March 12, 1999
Kelvin Kelkenberg
Acting Director
Office of Transportation and Emergency Management
U.S. Department of Energy, EM-76
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
Dear Mr. Kelkenberg:
Thank you for the opportunity to assist with DOE's efforts to review and standardize its transportation protocols. Based on the preliminary information provided to us in 17 protocol areas, we offer the following comments:
As an integral part of developing its transportation protocols, DOE needs to develop a consistent method for coordinating with states in developing transportation plans for its various radioactive waste and material shipping campaigns. The need for the development of such transportation plans was one of several consensus policy positions developed by five of DOE's regional cooperative-agreement groups. These groups, representing over 40 states, include: the Western Interstate Energy Board's High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee, the Council of State Governments' Midwestern High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee and Northeastern High-Level Radioactive Waste Transportation Task Force, and the Southern States Energy Board's Advisory Committee on Radioactive Materials Transportation and Transuranic Waste Transportation Working Group. In a letter sent to Energy Secretary Peņa in March 1998, these groups agreed that a consistent method for state/DOE coordination can be applied across the various transportation programs, that the WIPP Transportation Safety Program Implementation Guide is an excellent framework for transportation planning, and a similar document should be used as a base document for DOE's various transportation programs.
We recommend, therefore, that the TEC/WG Protocols Topic Group review the WIPP Transportation Safety Program Implementation Guide and develop its protocols with reference to the provisions in that document. Within this process, we suggest the following five protocols be addressed first: 1) public information; 2) weather/road conditions; 3) training; 4) emergency notification; and 5) crisis communications. The public information protocols need to directly and fully address the issue of coordination of public information during an emergency. It is not sufficient to say that a public information plan will be developed for a specific shipping campaign. Weather and road conditions are also an important issue for Western states. Our goal is for "safe and uneventful" transport of radioactive materials. We don't believe current weather protocols – primarily for low-level and mixed low-level shipments – are necessarily sufficient to meet this standard. Training is another important issue for Western states. While we have seen considerable progress in recent years, and are encouraged by the development of the 17 module self-study program through TEPP and HAMMER, training continues to be an issue that needs additional review. Emergency notifications and crisis communications are areas which traditionally break down during actual incidents and therefore are a priority as well.
One area which also needs to be discussed is the issue of extra-regulatory procedures, and how they might relate to certain shipping campaigns. While we would not expect procedures for low-level and mixed low-level shipments to match the procedures that have been developed for WIPP shipments, there are numerous areas which need discussion and evaluation.
For example, Western states have repeatedly requested that DOE develop a sound methodology for evaluating optional mixes of routes, and transportation modes to identify the best shipping route, and force its carriers – through the terms of its contracting agreements – to exclusively use those routes. This allows the states to focus their emergency response training and equipment along a few select routes, instead of being forced to dilute its coverage.
In 1998, the TEC/WG Routing Topic Group developed a routing paper with stakeholder recommendations to DOE which reiterate the necessity of developing a standardized, cooperative approach to route selection for all unclassified shipping campaigns involving radioactive materials. The stakeholders also recommended that certain minimum elements be included in any such standardized approach, including: proposal of preliminary primary and secondary routes to states and tribes for their review and comment, and inclusion of approved routes in mandatory contract provisions with carriers.
Selection of the transportation mode should be added as a protocol and should be clearly defined. Modal selection does not appear to be covered by any of the current protocols. As the Committee has previously stated to DOE, conducting a modal analysis is an integral part of the routing analysis which DOE needs to prepare. The Committee's position is echoed in the Department of Transportation's recently released Identification of Factors for Selecting Modes and Routes for Shipping High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, (Mode and Route Study). In attempting to develop a comprehensive list of factors to be used when selecting modes and routes, the DOT study found that routing and modal issues were intertwined and that "[f]or most factors, it was difficult to separate mode from route considerations."
Cask testing should also be added as a protocol. DOE should define the circumstances in which full-scale cask testing would be used in new transportation cask development.
Extra regulatory measures should also be considered with regard to pre-notification of shipments. While states do not expect pre-notification of each low-level or mixed low-level shipment, they would like to see some type of notification – perhaps on a monthly basis – to provide information about the number and types of shipments that are anticipated.
The Western states would also like to see a re-examination of technical assistance and emergency preparedness activities for Nuclear Waste Policy Act shipments. We strongly disagree with DOE's current interpretation of how it will provide assistance under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and we would very much like to reopen discussions on this issue.
We look forward to participating in this process. If you have any questions about these comments, please feel free to contact either of us.
Sincerely,
Ken Niles
Co-Chair
Western Interstate Energy Board
High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee
503/378-4906
Dale DeCesare
Policy Analyst
Western Interstate Energy Board
High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee
303/573-8910