The High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee (the Committee) offers the following initial comments on Revision 0 of the Transportation Contingency Plan for Limited Capacity Shipment. The Committee is pleased that the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) has released an initial version of its Transportation Contingency Plan. An open dialogue involving OCRWM and states on the scope and timing of activities which need to be undertaken for near-term shipments under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is long overdue. The issue of preparing for shipments prior to 2010 has taken on new urgency given pending litigation and legislation to force OCRWM to begin moving spent fuel in 1998. The Committee offers these initial comments based on a brief review of Revision 0 in order that OCRWM may have the benefit of our views as it prepares Revision 1.

The Committee disagrees with the conclusion of the Contingency Plan that "[o]ptimistically, it will take a little more than 12 months to successfully develop and be prepared to execute a shipping campaign or series of campaigns, in accordance with this scenario." The Committee finds little in the body of the Plan to support this conclusion. The experience of Committee members with similar shipping campaigns confirms the unrealistic timeframes outlined in the report.

The Committee has focused its review on section 2.1.6 Institutional Considerations. Routing While understating the effort needed to establish shipping routes, the Plan appropriately acknowledges that "[i]t is difficult to predict how long this [routing] process will take considering the unknowns and the potential opposition to the shipments."

The Plan relies on DOE's department-wide effort to developing routing policies, but then notes that "...on short notice, another approach may be necessary." As outlined in its April 28, 1995 comments, the Committee believes there are serious shortcomings in the highway and rail routing discussion papers. Rectifying these shortcomings will take some time and effort. Particularly troublesome with the statement quoted above is that another (undefined) approach may be necessary. The Committee believes the Plan must state what that approach would be.

The Committee agrees that in addition to selecting routes for the entire program, OCRWM will need to coordinate work on identified routes.

Emergency Preparedness

The Committee disagrees with any attempt by OCRWM to ignore its commitment to provide Section 180(c) assistance at least three years prior to shipment. According to the Plan, "[w]hile work must continue toward this long range goal [providing Section 180(c) assistance at least three years prior to shipment], an interim solution will be required to support the proposed scenario." (P. 14) The schedule in the Plan shows adoption of a Section 180(c) policy in April 1995 and conducting emergency preparedness activities beginning in October. Meeting this schedule is highly improbable given that it is already May. The comment period on the Section 180(c) Notice of Inquiry does not close until May and there is no budget request pending in Congress to support grants to states beginning October 1. Even if the rules to implement Section 180(c) and appropriations were in place by October 1, 1995, to whom would OCRWM send the checks? One needs to know the shipping routes before one can target Section 180(c) assistance. The alternative is to send checks to all states and tribes, which would be very wasteful.

In addition, how and when will training courses, training materials, and training instructors be prepared? Even after such preparations are made, first responders must still be trained. This will take a considerable amount of additional time because there will be competition for limited training time, especially for volunteer organizations. Furthermore, training alone will not ensure that an adequate emergency response program is in place. Based on past experience with conducting WIPPTREX exercises, the Committee feels that training, by itself, has only a limited value unless it is linked to some type of exercise program which can evaluate proposed plans, procedures, and responsibilities to ensure that they function properly.

Finally, the Plan states that "[c]onsidering the small number of shipments, based on cask availability, it is feasible to focus efforts on those routes to be used for the first year. At least a year will be required to contract for the requisite personnel and equipment and conduct the necessary organization and training." The Committee seeks clarification of what is meant by "contract for the required personnel and equipment." Is this OCRWM contracting for personnel and equipment? If so, what purpose is being served? Our experience is that more than one year will be required to execute such contracts, undertake the necessary organizational activities and train necessary personnel.

Full Scale Cask Testing

The Committee believes that the Plan correctly characterizes potential opposition to the use of existing casks which have not been subject to full-scale cask testing. We also agree with the statement that, "[i]f, however, the GA-4/9 or NAC STC casks are going to be employed early on, the call for testing a full-scale model will be raised quite strongly and must be addressed." (p. 14) We note, however, that the schedule does not identify any time allocated for full-scale cask testing.

Tracking and Communications Technology

The Committee believes that the existing tracking and communications technology and capabilities will not satisfy needs under the NWPA. Based on past experience, the Committee believes that TRANSCOM needs to be upgraded. (p. 9) Instability with the TRANSCOM system became apparent when multiple users were on the system at the same time during a safe parking evaluation conducted for cesium shipments. Only a few western states and tribes are currently using TRANSCOM. The Committee believes that the system will be unable to operate properly if all the states and tribes along spent fuel shipment routes attempt to use it to track shipments. The Contingency Plan should address how TRANSCOM's hardware and software can be upgraded to handle a multitude of new users. The Plan should also provide for the training of new users on TRANSCOM.

Other Comments

While we agree that the most likely mode for limited shipments in the near-term would be highway, we do not believe the modal decision should be based on expediency instead of safety. (p. 1)

The Plan assumes Congressional designation of an interim storage site in mid-1995. At present, this appears highly unlikely. (p. 1)

We seriously doubt that OCRWM could accept 400 MTU at the interim storage facility in its first year of operation. Using existing truck casks, this would require 1,148 cask shipments (654 BWR and 494 PWR). We agree with the statement that "[b]ecause of possible Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System facility or Transportation Subsystem limitations, it may be necessary to modify the amount of spent nuclear fuel accepted." (p. 1)

We disagree with the statement that under the compressed transportation schedule "...the Transportation Subsystem will include all elements essential for a safe and responsible system." (p. 2)

Regarding traffic management, we agree that "[s]ufficient time must be made available between the [carrier] contract award and actual operations to allow for thorough training for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System contract and Purchaser personnel." (p. 2) Time should also be allotted for coordination between traffic management, the carrier, and states/tribes along the route.

The Plan states that "[t]he number of both existing and new casks that will be required can only be determined when decisions are made on the quantity of spent nuclear fuel to be shipped, followed by direct interaction with the affected utilities to ascertain their specific modal intentions." (p. 4) How will OCRWM determine the quantity of spent fuel to be shipped? If a utility prefers to ship by rail, but no rail shipping capacity is available, will the utility be bypassed in the pickup queue?

The Plan notes that minor modifications will be required for production of new NAC legal weight truck casks and that semi-trailers necessary to transport these casks must be designed and fabricated. Will the modifications require a review by the NRC of the Certificate of Compliance? The schedule does not specifically spell out the time needed for development of new semi-trailers — or is that part of the mid-1995 procurement activity for the existing NAC casks? (p. 4)

Regarding Multi-Purpose Canister Transportation Casks, the Plan appears to be inconsistent. It states, "[t]his scenario assumes that a limited number of loaded multi-purpose canisters will be transported during 1998," but then adds that "[i]t is unlikely that the current schedule can be increased to produce operational multi-purpose canister transportation casks by 1998." (p. 5) What is OCRWM's expectation? Will transportable MPCs be available by 1998 or not?

The development of draft campaign-specific plans will need to begin more than 12 months prior to shipment, particularly for the initial shipments from each origin site. (p. 7) We agree on the need to develop specific check lists of required plan information, plan formats, points of coordination and hardware and software requirements. Such details need to be developed in coordination with affected states.

DOE should also work with affected states to draw on past experiences which can aid in developing current DOE transportation plans. For instance, elements from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and Cesium shipment plans should be referenced and, where appropriate, incorporated into the Transportation Contingency Plan.

Regarding long-term planning, the Committee disagrees with the statement that "[a]n alternate solution would be to contract the entire planning responsibility to an appropriate company." (p. 7)

We agree with the statement on page 8 that the use of a common motor carrier for shipments is not advisable and would generate "unfavorable public exposure."

The Committee believes that negotiations with railroads need to begin more than two years prior to shipments, particularly if the selection of the rail route to be used is part of the negotiations. (p. 8) We make the same observations regarding intermodal services. (p. 9)

We agree with the observation regarding training and technical support that, "[t]he effort would not be wasted, since such support will eventually be required for the baseline Transportation System." (p. 11) This observation applies to other potential investments under the Plan as well.

The Committee believes that OCRWM's supporting plans under the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan should be developed in close consultation with states. (p. 12)

The Committee requests copies of several documents referenced in the Plan, specifically, the draft Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Transportation Subsystem Maintenance Management Plan prepared in FY 94, the draft Statement of Work for a potential highway carrier service Request for Proposals prepared in FY 94, and the draft Site-Specific Servicing Plan developed in FY 94.

Conclusion

The Committee appreciates OCRWM's release of the first version of the Contingency Plan and believes that it is a long-needed first step in establishing a dialogue on actions needed to prepare for NWPA shipments prior to 2010. The Committee looks forward to reviewing future versions of the Plan, and believes that there are key elements of the Contingency Plan, such as the specification of action items, which should become part of an OCRWM comprehensive transportation plan.

However, in its current form, the Plan is not realistic. It lists items which require action, yet provides little or no analysis of how these actions are to be accomplished within the established timeframe. The analysis contained in the body of the Plan does not justify the conclusion that DOE can be prepared to ship significant quantities of spent fuel beginning in 1998. The Committee firmly believes that the careful implementation of a safe and effective transportation plan must not be compromised. The way in which shipments are handled early in the program will establish the public's perception and acceptance of shipping campaigns in the future. If mistakes are made early in the shipping process, the cost to the NWPA program will be much greater in the long-run.