WIEB High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee Comments on the Scope of the Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (PFS) Environmental Impact Statement

June 19, 1998

Dr. Edward Y. Shum
Environmental Project Manager
Spent Fuel Licensing Section
Spent Fuel Project Office
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555

RE: Scope of the Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (PFS) Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Dr. Shum:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) Committee of the Western Interstate Energy Board. The Board is appointed by the governors of the participating states. The HLW Committee of the Board is comprised of representatives from 11 western states who have experience and expertise in nuclear waste transportation. The Committee has been involved in examining issues associated with the transportation of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste over the past 15 years and has over that time offered the U.S. Department of Energy comments on preparations for potential shipments of SNF and HLW under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Based on this experience, the Committee and the Western Governors' Association have identified key elements that are necessary for the safe and uneventful shipment of spent nuclear fuel. These include evaluation of alternative shipping modes and routes and assessment and mitigation of risks to corridor communities. The Committee urges NRC to include a full and complete analysis of the impacts of transportation in the PFS EIS.

The Committee believes:

1. There are inescapable parallels and linkages between the PFS proposal and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA);

2. The requirements for a safe and uneventful shipping campaign under the PFS proposal and under the NWPA are essentially the same;

3. It is unreasonable and may violate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements to limit the scope of the PFS EIS to systematically exclude an evaluation of major transportation impacts resulting from the PFS proposal; and

4. The scope of the PFS EIS must include an evaluation of transportation alternatives and impacts.

Similarities of the PFS Proposal to Shipments Under the NWPA

The PFS proposal is being advanced because of the failure of the federal government to accept spent nuclear fuel in 1998 under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Many, if not all, of the impacts on corridor states from SNF shipments to a potential repository (e.g.,Yucca Mountain) would be present in shipments to the proposed Private Fuel Storage facility in Utah. It is likely that many of the transportation corridors will be the same and the potential impacts on transit communities will be the same.

For example:

• The unprecedented volume of spent fuel to be shipped under the PFS proposal (40,000 metric tons initially with possibly another 40,000 metric tons later) is of a similar magnitude as proposed shipments under the NWPA (70,000 metric tons). In both cases, the magnitude of shipments resulting from the operation of the proposed storage facility will be many times greater than has previously been experienced in the history of nuclear waste transportation in the United States. We would also note that, even under PFS's preferred scenario involving only rail shipments, a number of reactors likely to ship under the PFS proposal do not have rail access and may require truck shipment. If the SNF is shipped by truck, the number of individual shipments would increase substantially beyond PFS's expectations.

• The type of material to be shipped under the PFS proposal is the same as that which would be shipped under the NWPA.

• All the PFS shipping origins are also projected origins under the NWPA.

• The range of potential routes to be used under the PFS proposal is similar to those available for shipments under the NWPA proposal.

• The distance shipments would have to travel under the PFS proposal is comparable to the distance of potential shipments under the NWPA. In both cases the shipments will traverse numerous states and impact numerous corridor communities.

• The potential carriers used by PFS are the same as those that would be used under the NWPA.

• The potential impact to the public and the environment in the event of a severe transportation accident would be similar for both PFS and NWPA shipments.

These similarities dictate that the key elements identified by both the HLW Committee and western governors as necessary for a successful shipping campaign under the NWPA must also apply to shipments to the proposed PFS facility.

Comparison of What Is Needed Under the NWPA and the PFS Proposal

The following table provides an overview comparison of the views of western states on actions needed for safe and uneventful shipments under the NWPA and actions likely to be taken under the PFS proposal. Attached to these comments are the referenced resolutions adopted by the Western Governors' Association.

Transportation Element	Actions necessary for safe and uneventful shipment under the NWPA (per WGA policies)	Required under the PFS proposal
Transportation Planning	In Resolution 89-024, WGA states that spent nuclear fuel should remain at commercial facilities until there is an acceptable transportation plan for shipping to western disposal sites and until there is adequate infrastructure capacity to handle and dispose of the waste.	None.
Mode and route analysis and selection	In Resolution 93-003 and 95-020, WGA calls on DOE to "develop a sound methodology for evaluating optional mixes of routes and transportation modes." In Resolution 96-019, WGA continues to insist that DOE "identified shipping routes" before shipments began.	None. The only requirement is the NRC safeguards requirement which does not include an analysis of the overall safety of alternative routes and modes. The NRC has never denied a proposed shipping route.
Assistance to state, tribal and local governments	In Resolution 93-003, WGA calls on DOE to "fulfill emergency preparedness requirements (sec. 180)." In Resolution 97-015, WGA calls on DOE to promulgate regulations which would prohibit shipments if "funds and assistance have not been made available to states and tribes." In Resolution 95-020, WGA calls for technical assistance and training funds and a prohibition on shipments to an interim storage facility unless the funds were provided. In Resolution 96-019, WGA finds DOE policies for implementing 180(c) inadequate and that states must be "fully compensated..."	None.
Operational elements	In Resolution 89-024, WGA calls for DOE to develop an "acceptable transportation plan." In Resolution 92-004, WGA urges DOE to apply lessons learned through the WIPP safety program to other DOE shipping campaigns. In Resolution 95-020, WGA again calls for a "comprehensive transportation plan."	None.
Cask testing	In Resolution 93-003 and 95-020, WGA calls for DOE to conduct full-scale cask testing	None.

The western governors have thus made clear that a comprehensive transportation plan is necessary for a shipping campaign of the magnitude contemplated for the NWPA or under the PFS proposal. Such a plan would: evaluate alternative shipping modes and routes to determine the safest combination of shipping mode and route; identify assistance that will be needed to ensure communities along shipping routes are prepared1 ; and establish operating protocols (e.g., advance notification procedures, real-time tracking mechanism; carrier operating protocols such as speed limits, pre-shipment route inspection procedures; emergency response protocols; safe parking procedures).

The PFS EIS should undertake much of the analysis contemplated in a comprehensive transportation plan and incorporate the results as the preferred alternative in the EIS.

The Scope of the PFS EIS Must be Expanded to Include an Evaluation of Transportation Alternatives and Impacts

Under the PFS proposal, the EIS is the only vehicle for a comprehensive evaluation of impacts of transportation alternatives. To the knowledge of the HLW Committee, PFS is not under any other legal obligation to present a comprehensive evaluation of its proposal. Segmenting the impacts of the PFS proposal (e.g., excluding transportation outside the "region," excluding an evaluation of backhauling after storage) not only denies the states and the public a

comprehensive assessment of the PFS proposal, but it may also violate NEPA.2

The HLW Committee of the Western Interstate Energy Board believes that the scope of the PFS EIS must include, at a minimum, the following:3

• An analysis of alternative transportation modes and routes. The analysis of routes should include not only the traditional assessment of distance, population exposure and time in transit, but should also examine factors which could (a) threaten the integrity of the cask, (b) pose problems in the recovery from an accident which did not result in a release of radioactive materials, and (c) cause delays in transit. The analysis of modes and routes should take into account recent work by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act.

• An analysis of alternative operating protocols. For example, the EIS should consider the impacts of using special train protocols (dedicated trains traveling a maximum of 35 mph with one train stopping when another train passes)

• An analysis of the level of emergency preparedness along the likely shipping routes.

• An analysis of the impact of alternative shipping casks on shipment numbers and safety.

• An analysis of requisite coordination and communications with DOE's Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program and with affected states and tribes.

• An analysis of the impacts from moving the spent fuel after its storage period (believed to be 20 years, or possibly 40 years, under the contract) either back to its origin or to a repository. Such an analysis would include the effects of fuel decay and degradation.

• An analysis comparing the impacts of extended at-reactor SNF storage versus transport to a centralized interim SNF storage facility.

The HLW Committee appreciates this opportunity to provide the NRC with comments on the scope of the PFS environmental impact statement.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Ken Niles, Co-Chair

[signed]

Captain Allan Turner, Co-Chair

cc:
Western Governors' Association
HLW Committee

1 As illustrated by the enactment of the NWPA, it is Congress' intent to assist state and local governments in preparing for large-scale SNF/HLW shipments. In NWPA Section 180(c) Congress mandated that DOE provide such assistance for training to "cover procedures required for safe routine transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing with emergency response situations."

2 For example, under 40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1) of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the scope of an EIS may depend on its relationship to other connected actions. According to the regulations, actions "...are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement" if they:

"(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements;
"(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously;
"(iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification."

The HLW Committee believes that these conditions apply in the case of transportation to the proposed PFS storage facility. For example, states along the transportation routes need to be prepared for shipments.

3 In the NWPA program, DOE has committed to conduct such an analysis as part of a repository EIS. In Volume III of the Yucca Mountain Environmental Assessment, which was conducted in 1986, DOE stated that, "[t]he DOE believes that the general methods and national average data used are adequate for this stage of the repository-siting process. Route-specific analyses and an evaluation of the impacts on host States and States along transportation corridors will be included in the environmental impact statement. The route-specific analyses to be performed in the future will proceed in the following sequence: (1) define important parameters; (2) gather data; (3) develop models as required; (4) perform analysis; (5) consider mitigating measures; (6) report results." At a minimum, the PFS EIS should incorporate the same analysis as was committed to by DOE for NWPA shipments.