would like, including their summer 8 2000 newsletter.

9 So with that, let me go out to you for questions.

10 I'm not exactly sure what we're going to be doing with this 11 microphone, but we'll keep trying to use it. See, we need a 12 mic to go into the transcription, but this is going to 13 really be -- I don't think that this cord is going to be 14 long enough to get to everybody.

15 MR. BURSTON: Hi. I'm Bill Burston. I want to 16 ask how many actual physical tests have you done on the 17 worst accident cases and what was the results? Did the 18 thing break open?

19 MR. CAMERON: Who wants to take that one?

20 MR. SORENSON: That's Rob's part of his talk on 21 the performance study. The intent is to propose doing some 22 actual tests so that we can verify the analyses we did on 23 the reexamination to confirm the actual performance and 24 response of that cask in these severe accidents.

25 It's part of the ongoing evaluation of the

27 1 performance of the casks, but not part of this program here.

2 We want to test them for Department of Energy and other 3 Federal organizations, but not as a part of this program 4 here.

5 MR. CAMERON: Let's go to -- Susan, can you pass 6 that mic to Less Bradshaw, please?

7 MR. BRADSHAW: At this late date in this program, 8 20-some years into it, as you can see, the folks in Nye 9 County say full scale cask testing hasn't been done.

10 You can do all the computer modeling that you 11 want, the average person out in the public doesn't care.

12 They don't trust it, they don't understand it, and they 13 don't accept it.

14 We urge you to bring full scale cask testing to 15 Nye County as part of the overall exercise, burn it, crush 16 it, bump it, break it, and then let people touch it and feel 17 it and measure it.

18 And you can still do that in the context to verify 19 the modeling. The cost of full scale cask testing fails to 20 insignificance in the context of total system cost, which is 21 multi-billion dollars. You've probably spent more on 22 Bachelors doing nuclear modeling than you would have done if 23 you had building it and bringing it out, some generic test 24 in Nye County or somewhere, burning it at X degrees as far 25 as so many hours.

28 1 I don't know what's right or wrong. The public 2 doesn't believe anybody, because it's all modeled. Nye 3 County asks the NRC, the DOT, the DOE, why there has to be 4 any additional risk to anybody in Nye County or anyone in 5 the country from the results of a severe accident.

6 We urge that course of action. You folks need to 7 realize you are beating on a long dead horse here. You are 8 only doing what the law tells you to do. There are issues 9 with Congress on this issue, we understand that. But we 10 have to urge the zero risk proposition on transportation of 11 nuclear materials.

12 MR. CAMERON: Thanks a lot, Les, for those 13 comments. That's exactly the type of feedback I think the 14 NRC needs, and also for putting the cost issue in 15 perspective, the cost of cask testing. I guess I would ask 16 Susan about the -- do we have any preliminary things to say 17 about the tanker accident that we heard so much about?

18 MS. SHANKMAN: I want to say something first 19 before that. We had the people at Sandia analyze what we 20 knew about the accident and, of course, we would have to 21 know more specifically.

22 But I think you're exactly right to not trust 23 computer models. It seems to me a reasonable proposition 24 for someone in the position you're in and I think that in 25 order to do these tests, if we do them, they have to be done

29 1 in facilities that have the appropriate instrumentation and 2 all of that.

3 That's not to say that someone couldn't witness 4 it, a representative or someone, that organizations couldn't 5 witness it and we couldn't then share some kind of 6 information, pictures, and maybe physically bring some of it 7 back here at some point, but the actual testing couldn't be 8 done here because of the instrumentation needed and all of 9 that.

10 But I don't think that it would be unreasonable to 11 have somebody come and witness it who could bring back the 12 information. That might be a way to do it without actually 13 -- you understand the difficulty in bringing it here and 14 testing it here, but that doesn't mean that your eyes can't 15 be there.

16 And I think that that would -- you know, we can 17 talk about a process to select the people who would come and 18 who they would represent and how that would be done, and we 19 would select all the representative group of people.

20 I'm not exactly sure how to do that, but you have 21 citizens advisory groups and different groups, and so I 22 think we could confer on that and see how that works out.

23 But I'm open to something like that and I think 24 the staff would be open to something like that. We could 25 work out the details.

30 1 And I think if people touch and feel it, I can 2 readily understand how you would want to do that. I have a 3 six-year-old granddaughter, and she doesn't believe anything 4 I tell her. So she wants to see it and touch it and feel 5 it, and I think that's a reasonable thing.

6 It would be a matter of how to make that happen in 7 a way that is both feasible and satisfactory to the people 8 who are involved, and that's something that we would have to 9 think about and I'd like you to think about it and come up 10 with some ideas for us.

11 Now, in terms of the specifics of the accident, do 12 you want to talk about that?

13 MR. SORENSON: Joe.

14 MR. KOTSI: What we did is we took the pictures 15 that we were able to get off the net and we looked at the 16 trailers and it seemed that they had -- the trailer-truck 17 had crashed and the two trailers were burning separately.

18 These were gasoline tankers, so it was a pretty spectacular 19 fire.

20 What we did in our simulation is we took a cask 21 model that we already had in our computer, we put it right 22 in between those two fires and we let it go for 90 minutes, 23 and monitored it and we calculated the temperature increase 24 in the area of the seals, which is one of the things, first 25 things you worry about on these casks.

31 1 Over that period of time, actually, the peak 2 occurred after the fire went out. The fire went out after 3 about 90 minutes. At about two hours, the temperatures at 4 the seal area picked up 20 degrees Fahrenheit, which would 5 be like 40 degrees F roughly above what the normal seal 6 temperature would be.

7 This is within the normal surges in the operating 8 of these seals anyway. Our first calculation, this was not 9 anything to worry about. I did not see Filger's study, so I 10 don't know what he has seen in his numbers, but our first 11 cut on it is that we couldn't get there, we couldn't make it 12 a bad accident.

13 We can move things around and go through other 14 scenarios, but I don't think we're going to get too much 15 worse than that.

16 MR. CAMERON: Does anybody want to ask Joe a 17 question about the Sandia findings on that? Again, they're 18 not actually formal findings, but we thought that you might 19 be interested in that. And if you want to talk to Joe 20 afterwards, please do that.

21 Grant, do you have a question?

22 MR. HUDLOW: Yes, I have a question. DOE has told 23 us that the casks are going to be at 360 degrees C and they 24 told us that the interior, with the rods that are encased in 25 the zirconium, are going to be -- so the cask design, as I 32 1 understand it, according to the paperwork we have, is five 2 pounds pressure.

3 I don't know how you get five pounds pressure when 4 you have 360 degrees C and it's already split open the 5 zirconium inside.

6 I would like to see even a simulator show me that 7 that cask that's going to be running into a bridge or a 8 train or whatever, like they did in the videos, at 360 9 degrees C, and survive.

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Grant. Can we get 11 any feedback from Sandia on that particular comment there?

12 MR. SPRUNG: I guess the first place to start is 13 the steel of the cask doesn't get soft till 500 C. It's not 14 become mush until temperatures are considered above that.

15 So the 360 Centigrade would sound high with the Fahrenheit 16 factor, the softening of steel is quite low.

17 The rods are -- the spent fuel rods are 18 pressurized, so that's why they elevated pressure some.

19 When they -- should one of them, because of the impact 20 forces, say a small crack, the pressure would leave the 21 cask, but the cask seal, where the cask is two inches of 22 seal on the outside, four inches of lead, another inch of 23 steel, then we have the fuel assembly that Bob Luna showed 24 you a picture of.

25 The lid of the cask is four inches thick, that's

33 1 24-36, very large bolts, two O-rings that go all the way 2 around the lid, one inside of the other. These are like the 3 O-rings in a washerless faucet 4 It is very difficult to damage that lid and its 5 seat enough so that the O-rings separate and the cask will 6 leak. We have done tests where we dropped casks onto very 7 hard surfaces, harder than the hardest rock you can find 8 beside the road. The seals don't fail. It takes an 9 extremely high speed collision, 90 miles an hour, say, to 10 cause maybe the seal to fail. Then the leak is so small, 11 it's likely to plug, run into oxide dust, powder that is 12 compressed.

13 It is very, very difficult to get something out of 14 the cask, except for in an extremely rare accident, 15 something with a very tiny chance of occurrence for 16 shipments, maybe one in a million, probably more like one in 17 a billion.

18 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Jerry. Thank you for 19 clearing the temperature issue up. Ken, you want to add 20 something?

21 MR. SORENSON: Yes, real briefly. I think we and 22 the industry and the community have witnessed lots of very 23 severe tests on these casks and they are very incredibly 24 robust. But it is very hard for them to verbally 25 communicate that.

34 1 There's nothing that communicates that and seeing 2 an actual sort of event that you'd worry about. There, to 3 me, is value in that testing.

4 MR. CAMERON: Good. Willy?

5 MR. FRAGOSA: I had a thing about the -- when 6 you're out there and you're doing your work, this is the 7 like the second or third fastest computer in the world. Is 8 that right? So you can do a lot of things, right? It's 9 like a magic gene or something, right?

10 You know, the -- there's nothing like the real 11 thing. So I know the advantage and how much less it costs 12 for computers in the first place and how much just to run 13 one and then to have all the people that it takes, you know, 14 to do all that.

15 It's hard for me to imagine. I don't even use a 16 computer. So you are able to simulate things. Is that 17 correct? In incredible detail. Because, to me, as a 18 layman, I hear you, and it sounds pretty good, if I were 19 going to buy a car or something.

20 But I think we still need physical testing. I 21 don't think that the cost -- I know that on a scale, as an 22 A, the paper that I looked at last night. But still, when 23 we consider cost as opposed to -- as I said last night, I 24 know Grant said this before, but even one accident where 25 something happened would be too much.

35 1 I'm sure you could find out so much more from an 2 actual test and then put that through your computer and come 3 up with an even better design. I'm all for tests.

4 And by the way, there's another test tomorrow at 5 the new test site at 4:00.

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Willy, for that 7 information and also for another supportive comment about 8 the need for actual testing.

9 Does anyone else have anything at this point you 10 want to ask about what you heard about? Any other questions 11 or comments? Yes, ma'am. I think I'm going to probably 12 have to ask you to come up here, because of obvious 13 limitations.

14 MS. SOLLINGER: I'm Nancy Sollinger. I just have 15 a question. Talk about the risks associated with 16 transportation, I hear about severe accidents and the like, 17 but for all the driving I do, I'm wondering, have you 18 analyzed the normal stuff, like flat tires and broken down 19 engines and what are the risks associated with those and 20 recovery procedures for something that looks like it's 21 probably very heavy?

22 MR. CAMERON: I think that we all can understand 23 the essence of that question. Who would -- Susan or Rob?

24 Rob, do you want to try and handle this for us, please?

25 MR. LEWIS: Yes. I believe we do look at all 36 1 types of accidents and we looked at probabilities of any 2 type accident and then in addition to that, we looked at the 3 different types of accidents that could happen as another 4 factor.

5 So things like flat tires -- well, let me say, if 6 a flat tire causes an accident, it would be in the accident 7 that we used. If the flat tire just caused the person to go 8 over to the side of the road, change the tire and then keep 9 on going, it wouldn't be reported to the accident database.

10 Of course, something like that has no probability 11 of damaging the fuel cask or a gas tanker or anything else.

12 So the answer is sometimes.

13 As far as emergency response activities and 14 recovery of the cask, if it falls off the truck, picking it 15 up with a crane and putting it on another truck, we do look 16 at those types of activities, but not in terms of this 17 study, because this study that we're doing is to look at how 18 the cask performs during an accident and whether or not 19 there would be any release of radioactive material or 20 increased radiation as a result of the accident.

21 Of course, if an accident occurred, we would know 22 how to go about picking it up and putting it back on and 23 continue the shipment.

24 MR. CAMERON: Before we go to Kylinda, let me ask 25 Nancy, did that answer your question or do you still?

37 1 MS. SOLLINGER: Sort of. I just wanted to know 2 were any studies actually done so that part could get 3 answered.

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Any studies actually done on 5 the types of circumstances that you raised. Rob?

6 MR. LEWIS: Studies that were done on 7 transportation events that have -- like, for example -- the 8 answer is yes. There have been studies, but not the ones 9 we're talking about tonight.

10 There have been studies done. For example, a 11 shipment of fresh fuel was going from the place that made 12 the fuel to a reactor and that shipment got involved in an 13 accident and fire and that event was essentially studied as 14 to how the emergency response activities occurred, what 15 improvements could be made.

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Nancy, if you want to find 17 out more about specific studies and issues like that, please 18 talk to Rob afterwards, because I'm not sure that we've 19 really hit on everything for you.

20 MR. LEWIS: I can give you a copy of that report, 21 if you're interested. That's all public information.

22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Why don't you use this 23 microphone?

24 MR. SPRUNG: I'm sure there are standard 25 procedures for the routine accident. I think she was asking 38 1 about the common accidents.

2 MR. CAMERON: That's correct, Jerry, your 3 understanding of Nancy's question. So, Rob, think about 4 that and if there is more that we can offer later, let's do 5 that for Nancy.

6 Kylinda?

7 MS. TILGES: Kylinda Tilges, Citizen Alert Las 8 Vegas. Nancy's question led me to a question I forgot that 9 I had. As some people know, Citizen Alert has a full scale 10 mock nuclear waste cask that we truck around the country to 11 convince and show people what it may possibly look like when 12 it comes through, if it comes through.

13 We had it a couple of weeks ago coming from Pioche 14 and Tonapah on -- I forget which highway that is, but it's 15 two lanes, one this way, one that way. That's down there by 16 the test site, coming straight across the top of the test 17 site. But it's two lanes.

18 Now, this is a mock nuclear waste cask. Our 19 transmission blew. We're stuck on the road, pitch black 20 night. When we finally get a tow truck driver out there, he 21 almost didn't stop because of what he saw, until he finally 22 realized it said "mock" and the radioactive symbols had a 23 circle and a slash through it, he'd probably take his 24 chances.

25 Not to mention all the near accidents that almost

39 1 happened because it was coming off of a rise and no one 2 could see us coming over that until they were already over 3 and they're traveling at 70 plus. Seventy is the speed 4 limit, but if anyone drives around there, you know that's 5 just the guideline.

6 If that was a real cask, your transmission could 7 break down just like ours did, who is going to come out and 8 help them and how would that happen?

9 MR. CAMERON: I think that this is a time to ask 10 Department of Transportation to address that issue and also 11 some of the driver training issues. Rick Boyle, I would ask 12 you to come up and answer not only Kylinda's specific 13 question, but I think you know what issue she's driving at.

14 If you could just elucidate on that for all of us, 15 I think it would be helpful.

16 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. A lot of this will come 17 about as the Department of Energy puts together their 18 transportation plan, but the features that we're going to 19 look at for that plan, we're going to look at satellite 20 tracking, something like that, they'll know where the trucks 21 are at all times.

22 They'll also -- you can't prepare for every inch 23 of the route, but you'll set up your points as to where 24 you're going to pull off and where you can't. If you're 25 sensing trouble, certainly, you can't plan a flat tire. But 40 1 I think they will have scheduled tow trucks or all the 2 equipment they'll need along the way, where your situation 3 was a little different, where you didn't have the resources 4 or you weren't required --

5 Nobody came in and said we'll be pulling a mock 6 cask around, so we'd like to make sure you have tow trucks 7 all along the way, but we have salvage. My feeling, from 8 what we've done in similar cases, with the large reactor 9 components, where they were being shipped, before they 10 leave, they had to have salvage equipment for every point 11 along the route, if you run into problems, set up safe 12 harbors you've coordinated with, you coordinate with the 13 Coast Guard so that they know where you are and you check 14 in, I believe they checked in every hour.

15 I hit my weigh point and everything is fine. So I 16 would -- I can't speak for the Department of Energy, but I 17 believe that's how they're going to transport it and every 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> there is a check-in. I'm with the Hazardous Material 19 Group, so I don't know if you would like me to go over the 20 driver's license that you have to have.

21 If you're going to carry this, you're going to 22 have a commercial driver's license. You're also going to 23 have the HAZMAT stamp on it that says you've been trained 24 not only in the operation of the vehicle, but you know what 25 you're carrying and the hazard that that produces, you're

41 1 going to be prepared, as we said, for cordoning off areas.

2 It's certainly not going to be the average truck 3 driver, you just pull them in and say haul this to that 4 point and he doesn't know what to do. He's going to know 5 exactly what the material is and if he runs into problems, 6 how to shut down the road, if it's something, as you're 7 saying, that's one lane each way and block the entire lane, 8 he'll be able to do that.

9 MR. CAMERON: Great. I think that's very helpful 10 on that. Ken, you want to add something?

11 MR. SORENSON: One real good point, and that's the 12 -- I was going down to Carlsbad, they are actually tracked 13 by satellite. They're in constant communication with the 14 base station. They do have escorts and there's a lot of 15 control over the shipments.

16 So if there were an unscheduled breakdown, in 17 terms of cordoning off the area, the people are right there 18 with the shipment to do that. I'm not saying that's exactly 19 how it would happen with the shipments, but certainly that 20 is one point --

21 MR. CAMERON: Good. I think that that's useful 22 information for the public to have. Of course, there's a 23 lot of detail behind that that we haven't heard about that I 24 think might be useful for the public to know about in regard 25 to these shipments. Grant?

42 1 MR. HUDLOW: First of all, I'd like to thank 2 Sharon for letting us --

3 MR. CAMERON: Don't wander too far.

4 MR. HUDLOW: -- to a suburb of New York, some of 5 the most effective people on the planet, I'm not sure that 6 we always live up to that, but we try.

7 I also would like to thank her for getting 8 information. It sounds like she's continuing to get 9 information. Nine million radioactive shipment per year is 10 well above anything anybody has ever said before.

11 I'm also honored that the purpose of the meeting 12 is to ask for help.

13 On this HAZMAT thing, the nuclear shipments would 14 be okay unless they happen to run into a truck like the one 15 that caught on fire at Tonapah. It took us half the night 16 to get a response team out of town to handle that.

17 The call from the truck went back to West 18 Virginia. Fortunately, we had a guy, Steve Mason, go and 19 told the local fire fighters how to cut the truck open and 20 try to handle the fire. We would have had real massive if 21 he hadn't stopped that.

22 So when it comes to HAZMAT, in this state, it's an 23 absolute joke. There isn't any. Nellis shut theirs down.

24 We have a dozen trained people, maybe half a dozen. The 25 assistant fire chief, when I asked him what he would do if

43 1 he had that kind of an accident, he said leave town.

2 I think the population feels that that's taken 3 care of is a huge lie and unacceptable, I think, for it to 4 come from the government. We have enough problems with the 5 government anyway without something like that happening.

6 The other things that I wanted to mention, again, 7 Dr. Luna was talking about soliciting input, seeing that 8 this material is reasonable and useful, and he mentions that 9 he has a public concern problem and I think that's why we're 10 here.

11 The government nationwide has a public concern 12 problem and as an industrial manager, and I own my own 13 company now, the way you handle public concern is doing 14 exactly what you're doing, ask for questions and then try to 15 resolve those questions. That involves people and their 16 concerns and then you go away.

17 However, Dr. Luna said something about that 18 they're allowed 300 millirems for an annual dose. The EPA 19 only allows the public temperature get 25 millirem per 20 annual dose. Now, if you're talking about ten millirems at 21 6.6 feet, if the thing is stopped in traffic and you're a 22 foot or two away from it, the millirems go up exponentially 23 and we're talking a few minutes and somebody has an illegal 24 dose and we're doing that right now.

25 The plutonium, for example, from Russia, under 44 1 emergency conditions, they brought it to SRS. They're 2 dumping it out here at the test site in God knows what kind 3 of conditions.

4 I think the NRC needs to know that that's the kind 5 of people they're dealing with at the DOE. These are not 6 public utilities, publicly owned utilities. These are 7 people that are used to operating in secret and they do 8 things at the spur of the moment that, if they had to time 9 to think about it, are absolutely insane.

10 During the Cold War, we had to put up with that.

11 We had a battle on our hands. Getting that stuff out of 12 Russia was pretty -- we had to go in in the middle of the 13 night with helicopters, planes, get it on a ship, get it out 14 of there, and this continued until they dumped it out at the 15 test site.

16 So okay, but I want you to realize that's the kind 17 of people you're dealing with. And they don't have the 18 technical expertise to handle this situation at all, not 19 even close. They're not used to handling anything in a 20 reasonable safe manner.

21 And they have the transportation standards 22 violating EPA law. That's unacceptable.

23 MR. CAMERON: Grant, let me -- you've raised three 24 excellent points that I think we need to address for 25 everybody here. One is I think we need to clarify the

45 1 situation in terms of the dose, in terms of what Bob 2 actually said, but, also, I think people need to hear more 3 about this dose business.

4 For example, the sitting in traffic issue. So 5 that's one thing that we need to hear about.

6 Secondly, I would like Rob perhaps to talk about 7 how the issues report, the Sandia issues report deals with 8 the different types of accidents that might occur. I think 9 there was some discussion of that.

10 But I guess the third thing is, and I don't know 11 who best from our team to address it, is what happens in 12 terms of -- what would happen in terms of emergency response 13 if there were -- you know, we heard about the integrity of 14 the cask, we've heard about satellite tracking, special 15 driver's license. But what happens if there is a potential 16 for something happening in terms of emergency response.

17 So let's get those three in order and let's go to 18 Bob Luna for the exposure issue.

19 MR. LUNA: Let's see. I guess perhaps I went over 20 this a little too quickly. I think what I said was that the 21 normal background dose per year in this part of the world is 22 about 300 millirem. So every year of our lives that we live 23 in a place like this, we receive a radiation dose from 24 cosmic rays, radiation from radon and a bunch of other 25 sources, it's about 300 millirems per year.

46 1 The cask standard, as you pointed out, the limiting 2 radiation level is ten millirems at two meters from the 3 outer boundary of the truck, the vertical boundary of the 4 truck.

5 So you have to -- in order to get background dose 6 of radiation, you'd have to be very -- you'd have to be at 7 that distance for a time which is about 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> or 8 something like that.

9 The allowable dose for the people, individuals, is 10 a number which, for that case, is set to be about 100 11 millirems. That's the level at which the standards control 12 dose to individuals who are not radiation workers.

13 So you'd have to be next to this cask at two 14 meters out for a time of like ten hours to even get close to 15 this radiation dose for individuals.

16 You are correct in believing that the dose is 17 higher as you get closer to the cask, but it's not 18 exponential. In fact, it goes on the distance. In other 19 words, if I were at, say, two meters from the cask and the 20 dose was ten, if I went from two meters to one meter, the 21 dose would go up by only a factor of two. So the dose would 22 be like 20 millirems.

23 So it's a linear, not exponential response. There 24 is one other point, that there have been cases -- DOE has 25 made some estimates about the maximum dose that they might

47 1 expect in traffic jams, given the fact that trucks and 2 vehicles move back and forth and jockey for position in the 3 lines.

4 Some estimates for that dose are as high as 50 5 millirems. That's still within the radiation standards and 6 it's unlikely to happen to the same person in the same year.

7 So I think the dose is controlled. There are limits on it.

8 People look at them and try to make sure that the operations 9 don't violate those kind of issues that you raise.

10 MR. CAMERON: Rob, before Bob sits down, I want to 11 make sure that we get any other questions or comments on 12 this dose issue first.

13 John or Kylinda, do you guys have -- let's -- do 14 you want to comment?

15 MR. HADDER: Just real quick. My understanding is 16 the radiation field goes -- it's squared to distance.

17 MR. LUNA: When you get far from the cask, it goes 18 as squared. When you are close to the cask, within a few 19 meters, it's linear.

20 MR. CAMERON: That's interesting. Zorn, did you 21 want to --

22 MR. ZORN: At 200 millirem per hour at the surface 23 of the truck, that's the DOT requirement.

24 MR. LUNA: No, that's not right.

25 MR. ZORN: It's 200 millirem per hour at the 48 1 surface.

2 MR. LUNA: At the surface of the cask. Is that 3 right?

4 MR. CAMERON: Let me put this on the record.

5 We're going to put this on the record. There is a question 6 about the DOT requirement of 200 millirem -- would you state 7 this for the record?

8 MR. LUNA: Rob just corrected me. I'm not a 9 regulator. He said that the dose limit for a package, 10 exclusive use transport.

11 MR. CAMERON: Which is what?

12 MR. LUNA: The dose there, Rick, is?

13 MR. BOYLE: One thousand.

14 MR. LUNA: One thousand millirems per hour at the 15 surface, but those kinds of shipments are well controlled 16 from the standpoint of where people can be with respect to 17 the cask.

18 MR. CAMERON: Let's hear from DOT on this.

19 MR. BOYLE: That's a good point to say. If you're 20 looking at your absolute maximum, it would be a thousand 21 from the accessible surface. So if there was some sort of 22 personnel barrier, like a fence that they put over it, you 23 measure from that fence, not the actual surface.

24 But as Rob brought out, if you get into that 25 thousand and you're in exclusive use, there are a lot of

49 1 other provisions that go along with how it's loaded and how 2 it's transported which allow you to go higher than the 200.

3 Since no one -- to my knowledge, no one has said 4 all of these casks will go exclusive use across the -- even, 5 say, 200 is -- until somebody tells us they're going 6 exclusive use, we say if you look at the 200 level, which I 7 think is more conservative to say we want to see those at 8 200 and if they're not, then let's see all your provisions, 9 because you're higher than what we would consider. So we're 10 not looking at a thousand right now, we're looking at 200.

11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. We're going to go for 12 Kylinda for a question now. At some point, we should point 13 out that the standards that Bob and Rick are talking about 14 now are these standards, the reference to the EPA standards 15 is the reference to an EPA standard that refers to the 16 facility, high level waste facility, rather than 17 transportation, as I understand it.

18 MS. TILGES: I hope this isn't redundant. Maybe 19 what you said just needs clarifying. As I understand it, is 20 there going to be one standard cask? Because the loads are 21 all going to be different as far as the radiation levels, 22 depending on how old the fuel is, for one, what kind of 23 burn-up credits you have.

24 So how are you going to control that? Do you 25 understand what I'm asking?

50 1 MR. LUNA: Yes. The control is the NRC 2 requirement is -- the DOT requirement is ten millirem two 3 meters from the vertical -- the line which defines the edge 4 of the vehicle. The casks that are on board, any cask has 5 to meet that requirement, no matter how many fuel elements 6 are in it, no matter what the burn-up of that material is, 7 no matter how old it is.

8 Typically, the certificate of compliance that's 9 issued by Susan and the people who work for her limit the 10 number of elements, the burn-up, the age of the fuel to make 11 sure that that limit is met every time all the time.

12 And they have a quality assurance program in place 13 when the cask is loaded to make sure that nothing is outside 14 the certificate of compliance gets in the cask before it's 15 shipped.

16 MR. CAMERON: We're going to turn this over to 17 Susan for a comment on that and then we're going to go to 18 the second issue that Grant raised and go to Rob Lewis to 19 talk about that.

20 MS. SHANKMAN: Just in terms of dose, there is a 21 regulatory limit. It applies to every single design that we 22 approve. It doesn't matter what's in the cask. The cask 23 has to demonstrate that they can meet that for incident-free 24 or routine transport.

25 So that the dose that anyone can receive from a

51 1 cask in any situation is already calculated based on the 2 content, the shielding. And if I can explain it even 3 better, it's that we will not license a design that doesn't 4 come within those parameters with a margin of safety.

5 In other words, it isn't that it just meets it.

6 Most of the designs -- in fact, all of the designs that we 7 approve have a margin of safety. So that if there is an 8 error in the calculations, that's already computed in the 9 error band.

10 So I want to make it clear that at the same time, 11 before a cask is shipped, they have to use instruments to 12 make sure that the dose is as it was calculated and which is 13 usually lower than the regulatory limit. So that it has to 14 meet the certificate, not only the regulations.

15 It doesn't matter if they have ten different 16 designs, they would all be regulated to the same standard.

17 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Susan. If we need to get 18 more clarification on that, we'll do that. Now we're going 19 to go to Rob Lewis to talk about the issue study and how 20 different accident scenarios are considered.

21 Then I need some help from the NRC staff in terms 22 of who is going to answer the question in terms of emergency 23 response.

24 MR. LEWIS: I'd just add one more thought. Even 25 though there is a higher dose limit that applies to the 52 1 surface, the one you always hear us talk about is the ten 2 millirem at 6.6 feet, because that one tends to be much more 3 restrictive than the higher one is.

4 So that's the one we talk about, because that's 5 the one that really, in practical matters, is the one that 6 really comes into play a lot.

7 As Susan said, when we review the cask design, we 8 look at what the maximum contents would be and at that 9 maximum contents, we won't approve it unless it meets that 10 limit.

11 So in practice, casks are very rarely shipped with 12 the maximum content in it, so it would actually be below the 13 limit when it goes out for shipment.

14 Now, moving on to the other issue, we do think 15 it's important, and I'm glad you raised that point, because 16 we do think it's important that we look at the -- both the 17 probabilities and the types of accidents that could occur.

18 We take a real good close re-look at that information, 19 because the data that we have right now comes from the early 20 '80s and some better data has been collected and -- I mean 21 newer data, not necessarily better.

22 And we do think it's important, and I'll refer you 23 to Chapter 5.3 of the issues report, where it's a very high 24 priority, two things. One is to look at the sequences of 25 accidents that could occur. For example, is there a

53 1 collision; is that collision into a hard rock; is there a 2 fire.

3 We ask a series of questions about the type of 4 accident and we think it's very important to take a good 5 close re-look at that.

6 And there is another chapter in there, also in 7 Section 5.3, another issue, I should say, that we want to 8 look at some of the severe accidents that have actually 9 occurred; not spent fuel accidents, but some severe traffic 10 accidents like -- maybe like the gasoline tanker explosion 11 in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago.

12 One thing we mentioned in the issues report, we 13 want to take an analysis of what would have happened had a 14 spent fuel cask been in that accident and kind of see how 15 the systems will respond to the actual real world accidents 16 that have happened, the most severe accidents that have 17 happened.

18 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Rob. I think everybody has 19 a copy of that issues report and it's eventually going to go 20 into the Sandia study.

21 Susan, who is the best person to talk to emergency 22 response in terms of spent fuel shipments? I think that's 23 going to be an important issue for the public to know about.

24 And whose responsibility is it?

25 MS. SHANKMAN: I want to start off on that and 54 1 then Rick Boyle can talk a little bit more about the 2 Department of Transportation. But just to talk a little bit 3 about the possibility of a repository in Nevada, what would 4 we do if we were licensing it.

5 Clearly, the licensing process includes NRC 6 adoption or review of the environmental impact statement 7 that's prepared by DOE. As many of you already know, there 8 was a draft environmental impact statement on which NRC made 9 some comments and we made comments about the way in which 10 DOE handled the transportation issues.

11 And as I understand it, they are still working on 12 responses to that. We were very critical on some of the 13 transportation issues and how DOE had handled them, and 14 that's all on the record and if anybody wants a copy of 15 those comments, we can give them to you.

16 The other thing is that if we adopt that 17 environmental impact statement, then we have to look at it 18 and do our own independent analysis and there's a whole 19 process to do that.

20 If there are problems, there would have to be 21 mitigation strategies; that is, there would have to be a way 22 of lowering the risk as it's presented, if we felt that that 23 risk was not acceptable.

24 So it's not -- what we're talking about tonight is 25 what we know about transport of spent fuel as it's done

55 1 today, our standards, the Department of Transportation 2 standards for the transportation of spent fuel.

3 But that's not to say that there isn't some issues 4 that might be specific to a repository that's licensed and 5 there might be more information and more strategies on 6 transportation issues that would have to be looked at.

7 I don't want you to think, as Rick said, that we 8 think that they would just say, okay, pull up that 9 transportation cask, load it up and ship it, without the NRC 10 looking at that. We look at routes now. I think Rob has a 11 slide that he can show you of routes that we've approved the 12 physical protection.

13 Also, the states have a role in selection of 14 routes and so does the Department of Transportation set 15 standards for the selection of routes.

16 So this is not an ad hoc operation, nor is it done 17 without review by the regulators ahead of time. There is 18 also inspection which right now we accept any shipments --

19 we have inspectors who would ride on the train that went 20 from Savannah River and we had inspectors to inspect the 21 trucks before they left for INEL and another shipment --

22 there have been shipments, not many, but those of them that 23 have been approved.

24 And we have, I think, a remarkable record over 25 time where there have not been accidents involving any of 56 1 these casks where there has been a release to the public.

2 So I think that it's a very significant activity 3 that would occur and it would not occur without some review 4 by the regulation authorities. It wouldn't be, as I said, 5 ad hoc. So I can't tell you what the measures would be and 6 I can't tell you exactly what would be done, but the 7 transportation to and from a repository by DOE has to be 8 looked at and has to be done in NRC certified packaging.

9 Now, DOE does not always have to use NRC certified 10 packages. They have to meet U.S. Department of 11 Transportation regulations and they have a 12 self-certification process that looks at the NRC standards, 13 but by law, the shipments to WIPP, the waste isolation pilot 14 project in New Mexico, in Carlsbad, by law, those packages 15 have to be certified by the NRC and those packages were 16 demonstrated through physical testing.

17 They are called True Pack. We have one under 18 review called Half Pack. Those packages all have had 19 physical testing.

20 So I don't know exactly how we will review these 21 particular packages and what DOE will propose, but I want to 22 assure you that the NRC is not going to sit by and watch 23 this campaign without being heavily involved in both what 24 designs are used and how they're going to be shipped, as we 25 have been with WIPP.

57 1 So that's my answer to the question of who is 2 going to regulate.

3 Do you want to speak to emergency responders?

4 MR. CAMERON: This is very important. Also, if 5 Bill Lake wants to say anything at all, since that issue was 6 raised, Bill, let us know. Rick?

7 MR. BOYLE: I think the issue was if you had the 8 cask in an accident, I don't know if you -- I don't think 9 the response changes if you're in an accident just as a 10 spent fuel cask or if you want to add other vehicles, other 11 hazardous material, or keep building the scenario.

12 I don't think the response changes. The two sides 13 of it are what would they do now -- there's a little 14 over-simplification, but the emergency response guide that 15 is put out will have that on how to deal with all hazardous 16 material incidents.

17 So what you would see is there would be a guide 18 that's two pages long and if it were spent fuel, it would 19 tell you this is what you should do, you have to capture the 20 runoff and fight the fire with foam, water, how you should 21 give people medical treatment.

22 It's going to tell you what to do in a 23 step-by-step process. I think we have to be realistic in 24 the case you brought up. Due to equipment or training or 25 anything else, the person may say I know what this guide 58 1 tells me to do, but I can't do that, so I run. I don't 2 think it's really run, but I think a better term would be 3 they would back off and keep the situation under 4 surveillance.

5 That leads into the second part, where do you get 6 the training, where do you get the equipment. DOT -- our 7 moneys for this program aren't as vast and NRC and DOE 8 resources, but we do have a grants program which helps local 9 -- it helps local, state, anybody, to get the train they 10 need, to get limited amounts of equipment. We have that 11 grants program and I'm sure Bill could you tell you about 12 all the DOE programs that are to train emergency responders.

13 And not to jump the gun a little bit, but I'm 14 quite certain DOE will be providing or helping fund 15 equipment and training once routes are official established, 16 if they say you would have a need for more equipment or more 17 training. I'm certain funds would be available for both 18 Department of Transportation and Department of Energy to 19 improve emergency response capabilities along the routes.

20 MR. CAMERON: That's great. I think we have some 21 further questions for you here, and I have one myself.

22 Since DOT has played such a vital role in all of this, is it 23 possible that Department of Transportation might -- and 24 maybe you do, I don't know, from lack of information --

25 would do public seminars on these issues in Nye County, for

59 1 example?

2 It's something to think about. I don't want to 3 put you on the spot.

4 MR. BOYLE: I'm sure Department of Transportation 5 will be participating in numerous outreach activities, such 6 as this. Will the department come out and sponsor their own 7 on emergency response as a lead item? I think more 8 realistically, we would be participating as part of DOE or 9 NRC programs.

10 We're not the tail on this dog, but we're not the 11 whole dog, so we're trying to participate and, as we see 12 here, emergency response has come up and it certainly hasn't 13 been the dog over the last two days we've spent in this 14 area.

15 MR. CAMERON: All right. And we appreciate the 16 fact that you're here and with us on this and other issues.

17 MR. ZORN: I would just like to recommend that all 18 the truck drivers be trained radiologically, so they can 19 understand the radiation levels.

20 MR. CAMERON: I think that --

21 MR. BOYLE: That is part of our regulation and 22 part of getting your commercial driver's license with the 23 HAZMAT stamp is that you have the awareness and familiarity 24 training with what you're carrying, and that's for all 25 HAZMAT, which would cover your ammunition, as well as your 60 1 radioactive materials.

2 MR. CAMERON: And next time we're going to get a 3 long string and two tin cans, I guess.

4 Susan, you need to clarify something, but I think 5 let's let Les Bradshaw ask a question.

6 MR. BRADSHAW: Thank you. Appreciate your 7 comments. The fact is that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 8 Section 180(c), DOE is going to provide an amount of cash to 9 meet the unfunded mandate so the county can be prepared for 10 DOE's high level shipment campaign. We've already had long 11 discussions on what this county needs to be minimally 12 prepared.

13 And the amount of money that's going to be 14 provided by our DOE friends is going to be five or ten 15 percent. This is a huge problem.

16 We're talking about a 450 year campaign at Yucca 17 Mountain. There has been a good safety record, we have to 18 admit that, but the Yucca Mountain shipment campaign will 19 not be performed, by the best estimates that we can see from 20 talking to everybody, under the special conditions that 21 resulted in that squeaky clean safety record over the last 22 30 or 40 years.

23 It's just not going to happen. There are not 24 going to be escorted shipments. So it's going to be under 25 different conditions.

61 1 We applaud NRC's -- what you are doing to 2 reexamine the current conditions. I truly wish it could 3 happen, but in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act --

4 well, let me just say this. There are Congressional efforts 5 to mandate the routes, over the very road she was talking 6 about. If a truck tipped over out there, it would take 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> and hours for everyone to mobilize. It's hours and 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.

9 We've talked to DOE about this, but this is not a 10 clear-cut deal. There are no plans to provide the funds to 11 make this a very efficient operation. It's just not there.

12 We've been told that DOE thinks they're going to provide it.

13 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much for those 14 comments.

15 MR. BOYLE: Chip, if I could just comment on that.

16 One branch of the Department of Transportation that does 17 have a lot of money and that Congress is very good at 18 appropriating money is the Federal Highway to pass along to 19 build roads and bridges and name those roads and bridges 20 after themselves.

21 But unfortunately, they're not here tonight, but 22 it is our Inspector General's office who is looking at DOT's 23 role in this overall program and certainly it's premature to 24 say what's in their report, but we had a nice flight from 25 Washington out here, so I had a chance to talk to them, and 62 1 that is one of the issues that they're bringing up now, is 2 what's the impact on the infrastructure of the country with 3 these shipments from the Department of Transportation.

4 We have to be prepared through Federal Highway to 5 act on grants, I think that's what Highway calls them, 6 highway grants to build highways or to improve two-lane 7 roads to four-lane roads.

8 And I don't believe, at this point, DOE would be 9 expected to pay for every road improvement to come along.

10 It would have to be additional moneys from Federal Highway 11 and their reprioritization through Federal Highway, but that 12 probably would be another area where DOT will play a larger 13 role.

14 No doubt, we would have public hearings on where 15 we should build roads and how that money should be spent.

16 I don't have that information handy, but my phone 17 number is 202-366-2993, and I have a DOT phone book in the 18 office, so I can certainly look them up for you.

19 MR. CAMERON: I think that they mentioned -- and 20 we would hope that -- we will provide a transcript of this 21 meeting to the Inspector General, but DOT said that they 22 could see some of the issues of concern that are coming up 23 here tonight, including the 180(c) issue and emergency 24 response. So that they can look at that.

25 But I think they also said they do have a WIPP

63 1 site that you can get to, so there might be a way to do 2 that. But we'll try to get that information out to people.

3 And Rob, I think, is going to address your issues.

4 MR. LEWIS: I just have a quick point to clarify 5 about this. This map is not related to the project. This 6 is a map, and there's a small line at the bottom that you 7 probably can't read.

8 This is a map of the routes that have been used 9 for spent fuel shipments from the period of 1979 through 10 1997. It comes from a NUREG report that we published time 11 in 1997 and we periodically publish this. This represents 12 1,300 shipments, roughly.

13 And if you want a copy of that, we'll make sure 14 you get it. And I should say we're just about to reissue 15 that report. It should be out early next year or so.

16 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much. Thanks, Rob.

17 Let's go to John. Do you have a question?

18 MR. HADDER: I have a question about the study you 19 just completed, I guess, in March, 6672. John Hadder, 20 Citizen Alert.

21 I was wondering, what is routine exposure to the 22 truck driver on hauling truck casks, in the cab? Do you 23 know what that is?

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think we're going to go to 25 -- who is going to answer the routine exposure?

64 1 MR. LUNA: The routine exposure to the driver in 2 the cab is set, as I recall, by regulations, at less than 3 two millirems per hour. Typically, the dose is lower than 4 that. Jerry, can you tell me what the dose was? I think 5 RADTRAN, that is the code that was used -- sorry -- the code 6 that was used to do these calculations, estimates the dose 7 to the driver under the assumption that the dose rate was 8 two millirems per hour.

9 MR. HADDER: So if you use one millirem per hour 10 and you multiply that by the number of hours driving, then 11 we're looking at a total dose to the driver. Is that right?

12 MR. LUNA: Unless the driver -- in a cross-country 13 shipment, it might be as high as --

14 MR. HADDER: Twenty millirems?

15 MR. LUNA: Perhaps.

16 MR. CAMERON: Can you just break that down?

17 MR. HADDER: Is that right?

18 MR. LUNA: If it was one millirem per hour and 19 it's a 20-hour shipment, then it's 20 millirems. If it was 20 two millirems, it would be 40 millirems.

21 The point is that the driver in these cases, 22 depending on what the expected dose was, might be treated as 23 a radiation worker and be covered by the requirements of 24 radiation workers, which limits exposure to five rem per 25 year.

65 1 MR. HADDER: And how does this calculation figure 2 into the study when you determine your total risk?

3 MR. LUNA: The doses to the drivers were estimated 4 -- all the shipments that were looked at in this report and 5 are totaled up and one of the numbers that's in one of the 6 tables in the report.

7 MR. CAMERON: Could we get John and anybody else 8 who wants that report --

9 MR. HADDER: I can get them the report, that's not 10 a problem.

11 MR. LUNA: It's in one of the tables in the first 12 five pages of the report.

13 MR. HADDER: So that gets together to create a 14 person rem. And are you considering all the potential 15 transport miles, if there were a repository program, is that 16 also in the study?

17 MR. LUNA: All the transport miles that are in 18 this report are for shipments from representative reactors 19 to other places, and they consider about 40,000 --

20 MR. SPRUNG: I think the question is whether we 21 looked at it per year or per shipment. WE looked at it per 22 shipment, because if you knew how many -- estimate the 23 number of shipments per year, you would get --

24 MR. LUNA: But the fact of the matter is that 25 information is tabulated both on the first shipment and on 66 1 the per year basis.

2 MR. SPRUNG: Only when we did that comparison.

3 MR. CAMERON: We're only getting one side of this, 4 guys. So maybe you just want to clarify it.

5 MR. HADDER: So when you're talking about risk, 6 you're talking about risk per shipment now in this report.

7 MR. LUNA: No.

8 MR. HADDER: Okay. Let's get it straight for 9 everybody.

10 MR. LUNA: This report looks at a number of 11 shipments, both rail shipments and truck shipments, on a 12 yearly basis and it looks at a large number of routes and 13 calculates the risk from normal, incident-free and accident 14 to all the population routes. It's all summed up for all 15 the shipments that occurred in that year.

16 The information is also tabulated on a per 17 shipment basis so that it can be compared to other risk 18 assessments and other publications.

19 MR. HADDER: I guess the question I'm driving at, 20 it seems to me that if you got -- if you started adding 21 things up, the risk over the period of possibly 30 years 22 starts to start looking pretty -- a lot harsher than what's 23 in the report.

24 How do you deal with that aspect? You see, you 25 know where I'm going with this? Twenty millirems per year

67 1 times how many thousands of shipments time show many years.

2 The driver, I'm talking about the driver, and that person 3 rems, right?

4 MR. LUNA: What you have to recognize is that it's 5 not a single person that's getting all of these doses. The 6 doses are spread over a large population, crew, drivers, 7 population, et cetera, such that the dose received by any 8 individual is unlikely to be more than 100 millirem per year 9 and certainly is unlikely to be 100 millirem over the entire 10 course of the shipments.

11 MR. HADDER: So in other words, you don't really 12 add up all the person rems, do we?

13 MR. LUNA: If you'd like to multiply the yearly 14 person rem by 24 for 30 or whatever you think the duration 15 of the shipment campaign is, you can do that and get a 16 number, and it will still be a small number.

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Can we --

18 MR. HADDER: The reason I'm asking this question 19 is because, to me, this is the type of thing that the public 20 needs to understand. When you're talking about these risks 21 and you're talking about people that get exposed in their 22 truck routinely for hours and hours, how does that figure 23 out? How does that add up to such a small number?

24 And I'm not saying you did the calculation wrong.

25 I just want to make sure the public understands how this was 68 1 done.

2 MR. CAMERON: John, what we're going to do right 3 now is we're going to have Rick Boyle talk to this and also 4 Jerry wanted to say something on this. Let's hear from Rick 5 first and then we can decide on this.

6 I think we hear what your concern is and I think 7 that Rick is going to try and clarify that a little bit more 8 than Bob already has tried to.

9 MR. BOYLE: I think you bring up a valid 10 theoretical point, that if you said you had two millirems, 11 which is the legal limit at the occupied surface, what 12 they're doing, you go back to the cab as fast as you can and 13 you do a measure on that inside surface and it could be two 14 there.

15 We then come back to the inverse square or linear, 16 if you're close enough, because the driver doesn't sit with 17 is back right against that. So you're somewhat less.

18 But you bring up a point, well, if it's ten hours 19 across, whatever it is, he would get that dose. I believe 20 you're correct in your logic there.

21 What you're missing, though, is he wears badges 22 and he's under a radiation protection plan, because as a 23 worker, they have to keep it below a given limit.

24 So there' snot this dose to these drivers. There 25 is going to be a fleet of drivers. They are all under the

69 1 radiation protection plan.

2 So let me just say, to me, that would be an 3 acceptable dose. I know everybody has their own opinion on 4 what acceptable dose is, but it would be a legal dose and, 5 in my mechanical engineering sense, not a health physics 6 sense, an acceptable dose.

7 Now, let's take this one step further, because the 8 same limits that apply for spent fuel apply to the eight 9 million other shipments of radio pharmaceuticals, and those 10 are usually in very small -- it would be any one of us 11 riding in our cars around from the FedEx to the hospital, 12 and there's very little separation distance, and what 13 they're doing there is shielding cars.

14 It's very easy, I'm sure you've seen a lay when 15 you're having an X-ray, they just run it on the back of the 16 passenger seat.

17 It's very easy to shield the occupied space. So 18 you get virtually no dose. It doesn't appreciably increase.

19 I think you have to look at -- DOE would value these drivers 20 quite a bit and the training, I think they're into keeping 21 this guys up to speed and driving. They're not going to let 22 these people get obscenely high doses when it's so easy to 23 protect and shield them from this.

24 I'm sure Jerry is very prepared to discuss maybe 25 the policy of how you actually calculate the dose, but I 70 1 think the whole issue is a little more theoretical than 2 real.

3 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Rick, for that 4 explanation. Now we're going to have another piece of this, 5 Jerry Sprung, from Sandia.

6 MR. SPRUNG: I just want to say two things here.

7 The government always worries about people. Those are the 8 workers, for instance, at Sandia Labs, where we have 9 reactors, we monitor very carefully and when you get to a 10 maximum dose -- you're out of there for the rest of the 11 year. If there was an accident and you got five rem, you go 12 someplace else.

13 Now, when we do the calculation, it assumes there 14 are people in the cars driving beside the truck, there are 15 people beside the road, there are people in truck stops. By 16 the way, the way fuel shipments are actually made, they 17 drive without stopping. They do not stop at rest stops.

18 They drive through from the east coast to the west coast and 19 do not stop, two drivers.

20 This is an attempt to minimize exposure to people 21 on the road. The driver doesn't sit in one place for a long 22 period of time.

23 We can calculate the amount of dose in the general 24 population. The dose we are talking about is a total dose 25 received by anyone on the route, if they're driving on the

71 1 road, next to the route, happen to be at the rest stop where 2 the truck driver stopped to use the restroom.

3 Now, the question always come up here, now, 4 suppose I live next to the route that allows these shipments 5 to go by over a long period of time, how much dose will I 6 accumulate.

7 Well, ten rem at two meters, 50 feet is getting 8 smaller. What I'm trying to tell you is the chance of you 9 being right next to that cask as an individual every time 10 that cask comes by is really very small.

11 I don't know how to tell you it's impossible, but 12 at least we have to ask are we worried about something which 13 could really happen or are we just worried about something 14 that has a theoretical possibility.

15 Somebody, if they made a lifetime career of 16 driving by a spent fuel cask would accumulate a lot of dose.

17 That's not going to happen and for the general public, no 18 one person over time, even three or four decades will get a 19 dose like that.

20 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Jerry. I do want to hear 21 from Bill Lake, from DOE, who hasn't spoken yet. Bill, 22 could we have you take that?

23 MR. LAKE: Yes. John, you have a very good 24 question, one that we're aware of at DOE, and the question 25 of exposure is real.

72 1 The analyses we have done, the environmental 2 impact statement, so on and so forth, as others have stated, 3 did not look at individual, they look at a fictitious 4 individual, if you will.

5 So what we really have to do is talk about this, 6 that among what the real scene is going to be, what the 7 operation involves, we'll take a much closer look at that.

8 But we don't have that kind of specificity at this 9 point. That's the unknowns in this process.

10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Bill. Willy?

11 MR. FRAGOSA: On the way over here, we were 12 talking about different things and we discussed something 13 that could happen in the future, that the operators of the 14 nuclear plants may, at some point, want to reuse that spent 15 fuel again in some way.

16 We transport it all the way here and then we have 17 to transport it back again, what are we doing there?

18 I want to just say this for the record, again, as 19 I did last night, that I'm opposed to any of the 20 transportation or, once again, our position is that no 21 transportation at all, leave it on-site, work it out so you 22 can keep it on-site. That's the position, because we just 23 feel that there's -- we just don't want to see anymore 24 created.

25 That's one thing that could happen.

73 1 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Willy.

2 MR. FRAGOSA: More of a comment than a question.

3 MR. CAMERON: A comment, too. Two positions, 4 don't ship it, keep it on-site, and don't create anymore.

5 You also were talking about a -- speculating on 6 the way over about a spill of the waste being transported, 7 for example, to a licensed repository.

8 We do have someone here from our technical staff 9 that works on high level waste. Do you want to say anything 10 about the retrievability option and whether this speculation 11 we're talking about is a possibility?

12 In other words, the waste is shipped to Yucca 13 Mountain, and, Willy, I don't know if this was in your 14 hypothetical, but it's shipped to Yucca Mountain, it's 15 disposed of at Yucca Mountain, and then retrieved. Is that 16 -- Tim, do you want to just talk basically about the 17 retrieval?

18 I don't know if it would be helpful, but maybe it 19 would be.

20 MR. McCARTEN: Tim McCarten, with Division of 21 Waste Management. Yucca Mountain currently -- they ship out 22 here what they plan for the future of shipping. You are 23 correct in that there is a retrievability aspect to the 24 repository. That's in the event that some people -- during 25 the construction of the repository, after some of the waste 74 1 has been replaced, after the period of performance 2 confirmation, and suggests that the public health and safety 3 is not protected with the waste -- and a week to remove the 4 waste and take it somewhere else.

5 That is a possibility, but it is not planned that 6 we would do retrieval. It would only be that if Yucca 7 Mountain does make it through the licensing process.

8 MR. FRAGOSA: I just raise that because I know 9 that once again, it's who we're dealing with. I'm not 10 talking about you folks, but it's the people that run these 11 places. They don't have any regard for human life, it seems 12 sometimes.

13 They're willing to put us in too much risk for 14 profit. Just a comment.

15 MR. CAMERON: And those people have to live within 16 the regulations I think is one of your points.

17 Well, thanks. Thanks.

18 MR. McCARTEN: And one other small point. People 19 talk about emergency prepared. If Yucca Mountain is 20 authorized for a repository site and they do submit a 21 license application, Part 63 of our regulation for disposal 22 at Yucca Mountain does have an emergency requirement, as in 23 plan. There are requirements that they must meet for 24 emergency planning, for the operation of Yucca Mountain.

25 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Tim. We're getting towards

75 1 the end of our time, but I want to go to Kylinda and others 2 who -- give people one last shot at questions here. Nancy, 3 I don't know if you have anything else to say.

4 But, Kylinda, why don't you tell us what's on your 5 mind.

6 MS. TILGES: Just three comments. You, and, I'm 7 sorry, I don't remember your name, had just said that Yucca 8 Mountain, if it was used, would be permanent deep geologic 9 disposal.

10 Well, I sat at a table face to face with Ivan 11 Itkin, the director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 12 Waste Management, director of the program, and apparently he 13 has a different idea.

14 He's working on a flexible design for the 15 repository in case -- for monitored retrievable storage, is 16 what he told me and a group of other people, in case there 17 was a need 20 to 50 years in the future for possible future 18 use.

19 This is what he told me. So maybe the departments 20 are confused somewhere.

21 And the comment I had to make was the safety and 22 radiation monitoring, the crew and drivers of the casks. I 23 hope it's going to be a better safety and cash-in plan and 24 monitoring program than the nuclear workers who are eligible 25 for compensation right now for their safety and protection 76 1 plans.

2 And my third comment is Department of Energy does 3 not have a sparkling clean transportation record. Along 4 with the literature up there, there is a four to five page 5 report from the DOE's web site on 72 incidents involving 6 spent nuclear fuel shipments from 1946 to 1996. It's 7 interesting reading.

8 It's very difficult to find on their web site, but 9 it is there, and that's the end of my comments.

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much, Kylinda.

11 I'll leave it to the DOE personnel here to look in that 12 regard. Thank you, Kylinda. Grant?

13 MR. HUDLOW: Thank you. I'd be remiss if I didn't 14 mention one more thing along this retrievability line. The 15 so-called waste, under technology that's being checked out 16 against Los Alamos, it was checked out at Livermore in the 17 '60s, Los Alamos in the '80s, there's several different ways 18 of doing that.

19 It's a trillion dollars worth of electricity and, 20 to me, it's a no brainer that you don't take a trillion 21 dollars and throw it in a hole and it's going to go into our 22 water within 25 to 50 years.

23 The investment in that is like DOE estimates of 24 $287 billion that's readily available in the investment 25 community. That isn't a problem at all. They make a

77 1 trillion dollars on it, they'll put 287 billion in capital 2 equipment.

3 And I think we need -- that needs to be in the 4 record, that needs to be stated over and over again, because 5 we've had a lot of nonsense because the experiments -- and 6 now we've finally broken them out of the classification 7 system, part of them, part of them are out of it, and it's a 8 very viable thing.

9 I can't believe they don't realize that. We 10 politically have to get the stuff away from those nuclear 11 plants, because those people there are having a fit, the 12 governors and so forth. But if we put it in a hole, it 13 doesn't make any sense at all when there's a trillion 14 dollars sitting there.

15 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Grant. Another 16 alternative. Do any of you gentlemen want to say anything 17 before we break up tonight? I'm not trying to force you to 18 do so, I just wanted to give you an opportunity. Zorn or 19 Les, any final comments?

20 Susan and John, do you have anything final to say?

21 Then I'm going to turn it over to Susan to close this out.

22 MR. HADDER: One of the things I want to say, that 23 Citizen Alert is very happy to see NRC doing this kind of 24 process. This is something we haven't seen in the past and 25 we're very happy to see it and hope it continues.

78 1 We do wish that the process had been done for the report 2 that was finished this past year, 6672, and in fact, that 3 sheet that was passed out to folks are criticisms from the 4 State of Nevada on this report.

5 So understand that not everyone agrees that it's 6 all it says it is. So with that, I'm going to call the 7 state for their comments, and I'm sure Sandia and so forth 8 will respond to those, as well.

9 I'm very happy to see this process happening. One 10 thing I would like to point out, in the discussion we had 11 earlier, using risk as an example of one of the things we 12 have to improve on in the public process.

13 I don't think the people in this room have a clear 14 understanding of where that number comes from exactly, 15 because it seemed like, based on what was said, you start 16 adding up the numbers and they don't work into some back of 17 the envelope calculation.

18 I'm not saying because it was done wrong in the 19 report. I'm just saying there's a lack of clarity there.

20 And when you report something like risks are less than so 21 forth, it needs to be clearly explained so people can 22 understand where it comes from.

23 Maybe we can talk further about how better to do 24 that. So when you indicate results in your report, I think 25 you need to be a little more careful with that.

79 1 I would also point out that the -- with all due 2 respect to all presenters, there does appear to be some 3 inherent bias in supporting and trying to lay potential 4 fears around nuclear materials.

5 Yeah, I think that they're all scary in some way 6 or another, but I wish that sometimes the presentations were 7 a little more straightforward.

8 For example, the ten millirem per hour could have 9 been easily explained by saying let's make it a chest X-ray 10 instead of comparing it to background radiation levels and 11 making it sound less than what it is. Use something 12 concrete and real that people can understand, for instance.

13 So that's the only comment that I would add.

14 Also, the physical tests that were done in the 15 past didn't all come out exactly as jolly as we all hoped.

16 In fact, some of the tests were cut off before the casks 17 actually failed just past the regulatory limit.

18 So I'm not saying those are great casks or 19 anything, but the record on the cask testing, there is more 20 to it than what you see in some of the films and stuff. And 21 so understand that.

22 And I really applaud the effort to move forward on 23 full scale testing, but as I've said before, we want to make 24 sure that it's done and makes sense and connects to things 25 that everyone can understand.

80 1 That's basically the only other comments that I 2 had. Again, we really hope this kind of process continues 3 in the future and we hope that it is sincere. I hope it is.

4 It seems like it is. We'll see when things wrap up.

5 Thanks a lot for taking the time out. Appreciate 6 it.

7 MR. CAMERON: And thank you for being here. I 8 think that we can say that it is sincere.

9 MR. FRAGOSA: Let me just add one more. I just 10 wanted to say one more thing along the lines of what John 11 was talking about.

12 Perhaps when you put the report together, you 13 could put another supplement to that, something else that's 14 a little more plainer language, so that people that aren't 15 technically proficient can understand something that's in 16 there, because I look at that, I throw it aside and won't 17 ever do a thing with it. Make it for numbskulls, spell it 18 out.

19 MR. CAMERON: Books for the complete idiot, right?

20 I used to lots of times -- okay. I want to point out that 21 that's one of the objectives that we have with the summary 22 paper that Bob Luna is working on and I think we got a lot 23 of good comment on it.

24 So thank you for that.

25 MS. SHANKMAN: I want to thank you all for being

81 1 candid and being here.

2 The other thing, it is a very serious subject and 3 I don't want to minimize the seriousness of it, but I didn't 4 believe the transport of radioactive material that's 5 licensed by NRC is done safely -- we have a good record.

6 We talked a little bit about the radio 7 pharmaceutical shipments that meet the same standard that 8 we're talking about. Those shipments are being every 9 morning from places like Synbrook, which is a radio 10 pharmaceutical company that makes individual doses for the 11 hospitals, and there are millions of shipments made every 12 day, every morning, they leave the pharmacy at 2:00 a.m. and 13 they're at the hospital by 7:00 a.m.

14 So I don't want you to think that -- the concept, 15 the concept of shipping radioactive material is something 16 that has been done and has been done over and over again.

17 At the same time, I know there are unique 18 conditions, much larger packages we're talking about.

19 That's what we're trying to do.

20 So I hope we continue the dialogue.

21 Anyway, thank you all for being here.

22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.

23 [Whereupon, at 9:30 p.m., the meeting was 24 concluded.]

25