1 
 
              1      
 
              2      
 
              3            BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
 
              4          SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS
 
              5                     ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION 
 
              6      
 
              7                         Taken at the  
  
              8                  Henderson Convention Center 
 
              9                        200 Water Street 
 
             10                      Henderson, Nevada   
 
             11      
  
             12                     Taken on the date of: 
 
             13                  Wednesday, December 8, 1999 
 
             14      
 
             15      
  
             16    START TIME:    8:40 o'clock, a.m. 
 
             17    Sandia National Laboratories 
 
             18    Sandia Corporation 
 
             19    Department 6141, MS-0718 
  
             20    Albuquerque, New Mexico  87185-0178 
 
             21    Phone number: 505-84-4791 
 
             22    Reported by Stella Butterfield, CCR7  
 

 
                                                                          2 
 
              1    APPEARANCES: 
 
              2         Facilitator: 
 
              3              CHIP CAMERON, Special Counsel/Public Liaison 
  
              4              Office of the General Counsel Nuclear 
 
              5              Regulatory Commission 
 
              6      
 
              7              SUSAN S. SHANKMAN, Deputy Director Spent Fuel 
  
              8              Project Office Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
 
              9      
 
             10              ROBERT LEWIS, Spent Fuel Transportation 
 
             11              Studies Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
  
             12      
 
             13    Morning session page: 3 
 
             14    Afternoon session page: 192 
 
             15      
  
             16                            -  0  - 
 
             17      
 
             18      
 
             19      
  
             20      
 
             21      
 
             22       
 
 
 
                                                                          3 
 
              1                     P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  Good morning, everybody.  We're
 
              3    going to get started now.  My name is Chip Cameron and I 
  
              4    am the Special Counsel and Public Liaison at the Office 
 
              5    of the General Counsel of the Nuclear Regulatory 
 
              6    Commission.  And I'd like to welcome all of you to the 
 
              7    meeting on Spent Fuel Transportation Package 
  
              8    Performance.  I'm pleased to serve as your facilitator 
 
              9    today. 
 
             10                   And what I'd like to briefly cover before 
 
             11    we get started are the workshop objectives, my role as 
  
             12    facilitator and also some of the ground rules for our 
 
             13    discussion today. 
 
             14                   As far as the objectives for the workshop 
 
             15    are concerned, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans 
  
             16    to update the 1987 study on Spent Fuel Transportation 
 
             17    Package Performance that we all know as the Modal Study.  
 
             18    And the NRC wants to insure that the new study addresses 
 
             19    all the important issues related to the Package 
  
             20    Performance. 
 
             21                   With that in mind, the NRC has invited 
 
             22    the public and representatives of the broad spectrum of  
 
 
 
                                                                          4 
 
              1    interests that may be affected by the Spent Fuel 
 
              2    Transportation gathered around the table here up front 
 
              3    to share their recommendations and concerns with the NRC 
  
              4    on the scope and methodology for the new study. 
 
              5                   And this early input from all of you will 
 
              6    help to insure that the design and implementation of the 
 
              7    study provides the best information possible for 
  
              8    furthering the NRC's responsibilities that affect health 
 
              9    and safety. 
 
             10                   Now, my personal objectives as 
 
             11    facilitator includes assisting all of you in keeping the 
 
 
             12    discussion organized, understandable, and on schedule, 
 
             13    making sure that everyone has an opportunity to talk, 
 
             14    and keeping track of action items and recommendations 
 
             15    that may come out of today's discussion. 
 
 
             16                   The ground rules that I would suggest are 
 
             17    fairly simple.  All of you has a, what's known as a name 
 
             18    tent in front of you, and when we get to the discussion 
 
             19    part of the meeting, which will be the bulk of the 
  
             20    meeting, if you want to say something, if you will turn 
 
             21    your name tents up like that (indicating), and that will
 
             22    relieve you of having to keep shooting your hands in the  
 
  
 
                                                                          5 
 
              1    air, and will allow me to keep track of who wants to 
 
              2    talk.  And it will also help us to keep a clean 
 
              3    transcript.  
  
              4                   Stella is our stenographer over there, 
 
              5    and she is going to be taking the transcript today. And 
 
              6    always identify yourself by name so Stella can recognize 
 
              7    who will be talking.  If I don't, if you will just make 
  
              8    sure that you say your name before you talk, and that 
 
              9    way, we will have the correct remarks attributed to you. 
 
             10                   I may not take all the name tents in the 
 
             11    order they come up, so you can follow the discussion.  
 
 
             12    And generally, I think what's the best thing to do will 
 
             13    be to go to one member of the panel and ask them to 
 
             14    start us off with an issue on a particular agenda item, 
 
             15    and then I'd like to go around the table with anybody 
 
 
             16    else who may have an opinion on that particular issue.  
 
             17    And then we'll just keep going like that. 
 
             18                   Now, there will be issues that come up 
 
             19    that may not fit squarely into the agenda items that 
 
 
             20    we're talking about, and I will come back to those.  I 
 
             21    keep track of them up here on what I will call the 
 
             22    paddock (sic), which some of you may know as the parking
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                          6 
 
              1    lot, and we'll make sure we come back at the end of the 
 
              2    day to address any of those particular issues. 
 
              3                   The focus of this discussions is going to 
 
 
              4    be at the table among the people up here today, but it's 
 
              5    just as important to hear from the audience, all of you 
 
              6    out there, and after each agenda item, after we're done 
 
              7    with the round table discussions, we'll go out to you 
 
 
              8    for comments.  And I'll call on you, and I'll either 
 
              9    bring you the talking stick, or you can step up to the 
 
             10    mike in the middle of the room, and if you could just 
 
             11    give your name and affiliation, that will be very 
 
 
             12    helpful in terms of the transcript. 
 
             13                   The focus of this discussion is on issues 
 
             14    related to Package Performance.  But the NRC also 
 
             15    realizes that there is a whole host of Spent Fuel 
 
 
             16    Transportation issues that people may be interested in.  
 
             17    They may be beyond the scope of this particular study.  
 
             18    They may need to be addressed in another activity that 
 
             19    the NRC has planned.  But if there are issues like that, 
 
 
             20    we will note them and follow up on them. 
 
             21                   Now, before we go to the agenda, and I 
 
             22    have some suggested changes or proposed changes for you  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                          7 
 
              1    to consider on that, why don't we go around the room and 
 
              2    have everybody introduce themselves to one another, and 
 
              3    if you could give us your name and your affiliation and 
 
 
              4    one or two sentences, if you would like, on what your 
 
              5    concern or interest in this particular issue is.  
 
              6                   And I think we'll start over here with 
 
              7    Bob Alcock.  Bob? 
 
 
              8              MR. ALCOCK:  I am Bob Alcock, Senior Policy        
 
              9    Advisor, Department of Energy for Transportation Issues.  
 
             10    And I'm here representing the Department of Defense and 
 
             11    the Department of Energy that will be moving things in 
 
 
             12    the future.  You also have somebody here from part of 
 
             13    the Department of Energy that will be moving things in 
 
             14    the state.  I am representing that part of moving things 
 
             15    out. 
  
             16              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Bob.  Jim?                
 
             17              MR. WILLIAMS:  I am Jim Williams.  I am here       
 
             18    representing Nye County, Nevada.  Nye County is the site 
 
             19    county for potential shipment of Spent Fuel.  It is also 
 
             20    the site for Yucca Mountain, adjacent to the Nevada Test 
 
             21    Site, which is the basic site for DOE shipment of 
 
             22    radioactive waste.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                          8 
 
              1              MR. CAMERON:  Jack?
 
              2              MR. EDLOW:  Good morning.  My name is Jack         
 
              3    Edlow.  I am president of Edlow International, a 
 
 
              4    management company which has been involved in the 
 
              5    shipment of radioactive materials.  We ship all kinds of 
 
              6    materials, everything from low-level materials up to and 
 
              7    including Spent Fuel, and it has been a critical 
  
              8    shipment within the United States in the last month. 
 
              9              MR. DILGER:  Good morning.  My name is Fred        
 
 
             10    Digler.  I am here representing Clark County, as we are 
 
             11    all here in Clark County.  We want to thank the NRC for 
 
 
             12    holding this meeting here.  We really appreciate that. 
 
             13                   Clark County has a unique interest in 
 
             14    this upgrading under the -- as you are all aware, the 
 
             15    Department of Energy recently released its updated 
 
 
             16    Environmental Impact Statement.  Based on the 
 
             17    information contained there, there are certain scenarios  
 
             18    -- mostly truck scenarios. 
 
             19                   Clark County may expect to be the 
  
             20    recipient of -- at the end of 7.1 percent of all the 
 
             21    shipping miles for the national transportation program 
 
             22    for Spent Fuel.  So we have a big interest in this.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                          9 
 
              1              MS.  TREICHEL:  My name is Judy Treichel.  I       
 
              2    am the Executive Director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste 
 
              3    Task Force.  The Task Force is a public advocacy 
 
              4    organization, and we're here and in many places 
 
              5    providing a corporate voice. 
 
              6                   We have just finished doing a lot of 
 
              7    workshops -- well, we haven't quite finished, but we 
 
              8    have done a lot of workshops on the Department of Energy 
 
              9    in EIS in the rural areas.  And as a public advocate, I 
 
             10    think I have a responsibility to say that it's very 
 
             11    unfortunate that the timing of this meeting is at the 
 
             12    timing of the people in the rural areas who are 
 
             13    participating in those hearings, and they are doing it 
 
             14    at this time, so they are unable to be here.  And they 
 
             15    especially are very interested in Modal Studies and 
 
 
             16    Transportation, and I do need you to take note of that. 
 
             17              MR. CAMERON:  Perhaps later on, at the             
 
             18    discussion, we might have the NRC just say a few words 
 
             19    about what our future plans are in terms of involvement 
 
 
             20    of more of the people in the rural counties. 
 
             21              MR. SCHUMANN:  Good morning.  My name is Klaus     
 
             22    Schumann.  I am representing the Nuclear Waste  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         10 
 
              1    Management Committee of San Luis Obispo County, 
 
              2    California.  We are a group of citizens in local 
 
              3    government in new development of the upper canyon of our 
 
              4    county, so we are interested in the shipment of nuclear 
 
              5    waste through the county, I want to say about a quarter 
 
              6    mile away from one of the potential routes. 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Klaus.                    
 
              8              MR. VINCENT:  My name is John Vincent.  I work     

              9    for G.P.U. Nuclear Corporation.  G.P.U. has conducted a 
 
             10    couple of essential shipping campaigns in the past, but 
 
             11    my more recent concern is regarding Spent Fuel 
 
             12    Transportation and the practical support project (sic)       
 
             13    and in the future TSS (sic) will be shipping a similar       
 
             14    amount of Spent Fuel to our storage facility, and we 
 
             15    will be starting in 2003. 
  
             16              MR. LAMBERT:  I am Ray Lambert from Electric       
 
             17    Power Research Institute, and for about 20 years, I have 
 
             18    been working in the development and research in the area 
 
             19    of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation on behalf of 
  
             20    the Electric Power Research Institute and a grouping of 
 
             21    -- of all utilities, nuclear utilities in the United 
 
             22    States.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         11 
 
              1              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Ray.  Ron?                
 
              2              MR. POPE:  I am Ron Pope, head of Transport        
 
              3    Safety Unit of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 
 
              4    Vienna, Austria.  The IEA is responsible for issuing the 
 
              5    model of the regulations that are used by international 
 
              6    modal organizations and various what we call member 
 
              7    states in various countries for their own domestic 
 
              8    regulations. 
 
              9                   So, the IEA Transport Regulations, a copy 
 
             10    of the latest I have with me, is used as a model for 
 
             11    both NCFR and the Nevada C.F.R. regulations in the U.S. 
  
             12    I have experience in transporting radioactive materials 
 
             13    for safety dating back to the mid 70's. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Bob?
 
             15              MR. HALSTEAD:  Bob Halstead.  I am 
 
             16    Transportation Advisor for the state of Nevada for this 
 
             17    project, and as State Advisor part of my job is as a 
 
             18    watchdog for the DOE for the activities in southern 
 
             19    Nevada. 
  
             20                   And I am here this morning to remind you 
 
             21    that the reason the NRC has undertaken this reassessment 
 
             22    of the modal study in this type of review has been  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         12 
 
              1    security.  Under the NRC's recently-approved final rule, 
 
              2    the N.C.F.R. 51, DOE is authorized to ship five-year 
 
              3    cool high burn-up TWP (sic) fuel through the Yucca 
 
 
              4    Mountain Depository. 
 
              5                   But that fuel assembly, I am sure, would 
 
              6    pose a means, as my friend Ron has already received an 
 
              7    L.D. 50, a lethal dose 50 percent population gamma 
 
 
              8    neutron exposure. 
 
              9                   And although my friend Ralph over here 
 
             10    doesn't like this example, it's important to remember 
 
             11    that that fuel has a thing called inventory that is so 
 
 
             12    large, several hundred thousand therms, you can take all 
 
             13    the water in Lake Mead, which you flew over and drove 
 
             14    by, to dilute those fission products down to a drinkable 
 
             15    level standard, and in fact you will probably have to 
 
 
             16    have two Lake Meads. 
 
             17                   It's important to remember that the 
 
             18    reason we're here is because this is indeed what other 
 
             19    people would call Dangerous Goods rather than hazardous 
 
 
             20    material. 
 
             21              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Bob.  Ron?                
 
             22              MR. ROSS:  I am Ron Ross with the Western          
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         13 
 
              1    Governor's Association Staff, which is the association 
 
              2    of over 21 Western Governors who are very interested in 
 
              3    the material that is being shipped through the western 
 
 
              4    states. 
 
              5              MR. CAMERON:  Jim?                              MR.
CAMERON: 
 
              6              MR. REED:  Jim Reed, with the National             
                MR. REED: 
 
              7    Conference of State Legislatures.  I'm the Program 
 
 
              8    Director of Transportation, and this has been an issue 
 
              9    for about 15 years with a cooperative agreement with the 
 
             10    Department of Energy, who had a working agreement with 
 
             11    the National Transportation System for a number of 
 
 
             12    years. 
 
             13                   When I came in about 12 years ago, my 
 
             14    first assignment was to do a summary of the modal study, 
 
             15    so I dug that up and stayed around long enough to do 
 
 
             16    business and to recycle it into research. 
 
             17                   The state legislatures who we represent, 
 
             18    and their interest in state transportation and spent 
 
             19    fuel and all hazardous naterials, and also the 
 
 
             20    protection of the public, safety and the environment.  
 
             21    We are happy to be here. 
 
             22              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  Richard?                 
            MR. CAMERON:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         14 
 
              1              MR. SWEDBERG:  I am Rich Swedberg with the         
                    MR. SWEDBERG: 
 
              2    Office of Motor Carrier Safety Administration and soon 
 
              3    to be, in fact, formalized on the first of January with 
 
 
              4    headquarters, DOE, and my specialty in what I do -- 
 
              5    charged to do is routing of highway difficult counties 
 
              6    (sic) and registering and recording (unintelligible).        
            ___                                 ______________ 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Rich.                     
 
              8              MR. BOYLE:  Good morning.  I am Rick Boyle,        
 
              9    Department of Transportation, and I work in the Office 
 
             10    of Hazardous Materials.  We cover all nine classes of 
 
             11    hazardous materials that was previously mentioned.  
  
             12    There is more than just radioactive material.  There is 
 
             13    poison, there is flammables, there is biological 
 
             14    hazards. 
 
             15                   I'm the Program Manager for Radioactive 
  
             16    Material, and we develop regulations so that this 
 
             17    material can be transported safely.  Once the 
 
             18    regulations are developed, I am in charge of 
 
             19    coordination on the subject today with the general 
 
 
             20    public as well as with other organizations -- Richard 
 
             21    Swedburg's department, the federal highways, there will 
 
             22    be somebody from federal rail, there will also be FAA  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         15 
 
              1    and the Coast Guard. 
 
              2                   We also work with government agencies, 
 
              3    again, the NRC and the DOE, my prime contact, because I 
 
 
              4    am in the radioactive field.  And lastly, with people 
 
              5    like Mr. Edlow representing industry, primarily the 
 
              6    transportion industry rather than the power generation 
 
              7    industry.  Thank you. 
  
              8              MR. LAKE:  Good morning.  My name is Bill          
  
              9    Lake.  I am with Department of Energy, Office of 
 
             10    Radioactive Waste.  As Mr. Alcock mentioned earlier, our 
 
             11    interest in this area is the fact that we will be 
 
 
             12    transporting fuel, commercial fuel from commercial 
 
             13    nuclear reactors as well as some other fuels.  And my 
 
             14    personal background, I have been involved in 
 
             15    transportation in the packing technology are for the 
  
             16    past 27 years.  And I am happy to be here. 
 
             17              MR. LEE:  I am Bill Lee, representing the          
  
             18    American Nuclear Society.  I am employed by NAC 
 
             19    International.  We are cask designers and supply casks 
  
             20    for shipping to the U.S. and throughout the world. 
 
             21                   My concern is that we update the study 
 
             22    and update it with our current activity and operations  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         16 
 
              1    that we currently do in licensing caskets, actual the 
 
              2    also transportation operations ongoing.  Thank you. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Great, thanks Bill.                  
  
              4              MR. BLACKWELL:  Good morning.  I'm Kevin           
  
              5    Blackwell.  I am with the Federal Railroad 
 
              6    Administration.  I am out of the headquarters D.C. 
 
              7    office.  I guess you could say Program Manager of the 
  
              8    Headquarters office. 
 
              9                   I deal with the radioactive materials as 
 
             10    well as hauling casks and other materials transported by 
 
             11    rail.  And obviously, our concern is to continue to 
 
 
             12    ensure the safe transportion of all hazardous materials, 
 
             13    including radioactive materials such as low-level 
 
             14    radioactive waste. 
 
             15              MR. CAMERON:  Pat?

             16              MR. BRADY:  Good morning.  My name is Pat          

             17    Brady, and I am assistant director for hazardous 
 
             18    materials with the Burlington Northern Railroad Company.  
 
             19    Today I am representing the Association of American 
  
             20    Railroads.  And our goal is to have incident-free 
 
             21    transportation of spent fuels, and we want to ensure the 
 
             22    craft worthiness.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         17 
 
              1              MR. BAUGHMAN:  My name is Mike Baughman, and       
 
              2    I'm here this morning on behalf of Lincoln County and 
 
              3    two rural counties, routes three and six, which are 
 
 
              4    routes which have been identified as possible candidates 
 
              5    for transporation, and there's an alternate for the Las 
 
              6    Vegas valley in Lincoln County and the mainland. 
 
              7              MR. LEWIS:  Good morning.  I am Robert Lewis.      
  
              8    I am a Nuclear Engineer in the Nuclear Regulatory 
 
              9    Commission Project Office.  I work on a variety of 
 
             10    transportation safety issues, but I am here today as the 
 
             11    NRC Staff Technical Coordinator. 
  
             12              MS.  SHANKMAN:  Good morning.  I am Susan          
  
             13    Shankman, and I am the Deputy Director of the Spent Fuel 
 
             14    Project Office, which is within the Nuclear Regulatory 
 
             15    Commission ,and I will be talking to you about this a 
  
             16    little later. 
 
             17              MR. MASSEY:  I am Charles Massey.  I'm the         
  
             18    Manager of Transportation, Safety, and Security Analysis 
 
             19    at the Sandia National Laboratory, and we are the 
  
             20    contractor who has been selected by the Nuclear 
 
             21    Regulatory Commission for the laboratory analysis and 
 
             22    future study of that.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         18 
 
              1              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Charles.                  
  
              2                   I think you can see we have a 
 
              3    knowledgeable and experienced group around the table 
  
              4    today, so we should have a good session this morning on 
 
              5    the issues. 
 
              6                   There are people in the audience from 
 
              7    federal agencies, local governments including county 
  
              8    governments and city governments; also people from the 
 
              9    citizen's groups.  I think we will get to know you as we 
 
             10    go to you for your questions when we go on to the 
 
             11    audience, but I just want to introduce one person just 
  
             12    briefly.  Tom Storey is the District Director for the 
 
             13    representative Shelley Berkeley.   
 
             14                   He's not here?  (No response.)                
  
             15                   In terms of the agenda, I guess I'll get 
  
             16    to the cut-off point, which is 4:30, when we have to be 
 
             17    out of here, so that they can set this room up for the 
 
             18    evening's meeting.  And for those of you who weren't 
 
             19    aware of this, the NRC is going to do a more informal, 
  
             20    that is, not a round table discussion tonight but here 
 
             21    in this room to try to provide information to the public 
 
             22    and hear their concerns about these transportation  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         19 
 
              1    issues, and that starts at seven and runs through 9:30. 
 
              2                   The NRC is also going to do another 
 
              3    meeting tomorrow morning at 10:00, from ten to twelve in 
 
 
              4    Pahrump, Nevada, out in Nye County at the Mountain View 
 
              5    Casino and Hall, and if anybody has any questions about 
 
              6    details on those meetings, please ask one of the NRC 
 
              7    people that are here. 
 
 
              8                   We have Susan and Robert, who will be at 
 
              9    the table, and maybe try to answer questions.  Charles 
 
             10    is going to kick off with a brief description of each of 
 
             11    the discussion items as we go through. 
 
 
             12                   There are other NRC staff in the 
 
             13    audience, and some of them will be coming up to the 
 
             14    table, depending on what the specific topic is, and we 
 
             15    will introduce them, but I would urge you to talk to 
 
 
             16    them during the break and at lunch, and we will get 
 
             17    around to introducing all of them to you. 
 
             18                   The NRC presentation this morning, Susan 
 
             19    and Charles are going to be brief, and then I would like 
 
 
             20    to give everybody around the table in the room the 
 
             21    opportunity to ask any clarifying questions you might 
 
             22    have about the presentation.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         20 
 
              1                   I don't want to start the d           18    container performance and Spent Nuclear Fuel Assembly 
 
             19    behavior, and then get to physical testing. 
 
 
             20                   And we want to make sure that we do give 
 
             21    attention to that physical testing item, but we want to 
 
             22    put it further back on the agenda.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         21 
 
              1                   Does anybody have any problem with that, 
 
              2    or any other suggestions about the agenda before we go 
 
              3    to Susan for presentation? 
 
 
              4                   Okay.  We will hopefully get you a 
 
              5    revised agenda later on this morning.  But for now, 
 
              6    let's go to the NRC for some pre-presentations, and 
 
              7    we're going to start with Dr. Susan Shankman.  And Dr. 
 
 
              8    Shankman is the Deputy Director for Licensing and 
 
              9    Inspection at the Central Project Office at the NRC, and 
 
             10    she's been with that office since 1996, and her group is 
 
             11    responsible for the review and approvals of the design 
 
 
             12    for Spent Fuel Storage Systems and Transportation 
 
             13    Package Systems for NRC licensing of radioactive 
 
             14    material.  And her group is also responsible for 
 
             15    inspection and development of the regulations and 
 
 
             16    guidance for storage and transportation. 
 
             17                   And Dr. Shankman joined the NRC in 1982, 
 
             18    and she has held various positions with the Office of 
 
             19    Nuclear Reactor Regulations at the NRC.  She has also 
 
 
             20    served as Regional Coordinator for the Executive 
 
             21    Director for Operations for the NRC, and also has been a 
 
             22    Deputy Director in one of the NRC regions.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         22 
 
              1                   Before she came to the NRC, she was an 
 
              2    analyst for the U.S. Public Health Service and a Special 
 
              3    Assistant to the Maryland State Superintendent of 
 
 
              4    Schools. 
 
              5                   Dr. Shankman has a Bachelor of Arts 
 
              6    degree from Beaver College in Glenside (phonetic), PA, 
 
              7    and a Master's Degree from Queens College City 
 
 
              8    University of New York, and a Doctorage from the 
 
              9    University of Southern California.  And I'll turn it 
 
             10    over to Dr. Susan Shankman. 
 
             11              DR. SHANKMAN:  Good morning.  I want to begin      
                       DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
 
             12    by welcoming you to this public forum.  And as was said, 
 
             13    I am the Deputy Director of the Spent Fuel Project 
 
             14    Office, and the Spent Fuel Project Office is the office 
 
             15    that is convening this meeting.  We are conducting the 
 
 
             16    study, and it will be among the contractors that the NRC 
 
             17    will make the decision about what to study and how. 
 
             18                   This is not an academic exercise for me 
 
             19    in Washington, D.C.  We are about a half mile from the 
 
 
             20    I-95 interstate.  So today I want to say that our job 
 
             21    today as the NRC is to listen to your comments.  We are 
 
             22    at the very beginning of developing this study.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         23 
 
              1                   Let me give you a little background about 
 
              2    the NRC.  Many of you may know this, but I'd like to say 
 
              3    it for everybody so we all start out on the same foot. 
 
 
              4                   The NRC is an independent federal agency 
 
              5    and we have one job -- to protect public health and 
 
              6    safety, and like any other federal regulatory agency we 
 
              7    set standards and we enforce them. 
 
 
              8                   The mission of the Spent Fuel Project 
 
              9    Office is in the title the Spent Fuel Project Office.  
 
             10    We license and inspect the design for storage of spent 
 
             11    fuel and for transport of not only spent fuel but all 
 
 
             12    radioactive material licensed by the Commission.  We do 
 
             13    regulate the design and we approve and inspect the 
 
             14    containers and the casks and the packages that contain 
 
             15    spent fuel for transport. 
 
 
             16                   The NRC has substantive experience in 
 
             17    that we were formed in 1974 independent of the 
 
             18    Department of Energy, that works on the technology 
 
             19    issues related to the spent fuel.  And so we are an 
 
 
             20    independent agency. 
 
             21                   We have experience in nuclear power 
 
             22    operation.  We have experience in radioactive material  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         24 
 
              1    in medical issues.  We have experience with radioactive 
 
              2    waste disposal.  And we also have experience in the 
 
              3    design and transportion. 
 
 
              4                   My past has been more than 20 years in 
 
              5    reviewing cask design construction.  We have reviewed 
 
              6    the fuel characteristics and spent fuel operations at 
 
              7    power plants.  And I want to tell you that we use that 
 
 
              8    experience every day to make sure that what we do is 
 
              9    done safely.  We're confident that the current spent 
 
             10    fuel transportation activities are being done safely. 
 
             11                   How do we conduct ourselves with our 
 
 
             12    mission of public health and safety?  First of all, we 
 
             13    approve a design before anybody uses them.  And we issue 
 
             14    licenses and certificates.  We also use this review 
 
             15    using standardized criteria, which the public can find 
 
 
             16    on our Web site.  And there is a standard review plan 
 
             17    for our casks and for our review of transports. 
 
             18                   We provide guidance, and those standard 
 
             19    review plans are used by licensees and certificates 
 
 
             20    holders to be used in the requirements of the 
 
             21    regulations.  We inspect performance against those 
 
             22    regulations and when we have to we enforce compliance.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         25 
 
              1                   The current study that we're conducting 
 
              2    is to look at the transport of spent fuel.  Radioactive 
 
              3    material, as Rick Boyle pointed out, is just one class 
 
 
              4    of hazardous materials that can be transported and sent 
 
              5    through, is a very small percentage of that. 
 
              6                   Our contract with Sandia Lab is going to 
 
              7    be carrying out the study that the NRC is responsible 
 
 
              8    for.  Sandia is contracted to us. 
 
              9                   I wanted you to meet some of the people 
 
             10    who are here today that are part of the NRC review team 
 
             11    that have been available to you today.  And I hope you 
 
 
             12    will take some time at the break to talk to them as well 
 
             13    as to me and the people from Sandia. 
 
             14                   Earl Easton is here.  Earl is responsible 
 
             15    for the technical review group in the office.  And his 
 
 
             16    staff is part of the team review. 
 
             17                   Sarah Kolpo will be working on this 
 
             18    study, and Ron Parkhill.  Rob Pence -- where are you -- 
 
             19    provided the support for this meeting.  And Debbie 
 
 
             20    Saviano (phonetic), who is outside the door, and if you      
                      ________ 
 
             21    need a piece of paper she can give it to you. 
 
             22                   Rob Lewis, who views himself as the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         26 
 
              1    project manager, is also going to be looking at issues 
 
              2    related shields.  Sarah will be looking at the 
 
              3    containment and Ron Parkhill will be looking at the 
 
 
              4    thermal. 
 
              5                   Pat Ames (phonetic) is sitting in the         
                                   ________ 
 
              6    front row and is the manager of the group that is 
 
              7    conducting this study. 
 
 
              8                   Those are the people that are here from 
 
              9    NRC.  Charles Massey, who was introduced; Jerry -- 
 
             10    Stratton (phonetic)?                              ________ 
 
             11              MR. STRATTON:  Yes, I'm okay.                      
       MR. STRATTON: 
 
 
             12              DR. SHANKMAN:  Jerry.  And Ruth -- is Ruth         
                    DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
             13    around, Ruth Wiener?  Those are the people from Sandia.  
 
             14    So all of these people are involved in the study.  And I 
 
             15    hope you will take a minute to talk to them at the 
 
 
             16    break. 
 
             17                   Rob will tell you -- there are several 
 
             18    ways you can keep in touch with this study -- by email, 
 
             19    by regular mail, by telephone numbers, by Web site, and 
 
 
             20    that is all detailed for you. 
 
             21                   The reason I introduced all the people, 
 
             22    so that you will know that the NRC has dedicated  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         27 
 
              1    sufficient resources to work with them.  We not only 
 
              2    have a budget to pay Sandia but also the dedicated 
 
              3    staff.  It is serious for us.  We do not want to take 
 
 
              4    our responsibilities lightly. 
 
              5                   Over the last few years we have been 
 
              6    integrating risk insight into the work of the 
 
              7    Commission.  And this study is also going to do that.  
 
 
              8    We understand that we need to know the risks of what we 
 
              9    are regulating.  And as computer simulation and 
 
             10    analytical methods have improved, we have tried to apply 
 
             11    them to work that we're doing. 
 
 
             12                   As new ideas come along we re-assess 
 
             13    where we are.  The goal of NRC is simply to make sure 
 
             14    that we use the best tools available to assess the risks 
 
             15    of what we are regulating.  We try to do this 
 
 
             16    effectively, efficiently, and realistically, as risk 
 
             17    insights come in. 
 
             18                   We also want to maintain safety.  We feel 
 
             19    what we're doing now is safe and we want to make sure it 
 
 
             20    remains that way.  We also would like to increase our 
 
             21    interaction with the people, and this meeting is part of 
 
             22    that goal.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         28 
 
              1                   As you may have heard as we went around 
 
              2    the table there is more than the NRC involved in this 
 
              3    endeavor.  And this is why I am giving you a little 
 
 
              4    thumbnail sketch of some of the people involved. 
 
              5                   Shippers, who are ultimately 
 
              6    responsibility for the shipment, and who, under DOE 
 
              7    regulations, we have to train their personnel; the 
 
 
              8    carrier who is responsible for the vehicle operation.  
 
              9    And following the shipper's plan of regulators.  The 
 
             10    U.S. Department of Transportation and its mobile agency, 
 
             11    NRC 
 
 
             12                   We set the standards for the casks and we 
 
             13    review the designs.  And we also set the standard for 
 
             14    the physical security departments.  The  state will, of 
 
             15    course, have a role.  And this of course varies from 
 
 
             16    state-to-state, but every state is involved with this.  
 
             17    The emergency responders for most of the states have 
 
             18    their role as well. 
 
             19                   FEMA has a role, should there be a 
 
 
             20    problem.  And then the governor's designee -- every 
 
             21    state has a governor's designee related to this issue 
 
             22    and they are always notified of a Spent Fuel  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         29 
 
              1    Transportion. 
 
              2                   Let me reiterate to you what I just 
 
              3    talked to you about, what I think our goals are for this 
 
 
              4    meeting.  Ron will go over some of the past studies we 
 
              5    have done, which is referred to as the First Modal 
 
              6    Study.  We have budgeted time, people and money to look 
 
              7    at these issues.  Instead of preparing the study and 
 
 
              8    then sending it out for comments, this time we decided 
 
              9    to go out to the public first and ask for your ideas. 
 
             10                   Then DOE is going to kick-off each of the 
 
             11    sessions we have with some proposed ideas.  They are 
 
 
             12    only proposed.  NRC has not adopted them.  They are 
 
             13    meant to stimulate the conversation.  We are here today 
 
             14    and our staff is here with us listening to what you have 
 
             15    to say.  Before we start the design of the study we want 
 
 
             16    to hear what your concerns are, so that in the design we 
 
             17    can include those concerns. 
 
             18                   I can't promise you that we will do the 
 
             19    study and encompass every single issue.  But I can 
 
 
             20    promise you that every single issue will be considered.  
 
             21    We will be transcribing your ideas. 
 
             22                   Sandia is going to develop a design for  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         30 
 
              1    the study based on this meeting.  And then we will hold 
 
              2    additional meetings to hear comments on the design of 
 
              3    the study before we begin the study.  So we will be 
 
 
              4    having changes in the final design. 
 
              5                   I thank you for being here.  I appreciate 
 
              6    the time and I appreciate the effort and, as I said, our 
 
              7    job today is to listen.  Please be candid and please be 
 
 
              8    objective and give us your suggestions.  And if you 
 
              9    don't get those in the transcript by telling us, there 
 
             10    are forms to fill out to write in. 
 
             11              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much, Susan.  We      
                       MR. CAMERON: 
 
 
             12    will go right to Rob Lewis.  And let's see if there are 
 
             13    any clarifying questions.  And Rob Lewis is the Project 
 
             14    Manager for this study and he is a staff member of the 
 
             15    Spent Fuel Project Office.  He has a Master's in 
 
 
             16    Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Arizona.  
 
             17    Rob Lewis. 
 
             18              MR. LEWIS:  I want to reiterate, we thank you      
                       MR. LEWIS: 
 
             19    for taking the time to be here this morning.  My main 
 
 
             20    goal is to describe this upcoming project a little bit.  
 
             21    It is just getting started.  Charles will take us 
 
             22    through the rest of the topic throughout the day, the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         31 
 
              1    technical issues we have identified. 
 
              2                   Before discussing the Modal Study, I'd 
 
              3    like to talk a little bit about the safety of Spent Fuel 
 
 
              4    shipments, because we're confident that the system we 
 
              5    have right now is working.  And that confidence 
 
              6    establishes our starting point for this upcoming Modal 
 
              7    Study. 
 
 
              8                   I should say throughout the day you will 
 
              9    hear the study that we're going to doing called several 
 
             10    things.  They all mean the same thing.  The Package 
 
             11    Performance Study I think is the preferred term right 
 
 
             12    now.  But it has also been called Modal Study Two.  The 
 
             13    idea is that all these things are the same, if you look 
 
             14    at what happens to the Spent Fuel Cask Study. 
 
             15                   As I said we're confident in the safety 
 
 
             16    of our current approach.  And the reason we're confident 
 
             17    in it is described by these three main reasons.  We have 
 
             18    rigorous standards for the casks to survive in order to 
 
             19    be used for transportion.  We have accumulated a very 
 
 
             20    positive history, and we have performed several 
 
             21    technical studies in risk assessment that confirmed our 
 
             22    belief.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         32 
 
              1                   The Cask Performance Standards test that 
 
              2    all casks must meet include the theory of -- that there 
 
              3    is an impact test, the puncture test, the fire test, and 
 
 
              4    emersion in water test.  And I think you have available 
 
              5    to you a slide, which I am going to call the back-up 
 
              6    slide, which illustrates the test sequence and some of 
 
              7    the details of the test.  I don't really want to get 
 
 
              8    into that at this time.  If you have any questions about 
 
              9    the slide I will be happy to talk to you during the 
 
             10    break. 
 
             11                   So our starting point for the Package 
 
 
             12    Performance Study will be a test that meets the Cask 
 
             13    Performance Standards in our rule.  That is CFR Part 71. 
 
             14                   Regarding the history, we have made about 
 
             15    -- we have made about 1,300 shipments in the U.S.  Half 
 
 
             16    of them were certified by the NRC in the last 20 years.  
 
             17    There have been some accidents, I think there have been 
 
             18    eight accidents.  But there has never been a release of 
 
             19    material during those accidents.  And the reason why is 
 
 
             20    because the casks are doing their job every time. 
 
             21                   The information about those shipments, 
 
             22    the routes that they took, the destinations, and the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         33 
 
              1    origin -- we publish that information annually, just to 
 
              2    anybody in the NRC.  Anybody in the NRC can get that 
 
              3    information. 
 
 
              4                   Lastly, what we're here today to talk 
 
              5    about is the technical study we have done and the 
 
              6    technical study we're about to embark upon.  But the 
 
              7    most significant study we have ever done at the NRC is 
 
 
              8    the 1977 comprehensive look at transportation safety.  
 
              9    It's called NUREG 0170.  Everything we have since then 
 
             10    is really a supplement to that original work. 
 
             11                   That work looked at all transportation, 
 
 
             12    not only spent fuel, but everything  -- medical 
 
             13    shipments, shipments of pressed fuel -- many type of 
 
             14    radioactive materials.  And it looked at all modes of 
 
             15    shipments -- by air, by rail, highway, and boats. 
 
 
             16                   Now, it also looked at routine shipments, 
 
             17    the risk from routine shipments, as well as the risk 
 
             18    from accidents.  And shortly after the 1977 Study was 
 
             19    finalized and issued, the Commission, the Commission 
 
 
             20    meaning the NRC Board of Commissioners made a finding 
 
             21    that the current regulatory approach that the NRC is 
 
             22    using and DOE is using is adequate to provide for public  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         34 
 
              1    health and safety. 
 
              2                   But the NRC staff needs to continually 
 
              3    look for ways to improve the approach and for quality in 
 
 
              4    the approach we now have.  And that's what we have been 
 
              5    doing ever since. 
 
              6                   In 1987 we published a follow-up to the 
 
              7    1977 NUREG 0170 Report, called the Modal Study.  It was 
 
 
              8    called the Modal Study because it looked at spent fuel 
 
              9    shipments by truck and by rail.  Now that report looked 
 
             10    at what could happen to spent fuel casks in commuter 
 
             11    accidents, very similar to what we are looking at today.  
 
 
             12    And it was done because they though that since computers 
 
             13    were available that weren't available in 1977, and they 
 
             14    could do a better computer analyses of spent fuel cask 
 
             15    performance under the actual performance under a 
 
 
             16    collision or performance under a fire -- two conditions 
 
             17    in the tank truck that could cause a threat to the 
 
             18    casks. 
 
             19                   There is another study.  I am putting up 
 
 
             20    the main study for today's discussion.  The two left 
 
             21    bullets are what we're here today to talk about.  The 
 
             22    ones on the left bullet, but we're also going to talk a  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         35 
 
              1    little bit about the update to Spent Fuel Risk Estimates 
 
              2    that we're about to publish some time next year, and 
 
              3    that's really a logical follow-up to the 1977 Report.  
 
 
              4    But it only deals with spent fuel.  It is not about all 
 
              5    transportation. 
 
              6                   And we're also here to talk about 
 
              7    primarily the Package Performance Study, which we're 
 
 
              8    just starting, and we will have a design for the study 
 
              9    starting next year, and it will be about three years 
 
             10    before they -- before we have any results of that. 
 
             11                   Dr. Massey will describe throughout the 
 
 
             12    day what Sandia is doing or plans to do, to discuss 
 
             13    these two studies and how they live together. 
 
             14                   The reason that we're doing both of the 
 
             15    last two studies is because the cask has changed.  And 
 
 
             16    our ability to assess the cask has changed since 1987.  
 
             17    The casks are larger today.  These new materials, these 
 
             18    new technologies and analytical tools we use to assess 
 
             19    the casks have improved vastly.  Computer power, as 
 
 
             20    everybody knows, has really taken off. 
 
             21                   So -- and also another reason we're doing 
 
             22    this now, the number of shipments, the destination for  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         36 
 
              1    shipments, the schedule for shipments -- all the 
 
              2    concepts are closely registered projects, such as the 
 
              3    Yucca Mountain project, and any efforts to centralize 
 
 
              4    the center storage facility. 
 
              5                   Regarding the up-coming Package 
 
              6    Performance Study, our goal is to build upon the Modal 
 
              7    Study, and to look at severe accidents.  We're also 
 
 
              8    going to look at severe accidents.  And as a result of 
 
              9    this, this Study is taking the nickname Modal Study Two.  
 
             10    It is somewhat unfortunate because we are not legally a 
 
             11    Modal Study.  We still believe in the Modal Study, the 
 
 
             12    approach to it.  What we are doing is, we are trying to 
 
             13    build upon the Modal Study. 
 
             14                   We are going to use the Package 
 
             15    Performance Study and focus our resources and focus our 
 
 
             16    licensees' resources and those issues -- in fact, those 
 
             17    design features in a spent fuel cask that are most 
 
             18    important to see, and this is what we call a Risk 
 
             19    Informed Approach. 
 
 
             20                   The risk assessment -- we look at the 
 
             21    issues that are most important to safety and focus our 
 
             22    resources on those issues, and the net result we believe  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         37 
 
              1    is the overall safety. 
 
              2                   The second note shows a step-by-step 
 
              3    method we will use for the Package Performance Study.  
 
 
              4    It should look familiar because this is the same method 
 
              5    that was used in the Modal Study.  As I said, we still 
 
              6    believe in that approach and we still believe in the 
 
              7    method of that approach.  That is, the step-by-step 
 
 
              8    method is the same which I think is decidedly much 
 
              9    better than I could do in trying to explain -- it is 
 
             10    available in everyone's handout and everybody has 
 
             11    received it. 
 
 
             12                   Steps two and four that estimate the 
 
             13    severity of the various impact forces and also estimates 
 
             14    the release, those are some of the more difficult steps, 
 
             15    because they involve more engineering information 
 
 
             16    judgments, as compared to hard data that we have 
 
             17    developed. 
 
             18                   The result is we think those are some 
 
             19    areas we need to focus on for following the study, that 
 
 
             20    Dr. Massey will describe.  We're particularly interested 
 
             21    today in your thoughts on the continued use of this 
 
             22    methodology.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         38 
 
              1                   The last point talks about physical 
 
              2    testing.  None of the previous studies uses physical 
 
              3    testing specifically for that study.  They were computer 
 
 
              4    analyses and engineering judgements with their 
 
              5    foundation.  We believe it's reasonable to assume 
 
              6    physical testing will have a role.  What role that would 
 
              7    be is one of the things we're here to talk about today. 
 
 
              8                   It is believed that physical testing will 
 
              9    have a role that would really define the study for us 
 
             10    and define the way for approaching that study. 
 
             11                   First of all, it is one of the main 
 
 
             12    reasons for selection of Sandia Labs.  They have 
 
             13    experience conducting these tests.  They have tested 
 
             14    many radioactive materials.  They have experience in 
 
             15    packaging material in the past.  And they have the 
 
 
             16    ability to analyze the tests and interpret the tests. 
 
             17                   Secondly, this greater public involvement 
 
             18    process in this particular project directly comes out of 
 
             19    the possible role of the physical testing.  Now public 
 
 
             20    involvement is always important to us.  But if we're 
 
             21    going to do tests, even more so because we need -- in 
 
             22    doing such tests we need to be efficient and collect the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         39 
 
              1    best information wy. 
 
             18                   There is also the ability to write in 
 
             19    comments if we don't get the voiced comments today.  Out 
 
 
             20    on the table we have these forms that have "Welcome" 
 
             21    across the top.  We have three leading questions we 
 
             22    thought of.  But feel free to write in any comments you  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         40 
 
              1    wish.  If we receive them by the end of January we will 
 
              2    make sure they get into the Issue Report that is coming 
 
              3    out in May.  If you know of someone who couldn't make it 
 
 
              4    today, we encourage you to share these forms, mention to 
 
              5    them the write-in process here. 
 
              6                   Finally, in conclusion, I want to let you 
 
              7    know how to stay involved at this point in a little more 
 
 
              8    detail.  We believe we need public participation in this 
 
              9    project to design the most effective study. 
 
             10                   This slide shows the interaction plan.  
 
             11    Generally, we have an interactive Web site for 
 
 
             12    conducting workshops throughout the country.  And we 
 
             13    have established a mailing list. 
 
             14                   The best way to stay involved by far is 
 
             15    the Web site because they have a forum for interacting 
 
 
             16    with us.  If you write in a comment on the web site 
 
             17    form, we will provide a response, and it will be 
 
             18    frequently updated as the project evolves. 
 
             19                   If you don't like to use the Internet for 
 
 
             20    any reason, we are in the process of establishing a 
 
             21    mailing list, and there's a form at the back that says, 
 
             22    "Stay in touch with this study." It is a colored form.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         41 
 
              1    And if you fill that out and leave it with us today or 
 
              2    mail it in, we will make sure your name gets added to 
 
              3    the mailing list. 
 
 
              4                   And finally, the workshop.  Today's 
 
              5    discussion is the second in a series of workshops that 
 
              6    we are conducting.  We have held them -- what we believe 
 
              7    to be fairly successful interaction in Bethesda on 
 
 
              8    November 17. 
 
              9                   We are going to go over to Pahrump 
 
             10    tomorrow at the request of the Nye County government, 
 
             11    and we are going to go over there tomorrow morning. 
 
 
             12                   And next May, I mentioned that there will 
 
             13    be several things out next May.  One of which is the 
 
             14    update for the year 2000 report.  And in addition, the 
 
             15    Issues Reports that will follow up for this project will 
 
 
             16    be out, maybe next May. 
 
             17                   So, shortly after next May, we plan on 
 
             18    having additional workshops.  As I said, we will make 
 
             19    the Issues Report available to you before we proceed. So 
 
 
             20    next spring and summer, we're going to hold additional 
 
             21    workshops.  We don't know where yet.  We don't know 
 
             22    when, exactly.  We will use the web site and mailing  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         42 
 
              1    list to inform you when these will occur.  
 
              2                   So, today has a very ambitious agenda.  
 
              3    We know that, if we don't get to your point today, 
 
 
              4    please come back tonight, and there will be a forum for 
 
              5    you to voice your concerns.  
 
              6                   And in conclusion, thank you for your 
 
              7    attention.  We look forward to your discussion. 
 
 
              8              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Rob.  Before we go        
                     MR. CAMERON: 
 
              9    for clarifying questions, just let me introduce a few 
 
             10    other people in the audience.  Senator Lawrence Jacobson 
 
             11    from Nevada, and Assemblyman Bob Price, who is also with 
 
 
             12    us.  And both Senator Jacobson and Assemblyman Price are 
 
             13    members of the Nevada Legislative Committee on Waste. 
 
             14                   And let me thank the City of Henderson 
 
             15    for allowing us to use the Convention Center. 
 
 
             16                   We will close off with some suggestions 
 
             17    about the process, and I just want to note that before 
 
             18    we end today, we would like to get your suggestions on 
 
             19    the process.  In other words, what else can we do to 
 
 
             20    keep people involved over the course of this particular 
 
             21    study?  So we will revisit that. 
 
             22                   Let's go to Bob Halstead for clarifying  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         43 
 
              1    questions.  Bob? 
 
              2              MR. HALSTEAD:  First, Chip, I want to thank        
                     MR. HALSTEAD: 
 
              3    you for having this meeting in Nevada.  Frankly, there 
 
 
              4    is hard feeling on the part of people in those rural 
 
              5    counties in the central part of the state who can't be 
 
              6    here today because of a conflict.  Nonetheless, it's 
 
              7    very important that you are here in the state of Nevada. 
 
 
              8                   I have a question about the Sandia 
 
              9    Scoping Study, and I don't know if you can answer this 
 
             10    or not.  But while you are still in the literature 
 
             11    review phase, I see you're also simultaneously doing the 
 
 
             12    rail.  I would like to review your work.  They are 
 
             13    probably going to be useful to you to see them now 
 
             14    rather than seeing them as criticism when the study 
 
             15    comes out from the Department of Transportation.  So we 
 
 
             16    would like some opportunity to review your bibliography 
 
             17    for completeness, and then we will offer to supplement 
 
             18    that, if necessary. 
 
             19              MR. CAMERON:  Let's hear from Susan Shankman,      
                       MR. CAMERON: 
 
 
             20    and then, if Charles wants to offer any help, he can. 
 
             21              DR. SHANKMAN:  I think that's a good idea. I       
                      DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
             22    think it is important that he be included.  I would also  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         44 
 
              1    ask Bob if you or anyone feels they have a document they 
 
              2    feel that should be included, that you let us know about 
 
              3    it. 
 
 
              4                   I think Sandia would also want to know -- 
 
              5    it may not be on the agenda, and it may be a document 
 
              6    that exists somewhere that they don't know about.  So I 
 
              7    would ask you as well as reviewing the pages, it would 
 
 
              8    be well if you would let them know about it. 
 
              9              MR. CAMERON:  Okay, fine.  Other clarifying        
                     MR. CAMERON: 
 
             10    questions around the table about what the NRC is 
 
             11    embarking on now?  Let's go to Judy and then go over to 
 
 
             12    Jim. 
 
             13              MS. TREICHEL:  I just wanted to know what you      
                       MS. TREICHEL    
 
             14    meant when you showed the slide that had your Package 
 
             15    Performance Study, and you linked Public Involvement 
 
 
             16    with Physical Testing.  Now what is the direction. 
 
             17              DR. SHANKMAN:  I will let Rob answer in more       
                      DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
             18    detail, but there's an issue that a lot of people want 
 
             19    us to do some kind of physical testing, and before we 
 
 
             20    can do any testing, very extensive, we would like to 
 
             21    know what control you have for that physical testing. 
 
             22              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  That will go to Rob      
                       MR. CAMERON:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         45 
 
              1    for clarification.  Jim? 
 
              2              MR. WILLIAMS:  This is Jim Williams.  In your      
                       MR. WILLIAMS: 
 
              3    presentation -- I think this study was focused on 
 
 
              4    accidents, severe accidents and accident risks.  And so 
 
              5    I had a question, and taking into account these cask 
 
              6    designs, I wanted to ask whether the study will also 
 
              7    consider the implications of cask design at the front 
 
 
              8    end and at the back end of shipments.  At the front end, 
 
              9    in terms of loading canisters -- at the back end, in 
 
             10    terms of unloading their fuel for storage or disposal. 
 
             11              DR. SHANKMAN:  I'm not sure that I exactly         
                    DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
 
             12    understand, but let me try and help.  This study is 
 
             13    focused on severe accidents during transport.  It 
 
             14    doesn't deal with routine and what we refer to as normal 
 
             15    transport that we believe is bound by the regulations.  
 
 
             16                   As far as storage is concerned, there is 
 
             17    another study going on in our Office of Research, what 
 
             18    we call CRA -- Probable Risk Assessment of Storage, and 
 
             19    I think what you're talking about would be more in that 
 
 
             20    arena than it would be during transport not loading 
 
             21    canisters. 
 
             22                   Does that help?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         46 
 
              1              MR. WILLIAMS:  Yes.  Let me clarify what you       
                      MR. WILLIAMS: 
 
              2    are up to and what others may be up to.  I would 
 
              3    suggest, however, that the two things go together, and 
 
 
              4    the design and the shipment would be on the shipment 
 
              5    campaign (sic).                              ___ 
 
              6              DR. SHANKMAN:  Right.  I agree with you.  Let      
                       DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
              7    me just say that the NRC regulations for the review of 
 
 
              8    storage and canisters are separate reviews.  They have 
 
              9    separate standard review plans, both of which are 
 
             10    available on the Web.  And storage is under Part 72, and 
 
             11    transport is under Part 71 of NCSR in the regulations.  
 
 
             12    And they issue two separate certificates for licensing 
 
             13    and storage.  There is no dual-purpose review.  We make 
 
             14    sure that the canister, as certificated or licensed, is 
 
             15    for each of the applications. 
 
 
             16              MR. CAMERON:  Rick?                              MR.
CAMERON: 
 
             17              MR. BOYLE:  Point of clarification.  While the     
                        MR. BOYLE: 
 
             18    study is going on, there is as well a request by the 
 
             19    state of Nevada and also supported by the Western 
 
 
             20    Governors, for a review on the terrorism issue.  Will 
 
             21    that be used as part of the study, or included as part 
 
             22    of the study or can you clarify how that may or may not  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         47 
 
              1    be addressed. 
 
              2              DR. SHANKMAN:  We have a separate effort going     
                        DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
              3    on.  We are now conferring with several other countries 
 
 
              4    that have data on stress assessment and stress risk of 
 
              5    transporting spent fuel, and we have a study slated to 
 
              6    begin in the fiscal year 2001.  So any comments which 
 
              7    you have on that, which may be in the transcript, we 
 
 
              8    will include in our design.  So it's not part of the 
 
              9    Spent Fuel, but it is part of the NRC. 
 
             10              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  Klaus?                   
          MR. CAMERON: 
 
             11              MR. SCHULMANN:  I would like to say something      
                       MR. SCHULMANN 
 
 
             12    about what Mr. (unintelligible) was saying.  We are very     
                              ______________ 
 
             13    much concerned about the terrorism attacks and the 
 
             14    sabotage attacks, and we feel, to make this frequent 
 
             15    study -- first of all, when you were doing this 
 
 
             16    presentation, you mentioned several groups being 
 
             17    involved, and our office the public itself, and to 
 
             18    estimated 50,000,000 Americans who will be using this 
 
             19    transportation route, and I think they are part of this 
 
 
             20    as well, and you might want to include them in your 
 
             21    presentation list. 
 
             22              DR. SHANKMAN:  Okay.  That's a point a well        
                     DR. SHANKMAN:   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         48 
 
              1    taken.  I would hope that the people who are here will 
 
              2    help us by getting the word out and that the media will 
 
              3    assist us in getting the help we are asking for.  We are 
 
 
              4    preparing a video on Spent Fuel Transportation, and we 
 
              5    are anticipating that today, and any suggestions you 
 
              6    have, besides the web site, that we could be more 
 
              7    specific, we would like that. 
 
 
              8              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Great.  And we will be        
                     MR. CAMERON: 
 
              9    getting into more on all of these issues. 
 
             10                   Rich, you have some clarifying questions? 
 
             11              MR.  BOYLE:  One comment, one very quick           
                  MR.  BOYLE: 
 
 
             12    comment.  As far as sabotage and terrorism, as far as 
 
             13    the Department of Transportation is concerned, as we 
 
             14    develop our regulations for hazardous material 
 
             15    transport, we do not consider terrorism and sabotage a 
 
 
             16    transport scenario.  We consider it eitehr a criminal 
 
             17    activity or an act of war, depending on who would 
 
             18    undertake such an activity. 
 
             19                   So as far as the transport regulations 
 
 
             20    go, we do not include that, and we would caution others 
 
             21    from including it in a transportation-oriented study. 
 
             22              MR. CAMERON:  We are going to come back to         
                    MR. CAMERON:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         49 
 
              1    this particular issue, too.  Thank you for that 
 
              2    testimony, Rick.  Kevin? 
 
              3              MR. BLACKWELL:  A clarifying comment to what       
                      MR. BLACKWELL:  
 
 
              4    Rick just said in the scenario that the Department of 
 
              5    Transportation neglects the security issue completely.  
 
              6    They are aware of security issues.  They are -- they 
 
              7    have an office in the office of the Secretary that deals 
 
 
              8    with the Office of Intelligence and Security, and there 
 
              9    are initiatives underway in the department, that they 
 
             10    are looking at various security issues across the 
 
             11    different levels of administration.  So there is work 
 
 
             12    being done in that area.  
 
             13                   But as Rick said, when it comes to 
 
             14    regulatory development, we look at it in a different 
 
             15    light.  But the department is not turning a blind eye 
 
 
             16    towards security issues involved in such transportation 
 
             17    of materials. 
 
             18              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  Mike Baughman?           
                  MR. CAMERON: 
 
             19              MR. BAUGHMAN:  Yes.  Question.  You stated we      
                       MR. BAUGHMAN: 
 
 
             20    are confident that the system we have in place now -- 
 
             21    you mentioned the safety of our current approach.  That 
 
             22    brings to mind the adage, "If it's not broke, don't fix  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         50 
 
              1    it." 
 
              2                   So I wondered if -- I guess what I am 
 
              3    wondering is, will you state those conditions and their 
 
 
              4    characteristics of the anticipated shipments over the 
 
              5    next several years that may cause you to question your 
 
              6    confidence for the future? 
 
              7                   In other words, why are we doing this 
 
 
              8    study, and I have to assume that perhaps things may be 
 
              9    changing in the future.  And the question is, what, so 
 
             10    will you state those assumptions about what may be 
 
             11    different in the future that results in some of these 
 
 
             12    changes? 
 
             13              MR. CAMERON:  Is there anybody -- the              
               MR. CAMERON:  
 
             14    suggestion is to make sure that the rationale for why 
 
             15    we're doing this is clearly stated in the study itself, 
 
 
             16    as well as the technical reasons. 
 
             17              MR. LEWIS:  Now, we have to characterize the       
                      MR. LEWIS: 
 
             18    reason that we are doing this study itself is the 
 
             19    anticipation that the system -- that it has the ability 
 
 
             20    to change as the technology we use changes.  We have a 
 
             21    responsibility to verify the conclusions on the other 
 
             22    projects, which we have not thought -- frankly, we have  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         51 
 
              1    not thought about identifying some of the qualifying 
 
              2    criteria to implement the project.  If you find 
 
              3    something that indicates the current system we use is 
 
 
              4    not safe, we would have to change our rules, and we 
 
              5    would change our practices.  It is up to you to keep us 
 
              6    informed. 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Susan?                              MR.
CAMERON: 
 
 
              8              DR. SHANKMAN:  Let me just say that I don't        
                     DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
              9    know that we know of anything in the system today that 
 
             10    would cause us concern.  But as Rob stated, 
 
             11    (unintelligible) and the studies to make sure that the       
             ______________ 
 
 
             12    information we have on casks in today's design as well 
 
             13    as the design on the processing, which reflects the 
 
             14    state of the process, and that it would be, you know, it 
 
             15    is just as important to update, it just makes sense as 
 
 
             16    we know more to make it better.  And as Rob said, the 
 
             17    minute we know something, we have taken action. 
 
             18              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  And as we proceed on our      
                       MR. CAMERON: 
 
             19    discussion today, there may be suggestions about why 
 
 
             20    this should be done, so let's put those on the table.  
 
             21    We are only doing clarifying now. 
 
             22                   Let's go to Bob, and then we'll go out  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         52 
 
              1    and see if anybody in the audience has a clarifying 
 
              2    question. 
 
              3              MR. HALSTEAD:  Yes.  On this issue, I prepared     
                        MR. HALSTEAD: 
 
 
              4    an index that gives the State of Nevada's summary of 
 
              5    account of cask shipments.  The state of Nevada, along 
 
              6    with the Western Interstate Energy Board and the Western 
 
              7    Governors Association, have been the lead critics of the 
 
 
              8    modal study since 1989.  In fact, we were somewhat 
 
              9    astounded to hear about the plan, because we were 
 
             10    getting ready to submit a petition for remake (sic)          
                                                        ___ 
 
             11    after we developed the various parts of NCFR between 
 
 
             12    part 71, 72, and part 73.  So we are not sure exactly 
 
             13    what went into your thinking. 
 
             14                   But our thinking is that since -- if the 
 
             15    Yucca Mountain facility goes forward, you have 35 times 
 
 
             16    more spent fuel shipped per year than in the last 20 
 
             17    years, this being over the last 30 or 40 years -- eight 
 
             18    to 24 times more shipments per year -- a 500 percent 
 
             19    increase in the average rail shipments, a 200 percent 
 
 
             20    increase in the average truck shipments, and all the new 
 
             21    issues that are related, from long distance hauls to 
 
             22    western terrain to weather is very different from what  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         53 
 
              1    has happened in the industry for the most part over the 
 
              2    last 20 years. 
 
              3                   We would argue that the primary reason 
 
 
              4    for reassessing the modal study is not the increase in 
 
              5    the sophistication of the computer, although we 
 
              6    acknowledge that.  And not even necessarily the new 
 
              7    design of the shipping casks, although that's important, 
 
 
              8    too.  But it is the profoundly radical change in the 
 
              9    nature of the nuclear waste transportation operations 
 
             10    that are likely to occur over the next four decades, 
 
             11    compared to the past four decades.  Okay. 
 
 
             12              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Bob.  Let's go to         
                    MR. CAMERON: 
 
             13    Jack Edlow for comment, and then we will go on to John. 
 
             14              MR. EDLOW:  Thank you very much.  I'd like to      
                       MR. EDLOW: 
 
             15    return to the previous discussion that took place 
 
 
             16    regarding the current shipments.  I think it is 
 
             17    important to note that there are many shipments of Spent 
 
             18    Fuel that take place in the United States through the 
 
             19    year.  These shipments are regulated both by the 
 
 
             20    Regulatory Commission and by he Department of 
 
             21    Transportation.  Under the NRC, you have federal safety 
 
             22    regulations.  You also have security regulations.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         54 
 
              1                   Over the years that we have been involved 
 
              2    in shipping Spent Fuel, and many of you may remember our 
 
              3    first shipment in 1963, the regulations have changed 
 
 
              4    quite a lot, as things have become necessary.  In 1963, 
 
              5    there were no security regulations.  That was prior to 
 
              6    the time of general terrorist activity that was 
 
              7    prevalent in the United States.  Since that happened, 
 
 
              8    regulations have been put in place. 
 
              9                   I think it is important that the public 
 
             10    understand, and that it is just a matter of record 
 
             11    today, that the current regulations, as they are placed 
 
 
             12    for the DOE and the NRC, are sufficient to manage and 
 
             13    regulate shipments as of this time. 
 
             14                   I think it's worthwhile.  I think it's 
 
             15    important that the NRC has undertaken this study to use, 
 
 
             16    for whatever purpose -- whether it is Bob's view, 
 
             17    because of the radical change -- that I disagree with -- 
 
             18    but in any case, whether it is the radical change, 
 
             19    whether it is more security power, whether it is just 
 
 
             20    time to do it again, I think it is worthwhile to go 
 
             21    through this exercise and answer all these questions 
 
             22    that people have, that being people who can't be present  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         55 
 
              1    today to participate in the hearing. 
 
              2                   I think it is wonderful that we do this.  
 
              3    I think it is important to understand that the system 
 
 
              4    that works today is effective, and that the public is 
 
              5    protected today, both for security and safety. 
 
              6              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you.  Let's see if      
                       MR. CAMERON: 
 
              7    there are any questions that need to be answered out 
 
 
              8    here before we get into the discussion of this. 
 
              9                   John?  State your name and your 
 
             10    affiliation. 
 
             11              MR. HADDER:  My name is John Hadder with           
                  MR. HADDER: 
 
 
             12    Citizen's Alert.  And I just wanted to follow up on one 
 
             13    of the public questions.  Is it correct to assume that 
 
             14    the initiation of this process has nothing to do with 
 
             15    public comment on cask safety transport at this point? 
 
 
             16              MR. CAMERON:  Clarification?  Susan?               
              MR. CAMERON:  
 
             17              DR. SHANKMAN:  I am not exactly sure what you      
                       DR. SHANKMAN    
 
             18    are saying.  Will you say it again in another way? 
 
             19              MR. HADDER:  In the way that you have stated       
                      MR. HADDER: 
 
 
             20    so far, there is a lot of language out about improved 
 
             21    computer models and the nature of future transportation.  
 
             22    I didn't really hear anything about public involvement  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         56 
 
              1    and your requesting or asking for a more detailed study.  
 
              2    Wasn't that part of your decision to move ahead? 
 
              3              DR. SHANKMAN:  Sure, of course it is part of       
                      DR. SHANKMAN:  
 
 
              4    our decision.  And also the fact that we are trying to 
 
              5    get the study completed before the initiation of the 
 
              6    request.  It is also part of our study, but I think it's 
 
              7    easy to do it as extensively as we are planning to do it 
 
 
              8    because we do have the ability to do a better study with 
 
              9    the computer power and the resources that we have.  
 
             10    Earl? 
 
             11              MR. EASTON:  Having been at the NRC for a very     
                        MR. EASTON: 
 
 
             12    long time, first of all, the NRC, when we put out the 
 
             13    initial study in 1977, the Commission made a formal 
 
             14    commitment to the public to keep the transportation 
 
             15    standards and to keep the transportation of radioactive 
 
 
             16    material under a continuous review to make sure, as Mr. 
 
             17    Edlow said, that we are in step with the time.  
 
             18                   So I think for all of the above reasons 
 
             19    mentioned, we have the ability to really focus in as the 
 
 
             20    subject becomes greater, to take advantage of that.  As 
 
             21    the public raises concerns, we will take advantage of 
 
             22    that.  And each of these studies is made to supplement  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         57 
 
              1    and build on the other studies.  And this will not be 
 
              2    the end of this.          
       ________ 
 
             18    State of Nevada.  Clarifying question.  Will the 
 
             19    transport modal study also include the quality control 
 
 
             20    issue, including perhaps the evaluation of the testing 
 
             21    methods currently employed by (unintelligible)?              
                                    ______________ 
 
             22              MR. LEWIS:  One of the issues that we will         
                    MR. LEWIS:    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         58 
 
              1    discuss also later today are the human factors involved 
 
              2    in the casks, the quality issue, and the cask design and 
 
              3    cask load, and those are open for comment and discussion 
 
 
              4    in the public sector. 
 
              5              MR. CAMERON:  We will get to that.  Let's take     
                        MR. CAMERON: 
 
              6    two final clarifying questions.  
 
              7                   Ron? 
 
 
              8              MR. POPE:  Ron Pope, with the International        
                     MR. POPE: 
 
              9    Atomic Energy Agency.  I would just like to add from the 
 
             10    international perspective, in that the agency is 
 
             11    controlled by what is known as a Board of Governors and 
 
 
             12    a general conference. 
 
             13                   At the last general conference a 
 
             14    resolution was passed that encourages the International 
 
             15    Atomic Agency to continue to review the adequacy of 
 
 
             16    regulations to insure that they are complete.  So it is 
 
             17    not just an internal concern.  It is an international 
 
             18    concern, and all the member states are very concerned, 
 
             19    and encouraged, and intend to continue this operation 
 
 
             20    for the protection of the due process. 
 
             21              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks a lot.  Now let's have        
                     MR. CAMERON: 
 
             22    final comment on this stage from Klaus.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         59 
 
              1              MR. SCHUMANN:  Klaus Schumann, with the            
                 MR. SCHUMANN: 
 
              2    Nuclear Waste Management Committee.  I still have a 
 
              3    clarifying question.  In your presentation you mentioned 
 
 
              4    that there would be different casks as well as also the 
 
              5    casks may contain or will contain (unintelligible)           
                                           ______________ 
 
              6    assembly for shipment. 
 
              7                   But isn't it true that also the 
 
 
              8    characteristics of the contents itself may change as 
 
              9    well in the future, considering that in the future, fuel 
 
             10    -- you may have fuel involved which has stayed longer in 
 
             11    the reactor, it has therefore a possible mummification 
 
 
             12    (sic) for the thermal load and also for travel               
     ___ 
 
             13    containers. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Rob Lewis?                           
  MR. CAMERON: 
 
             15              MR. LEWIS:  You are absolutely correct.  And I     
                        MR. LEWIS:   
 
 
             16    have that on my list. 
 
             17              MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Rob.                
             MR. CAMERON: 
 
             18                   I think rather than jump into the first 
 
             19    substantive discussion, which is now Highway and Railway 
 
 
             20    Accidents, that rather than break that in the middle 
 
             21    maybe we should take a break right now and maybe give 
 
             22    you a few minutes to get some coffee and stretch your  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         60 
 
              1    legs.  And we will start at 10:30. 
 
              2              (Off the record colloquy.)                         
     _______________________ 
 
              3              (Brief recess.)                              
____________ 
 
 
              4              MR. CAMERON:  Let me introduce Dr. Charles         
                    MR. CAMERON: 
 
              5    Massey.  He is the Manager of the Transportation, 
 
              6    Safety, and Security Analysis Department at Sandia 
 
              7    National Lab.  And his group is responsible for the 
 
 
              8    design testing analysis of all types of radioactive 
 
              9    material, packages and performance transportation, 
 
             10    safety and security assessment. 
 
             11                   Dr. Massey has been at Sandia for 10 
 
 
             12    years and prior to joining Sandia, Dr. Massey worked at 
 
             13    Oakridge National Lab.  He was Ships Officer in the U.S. 
 
             14    Navy.  He received a Bachelor of Science in Marine 
 
             15    Transportation from the Merchant Marine Academy.  He has 
 
 
             16    a Masters of Science Degree from the School of 
 
             17    Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and 
 
             18    another Master's Degree from the School of Public Health 
 
             19    at the University of Pittsburgh.  He has a Doctorate in 
 
 
             20    Radiation Health from the University of Pittsburgh.  And 
 
             21    I'll turn it over to Dr. Massey to sort of key this 
 
             22    discussion issue up front.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         61 
 
              1              DR. MASSEY:  Thank you.  I have three              
               DR. MASSEY:   
 
              2    functions during today's discussion.  First is to give 
 
              3    some background on sort of how we have gotten to the 
 
 
              4    current state of knowledge that we have on response in 
 
              5    the actual packages in accident positions. 
 
              6                   We will use that as sort of our weeding 
 
              7    point of discussion as to what it is that Sandia has 
 
 
              8    developed as suggestions for incorporation into a 
 
              9    Package Performance Study.  And I present those, as Dr. 
 
             10    Shankman said, not that a decision has been made or that 
 
             11    the suggestion for we're proposing will be the final 
 
 
             12    consideration in the study, but to stimulate discussion 
 
             13    so you will know what sort things we're thinking about 
 
             14    looking at and the type of input we're interested in 
 
             15    receiving from you.  So clearly you know that those are 
 
 
             16    suggestions. 
 
             17                   My third role is as you make suggestions 
 
             18    and comments to make sure we understand Sandia's point 
 
             19    of view, especially in the technical area, so I can 
 
 
             20    understand what exactly it is that you are proposing so 
 
             21    we can take that into account properly when we look at 
 
             22    the actual point of discussion.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         62 
 
              1                   To raise the technical topic areas we 
 
              2    will be looking at this afternoon and this morning; we 
 
              3    will finish off this morning.  I am looking at the 
 
 
              4    accident -- it looks like it might be one of these 
 
              5    accidents that could take place involving spent fuel 
 
              6    transportation and, if possible, by rail, and also 
 
              7    mention the other mode that may be used for 
 
 
              8    transportation, such as barges. 
 
              9                   Then we are combining the cask 
 
             10    performance during the collision, such as fires, and we 
 
             11    were discuss that in this one area and I will present 
 
 
             12    some background on some of those. 
 
             13                   And then in the afternoon we will look at 
 
             14    specifically the performance of spent fuel rods inside 
 
             15    the package during an accident.  Just to provide some 
 
 
             16    background so everybody has some common base of 
 
             17    understanding, this is the material we are talking about 
 
             18    transporting. 
 
             19                   As you can see, the bottom has been 
 
 
             20    digitally re-enhanced for a little bit of perspective 
 
             21    for fuel assembly.  These are the materials that we 
 
             22    package for storage and put in the spent fuel casks and  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         63 
 
              1    ultimately transport down to the disposal area -- 
 
              2    roughly 12 feet long, a foot and half or so in diameter. 
 
              3                   Once out of the reactor, those spent fuel 
 
 
              4    rods are radioactive in the large inventory of all the 
 
              5    radioactive material and are properly packaged for 
 
              6    maximum safety during transportation,  and ultimate 
 
              7    disposition. 
 
 
              8                   To do so, we put them in substantial 
 
              9    specially designed packages that take into account 
 
             10    shielding requirements that these are radioactive.  
 
             11    There are neutrons, X-rays, and gamma rays.  And in the 
 
 
             12    design we take into account we have to shield those 
 
             13    types of radiation initially and also to survive 
 
             14    potential accidents environmentally, the package as well 
 
             15    as the conditions going over the road in transportation 
 
 
             16    and transport the package. 
 
             17                   I have brought -- well, I will talk very 
 
             18    briefly about the importance of these significant 
 
             19    features.  The main part of the -- here's the main body 
 
 
             20    of the cask.  And you can see yourself here there is the 
 
             21    outer wall which is for the cask processes, here, and 
 
             22    then the internals of the cabinet, which is essentially  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         64 
 
              1    in place. 
 
              2                   And the package is closed up, and on the 
 
              3    end of the package for transport are package warning 
 
 
              4    materials, packing, placed on the end of the package to 
 
              5    help absorb forces that may develop in a collision if it 
 
              6    were hit on one of the ends, or on the corners of the 
 
              7    package. 
 
 
              8                   I have brought with us a cutaway, a 
 
              9    cutaway of a cask design which is actually a truck Spent 
 
             10    Fuel Cask.  What you can see on the outer edge here is a 
 
             11    quarter-inch stainless steel wall which is designed to 
 
 
             12    hold material in the package. 
 
             13                   This is not really a strong structural 
 
             14    part of the cask, or anything to be taken into account 
 
             15    in consideration during the package performance.  We are 
 
 
             16    going to remove it to get to essentially the substantial 
 
             17    part of the cask, which has been mostly discussed for 
 
             18    collision forces in the performance of the package. 
 
             19                   You can see you have just about three- 
 
 
             20    fourths of an inch of stainless steel, which is an 
 
             21    intercapsuled (sic) wall, I believe it's five inches of      
                            ___ 
 
             22    lead, some type of gamma X-ray shielding material, and  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         65 
 
              1    then another inch and a quarter or so on the outer edge.  
 
              2    This is the primary piece of the cask that we'll be 
 
              3    relying on for protection in the journey in the 
 
 
              4    transportation of the cask. 
 
              5                   We'll move it back -- come look at this.  
 
              6    Pick it up.  This is the actual size of one of the casks 
 
              7    that's currently in use.  It is pretty heavy.  If you 
 
 
              8    pick it up, be careful you don't drop it on your toe. 
 
              9                   Once the material is packaged in its 
 
             10    Spent Fuel cask, it is transported over the road in a 
 
             11    flatbed.  On the sides of the packages are what they 
 
 
             12    look like once they are completely closed. 
 
             13                   Now the first topic that I want to talk 
 
             14    about, is what's the likelihood that one of these 
 
             15    accidents could take place involving a Spent Fuel 
 
 
             16    Package?  As Mr. Lewis talked about, there has been a 
 
             17    series of studies done over the years on the original 
 
             18    NUREG 0170, which was completed in 1977, and, as 
 
             19    information has gotten better and we understand more and 
 
 
             20    the competition has improved and we have a better 
 
             21    understanding of public issues, we try to incorporate 
 
             22    these into the study we have completed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         66 
 
              1                   Now, in the modal study that was issued 
 
              2    in 1987, they used, for sort of an initiating backup, 
 
              3    "What's the likelihood that a truck or train 
 
 
              4    transporting of Spent Nuclear Fuel would be involved in 
 
              5    an accident?  What's the likelihood of that happening? 
 
              6                   Well, in 1985, the average truck and rail 
 
              7    data from across the United States, based on, now that 
 
 
              8    we have an accident, say a truck is involved in an 
 
              9    accident they tried to develop -- we developed 
 
             10    scenarios.  What happens now?  Okay.  The truck now goes 
 
             11    off the road.  It crashes -- into a bridge abutment, or 
 
 
             12    some sort of rock on the ground.  Depends -- is there a 
 
             13    fire or not? 
 
             14                   So, as a result, we freeze the event.  We 
 
             15    look towards finding what we are going to have to.  
 
 
             16    Based on that Modal Study we came up with 20 categories 
 
             17    of accidents in every category.  Based on all these 
 
             18    possible combinations of things happening once there was 
 
             19    an accident, how would we sort of blend those in a group 
 
 
             20    to analyze what might happen to the package given 
 
             21    certain types of incidents. 
 
             22                   Then Hawaii developed a number of speeds  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         67 
 
              1    and fires durations, and different distributions and 
 
              2    looking at -- based on how fast the trucks or trains may 
 
              3    be going, and then vary the results after those given 
 
 
              4    scenarios. 
 
              5                   In the 0170 re-evaluation that will be 
 
              6    issued early next year, we were able to only give 
 
              7    actually one-year-later data that was within modal 
 
 
              8    studies.  That should be something to look into.  We did 
 
              9    not do new accident sequence eventualities.  We modified 
 
             10    what was in the original modal study. 
 
             11                   As a result of those modifications and 
 
 
             12    the use of some of the later data, we ended up with 19 
 
             13    truck and 21 rail accident conversion categories in the 
 
             14    grouping of events that could occur on how they will 
 
             15    impact the package.  We essentially used modal studies 
 
 
             16    using speed, crash, and fire distribution.  
 
             17                   For the Package Performance Study, we'd 
 
             18    like to do a much newer update of accident rates data, 
 
             19    and that should take us up to the present time, and also 
 
 
             20    take advantage of national improvements and other 
 
             21    geographical information as to how that data is 
 
             22    collected and represented along routes that packages are  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         68 
 
              1    nationally transported. 
 
              2                   In addition, we would like to go into 
 
              3    those sequences given that there is a collision 
 
 
              4    involving a truck that goes off the road, what are the 
 
              5    things that could happen to a package in the 
 
              6    environment, given that accident event? 
 
              7                   We wanted to spend a little more time 
 
 
              8    going into some of the historical data.  And I note that 
 
              9    Mr. Halstead had a sheet that had a number of accident 
 
             10    events, historical accidents, and I look at some of 
 
             11    those historical accidents and see what are the fire -- 
 
 
             12    environment, for packages -- much more relying, instead 
 
             13    of us hypothesizing the kinds of things that could 
 
             14    happen, but look at what is happening in the 
 
             15    environment. 
 
 
             16                   And this is not only involving just 
 
             17    packages, but truck and train, so we can get a better 
 
             18    feel for more realistically look at what is happening to 
 
             19    packages there in the environment. 
 
 
             20                   And then finally in development of this 
 
             21    category, we really depend on what we find as we develop 
 
             22    these accident scenarios and the likelihood of those  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         69 
 
              1    occurring. 
 
              2                   Now, I will turn it back over to Chip. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much, Charles.        
                      MR. CAMERON: 
 
 
              4    Well, Charles addressed some Sandia suggestions for the 
 
              5    study.  You may want to suggest specifics under those 
 
              6    categories.  You may want to talk about new categories 
 
              7    that might be looked at.  
 
 
              8                   There were some references to terrorism - 
 
              9    - sabotage during our clarifying session.  This is 
 
             10    probably the time to put a finer point on that, clear up 
 
             11    any misimpressions that you think might be involved. 
 
 
             12                   With that -- so that's one part of this 
 
             13    discussion, I think.  But let's go to Bob Halstead for 
 
             14    the state of Nevada for some comments, and then what I'd 
 
             15    like to do is to hear if there are any other comments on 
 
 
             16    the issues -- at least the issue, the first issue or a 
 
             17    set of issues that Bob brings up, and then we're going 
 
             18    to come back over to Ron Ross and Jim Reed.  Bob? 
 
             19              MR. HALSTEAD:  Chip, again, I very much            
                 MR. HALSTEAD: 
 
 
             20    appreciate the format and location of this meeting.  And 
 
             21    we have part of what we think are our most important 
 
             22    summary comments at this point, in writing, in the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         70 
 
              1    interest of time.  So we can have a discussion of all 
 
              2    points. 
 
              3                   Let me just mention a few highlights of 
 
 
              4    our concerns.  First of all, regarding historical 
 
              5    accidents, we identify a select few of a large number 
 
              6    we've been evaluating for the past ten years in 
 
              7    preparation for the Yucca Mountain EIS.  We will be 
 
 
              8    expecting more documentation on these, and I know Dr. 
 
              9    Massey will be looking forward to receiving those.  I 
 
             10    think this is the nuts and bolts stuff we have to look 
 
             11    at.  
 
 
             12                   In particular, let me call your attention 
 
             13    to the Catastrophic Highway Infrastructure Failures, and 
 
             14    the Truck and Rail accidents involving military 
 
             15    explosives.  The military explosive issue is very 
 
 
             16    important to us here in Nevada, where we have to deal 
 
             17    with both the truck and rail shipments and our training 
 
             18    posts surrounding, Nellis and Fallon and other 
 
             19    facilities.  
 
 
             20                   Without belaboring that list, we believe 
 
             21    there are a number of accidents where forces in excess 
 
             22    of the current NRC Cask Performance Standards may have  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         71 
 
              1    been created.  Everyone knows accidents in creation is 
 
              2    more art than science, but this is where we should 
 
              3    start, with our listing of these severe accidents. 
 
 
              4                   Secondly, regarding accident rates, we 
 
              5    think it is really important to use a bounding approach, 
 
              6    for many reasons, to accident rates.  We need to look at 
 
              7    differences from state to state, differences from route 
 
 
              8    to route, differences from year to year.  
 
              9                   It's also important to go back and 
 
             10    reconstruct the accident rate respecting fuel shipments, 
 
             11    last done to our knowledge in 1991 by Science 
 
 
             12    Applications International in a report for the DOE.  
 
             13    These numbers would not have changed much, because 
 
             14    frankly, there haven't been that many shipments, 
 
             15    shipment-wise, in the 90's, compared to the 60's, 70's, 
 
 
             16    and 80's. 
 
             17                   But as you can see from these numbers, 
 
             18    0.7 accidents per million miles per truck, and I know my 
 
             19    rail friends are aghast at that horrendous 9.7 accidents 
 
 
             20    in a million miles by rail, and that reflects a lot of 
 
             21    issues like the smaller number of shipment miles because 
 
             22    of the larger capacity rate of packages.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         72 
 
              1                   But the bottom line is, there is some 
 
              2    historical data in there that needs to be updated.  But 
 
              3    I don't think it will change that much. 
 
 
              4                   Finally, on the maximum accident issues, 
 
              5    Nevada is in the process at looking at historical 
 
              6    accidents that have occurred in Nevada, and actually, it 
 
              7    sounds quite useful from the same contractor (sic)           
                                                      ___ 
 
 
              8    reports. 
 
              9                   One incident that's well known to rail 
 
             10    historians is a 1939 sabotage incident in the city of 
 
             11    San Francisco.  A passenger train was derailed at full 
 
 
             12    speed into a steep canyon.  And there was some thinking 
 
             13    that it was a copy-cat effect with a news article on 
 
             14    that report here just before the derailment, that 
 
             15    occurred in Arizona, and actually, the same techniques 
 
 
             16    and planning were done for that.  That is one example of 
 
             17    a very severe accident that we'll be providing you 
 
             18    documentation on. 
 
             19                   There are also some hypothetical 
 
 
             20    accidents, and again, I acknowledge that DOE has 
 
             21    recognized these in their 1986 environmental assessment.  
 
             22    The issue of military aircraft carrying live munition,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         73 
 
              1    either bombing or crashing into shipments because of the 
 
              2    way that the Yucca Mountain is situated near the flight 
 
              3    corridors for Nellis and Fallon.  That is a real issue 
 
 
              4    in Nevada. 
 
              5                   Finally, as far as the probability issue.  
 
              6    Let's put it bluntly.  You have to look at 1,000,000 per 
 
              7    year, in order to meet -- to exceed these two 
 
 
              8    guidelines.  There are always going to be flights that 
 
              9    are cumulative on uncertainties of having got to that 
 
             10    number. 
 
             11                   You have got to at least assume a factor 
 
 
             12    of 10 arguments, and indeed, there are some arguments 
 
             13    you have got to consider of those uncertainties go 
 
             14    beyond one in 10,000,000 per year incidents. 
 
             15                   Just in closing, the undetected heat 
 
 
             16    vecs, improper loading has to be looked at both as 
 
             17    accident initiating factors and as a consequence, 
 
             18    evacuating factors, and that while Nevada advocates the 
 
             19    use of dedicated trains, we don't advocate assuming them 
 
 
             20    in this study, because DOE and the industry has opposed 
 
             21    mandatory use, and in fact, DOE has premised their own 
 
             22    general plan so there are important disputes among the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         74 
 
              1    railroad as to what the maximum speed should be. 
 
              2                   We will continue to push for dedicated 
 
              3    trains, but to give you a good conservative approach to 
 
 
              4    accident probability and consequence estimation, I think 
 
              5    it's important to assume general train confidence (sic).     
                                                                  ___ 
 
              6    Thank you. 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Bob, and I guess one      
                       MR. CAMERON: 
 
 
              8    thing, and I'll go to the NRC staff for a clarification 
 
              9    here.  The data that the state of Nevada submits or any 
 
             10    other data that comes in, will that be available somehow 
 
             11    to other people by posting on the web site?  I don't 
 
 
             12    know if we have the answer. 
 
             13              MR. HALSTEAD:  That was our hope, that we          
                   MR. HALSTEAD: 
 
             14    would use that web site as a single point of contact to 
 
             15    access each other's information. 
 
 
             16              MR. CAMERON:  Is that our intent?  Rob?  Yes?      
                        MR. CAMERON: 
 
             17    (Addressing Mr. Lewis) You will post?                    
____________________ 
 
             18              MR. LEWIS:  We will be -- and we would, of         
                    MR. LEWIS: 
 
             19    course, acknowledge anything we get from anyone we will 
 
 
             20    put on the web site.  That is not an issue.  If not on 
 
             21    the website, it will be made available somehow. 
 
             22              MR.  CAMERON:  We will make it easy for you.       
                       MR.  CAMERON:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         75 
 
              1    We have a lot of our documents on our own web site.  So 
 
              2    we can give you ours and you can access many of our 
 
              3    documents.  On the other hand, there is difficulty to 
 
 
              4    access documents.  For example, we had a very good 
 
              5    practical discussions with Larry Fisher (phonetic) and       
                                                      ________ 
 
              6    C. K. (unintelligible) back in March of 1989 at a            
              ______________ 
 
              7    workshop sponsored by the Western Users Energy Group. 
 
 
              8                   We were the only people who were 
 
              9    interested in transcribing tapes, so as far as we know, 
 
             10    we have the only transcript of the tape. 
 
             11                   It would be very useful to you to see the 
 
 
             12    things that Larry and C.K. admitted when they were 
 
             13    pushed forces in excess, the 
 
              7    type of accidents, the bombing approach to accident 
 
 
              8    rates where you spend consideration of seasonal, state- 
 
              9    by-state variations of -- don't assume dedicated trains, 
 
             10    or any other particular form of transport. 
 
             11                   Does anybody, and I know we have a lot of 
 
 
             12    cards up here on your own issues, but does anybody want 
 
             13    to comment on any of Bob's issues at this point? 
 
             14                   Ron? 
 
             15              MR. POPE:  Just to clarify, we support Bob on      
                       MR. POPE: 
 
 
             16    the issue of mixed freight, that they make a bounding 
 
             17    kind of thought (sic) versus a dedicated train.  But         
                           ___ 
 
             18    basically, we support that you could have an open 
 
             19    commerce factor inbound -- what kind of thing might be 
 
 
             20    on those trains that would then have other shipments? 
 
             21              MR. CAMERON:  Other points?  Kevin?                
             MR. CAMERON:  
 
             22              MR. BLACKWELL:  Actually, I have a question        
                     MR. BLACKWELL:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         77 
 
              1    first for clarification with Bob.  The critical thing 
 
              2    is, it would make my job a lot easier, as a lot of the 
 
              3    data begins -- it is useful to me -- I want to thank Bob 
 
 
              4    for that.  He is real candid about it. 
 
              5                   Also, Bob, my question to you is in 
 
              6    regards to the -- I believe you stated that the rail 
 
              7    accident rate is attached, so basically a ten-miles 
 
 
              8    figure is a tours (sic) shipment mile figure?                
                      ___ 
 
              9              MR. HALSTEAD:  That is right.  It is a             
                MR. HALSTEAD: 
 
             10    shipment-mile approach, and it involves a mix where most 
 
             11    of the -- in fact, I believe all of the rail shipments 
 
 
             12    since 1975 have been in dedicated trains.  And I believe 
 
             13    there were some transfer shipments. 
 
             14                   But -- there were some 60 shipments that 
 
             15    went in general trade commerce from I think it is 
 
 
             16    Humboldt Bay primarily to West Fallon, so to actually 
 
             17    look at these shipments because -- it is mostly 
 
             18    Monticello and Cooper station type thing, where you have 
 
             19    two or three miles of casks, so that -- as I said, you 
 
 
             20    have to also understand that one stupid accident on a 
 
             21    CMI (sic) shipment, with someone riding on a train to        
                ___ 
 
             22    St. Louis -- it is the statistics, and there is a reason  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         78 
 
              1    why anybody doing a CRA has to really understand what 
 
              2    went into this. 
 
              3                   And there's an argument that that's not 
 
 
              4    an accident or need not be considered an accident, but 
 
              5    it gives you that big number that my railway friends are 
 
              6    certainly unhappy about.  And that is why the shipment 
 
              7    miles have anticipated a lot of accidents. 
 
 
              8                   But at any rate, this is an area for some 
 
              9    technical discussion as to how we develop a rail 
 
             10    accident rate, whether cask miles, ton miles, shipment 
 
             11    miles -- a very important technical issue that we need 
 
 
             12    to study probably to represent the different points of 
 
             13    view. 
 
             14              MR. BLACKWELL:  Bob, my question was, I want       
                      MR. BLACKWELL: 
 
             15    to bring out to NRC to make clear that information you 
 
 
             16    get from different sources may not be necessarily the 
 
             17    same kind of information.  That information that is 
 
             18    already provided may be based on ton miles versus actual 
 
             19    shipping miles. 
 
 
             20              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thanks a lot, Kevin.          
                   MR. CAMERON: 
 
             21                   Do we have other comments on what Bob has 
 
             22    said?  Rick?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         79 
 
              1              MR. BOYLE:  Rick Boyle from the U.S.               
              MR. BOYLE: 
 
              2    Department of Transportation.  I agree that we need to 
 
              3    study to put in a bounding perspective from the 
 
 
              4    probability standpoint.  I'd like to highlight it.  And 
 
              5    if my numbers aren't exact, I would hope that they are 
 
              6    within the order of magnitude. 
 
              7                   Five million shipments of radioactive 
 
 
              8    materials, probably 150,000,000 hazardous material 
 
              9    shipments a year, and that's a small percentage of the 
 
             10    overall goods and services that are transported in the 
 
             11    United States, and that is annually. 
 
 
             12                   Certainly there are severe accidents, 
 
             13    just as Mr. Halstead stated, certainly over the last ten 
 
             14    years, referencing there are maybe 20 or 30 very severe 
 
             15    accidents in areas. 
 
 
             16                   If you look at those 30 accidents, which 
 
             17    I have to admit I am not familiar with  -- I don't 
 
             18    really want to get into anything other than the numbers 
 
             19    that are presented relative to the billions of shipments 
 
 
             20    made over the last ten years, I think the study should 
 
             21    reflect that that probability is found in some place.  
 
             22    That is on, in general, that's an overview.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         80 
 
              1                   Now, we get into some areas that may be 
 
              2    of interest to some particular parties.  In Nevada, the 
 
              3    one that was brought up was a military shipment of live 
 
 
              4    ammunition on an aircraft that either accidentally or 
 
              5    purposely bombed a spent fuel train. 
 
              6                   I think that is an area that has even 
 
              7    less probability since it hasn't happened.  And that's 
 
 
              8    why I would caution what I would hope that our NRC 
 
              9    contractor people, who are the lower bound on that 
 
             10    probability under fuel lines. 
 
             11                   Our next comment, as you get into 
 
 
             12    accident rates, and setting of it, again I comment on 
 
             13    non=dangerous goods versus dangerous goods versus 
 
             14    radioactive material, and I think accident rates, 
 
             15    because you have to realize the regulations are there, 
 
 
             16    where you don't transport everything at the same rate. 
 
             17                   You should look at the accident rates for 
 
             18    radioactive material, and particularly Hazmat (sic).         
                                                          ___ 
 
             19    You don't have enough of a background rather than all 
 
 
             20    the dangerous goods.  
 
             21                   The historical aspect is also very 
 
             22    important.  You should look at how shipments are being  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         81 
 
              1    made today.  The easiest one is maybe the least 
 
              2    applicable here, but is a good example if we study the 
 
              3    international air transport, and you wanted to look at 
 
 
              4    the historical basis, we are going back to prop planes, 
 
              5    and historically, that doesn't make sense.  That had 
 
              6    nothing to do with how things are shipped today. 
 
              7                   Possibly our railroad experts could tell 
 
 
              8    us the same thing, that rail shipments today versus ten 
 
              9    years ago, would be equipment and the improvement.  It 
 
             10    may not be practical at all.  I would caution that use 
 
             11    of the historical data, you really have to think, "Is 
 
 
             12    that really practical?" Thank you. 
 
             13              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  It seems like we are          
                   MR. CAMERON: 
 
             14    dealing with how to get a handle on these issues of 
 
             15    bounding, and John suggested one process -- perhaps the 
 
 
             16    point of view  
 
             17              MR. HALSTEAD:  The military accident is very       
                      MR. HALSTEAD: 
 
             18    real, as documented by DOE.  Anyone who is spending time 
 
             19    in rural Nevada, and probably you haven't done this, has 
 
 
             20    been buzzed by flyboys at Fallon and Nellis; many 
 
             21    strange things occur. 
 
             22                   In fact, we have incidents of people  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         82 
 
              1    calling the office about planes loaded with live 
 
              2    ammunition incidents -- say two years ago.  And the 
 
              3    reason there are rail accidents -- here is the issue, 
 
 
              4    statistically, rail accident rates have come done 
 
              5    extraordinarily over the last few decades.  But the 
 
              6    number of very severe accidents per year is still about 
 
              7    the same. 
 
 
              8                   So again, the point about using PRA -- 
 
              9    using historical numbers, PRA must be done very 
 
             10    carefully, and I think you need some kind of a technical 
 
             11    study group that represents a study review to hash out.  
 
 
             12    And I don't want to end it with the discussion we have 
 
             13    at this table, because it is very important to get 
 
             14    numbers you can live with. 
 
             15              MR. CAMERON:  All right.  Let's go to Fred         
                    MR. CAMERON: 
 
 
             16    Dilger, and we will continue on this issue. 
 
             17              MR. DILGER:  Thank you.  Fred Dilger, Clark        
                     MR. DILGER: 
 
             18    County.  I want to agree with Bob with his remarks about 
 
             19    the county.  One of the things that we've found, because 
 
 
             20    of the Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement, is 
 
             21    that -- and in support of what Bob said earlier, that 
 
             22    from 1974 to 1991, there were approximately 1.4 million  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         83 
 
              1    shipment miles of Spent Nuclear Fuel. 
 
              2                   The proposed action for the Department of 
 
              3    Energy is 82 million shipment miles.  For their quantum 
 
 
              4    one and two is 142 shipment miles.  So we think they're 
 
              5    radically different programs that are being proposed.  
 
              6    And so the choice of accident rates is very, very 
 
              7    important. 
 
 
              8                   And I also agree with Rick that the 
 
              9    choice of accident rates has got to be done very 
 
             10    carefully, and you can't go back forever.  Thus we 
 
             11    appreciate the changes in policy that will make it 
 
 
             12    safer. 
 
             13                   There is another accident rate that 
 
             14    applies uniquely to Nevada that Sandia and the NRC need 
 
             15    to study, and that is the Yucca Mountain granting of the 
 
 
             16    proposed transporting of approximately two rail casks on 
 
             17    220-foot-long heavy-haul tractors. 
 
             18                   In real terms, it would probably be 
 
             19    traveling about 10 miles an hour in a lane, that is a 
 
 
             20    highway that is being used by 70,000 cars a day, with 
 
             21    cars and vehicles in adjacent lanes traveling about 70 
 
             22    miles an hour.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         84 
 
              1                   We think that there is no precedent for 
 
              2    that, and we think the company really needs to look at 
 
              3    that.  Here again, we know that there are regulations on 
 
 
              4    that particular program, but this is ultimately 
 
              5    something that needs to be looked at. 
 
              6              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Fred.  You brought up     
                        MR. CAMERON: 
 
              7    a specific example from the DOE DEIS.  
 
 
              8                   Let's go to John Vincent for some 
 
              9    information on the actual plan in terms of transport.  
 
             10    John. 
 
             11              MR. VINCENT:  I just wanted to update your         
                    MR. VINCENT: 
 
 
             12    database, practical stories on shipments via rail 
 
             13    exclusively, and multiple cask shipments, and I don't 
 
             14    think it's appropriate, therefore, to -- as you 
 
             15    indicated, to limit the accident rates associated with 
 
 
             16    general freight trains and not consider the 
 
             17    circumstances with dedicated trains.  That may, in fact, 
 
             18    be leading the charts on this whole issue, and establish 
 
             19    the standards for the future.  And it will probably be a 
 
 
             20    different set of numbers than obviously for general 
 
             21    freight.  
 
             22                   By the way, Bob, those two accidents --  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         85 
 
              1    on one, the driver ran around the gate, the gate guard, 
 
              2    and the train was going five miles an hour.  It was 
 
              3    probably almost not an accident. 
 
 
              4              MR. CAMERON:  All right, thank you for that        
                     MR. CAMERON: 
 
              5    clarification, John. 
 
              6                   I guess the question is that -- what, 
 
              7    ultimately, does Sandia consider, for example, the 
 
 
              8    dedicated train general freight?  How do they make 
 
              9    decisions on what they look at?  Charles? 
 
             10              DR. MASSEY:  That is one of the things that        
                     DR. MASSEY: 
 
             11    will be, ultimately be -- how do we deal with these 
 
 
             12    events where you have some crossing point and you have a 
 
             13    collision with a car, that don't seek thresholds -- that 
 
             14    are not always important. 
 
             15                   But how are we going to process that 
 
 
             16    information, and how do we do that?  And in the case of 
 
             17    distance, it is ultimately clear they really wouldn't 
 
             18    prevent much of a collision, and how do we then, or do 
 
             19    we try to put out some other event?  Is there damage 
 
 
             20    based on the then accidents, and how do we deal with 
 
             21    accident data, and how do we collect it? 
 
             22              MR. CAMERON:  Let's go down this way and then      
                       MR. CAMERON:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         86 
 
              1    go to Bob Alcock, and then we'll come back over and pick 
 
              2    up on the rest of you. 
 
              3              MR. ALCOCK:  I wonder if I could first ask a       
                      MR. ALCOCK: 
 
 
              4    question of Bob Halstead, and then follow up with 
 
              5    Sandia. 
 
              6              MR. CAMERON:  Go ahead.                            
 MR. CAMERON: 
 
              7              MR. ALCOCK:  Bob, in spite of the lists of the     
                        MR. ALCOCK:   
 
 
              8    number of accidents, railway, highway, truck and so 
 
              9    forth, were these incidents -- is there information 
 
             10    available as to the amount of forces involved, or 
 
             11    temperatures achieved, or duration of time?  Are there 
 
 
             12    data like that for these incidents? 
 
             13              MR. HALSTEAD:  Yes, we're working on this.         
                     MR. HALSTEAD: 
 
             14    And as I said before, anybody that has been in this 
 
             15    business of accident reconstruction, it's a difficult 
 
 
             16    thing to do. 
 
             17                   Basically, we have identified a list of 
 
             18    the severe accidents to a wide range of sources.  And 
 
             19    NDOT and the NTS database has identified those accidents 
 
 
             20    that were studied in detail by the National 
 
             21    Transportation Safety Board, and in some cases, there 
 
             22    are extensive reports for certain states where the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         87 
 
              1    states have done investigations. 
 
              2                   And we have a report that I had hoped 
 
              3    would be done by today to give you, but as I was busy 
 
 
              4    writing Hearing Statements, and we had these Hearings up 
 
              5    north, that will have to wait a couple of weeks, where 
 
              6    we actually have been working on this for about ten 
 
              7    years, and Marvin Resnikoff (phonetic) has done part of      
                                          ________ 
 
 
              8    the job.  
 
              9                   We are going to submit, at some point in 
 
             10    the next month or so, a compendium of supplements of 
 
             11    what data is available on fire duration, fire 
 
 
             12    temperatures, impact speeds, and some very interesting 
 
             13    velocity calculations with, for example, the I-95 bridge 
 
             14    accident, where, you know, people were on I-95 going 55 
 
             15    miles an hour, and they dropped almost 100 feet. 
 
 
             16                   So we have looked at some -- I will be 
 
             17    the first to admit it is very difficult to reconstruct 
 
             18    accident forces, and again, why we have to all 
 
             19    understand how much art that is, versus an exact 
 
 
             20    science. 
 
             21              MR. ALCOCK:  Charles, it's my understanding        
                     MR. ALCOCK:   
 
             22    that what we try to do generally is consideration of the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         88 
 
              1    forces involved, is to try to construct the most severe 
 
              2    situation we can think of and to try to fully understand 
 
              3    the forces involved and the temperatures involved and 
 
 
              4    whatever that happens to be and use that as a bounding 
 
              5    scenario such that we are -- we, generally, are able to 
 
              6    say to the public, "These accidents have occurred, but 
 
              7    we have considered an accident -- be it hypothetical -- 
 
 
              8    as worse than that, and found the forces and 
 
              9    temperatures; is there something that can be done with 
 
             10    that?" 
 
             11              MR. CAMERON:  Charles Massey?                      
       MR. CAMERON:  
 
 
             12              DR. MASSEY:  For our purpose, for the analysis     
                        DR. MASSEY: 
 
             13    -- that is one approach, to look at the bounding 
 
             14    scenario and see whether or not -- and in part, we can 
 
             15    answer that question because of the results from the 
 
 
             16    testing required from the NRC regulations, is that 
 
             17    right? 
 
             18              (UNIDENTIFIED):  A combination of test             
                (UNIDENTIFIED): 
 
             19    analysis, so when you get into written testing, here 
 
 
             20    where you have those bounding conditions, those severe 
 
             21    conditions, that we may look at, extremely long 
 
             22    duration, fires, extreme impact at high speed, may never  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         89 
 
              1    have occurred -- may not occur, and the probability of 
 
              2    those is any of the above. 
 
              3                   How we factor that into risk assessment 
 
 
              4    may get back little bit of arts and sciences involving 
 
              5    doing those risk assessments.  How we look at severe 
 
              6    accident environments and take those into accounts, when 
 
              7    we look at probability and consequences, we note the 
 
 
              8    information on which to inventory (sic) these decisions.     
                                                  ___ 
 
              9    So that is just a little bit of uncertainty. 
 
             10              MR. CAMERON:  Let's get Klaus.                     
        MR. CAMERON: 
 
             11              MR. SCHUMANN:  Well, ultimately, we find it        
                     MR. SCHUMANN: 
 
 
             12    extremely frustrating to look at the issues about 
 
             13    knowing where, what is the route -- without knowing by 
 
             14    what means, whether done by truck, done by railroad, or 
 
             15    done by bus, in our case. 
 
 
             16                   And I -- it seems to me that we talked 
 
             17    about accident likelihood, it is extraordinarily 
 
             18    important to know where it is going. 
 
             19                   To give you one example, it should go by 
 
 
             20    truck -- but we have a nuclear power plant in San Luis 
 
             21    Obispo County that would use highway 101 and then 
 
             22    highway 26, which highway 26 has the reputation of being  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         90 
 
              1    the deadliest highway in California.  And now, because 
 
              2    that way was so notorious for accidents, and so how can 
 
              3    we wrestle with the problem without knowing where those 
 
 
              4    trucks are and how it is being done? 
 
              5                   All we know is it has to be done by truck 
 
              6    for the first five miles from the nuclear power plant 
 
              7    because there is no railroad access.  And of course, it 
 
 
              8    makes all the difference in the world which route is 
 
              9    used in terms of assessing the likelihood of accidents.  
 
             10    And as far as I know, even this last EIS from Yucca 
 
             11    Mountain wanted to stress an appropriate level. 
 
 
             12              MR. CAMERON:  Let me suggest something in          
                   MR. CAMERON: 
 
             13    terms of the process and the questions.  And Bob has 
 
             14    already brought up the fact we need to consider 
 
             15    variations in space and time in terms of looking at 
 
 
             16    these accident rates. 
 
             17                   As we go around to the rest of you, if 
 
             18    anybody has anything to offer Klaus on how you factor in 
 
             19    specific routes, either in the study or in the 
 
 
             20    application of the regulations, that might be helpful to 
 
             21    get on the record. 
 
             22                   Let's go to Ron, and then we will go over  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         91 
 
              1    to the other Ron. 
 
              2              MR. POPE:  I would just like to suggest that       
                      MR. POPE: 
 
              3    the Sandia study at least acknowledge the fact that 
 
 
              4    there has been orders of magnitude in greater numbers of 
 
              5    shipments of Spent Fuel outside of the United States 
 
              6    than within the United States, and acknowledge whether 
 
              7    or not you use the shipping data and accident data from 
 
 
              8    those shipments in the study, recognizing that a lot of 
 
              9    those shipments are done by sea. 
 
             10                   But they all originate and end in land 
 
             11    transport by truck or rail, and I think the study should 
 
 
             12    at least acknowledge the fact that this has occurred and 
 
             13    that there is some data out there that might be issued. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much.  Ron Ross?      
                       MR. CAMERON: 
 
             15              MR. ROSS:  Ron Ross.  I have a couple of three     
                        MR. ROSS: 
 
 
             16    points I would like to suggest to bring up.  The first 
 
             17    one is that your (inaudible) out to geographically work      
                               _________ 
 
             18    with the different -- both the rail and truck. 
 
             19                   I might offer that you might want to 
 
 
             20    break this into a western or eastern or some other form, 
 
             21    because on highways, we have interstate speed zones, a 
 
             22    bigger truck mix, and we also have the system that is  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         92 
 
              1    more inclined to both geography changes, either by drop- 
 
              2    offs as well as weather changes, which is particularly 
 
              3    important in the winter season. 
 
 
              4                   Second, on rail, it's the same way.  You 
 
              5    have only triple-line -- main line running in the West.  
 
              6    The speeds there can reach 78 miles an hour.  There is 
 
              7    the UP line through Nebraska, and most of those are coal 
 
 
              8    trains running along those lines, and that is the reason 
 
              9    why I suggested you look at general freight, also. 
 
             10                   The second point I would like to make 
 
             11    also on this is that I saw nothing here on either water 
 
 
             12    board or oceans.  And this is a contentious issue 
 
             13    amongst our seaboard states as well as our Pacific 
 
             14    territories, and particularly when we get into the 
 
             15    Concorde shipments that are involved, that is an issue. 
 
 
             16                   And the forces that are involved, there 
 
             17    the accident rates and all that are significantly 
 
             18    different, and I know the International Association does 
 
             19    have some standards there, and I'd like to suggest you 
 
 
             20    do have some consideration to that. 
 
             21                   Lastly, as you address the first point, 
 
             22    Chip, you have on the board up there, and that is the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         93 
 
              1    issue of sabotage.  I'm not talking about the actual act 
 
              2    of sabotage, but the results of that.  And I notice on 
 
              3    page 30 of your pamphlet here you are siting an old 
 
 
              4    Sandia report, which I think is very outdated, and my 
 
              5    issue in bringing this whole thing up was that you need 
 
              6    to go hand-in-hand and crossover here, because the 
 
              7    results of the real issue is the effect of how that 
 
 
              8    impacts the cask emperically and (inaudible and              
                                       _____________ 
 
              9    unintelligible).                    ______________ 
 
             10              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Ron.  And I am sure       
                      MR. CAMERON: 
 
             11    some other people are going to pick up on that 
 
 
             12    particular issue.  Let's go to Jim Reed, and then we'll 
 
             13    go to Richard Swedberg. 
 
             14              JIM REED:  A couple points.  I think updating      
                       JIM REED: 
 
             15    the accident data is really critical.  The reason for 
 
 
             16    that is we have had, many of you that live here in the 
 
             17    big cities across the country know of the congestion 
 
             18    problems we are having.  And the numbers show that the 
 
             19    number of highways that have been built is increasing 
 
 
             20    only three percent in 10 yeterate what you need is a focus on the 
 
             14    updating of accident data, and maybe you can show an 
 
             15    increase in just general accidents that are out there. 
 
 
             16                   As a consequence to this, there is a lot 
 
             17    more of this chain reaction -- crashes, where you have 
 
             18    up to 100 vehicles crashing into each other.  The icy 
 
             19    conditions -- we had one in Colorado just a few weeks 
 
 
             20    ago.  You hear about them all the time in California, 
 
             21    Tennessee, and various places. 
 
             22                   I wanted to recommend another accident,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         95 
 
              1    but I don't remember the exact date of it.  But it was 
 
              2    that time there was a tunnel fire on a road between 
 
              3    France and Italy, a fairly horrible accident with people 
 
 
              4    trapped in this tunnel, and so that might be an accident 
 
              5    narrative you might want to look at and study. 
 
              6                   Finally, I guess -- Bob mentioned the 
 
              7    NTSB.  I think they're a good source of accident 
 
 
              8    analysis, and we could look at that a few moments and 
 
              9    study it. 
 
             10              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you, Jim, for all       
                      MR. CAMERON: 
 
             11    of those suggestions.  I would just ask Ron -- all the 
 
 
             12    information, can you tell us a little bit or just name 
 
             13    the specific accident that Jim was talking about?  Ron 
 
             14    Pope?  Anybody?  Earl -- do you want to just tell us 
 
             15    with names? 
 
 
             16              MR. EASTON:  It was the tunnel that went under     
                        MR. EASTON: 
 
             17    Mont -- I think heating oil caught fire -- Mont Blanc. 
 
             18              MR. CAMERON:  Mont Blanc?                          
   MR. CAMERON: 
 
             19              MR. EASTON:  Mont Blanc.                           
  MR. EASTON: 
 
 
             20              MR. CAMERON:  Rich?                              MR.
CAMERON: 
 
             21              MR. SWEDBERG:  Rich Swedberg with DOT.  I want     
                        MR. SWEDBERG: 
 
             22    to first clarify for Klaus -- he asked to bring up  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         96 
 
              1    position routing designations.  I think it is important 
 
              2    for everybody understand the routing designations are 
 
              3    done by the state.  So in your own state of California, 
 
 
              4    it is your own state that designates which route you 
 
              5    will use. 
 
              6                   And obviously, they do that.  The federal 
 
              7    government doesn't do that because your state is more 
 
 
              8    attuned to where the highest accident rates are 
 
              9    recorded. 
 
             10                   And the other thing, I just wanted -- you 
 
             11    know, you have to remember that we have a lot of things 
 
 
             12    which are regulations which prevent a lot of accidents, 
 
             13    and I think it's important to talk a little bit about 
 
             14    that. 
 
             15                   First of all, we don't put a lot of 
 
 
             16    hazardous materials through towns, and that most towns, 
 
             17    you know, are restricted from hazardous material, and 
 
             18    most towns, you know, they don't take hazardous 
 
             19    materials. 
 
 
             20                   One of the things I think, too  -- is Bob 
 
             21    has done a good job here, and I know he has got data on 
 
             22    Spent Fuel accidents.  I'm glad he didn't mention  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         97 
 
              1    (inaudible).                      _________ 
 
              2                   The one thing that I wanted to make sure 
 
              3    that we all know here is, looking at Bob's compilation 
 
 
              4    here of data here, we also have regulations preventing 
 
              5    the actual transportation of explosives with Spent Fuel.  
 
              6    And the other things; and I know that is not referring 
 
              7    to that, but I just wanted to make sure everyone here is 
 
 
              8    aware of it, that Spent Fuel will, in fact, always 
 
              9    include diffusion, but not both.  And it is some kind of 
 
             10    an accident where a spent fuel truck ran into an 
 
             11    explosives truck or something like that, and they did go 
 
 
             12    together, and they should not be included together. 
 
             13                   And then for the great state of Nevada, I 
 
             14    just want to make sure that we all, we and DOT, have 
 
             15    been very much in tune with trying to work on accident 
 
 
             16    prevention.  And since 1990, we have actually been 
 
             17    working with a Commercial Safety Alliance and coming up 
 
             18    with standards on trucks which have been utilized. 
 
             19                   And we have actually presented three 
 
 
             20    classes with the Nevada Highway Patrol in Las Vegas, 
 
             21    Reno, and Elko at their different Regional Office 
 
             22    Headquarters, which actually looked at how to inspect  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         98 
 
              1    these trucks which carry this Spent Fuel or other 
 
              2    radioactive waste products. 
 
              3                   And we have been doing that as one-day 
 
 
              4    inspection classes, and one day of (inaudible) and a         
                                              _________ 
 
              5    half day with survey techniques, and we actually go in 
 
              6    and show them how to do the survey technique on these 
 
              7    trucks.  And it has been exercised here in Nevada with 
 
 
              8    the shipments already, where the Nevada Highway Patrol 
 
              9    has done inspections and escorted these trucks as they 
 
             10    go across Nevada.   
 
             11                   And I think that is a very important 
 
 
             12    part, because inspection procedures have -- are designed 
 
             13    to, in fact, preclude and prevent accidents and with a 
 
             14    lot of emphasis on laws and regulations and this and 
 
             15    that.  And I think it's important that we understand 
 
 
             16    that we have a responsibility to the public on these 
 
             17    concerns. 
 
             18              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  It is an important       
                      MR. CAMERON: 
 
             19    issue, and at some point before we end this session, I 
 
 
             20    might ask Charles to perhaps tell us what his thoughts 
 
             21    are in terms of the issue of when you're looking at 
 
             22    accident rates, how much do you assume that the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         99 
 
              1    regulatory framework is going to control, what happens, 
 
              2    how much do you factor in training -- all of those types 
 
              3    of issues to bound the accident rates. 
 
 
              4                   And we'll come back to Charles on that.  
 
              5    But let's go to Pat and then Kevin and then Mike 
 
              6    Baughman. 
 
              7              MR. BRADY:  Thanks, Chip.  The point that          
                   MR. BRADY 
 
 
              8    you've made is really what I would try to make here, the 
 
              9    fact that what UTDOE does with its mutual -- maximum 
 
             10    (inaudible) what the NRC should look at, and part of         
           _________ 
 
             11    that testing is part of the accident rate, as Bob 
 
 
             12    mentioned, 9.4 accidents per million miles.  Lawrence 
 
             13    Livermore has used 11.9, and in the last 10 years it's 
 
             14    been 4.0, and in the last three years it's been -- so 
 
             15    it's real significant that, as the years go on, rail 
 
 
             16    carriers are getting better at transporting all kinds of 
 
             17    shipments safely. 
 
             18                   And I want to point out that these are in 
 
             19    fact average.  And when you look at just crossing-grade 
 
 
             20    accidents, I think they vary widely. 
 
             21                   And in one state, you will have not a 
 
             22    very significant problem, and as far as how this affects  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        100 
 
              1    the DOE -- DOT regulations, how they affect what the NRC 
 
              2    is doing, and again, if you look at routing, now the 
 
              3    gentleman earlier said that the state hauls that Spent 
 
 
              4    Fuel, that is across the highway -- not across the rail. 
 
              5                   So there has been talk about routing 
 
              6    mixing Spent Fuel away from populated areas.  When you 
 
              7    get fuel away from populated areas, what happens is you 
 
 
              8    go secondary tertiary track, not on main lines. 
 
              9                   When you get onto lower-class tracks, 
 
             10    your accident rates are different than the main line 
 
             11    tracks.  So by changing the routing in rural areas, you 
 
 
             12    are actually changing the rate of accidents and 
 
             13    incidents. 
 
             14                   So again, looking at that may 
 
             15    dramatically affect how the NRC will look at something 
 
 
             16    or how somebody is looking at this. 
 
             17              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks a lot, Pat.  Just before      
                       MR. CAMERON: 
 
             18    we go to Kevin and Mike, I want to quickly go to Earl 
 
             19    Easton from the NRC staff. 
 
 
             20              MR. EASTON:  I think it's important when we        
                     MR. EASTON:  
 
             21    focus on the accident rate that we come right up front 
 
             22    and define what an accident is.  Because we don't want  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        101 
 
              1    to be counting apples and oranges and bananas.  Some 
 
              2    accidents are reported based on property damage, some 
 
              3    are reported whether there are fatalities, and some are 
 
 
              4    real accidents. 
 
              5                   So before we come up with what numbers 
 
              6    are appropriate, I think we have to figure out what 
 
              7    really are we defining as an accident to start with? 
 
 
              8              MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thanks, Earl.  And that is     
                        MR. CAMERON:  
 
              9    a good for thought for all of you around the table as we 
 
             10    go through the rest of these cards. 
 
             11                   Let's start with Kevin.  Is that what you 
 
 
             12    were going to say? 
 
             13              MR. BLACKWELL:  Just a couple of short             
                MR. BLACKWELL:  
 
             14    comments, some of which my points have already been 
 
             15    addressed by others.  Number one, I just want to point 
 
 
             16    out that it was pointed out earlier in earlier comments 
 
             17    that the reason for the visible (sic) study was because      
                                              ___ 
 
             18    of technological improvements in casks and construction 
 
             19    and computer models and that kind of thing. 
 
 
             20                   I think it is also important to note 
 
             21    another reason is the improvements that have been made 
 
             22    since the original study in transportation technology,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        102 
 
              1    not just computers in Packaging, but also in the 
 
              2    elements of transportation by rail and car improvements, 
 
              3    racing technologies, couplers and that kind of thing. 
 
 
              4                   So lumping it into technology, in 
 
              5    transportation conveyances as well as the improvements 
 
              6    that are still going on in the rail environment, and 
 
              7    there are constant improvements in that scenario. 
 
 
              8                   The other thing I want to say is that the 
 
              9    use of the ten, 15 or 20 year historical data, and this 
 
             10    has already been covered already to some degree, and 
 
             11    that may not accurately respect present and future 
 
 
             12    conditions. 
 
             13                   The original study -- one thing I did 
 
             14    want to say, I did like, is that the original study did 
 
             15    account for accidents, had the possibility of cask 
 
 
             16    improvement, and I think it's important that it is said 
 
             17    here, for the record, because an accident -- when you 
 
             18    start looking at all kinds of accidents, you have to be 
 
             19    able to define what an accident is. 
 
 
             20                   The real high rail crossing accidents are 
 
             21    something that are very hard to control because there 
 
             22    are a lot of external factors, and while there are  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        103 
 
              1    improvements that are trying to be made by the railroad 
 
              2    industry or by FRA in trying to reduce that number, it 
 
              3    is a very difficult process. 
 
 
              4                   And to look at those numbers, as Pat 
 
              5    said, it is hard to try to reduce them because of the 
 
              6    external factors, but to include that kind of thinking 
 
              7    to your overall accident criteria, and then make it 
 
 
              8    clear that some accidents are not going to have a very 
 
              9    detrimental effect, if any -- it is almost 
 
             10    insignificant, in the aspect of actual damage to the 
 
             11    Package. 
 
 
             12                   Last, I want to say, just for the record, 
 
             13    is that this is for the benefit of the public here, 
 
             14    there is a very active inspection and safety compliance 
 
             15    oversight done, not only by the railroads and their 
 
 
             16    personnel, but also by the railroad administration. I 
 
             17    want to make it known here that the FRA does have a 
 
             18    policy, and I say that that is only a policy and not a 
 
             19    regulation.  And that there are additional safety 
 
 
             20    compliance oversight requirements.  That will be 
 
             21    performed on known shipments of high-level waste and 
 
             22    spent nuclear fuel and working with the same process  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        104 
 
              1    with the shipper and the carriers. 
 
              2                   It is meant to be a third tier of the 
 
              3    level, and we have supplied that to the NRC, and we have 
 
 
              4    also -- we are happy to supply that to anybody who wants 
 
              5    a copy.  It is public information. 
 
              6                   We are trying to get on the web site.  We 
 
              7    are not there yet. 
 
 
              8                   And the last thing is the State of 
 
              9    Nevada, is in talking -- what Rick was saying about 
 
             10    inspections.  The FRA also has an active state inspector 
 
             11    program where state personnel can become certified and 
 
 
             12    qualified to conduct rail inspections. 
 
             13                   And Nevada is active in that program.  In 
 
             14    fact, we have a Hazmat, and a qualified road inspector, 
 
             15    as well as one other involved in that program who are 
 
 
             16    certified to conduct rail inspections.  And that is a 
 
             17    50-state program that any state can become involved in 
 
             18    by following the regulatory requirements. 
 
             19              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks, Kevin.  Let's go to Mike     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
             20    Baughman now, and then we are going to just across here, 
 
             21    then we will come back to Bill Lake before we finish.  
 
             22    Mike?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        105 
 
              1              MR. BAUGHMAN:  Perhaps a couple of                 
            MR. BAUGHMAN:   
 
              2    suggestions.  One is with regard to accident rate 
 
              3    reduction, and looking at the accident rate.  It seems 
 
 
              4    to me that the Department of Energy has a fairly 
 
              5    efficient motor carrier evaluation program, and it might 
 
              6    be interesting to take a look at the correlation between 
 
              7    carriers that consistently score high in the evaluation 
 
 
              8    of their accident rates.  Intuition tells me that their 
 
              9    accident rates are significantly less. 
 
             10                   And as a point of regulation in terms of 
 
             11    regulatory reform, it strikes me as though that if we 
 
 
             12    find carriers that have a high rating consistently have 
 
             13    low accident rates, then perhaps the regulation requires 
 
             14    that we delete the carriers that consistently score 
 
             15    high. 
 
 
             16                   It would be one of the DOE's motor 
 
             17    carrier's evaluation programs, and I assume Jack's 
 
             18    company and the others I am aware of that have been in 
 
             19    this for a long time do score high, and we would like to 
 
 
             20    see the best and most effective use. 
 
             21                   Secondly, I'm a little bit worried here 
 
             22    that we would spend an inordinate amount of time  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        106 
 
              1    defining accident rates and doing studies to come up 
 
              2    with a conclusion that yes, the rates may be higher, and 
 
              3    perhaps significantly higher, but the consequences of 
 
 
              4    that in terms of radioactive risks are either 
 
              5    inconsequential or perhaps just minutiae, because the 
 
              6    risks themselves are very, very small.  
 
              7                   My concern is that we are not focusing 
 
 
              8    enough on -- let me say we are focusing on the damage to 
 
              9    the package rather than damage to the person, and the 
 
             10    greatest source of threat is not radioactive risk.  It 
 
             11    is just a plain old-fashioned accident where you get 
 
 
             12    killed or you get crushed, and you know I mean -- what 
 
             13    would be a nonradioactive program. 
 
             14                   I would suggest if the NRC thinks this is 
 
             15    a problem, that we ought to be thinking about this whole 
 
 
             16    system, whether it is worth the effort or how much 
 
             17    effort we put in to trying to reduce radioactive risk 
 
             18    and how much effort we put into reducing risks 
 
             19    associated with just ongoing accidents and horrible 
 
 
             20    accidents, and that circles all the way back to Fred's 
 
             21    comments and others about conflicts between slow-moving 
 
             22    vehicles and fast-moving vehicles and things of that  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        107 
 
              1    nature. 
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks, Mike.  Susan, do you         
                    MR. CAMERON:   
 
              3    want to make a point on that? 
 
 
              4              DR. SHANKMAN:  That is an excellent point.  We     
                        DR. SHANKMAN:   
 
              5    will be concentrating on package containment in the NRC 
 
              6    radiological study, but in terms of carriage safety, 
 
              7    that is under the Department of Transportation.  And to 
 
 
              8    the extent that we can factor that in to what you are 
 
              9    doing, we will -- but our study is founded on that which 
 
             10    the DOE (inaudible).                             _________ 
 
             11              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  Go ahead, Mike.  And     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
             12    I would just ask everybody to please speak directly into 
 
             13    the Mike. 
 
             14              MR. BAUGHMAN:  I guess I would caution or          
                   MR. BAUGHMAN:   
 
             15    encourage NRC to consider that the regulations that you 
 
 
             16    promulgate can impose conditions upon carriers and 
 
             17    conditions upon the nature of the shipment that can 
 
             18    exacerbate the accident rate that the DOT works by. 
 
             19              DR. SHANKMAN:  Right.                             
DR. SHANKMAN: 
 
 
             20              MR. BAUGHMAN:  If you take an accident at 20       
                      MR. BAUGHMAN: 
 
             21    miles an hour, and you reduce it to 10 miles an hour, 
 
             22    there is a relationship between that accident and the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        108 
 
              1    accident risk. 
 
              2              DR. SHANKMAN:  I agree, and we are looking at      
                       DR. SHANKMAN:   
 
              3    the risk. 
 
 
              4              MR. CAMERON:  I think we will -- Richard, do       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
              5    you want to just make a quick point? 
 
              6              MR. SWEDBERG:  Just a real quick point,            
                 MR. SWEDBERG:   
 
              7    because you wrote on the board.  I want to acknowledge 
 
 
              8    Mike, and he is right on.  We work directly with DOE to 
 
              9    make sure that our motor carrier's safety evaluations 
 
             10    are done in concert with them, and that only 
 
             11    satisfactory-rated carriers ever get an evaluation, you 
 
 
             12    know, to be able to haul these shipments. 
 
             13                   We are working hand-in-hand with them, 
 
             14    and there is a very, very extensive instruction program 
 
             15    that goes on to make sure, and these accident rates 
 
 
             16    highly affect the state's ratings.  They are not going 
 
             17    to get a good rating if they have a high accident rate. 
 
             18              MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Richard.            
                 MR. CAMERON:   
 
             19                   Judy? 
 
 
             20              MS. TREICHEL:  I think it's probably time to       
                      MS. TREICHEL:   
 
             21    throw in a little reality check when you're talking 
 
             22    about something that's as large as the shipping campaign  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        109 
 
              1    would be, and interspersed, among citizens who are out 
 
              2    there.  And Kelly (sic) said something about this study      
                                ___ 
 
              3    was being done to either improve your confidence or 
 
 
              4    maintain your confidence that everything is safe. 
 
              5                   There is also the question of public 
 
              6    confidence.  And anybody who says that you wouldn't 
 
              7    consider an accident because it hasn't happened yet is 
 
 
              8    not going to get past the public on that.  We have 
 
              9    accidents all the time that haven't happened yet.  It's 
 
             10    one of the things that is the nature of the beast. 
 
             11                   You are possibly going to be engaging in 
 
 
             12    something that is going to be met with a lot of protest 
 
             13    here.  When protest actions take place, as you've seen 
 
             14    in other places in shipping campaigns in Europe -- very 
 
             15    unexpected choices of situations get involved here. 
 
 
             16                   And when the statement was made that the 
 
             17    state does the routing, some states may not be routing 
 
             18    for very good reasons.  They may not choose who is going 
 
             19    to be victimized by having a route in there going past 
 
 
             20    their property and who is not. 
 
             21                   I would avoid also the use of -- I don't 
 
             22    know what the right term would be, as much as when you  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        110 
 
              1    were defining how shipments are happening, for 
 
              2    protection, because some of those things may happen.  
 
              3    And Value Jet have regulations as well, and after people 
 
 
              4    get complacent after it goes on for awhile, you can see 
 
              5    things that don't go just as they always did. 
 
              6                   And another thing that the public thinks 
 
              7    about is the casks, just by themselves, loaded with 
 
 
              8    terrible waste or Spent Fuel, give off some radiation.  
 
              9    So to say that there may not be a breach of the cask or 
 
             10    it's going to be inspected thoroughly and often and so 
 
             11    forth, that puts somebody at risk as far as the public 
 
 
             12    is concerned. 
 
             13                   You may have a whole batch of people here 
 
             14    at the table who say, "Well, but it's only a fraction." 
 
             15    That isn't how that plays in the public.  So you are 
 
 
             16    going to have to magnify some of your assumptions if you 
 
             17    are going to have public confidence, and if you are 
 
             18    going to be able to handle things that you have not seen 
 
             19    before, because I would guarantee, should this start, 
 
 
             20    you would see a whole lot of things that you have never 
 
             21    seen before. 
 
             22              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks a lot, Judy.  You have        
                     MR. CAMERON:    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        111 
 
              1    made some very important points that have to be looked 
 
              2    at for public confidence. 
 
              3              MR. SCHUMANN:  One point, the summary, that        
                     MR. SCHUMANN:   
 
 
              4    summary of the final report -- before we start, I want 
 
              5    to read it on the record right now that we'd that along 
 
              6    with several requests, which I don't want to outline 
 
              7    this morning, but I want it said on the record that we 
 
 
              8    did that.  I agree certainly with what Judy just said, 
 
              9    and although I don't think it helps the confidence of 
 
             10    the public to show the ability to trash fuel, on 
 
             11    previous outdated material, which I understand -- I 
 
 
             12    don't think how we trash fuel or Spent Fuel is 
 
             13    transported.  I don't think that is very helpful.  I 
 
             14    think some of it is damaging to what somebody might have 
 
             15    in the future of Spent Fuel transportation. 
 
 
             16                   In response to what Richard was saying, 
 
             17    that we are aware in the state of California also that 
 
             18    the state has to designate the route, although it has 
 
             19    given ultimately a mandate to come up with some such 
 
 
             20    plan by, I think it was January, 1997. 
 
             21    `              And of course, it's impossible to come up 
 
             22    with some kind of plan 100 percent without any knowledge  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        112 
 
              1    by anybody who designates those routes, and that is what 
 
              2    the point is that I was making. That any kind of 
 
              3    likelihood regarding speculation, the fact remains 
 
 
              4    extremely generic and hypothetical unless we know 
 
              5    exactly where it's going. 
 
              6                   And the last commentsI had to Sandia in 
 
              7    this case have to do with what resu
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        113 
 
              1    we want to get to the rest of the cards here, and then 
 
              2    we have to go on to another topic.  Fred? 
 
              3              MR. DILGER:  Very briefly, Fred Dilger, Clark      
                       MR. DILGER: 
 
 
              4    County.  First of all, we are very fortunate that NDOT 
 
              5    institutionalized the various carriers to operate 
 
              6    regulations that should be considered in the Sandia 
 
              7    study. 
 
 
              8                   Judy also raised the very good point 
 
              9    about the need for, the need not to be limited by the 
 
             10    litany of regulations.  Clark County has the unique 
 
             11    distinction because the Department of Energy has 
 
 
             12    actually transported five, at least five, we know of 
 
             13    contaminated radioactive containers. 
 
             14                   It is low-level waste, a radiological 
 
             15    hazard to the public, and so low it can't be measured, 
 
 
             16    but the fact remains that it was only identified because 
 
             17    the truck driver did what he's supposed to be doing.  
 
             18    And it came about not because the Department of Energy 
 
             19    disclosed that they were shipping radioactive waste that 
 
 
             20    was leaking.  It came about through forces of accident.  
 
             21    And this is something that really needs to be 
 
             22    considered.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        114 
 
              1                   We don't -- the mere existence of 
 
              2    regulations does not mean they are implemented properly. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Is there one question on that,       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
              4    or are there some regulations or some aspects of the 
 
              5    regulatory framework that could be considered as 
 
              6    bounding on this, but other aspects aren't? 
 
              7              MR. DILGER:  Sure.  I would think that is          
                   MR. DILGER:   
 
 
              8    reasonable. 
 
              9              MR. CAMERON:  Bill?                              MR.
CAMERON:   
 
             10              MR. LAKE:  I would just like to make a few         
                    MR. LAKE:   
 
             11    observations and suggestions.  Clearly, you are talking 
 
 
             12    about the many variables and many different data 
 
             13    sources, and that suggests to me that the different 
 
             14    variables and the different uncertainties affect the end 
 
             15    result.  What you put into the analysis, you have to get 
 
 
             16    out of it. 
 
             17                   I think the study, both about the 
 
             18    uncertainties and the sensitivities we have is very 
 
             19    useful in understanding the mission.  And you also have 
 
 
             20    a lot of information to go to to jump on this study, and 
 
             21    I know the original study, the 1987 study did not look 
 
             22    at this, did not look at the uncertainties -- did not  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        115 
 
              1    look at sensitivity.  It went right into the analysis. 
 
              2                   The uncertainties were treated, but 
 
              3    unfortunately, they did not go for the end result, so 
 
 
              4    you can't pull it out. 
 
              5                   What I would suggest, if you look at 
 
              6    sensitivities you look at nominal values, habit patterns 
 
              7    that you define, you work them and you apply these 
 
 
              8    standards appropriately. 
 
              9                   The sensitivity class we focus at all 
 
             10    times -- we show it, we study that, we study that, 
 
             11    looking for what's important.  And I want to stress that 
 
 
             12    to Sandia.  If Sandia would like to comment on that now  
 
             13    -- on the study. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Bill.  I would just       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
             15    like to make sure -- Charles and Susan, do you 
 
 
             16    understand what Bill was suggesting? 
 
             17              DR. MASSEY:  Yes, we do.                           
  DR. MASSEY:   
 
             18              MR. CAMERON:  Let's see.  We have to finish up     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
             19    now, and we'll just quickly go to the audience. But 
 
 
             20    let's have some quick final points here.  Jack?  Jack, 
 
             21    do you want to offer another point of view here? 
 
             22              MR. EDLOW:  Well, yes.                             
MR. EDLOW:    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        116 
 
              1              MR. CAMERON:  We will finish these off, and        
                     MR. CAMERON:   
 
              2    then we will go out to the audience. 
 
              3              MR. EDLOW:  I will be brief.  I usually don't      
                       MR. EDLOW:   
 
 
              4    really disagree with other panel members, because this 
 
              5    is supposed to be open dialogue, and everyone present 
 
              6    their point of view. 
 
              7                   However, I have to take exception with 
 
 
              8    your comments a few moments ago, because you said, 
 
              9    "Let's talk about reality." And I certainly agree you 
 
             10    are talking about reality, and in fact, I am very much 
 
             11    involved with reality.  And in fact, I am very much 
 
 
             12    involved with reality every day in making shipments. 
 
             13                   However, I think you made some points 
 
             14    that weren't reality, and I would like to put those on 
 
             15    the record with disagreeing with your perspective.  
 
 
             16                   First of all, you are characterizing this 
 
             17    as a very, very large shipping campaign.  In fact, this 
 
             18    will be a very, very small shipping campaign.  It may be 
 
             19    large in context with nuclear fuel or Spent Fuel, but 
 
 
             20    it's very small when compared with such things as 
 
             21    shipments of coal or munitions or other types of 
 
             22    shipping campaigns within the United States.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        117 
 
              1                   So the public, I think, is smart.  And I 
 
              2    think the public realizes, for instance, when DOE began 
 
              3    a program with foreign research reactor return, they 
 
 
              4    held some 24 public hearings around the country.  I 
 
              5    attended all but two of them, and I think all but one of 
 
              6    those, there were fewer than 10 members of the public 
 
              7    who appeared, because the public was smart enough to 
 
 
              8    understand that this really wasn't a major issue for 
 
              9    them. 
 
             10                   Sure, it is a major issue for you.  And 
 
             11    sure, it is a major issue for some of the people.  But 
 
 
             12    the public -- it is not a major issue. 
 
             13                   In fact, when that campaign started, 
 
             14    there were no protests.  There was no physical 
 
             15    destruction at Savannah River or the Port of Charleston 
 
 
             16    or -- in North Carolina when it was shipped through 
 
             17    there.  So I do not accept the fact that there will be 
 
             18    massive protests such as the case in Germany which was 
 
             19    done strictly for political purposes to overturn, at 
 
 
             20    that time, the current government.  And it was 
 
             21    successful. 
 
             22                   So let's really talk about reality.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        118 
 
              1    Let's not talk about shipping cesspools (sic), to truck      
                                                      ___ 
 
              2    companies, which we don't do.  Why study something that 
 
              3    we don't do?  Let's take this down to practical reality 
 
 
              4    and not deal with what's going to happen if, or this 
 
              5    kind of threat, or this or that deal.  Let's stay with 
 
              6    what we're doing. 
 
              7                   I'm sorry to speak against somebody, but 
 
 
              8    thank you for giving me the time. 
 
              9              MR. CAMERON:  Let's go to Pat -- well, let's       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
             10    get Richard out of the way here. 
 
             11              MR. SWEDBERG:  I have a short one, because         
                    MR. SWEDBERG:   
 
 
             12    Klaus brought up the point about NASA, and I just wanted 
 
             13    to cover that real quickly, because we worked closely in 
 
             14    the extensively with NASA.  When NASA came into effect, 
 
             15    we hired a lot more inspectors at the borders and also 
 
 
             16    the border states.  And NASA, when they signed in, they 
 
             17    agreed to keep these same basic standards and the same 
 
             18    chief inspection standards as U.S. motor carriers have 
 
             19    to go through.  
 
 
             20                   Now we actually provided training for 
 
             21    their inspectors as part of their NASA Agreement, they 
 
             22    agreed that they would keep these same safety and have  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        119 
 
              1    the same standards we had.  Now, that's not to say we 
 
              2    haven't put a lot of them out of service. 
 
              3                   And so NASA carriers in fact have had a 
 
 
              4    high out-of-service rate, and actually in the training 
 
              5    or if they find safety defects or mechanical defects we 
 
              6    put them out of service.  Again, I think in the context 
 
              7    of this room, we're not really talking about NASA 
 
 
              8    carriers and international carriers carrying spent 
 
              9    nuclear fuel.  We are not in the same arena. 
 
             10                   I don't think it should be an area up for 
 
             11    discussion. 
 
 
             12              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Richard, you may want to      
                       MR. CAMERON:   
 
             13    provide more detail to Klaus offline. 
 
             14                   Let's go to Pat and then finish up with 
 
             15    Bob and then see if anybody in the audience has any 
 
 
             16    comments. 
 
             17              MR. BRADY: Thanks, Chip.  We spent a lot of        
                     MR. BRADY:  
 
             18    time this morning and had a lot of talk about accident 
 
             19    risk and change in regulatory requirements, and one 
 
 
             20    thing I would ask the NRC to look at in the next study 
 
             21    is the changes in those regulations and how effective in 
 
             22    the worst-case scenarios.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        120 
 
              1                   And my point is that, back in the 70's 
 
              2    and 80's when the first tests were done, and I am 
 
              3    talking specifically about the physical diameter with 
 
 
              4    drop tests, back then, the highest occurrences of tank 
 
              5    car ruptures were caused by a coupler puncture, where a 
 
              6    coupler from one tank car would puncture another tank 
 
              7    car. 
 
 
              8                   Since then, since that time, the advent 
 
              9    of the gunshot (sic) coupler has pretty much taken away 
 
             10    the puncture by coupler, and the second-most cause is 
 
             11    the puncture by a fractured rail, rail fractures from 
 
 
             12    the base of the head on a roughly 45 degree angle. And 
 
             13    instead of looking at six-foot diameter, about 27 square 
 
             14    inches of a surface area, you're looking at more of a 
 
             15    ten-inch surface area with a drop-cut. 
 
 
             16                   The worst-case scenario for the puncture 
 
             17    of a coupler is just a fractured rail, and anecdotally 
 
             18    what has happened in the Western states this year, a 42- 
 
             19    foot section of rail punctured the head of ammonia, and 
 
 
             20    that is when a tank car traveled 42 feet inside the car 
 
             21    and almost exited the other side.  
 
             22                   So there is a lot more involved in that.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        121 
 
              1    My point in bringing up that incident is, we need to 
 
              2    bring up tank car damage done in derailment and look at 
 
              3    the studies that the other people bring up. 
 
 
              4              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much, Pat. Bob?       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
              5              MR. ALCOCK:  All I want to say on that is that     
                        MR. ALCOCK:   
 
              6    I agree with Pat, and I think that goes back to my 
 
              7    comment before about considering the technology 
 
 
              8    improvements. 
 
              9              MR. CAMERON:  Good point.  The question still      
                       MR. CAMERON:   
 
             10    is, is to write the regulatory framework is what's 
 
             11    reasonable to consider in terms of existing technology - 
 
 
             12    - new technology.  What is reasonable to consider in 
 
             13    terms of the regulatory framework, and as Judy pointed 
 
             14    out, notwithstanding the comments that Jack made about 
 
             15    that, is that what does it take in terms of public 
 
 
             16    confidence? 
 
             17                   Also, how do you factor that into the 
 
             18    mix?  
 
             19                   Let's go to Bob for final comments. 
 
 
             20              MR. HALSTEAD:  Rail accidents -- things that       
                      MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
             21    John, Pat, and Kevin said haven't modified my position.  
 
             22    I still think that the base case of range (sic) would be     
                                                         ___  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        122 
 
              1    Jim's (unintelligible), either as a boundary scenario or     
                     ______________ 
 
              2    separate treatment, in terms of train operations.  
 
              3    Mike's comment about traffic fatilities    
 
 
              4                   I have a real concern when people take 
 
              5    outputs from models like red trains (sic) and cancer         
                                               ___ 
 
              6    fatalities and traffic fatalities.  That's not a 
 
              7    predicted model.  You can't really use those numbers as 
 
 
              8    real numbers. 
 
              9                   I only know of one person that died from 
 
             10    Spent Fuel shipments, and that was a truck driver on a 
 
             11    rainy night in Tennessee in 1971.  There is not any 
 
 
             12    real-world correlation necessarily at that level. 
 
             13                   It's totally wrong to say that the risk 
 
             14    of, radioactive risk of accidents is not a pretty good 
 
             15    reason for the NRC to carry on this investigation.  I 
 
 
             16    think it is totally appropriate.  It is not a 
 
             17    misplacement of money, and you cannot take the output 
 
             18    from the risk models as the absolute answer. 
 
             19                   Remember what we said before about the 
 
 
             20    correlation between accident rates and accidents.  Even 
 
             21    though rail accident rates are going down dramatically, 
 
             22    the number of very severe rail accidents per year is  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        123 
 
              1    pretty much constant, and I would be happy to present 
 
              2    provides on that. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you, Bob.               
               MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
              4                   Anybody in the audience want to make a 
 
              5    point at this time?  We'll go to Assemblyman Bob Price. 
 
              6              ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE:  Thank you very much. And       
                      ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE:   
 
              7    normally, I wouldn't get up and make a comment, but I 
 
 
              8    have to say that the gentleman, Mr. Edlow -- we were 
 
              9    just talking about reality and the public presence here.  
 
             10    I have been a state legislator for 28 years -- not 
 
             11    really as long as my colleague, who was around 32 or 33 
 
 
             12    years.  
 
             13                   And I think we have to have, if you will, 
 
             14    using your words, some reality in our concept of what 
 
             15    goes on, what the public is interested in, and safety.  
 
 
             16                   Now in my 42 years here in Nevada, I 
 
             17    spent a lot of those years working at the Nevada Test 
 
             18    Site.  I am an electrician by trade, although I have not 
 
             19    worked at it for a long time.  But I have seen, even 
 
 
             20    back in those days, some pretty unexpected things 
 
             21    happen. 
 
             22                   The reason you don't see many members of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        124 
 
              1    the public at these types of meetings, and I have sat 
 
              2    through hundreds of meetings, not only out in the 
 
              3    populace like this, but in the legislature and 
 
 
              4    everywhere else, is that your public is busy. 
 
              5                   Your public in some cases expects that 
 
              6    they are electing, or even having people appointed 
 
              7    through the process, to be representing their interests.  
 
 
              8    And I think, when we are representing their interests, 
 
              9    we have to realize that longshot types of things can 
 
             10    happen.  
 
             11                   Now, about three years ago, and I don't 
 
 
             12    remember the locations, but I do remember thinking, "My 
 
             13    God, suppose a nuclear shipment had been on the train!" 
 
             14    In the incident that happened, a train was crossing a 
 
             15    bridge, and I want to think it was down south somewhere, 
 
 
             16    over a large river, when a barge was coming down the 
 
             17    river, ran into the support, and the whole train 
 
             18    collapsed into the river. 
 
             19                   Now, I don't know what kind of a longshot 
 
 
             20    that is -- a million to one shot, but it's the type of 
 
             21    things we should be looking at, the longshot things that 
 
             22    can happen when we are conducting business of this  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        125 
 
              1    importance. 
 
              2                   I remember an incident I speak of every 
 
              3    once in awhile while we were doing what was then 
 
 
              4    considered a down pole shot at the Nevada Test Site, and 
 
              5    they were on the final countdown.  I don't remember if 
 
              6    it was an hour away or what have you. 
 
              7                   And in those days, you had a giant sort 
 
 
              8    of like oil derrick that you would lower the device in, 
 
              9    and I was up at the headquarters watching on the 
 
             10    television screens, and they were doing the countdown, 
 
             11    and out of the mountains, a man and a woman in an off 
 
 
             12    road vehicle came up, driving up to the device, got out 
 
             13    looking, and, you know, wondering what is this out in 
 
             14    the middle of the desert?  Because they didn't know 
 
             15    where they were at, and they didn't even realize they 
 
 
             16    were at the Nevada test site.  
 
             17                   And those kinds of longshots do happen, 
 
             18    so I believe we should be examining every potential 
 
             19    possibility. 
 
 
             20              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you for that perspective,      
                       MR. CAMERON:   
 
             21    Assemblyman Price, of the elected people. 
 
             22                   Also, anybody else out here have a  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        126 
 
              1    comment on the accident rate?  Yes, sir?  And could you 
 
              2    just state your name and affiliation for the transcript? 
 
              3              MR. STEAD:  My name is Mike Stead,     S-T-E-      
                       MR. STEAD:   
 
 
              4    A-D.  I am with the Rail Safety Section of the Illinois 
 
              5    Commerce Commission.  Just to give a little background 
 
              6    on where we are on this issue; Illinois has 27 railroads 
 
              7    operating in the state, seven class-one railroads, 8,000 
 
 
              8    track miles, 9,000 grade crossings, and 2500 bridge 
 
              9    crossings, the second highest number in the country, 
 
             10    only the second most highest in the United States -- 
 
             11    again, only Texas has more. 
 
 
             12                   We have two of the largest rail houses in 
 
             13    the country, Chicago and East St. Louis, in the St. 
 
             14    Louis area.  And it's probable that almost every Spent 
 
             15    Nuclear Fuel shipment will travel through Illinois at 
 
 
             16    one point in time if this program goes forward.  So that 
 
             17    gives you a perspective of where we are. 
 
             18                   We have been involved in this for years.  
 
             19    We have shipments coming into Illinois from Minnesota 
 
 
             20    and other states under the G.E. Morris (sic) plant.          
                                                 ___ 
 
             21                   We have shipments going through the 
 
             22    state.  We're keenly aware of the problems and concerns  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        127 
 
              1    that you are all right just now discussing.  And we 
 
              2    don't necessarily disagree with everything that's going 
 
              3    on.  But there is one point I would like to make, and I 
 
 
              4    grant you it's very, very much.  But we have discussed 
 
              5    this for almost two hours now.  The idea and definition 
 
              6    of the term "accident." What we're talking about here is 
 
              7    not really an accident, but it's certainly a term that 
 
 
              8    has been overused and misused for many years.  
 
              9                   Rail officials, transportation officials, 
 
             10    law enforcement officials are trying to get away from 
 
             11    that term and use more -- to define that incident as an 
 
 
             12    incident or a crash.  I think we need to examine that, 
 
             13    the use of this term, and try to get away from the term 
 
             14    "accident" and get into something other than that, 
 
             15    again, as I said, crash, collision, incident. Because as 
 
 
             16    I say, it really isn't an accident.  
 
             17              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks for being here.  And also     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
             18    you may want to talk to the NRC staff about suggestions 
 
             19    about where else in the country these meetings that 
 
 
             20    might be held in the springtime should be held in 
 
             21    Chicago, or whatever.  Thank you. 
 
             22                   I think we're obviously, as you noted, we  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        128 
 
              1    have been going a long time on this subject, and I think 
 
              2    this subject deserves it, because it does bring in also 
 
              3    the public confidence idea of where do you set this. 
 
 
              4                   What I'd like to do so that we don't get 
 
              5    too possibly behind is to at least have Charles kick off 
 
              6    the fire, and -- why don't you provide the background, 
 
              7    and we'll have some discussions before we go to lunch. 
 
 
              8                   We are going to do thermal for discussion 
 
              9    of thermal, and then we will come back from lunch and 
 
             10    finish off the rest of this particular topic. 
 
             11              MR. MASSEY:  The next topic we are going to        
                     MR. MASSEY:   
 
 
             12    introduce is -- I chose fire, but I think there may be a 
 
             13    little border discussion and somewhat technical input 
 
             14    that you may have.  A little background on what's been 
 
             15    done and how we treat the cask performance during fire 
 
 
             16    events. 
 
             17                   And in the modal study, they did a very 
 
             18    simple, by today's standards, at the time it was 
 
             19    performed, the state-of-the-art technology.  And it was 
 
 
             20    a one-dimensional analysis of generic casks that they 
 
             21    had used for study to 800 degrees C and a thousand 
 
             22    degrees in fire, 1,475 degrees in Fahrenheit.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        129 
 
              1                   The neutron shield on the compartment on 
 
              2    that cask was assumed to be there.  They left it on -- 
 
              3    it's all that was in the fire that would actually act as 
 
 
              4    an insulator so you wouldn't have as much response 
 
              5    inside the cask, and the fact that that shield was still 
 
              6    there, but the material inside, if you looked at it 
 
              7    because of the gamma inside the shield, there would be 
 
 
              8    less material inside during the fire, and some of that 
 
              9    would melt through the bay (sic), exposing the people        
                                       ___ 
 
             10    that may be near the cask to higher levels of radiation, 
 
             11    and it really looked at cask response, not too much in 
 
 
             12    depth, but as to what actually happened to the fuel 
 
             13    inside -- how was the environment around the cask -- 
 
             14    just inferred how the fuel may respond to the cask 
 
             15    response (sic).                              ___ 
 
 
             16                   In the NUREG 0170 reevaluation, we looked 
 
             17    at a fully-engulfing fire, and I believe there's a 
 
             18    picture on the back wall of a fully-engulfing fire.  You 
 
             19    may get a sense of that.  Essentially, we looked at a 
 
 
             20    fully-engulfing petroleum fire.  We looked at the 
 
             21    effects on four casks, and we assumed that the neutron 
 
             22    shield was on the packages with the material inside, and  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        130 
 
              1    again we had the insulator. 
 
              2                   We again looked at the loss of shielding, 
 
              3    and in this case, we looked at what sort of temperatures 
 
 
              4    the fuel inside the package would be, based on the 
 
              5    surrounding environment, how that would affect the 
 
              6    material in the package. 
 
              7                   For the Package Performance Study, what 
 
 
              8    we'd like to do is use a fairly recently-developed 
 
              9    three-dimensional model, including the international 
 
             10    state-of-the-art, thermal model for examining the 
 
             11    response of the package to a fire scenario.  
 
 
             12                   We put on there in optically dense one 
 
             13    hour fire.  An optically dense fire basically means that 
 
             14    all of the heat from the fire was put into a package 
 
             15    where it is not lost.  We would look at an empty cask, 
 
 
             16    an empty,the test and then put out 
 
             10    those results of the tests.  So we're very much 
 
             11    interested in getting suggestions on scenarios on the 
 
 
             12    things we should consider from thermal environment and 
 
             13    how we can test. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much, Charles.        
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
             15    And I want to introduce the NRC staff expert, Ron 
 
 
             16    Parkhill, who is part of the project team in the Spent 
 
             17    Fuel Project office, who is our expert on thermal 
 
             18    effects.  
 
             19                   This is Ron right here.  We have seen the 
 
 
             20    Sandia suggestions on thermal.  Don't assume -- that at 
 
             21    least one of the assumptions on the caskwould be on the 
 
             22    ground.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        132 
 
              1                   What other types of fire thermal 
 
              2    situations should they be looking at.  Ron? 
 
              3              MR. PARKHILL:  This is Ron Parkhill with the       
                      MR. PARKHILL:   
 
 
              4    IEA.  In the supporting advisory and inflammatory 
 
              5    materials that goes with the agency's regulations, the 
 
              6    philosophy behind the thermal effects, which was 
 
              7    described in some detail, get into the issue that 
 
 
              8    Charles has talked about here.  The fact that the test 
 
              9    requires that there are basically ideal conditions, and 
 
             10    you won't have ideal conditions in most accidents. 
 
             11                   I fully agree with the concept that 
 
 
             12    having them laying on the ground surrounded by the fuel 
 
             13    environment.  In addition, one of the tests that we 
 
             14    performed back in the late 1970's during the test 
 
             15    program was included in the 75-ton cask in the rail car, 
 
 
             16    and after the impact, we supported that orientationally 
 
             17    in the pool (unintelligible).                                
______________ 
 
             18                   And the purpose of that test is the 
 
             19    safety cask -- the failure.  And then following that, we 
 
 
             20    did detailed analyses of how the cask responded in that 
 
             21    fire environment. 
 
             22                   The other thing we found, was by being  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        133 
 
              1    surrounded by a rail car, the intervening structure 
 
              2    tends to shield and align, so we could look at the other 
 
              3    accident debris actually lying around. 
 
 
              4              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much, Ron.  Let's     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
              5    go to Bob Alcock. 
 
              6              MR. ALCOCK:  Charles, I would just try to          
                   MR. ALCOCK:   
 
              7    understand here.  You said, if I got you right, that in 
 
 
              8    the previous studies, the cask is somehow suspended in 
 
              9    the air, with the thermal studies. 
 
             10              DR. MASSEY:  Correct.                             
DR. MASSEY: 
 
             11              MR. ALCOCK:  And now, you are going to change      
                       MR. ALCOCK:   
 
 
             12    that, and the cask is lying on the ground.  How does 
 
             13    that change the public confidence, to know that you now 
 
             14    have this cask lying on the ground?  It would seem to me 
 
             15    you would have, if you want to be real conservative, you 
 
 
             16    would assume that the cask is somehow suspended. 
 
             17              DR. MASSEY:  Well, we believe it's in the          
                   DR. MASSEY: 
 
             18    suspension.  It's really a more uniform thermal road.  
 
             19    We have a high degree of confidence that you can model 
 
 
             20    the uniform package where we'd like to do more 
 
             21    exploration is when that thermal environment, where we 
 
             22    have more -- some kind of intervening structure -- a  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        134 
 
              1    flat car, a truck trailer -- how do those other types of 
 
              2    non-uniformities in fact perform in the package? 
 
              3              MR. ALCOCK:  So the situation when the cask is     
                        MR. ALCOCK:   
 
 
              4    lying on the ground might present a worse danger to the 
 
              5    cask integrity.  Is that right? 
 
              6              DR. MASSEY:  No, I don't believe so.  But we       
                      DR. MASSEY:   
 
              7    don't know to our satisfaction what is the impact of it 
 
 
              8    being on the ground.  That is one of the things we want 
 
              9    to determine.  How does that affect (unintelligible) Is      
                                                  ______________ 
 
             10    there a loss of (unintelligible) or does the ground          
                          ______________ 
 
             11    provide some kind of insulation as well? 
 
 
             12              MR. CAMERON:  Bob Alcock?                          
   MR. CAMERON: 
 
             13              MR. ALCOCK:  On the issue of testing and           
                  MR. ALCOCK:   
 
             14    failure, do we have any thermal data on what it takes to 
 
             15    -- the generic test data? 
 
 
             16              DR. MASSEY:  Yes, we have that on what             
                DR. MASSEY:   
 
             17    recently -- in the field.  You don't need additional 
 
             18    data on that.  Generally, we don't have it included in 
 
             19    this. 
 
 
             20              MR. CAMERON:  Okay, we have heard from Ron         
                    MR. CAMERON:   
 
             21    Pope agreeing that it is good to do the additional 
 
             22    situation of the cask on the ground, and also to look at  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        135 
 
              1    the degrees, as I understood it, that may be around the 
 
              2    cask. 
 
              3                   Charles gave us the rationale for why we 
 
 
              4    might do the on-the-ground test, which is the 
 
              5    nonuniformity of the heat source. 
 
              6                   Let's go to Jim, and if anybody wants to 
 
              7    give any further comments about this off-the-ground test 
 
 
              8    aspect, that will be appreciated.  Jim? 
 
              9              MR. REED:  I want to talk about the                
             MR. REED:   
 
             10    temperature -- Jim Reed.  I want to talk about the 
 
             11    temperature.  You have the one thousand degrees, which 
 
 
             12    was suggested for study standards.  I am wondering what 
 
             13    the rationale that is -- the NRC standards and the 
 
             14    performance standards done in the previous modal study 
 
             15    where there were various severe accidents, 1,900 degrees 
 
 
             16    Fahrenheit with the model study.  That is the first 
 
             17    part. 
 
             18                   The second part is the one hour. Where do 
 
             19    we come up with the one hour as opposed to two hours or 
 
 
             20    some other number? 
 
             21              DR. MASSEY:  Really, we threw out the one hour     
                        DR. MASSEY:   
 
             22    as something for fire duration -- the one hour seemed  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        136 
 
              1    like an hour or an hour and thirty minutes, so we went 
 
              2    to look for the test regulatory to put out the Package 
 
              3    Performance, and then we put out an hour. 
 
 
              4                   It was one thing we had to offer as far 
 
              5    as fire duration, how do we have a fire that lasts that 
 
              6    long?  It's sort of a fuel inventory of other chemical 
 
              7    insulators available that are there, so we were very 
 
 
              8    much interested in getting people -- scenarios in which 
 
              9    they think there could be a fuel inventory of some type 
 
             10    of fire duration of this temperature for the hydrocarbon 
 
             11    coal fires, the standard fuels on the fire.  And I guess 
 
 
             12    the temperature thing, we agreed that's probably a 
 
             13    better reason for balancing these two fires. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Ron Parkhill, on the temperature     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
             15    issue? 
 
 
             16              MR. PARKHILL:  Yes.  The regulatory basis of       
                      MR. PARKHILL:   
 
             17    the fires, 1,475 as far as the regulations goes, when 
 
             18    you do testing of the packages, those packages are 
 
             19    designed for the actual fire test of burned temperature 
 
 
             20    of around 1,000 degrees.  I think it is realistic of a 
 
             21    typical fire. 
 
             22                   And the packages that met the regulations  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        137 
 
              1    also demonstrated the previous fire test that met that 
 
              2    requirement.  So I don't see anything unusual. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Judy?  There is confusion            
                 MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
              4    between the two. 
 
              5              MS. TREICHEL:  You mean 1,475 Fahrenheit is        
                     MS. TREICHEL:   
 
              6    cooler than 1,000 C? 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Earl Easton is back there --         
                    MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
              8    Earl, can you get this clarified quickly?  And Jim, I 
 
              9    need to come back to you to see whether you think the 
 
             10    one thousand degrees, whether you think in degrees or 
 
             11    whatever it turns out to be in an hour is where we 
 
 
             12    should be. 
 
             13              MR. EASTON:  My point was really only the          
                   MR. EASTON:   
 
             14    temperature that we choose.  Just remember that when you 
 
             15    consider temperature, it's one of only many variables.  
 
 
             16    In the regulations, there's a thermal desensitivity and 
 
             17    inexcivity (sic).  It's really the amount of heat you        
                       ___ 
 
             18    get into the cask.  I could have a million degree 
 
             19    temperature with no thermal desensivity and get no 
 
 
             20    temperature loss in the cask.  So it is a combination of 
 
             21    all those things that one must consider, not the 
 
             22    temperature not the duration.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        138 
 
              1              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks for that, Earl.               
              MR. CAMERON:   
 
              2                   And Ron, can you address Judy and some 
 
              3    other people on some points of confusion we are talking 
 
 
              4    about here in that thousand degrees? 
 
              5              MR. PARKHILL:  Like, the 1,475 is referring to     
                        MR. PARKHILL:   
 
              6    the regulatory fire, and that's in Fahrenheit.  And this 
 
              7    is the degrees in 1,000 C's, so this is really 1,832 
 
 
              8    degrees Fahrenheit.  It's a more severe temperature.  
 
              9    But the point I was trying to make is that when you 
 
             10    design a cask and it's in a fully-engulfing fire, and 
 
             11    you assume that the temperature is around it at 1,475, 
 
 
             12    that's a very conservative way to treat temperature. 
 
             13                   And when you actually do a fire test and 
 
             14    those casks are exposed to the fire test is that the 
 
             15    measured temperature of the fire exposed to packages -- 
 
 
             16    it's actually measured around 1,800, 1,850 degrees 
 
             17    Fahrenheit.  So I am just trying to get some perspective 
 
             18    on what the regulatory requirement is, what in actuality 
 
             19    the fire tests will actually burn at. 
 
 
             20                   Packages historically have survived that, 
 
             21    so let's say 1,000 degrees C to 1,850 degrees Fahrenheit 
 
             22    seems to be a reasonable temperature.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        139 
 
              1              MS. TREICHEL:  I was not arguing the theory at     
                        MS. TREICHEL:   
 
              2    all.  I was just saying, choose one. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Because in fact, the 1,475 used      
                       MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
              4    at, I guess used Fahrenheit, and now we're talking here 
 
              5    in Centigrade, and that's what makes it confusing. 
 
              6                   Thank you, Judy. 
 
              7              MR. SWEDBERG:  Because that one hour -- I          
                   MR. SWEDBERG:   
 
 
              8    actually was confused with C and F.  I guess I am still 
 
              9    a little unclear, but I do understand it.  
 
             10              MR. CAMERON:  Let's start with Pat and go to       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
             11    Kevin and Bill Lee and Bill Lake. 
 
 
             12              MR. BRADY:  I would like to check the              
               MR. BRADY:   
 
             13    inventory, and the reason for that is it really tells 
 
             14    you the duration of the fire and also the temperature, 
 
             15    and I think that what we all agree is that if anything, 
 
 
             16    that most fire departments in the United States, I 
 
             17    think, would say are going to pull back from the fire 
 
             18    until they get some good information on whether they 
 
             19    need to fight the fire or not, and the duration.  As 
 
 
             20    long as the inventory fuel is there, the fire department 
 
             21    is most likely not going to fight that fire.  It depends 
 
             22    on the inventory.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        140 
 
              1                   Another issue would be the torch fire, 
 
              2    not a fuel fire.  I guess the scenario would be 
 
              3    surrounding, or even a highway incident involving a 
 
 
              4    propane truck or tank car where you don't have immediate 
 
              5    release or you have slow release -- very close proximity 
 
              6    and a very hot fire for a long period of time. 
 
              7                   And the other incident that would be like 
 
 
              8    that would be the Weyauwega (sic) (phonetic), Wisconsin,     
                                           ___   ________ 
 
              9    where a propane car was burned, so we applaud the issue 
 
             10    looking at the inventory, but we would also ask that the 
 
             11    inventory looks at the duration of the temperature, 
 
 
             12    looking at a torch fire. 
 
             13              MR. CAMERON:  What was the last part?              
               MR. CAMERON:   
 
             14              MR. BRADY:  Looking at torch fires, very           
                  MR. BRADY:   
 
             15    similar. 
 
 
             16              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Pat.  Let's go to         
                    MR. CAMERON:   
 
             17    Kevin. 
 
             18              MR. BLACKWELL: Mine is real short, since Pat       
                      MR. BLACKWELL: 
 
             19    just covered it, the torch fire consideration.  
 
 
             20    Therefore, if you are going to look at the inventories 
 
             21    and what's involved in training, you have to consider 
 
             22    (unintelligible) as well, depending on what craft you        
            ______________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        141 
 
              1    are looking at. 
 
              2                   And again, it falls back to the response, 
 
              3    if we are going to talk about response and looking at 
 
 
              4    technologies, improvements and especially the tank car 
 
              5    industry, a lot of things have changed in response to 
 
              6    the requirements of the industry in packaging and 
 
              7    materials and because of the improvements in 
 
 
              8    technologies, where it used to be, the example Pat used 
 
              9    in Weyauwega where you go in and try to put the fire out 
 
             10    and shut it down. 
 
             11                   Now it's better to do control fires and 
 
 
             12    burn.  So the methodology in responding to certain types 
 
             13    of fires has changed over the twenty years because of 
 
             14    improvements in technology as well. 
 
             15              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  Bill Lee?                
             MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
             16              MR. LEE: I just want to point out that you're      
                       MR. LEE: 
 
             17    going, in this demonstration or this fire test is far 
 
             18    beyond the regulatory requirements.  You're emptying 
 
             19    undamaged fuel tanks is not going to change the way we 
 
 
             20    have it.  So we're intermixing what we just talked 
 
             21    about, before -- the reality, that we are outside of the 
 
             22    reality of what would be the package reconfiguration in  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        142 
 
              1    an accident. 
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thanks, Bill.  It seems       
                      MR. CAMERON:  
 
              3    the issue that runs throughout is, what's reasonable in 
 
 
              4    terms of your assumption about the regulatory framework 
 
              5    when you do those?  I guess Ron was pointing out in 
 
              6    terms of the hour, it's a half hour longer than what it 
 
              7    usually requires under the regulations, and it takes us 
 
 
              8    into the public confidence point that we have been 
 
              9    discussing. 
 
             10                   Charles? 
 
             11              DR. MASSEY:  Yes.  One of the things you do in     
                        DR. MASSEY:   
 
 
             12    a Package Performance Study would be included -- how do 
 
             13    you open the package, how these are going to fit this 
 
             14    package and beyond the regulatory requirements to 
 
             15    address public concerns.  You don't always like that. 
 
 
             16                   If it's a half hour fire and you want to 
 
             17    be able to demonstrate that to the standard conditions 
 
             18    that we have the capability to prevent the Package 
 
             19    Performance conditions, and not that we are asking to 
 
 
             20    change the fire requirements in Package Performance, but 
 
             21    we're demonstrating our ability in the Package 
 
             22    Performance.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        143 
 
              1              MR. CAMERON:  And I think of course the            
                 MR. CAMERON:   
 
              2    distinction you just made doesn't necessarily mean that 
 
              3    that's the regulatory requirement. 
 
 
              4                   Let's go to Bill Lake, and then over to 
 
              5    Klaus.  And we'll come back to Bob Halstead, and we'll 
 
              6    finish up with Ron and move out to the audience. 
 
              7              MR. LAKE:  Thank you, Chip.  I'm going to go       
                      MR. LAKE:   
 
 
              8    back to my previous comments.  I think it's premature to 
 
              9    particularly include temperature for the duration of the 
 
             10    fire.  I'll go back to the process.  
 
             11                   I believe to go through the sensitivities 
 
 
             12    that should drive you, what temperature is in relation 
 
             13    to the fire; I am told that the uncertainty analysis is, 
 
             14    if you do the uncertainly analysis, that may draw you to 
 
             15    look at more than one selection of temperature 
 
 
             16    relations.  You may want to look at how to get the most 
 
             17    information to you from this study. 
 
             18              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  For those of you who -- I     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
             19    don't know if Ron or Bob will comment on this, besides 
 
 
             20    their comments, but comment on Bill Lake's point that we 
 
             21    need to do the uncertain analysis before we take this 
 
             22    time and temperature.  I think we can address that also.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        144 
 
              1                   Klaus? 
 
              2              MR. SCHUMANN:  I would like to mention Sandia      
                       MR. SCHUMANN:   
 
              3    Corporation's introductory remarks at 1,000 degrees C 
 
 
              4    fire, about the fire testing trial requirements, which 
 
              5    in my belief actually shows the weakness of those 
 
              6    requirements. 
 
              7                   Either fuel, I think, from observation 
 
 
              8    and investigation, are equally correct.  And, of course, 
 
              9    with the truck and the fuel, are close candidates for 
 
             10    such a fire.  And so for that matter, I believe 1,000 
 
             11    degrees Centigrade is much more appropriate, and once 
 
 
             12    again it shows only the wearkness in the NRC regulation. 
 
             13                   In addition to the duration, I believe 
 
             14    the Cajon Pass railroad accident a few years ago burned 
 
             15    for three days.  And I have read (inaudible) of 3,000        
                                             _________ 
 
 
             16    degrees with some additional oil as well. 
 
             17                   One thing our committee was very much 
 
             18    concerned about, it may be or may not be the right, 
 
             19    appropriate time to bring it up, is the issue of testing 
 
 
             20    real casks under real live conditions rather than 
 
             21    relying on modal studies or computer calculations. 
 
             22                   And I would like to remind everybody that  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        145 
 
              1    the Sandia Corporation I think made clear, I don't know 
 
              2    who it was, when they looked at terrorism and sabotage 
 
              3    attacks. 
 
 
              4                   This may control of field testing of the 
 
              5    casks, and the results as I recall turned out to be 
 
              6    quite different from what was seen before on computers 
 
              7    for less than full-scale conditions. 
 
 
              8                   And I am wondering as to why full-scale 
 
              9    are not considered now, or at least I hope they will be 
 
             10    considered.  I think they should be considered. 
 
             11                   I'll request my committee when they come 
 
 
             12    in today and clearly say that we would like to see full- 
 
             13    scale testing of transportation casks under the real 
 
             14    life conditions. 
 
             15              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Klaus.  We will           
                  MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
             16    revisit that particular issue this afternoon. 
 
             17                   Let's go to Bob, and then we will finish 
 
             18    up with Ron and see if anybody in the audience has 
 
             19    anything. 
 
 
             20              MR. HALSTEAD:  I have a couple of things, key      
                       MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
             21    points outlined in the handouts.  I want to begin by 
 
             22    acknowledging the presence in the audience of Professor  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        146 
 
              1    Miles Greiner (phonetic) from the University of Nevada       
                          __________ 
 
              2    from the College of Engineering.  He is actually the 
 
              3    person who has done a lot of this fire modeling and, 
 
 
              4    Charles, I don't know whether you guys have got his 
 
              5    papers and his notes, but if not, you can certainly have 
 
              6    them.  
 
              7                   And Miles may not necessarily agree with 
 
 
              8    my interpretation of its findings, but the study had a 
 
              9    powerful impact on my understanding about the 
 
             10    relationship between fire temperature and fire duration, 
 
             11    particularly if you're looking at indicators not of 
 
 
             12    collapse of the shell, which are what the modal study 
 
             13    one focused on, but more, I think a more important 
 
             14    factor is like fuel oxidation or seal failure. 
 
             15                   Secondly, when we were looking at fire 
 
 
             16    impact, it's important to remember that we're not just 
 
             17    looking at loss of containment.  We're looking at loss 
 
             18    of shielding also.  Okay?  And there are different 
 
             19    factors involved in the two types of consequences.  And 
 
 
             20    they involve both the sequencing of impact puncture, 
 
             21    fire and so forth, and fire, that's a critical thing. 
 
             22                   And in order to address fire as an issue  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        147 
 
              1    in loss of shielding, it's actually, it's important that 
 
              2    we select the right range of cask designs here. 
 
              3                   Immediately, people who know truck casks 
 
 
              4    understand that Mack (sic) is the workhorse cask, and        
                                 ___ 
 
              5    (unintelligible) and the lead shielding cask.  With a        
            ______________ 
 
              6    lot of their concern is prior to find it included a 
 
              7    uranium gamma shield cask, which is much less likely to 
 
 
              8    have sag or a noted fire environment, and similarly, 
 
              9    when you look at the rail casks, and that's an even 
 
             10    harder issue. 
 
             11                   There is no easy way to pick a 
 
 
             12    representative rail cask, and I would argue that the IF 
 
             13    100, which as I recall has a combined cask is probably 
 
             14    going to be continued in use for a long time.  The new 
 
             15    large MTZ, the dual-purpose cask, all have different 
 
 
             16    combinations of lead, red stainless steel, and red 
 
             17    uranium in a spaces, which is very important for fire 
 
             18    performance. 
 
             19                   And we may see something like a 
 
 
             20    cannister, a modular cast-iron cask, eventually may be 
 
             21    licensed in this country.  And that's a whole other set. 
 
             22                   So issue number two, we have to look at  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        148 
 
              1    both loss of shielding and loss of containment, and that 
 
              2    makes the selection of the right cask important. 
 
              3                   And thirdly, Bill's point, Bill Lake's 
 
 
              4    point is so important that we're putting the cart before 
 
              5    the horse, and we are looking at possibly all of these 
 
              6    accidents in specified temperatures. 
 
              7                   Now, I did take an audacious step of 
 
 
              8    specifying temperature steps in time because in the set 
 
              9    of questions you supplied, you asked for that.  We 
 
             10    didn't just pick these numbers out of the air.  These 
 
             11    are the numbers that we looked at first and foremost to 
 
 
             12    a large extent by Miles Greiner's research, which gave 
 
             13    us some benchmarks for looking at what it would actually 
 
             14    take for firemen to fail to seal the fuel. 
 
             15                   And then we looked at our new world 
 
 
             16    accidents, and my preliminaries, and I am glad you set 
 
             17    me straight onify these inputs in a way that everybody understands 
 
              9    them, and then relate them to the real world for fires.  
 
             10                   But what we think, based on the accidents 
 
             11    we looked at, that new model performance of the 
 
 
             12    regulatory fire for eight hours to acknowledge an 
 
             13    engulfing fire is very rare.  I think a truck would take 
 
             14    20 hours of burn to get the equivalent of an eight-hour 
 
             15    engulfing fire. 
 
 
             16                   And similarly with rail, you have got the 
 
             17    incidents three-to-five days fires, but you know, within 
 
             18    that, probably it would probably be pretty tough to get 
 
             19    a regulatory fire engulfing the equivalent for 24 hours.  
 
 
             20    So that's why we set these numbers. 
 
             21                   The rail casks we want to see 1,475 
 
             22    degrees for 24 hours.  We take a 2,000 degree Fahrenheit  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        150 
 
              1    fire at 12 hours, captures a lot of the worst -- and we 
 
              2    get trends in shipments of different types of chemicals 
 
              3    like shipping by rail.  But we put these numbers at 
 
 
              4    metrically acknowledging, as Bill said, and after we 
 
              5    looked at accidents and proposed changes. 
 
              6              MR. CAMERON:  So you thought that Bill's           
                  MR. CAMERON:   
 
              7    suggestion was a good one? 
 
 
              8              MR. HALSTEAD:  I do, although I will say we        
                     MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
              9    have been attempting to do just what Bill said.  But 
 
             10    it's very difficult to get the NTSB report and admit 
 
             11    that someone else's recreation and estimation of 
 
 
             12    temperatures based on melted burn-down and nobody had 
 
             13    made any efforts to capture that data. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks, Bob.  Charles?               
              MR. CAMERON:   
 
             15              DR. MASSEY:  Bob, on your comments, are these      
                       DR. MASSEY:  
 
 
             16    fires fully engulfing or are some on-site? 
 
             17              MR. HALSTEAD:  No, we put these as engulfing       
                      MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
             18    equivalents, to recognize that you might have a three or 
 
             19    four or five day burn.  But certainly it is subjective 
 
 
             20    for further refinement. 
 
             21              MR. CAMERON:  Let's go to Ron Pope, and then       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
             22    we will see if anybody in the audience has a question  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        151 
 
              1    and then break for lunch. 
 
              2                   Ron? 
 
              3              MR. POPE:  Our rail colleagues over here           
                  MR. POPE:   
 
 
              4    raised the issue of torch fire.  I would just make you 
 
              5    aware that Sandia, working with the federal agencies, 
 
              6    performed a series of torch tests, one early cask test 
 
              7    back in the 1980's, analyzing that in a torch 
 
 
              8    environment.  And this data is available. 
 
              9              MR. CAMERON:  Anybody out here in the audience     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
             10    have comments or questions on the thermal aspect of 
 
             11    this? 
 
 
             12                   Can we get your name and affiliation. 
 
             13              MR. WELLS:   My name is Allan Wells and I do       
                      MR. WELLS:    
 
             14    work on cask design on occasion.  And my affiliation is 
 
             15    I am just here representing myself today. 
 
 
             16                   My first comment, I don't know how to 
 
             17    deal with something like this, but the -- beyond 
 
             18    regulatory accidents for a very long time certainly can 
 
             19    pose great challenges to the existing packages today.  I 
 
 
             20    don't think that anybody should be thinking that the 
 
             21    existing packages which were designed to meet these 
 
             22    requirements and regulations that are in place today  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        152 
 
              1    will just casually manage to survive undamaged accident 
 
              2    scenarios that many times are longer and much higher 
 
              3    temperatures. 
 
 
              4                   So that is just a comment, and the 
 
              5    comment directed to Sandia is, that you should try to be 
 
              6    sensitive in how you treat this information.  And if you 
 
              7    do scenarios where you take this cask destruction you 
 
 
              8    should put those into perspective as to whether you 
 
              9    really expect that to happen. 
 
             10                   As far as the duration goes, I was going 
 
             11    to comment, but that was something Bob Halstead 
 
 
             12    clarified, that a lot of times the fire goes on for a 
 
             13    long period of time, but the fire really kind of 
 
             14    smolders towards the end and is burning out. 
 
             15                   So when you do write up this modal study 
 
 
             16    it would be nice if you try to explain to the public 
 
             17    that the fire you are talking about is a roaring fire 
 
             18    that is quite an impressive fire.  And that although we 
 
             19    have fires in our houses, in the chimneys and fireplace 
 
 
             20    that last all night, so it can be started the next day 
 
             21    when it is cold outside, you're not talking about that 
 
             22    sort of scenario.  You are talking about something that  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        153 
 
              1    is quite different.  It is a real raging fire. 
 
              2                   One last comment is that some time ago 
 
              3    the Department of Energy in one of its programs looked 
 
 
              4    at others types of ways of dealing with packages, and 
 
              5    the concept of neutron shields that were intended to 
 
              6    protect the cask from intensive heat during the accident 
 
              7    scenarios that were developed. 
 
 
              8                   And so, as the NRC looks at this sort of 
 
              9    thing I would just like to encourage you to think about 
 
             10    accepting future cask designs that change with the new 
 
             11    regulations which you -- devices that are -- neutron 
 
 
             12    shields that are intended to protect against fires 
 
             13    during the fire scenario.  Thank you. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  John?                              MR.
CAMERON:   
 
             15              MR. HADDER:  John Hadder, Citizen's Alert.         
                     MR. HADDER:   
 
 
             16    There was a comment came up earlier about the uniform 
 
             17    heat distribution in testing casks as well as in the 
 
             18    computer modeling version.  My group had concerns about 
 
             19    that, that that doesn't represent realistically what 
 
 
             20    would happen in a fire.  And I would also assume if 
 
             21    there is a breach in the seal it is probably more likely 
 
             22    to create a strain that would result in nonconforming  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        154 
 
              1    diffusion (sic).   And I hope that that can be addressed     
                         ___ 
 
              2    in this process. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thanks, John.  I think        
                     MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
              4    that that point is clear, right Charles? 
 
              5              DR. MASSEY:  Yes.                              DR.
MASSEY:   
 
              6              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Let's be back at a            
                 MR. CAMERON:   
 
              7    quarter to two.  That gives you about 55 minutes. 
 
 
              8              (Noon recess.)                              
___________ 
 
              9              *         *         *         *         * 
 
             10      
 
             11      
 
 
             12      
 
             13      
 
             14      
 
             15      
 
 
             16      
 
             17      
 
             18      
 
             19      
 
 
             20       
 
             21      
 
             22       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        155 
 
              1              (The hearing herein having recessed at the         
                     _________________________________________ 
 
              2    hour of 12:40 o'clock p.m., on Wednesday, December 8,        
           _____________________________________________________ 
 
              3    1999, thereupon resumed at the hour of 2:05 o'clock          
         ___________________________________________________ 
 
 
              4    p.m., on Wednesday, December 8, 1999.)                   
____________________________________ 
 
              5              MR. CAMERON:  We are going to finish off the       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
              6    container performance by looking at container 
 
              7    performance during collision issues.  And then we are 
 
 
              8    trying to get into the spent nuclear fuel behavior. 
 
              9                   I would just note that the NRC is making 
 
             10    a video on spent fuel transportation and the video crew, 
 
             11    who is doing this for the NRC, are in the building.  And 
 
 
             12    I think they are going to be asking people if they would 
 
             13    like to be interviewed with them, what their concerns or 
 
             14    perspectives are on spent nuclear fuel.  And you may be 
 
             15    asked.  And I would just like to tell you that it is 
 
 
             16    being done with the approval of the NRC.  It's not just 
 
             17    some random group. 
 
             18                   Before we go to talk about container 
 
             19    performance during collision, I wanted to go to Ray for 
 
 
             20    some thoughts on a previous discussion. 
 
             21                   Ray Lambert? 
 
             22              MR. LAMBERT:  This is just an observation.         
                     MR. LAMBERT:    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        156 
 
              1    It's probably a response to Charles a little bit.  He 
 
              2    made the statement, which was accurate, that you 
 
              3    sometimes have to be careful about that which is an 
 
 
              4    analytical evaluation versus that which is the actual 
 
              5    testing.  And I think that kind of left a little bit of 
 
              6    thought that even tested results are apt to be, you 
 
              7    know, nowhere near as analytical. 
 
 
              8                   The data that he referred to in this 
 
              9    particular case, 1978, had interesting histories, in 
 
             10    that the first analytical assumptions about this would 
 
             11    be a loss of material from the cask -- something like a 
 
 
             12    sabotage event.  The estimates of that analysis that was 
 
             13    done analytically had results of something like less 
 
             14    than one percent.  Two years later they redid my 
 
             15    analysis that worked and the numbers went down, in fact, 
 
 
             16    to a 10.  In other words, better analytical methods 
 
             17    reduced the expected amount. 
 
             18                   Subsequent to that, several years later, 
 
             19    they did the actual testing.  And what turned out was 
 
 
             20    that the actual amount was two orders of magnitude less 
 
             21    than the curve (sic).  It was a factor of a thousandth       
                            ___ 
 
             22    on the curve from the first analytical.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        157 
 
              1                   So I think the point to be made is not 
 
              2    that we really understand fully in all cases the 
 
              3    analytical is exactly right.  But it should be noted 
 
 
              4    that in essentially -- never say -- nearly.  But all the 
 
              5    cases the methods of using analytical approaches tend to 
 
              6    be conservative.  When you don't know something you 
 
              7    don't have to put in a conservative approach. 
 
 
              8                   In almost every case where there has been 
 
              9    an actual test compared with the analysis, the test 
 
             10    appeared to be less severe.  So I think you are right on 
 
             11    the one hand.  But I think when you take the accident 
 
 
             12    scenario it is a lot worse on the analytical -- in all 
 
             13    cases the other way. 
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Ray.  That is a           
                  MR. CAMERON:   
 
             15    useful preface for discussion we are going to have this 
 
 
             16    afternoon.  And from a facilitator's point of view I am 
 
             17    not sure whether everybody would agree with you or not, 
 
             18    but the point is good enough to consider that you can't 
 
             19    just assume that the analytical is going to give you 
 
 
             20    worse results. 
 
             21                   I don't want to get into a discussion of 
 
             22    this now, Bob, if you would just hold this.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        158 
 
              1                   If you could just hold that until we get 
 
              2    back to this point, when we get to that. Let's go to 
 
              3    Charles. 
 
 
              4              MR. HALSTEAD:     Point of information?            
                 MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
              5              MR. CAMERON:  Yes.                              MR.
CAMERON:   
 
              6              MR. HALSTEAD:  Didn't we discuss the collision     
                        MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
              7    impacts, as part of fire -- was it scheduled for this 
 
 
              8    afternoon? 
 
              9              MR. CAMERON:   I hate to let the state run         
                    MR. CAMERON: 
 
             10    this thing.  Let's adopt Bob's suggestion -- let's go to 
 
             11    Earl.  Let me introduce Earl from the project office, 
 
 
             12    and Earl, as you know, probably can tell has had a lot 
 
             13    of experience with this particular issue generally, and 
 
             14    specifically on this container performance during 
 
             15    collision.  And he is going to be here to serve as a 
 
 
             16    resource for us during this discussion. 
 
             17              DR. MASSEY:  Thank you, Chip.  Now, to finish      
                       DR. MASSEY:   
 
             18    this last piece of cask performance from the structural 
 
             19    end, we are going to talk about the collision 
 
 
             20    environment.  Going back to where we are in our present 
 
             21    state of knowledge on cask performance under a collision 
 
             22    scenario, in the modal studies we did in 1987, the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        159 
 
              1    generic steel lead cask which was analyzed, due to the 
 
              2    fact they did not assume that the impact limits were on 
 
              3    the cask, the cask by itself.  The cask closure 
 
 
              4    mechanisms were as we have here. 
 
              5                   And the leakage and red failure inside 
 
              6    the cask was estimated by the use of powerful lasers, 
 
              7    estimated by looking at the strain on the inner wall.  
 
 
              8    These are calculations that put the strain on the inner 
 
              9    cask wall.  Based on that, they determined how much 
 
             10    leakage -- they estimated how much leakage was inside 
 
             11    the cask, and how the rods were. 
 
 
             12                   In the NUREG 0170 update that is coming 
 
             13    out early next year we looked at the effects of 
 
             14    mechanical loads on more generic type casks, and the 
 
             15    design, the purpose of design -- the purpose of 
 
 
             16    analysis. 
 
             17                   We did look at cask closures from the 
 
             18    point detailed from the lid and the seal of the lid and 
 
             19    the steel and the bolt.  We did look at the bolt, not to 
 
 
             20    waste time, but the representative of the square bolt, I 
 
             21    guess, but we did look at it.  And we did look at it and 
 
             22    it really take into account the screw design of the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        160 
 
              1    bolt. 
 
              2                   To do that we had to make certain 
 
              3    assumptions about how the bolt was formed.  But it was 
 
 
              4    not really -- if you look at design you wouldn't get a 
 
              5    picture of that. 
 
              6                   We then looked at the collision forces 
 
              7    that attacked the seal looking at an unyielding surface.  
 
 
              8    And unyielding surface is essentially something so hard 
 
              9    that if a package gets on it the surface doesn't absorb 
 
             10    any of the impact.  All the forces that would be crushed 
 
             11    goes onto the package.  Actually it is the most severe 
 
 
             12    environment that a package could receive. 
 
             13                   We looked at forces at, different speeds 
 
             14    -- 30, 60, 90, 120 miles per hour.  We assumed for 
 
             15    purposes of weight that the impact limiters were still 
 
 
             16    on the package, that they had already been fully 
 
             17    crushed.  So we estimated the absorption of that crushed 
 
             18    force, but weight is an important element of that 
 
             19    perspective. 
 
 
             20                   And finally, we did not assume that the 
 
             21    neutron shield was on the cask. 
 
             22                   For the Package Performance Study we  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        161 
 
              1    would like to look at details, as detailed as the bolts.  
 
              2    One of the things that is of some interest is that, if 
 
              3    you look at the series of bolts that's on the lid and if 
 
 
              4    one of them starts to fail and one of them starts to 
 
              5    bow, the other one could bow.  And we want to look at a 
 
              6    little more, at the bolts in a little more detail. 
 
              7                   So with a little more detail on the 
 
 
              8    closure mechanism and definition of that.  Look at model 
 
              9    predictions -- also give it a test.  And what we would 
 
             10    like to see if -- the picture gives you an idea, the 
 
             11    test of the cask of the center of gravity of the points. 
 
 
             12                   That would just essentially give you an 
 
             13    idea.  Where the center of gravity of this package is, 
 
             14    rather over on this corner.  This actually presents an 
 
             15    arch indicating the corner, yet the weight fully is over 
 
 
             16    that corner. 
 
             17                   We are suggesting that whenever a 
 
             18    collision-type impact occurs you look at it.  You look 
 
             19    at speeds greater than 50 miles an hour.  You get an 
 
 
             20    idea of the Package Performance, particularly if there 
 
             21    is a difference between rail and truck speeds, analyzed 
 
             22    of course.  And then finally we will get this testing.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        162 
 
              1    And that is a topic we talked about, the testing. 
 
              2                   And lastly, put out the analysis of how 
 
              3    we would expect the cask to perform under severe 
 
 
              4    environment and do the tests and then demonstrate how 
 
              5    those comparison held up.  And so it would depend on how 
 
              6    accurate they held up. 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you once again, Charles.       
                       MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
              8    And again, Charles has put up some suggestions on how 
 
              9    Sandia is going to proceed or may proceed with the study 
 
             10    in terms of looking at container performance. 
 
             11                   And what I am going to do now is I am 
 
 
             12    going to turn to Bob Halstead to give us some points on 
 
             13    container performance during collision.  And then let's 
 
             14    have a discussion of those points and what other people 
 
             15    might want to add.  Bob Halstead. 
 
 
             16              MR. HALSTEAD:  Thank you, Chip.  It's hard to      
                       MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
             17    separate some of those issues from the textbook issues 
 
             18    and also from the spent fuel behavior issue.  The most 
 
             19    important points that we want to make, and maybe the 
 
 
             20    single most important point on the collision impact 
 
             21    issue has to do with the study coming up with a way to 
 
             22    translate variations of the regulatory drop on an  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        163 
 
              1    unyielding surface. 
 
              2                   To represent equivalent real-world 
 
              3    impacts, and based again on looking at the list of 
 
 
              4    accidents that I included earlier, we have taken some 
 
              5    positions on speed and types of targets. 
 
              6                   For rail, certainly there's some evidence 
 
              7    of rare downgrade runaways that exceed 100 miles per 
 
 
              8    hour.  But the accidents I've looked at, it looks like 
 
              9    somewhere in the 85 to 95 range, and therefore we picked 
 
             10    90 as a top speed for the rail casks impacts.  And in 
 
             11    this case we would suggest looking separately at 90 
 
 
             12    miles per hour impact force with the rock face bridge 
 
             13    support column. 
 
             14                   And then there is a possibility of an on- 
 
             15    coming locomotive, in which case calculating the actual 
 
 
             16    impact speed is somewhat complicated.  The angle of 
 
             17    impact has to be estimated a little bit.  There is also 
 
             18    the issue in a high-speed derailment of casks colliding. 
 
             19                   Now, if we're operating dedicated trains, 
 
 
             20    I would argue that these are pretty difficult conditions 
 
             21    to come by.  But, since there's no commitment to operate 
 
             22    dedicated trains, and there is opposition to every  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        164 
 
              1    effort to impose mandatory use of dedicated trains, we 
 
              2    think those are realistic impact scenarios for rails. 
 
              3                   With trucks, I don't remember seeing a 
 
 
              4    clear policy statement from DOE about imposing the 
 
              5    maximum speed limit, although I have often heard the 55 
 
              6    miles an hour figure discussed as a target.  I think we 
 
              7    have to assume that a truck cask can have a 75 mile per 
 
 
              8    hour impact if that's allowed on a lot of western 
 
              9    states.  And I'll tell you the truth, I have seen a lot 
 
             10    of trucks traveling that speed on I-95. 
 
             11                   So, the speed then has to look at rock 
 
 
             12    face bridge support impacts, impacts of another tractor 
 
             13    on the cask traveling at that speed, because of it the 
 
             14    generally soft body of the tractor it probably is not 
 
             15    going to generate much impact, but it is worth 
 
 
             16    mentioning as one of the things in there. 
 
             17                   But, the real issue that I would like to 
 
             18    pose to the people doing this study is to try and take 
 
             19    these kinds of impacts and scale them relative to the 
 
 
             20    regulatory drop on the unyielding surface. 
 
             21                   Again, I use the example I talked about 
 
             22    in Bethesda when the British did their test.  And they  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        165 
 
              1    did both a locomotive impact on the cask and they did a 
 
              2    regulatory drop test.  And they found the regulatory 
 
              3    drop test was considerably more impact and caused a 
 
 
              4    slight closure opening where there was no noticeable 
 
              5    impact from the staged locomotive.  So, that is the most 
 
              6    important issue. 
 
              7                   And then, the second issue has to do with 
 
 
              8    modeling and scale model testing. 
 
              9                   Without getting to far into -- are you 
 
             10    going to come back to physical testing? 
 
             11                   I would just want to say at this point, 
 
 
             12    we think the focus on critical cask components for this 
 
             13    effort is very important and we agree pretty much with 
 
             14    the way you have outlined it here focusing on the bolts.  
 
             15    And I would say additionally that each particular cask 
 
 
             16    has some particular potential vulnerability peculiar to 
 
             17    design. 
 
             18                   For example, the fitted and welded pieces 
 
             19    of -- that include the uranium shield in various truck 
 
 
             20    and rail casks is something we think needs to be looked 
 
             21    at in some detail.  Although generally we believe the 
 
             22    focus should be on bolt and seal failure, as those  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        166 
 
              1    things are likely to occur. 
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  Bob raised a number of points        
                     MR. CAMERON:   
 
              3    and assumptions about speed, looking at different 
 
 
              4    surfaces, cask collisions of rail and train, and it will 
 
              5    be good to get some perspectives from other people on 
 
              6    those particular issues.  And, as is up here, look at 
 
              7    bolts and seals and the peculiarities I guess of 
 
 
              8    different casks in terms of bolts and seals. 
 
              9              MR. HALSTEAD:  And shields, because there is       
                      MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
             10    the gamma shield construction and the relationship 
 
             11    between the gamma shield and the inner cask wall. 
 
 
             12              MR. CAMERON:  And in your second point, Bob, I     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
             13    am sort of lost, which isn't important in terms of me.  
 
             14    But I want to make sure that everyone understands. 
 
             15              MR. HALSTEAD:  Well, Charles had gotten into       
                      MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
 
             16    the issue of how to assess bolt performance, for 
 
             17    example, and that's while we will try to discourage you 
 
             18    from taking on the larger issue of full-scale cask 
 
             19    testing as part of this.  Although we strongly support 
 
 
             20    full-scale testing.  Full-scale testing of critical 
 
             21    components ought to be part of this test and certainly 
 
             22    bolts and probably seals, and the best way to do that is  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        167 
 
              1    physical testing of components. 
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  I guess we'll bring that back up     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
              3    when we get into testing.  Let's go to Jim Williams. 
 
 
              4              MR. WILLIAMS:  Just let me be arbitrary.  Jim      
                       MR. WILLIAMS:   
 
 thought looked at from an analysis standpoint, 
 
             21    the generic cask with generalized features, or we look 
 
             22    at the cask that is actually out there that's one of the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        168 
 
              1    thing we would like to get to do. 
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  Go ahead, Jim.                       
      MR. CAMERON:   
 
              3              MR. WILLIAMS:  If we take the several              
               MR. WILLIAMS:   
 
 
              4    certified rail casks out there and use generic tests 
 
              5    that are done and that will extrapolate to any and all 
 
              6    of them? 
 
              7              DR. MASSEY:  That would be one of the things       
                      DR. MASSEY:   
 
 
              8    we would have to look at, the issue of tests for a full 
 
              9    size package.  How would we get the package that would 
 
             10    most represent the package that would be rxpected to be 
 
             11    in service?  So again, that is something we will have to 
 
 
             12    address. 
 
             13              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  And, Bob, you were            
                 MR. CAMERON:   
 
             14    talking about specific casks.  Jim had a question about  
 
             15    -- that raised Charles's point about, can you do these 
 
 
             16    generic tests?  I don't know if anybody else has an 
 
             17    opinion. 
 
             18              MR. HALSTEAD:  I will tell you quickly that        
                     MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
             19    there are pros and cons.  The pros are, you will have to 
 
 
             20    remember what the NRC is doing here is something that is 
 
             21    different than what DOE is doing at the EIS.  NRC has 
 
             22    got to come up with newer regulations that will apply to  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        169 
 
              1    all types of Type D packages involving types of 
 
              2    irriradiated fuel, whether it's a university research 
 
              3    react or whatever.  So, that's a real burden, guys. 
 
 
              4                   It's hard enough dealing with DOE, where 
 
              5    they have common sense to take input in the 1990's and 
 
              6    designate one truck cask design and one or two rail cask 
 
              7    designs, and yet not hold a proper competition to let 
 
 
              8    the private sector decide who will build those designs, 
 
              9    because we think uniformity is a major issue for a whole 
 
             10    range of safety. 
 
             11                   But, for the safety thing the NRC 
 
 
             12    situation is different than the government was doing 
 
             13    with the draft EIS. 
 
             14                   And secondly, even if you see DOE 
 
             15    shipments to ship the transportation environment, as I 
 
 
             16    do, there will still be relatively large numbers of 
 
             17    shipments that Bob Alcock will be sheparding 20 years 
 
             18    from now.  Bob is in the elite and if Bob is using that 
 
             19    and will be shipping in ISO containers on rail cars and 
 
 
             20    some will be shipped on trucks, and there are some other 
 
             21    means.  So I think this is an issue you are not going to 
 
             22    resolve.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        170 
 
              1                   Our preface, Nevada's preference, because 
 
              2    we are primarily concerned about Yucca Mountain, is that 
 
              3    at least one of the truck cask designs you evaluate is 
 
 
              4    GA4 (sic).  And we I would like at least one of the rail     
                   ___ 
 
              5    casks in terms of what's been certified -- it's a very 
 
              6    nice piece of hardware. 
 
              7                   And we have tried to straddle this by 
 
 
              8    identifying Westinghouse NTC (sic) large transporter         
                                        ___ 
 
              9    design.  The MAC (sic) dual purpose cask.  And now we        
                             ___ 
 
             10    are looking at the high-star (sic) as ones that we think     
                                            ___ 
 
             11    are covered in the waterfront with the different types 
 
 
             12    of shielding.  That is the primary difficulty. 
 
             13                   Anyway, I haven't got any resolutions for 
 
             14    you except to say, our preference is, we are going to be 
 
             15    unhappy if at least one of the truck cask designs is the 
 
 
             16    GA4.  We know how to model that.  The issue for you is, 
 
             17    if you model that and nobody orders them and some other 
 
             18    very different design goes forward, we'll be back here 
 
             19    in five years and you will have to do modal study three. 
 
 
             20              MR. CAMERON:  Before we go on -- I know people     
                        MR. CAMERON:   
 
             21    have other points they want to raise, but is there 
 
             22    anything else on this specific point that we're  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        171 
 
              1    discussing now about how you select the cask that you're 
 
              2    going to use?  Does anybody want to say anything about 
 
              3    that?  Bill Lake. 
 
 
              4              MR. LAKE:  Bill Lake at DOE.  I think if you       
                      MR. LAKE:   
 
              5    are looking at studying something that may happen in 
 
              6    2010, again you are trying to design a specific cask 
 
              7    with different cask values.  It's a very difficult task 
 
 
              8    to identify which cask features will bound, those cask 
 
              9    features which are present today in the representative 
 
             10    cask, and try to extend it 10 to 20 years from now. 
 
             11                   But I think it can be done reasonably 
 
 
             12    well as long as you keep records and evaluate the 
 
             13    designs which may have changed significantly 10 to 20 
 
             14    years from now. 
 
             15                   But I think that's a bad approach in 
 
 
             16    trying to get the cask today to be. 
 
             17              MR. CAMERON:  And your better approach, just       
                      MR. CAMERON:   
 
             18    so everybody understands it, would be to do what? 
 
             19              MR. LAKE:  Try to identify the, as suggested,      
                       MR. LAKE:   
 
 
             20    and try to put those into a representative cask.  And 
 
             21    then crystal ball the problem to see and decide what may 
 
             22    be around 10 or 20 years from now, so you don't have to  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        172 
 
              1    repeat the study in a few years. 
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  There's a question from Earl         
                    MR. CAMERON:   
 
              3    Easton on that before you go. 
 
 
              4                   Earl, go ahead. 
 
              5              MR. EASTON:  I just wanted to follow-up on         
                    MR. EASTON:   
 
              6    what Bob said.  Keep in mind that the purpose of this 
 
              7    study is to try to figure out what level of protection 
 
 
              8    the regulations can give, not any one particular cask -- 
 
              9    not any one series of shipments. 
 
             10                   So the approach we took in Modal Study 1 
 
             11    is, if we had a rail cask or if we had a truck cask that 
 
 
             12    minimally meets the standards what is the level of 
 
             13    protection? 
 
             14                   So when we go out and pick generic casks 
 
             15    and try to pick something that looks reasonably close to 
 
 
             16    what those designs might turn out to be, what we are 
 
             17    looking at the bottom line is what level of protection 
 
             18    would the regulations require. 
 
             19                   Because we don't want to pick a cask 
 
 
             20    design that is maybe over and above the regulation.  We 
 
             21    want to pick something that represents right at the 
 
             22    regulatory line of cask design in the regulatory  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        173 
 
              1    environment. 
 
              2              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Let's go now to Bob           
                  MR. CAMERON:   
 
              3    Alcock. 
 
 
              4              MR. ALCOCK:   I want to talk a little bit          
                   MR. ALCOCK:    
 
              5    about the position of design uncertainties, and Charles 
 
              6    and I many times have had discussions about this. 
 
              7                   We haven't done a very good job.  But I 
 
 
              8    agree with Bob Halstead we ought to try to do that.  But 
 
              9    I am troubled by these examples, and I'm going to ask 
 
             10    Bob Halstead about some data that gives reason to 
 
             11    believe that the forces of the cask at least would be 
 
 
             12    greater than that we need to look at. 
 
             13              MR. HALSTEAD:  Bob, it's hard for me to answer     
                        MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
             14    that precisely, because I have never seen anybody at 
 
             15    Sandia that would have a good little matrix that 
 
 
             16    explains how they do a regulatory drop. 
 
             17                   I personally have advocated accepting the 
 
             18    performance standards as they're stated, and sequential 
 
             19    testing for full-scale testing.  So, I obviously have a 
 
 
             20    certain level of respect for a package that has to meet 
 
             21    those standards. 
 
             22                   Nonetheless I think it's an unknown about  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        174 
 
              1    how those impacts I describe translate. 
 
              2                   For example, does the 90 miles per hour 
 
              3    side impact, which would be pretty hard to do in a rail 
 
 
              4    cask on a bridge support column, represent a 60 foot 
 
              5    drop?  I am looking for some guidance from Sandia. 
 
              6                   I can help you specify what I think the 
 
              7    maximum impacts are based on a now almost 20 year study 
 
 
              8    of railroad accidents.  But I have never, in all the 
 
              9    discussions we have had with the people at Sandia, I 
 
             10    have never heard anybody lay out the kind of dimensions 
 
             11    of how variations on regulatory drop can replicate 
 
 
             12    different types in the real world. 
 
             13                   If you did nothing else in this study but 
 
             14    generate a defensible Rosetta Stone, if you will, or 
 
             15    relating the real world to regulatory standards that 
 
 
             16    would be a very important function. 
 
             17              MR. CAMERON:  Charles?                             
MR. CAMERON:   
 
             18              DR. MASSEY:   And that is an excellent point.      
                        DR. MASSEY:    
 
             19    And in the upcoming updates coming out for next year I 
 
 
             20    think the real world conditions translate into the 
 
             21    regulatory standards. 
 
             22              MR. CAMERON:  Bob, was there -- Bob Alcock,        
                     MR. CAMERON:    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        175 
 
              1    was there a suggestion that you wanted to make to Bob 
 
              2    Halstead's suggestion so you get to the point you were 
 
              3    trying to make? 
 
 
              4              MR. ALCOCK:  No, I was just supporting his         
                    MR. ALCOCK:   
 
              5    notion that we haven't explained this very well.  I was 
 
              6    trying to get some clarification.  And I think I got it 
 
              7    from the examples he was using. 
 
 
              8              MR. HALSTEAD:  I was using maximum values and      
                       MR. HALSTEAD:   
 
              9    I'm trying to find something that both has a reflection 
 
             10    in real accidents and something that maybe ought to be 
 
             11    120 miles per hour for that.  I just don't know. 
 
 
             12              MR. CAMERON:  Great.  And, Charles, you get        
                     MR. CAMERON:   
 
             13    the Rosetta Stone.  Do you have it up there? 
 
             14              (Simultaneous colloquy among the panel
 
             15    unreportable.)  
 
             16              MR. CAMERON:  Okay, Earl.
 
             17              MR. EASTON:  I would just like to report what      
 
             18    Charles said.  One of the things that was done to some 
 
             19    extent, the update of the 0170 that would come out 
  
             20    eventually is to look at a 60 foot drop on an unknown 
 
             21    surface and translate that into an impact on a concrete 
 
             22    surface at the different speeds.  It's sort of the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        176 
 
              1    analysis that focuses on the velocity of the hardness of 
 
              2    surfaces and impact surfaces, sort of a matrix, and look 
 
              3    at that.  And that is something we probably won't pay 
 
 
              4    attention to. 
 
              5              MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you.                     
  
              6              MR. ALCOCK:  And I would just state for the        
  
              7    record, it took 3,000 years for us to translate that. 
  
              8              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Bob.  I think that        
  
              9    puts everything in perspective here. 
 
             10                   Ron Pope. 
 
             11              MR. POPE:  I think a lot of what I wanted to       
  
             12    say has been said, and let's just see if I can summarize 
 
             13    it, my thoughts.  And that is whatever the scenario, in 
 
             14    terms of modeling real accident environments in the 
 
             15    behavior of whatever cask design you choose, it needs to 
  
             16    be related back so you can satisfy, as Earl said, the 
 
             17    purpose to assess the level of protection provided by 
 
             18    the regulations; relate it back to how that same cask 
 
             19    would perform relative to the puncture, range of drop 
  
             20    test, and thermal tests mandated by the regulations, 
 
             21    followed by the temperature requirements that are in the 
 
             22    regulations.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        177 
 
              1                   Now, just an example -- you pick the drop 
 
              2    of the center of gravity over the corner, depending on 
 
              3    the design.  That may not be the most damaging 
  
              4    orientation. 
 
              5                   The regulations require that you do each 
 
              6    of your mechanical tests in the most damaging 
 
              7    orientation and you pick the sequence of the puncture 
  
              8    test and the drop test so it's most damaging preceding 
 
              9    the thermal test. 
 
             10                   Finally, it's the acceptance requirement 
 
             11    afterwards that the same containment, such as would 
 
 
             12    relieve no more than a (inaudible) quantity in a week.       
                                     _________ 
 
             13    But generally the cask requirements of (inaudible) is        
                                                   _________ 
 
             14    whatever you do, always related back to how that package 
 
             15    would behave had it been exposed to the full set of 
 
 
             16    regulatory tests. 
 
             17              MR. CAMERON:   Thank you very much, Ron.           
                  MR. CAMERON:   
 
             18                   Let's go to Mike Baughman. 
 
             19              MR. BAUGHMAN:   I guess this is a question for     
                        MR. BAUGHMAN:    
 
 
             20    staff.  And that is, I am wondering whether or not the 
 
             21    regulations and those study matters reflect the scenario 
 
             22    where we have a legal weight cask, legal weight truck  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        178 
 
              1    casks, on a rail car traveling at 78 miles per hour.  I 
 
              2    know that EIS is not addressing that.  DOE is not 
 
              3    considering that as a possibility.  But I don't know if 
 
 
              4    we will propose that as a possibility. 
 
              5              DR. MASSEY:   One of the things we have to         
                    DR. MASSEY:    
 
              6    consider in an accident environment is packages, such as 
 
              7    truck casks on rails, and in particularly in the thermal 
 
 
              8    environment.  So we need to look at the package in the 
 
              9    transportation levels and look at the transportation 
 
             10    mode, so that is something you need to consider. 
 
             11              MR. CAMERON:  And, Susan, do you want to           
                  MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
             12    answer that? 
 
             13              DR. SHANKMAN:  I think it is a matter of           
                  DR. SHANKMAN:   
 
             14    judgement.  I think that is a comment -- the more 
 
             15    comments you get about things that may not be considered 
 
 
             16    the better the study can be.  The whole interest, as I 
 
             17    said at the beginning, we will consider all of those 
 
             18    comments and in time Sandia will be making a finding and 
 
             19    we will review it. 
 
 
             20                   I appreciate the comments. 
 
             21              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you.                    
         MR. CAMERON:   
 
             22                   Earl?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        179 
 
              1              MR. EASTON:  Real quickly, in general when you     
                        MR. EASTON:   
 
              2    have an impact it can be translated into velocity and 
 
              3    angles and hardness of the surface.  So all these 
 
 
              4    specific scenarios, if you take this scenario and we say 
 
              5    the velocity is bounded and the hardness of the surface 
 
              6    is bounded and the angle is considered, and then in 
 
              7    theory all these scenarios can be handled in the same 
 
 
              8    way.  Just make sure the parameters and values for these 
 
              9    three particular items are not exceeded by their 
 
             10    (unintelligible).                     ______________ 
 
             11              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Earl.                     
        MR. CAMERON:   
 
 
             12                   Let's go to Pat Brady. 
 
             13              MR. BRADY:  Just two quick issues.  This kind      
                       MR. BRADY:   
 
             14    of goes back to the issue Bob Halstead brought up.  One 
 
             15    of the issues is speed relative to rail.  And again, we 
 
 
             16    definitely were not cut out for it because the speed has 
 
             17    increased substantially from 1989 to 1999 and relatively 
 
             18    you would assume that the speed probably would increase 
 
             19    between now and the year 2010.  And that is just looking 
 
 
             20    at freight train speeds. 
 
             21                   You have many circumstances in individual 
 
             22    rail environments in that you'll have a 60 mile an hour  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        180 
 
              1    freight train and you'll have a 100 mile an hour Amtrak 
 
              2    train on a freight train track.  It's not necessarily 
 
              3    only the freight train speed you need to consider.  So, 
 
 
              4    that is again you have your work cut out for you.  And 
 
              5    it is hard to say with the changing of technology what 
 
              6    the next 10 years will bring. 
 
              7                   The other issue is one that Bob Halstead 
 
 
              8    brought up relative to two casks or more in a train and 
 
              9    one cask striking another cask, and the dynamic crush 
 
             10    testing.  And the way I read the announced modal study 
 
             11    is, that the crush test is only applicable to small 
 
 
             12    packages. 
 
             13                   But the feeling was that in small 
 
             14    packages, or numerous packages inside a container or 
 
             15    trailer in the event of an incident you would have one 
 
 
             16    package maybe striking another.  Whereas in the rail 
 
             17    environment in all likelihood you would have more than 
 
             18    one package. 
 
             19                   So, in the new work that is being done 
 
 
             20    consider crush testing of large trailer casks. 
 
             21              MR. CAMERON:  And is that point on crush           
                  MR. CAMERON:   
 
             22    testing, does that follow from Bob Halstead's  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        181 
 
              1    assumptions that we're not sure that dedicated trains 
 
              2    are going to be used?  In other words, would this issue 
 
              3    go away if there were dedicated trains? 
 
 
              4              MR. BRADY:  Not necessarily; you also -- in        
                     MR. BRADY:   
 
              5    the rail environment you are dealing with locomotives of 
 
              6    300,000 pounds.  So you could have a locomotive in some 
 
              7    circumstances crushing a cask another cask hitting a 
 
 
              8    cask -- you could have more than -- more than one 
 
              9    vehicle. 
 
             10              MR. CAMERON:  I see.  And then Bob's example,      
                       MR. CAMERON:   
 
             11    the point was on collision between casks rather than an 
 
 
             12    overloaded cask  
 
             13              MR. BRADY:  If you have got a locomotive           
                   MR. BRADY:   
 
             14              MR. CAMERON:  Oh, okay, Pat.  Thank you, Pat.      
                       MR. CAMERON:   
 
             15                   Kevin, do you want to tell us what's on 
 
 
             16    your mind? 
 
             17              MR. BLACKWELL:  I just wanted to comment -- I      
                       MR. BLACKWELL:   
 
             18    will say it anyway, because it goes back to what Earl 
 
             19    was saying.  The regulation, when it comes to packaging 
 
 
             20    across the board for Hazmat are minimal standards.  
 
             21    They're meant to be minimal standards to define the 
 
             22    respective levels of safety of packaging or transport of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        182 
 
              1    Hazmat. 
 
              2                   And I think that's just common sense, in 
 
              3    that no one would like a regulation that contains 
 
 
              4    maximum standards, because it limits the ceiling of 
 
              5    wherever you want to go, except for regulation for 
 
              6    change. 
 
              7                   So the idea behind setting minimal safety 
 
 
              8    standards that effectively contain the material in the 
 
              9    packaging is to allow designs and technology to be 
 
             10    implemented and to be used without having to wait for 
 
             11    regulatory change. 
  
             12                   And I think that's -- we're all aware 
 
             13    that regulatory change is not quick.  And it doesn't 
 
             14    move with the speed of light. 
 
             15                   And I just want to make that statement. 
 
 
             16              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Kevin.                    
  
             17                   Let's go to Bill. 
 
             18              MR. LEE:  I am Bill Lee.  And a couple of          
  
             19    points that I want to make is that there was no 
 
 
             20    discussion of what the difference in the four different 
 
             21    cask modes.  And with the bolts reg, that you have the 
 
             22    bolting company not being aware of the parts or that is  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        183 
 
              1    where you feel it. 
 
              2                   But the other item, I think we're heading 
 
              3    into an era of where we have designed and licensed a 
 
 
              4    dual-purpose system.  And we are putting them inside 
 
              5    wherever the cask is.  And you have an extra boundary 
 
              6    that you do not even take into consideration.  And as 
 
              7    Ron Pope pointed out, it is the release of the ray 
 
 
              8    acidity (sic), so you have another boundary.                 
 
              9              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Bill.  Let's go to        
 
             10    Jim.  We will get back to Mr. Lake. 
 
             11              MR. WILLIAMS:  Two quick points.  Number one,      
 
             12    ditto on the crush.  I think that's important.  That is 
 
             13    one of the things I had listed coming into the 
 
             14    committee.  I think it's an important point to look at. 
 
             15                   The second thing is procedural.  I think 
 
             16    it's been an excellent discussion.  It has been very in- 
 
             17    depth. 
 
             18                   I'm a little concerned how we're going to 
 
             19    run out of time on some of the other three issues, we 
 
 
             20    still have to go forward with.  And I would suggest we 
 
             21    wrap this one up and maybe set a time limit for that on 
 
             22    each of the following three issues.  I wouldn't want to  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        184 
 
              1    shortchange those. 
 
              2                   Some of us have plans to leave at 4:30.  
 
              3    So I just want to raise that. 
 
              4                   I mean, sometimes people can be aware and 
 
              5    not repeat things that have already been said. 
 
              6              MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  I think that is a useful      
 
              7    admonition for us, and a good way to speed things up. 
 
              8                   Let me just hear from the rest of you who 
 
              9    had your cards up.  And let's all try to be concise, and 
 
             10    we will have some time.  I think we are going to gain 
 
             11    some time on the next two issues.  But let's not go 
 
             12    further than 3:00 o'clock on this one. 
 
             13                   And let me go to Klaus. 
 
             14              MR. SCHUMANN:  Thank you.  I just wanted to        
 
             15    record that we would like to request full-scale testing 
 
             16    of transportation casks under real-live conditions.  And 
 
             17    you should not underestimate what perception has created 
 
             18    the topic.  I think the topic will be much more 
 
             19    competent on results on real live tests on the casks 
 
             20    rather than relying on some field modeling or computer 
 
             21    testing. 
 
             22                   And I would like to particularly respond  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        185 
 
              1    to what Ray Lambert said a little bit earlier.  My point 
 
              2    was, that the analytical (sic) was up compared to full-      
 
              3    scale testing with computer modeling, one way or the 
 
              4    other. 
 
              5                   But I do want to also add in this 
 
              6    particular test, I think the result was reported to be 
 
              7    one percent of the (inaudible) that leads up to a            
 
              8    terrorist attack towards the environment and the one 
 
              9    percent of the large railroad cars can lead to 8.000 
 
             10    (sic) C's.
 
             11                   That's right what we call in this study 
 
             12    (sic).  I think we can assume a state of 1,380 to list       
 
             13    them all (sic).  ABill. 
 
              7              MR. LAKE:  Bill Lake, DOE.  I just would like      
  
              8    to preface my statement by agreeing -- that I do agree 
 
              9    with the importance of regulatory requirements.  But 
 
             10    let's go back to look at, I think we need to recognize 
 
             11    the difference between the real analysis that is going 
  
             12    to be done which is a very hard assignment, versus the 
 
             13    dream analysis in certification.  And, as long as you 
 
             14    have the certification process, by sanitizing what the 
 
             15    NRC (inaudible) and before that the main design is a         
  
             16    design organization (sic).                                   
 
             17                   This, I would suspect, is going to be a 
 
             18    very expensive analysis, but to do the same value 
 
             19    analysis as is done in the regulatory process, it will 
  
             20    be very, very complete. 
 
             21                   So I think if you accept the fact this is 
 
             22    going to look at many things, but not everything.  And  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        187 
 
              1    you need to expect a good detailed regulation analysis 
 
              2    and certification process. 
 
              3                   This is also looking at how good this 
  
              4    process is and how much competence you have.  I think we 
 
              5    need to recognize that difference. 
 
              6                   Thank you. 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.                           
  
              8                   This is a generic issue here with lots of 
 
              9    suggestions for the NRC and Charles and the good Sandia 
 
             10    team.  It may be possible or unnecessary to do 
 
             11    everything.  So whether -- what they decide to do or not 
 
             12    to do in their terms of scoping, in the study of the 
 
             13    major issue that is facing them, I guess by implication 
 
             14    a lot of things that the people say is also helping to 
 
             15    limit that in some way, but that is a good point. 
  
             16                   Ron? 
 
             17              MR. ROSS:  Ron Ross.  I think getting back to      
  
             18    maybe -- I think one of the goals you are trying to 
 
             19    achieve here -- I think the Western Governors called for 
  
             20    full-scale testing.  And the reason is that, we need to 
 
             21    develop a little more confidence in the safety factor 
 
             22    that is being provided.  You were modeling off of a  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        188 
 
              1    computer simulation or scale modeling of these things as 
 
              2    you needed, at some level that gives both the public and 
 
              3    elected official that confidence. 
  
              4                   So, as we start to go back to the scope 
 
              5    of this you need to take that into consideration, what 
 
              6    is in your objectives.  And one of these objectives has 
 
              7    got to be the confidence level. 
  
              8                   And that brings me back to then to the 
 
              9    unique scale of the thing, either a matrix or some other 
 
             10    form that takes these tests, to something that is 
 
             11    relatable in everyday experience.  The test -- the drop 
  
             12    test, so many miles an hour, a bridge abutment.  And I 
 
             13    know I get clobbered by the same people every time I 
 
             14    bring this up. 
 
             15                   But you try to explain this to the public 
 
 
             16    or to the governors, as I try to do what I have, what 
 
             17    this really means and all they've got is a box or a can 
 
             18    or something dropping 50 feet onto a concrete surface.  
 
             19    I mean, it's just a setting. 
  
             20                   And so, that is the point I wanted to 
 
             21    make. 
 
             22                   Second, are these standards going to be  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        189 
 
              1    used in waterways?  And if so that needs to be included 
 
              2    also in your rail, truck, et cetera, because the barge 
 
              3    is the real thing here. 
 
 
              4                   You have also got the ocean-going thing, 
 
              5    particularly in areas like central Hawaii and along the 
 
              6    coastal cities. 
 
              7              MR. CAMERON:  Thanks a lot, Ron.  I think that     
 
              8    we got the water board print before and you are taking a 
 
              9    stance on the public confidence point.  Again, that 
 
             10    happens to be understandable. 
 
             11                   Let's finish off with a brief comment 
  
             12    from Bob. 
 
             13              MR. HALSTEAD:  If we can talk about testing,       
 
             14    if I can put a new slip up there because Mike's question 
 
             15    about piggy-backs and Ron's comment about ocean 
  
             16    shipment, and I'm surprised that Jack didn't raise the 
 
             17    point, because one of the best scoping parts of our 
 
             18    meeting was in Bethesda when we talked about the 
 
             19    different combinations of casks and modes. 
 
 
             20                   So you can have legal weight truck casks 
 
             21    that are on legal weight trucks.  We can have, we can 
 
             22    easily consider legal weight trucks either on trailers  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        190 
 
              1    or on skids or on rail cars.  I personally don't think 
 
              2    you'll ever see that, but I think you ought to at least 
 
              3    scope it. 
 
 
              4                   Certainly, I know you can have legal 
 
              5    weight truck casks in shipping containers on rail cars 
 
              6    and you can have legal weight truck casks on inland 
 
              7    waterway barges, or on ocean vessels.  And similarly, 
 
 
              8    with rail casks, you can have rail casks on rail cars 
 
              9    singly.  You can have rail casks on rail cars in 
 
             10    multiple deployment. 
 
             11                   You can have rail casks we haven't 
 
 
             12    mentioned today, on these extremely large heavy-haul 
 
             13    trucks, and we were considering BIS, and of course you 
 
             14    can have them on inland waterway barges, and ocean 
 
             15    vessels. 
 
 
             16                   And somewhere you need to scope out what 
 
             17    the problems and the combinations are.  And then make 
 
             18    sure the examples you are looking at are appropriately 
 
             19    bound in the different combinations. 
 
 
             20              MR. CAMERON:  And does that primarily or           
  
             21    solely go to the container performance issue? 
 
             22              MR. HALSTEAD:  No, I think this has to inform      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        191 
 
              1    everything you do in the study.  You begin by scoping 
 
              2    transportation logistics. 
 
              3              MR. CAMERON:  Thank you.  I wanted to get a        
 
              4    clarification on that from you. 
 
              5                   How about the audience?  Do we have any 
 
              6    comments on their line or container performance during 
 
              7    collisions?  Let's go to Allan for a quick comment. 
  
              8              *         *         *         *         * 
 
              9      
 
             10      
 
             11      
  
             12      
 
             13      
 
             14      
 
             15      
  
             16      
 
             17      
 
             18      
 
             19      
  
             20      
 
             21      
 
             22       
 
 

                                                                           192 
 
               1             ALAN WELLS:  I just want to comment regarding 
                     
               2    the Trostob (phonetic) concept and in fact did some work 
                     
               3    quite a few number of years ago and published a report 
                     
               4    on that and conservatives to approximately, Earl's 
                     
               5    nodding his head, to approximately a 90 foot fall onto I 
                     
               6    believe it was an aircraft field, like a bomber, where 
                     
               7    you have heavy aircraft hitting the run way repeatedly. 
                     
               8                  And if memory serves me correctly, it was 
                     
               9    equivalent to about 120 feet onto some fairly strong 
                     
              10    rock.  So there have been some efforts to do that 
                     
              11    before, but what there hasn't been is what you're gonna 
                     
              12    do  now where you're trying to come up with a ruler 
                     
              13    measurement that's a little bit perhaps a wider range.  
                     
              14                  And when you do write all this up, I agree 
                     
              15    wholeheartedly with everybody here that there has to be 
                     
              16    some way of relating this to things that we can 
                     
              17    understand because although I deal with unyielding 
                     
              18    surfaces routinely, I have a hard time thinking about 
                     
              19    them.   
                     
              20                  Now when you come to the rich support 
                     
              21    coalition, that's a fairly serious accident and I've 
                     
              22    actually seen one.  And the consequences of the cask 
                      

 
                                                                           193 
 
               1    hitting at any angle because of course we have to do the 
                     
               2    worst case angle, is pretty severe.   
                     
               3                  But I would encourage you to consider 
                     
               4    doing the things other than unyielding surfaces since 
                     
               5    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recently published 
                     
               6    a target hardness, new reg, that allows you to take a 
                     
               7    concrete re-enforced structure and figure out the 
                     
               8    hardness of it.  That's particularly for a pad, but I'm 
                     
               9    sure that you're using other instructions.   
                     
              10                  But the reason that I mention this is that 
                     
              11    if you take anything made out of steel made by humans 
                     
              12    and you run it along at 75 miles an hour to a rich 
                     
              13    support structure so that it hits in the middle of these 
                     
              14    long cylinder truck heads, it's going to bend.   
                     
              15                  And the regulatory requirement today is 
                     
              16    that you don't have any release of radioactive material 
                     
              17    although you know, certainly that's -- you can look at 
                     
              18    it different ways, but the point is that that's not 
                     
              19    gonna happen in the nature of concrete is strong but not 
                     
              20    that strong.   
                     
              21                  So don't set up a scenario that nothing 
                     
              22    can pass, set up the scenario based on a new reg that 
                      

 
                                                                           194 
 
               1    can be analyzed and then quantified and it becomes an 
                     
               2    engineering analysis instead of something impossible.  
                     
               3    So thank you. 
                     
               4             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Alan.  We're 
                     
               5    going to go to one of our Nevada local government 
                     
               6    representatives for a comment or a question here at this 
                     
               7    point.  Yes?   
                     
               8             MS. SHANKLE:  I'm Judy Shankle from Mineral 
                     
               9    County.  And basically my question was since the design 
                     
              10    of the cask was changed, this is from DOE's input, the 
                     
              11    representatives from Mineral County, I do have senior 
                     
              12    citizens asking me questions, I have a lot of younger 
                     
              13    generations that are definitely concerned about this 
                     
              14    issue, and Mineral County would like to have, to have 
                     
              15    the new casks built and tested and we want to know what 
                     
              16    the integrity of the bough (phonetic) and ceilings of 
                     
              17    those would be and in what condition.   
                     
              18                  For example in the real world you're 
                     
              19    talking about areas that would go through maybe 
                     
              20    tornadoes or earthquakes.   
                     
              21                  I did see durations here for buyer testing 
                     
              22    and immersion of water but how many times would you be  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           195 
 
               1    dropping this container.   
                     
               2                  If you do a test and if it were in an 
                     
               3    earthquake, how many times would this container fall or 
                     
               4    something with more real life situation that I would be 
                     
               5    looking at.   
                     
               6                  So therefore Mineral County would like to 
                     
               7    see full-scale testing on the new casks rather than 
                     
               8    computer simulations. 
                     
               9             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Judy.  And we'll 
                     
              10    capture that point when we go to the, to the test versus 
                     
              11    the actual testing discussion. 
                     
              12             MR. HATTERFIELD:  John Hatterfield.  I just 
                     
              13    want to follow up on that because one comment which got 
                     
              14    lost from the public was there was a possibility of 
                     
              15    transporting spent fuel from overseas, it would come 
                     
              16    through the Fedderiver (phonetic) Canyon in California 
                     
              17    and there was a lot of concern from the public about 
                     
              18    kind of an accident scenario where you have this cask 
                     
              19    going down into a steep canyon.   
                     
              20                  So that's a point of how do, again 
                     
              21    connecting your regulations with those kinds of things. 
                     
              22    Can that be done?  That would really be very helpful for  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           196 
 
               1    people to understand better what's going on.   
                     
               2             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thanks, John.  Let's go to 
                     
               3    the next discussion.  And I guess you guys already 
                     
               4    realize you won't get any break this afternoon since 
                     
               5    we've only been here since 2:00.  So if you need a 
                     
               6    break, just drift off.  And I'm sure that some of you 
                     
               7    might have already done that, drift off into your seats. 
                     
               8             MR. MASSEY:  Okay.  The next topic in our 
                     
               9    discussion and then we're really getting into some 
                     
              10    technical detail and may make up a little time here, but 
                     
              11    is the actual performance of spent fuel assembly inside 
                     
              12    the package and how we analyze and test that behavior.  
                     
              13                  And in the 1997 modal study, as I 
                     
              14    discussed briefly earlier, the performance of the rod 
                     
              15    site package was estimated based on that strain rate  
                     
              16    that interpasses charge; how much once a rod they assume 
                     
              17    have been damaged, how much material outside of the rod 
                     
              18    got into the cask was based on some previously published 
                     
              19    results.  There was no testing performed.   
                     
              20                  And then once they made the assumption 
                     
              21    that some material, fine material had been released 
                     
              22    inside the package, they assumed that that would all be  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           197 
 
               1    released in the environment.   
                     
               2                  In the 0170 update, we actually based on 
                     
               3    forces that we believe the rods would be subject to in 
                     
               4    collision environments to calculate the fraction of rods 
                     
               5    that would be impacted or fractured or damaged or fry 
                     
               6    the cask, and we calculated how much material inside the 
                     
               7    rod we would released in the cask, and we calculated how 
                     
               8    much that material released from the rods could be 
                     
               9    positive for internal surfaces of the cask.  And then  
                     
              10    essentially you subtract from that how much would be 
                     
              11    available to be released into the environment.   
                     
              12                  For the package performance study, what we 
                     
              13    would like to do is actually go in and get some 
                     
              14    criticism and ask about use of simulated spent fuel 
                     
              15    rods, rods that have not been radiated, rods that have 
                     
              16    not had the long storage times with the potential 
                     
              17    dishment (phonetic) I guess of the cladding or the 
                     
              18    exterior of the fuel rod.  We haven't really accurately 
                     
              19    determined what the affects of those types of factors 
                     
              20    are on fuel rod performances outside the package.   
                     
              21                  So what we would like to do is perform 
                     
              22    some laboratory skill experiments, and we're gonna go  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           198 
 
               1    into more detail with those rods later.    
                     
               2                  We'd like to look at the crud that I have 
                     
               3    out here, impact crash and crud.  Crud stands for chalk 
                     
               4    rivery uniform deposits.  It's essentially material 
                     
               5    that's on the outside of rod, how that may be released 
                     
               6    in a collision terminal environment.   
                     
               7                  If we do have some fracturing of the fuel 
                     
               8    rods and materials inside it, we end up with sort of a 
                     
               9    bed of material.  How does that bed of material or the 
                     
              10    binds that they have in cask, how does that really work 
                     
              11    within the context of how much could get out.   
                     
              12                  And finally, once we do have some better 
                     
              13    definition of the particles released, really get into 
                     
              14    more detail and accuracy on how much can be actually 
                     
              15    released from the cask through the openings that we 
                     
              16    could model as a result of the fire or collision fire.  
                     
              17                  So I'll leave these up and we'll get into 
                     
              18    spent fuel.  That's essential rod performance. 
                     
              19             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Spent fuel rod 
                     
              20    performance.  Let me introduce Sarah Kolpo from the NRC 
                     
              21    staff who's on the team for this project and our expert 
                     
              22    on this particular subject.  She's here to serve as a  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           199 
 
               1    resource.  Jim, is this one of the things that you were, 
                     
               2    did you want to comment, take a first comment on -- 
                     
               3             JIM       :  This is one I didn't want to 
                     
               4    comment on.  Thanks for asking. 
                     
               5             MR. CAMERON:  All right.  Let's go to Bob 
                     
               6    Halstead. 
                     
               7             MR. HALSTEAD:  Well, that was a good overview 
                     
               8    by Dr. Massey, but it avoided what we think is the 
                     
               9    single most important issue that we don't understand yet 
                     
              10    about your study approach, and that is what, what 
                     
              11    typical spent fuels you're proposing to evaluate.   
                     
              12                  You know, we were late in addressing this 
                     
              13    issue in the 10CFR51 rule bating (phonetic) regarding 
                     
              14    the new higher burn out, higher fuels that the NRC is 
                     
              15    now basically by blanket assessment approved for 
                     
              16    shipment in truck casks.                 
                     
              17                  Now let's define the issue this way.  
                     
              18    There are all kind of different spent fuels that are 
                     
              19    gonna be shipped out there, all other things being equal 
                     
              20    which of course they never are, cooling time tends to be 
                     
              21    the most important factor from a radiological risk 
                     
              22    standpoint.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           200 
 
               1                  We would suggest a bounding approach in 
                     
               2    which the greatest radiological risk that we think we 
                     
               3    would be likely to see would involve the shipment of 
                     
               4    five-year cooled, high burn-up fuel from PWR, 
                     
               5    pressurized water reactor.  And that is typically what, 
                     
               6    that is the typical fuel, the maximum fuel that's 
                     
               7    specified in 10CFR51.   
                     
               8                  And I'm sorry to be so technic.  This is, 
                     
               9    you know, written down in notes.  You're talking about a 
                     
              10    very high initial enrichment, five percent, and a very 
                     
              11    high burn up, 62,000 megawatt base.   
                     
              12                  So if somebody can think of something 
                     
              13    hotter that's likely to be shipped, I'll yield, but 
                     
              14    that's the hottest cart load that I can imagine being 
                     
              15    shipped right now.   
                     
              16                  On the other hand, a large amount of this 
                     
              17    of the civilian inventory and a very large amount of the 
                     
              18    other types of research reactor fuels are much less 
                     
              19    radiologically dangerous.   
                     
              20                  I thought about a really mind-breaking 
                     
              21    problemistic approach to this.  We tried to identify the 
                     
              22    entire inventory that would be shipped over the next 40 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           201 
 
               1    years and then we break it down and that way leads into 
                     
               2    insanity.   
                     
               3                  So I think the easiest way to deal with 
                     
               4    this is pick two points.  One type of fuel we just 
                     
               5    described as the worst case, and then I would argue that 
                     
               6    we take the least designated typical fuel for shipment 
                     
               7    to Yucca Mountain which is pretty old, 26 year cooled, 
                     
               8    again PWR, pressured water reactor, 17 by 17 
                     
               9    Westinghouse power of rate, if anybody cares, with 
                     
              10    moderate enrichment, 3.7 percent moderate, over what the 
                     
              11    history of fuel management practice has been, and a, a 
                     
              12    actually a higher than average but what will be moderate 
                     
              13    over the next 20, 30 years of about a 40,000 megawatt 
                     
              14    thermal burn up.   
                     
              15                  And I would argue that while some people 
                     
              16    will say that a lot of the fuel in the inventory is 
                     
              17    older and less dangerous, I would also argue that from 
                     
              18    talking to the utility folks, they intend to interpret 
                     
              19    their contracts in a way that lets them ship hot fuel 
                     
              20    out of a pool if that's what's best for that particular 
                     
              21    utility.   
                     
              22                  So I would say for starters we use a 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           202 
 
               1    down-end approach with a highly dangerous fuel and an 
                     
               2    average radiological risk, and then you have to do all 
                     
               3    of your radiological analysis looking at these two 
                     
               4    points.   
                     
               5                  Now beyond that -- 
                     
               6             MR. CAMERON:  Bob, can I stop you right there 
                     
               7    and just ask -- I'd like to get some comment input from 
                     
               8    the rest of the people around the table on your 
                     
               9    suggestion.                 
                     
              10                  Is there general agreement on, on this 
                     
              11    type of approach?  Are there down sides to this type of 
                     
              12    approach?  Any, any comments on Bob Halstead's 
                     
              13    suggestion?  Let's go to Bob, Bob Alcock. 
                     
              14             MR.              2    remember we're talking about loss of shielding as well 
                     
               3    as loss of containment, you've got an enormous surface 
                     
               4    dosement on the younger, higher burn up fuel.  I mean, 
                     
               5    we're talking about, you know, frightening 50 to 100,000 
                     
               6    rems per hour surface dosage which of course falls off 
                     
               7    very considerably after about 20 years.   
                     
               8                  There are extraordinarily significant 
                     
               9    changes in the particular radiolicetopes (phonetic) that 
                     
              10    dominate inventory depending on major burn-up character. 
                     
              11                  I don't want to make this overly involved, 
                     
              12    but the bottom line is you need to deal with the 
                     
              13    radiological characteristics of the fuel as well as the 
                     
              14    physical and chemical characteristics of the fuel to not 
                     
              15    only figure out the physical performance, but in the end 
                     
              16    what we're concerned about is radiological hazard. 
                     
              17             MR. ALCOCK:  If I were doing a NEPA analysis, I 
                     
              18    would want to consider the different fuel types that I 
                     
              19    might be moving exactly for the same reasons that you 
                     
              20    stated, okay, but in an accident scenario, I'm asking 
                     
              21    you again, does-- 
                     
              22             MR. HALSTEAD:  Let me put it to you this way. 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           204 
 
               1             MR. ALCOCK:  The performance of the rods in 
                     
               2    that circumstance. 
                     
               3             MR. HALSTEAD:  And an acceptable level of 
                     
               4    damage to a container hauling 45-year-old big rock fuel 
                     
               5    compared to an acceptable level of damage to a cask 
                     
               6    carrying five-year cooled hot fuel is big spread.   
                     
               7                  So in the end, we're still talking about 
                     
               8    radiological risk even though we're focusing on damage 
                     
               9    to the container.  So without making this -- well, maybe 
                     
              10    we need to -- 
                     
              11             MR. CAMERON:  Well, let's see where we go.  
                     
              12    Let's see where we go in this discussion, okay.  We'll 
                     
              13    go to Earl and Fred next. 
                     
              14             EARL EASTON:  I think this may very well be an 
                     
              15    area that lends itself to Bill Lake's sensitivity 
                     
              16    argument what affect does it have over all in the 
                     
              17    overall picture.  But there are other issues that the 
                     
              18    NRC is looking at too with different fuel.   
                     
              19                  As fuel ages, the brittleness of the 
                     
              20    cladding increases and therefore you may lose cladding, 
                     
              21    and we're looking at that now, especially in terms of 
                     
              22    licensing certifying arena.  So yes we are looking at 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           205 
 
               1    that.  And I think this is an area that probably lends 
                     
               2    to Bill Lakes' sensitivity analysis, doesn't make any 
                     
               3    difference to the end result given that the cask is your 
                     
               4    mainline of defense. 
                     
               5             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Something for people to 
                     
               6    think about on that last statement. 
                     
               7             MR. ALCOCK:  Well, I'd like to follow up on 
                     
               8    that.  This is a very important point to get into.  
                     
               9    Earl, I think if you have an issue of gamma shielding, 
                     
              10    if it involves a leak or a well fracture, it makes a big 
                     
              11    damn difference whether what's inside that cask has a 
                     
              12    very high surface dose rate or a low surface dose rate. 
                     
              13    So that -- and remember, we're not just talking about 
                     
              14    loss of containment, we're talking about loss of 
                     
              15    shielding also. 
                     
              16             EARL EASTON:   And I could agree with you.  
                     
              17    What we're doing in this study is looking at risk, what 
                     
              18    is the probability of an accident that leads to that 
                     
              19    type loss of shielding and then what is the sensitivity 
                     
              20    to the type of fuel you have in there.  And that's 
                     
              21    something I anticipate that we will at least consider 
                     
              22    putting in the study. 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           206 
 
               1             MR. ALCOCK:  Okay, I'm sorry.  I thought you 
                     
               2    were saying that you didn't think it was worth 
                     
               3    addressing. 
                     
               4             EARL EASTON:  No.  All I'm saying is this is a 
                     
               5    sensitivity thing. 
                     
               6             MR. CAMERON:  We're gonna go to Fred and then 
                     
               7    we're gonna go to Rick Boyle for his comments on this 
                     
               8    and perhaps something else.  Go ahead, Fred.   
                     
               9             MR. DILGER:  Fred Dilger, Clark County.  He 
                     
              10    stole my thunder precisely because that's exactly what I 
                     
              11    was gonna say.   
                     
              12                  I think Bill Lakes' point about 
                     
              13    sensitivity now is very correct and I think that one of 
                     
              14    the ways that you can get there from here in this area 
                     
              15    is precisely what Bob is suggesting.  It's the five-year 
                     
              16    old fuel and the, and then older less dangerous fuel. 
                     
              17             MR. CAMERON:  Fred, let me ask you a 
                     
              18    clarification there.  Are you saying that the so-called 
                     
              19    Bill Lakes' sensitivity analysis really equates with 
                     
              20    what Bob was suggesting? 
                     
              21             MR. DILGER:  Yes.  I would argue that the 
                     
              22    famous Bill Lakes' sensitivity is precisely what Bob's 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           207 
 
               1    recommending. 
                     
               2             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, great. 
                     
               3             UNIDENTIFIED:  You need to make sure that the 
                     
               4    DOE and Nevada don't agree too much on this though.   
                     
               5             MR. CAMERON:  Rick Boyle.  Let's go to Rick 
                     
               6    Boyle now. 
                     
               7             MR. BOYLE:  Thank you.  Rick Boyle now with the 
                     
               8    Department of Transportation.  I think Bob's point is 
                     
               9    valid, but I'm not sure if it's valid for this study.  I 
                     
              10    think it's a package review issue that I don't see any 
                     
              11    of these packages or anything that the NRC approves that 
                     
              12    they write that this cask is approved for all spent 
                     
              13    fuel.  They look at the contents and list them 
                     
              14    individually and look at the characteristics of that 
                     
              15    content and then approve it for a given cask.  There's 
                     
              16    no cask for spent fuel, it's approved for every spent 
                     
              17    fuel type, as Bob would point out, no matter what its 
                     
              18    characteristics.   
                     
              19                  So I don't know if this is an issue for 
                     
              20    this study.  It would be an issue I would pay a lot of 
                     
              21    attention to as the NRC did cask review for spent fuel 
                     
              22    and which contents are approved for which cask because 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           208 
 
               1    Bob is right, the fuel will have different 
                     
               2    characteristics and the cask will have different 
                     
               3    characteristics.  I see it as a package review issue, 
                     
               4    not a modal study issue.   
                     
               5                  I don't know if you want me to continue 
                     
               6    with a little bit different issue, same topic but 
                     
               7    different issue or do you want to close this up?   
                     
               8             MR. CAMERON:  I guess, I think some people 
                     
               9    would perhaps agree or some others might disagree with 
                     
              10    that point.   
                     
              11                  Does anybody want to say anything in terms 
                     
              12    of Rick's point was that this, this may not be needed 
                     
              13    for --  
                     
              14             MR. ALCOCK:  I gave you a shorthand version of 
                     
              15    all the things that I think are related to spent fuel 
                     
              16    radiological characteristics.  It also affects every 
                     
              17    little first rupture oxidation, particle size 
                     
              18    distribution and all the things that are important from 
                     
              19    a packaging containment.   
                     
              20                  We so much focused on containment that we 
                     
              21    haven't paid enough attention to shielding.  From my 
                     
              22    understanding, that's one of the big deficiencies of the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           209 
 
               1    first modal study.   
                     
               2                  And I personally believe that that was -- 
                     
               3    I understand from talking to Larry Fisher at EEOG why 
                     
               4    they did it, but I think that was one of the things that 
                     
               5    really undercut credibility of the modal study was that 
                     
               6    it solely focused on failure of the cask shell on the 
                     
               7    packaging and escaping the material.   
                     
               8                  And while that's very important, another 
                     
               9    role of the package, does it provides radiological 
                     
              10    protection.   
                     
              11                  So I think it's a double issue, but I 
                     
              12    don't disagree with you that the packaging issue is very 
                     
              13    important and its physical chemical aspects of the fuel 
                     
              14    are.  Certainly I don't disagree with anything Dr. 
                     
              15    Massey's put out there. 
                     
              16             MR. CAMERON:  Go ahead, Rick, with your 
                     
              17    additional point. 
                     
              18             MR. BOYLE:  And again, a second point.  And 
                     
              19    Charles, feel free to tell me that I'm all wet 
                     
              20    especially in the interest of time because I'm not as 
                     
              21    familiar with the background work that you've done in 
                     
              22    analyzing the internal pressure of casks.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           210 
 
               1                  My point is that I'm not as convinced it 
                     
               2    matters what condition the contents are in unless the 
                     
               3    cask fails.  And the testing that I've seen has not 
                     
               4    shown that the cask fails either from a dose rate 
                     
               5    standpoint or a seal or a, you need a pathway to escape 
                     
               6    before the inner contents, before we're concerned with 
                     
               7    that.   
                     
               8                  I'm not aware of testing that is shown 
                     
               9    that a cask has failed in this testing, therefore, I'm 
                     
              10    not as concerned with what happens to the contents 
                     
              11    because they're still contained within the cask.   
                     
              12                  The next point is that if you're going 
                     
              13    through your new work and you're looking at I believe 
                     
              14    low probability situations which would be higher impact 
                     
              15    and those still don't damage the cask so there's no 
                     
              16    conducive pathway, I'm not sure why this work is being 
                     
              17    done to identify exactly what form the contents are in 
                     
              18    where there's no exposure pathway based on all those 
                     
              19    different accident scenarios.   
                     
              20                  And again, I have to say that's my opinion 
                     
              21    and I'm not, not up-to-date with what analysis you've 
                     
              22    done and you've looked at what it would take to fail a  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           211 
 
               1    cask. 
                     
               2             MR. CAMERON:  So your, your point, Rick, on 
                     
               3    this, this cost benefit issue which should be looked at 
                     
               4    where the resources should be spent is that unless it is 
                     
               5    demonstrated that, that the cask failure study makes the 
                     
               6    behavior or the fuel an issue is that let's not worry 
                     
               7    about the behavior of the fuel? 
                     
               8             MR. BOYLE:  Right.  Unless you're asking 
                     
               9    probabilities to show cask failures, you don't care what 
                     
              10    the form the contents are in.   
                     
              11                  And my personal opinion is if you're 
                     
              12    showing cask failure, you correct the cask failure, not 
                     
              13    say well, I guess we had an acceptable release.  So I'm 
                     
              14    not sure this internal condition -- 
                     
              15             MR. MASSEY:  These are not, these are not 
                     
              16    regulatory performance standards.  You don't see cask 
                     
              17    failures.  So I'll agree in is not an issue.  But what 
                     
              18    we're looking at are extra regulatory regions where we 
                     
              19    have fires or collision forces that are sufficient to 
                     
              20    open a path for some escape of material from the 
                     
              21    package. 
                     
              22             MR. BOYLE:  Oh, I agree.  They're realistic if 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           212 
 
               1    they're extra regulatory but realistic.  I still think 
                     
               2    the path, correct path to take is to correct and fix the 
                     
               3    cask, not figure out if well, that was an acceptable 
                     
               4    release.  I don't think you're -- 
                     
               5             MR. MASSEY:  Well, I'm not saying we're not 
                     
               6    trying to get what's an acceptable release, we're trying 
                     
               7    to get to the point where we can estimate what that, 
                     
               8    accurately say what that use would be.   
                     
               9                  So one of the things we need to know is 
                     
              10    that if we do have an opening in a package and some seal 
                     
              11    failure, how much material is inside the package that 
                     
              12    could be dealt with and released.  So that's what we're 
                     
              13    really trying to look at in this rod behavior is the 
                     
              14    environment sufficient to have a release from a package, 
                     
              15    how does the rod perform in these see modules. 
                     
              16             MR. CAMERON:  Even with that explanation, Rick, 
                     
              17    do you still maintain your original -- 
                     
              18             MR. BOYLE:  I will throw out my comment then.  
                     
              19    And if you don't have a release pathway or a realistic 
                     
              20    way to get to the release pathway, the contents in my 
                     
              21    opinion aren't, or the condition of the contents is 
                     
              22    irrelevant if you don't have a release pathway. 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           213 
 
               1             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you.  And I think 
                     
               2    we'll be coming back to that, that issue.  Let's go to 
                     
               3    Ray Lambert and then we'll finish off with Bob.  I think 
                     
               4    he has a comment on that.  And we'll see if anybody in 
                     
               5    the audience has a comment.  Ray? 
                     
               6             MR. LAMBERT:  On the assumption that Bob's 
                     
               7    proposal will be abounding of an average fuel case like 
                     
               8    acceptance, there's an easier way to proceed.   
                     
               9                  I think it should be noted that the 
                     
              10    condition of the abounding case would not be a 
                     
              11    universally accepted bounding case, not -- except you 
                     
              12    said unless somebody brings me something hotter, again, 
                     
              13    you said maybe they'll leak out.   
                     
              14                  But currently there are not casks that are 
                     
              15    even licensed or proposed to my knowledge to ship 60,000 
                     
              16    fuel finally cool. 
                     
              17             MR. ALCOCK:  It's what the NRC approved. 
                     
              18             MR. LAMBERT:  The general fuel obviously and if 
                     
              19    the parameters are, I think it was an area fuel for per 
                     
              20    the NRC, they're a low burn up.  And a five year 62 is a 
                     
              21    very, very outside type thing, to my knowledge is I'm 
                     
              22    not sure dealt with.  Bill may know. 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           214 
 
               1             BILL LAKES:  We're just doing rod shipments and 
                     
               2    we are fully going 70,000 megawatt case 25 rods at 300 
                     
               3    day cool. 
                     
               4             MR. LAMBERT:  The point being that is on a 
                     
               5    generic fuel shipment is shipment under special NRC 
                     
               6    licensing.   
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  Earl, do you have a quick 
                     
               8    clarification here before we go to Bob? 
                     
               9             EARL EASTON:  The 62,000 figure that Bob was 
                     
              10    referencing is one that we used in a risk study to 
                     
              11    support that the accurate renewal license control -- 
                     
              12             UNIDENTIFIED:  And the future assumption about 
                     
              13    future -- 
                     
              14             UNIDENTIFIED:  We have never certified a 
                     
              15    transportation cask for that and we are still looking at 
                     
              16    issue such as brittleness of fuel cladding, et cetera, 
                     
              17    et cetera, before we voided.  So it has not really been 
                     
              18    approved for transportation except in the risk. 
                     
              19             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, Bob, do you want to finish 
                     
              20    up with this? 
                     
              21             MR. ALCOCK:  We ran out of voiders and that's 
                     
              22    the only reason we didn't get an injunction over that 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           215 
 
               1    final rule over exactly this issue, okay.   
                     
               2                  Because the way it reads in the analysis, 
                     
               3    you're talking about GA forecast loaded with that hot 
                     
               4    fuel going through downtown Las Vegas, that was approved 
                     
               5    in your risk assessment.  And that is unacceptable, but 
                     
               6    I'm not going to fight it. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  Your point right now would be a 
                     
               8    worst case? 
                     
               9             MR. ALCOCK:  All right.  I also -- okay.  First 
                     
              10    I want to critique my own position here from Bob 
                     
              11    Alcock's perspective.  There is a lot of fuel out there 
                     
              12    that is much less radioactive.  That's something you 
                     
              13    have to figure in how much you want to pay attention to 
                     
              14    the low end.   
                     
              15                  Let me give you an example.  Why is it 
                     
              16    that the state of Nevada did not fight to the death to 
                     
              17    stop those return research reactor fuel shipments coming 
                     
              18    into the country.  We did a good radiological risk 
                     
              19    analysis.  It appeared to us that a full NAC WQ loaded 
                     
              20    with that stream of fuel represented somewhere between 
                     
              21    1/20th and 1/40th the radiological risk of an LWT filled 
                     
              22    with 10 year cool to moderate burn-up PWR which has been 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           216 
 
               1    our markers for radiological risk analysis.  
                     
               2                  So in addition to the national security 
                     
               3    issues, what I'm telling you is governors and the public 
                     
               4    and the people who advise them do pay attention to these 
                     
               5    issues when they relate the radiological hazard to the 
                     
               6    package.   
                     
               7                  And the trade off there was, you know, are 
                     
               8    we gonna overlook our position that we should have 
                     
               9    full-scale package testing if anything goes through 
                     
              10    another state and make that a standard.   
                     
              11                  In this case the fact that it was 
                     
              12    extremely low hazard was -- a similar thing happened 
                     
              13    with the shore on ship wants to live with.  People are 
                     
              14    always oh, they allow this to go through Chahakowitz 
                     
              15    (phonetic) in the city of Philadelphia.  People were 
                     
              16    very aware that this was very light burn-up fuel.  And 
                     
              17    their reaction to the risk of package performance was 
                     
              18    very much related to the radiological characteristics.  
                     
              19                  That said, you probably have to take my 
                     
              20    suggestion and add on a third category of the low end, 
                     
              21    so that those shipments that don't have the same level 
                     
              22    of risk aren't exaggerated.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           217 
 
               1                  But in terms of the worst case, the NRC 
                     
               2    defined it for us.  And in terms of the average, you 
                     
               3    know, we're willing to live with that average the fact 
                     
               4    that the marker won't be leaking tenurable (phonetic) 
                     
               5    although we think ten year PPWR will be shipped. 
                     
               6             UNIDENTIFIED:  When is conditional five store, 
                     
               7    10 ship, 20 ship?   
                     
               8             MR. ALCOCK:  Yeah, we're not that far off. 
                     
               9             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, Bob.  Did you have one 
                     
              10    final comment on Rick Boyle's-- 
                     
              11             MR. ALCOCK:  Yes.  And I want to say one other 
                     
              12    thing about fuel testing.  And I don't want to be 
                     
              13    extremely negative about this, but I spent a lot of time 
                     
              14    evaluating spent fuel performance on the sabotage issue. 
                     
              15                  And laboratory scam experiments are really 
                     
              16    useful, but I think it's important to use typical 
                     
              17    radiated rods and pellets.  It's expensive and dangerous 
                     
              18    due to that research and there aren't that many places 
                     
              19    that will build on that contract.   
                     
              20                  I don't think I'd shock you to say it here 
                     
              21    that it's very nasty work, but it would be very useful 
     ear fuel issue that 
                     
               9    we've been discussing.  Yes, sir? 
                     
              10             MR. STANDISH:  Paul Standish with Esmeralda 
                     
              11    County.  I was wondering if you had evaluated the gap 
                     
              12    between the lid and the top of the fuel assembly.  
                     
              13    Certainly there is some because of differences in 
                     
              14    manufacturing, because of differences in growth during 
                     
              15    operations, how much that would be, and what affect that 
                     
              16    would have on say even the most brittle rods if you had 
                     
              17    an impact and then the fuel assembly came slamming up 
                     
              18    against the lid just due to this gap between the top of 
                     
              19    the assembly and the lid. 
                     
              20             MR. CAMERON:  Could we have a response up to, 
                     
              21    to call on that? 
                     
              22             MR. MASSEY:  That's an excellent point, one 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           219 
 
               1    which we had actually put in our suggestion for 
                     
               2    consideration. 
                     
               3             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Paul.  And that 
                     
               4    is in there.  Final comment out here from, from Alan and 
                     
               5    then were gonna go to Bob.  Alan?   
                     
               6             ALAN WELLS:  I was gonna keep quiet, but since 
                     
               7    you asked, the NACL to be cased, some people won't say 
                     
               8    this, is designed so that it has spacers that are, you 
                     
               9    know, different lense depending on the fuel assembly 
                     
              10    type.  And the specifications and the cask SAR's that we 
                     
              11    shall have not more than one inch gap between the top of 
                     
              12    the hand fitting of the fuel assembly and the spacers.  
                     
              13                  So that although you allow some room for 
                     
              14    rattling because, you know, these things are big and 
                     
              15    heavy, you need leave a little space in there just so it 
                     
              16    will work.  But you don't leave a big gap so that you 
                     
              17    can have fuel assembly picking up speed.   
                     
              18                  You're thinking about nershaw and the 
                     
              19    assembly punching through the lid, but we thought about 
                     
              20    that, too.  So anyway for Sandia, just remember to look 
                     
              21    for that. 
                     
              22             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you, Alan.  This  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           220 
 
               1    next topic is the one that we deferred and has been 
                     
               2    coming up a lot which is the physical testing versus 
                     
               3    computer simulations according to the agenda.   
                     
               4                  I think that Ray Lambert talked about this 
                     
               5    as he referred to the computer simulation as the 
                     
               6    analytical approach.  So let's delve into this right 
                     
               7    now.  Charles?   
                     
               8             MR. MASSEY:  By the end of the day, Chip will 
                     
               9    automatically hand me the microphone.  This testing, we 
                     
              10    probably talked about a lot of these but we'll make sure 
                     
              11    that we have.  Going back to where we are today for the 
                     
              12    modal study as Rob Lewis stated this morning, all of the 
                     
              13    analysis that was performed for the next study, all the 
                     
              14    results was based on simulation and our understanding of 
                     
              15    fuel cask performance.  At the time there was no testing 
                     
              16    done specifically to support modal study.   
                     
              17                  In the new reg 0170 re-evaluation, it will 
                     
              18    be issued early next year, again, there is no testing 
                     
              19    done specifically to support the analysis that were 
                     
              20    performed to that study.  The models, computer codes 
                     
              21    that we use to do those analysis, though, were based on 
                     
              22    our experience with test and other casks and materials 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           221 
 
               1    that are understanding of physical material properties. 
                     
               2    And we did a much more detailed look at cask and real 
                     
               3    performance.   
                     
               4                  For the package performance studies, what 
                     
               5    we'd like to do, and this has been some, subject to 
                     
               6    criticisms in the past of how we've done these, is 
                     
               7    whatever analysis and if we have some accommodation of 
                     
               8    test, particularly full-size or partial scale, what we'd 
                     
               9    like to do the analysis of what those tests and 
                     
              10    parameters would be, essentially distribute those, then 
                     
              11    do the test and write to people to come watch the test 
                     
              12    and then compare so we can't be accused of how we did 
                     
              13    the test and then later on we did the analysis and they 
                     
              14    don't match up.  It does not provide the confidence of 
                     
              15    the public that we can accurately predict the analysis 
                     
              16    of the package.   
                     
              17                  So what we're proposing is a little twist 
                     
              18    on and put the predictions out, then we did the test and 
                     
              19    then we compared.   
                     
              20                  And with that, I'll leave it open for any 
                     
              21    others, or comments, considerations on package testing. 
                     
              22             MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Charles.  Maybe the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           222 
 
               1    best.  We've heard a number of comments on this already, 
                     
               2    including Ray's point, that physical testing may not be 
                     
               3    the most conservative, may not yield the most 
                     
               4    conservative result.   
                     
               5                  Perhaps the way to start is what do you 
                     
               6    think of the proposed Sandia approach.  What more do you 
                     
               7    need to know about the Sandia approach before you would 
                     
               8    say that this is a good idea?   
                     
               9                  I'm gonna start with Jim, Jim Reed.   
                     
              10             MR. REED:  Thanks.  My question is pretty 
                     
              11    simple.  It appears that you're just talking about one 
                     
              12    physical test; is that true?  What's the reason for 
                     
              13    that? 
                     
              14             MR. MASSEY:  I mean, it would be a mix, you 
                     
              15    know, some mix of fire collision test. 
                     
              16             MR. REED:  Okay.  Of a representative cask? 
                     
              17             MR. MASSEY:  Of a, the cask, whatever it 
                     
              18    happens to be.  I don't know its generic or specific 
                     
              19    design. 
                     
              20             MR. MASSEY:  Okay. 
                     
              21             MR. REED:  It'd have to be some cask design. 
                     
              22             MR. CAMERON:  Susan?   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           223 
 
               1             MS. SHANKMAN:  Yeah, but if that were part of 
                     
               2    the study, that doesn't suppose that there wouldn't be 
                     
               3    also the component testing or other testing.  It's not 
                     
               4    one or another, it's a combination of things that we 
                     
               5    feel would, would validate in a sense the analytical 
                     
               6    tools we're using.   
                     
               7                  And so the point is that what they're 
                     
               8    proposing, and that's what we would like some feedback 
                     
               9    on, is to predict tests and then see whether the 
                     
              10    analytical tools predict accurately and have the tests 
                     
              11    witnessed and have the analytical work reviewed prior to 
                     
              12    the test.   
                     
              13             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you.  And I guess we 
                     
              14    need to continue to explore whether this methodology 
                     
              15    that is being suggested is really, is really clear to 
                     
              16    people in the details of how it would be, would be done. 
                     
              17                  Let's go to Mike Baughman. 
                     
              18             MR. BAUGHMAN:  I have to assume the intent of 
                     
              19    this is to, perhaps one to provide some confidence on 
                     
              20    the part of the regulatory agency that to predict the 
                     
              21    capabilities and in such their ability to license the 
                     
              22    casks in the future, you know.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           224 
 
               1                  They're doing some assurance that they 
                     
               2    will perform in some way that they predict.  And I 
                     
               3    assume the physical test is also about engendering some 
                     
               4    public confidence that, you know, that we are licensing 
                     
               5    casks that are safe.   
                     
               6                  And I guess my question is, is for example 
                     
               7    in the British which I don't know the answers, but in 
                     
               8    the British testing that was a long time ago, was there 
                     
               9    any modeling done in advance after, was there a 
                     
              10    correlation between expected and predicted results in 
                     
              11    most cases.   
                     
              12                  And I guess I would just then also make a 
                     
              13    comment that, that I would caution anyone who thinks 
                     
              14    that this methodology will dispel criticism about the 
                     
              15    integrity of the casks, don't be misled to think that 
                     
              16    the happen.  You will still be criticized.  And so that 
                     
              17    should not be an objective, I don't think, is to 
                     
              18    eliminate any criticism because that's just not going to 
                     
              19    happen. 
                     
              20             MR. CAMERON:  Thanks, Mike.  Susan?   
                     
              21             MS. SHANKMAN:  I've been in that business too 
                     
              22    long to have that as an objective.  But I think the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           225 
 
               1    question at hand is given that physical testing can be 
                     
               2    done, what will we benefit from it.   
                     
               3                  If we require physical testing of every 
                     
               4    cask designed, will we increase public confidence.  If 
                     
               5    we do it this way, will we increase our confidence in 
                     
               6    our analytical models. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  So those are the two reasons that 
                     
               8    Mike stated are the two reasons.  And I think it's a 
                     
               9    good starting point for deciding whether you want to do 
                     
              10    this.   
                     
              11                  What is the -- people raise issues of 
                     
              12    costs.  In other words, the cost benefit trade off.  
                     
              13    What, can you give people an idea of what, what sort of 
                     
              14    costs we're talking about?   
                     
              15             MR. MASSEY:  Well, just the test, well, two 
                     
              16    costs.  One, depending on how you test the cask, you 
                     
              17    probably will damage the cask.   
                     
              18                  So essentially you have to purchase the 
                     
              19    cask.  For a truck cask, large truck cask; you know, a 
                     
              20    million dollars or more.  For the real cask, you're 
                     
              21    talking several million dollars.   
                     
              22                  Then you have to test it.  And test place 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           226 
 
               1    an instrument has to do with, one of the tests, $500,000 
                     
               2    or so to do that.  So it's a very expensive undertaking 
                     
               3    to test these packages.   
                     
               4                  And the data, it's a very complicated 
                     
               5    process and inspecting the package and the contents, 
                     
               6    doing the test parameter. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you.  And let's go to 
                     
               8    John.  John Vincent. 
                     
               9             MR. VINCENT:  I just wanted to make a comment 
                     
              10    that I think it's important to consider what you 
                     
              11    actually get out of this if in fact a quarter or half 
                     
              12    scale will do, there's no sense in destroying the full 
                     
              13    scale.  And that's going to some extent about what we 
                     
              14    said in terms of risk informing the process here, if 
                     
              15    it's not necessary to do that, and we've argued all 
                     
              16    along that it isn't, that is the utilities and the 
                     
              17    nuclear industry generally speaking, then I don't think 
                     
              18    it's necessary and not called for.   
                     
              19                  If on the other hand there are certain 
                     
              20    things which you've already addressed two related to 
                     
              21    specific complement testing that needs to be done, that 
                     
              22    is entirely a horse of a different color so to speak and 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           227 
 
               1    there are probably clear reasons for doing that.  But 
                     
               2    unless it's perfectly clear that you're getting 
                     
               3    something that you won't get out of the quarter scale or 
                     
               4    half scale, then I see no reason to do that.   
                     
               5                  I understand also and I think Mike's 
                     
               6    comment is right on point, I'm not sure if we can test 
                     
               7    every one of them and never get to use them because we 
                     
               8    test all the manufacture and we will still have comments 
                     
               9    about the safety of the machinery. 
                     
              10             MR. CAMERON:  So a lot of cautions there of a 
                     
              11    scale testing.  Earl, do you have a comment? 
                     
              12             EARL EASTON:  Yes.  Thanks.  I think we should 
                     
              13    keep in mind the primary objective of the testing for 
                     
              14    this study is to prove how well we can predict risks.  
                     
              15                  We are talking here about potentially 
                     
              16    testing a cask way above the regulations.  Way out 
                     
              17    there.  Not the 30 foot drop, but maybe the 90 foot 
                     
              18    drop.   
                     
              19                  I think the NRC feels a great deal of 
                     
              20    comfort in analyzing casks from 30 foot drops.  We've 
                     
              21    been doing that for 30 years.  And where we felt 
                     
              22    uncomfortable with actual analysis, we've required 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           228 
 
               1    full-scale testing; for example, true pack (phonetic).  
                     
               2                  I think what we're talking about here is 
                     
               3    we're going out and predicting the risk of a 90 foot 
                     
               4    drop.  This is an area that we're not that into and we 
                     
               5    want to make sure that we can accurately predict it at 
                     
               6    that level.   
                     
               7                  So I think it should not be confused with 
                     
               8    the idea of certification test requiring full-scale 
                     
               9    testing for every package, et cetera, et cetera.  I 
                     
              10    think it has a slightly different purpose. 
                     
              11             MR. CAMERON:  Let's -- Earl put a finer point I 
                     
              12    think on the objective of the testing or at least what 
                     
              13    the NRC is thinking about in terms of objective.  Yeah, 
                     
              14    let me get Judy on here on the record first and then 
                     
              15    let's go over to you for that point and any others you 
                     
              16    want to make, Bob.  Judy?   
                     
              17             MS. TREICHEL:  Well, as the person who deals or 
                     
              18    represents the people who are likely to be the harshest 
                     
              19    critics of the entire program and particularly 
                     
              20    transportation, I would agree with Mike that you're not 
                     
              21    going to get people turning around solely on basis that 
                     
              22    you have done this, but on the other hand, if something 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           229 
 
               1    goes wrong, if there is a real problem which you know, 
                     
               2    people have no reason to believe that there's not, 
                     
               3    unusual things happen all the time, and you didn't do 
                     
               4    this and you didn't do everything that you could in 
                     
               5    order to be assured as you can possibly be, then I think 
                     
               6    that you people will be liable for very severe 
                     
               7    criticism. 
                     
               8             MR. CAMERON:  And Susan wants to comment on 
                     
               9    that.  And I guess the point that would need to be 
                     
              10    defined is what would you have to do, to do enough to do 
                     
              11    that? 
                     
              12             MS. TREICHEL:  To make Nevada smile and be cost 
                     
              13    confident and say this is a great idea?   
                     
              14             MR. CAMERON:  I'm not gonna go there, all 
                     
              15    right. 
                     
              16             MR. VINCENT:  I think it's called bring me 
                     
              17    another stone. 
                     
              18             MR. CAMERON:  Go ahead, Susan.   
                     
              19             MS. SHANKMAN:  I think we're all aware that 
                     
              20    there are regulatory requirements and budget 
                     
              21    requirements within which we work.  And the bearing of 
                     
              22    the cost of this is right now the NRC is sponsoring the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           230 
 
               1    funding of the study and physical testing to validate 
                     
               2    the models that we let licenses use as part of that.   
                     
               3                  Having tests of each design would be 
                     
               4    something that would be part of the regulatory process 
                     
               5    if that's what you're suggesting.  And the cost that 
                     
               6    would be born with that could be the shipper.  And in 
                     
               7    this, the Yucca Mountain, it would be DOE.   
                     
               8                  So the requirement could be extra 
                     
               9    regulatory.  What we want to know is if in this study we 
                     
              10    are going to do physical testing which I believe we feel 
                     
              11    we must do, if we do component testing, full-scale 
                     
              12    testing, part scale testing, what will, what is the 
                     
              13    concept that you have in your head that will help us 
                     
              14    decide which one, which parts to do.   
                     
              15                  Bob has given us some very constructive 
                     
              16    ideas.  The concept with testing every test design is 
                     
              17    beyond the scope of this study. 
                     
              18             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  And we, let's go -- I'm 
                     
              19    sorry.  I keep deferring you, Bob.  So let's go to Bob 
                     
              20    and then we'll pick up with Bill Lake and Klaus and 
                     
              21    perhaps explore that question that Susan put on the 
                     
              22    floor.  Bob?   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           231 
 
               1             MR. ALCOCK:  The context that I want to 
                     
               2    approach is the recent experience that I had, and 
                     
               3    Charles Massey was certainly nice to this issue, is in 
                     
               4    the concrete shipments a couple of summers ago.   
                     
               5                  The Department of Earth received extreme 
                     
               6    criticism because individuals such as myself were 
                     
               7    telling the public that these types of casks had been 
                     
               8    tested and were shown videos of British tests.   
                     
               9                  And we were criticized because we never, 
                     
              10    it was alleged that we never told the public that these 
                     
              11    specifics casks, the LWT's that we were using in that 
                     
              12    shipment, were never tested physically.  Or the 
                     
              13    criticism was that they were showing the videos of 
                     
              14    crashes but never said this specific cask coming across 
                     
              15    the Pacific were tested like this.   
                     
              16                  Now in this case, you're not going to be 
                     
              17    testing a cask that's going to be used in 2010 and 2020 
                     
              18    and 2030.  You won't get to that.  There's no way to go 
                     
              19    ahead in time.   
                     
              20                  And, and so the confidence level in my 
                     
              21    opinion that we will get from these physical tests in 
                     
              22    and of themselves is going to be very small.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           232 
 
               1                  Now, in, in my mind, again, based upon my 
                     
               2    experience that I had with the concrete shipments, the 
                     
               3    critical part of this is telling the story, and its an 
                     
               4    engineering story more than it is anything else, how is 
                     
               5    it that we can do some calculations on a piece of paper, 
                     
               6    we can do some analysis for the computer, we can use an 
                     
               7    engineering regime to predict how a cask is going to 
                     
               8    behave, we can license it, we can, we can predict how 
                     
               9    the fuel is going to behave inside, we can do all of 
                     
              10    these things and telling that story is critical, not 
                     
              11    critical, unless I'm uninformed, I don't think we have 
                     
              12    adapted knowledge about whether or not we can predict 
                     
              13    how a cask is going to perform all right.   
                     
              14                  I think we haven't yet told the 
                     
              15    engineering story.  And maybe the problem is that we've 
                     
              16    only been asking engineers to tell the story and they 
                     
              17    can't do it. 
                     
              18             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  That's an interesting 
                     
              19    suggestion on risk communication again, I guess.   
                     
              20                  Let's go to Klaus and then Bill Lake and 
                     
              21    Bob Halstead and then we're going to go to Ron Pope and 
                     
              22    Kevin Blackwell.  Klaus? 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           233 
 
               1             MR. SCHUMANN:  Yeah.  My experience was exactly 
                     
               2    what Bob was outlining.  When we went to the office of 
                     
               3    emergency services, response usually was, the office of 
                     
               4    emergency serlly 
                     
              15    had.   
                     
              16                  But in any case, those radiation 
                     
              17    (phonetic) impact and shortman (phonetic) radiation 
                     
              18    (phonetic) impact, I think we need full-scale testing to 
                     
              19    explain to the public, you know, all the casks which are 
                     
              20    actually going to be used are tested as well. 
                     
              21             MR. CAMERON:  And that's if I in the analytical 
                     
              22    approach, is it more likely to satisfy Klaus's point 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           234 
 
               1    that he could refer to this as an analytical approach 
                     
               2    that was used with a specific cask or is the analytical 
                     
               3    approach just completely neutral in terms of this 
                     
               4    specific cask?   
                     
               5                  In other words, Klaus's point seemed to be 
                     
               6    that be when you tell the public that this isn't the 
                     
               7    cask, I'm not sure that actual testing as opposed to 
                     
               8    analytical makes that any, any better.  Earl? 
                     
               9             EARL EASTON:  Well, it is true that a lot of 
                     
              10    casks have been approved without actual full-scale 
                     
              11    testing of the complete cask.  A lot of casks have been 
                     
              12    approved with a component testing.   
                     
              13                  For example, spent fuel casks we all know 
                     
              14    almost always require either full scale or partial scale 
                     
              15    testing of impact limiters, shipping a containment 
                     
              16    boundaries, et cetera, et cetera.  So while we don't 
                     
              17    have full-scale testing, sometimes we have component 
                     
              18    testing.   
                     
              19                  But I, I -- let me just say one thing 
                     
              20    about a computer analysis.  These are not codes that we 
                     
              21    pull out of the air.  They're bench marked against other 
                     
              22    real data, other real problems admittedly in other 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           235 
 
               1    areas.   
                     
               2                  So that's what gives us some level of 
                     
               3    confidence in these computer codes because we have 
                     
               4    predicted other situations fairly accurate.   
                     
               5                  And where we run up against a situation 
                     
               6    where we don't see that that code has a predicted 
                     
               7    accurate layer or not convinced the capability of that 
                     
               8    code, we will require a full-scale test as was done in 
                     
               9    true pack (phonetic), the picture that was put up by 
                     
              10    Charles here where he had the 30 foot drop.  So I hope 
                     
              11    that in part answers some of the question. 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  And that may go back to 
                     
              13    Bob's point about how effectively you tell the story.  
                     
              14    Let's go to Bill Lake and then to Bob Halstead.  Bill? 
                     
              15             MR. LAKE:  Thank you, Chip.  Bill Lake, DOE.  I 
                     
              16    would just like to, I think this issue of public 
                     
              17    acceptance is an important one, but I suggest for this 
                     
              18    particular discussion today we pull back a little bit 
                     
              19    and see how we can help the NRC get the study done in 
                     
              20    full light.   
                     
              21                  And for that, I would personally like to 
                     
              22    commend the NRC and some statements that Susan and Earl 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           236 
 
               1    made concerning validation of the codes.  This is gonna 
                     
               2    be an extensive analysis program.  We're gonna want to 
                     
               3    look at a lot of different scenarios, a lot of different 
                     
               4    casks and different environments.  For that, you're 
                     
               5    gonna have to rely on analysis.   
                     
               6                  Beyond the regulatory region that we're 
                     
               7    all comfortable with is either DOE, NRC, we're in a new 
                     
               8    area so we need to look at where we have some 
                     
               9    uncertainties, where we're uncomfortable in and validate 
                     
              10    the codes as well as reach them.  And I think that's 
                     
              11    what the NRC and is casting them.   
                     
              12                  And I would support that completely, that 
                     
              13    we need to look at those areas, we need to get our 
                     
              14    confidence up where necessary, go back to the broader 
                     
              15    issue at another time.                 
                     
              16                  This I think will give us a lot of new 
                     
              17    information to follow that broader and larger 
                     
              18    discussion.  Thank you. 
                     
              19             MR. CAMERON:  So I just would ask the NRC and 
                     
              20    Sandy if Bill is precisely right on, in terms of the, 
                     
              21    what you stated as predictability is really the code of 
                     
              22    validation aspect.  Okay, great.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           237 
 
               1                  Bob Halstead. 
                     
               2             MR. HALSTEAD:  You know, if you drive out to 
                     
               3    Goldfield and Tonopah, you see these amazing historical 
                     
               4    markers, that kind of heavyweight championship fights 
                     
               5    that we used to have in the old days.  These dudes that 
                     
               6    get out in the hot sun and fight bare knuckles, not like 
                     
               7    we do today.  They do 90 rounds.  There was a guy out 
                     
               8    that there that went 102 rounds as I recall.   
                     
               9                  Now, you really need to think about what 
                     
              10    kind of bare knuckle fight that you guys want to step 
                     
              11    into because you are latecomers in this full-scale 
                     
              12    testing which has been going on by my personal 
                     
              13    involvement for 21 years and it had been going pretty 
                     
              14    good before I came along.   
                     
              15                  I've summarized the way that the state of 
                     
              16    Nevada has tried to digest everything we've learned over 
                     
              17    those years on this one page handout I gave earlier.  
                     
              18    And importantly on the front, we identify a number of 
                     
              19    safety things of which full-scale test, testing is only 
                     
              20    one use of dedicated training which I would say is 
                     
              21    equally important overall for system safety.  But on the 
                     
              22    back side, I've summarized our proposal for full-scale 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           238 
 
               1    testing, what we think are the advantages and the costs. 
                     
               2                  I'm not going to bore you because I said 
                     
               3    that this should be done in a separate venue and I must 
                     
               4    stick by this except to tell you that in the process of 
                     
               5    doing all this thinking about this for the last 10 years 
                     
               6    for Nevada, I've learned a lot about the costs of doing 
                     
               7    these tests.   
                     
               8                  Now maybe the congress would allow you to 
                     
               9    do that testing at Shadow (phonetic) Gorge or someplace 
                     
              10    where they're already prepared, but I've talked to OSHA 
                     
              11    Burrell (phonetic) and the important tests that say, 
                     
              12    it's not a truck cask.  The important cask is a big rail 
                     
              13    cask and in order to get the right mass ratio of the 
                     
              14    object to the target, you get an unyielding surface to a 
                     
              15    point where it can take 130 ton cask, you're talking at 
                     
              16    least ten million dollars just to beef up the target.  
                     
              17    And at least that's the figure that Richard has said in 
                     
              18    public.   
                     
              19                  Now maybe internally you got something 
                     
              20    else.  I'd love to know it was less because then that 
                     
              21    helps my case, but the bottom line is this is a real 
                     
              22    expensive lichening (phonetic) complex undertake.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           239 
 
               1                  And now let's look at what you're 
                     
               2    proposing and then I'll give you what I think is a much 
                     
               3    more generous thing to do for yourself over the next 10 
                     
               4    years.   
                     
               5                  First, I heard you guys say that you're 
                     
               6    planning to test well beyond regulatory requirements, 
                     
               7    and yet earlier two times I brought up running the 
                     
               8    models beyond the regs particularly to determine failure 
                     
               9    thresholds.  I thought people had died in the room.   
                     
              10                  So I find it very strange that a much less 
                     
              11    controversial way of getting to what I think you're 
                     
              12    talking about here seems, and much cheaper by the way 
                     
              13    and much more defensible in terms of its ability to be 
                     
              14    repeated for the interest of the viewers.  So that's 
                     
              15    issue number one.   
                     
              16                  Issue number two, testing the truck casks. 
                     
              17    Even if it were a NAP LWT or a GA force which I think 
                     
              18    would be very useful does not deal with the fact that 
                     
              19    the whole world of spent fuel transportation for better 
                     
              20    or worse is moving towards big rail casks.  And I am not 
                     
              21    believing that you can defend the scale of it from the 
                     
              22    performance of a 30 ton cask or a 28 ton cask or a 27 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           240 
 
               1    ton cask with a hundred and 30 ton cask.  There are all 
                     
               2    kinds of technical scale up issues which in fact are one 
                     
               3    of the major criticisms in the first study.  
                     
               4                  Beyond that, I find it refreshing that 
                     
               5    someone would try to rehabilitate public credibility in 
                     
               6    government science, but I think you're asking to be 
                     
               7    eaten alive.  And the criticism of the way you do 
                     
               8    physical testing will drag down this very important 
                     
               9    effort to update the modals.   
                     
              10                  I am so glad to hear that I am not the 
                     
              11    only wet blanket in this room today with this issue 
                     
              12    because I appreciate the other advice you've gotten from 
                     
              13    other people.   
                     
              14                  I would suggest as an alternative that you 
                     
              15    forget about public relations and you forget about 
                     
              16    public credibility and you do what Bill is offering with 
                     
              17    cutting to the chase here and you worry about technical 
                     
              18    evaluation.   
                     
              19                  And frankly given your budget, I mean, I 
                     
              20    don't know, I heard you got about two million dollars to 
                     
              21    do this job.  I mean, you can't do anything near a good 
                     
              22    regulatory done of a current model test in my opinion 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           241 
 
               1    without spending that whole budget.  So maybe more money 
                     
               2    can come from somewhere, I don't know.  But you can do a 
                     
               3    lot with full-scale and half-scale testing of critical 
                     
               4    components.   
                     
               5                  And here I think the important thing is to 
                     
               6    test your modeling of generic casks against components, 
                     
               7    full-scale components from actual case.   
                     
               8                  Now getting a GA forecast is difficult 
                     
               9    now, but I'm sure you can get the bolts to the ceilings, 
                     
              10    and I'm sure that it is valuable to do more testing on 
                     
              11    the NAC LWP which is an old-fashioned regs, you know.  
                     
              12    It's gonna be here for the next ten years.  It's 
                     
              13    certainly important to do the proposed testing for that. 
                     
              14                  And on then on the rail cask, you're 
                     
              15    getting actual rail cask and gamble.  Here in Nevada we 
                     
              16    know all about that, that you can envelope the range of 
                     
              17    design and materials issued in the new big rail casks 
                     
              18    and do some, probably I would say half-scale or 
                     
              19    quarter-scale work on the gamma shields which would be 
                     
              20    very useful.   
                     
              21                  But I think if you go down the road with 
                     
              22    trying to do any full-scale testing and it doesn't meet 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           242 
 
               1    people's expectations, that's crazy.  And, and you will 
                     
               2    drag down your overall effort and your alternative.   
                     
               3                  I think probably it would probably take a 
                     
               4    million dollars to do a good comprehensive component 
                     
               5    testing program.   
                     
               6                  So I mean, I hate to say it that even my 
                     
               7    suggestion doesn't get you off the hook on the money 
                     
               8    issue, but that's how, how we see it.   
                     
               9                  At the same time, we think there's a lot 
                     
              10    of value of running the codes.  And I know that Miles 
                     
              11    Rhiner has done it on a much less munificent budget that 
                     
              12    most state contractors get.  There are lots of 
                     
              13    approaches that you use to both find the failure 
                     
              14    thresholds and look at extra regulatory affects.   
                     
              15                  But I will say that I very much appreciate 
                     
              16    the fact that can you're trying to deal with this issue 
                     
              17    which we've identified as a deficiency.  And I don't 
                     
              18    want to sound like an uncaring human being by laying a 
                     
              19    harsh reality down on you, but I really think you will 
                     
              20    rid yourself of this service if you proceed with a 
                     
              21    full-scale testing approach as you you've outlined. 
                     
              22             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you, Bob, for the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           243 
 
               1    hallmark and also for the way you expressed it.  We're 
                     
               2    gonna take the cards that are up and then see if there's 
                     
               3    any questions in the audience.   
                     
               4                  And I know Ron's been waiting for awhile 
                     
               5    and Kevin, and then we'll finish up with Judy on this.  
                     
               6    But I think, Susan, do you have a point to make? 
                     
               7             MS. SHANKMAN:  I'll make it later. 
                     
               8             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  All right, thank you.  
                     
               9    Let's go to Ron Pope from the IAEA. 
                     
              10             MR. POPE:  Well, I guess I'm feeling my age.  I 
                     
              11    feel truly like a breaker and also my body's telling me 
                     
              12    it's 1:00 in the morning in Vienna.  So if I'm not 
                     
              13    coherent, please bare with me.   
                     
              14                  I look around the room and I think I count 
                     
              15    two other people who may have witnessed one of the full 
                     
              16    scale nuclear tests, the tests that are referred to and 
                     
              17    seen in the videos.  I managed that program which OSHA 
                     
              18    and I worked on for that time.   
                     
              19                  Yes, it was expensive, it was damn 
                     
              20    expensive.  All of the hardware was donated to us, yet 
                     
              21    we spent over ten million dollars within two-and-a-half, 
                     
              22    three-year period.  And full-scale tests were all 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           244 
 
               1    preceded by scale model tests, not only the casks but 
                     
               2    the transport system and an extensive computer analysis. 
                     
               3                  The British then came over and they had 
                     
               4    one man who stayed with us for three months and 
                     
               5    basically looked at everything we'd done.  They went 
                     
               6    back and they proceeded their operations smash up as 
                     
               7    they call it with eight quarter half and full scale 
                     
               8    tests and structural analysis.  I have no idea what kind 
                     
               9    of money they spent on their program. 
                     
              10             MR. HALSTEAD:  Eight million. 
                     
              11             MR. POPE:  Any time you get into this, you're 
                     
              12    talking big bucks.  I, I guess the other point I would 
                     
              13    like to make is it goes back to the work done at Edom 
                     
              14    (phonetic), predict cask response using simulation.  If 
                     
              15    you're going do this to validate the codes that you're 
                     
              16    using in this study, make it very clear in advance 
                     
              17    that's what you're doing; you're not validating the code 
                     
              18    you're using to analyze casks for regulatory purposes.  
                     
              19                  And secondly, up front did the cask 
                     
              20    respond as predicted.  Make sure you spell it out 
                     
              21    beforehand what it is you're going to measure in that 
                     
              22    cask response and make sure you analyze that, so that 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           245 
 
               1    you got the analysis that says the strength of this, the 
                     
               2    definitions were this, the accelerations were this.  And 
                     
               3    then that's what you then measure and that's what you 
                     
               4    then compare.   
                     
               5                  The other point that I'd like to make is 
                     
               6    the full-scale nuclear test program was done 
                     
               7    specifically for the purpose of validating codes.  It 
                     
               8    was not done for public relation purposes and yet all, 
                     
               9    all of the criticism that has come after the fact is we 
                     
              10    tested the wrong cask.  We did it because we couldn't 
                     
              11    afford to test the right cask.  So be careful. 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Ron, for that 
                     
              13    historical perspective and the lessons that it holds for 
                     
              14    this.  Kevin?   
                     
              15             MR. BLACKWELL:  Real quick.  I just want to say 
                     
              16    that cost is a reality, especially within regards to 
                     
              17    there were a few comments made earlier about regarding 
                     
              18    full-scale testing and the word regulatory in the same 
                     
              19    context.   
                     
              20                  The reality in today's legislative area as 
                     
              21    far as regulations is cost is a factor.  It has to 
                     
              22    consider the cost benefit.  It's not an option unless 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           246 
 
               1    congress gives us the option of considering it's an 
                     
               2    option, okay, which doesn't happen very often.  You have 
                     
               3    to do cost benefit analysis on any regulation on a 
                     
               4    product that you develop.   
                     
               5                  And in the aspect of this and especially 
                     
               6    in light in these times where physical responsibility is 
                     
               7    a major issue with government in addition to physical 
                     
               8    hysterity which is what we currently are under and 
                     
               9    responsible spending the taxpayers dollars and 
                     
              10    everything else, cost is a major issue.   
                     
              11                  And I just want to go on the record as 
                     
              12    saying that I did hear some talk about, you know, 
                     
              13    full-scale testing and regulatory criteria so you can't 
                     
              14    just not consider it.  I'd say well yeah, it's expensive 
                     
              15    but we can get around it.  We can't get around it. 
                     
              16             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Kevin.  Let's 
                     
              17    finish up this discussion at least at the table with 
                     
              18    Judy Treichel. 
                     
              19             MS. TREICHEL:  Well, as the queen of 
                     
              20    unreasonability, for one thing this is -- you're dealing 
                     
              21    with people who do not have the opportunity to know as 
                     
              22    much as about it or to work in jobs where you spend 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           247 
 
               1    eight hours a day, or in my case probably 10, 12 or 14 
                     
               2    because I get a lot of phone calls, but just knowing 
                     
               3    this stuff all the time, living with it.  So you have to 
                     
               4    look at what's out there.   
                     
               5                  One of the things that has people very 
                     
               6    concerned in other parts of the country, but they call 
                     
               7    here because they see the whole program, are some of the 
                     
               8    casks that are being used for storage of fuel at reactor 
                     
               9    sites, several of which of serious problems.   
                     
              10                  And there's one sitting out there in 
                     
              11    Michigan that's needed to be unloaded for three years 
                     
              12    now, I think, and nobody can figure out how to do it.  
                     
              13    So it's just sitting there.  And people are saying if 
                     
              14    you can't do that, how in the world can you load this 
                     
              15    stuff and drive it across the country.  So that's where 
                     
              16    some of this stuff comes.   
                     
              17                  You're not starting fresh here.  You might 
                     
              18    think you are.  And this study may be of a singular 
                     
              19    particular piece, but people see all sorts of this 
                     
              20    program.   
                     
              21                  And one of the comments I wanted to make 
                     
              22    earlier was when you say that there is one team that's 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           248 
 
               1    doing storage and there's another division or department 
                     
               2    that does something else, that's a problem for the 
                     
               3    public, too, because everything kind of runs together, 
                     
               4    and the assumption is that you know what each other is 
                     
               5    doing.   
                     
               6                  And then            
              17    is supposed to close, it's all loaded up, everything's 
                     
              18    groovy, it's passed all of its tests, it's supposed to 
                     
              19    close, there's supposed to be a titanium shield around 
                     
              20    each of the storage cask and Nevadans are pretty sure 
                     
              21    that the congress at this stage of the game is gonna say 
                     
              22    oh, no, oh, no, no, no.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           249 
 
               1                  So we're real worried that there's going 
                     
               2    to be cuts on money, that there's going to be physical 
                     
               3    austerity and then we get into it just enough to know 
                     
               4    where we're going and casks are too expensive or we go a 
                     
               5    little cheaper or the project's too expensive so we go a 
                     
               6    little cheaper.  And that's not a new concept.  That's 
                     
               7    something people have been afraid of for a long time. 
                     
               8             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you, Judy.  Susan, 
                     
               9    do you have something to say on that. 
                     
              10             MS. SHANKMAN:  No.  I appreciate your time, but 
                     
              11    I don't want to speak to the budget issue.  I know you 
                     
              12    understand it.   
                     
              13                  But I do want to speak to the storage 
                     
              14    casks that you eluded to.  And if you would like, I'll 
                     
              15    send you whatever information you'll expect of those 
                     
              16    casks and we will leave them safe as we know they're 
                     
              17    safe as they are.   
                     
              18                  I've had, the wells have been inspected, 
                     
              19    the culture ultrasonic testing, and I'll be glad to send 
                     
              20    you all the inspection reports.  So the casks that you 
                     
              21    are referring to is not unsafe. 
                     
              22             MS. TREICHEL:  Are you talking about Palisades 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           250 
 
               1    or -- 
                     
               2             MS. SHANKMAN:  Yes. 
                     
               3             MR. CAMERON:  And let's go and see if there's 
                     
               4    any comments on the testing issue out here in the 
                     
               5    audience and then I want to go quickly to -- 
                     
               6             MS. SHANKMAN:  I want to clarify one other 
                     
               7    point here.  I did not say that the teams have  
                     
               8    reviewed -- storage and transportation are separate.  In 
                     
               9    fact, in many cases the same people would review it.  
                     
              10    What I did say was that the regulations for 
                     
              11    transportation and for storage are separate regulations 
                     
              12    and separate standards.   
                     
              13                  So a cask has to be certified for each of 
                     
              14    its uses.  It could be certified for storage and not for 
                     
              15    transportation if it doesn't meet the transportation 
                     
              16    regs and vice-versa.  So it isn't as if they're separate 
                     
              17    at all. 
                     
              18             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Susan.  Anybody 
                     
              19    out here on the testing issue?  I'm not looking at you, 
                     
              20    Alan.  John?   
                     
              21             MR. HADDER:  John Hadder again with Citizen 
                     
              22    Alert.  I really have to speak on this one because this 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           251 
 
               1    is, of course this is what we hear all the time 
                     
               2    concerning physical testing.  And of course the public 
                     
               3    wants to see that.  They don't trust anything without 
                     
               4    it.   
                     
               5                  I think I want to drive home a couple of 
                     
               6    important points though in terms of the, in terms of the 
                     
               7    computer simulations.  And it was mentioned earlier 
                     
               8    about what's the most conservative.  I don't think 
                     
               9    that's the important point.   
                     
              10                  I think the important point is are they 
                     
              11    predictive.  In other words, can you -- from the 
                     
              12    public's perception, can you say we have this computer 
                     
              13    model and they're thinking of an accident scenario 
                     
              14    unless, let's make it a realistic one, and you know, can 
                     
              15    you then use, can that model then correctly predict the 
                     
              16    results from a possible scenario there and connect to 
                     
              17    the regulations.  Do you see what I'm saying?   
                     
              18                  So that, so that when you talk about the 
                     
              19    cask being safe, when you talk about the testing, it's 
                     
              20    connected to some reality and that the models have shown 
                     
              21    that by some kind of real test.  And a test that makes 
                     
              22    sense.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           252 
 
               1                  And of course, of course the only way you 
                     
               2    know for sure is if you do the actual test, and that 
                     
               3    would be the full-scale test.   
                     
               4                  I think also it's important to remember 
                     
               5    that the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions agency of the 
                     
               6    federal government has a responsibility to the public 
                     
               7    and the public voice.  And this is what, this is what a 
                     
               8    lot of the public voice is.   
                     
               9                  The physical, and I think Judy addressed 
                     
              10    the physical aspect pretty well, and people are out 
                     
              11    there talking about public safety and what kind of price 
                     
              12    tag we want to put on that.   
                     
              13                  We may sit here in the room and say oh, 
                     
              14    well, you know, you know, the costs of possible accident 
                     
              15    may not be that high, but the public's in a different 
                     
              16    place and we have a responsibility to the public.  If 
                     
              17    the public is -- if, if the public's in such a different 
                     
              18    place that we are sort of caught between a rock and a 
                     
              19    hard place, then it's incumbent to do proper education 
                     
              20    that's acceptable and that works.  And so far that 
                     
              21    hasn't happened because the public's not in the same 
                     
              22    place at all and they feel like they're getting 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           253 
 
               1    incomplete information a lot of times.   
                     
               2                  So I think it's really important that 
                     
               3    full-scale test I think -- I think that Bob's comment 
                     
               4    about the cost and what you pay, it could be, it could 
                     
               5    be difficult you could get criticized anyway.   
                     
               6                  But if it's connected, if you show, if you 
                     
               7    show that your data from your experiment and the results 
                     
               8    of the computer models match up and you were able to 
                     
               9    give, lay out some kind of uncertainty as to, you know, 
                     
              10    what those models are giving us, in other words we get a 
                     
              11    result of -- we get a certain result from the computer 
                     
              12    model and we believe it to be 10 percent correct or some 
                     
              13    kind of air bar (phonetic), then it's gonna go a long 
                     
              14    ways towards convincing the public that you've got 
                     
              15    something tangible.   
                     
              16                  For years they've been told just trust us 
                     
              17    and we don't want to do that anymore because we've been 
                     
              18    told that beforehand and something else happens.  The 
                     
              19    horse died and we didn't expect that.  So you've got, 
                     
              20    you've got to be prepared for that.                 
                     
              21                  And I do think we do have a responsibility 
                     
              22    from the governing agency to deal with that issue.  And 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           254 
 
               1    I'm very concerned about just side stepping it, and I 
                     
               2    think we need to deal with the costs and I think that 
                     
               3    the cost is in there.   
                     
               4                  I think I have, I think I have one more 
                     
               5    point here that I wanted to make.  If someone else wants 
                     
               6    to speak into the meantime. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  John, I guess what you're saying 
                     
               8    though is that if the analytical work was done in a 
                     
               9    really clear and convincing manner and communicated 
                     
              10    clearly, that that, that that might be acceptable for 
                     
              11    the public? 
                     
              12             MR. HADDER:  Uh-huh. 
                     
              13             MR. CAMERON:  And not necessarily having to do 
                     
              14    with full-scale testing; is that what you were saying? 
                     
              15             MR. HADDER:  Well, they want full-scale 
                     
              16    testing.  And I think that in order, and I think that -- 
                     
              17    I think what some point needs to demonstrate that you 
                     
              18    can have a model which was predicted in the full-scale 
                     
              19    and then you can use and then you can connect that with 
                     
              20    your, you can connect that with your scale down test, 
                     
              21    then you're getting there, then your home.  You've shown 
                     
              22    it.  I think that's kind of what I was saying.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           255 
 
               1                  And one other comment that I wanted to 
                     
               2    make about this telling of the story.  You know, the 
                     
               3    public's tired of hearing stories, you know.  So we, I 
                     
               4    think we have to be careful about how we think about 
                     
               5    what we're doing something real and not just doing 
                     
               6    public relations.   
                     
               7                  And in Nevada particular, Nevadans are 
                     
               8    pretty wise to public relation stuff.  They want to 
                     
               9    know, they want something solid.  So I think what we 
                     
              10    need to do is we need to tell the truth and not just a 
                     
              11    story.  Thank you. 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, good.  Thank you very much, 
                     
              13    John.  I want to quickly cover process, and by that I 
                     
              14    mean how can the NRC keep people involved in what's 
                     
              15    going on on this study, continue to get good suggestions 
                     
              16    as we have been.   
                     
              17                  And I'm gonna ask Susan to just tell us 
                     
              18    about the next step.  But before she does that, I 
                     
              19    thought I'd just introduce Bill Brock who has joined us. 
                     
              20    He is the director of the spent fuel project office and 
                     
              21    he's here for a meeting tonight and also the meeting 
                     
              22    tomorrow.  All right.  Susan? 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           256 
 
               1             MS. SHANKMAN:  Okay.  As I said at the 
                     
               2    beginning, the next step for us, we're in phase one.  
                     
               3    The end of phase one study is that Sandia will give us 
                     
               4    options and proposed study report.  That should be out 
                     
               5    in the spring.   
                     
               6                  At the same time in, by March, we will 
                     
               7    have published a new reg contractor report from Sandia 
                     
               8    on the update of the assumptions used for the O170 
                     
               9    environmental impact study that was done in the 70s.  
                     
              10    It's an update of those assumptions.  Those two reports 
                     
              11    will form the basis of additional meetings.  
                     
              12                  We've had suggestions to have them in St. 
                     
              13    Louis and Atlanta and another one in Nevada and that's 
                     
              14    what we're planning for.   
                     
              15                  If anybody has additional venues, we'd 
                     
              16    like to hear it and perhaps we can have -- well, we can 
                     
              17    look at the format.  If this format worked, we'll try to 
                     
              18    use it again.   
                     
              19                  But the point is that I am very happy that 
                     
              20    everyone here did their homework and that they came with 
                     
              21    specific suggestions and ideas.  I would like the same 
                     
              22    level of homework for the next meeting, so that we can 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           257 
 
               1    be as productive.   
                     
               2                  And those two reports will be available 
                     
               3    through the site, the interactive site and on the NRC 
                     
               4    web site.   
                     
               5                  So I ask you that when we plan those 
                     
               6    meetings, you will allow at least five weeks between the 
                     
               7    publishing of the last report and the first meeting. 
                     
               8             MR. CAMERON:  And I guess I should point out we 
                     
               9    did hear already this morning, and I think that we've 
                     
              10    responded to some of the Nevada counties who are in 
                     
              11    rural areas that these meetings that Susan is talking 
                     
              12    about, that there were also the meetings that would 
                     
              13    facilitate their participation by those counties, that 
                     
              14    that wouldn't necessarily obviously mean a meeting in 
                     
              15    Las Vegas, it would be something else. 
                     
              16             MS. SHANKMAN:  Right. 
                     
              17             MR. CAMERON:  Any process suggestions around 
                     
              18    the table?  In, in the Bethesda meeting we heard an 
                     
              19    advis committee, an advisory committee suggestion.  
                     
              20    Other people said that well, you don't necessarily have 
                     
              21    to have an advisory committee but through periodic 
                     
              22    meetings of a group like this, keep them informed.  Jim? 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           258 
 
               1             MR. WILLIAMS:  I think this format has worked 
                     
               2    very well.  There's some people in the audience who 
                     
               3    probably ought to be up here as well.  Don, for 
                     
               4    instance, should probably be with us. 
                     
               5             MR. CAMERON:  Definitely. 
                     
               6             MR. WILLIAMS:  So I think this works well.  
                     
               7    Actually I have two other transportation categories.  I 
                     
               8    don't know if you want to get to that.  That's why I'd 
                     
               9    like to -- 
                     
              10             MR. CAMERON:  Just hold that and we'll take 
                     
              11    those.  Let's get this process out now and we'll go back 
                     
              12    to that.  Mike? 
                     
              13             MR. BAUGHMAN:  Yeah.  I guess I would ask the 
                     
              14    NRC staff and perhaps Sandia, a lot of time energy's 
                     
              15    been put in by people to come in and provide input.  You 
                     
              16    know, Ron came all the way from Vienna which I wish we 
                     
              17    all could have done that.  But I think you had a lot of 
                     
              18    input at Bethesda.   
                     
              19                  I would think that if it were possible in 
                     
              20    the, sometime in the near future and certainly before we 
                     
              21    start seeing any output from this work, that you perhaps 
                     
              22    respond back to us as to what do you intend to do for 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           259 
 
               1    the recommendations that you were given today, which of 
                     
               2    those recommendations are going, you know, become a part 
                     
               3    of the work and you know others that maybe aren't so be 
                     
               4    it, but at least give us some sense of how this input is 
                     
               5    changing or influencing what you're doing before we 
                     
               6    actually see the final result. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  So some sort of in camera report 
                     
               8    on how the input from these meetings is gonna be used? 
                     
               9             MR. BAUGHMAN:  In shaping Sandia's scope of 
                     
              10    work.  I mean, I assume it could be influx. 
                     
              11             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Susan, anybody from the 
                     
              12    NRC have anything to offer on that now? 
                     
              13             MR. LEWIS:  Well, I think that's exactly the 
                     
              14    goal of the forum we're going to be sharing with you 
                     
              15    sometime in the next future, probably in May.  But that, 
                     
              16    that thought is why we're doing that because it equals 
                     
              17    input.   
                     
              18             MR. CAMERON:  I think what Mike is suggesting 
                     
              19    for your consideration is that if there is a way, if 
                     
              20    there's a milestone between these meetings and when the 
                     
              21    final report comes on that that might be useful for your 
                     
              22    consideration.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           260 
 
               1             MS. SHANKMAN:  Yeah.  Thanks, Mike. 
                     
               2             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Mike, did you have 
                     
               3    anything more?  Did I characterize that correctly? 
                     
               4             MR. BAUGHMAN:  (Positive nod of the head.) 
                     
               5             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Let's go to Bob.  Well, 
                     
               6    let's go to Ron first, Ron Ross and then Bob. 
                     
               7             MR. ROSS:  Mine's fairly short.  And I just 
                     
               8    offer this on the part of four regional groups that 
                     
               9    represent governors and particularly the regulatory 
                     
              10    staff if you may.   
                     
              11                  We meet on a quarterly basis.  All of us 
                     
              12    not together but each of us meet on separate meeting on 
                     
              13    a quarterly basis and offer the opportunity to have the 
                     
              14    people speak with us.   
                     
              15                  And certainly they've gotten involved, as 
                     
              16    you probably are well aware, on the issue of the foreign 
                     
              17    spent fuel.  We have all of those kinds of things.  So 
                     
              18    they're very knowledgeable on this. 
                     
              19             MS. SHANKMAN:  Ron, we've responded to most of 
                     
              20    the invitations that we've gotten. 
                     
              21             MR. ROSS:  Okay. 
                     
              22             MS. SHANKMAN:  So let us know and we'll do our 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           261 
 
               1    best. 
                     
               2             MR. ROSS:  I'll give you the names and the 
                     
               3    dates. 
                     
               4             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  All right, thank you very 
                     
               5    much, Ron.  Bob? 
                     
               6             MR. ALCOCK:  Well, Chip, I was one of the 
                     
               7    people at the Bethesda meeting who advocated some type 
                     
               8    of a formal advisory group or committee.  And after 
                     
               9    further discussions with your staff on all of the 
                     
              10    bureaucratic impediments preceding on that and how 
                     
              11    advantageous it might be, I would withdraw that 
                     
              12    recommendation in favor of having this format repeated. 
                     
              13                  I know in some ways it's more, really more 
                     
              14    awkwardly harder for you to hold us accountable than 
                     
              15    maybe a advisory committee capacity, but I think it's 
                     
              16    really important that you continue to keep meeting.  
                     
              17                  This is, for all the contentiousness, I 
                     
              18    think this has been a very meaningful meeting today and 
                     
              19    it I hope it has been for you and acknowledging that 
                     
              20    there are some other things going on at the same time 
                     
              21    like the Yucca Mountain draft AIS and the 73-10 rule 
                     
              22    making which you may or may not want to have going on at 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           262 
 
               1    the same time, but I personally think this would be a 
                     
               2    good format to continue. 
                     
               3             MR. CAMERON:  Thanks, Bob.  And I guess from a 
                     
               4    facilitator's point of view, I would point out that if 
                     
               5    you continue, if you had periodic meetings that, instead 
                     
               6    of doing this broad scope which we have to do on all the 
                     
               7    issues now, that you could select one issue, Bob.   
                     
               8                  You talked about study group or whatever 
                     
               9    or focusing more on the accident rate issue, you could 
                     
              10    devote more time and get more into the nuts and bolts of 
                     
              11    something like that, too.  Ron? 
                     
              12             MR. ROSS:  (Negative nod of the head.) 
                     
              13             MR. CAMERON:  What time is it in Vienna?  It's 
                     
              14    getting later.  Let me let me go to John on this issue 
                     
              15    and then Jim, we'll hear from you on your other issues. 
                     
              16    John? 
                     
              17             MR. VINCENT:  Yeah, thank you.  I'd also like 
                     
              18    to compliment the NRC for doing this process.  I think 
                     
              19    this is a much more welcome kind of format than we've 
                     
              20    seen in other place, not necessarily by the NRC but just 
                     
              21    in general.  So I appreciate this opportunity and I 
                     
              22    think it would be good to continue this also.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           263 
 
               1                  In terms of the processing, you might want 
                     
               2    to think about maybe letting the public get more 
                     
               3    involved in the discussion sooner in the processing and 
                     
               4    not wait so long.  It might engage people.  They're not 
                     
               5    within the inner circle, but I think that might be 
                     
               6    helpful.  But in general I think that it definitely 
                     
               7    recommend continuing this.   
                     
               8                  And I just want to say that it also leaves 
                     
               9    citizens a little more hopeful that we can all move 
                     
              10    together in a little better way to resolving what the 
                     
              11    deal, how to deal with this very nasty stuff that we've 
                     
              12    created. 
                                                                                      264 
 
               1    idea on the table. 
                     
               2             MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, sir. 
                     
               3             MR. REED:  My two issues in the other category. 
                     
               4    One is, is the human factors question specifically in 
                     
               5    relating to the factor of the performance of the 
                     
               6    packaging.  And this is something that the previous 
                     
               7    modal study left hanging and it stated as much.  And I 
                     
               8    don't know -- well, just throw it out.  I don't know if 
                     
               9    it's on your scope or not, but some kind of human 
                     
              10    factors analysis as it relates to cask design, 
                     
              11    maintenance operation, manufacture, you know, those kind 
                     
              12    of factors that might contribute to worsening a severe 
                     
              13    accident.   
                     
              14                  It might also even include you know, like 
                     
              15    the operator of the truck, you know, the driver.  That 
                     
              16    might be a little beyond the scope but that is certainly 
                     
              17    something that comes up in my view.  So that's one.   
                     
              18                  And I would point to the commercial 
                     
              19    vehicle safety alliance.  They've done a human factor 
                     
              20    study of their drivers and people associated with the 
                     
              21    trucking industry.  I don't know.  There might be some 
                     
              22    ideas in there as far as methodology and so forth.  That 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           265 
 
               1    was just completed within the last year or so.   
                     
               2                  The second area -- that's the first one.  
                     
               3    The second one has to do with the communication of risk. 
                     
               4    And I guess I'd like to request that as the NRC and 
                     
               5    Sandia put this together, to think creatively how to 
                     
               6    smell out your conclusions as it relates to risk.  
                     
               7    Because it just seems like when you put it on paper, 
                     
               8    it's not communicative to the public at large.   
                     
               9                  And the term latent cancer fatalities, I 
                     
              10    think it needs more explanation than just throwing it 
                     
              11    out there.  They'll be one in 3200 years because people 
                     
              12    look at that and say it doesn't make sense.  One in 75 
                     
              13    years or whatever it is.   
                     
              14                  So I guess I would just request that you 
                     
              15    get, you know, non-engineer, somebody, maybe a creative 
                     
              16    writer to think about how you communicate that risk, the 
                     
              17    risk outcome has come up with the models in a way that's 
                     
              18    understanding of what. 
                     
              19             MS. SHANKMAN:  Jim, just to tell you that even 
                     
              20    before that comment, the contract we have was sent here, 
                     
              21    requires that you give us both a technical report and a 
                     
              22    plain English summary. 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           266 
 
               1             MR. REED:  Great.  I think that would be very 
                     
               2    helpful. 
                     
               3             MS. SHANKMAN:  And Charles just told me that 
                     
               4    will be the hardest part. 
                     
               5             MR. REED:  What we're trying to do at NCSL is 
                     
               6    take these kind of technological and turning them into 
                     
               7    something that the policy makers could use. 
                     
               8             MS. SHANKMAN:  We agree.  We don't want to say 
                     
               9    for a fish hill that the marine biologist specimen is a 
                     
              10    hundred percent mortality response.  That's not what we 
                     
              11    want to do. 
                     
              12             MR. REED:  Great.  Thank you. 
                     
              13             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Let's go around the table 
                     
              14    for any final comments that people want to make.  And 
                     
              15    I'm gonna -- Ray has his card up.  Let's go there. 
                     
              16             MR. LAMBERT:  I again would like to thank the 
                     
              17    NRC for creating the venue that it has for this 
                     
              18    production.   
                     
              19                  I guess when I listen to them, I may 
                     
              20    generate a little concern and I don't know quite how to 
                     
              21    touch it, but one might be in the NRC's extreme effort 
                     
              22    to take input, and I'm a little concerned that they 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           267 
 
               1    might either be persuaded or pushed and spend an 
                     
               2    inordinate amount of their resources chasing what I 
                     
               3    would call the more imaginary what if scenarios.  I 
                     
               4    think they have to be very careful to limit the scope  
                     
               5    they look at.   
                     
               6                  And Bill's been trying, Bill Lake's been 
                     
               7    trying to bring us back to some reality about 
                     
               8    sensitivity.  And I think before we just chase all these 
                     
               9    bounty conditions and sound, you know, politically 
                     
              10    correct, and I'm not sure they're real, I think that in 
                     
              11    a study, a modal study that was done many years ago, 
                     
              12    they're trying to look at the real accidents and the 
                     
              13    real things that happened had a real impact on health 
                     
              14    and safety.   
                     
              15                  And I guess all this really comes back to 
                     
              16    the assessment which the NRC has undertaken with great 
                     
              17    enthusiasm and with support by the thermonuclear 
                     
              18    industry, and that is to focus on the risk and form 
                     
              19    approach.   
                     
              20                  And even though some of these what if 
                     
              21    scenarios have to be looked at, they should be looked at 
                     
              22    in the context of risk inform and not simply because 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           268 
 
               1    somebody's mentioned them charge off to the resources.  
                     
               2    It's going to be a really challenging role for you to be 
                     
               3    able to limit.  You'll run out of money before you even 
                     
               4    get past preliminary study.   
                     
               5                  And so we support it and I think it has to 
                     
               6    be done in that context of real risk health and study. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much, Ray, on that 
                     
               8    one.  Anybody, any comments?  John? 
                     
               9             MR. EDLOW:  Thank you.  And the final comment 
                     
              10    is that I too appreciate what NRC is doing, and I urge 
                     
              11    that we go ahead but with caution similarly to what you 
                     
              12    just said in that we do not and cannot risk the views 
                     
              13    that the current regulations are somehow not adequate.  
                     
              14                  The comment, the exchange that took place 
                     
              15    a few minutes ago like the Palisades cask is very 
                     
              16    important because while there was an accident involving 
                     
              17    that cask, nonetheless the cask remains in the same 
                     
              18    condition.   
                     
              19                  And while you may be testing or evaluating 
                     
              20    other, other scenarios under this study, there's nothing 
                     
              21    to indicate that the current regulations and the current 
                     
              22    equipment and the current regimes that's in the process 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           269 
 
               1    based on the IAEA is not adequate.   
                     
               2                  In fact, the public has to be assured that 
                     
               3    it remains adequate and that they are safe at this 
                     
               4    point, and if we were to continue with the process at 
                     
               5    this time it, would be done in a safe way.   
                     
               6                  So while I'm happy to see full-scale 
                     
               7    testing or to validate the code, one has to understand 
                     
               8    that what's been done so far has been involved in a same 
                     
               9    way in the casks that are used, whether it be the NRC's 
                     
              10    or others are adequate and that things are done safely 
                     
              11    and securely.  Thank you. 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  All right.  Bob?   
                     
              13             MR. ALCOCK:  Well, I spelled out these three 
                     
              14    issues here.  I'll summarize them briefly.   
                     
              15                  On the human factors issue, I am endorsing 
                     
              16    what Jim suggested, and I think it has to go even 
                     
              17    further.  Specific pieces of hardware and their 
                     
              18    transporter systems may involve specific opportunities 
                     
              19    for human error.  We've analyzed the GA force truck cask 
                     
              20    system extensively and I'd like to make that point.   
                     
              21                  Secondly, there's a larger point.  Various 
                     
              22    people have raised from different angles and in some 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           270 
 
               1    ways it includes both comments that Ray and Jack have 
                     
               2    made and comments that Judy made.  And they go to the 
                     
               3    whole issue of probable, probabilistic risk analysis and 
                     
               4    particularly when it has to be based on historical data 
                     
               5    and it's going to be applied to a system as is the case 
                     
               6    now with the civilian radioactive waste program, the 
                     
               7    real (phonetic) program and the clean up of the DWE 
                     
               8    defense facility which includes all that DOE spent fuel. 
                     
               9                  The bottom line is it's difficult to 
                     
              10    justify PRA that covers a 30 or 40 year period based on 
                     
              11    30 or 40 years of historical data.   
                     
              12                  And everybody, the railroads will say well 
                     
              13    those accident rates aren't -- it's going to be quite a 
                     
              14    job to figure out a convincing justification I think for 
                     
              15    applying this approach.   
                     
              16                  And maybe that's one of the more general 
                     
              17    topics that we ought to address when your new reg report 
                     
              18    is ready in March is whether, if it's not too late at 
                     
              19    that point to rethink the way that you apply a PRA 
                     
              20    approach to this modal study up there.   
                     
              21                  And again, I want to thank in particular, 
                     
              22    Dr. Massey again has put in a good performance and so 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           271 
 
               1    has the facilitator.   
                     
               2                  And without meaning to slate all the staff 
                     
               3    and not to mention by name, I'm going to say again that 
                     
               4    I think it's very important for people who are high up 
                     
               5    in the federal administrative management roles, people 
                     
               6    who are in jobs like Susan's being here, the managers 
                     
               7    need to understand what their technical staff are 
                     
               8    dealing with, both in the complexity of the technical 
                     
               9    issues and the, the horrendous battle that we're putting 
                     
              10    them through when the state their involvement, whether 
                     
              11    it's from an in-court, or whether it's from Nevada or 
                     
              12    whether it's people speaking from the utilities.   
                     
              13                  I'm sorry I won't get a chance to be here 
                     
              14    because I've got to fly north and try to get to Crescent 
                     
              15    Valley for that DOE and that's very important, but I 
                     
              16    appreciate the fact Mr. Brause is here as well.   
                     
              17                  And I think that's an important thing not 
                     
              18    to underestimate when you're planning for the future.  
                     
              19    And in particularly when you have these meetings in 
                     
              20    Nevada or other places where they're accessible to the 
                     
              21    people who at least view themselves as being the most 
                     
              22    heavily affected state.  I appreciate what all those say 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           272 
 
               1    here.  Thank you. 
                     
               2             MR. CAMERON:  Thank you very much, Bob.  Ron?  
                     
               3             MR. ROSS:  Thank you.  I want to really 
                     
               4    emphasize Jim Reed's comment on human factors.  Having 
                     
               5    worked with the programs that we have in the west on 
                     
               6    both spent fuel, high-level waste as well as risk, the 
                     
               7    issues that we're dealing with on a fairly constant 
                     
               8    basis which DOE has a wonderful term for, off norm, are 
                     
               9    human factors and this really needs to be brought in. I 
                     
              10    really want to be emphasize that.   
                     
              11                  I also want to give you support and really 
                     
              12    ask you to give some emphasis on how to tackle the 
                     
              13    critical issues such as the data issues involving those 
                     
              14    who really need to get involved with that.  Those issues 
                     
              15    are real important.   
                     
              16                  Going through the reviews that we have 
                     
              17    from Reed and some of the others on the last modal 
                     
              18    study, that's where all the grinding on the road was 
                     
              19    really at.  And I know that Charles has read that 
                     
              20    material and that we've had some discussion, and I'd 
                     
              21    like to emphasize that we would really like to figure 
                     
              22    out a way to get through some of that, so that we don't 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           273 
 
               1    have a bad reactor fact.   
                     
               2                  And then lastly, I'm real interested in 
                     
               3    your English version. 
                     
               4             MR. CAMERON:  Thanks, Ron.  Anybody else?  Yes. 
                     
               5    Bill?   
                     
               6             MR. LAKE:  I'd like to say since I didn't 
                     
               7    attend the one meeting in Bethesda this is, has really 
                     
               8    been eye opening in a couple of perspectives.   
                     
               9                  I echo the comments Ray has on being 
                     
              10    cautious and realistic, but by time we get this study 
                     
              11    complete in 2003, we'll be making more shipments with 
                     
              12    the DOE and other casks.  And it says what we have to 
                     
              13    do, do a better job today to help you tomorrow.  So 
                     
              14    that's really what I'm talking about.   
                     
              15                  Also, that we haven't been able to 
                     
              16    communicate our technical reports very well in plain 
                     
              17    English.  And while I give you my card, we can try to 
                     
              18    help work on it, but it's a lesson that we need to 
                     
              19    generally be reminded of and that we should start, we 
                     
              20    should have started 10 years ago but we should again 
                     
              21    start now. 
                     
              22             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you.  I would, I'm 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           274 
 
               1    gonna turn it over to Susan for any final words that she 
                     
               2    has, but I would thank each and everyone of you for all 
                     
               3    the thoughtful comments that you gave, including the 
                     
               4    people in the audience.  Thank you for your comments and 
                     
               5    attentiveness.   
                     
               6                  And Klaus, do you want to wrap it up for 
                     
               7    her? 
                     
               8             MR. SCHUMANN:  Yes.  I'd also like to take the 
                     
               9    opportunity to thank the NRC for inviting me to be here. 
                     
              10    I want to, want to specifically thank the Nevada agency 
                     
              11    for nuclear projects.  They have been very helpful and 
                     
              12    quality information that was very helpful to us in the 
                     
              13    general area of accounting is addressing and offering 
                     
              14    information on subject matters where we did not get 
                     
              15    necessary information from the NRC.  The same is true 
                     
              16    for the Triculine (phonetic) and to Nevada waste task 
                     
              17    force.   
                     
              18                  I also want to, I would like to say one 
                     
              19    more thing.  The NRC, the task is foremost to protect 
                     
              20    the safety and the health of the public.  And we at 
                     
              21    times get the impression the old processes is more 
                     
              22    driven by the financial interest of the utilities than 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           275 
 
               1    really the health and the safety of the public.  I think 
                     
               2    you want to be careful about that and have a great close 
                     
               3    for what I just said now.  Thank you so much. 
                     
               4             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  And I think I can say for 
                     
               5    the NRC that, that we're doing all that we can not to 
                     
               6    have the impression that we're doing anything for any 
                     
               7    other reason than to carry out our vision to protect 
                     
               8    health and safety.  I would just thank all of you and 
                     
               9    we're adjourned.   
                     
              10                  (Whereupon, the proceedings adjourned 
                     
              11                  at 4:45 p.m. for a dinner break.) 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  Good evening, everybody.  If 
                     
              13    everybody would take their seats, we'll get started with 
                     
              14    tonight's meeting.  My name is Chip Cameron and I'm the 
                     
              15    special counsel for public liaison at the Nuclear 
                     
              16    Regulatory Commission, and I'm pleased to serve the 
                     
              17    moderator for tonight's public meeting on the 
                     
              18    performance of the shipping casks that are used for 
                     
              19    spent fuel transportation.   
                     
              20                  The NRC is proposing to update a study 
                     
              21    that was done on the performance of the shipping casks 
                     
              22    and they're here tonight to tell you about what their 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           276 
 
               1    plans are and most importantly to hear from, from all of 
                     
               2    you on what your concerns are about spent fuel 
                     
               3    transportation in these shipping casks   
                     
               4                  And we're going to have some short 
                     
               5    presentations from NRC staff for you that will give you 
                     
               6    some background on what's going on and then we're going 
                     
               7    to open it up for questions.   
                     
               8                  We are taking a transcript tonight.  We 
                     
               9    have the Fastest Pen in the West Stella here and JoAnn, 
                     
              10    right, assisting.  And what I would like you to do is 
                     
              11    when you have a question or a comment when we are done 
                     
              12    with the opening presentation, I will give you this 
                     
              13    talking stick, so that you can speak into the 
                     
              14    microphone, or if it's more comfortable for you, just 
                     
              15    come up here to this standing mic and if you can just 
                     
              16    state your name and affiliation if appropriate, so that 
                     
              17    we have that for the purposes of the transcript.   
                     
              18                  We're not going to set any set time limit 
                     
              19    set for, on people.  I just want to make sure that 
                     
              20    everybody has the opportunity to talk tonight to make 
                     
              21    their comments.  So I may ask you to, to summarize at 
                     
              22    some point.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           277 
 
               1                  And I guess that we can get started with 
                     
               2    the, with the first NRC presentation tonight.  And it's 
                     
               3    my pleasure to introduce Dr. Susan Shankman.   
                     
               4                  Dr. Shankman's the deputy director for 
                     
               5    licensing and inspection of the spent fuel project 
                     
               6    office at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  She's been 
                     
               7    with the spent fuel project office since 1996.  And 
                     
               8    she'll be telling you more about this, but Susan's group 
                     
               9    is responsible for the review and approval of designs 
                     
              10    for spent fuel storage systems and transportation 
                     
              11    package systems for the NRC and her group is also 
                     
              12    responsible for inspection and for the development of 
                     
              13    regulations on storage and transportation.   
                     
              14                  And I think I'll just turn it over to Dr. 
                     
              15    Shankman at this point.  Are you gonna use this? 
                     
              16             MS. SHANKMAN:  Yes.  Good evening.  Let me 
                     
              17    briefly go through a few slides and introduce the 
                     
              18    purpose of the meeting and NRC to those of you who are 
                     
              19    here.  First let me say that I welcome you.   
                     
              20                  And as Chip said, I'm the deputy director 
                     
              21    of the spent fuel project office which within the NRC is 
                     
              22    the group that is conducting this study group.  We are 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           278 
 
               1    having Sandia National Labs do the development of a 
                     
               2    plan, but the NRC has a team of reviewers who will be 
                     
               3    reviewing that plan and we will make the decisions about 
                     
               4    what is studied and how it is studied.   
                     
               5                  I'd like to say it's not an academic 
                     
               6    exercise for me because I live on the main rail line out 
                     
               7    of Washington and going west and I also live a mile from 
                     
               8    I-95.  So I think I have, I'm in the hub of 
                     
               9    transportation around the Washington area.   
                     
              10                  We're here tonight to hear your concerns. 
                     
              11    And let me talk a little bit about what the NRC is and 
                     
              12    what our role is in this.  NRC is an independent federal 
                     
              13    agency and our job is to protect public health and 
                     
              14    safety.  This is our basic mission.  We do it in many 
                     
              15    ways, but mostly we do it through the experience we'veviewing cask 
                     
               3    designs, reviewing fuel characteristics and nuclear 
                     
               4    power plant fuel operations.   
                     
               5                  I want to start off by saying that we 
                     
               6    believe that what is done today is done safely.  Spent 
                     
               7    fuel is transported and it's transported safely.   
                     
               8                  Our mission of public health and safety we 
                     
               9    accomplish in several ways.  I just want to say quickly 
                     
              10    we do it by establishing rules or regulations, we use it 
                     
              11    interchangeably but they have the force of law.  We 
                     
              12    approve what applicants ask us to do before they do it. 
                     
              13                  So for cask designs, we look at the cask 
                     
              14    designs before any casks are built.  We use standardized 
                     
              15    criteria to review these designs and you can find those 
                     
              16    on the NRC web under the standard review plant for cask 
                     
              17    designs.   
                     
              18                  We provide guidance on how to meet the 
                     
              19    regulations, we inspect performance and then we enforce 
                     
              20    compliance with the regulations.   
                     
              21                  Our team that is going to review the study 
                     
              22    is with us tonight, and I'll introduce them quickly.  
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           280 
 
               1    Earl Easton is the section chief of the technical review 
                     
               2    section and we have Sarah Kolpo who's with us who will 
                     
               3    be reviewing retainment and Ron Parkhill who will be 
                     
               4    reviewing thermal issues and Rob Lewis who's at the 
                     
               5    table who's the project manager for this project.   
                     
               6                  We also have Sandia National Labs with us. 
                     
               7    They're conducting the research for this study and 
                     
               8    scoping the study and they will be working with the 
                     
               9    comments that you make tonight.  Dr. Charles Massey and 
                     
              10    oops, Ruth, she must be out in the hall.   
                     
              11                  We also have with us Pat Eng who is the 
                     
              12    section chief of the section that is conducting the 
                     
              13    study and Bill Brock who is the director of the spent 
                     
              14    fuel project office.   
                     
              15                  I want to urge you to speak to any one of 
                     
              16    us if you don't feel comfortable making your comments in 
                     
              17    the microphone.  We also have outside sheets where you 
                     
              18    can write to us.  We also have an interactive web site 
                     
              19    and Rob will tell you more about that.  So this is not 
                     
              20    the last chance to talk to us about spent fuel.  
                     
              21                  Transportation as I said is not a new 
                     
              22    subject for NRC to work with.  We have conducted studies 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           281 
 
               1    over the years and our current study is meant to add to 
                     
               2    our knowledge base about transport of nuclear material 
                     
               3    and spent fuel, in particular package performance under 
                     
               4    severe accidents.   
                     
               5                  NRC's goal recently we have worked harder 
                     
               6    at concluding risk insights into the way in which we 
                     
               7    regulate our activities and this study is part of that 
                     
               8    effort.   
                     
               9                  As I said, we feel that transport of 
                     
              10    nuclear material and spent fuel is safe.  We want to 
                     
              11    maintain that safety.   
                     
              12                  We feel that public involvement can help 
                     
              13    us in understanding what the concerns are, so that when 
                     
              14    we design this study, we will spend our money on looking 
                     
              15    at the risk insights that are of most concern.   
                     
              16                  We also have as a goal as an agency to be 
                     
              17    effective, efficient and realistic.  And we believe that 
                     
              18    if we conduct this study impartially, that we will add 
                     
              19    to that effectiveness.   
                     
              20                  NRC is not the only player in the 
                     
              21    regulation of transport of spent fuel.  We share that 
                     
              22    with the Department of Transportation and we have 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           282 
 
               1    several people here from the Department of 
                     
               2    Transportation.  We have Rick Boyle who's from the 
                     
               3    administration who works with hazardous materials.  
                     
               4    Spent fuel is one of the class of radioactivity -- 
                     
               5    radioactive materials that's a class of hazardous 
                     
               6    material.  We also have Kevin.  Oh, okay.   
                     
               7                  But anyway, we have had representatives 
                     
               8    today from -- we had a long meeting today.  So as many 
                     
               9    as you may know, it started this morning at 8:00 and 
                     
              10    ended around 5:00 and we had representatives from the 
                     
              11    Department of Transportation.   
                     
              12                  We have with us Richard Swedberg who's 
                     
              13    with the federal highway administration.  So we also 
                     
              14    have had today representatives of shippers, carriers, 
                     
              15    federal agencies that have interlocking or complement 
                     
              16    the roles in the regulation of transportation of spent 
                     
              17    fuel.  They are here tonight and we're all interested in 
                     
              18    what you have to say.   
                     
              19                  I can only tell you that we only have one 
                     
              20    goal; to listen to what you have to say tonight.  So I 
                     
              21    hope you'll be candid.  I hope you'll tell us what 
                     
              22    you're concerned about.  And then in the spring when we 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           283 
 
               1    have a design for our study, we will come back to 
                     
               2    Nevada, probably go to Atlanta and St. Louis also to 
                     
               3    talk about our design and get comments on our study 
                     
               4    design.   
                     
               5                  So with that, I'll give it back to Chip. 
                     
               6             MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Susan.  Before we get 
                     
               7    Rob Louis up here, I thought that I should explain the 
                     
               8    television camera except I guess that's the wrong way to 
                     
               9    characterize it.   
                     
              10                  This is not TV, but the Nuclear Regulatory 
                     
              11    Commission is making a video.  Our office of public 
                     
              12    affairs is making a video about spent fuel 
                     
              13    transportation, so that that can be used to inform the 
                     
              14    public about it.  And as part of that, the camera crew 
                     
              15    is going to be filming parts of the public meeting just 
                     
              16    in case you were wondering.   
                     
              17                  Rob Louis, as Susan mentioned, is the 
                     
              18    project manager for the project that we're here to 
                     
              19    describe tonight.  And Rob has a master's in nuclear 
                     
              20    engineering from the University of Arizona.   
                     
              21                  And I'll turn it over to Rob.  Rob, do you 
                     
              22    want to use this? 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           284 
 
               1             MR. LEWIS:  Thank you, Chip.  Good evening, 
                     
               2    everyone and thank you for coming tonight and taking 
                     
               3    your time to be here with us.   
                     
               4                  My goal is to describe the project that 
                     
               5    we're just starting a little bit.  So we'll kind of kick 
                     
               6    off with this discussion and then we can, we'll sit back 
                     
               7    and turn the microphone over to you, so we can hear your 
                     
               8    thoughts on what we're trying do.   
                     
               9                  And what that is is we're starting a study 
                     
              10    to look at how casks to transport used nuclear fuel from 
                     
              11    reactors to the Yucca Mountain site or to a storage 
                     
              12    facility, how those casks that are used for 
                     
              13    transportation perform when they, when they get into an 
                     
              14    accident, if they get into an accident during the 
                     
              15    transportation.   
                     
              16                  Before discussing the study though, I 
                     
              17    think I would like to talk a little bit about the safety 
                     
              18    of shipping spent fuel because the -- we are confident 
                     
              19    that the current system we use to ship spent fuel is 
                     
              20    very safe and it has been proven to be safe.  And the 
                     
              21    confidence that we have in that safety will define how 
                     
              22    we plan to proceed with this project.  So this is 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           285 
 
               1    important to know.   
                     
               2                  Why do we know that spent fuel shipments 
                     
               3    are safe with our current approach?  There's three main 
                     
               4    reasons.  We have very rigorous cask performance 
                     
               5    standards that are specified in our rules and every cask 
                     
               6    design has to meet these standards.  We have an 
                     
               7    excellent history of safe shipments of spent fuel and 
                     
               8    we've also studied this issue extensively, increasing 
                     
               9    our confidence that the product we use is safe.   
                     
              10                  I have a slide on each of these three that 
                     
              11    I'd like to share with you briefly.  Regarding cask 
                     
              12    performance standards, every cask design that's used to 
                     
              13    ship spent fuel has to meet a series of tests that are 
                     
              14    specified in our rules, in NRC's rules, and these tests 
                     
              15    were developed considering the possibility of severe 
                     
              16    accidents.   
                     
              17                  Now the cask is the primary safety device 
                     
              18    that we use to make sure that during an accident the 
                     
              19    spent fuel remains safely contained within the cask.  
                     
              20                  The test sequence involves an impact test, 
                     
              21    a puncture test, a fire test and immersion test, 
                     
              22    immersion in water.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           286 
 
               1                  After all these tests, the releases that 
                     
               2    are allowed from the cask are very small.  So small that 
                     
               3    if that amount itself were transported, it would not 
                     
               4    even require an accident resistant cask to be 
                     
               5    transported.   
                     
               6                  We can talk more about these tonight if 
                     
               7    you would like to learn more about how the cask 
                     
               8    performance standards we have in our rules work and how 
                     
               9    it fits together with insurance safety for shipments.  
                     
              10                  The historical safety record of spent fuel 
                     
              11    shipments is very good.  The historical safety record of 
                     
              12    shipping all hazardous materials is very good.   
                     
              13                  In the last 20 years or so, we've made 
                     
              14    1300 shipments in NRC certified casks.  Out of those 
                     
              15    1300 casks, eight of those casks were involved in 
                     
              16    accidents, four casks that were being returned and four 
                     
              17    casks that actually had spent fuel in them at the time. 
                     
              18                  Now in every one of these accidents, there 
                     
              19    was zero release, meaning the cask did its job as we 
                     
              20    relied on it to do.         
                     
              21                  Now, the information regarding these 
                     
              22    shipments is probably available.  We collect that 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           287 
 
               1    annually in a report that we call the New Reg.  And if 
                     
               2    you would like some information about where these 
                     
               3    shipments went, the routes they took or what they 
                     
               4    involved, what kind of spent fuel were involved, please, 
                     
               5    please discuss that with us and we can tell you how you 
                     
               6    can get a copy of that report.  It's published annually. 
                     
               7                  Now studies, the real reason we're here 
                     
               8    tonight is to talk about risk assessment studies we do. 
                     
               9    It's the third part of the puzzle that I have on the 
                     
              10    first slide that shows why we have confidence that our 
                     
              11    approach to shipping spent fuel is safe.   
                     
              12                  We've done several studies.  This is, this 
                     
              13    is by far not a complete list of the studies we have 
                     
              14    done, but we've been looking at these issues since 1977. 
                     
              15    And the reason that we keep studying this is that the 
                     
              16    technologies keep changing, our analytical tools that we 
                     
              17    have available to us continually improve, computer power 
                     
              18    improves and factors change, such as back in 1977, we 
                     
              19    were considering sending the fuel off to be reprocessed. 
                     
              20                  Now as a national policy, we are 
                     
              21    considering disposal as the ultimate definition for this 
                     
              22    fuel.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           288 
 
               1                  And as a result of that, the way we do 
                     
               2    these assessments has changed.  And so we keep looking 
                     
               3    at these issues.   
                     
               4                  And in particular, next year we will be 
                     
               5    issuing a update to our spent fuel shipment risk 
                     
               6    assessment that we have that is being performed by 
                     
               7    Sandia Labs and it is actually within NRC right now 
                     
               8    being reviewed by the NRC staff and we hope to publish 
                     
               9    that soon.   
                     
              10                  And in addition, we are starting a new 
                     
              11    project called the package performance study which looks 
                     
              12    at the risk of shipping spent fuel specifically related 
                     
              13    to the risk involved for severe accidents.   
                     
              14                  I should have mentioned that the 2000 
                     
              15    study that I have up here is not only looking at all 
                     
              16    accidents but also at the risk involved with routine 
                     
              17    shipment of fuel.   
                     
              18                  So with these two studies, I believe we're 
                     
              19    looking at the entire spectrum of, of hazards that are 
                     
              20    involved with shipping this material.   
                     
              21                  The final thing I want to -- actually two 
                     
              22    more things I would like to say.  The general approach 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           289 
 
               1    we will use to, to do the package performance study is 
                     
               2    shown by this slide.  And it's the same approach we use 
                     
               3    for all of our risk assessment.   
                     
               4                  First, we develop the sequences of 
                     
               5    accidents that we think are, are possible.  And once we 
                     
               6    have these sequences, we try to determine the severity 
                     
               7    of impact forces, collision forces if you will, and also 
                     
               8    the severity of fires that could occur.  And once we 
                     
               9    have engineering estimates of those severities, we can 
                     
              10    apply those courses to, to a cask, to determine how the 
                     
              11    cask would have, would have responded to those forces.  
                     
              12                  And, and once we know the cask response, 
                     
              13    we can estimate the releases, particular releases that 
                     
              14    we could expect.   
                     
              15                  In the great majority of cases, there will 
                     
              16    be no releases.  The cask will perform its function.  
                     
              17    But in that small fraction of accidents that are 
                     
              18    releases as possibility, we do want to quantify what 
                     
              19    could happen.   
                     
              20                  There's several ways to stay involved as 
                     
              21    we develop this study.  The best way is probably our web 
                     
              22    site and you can see the web address that is up there.  
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           290 
 
               1    If you do not like to use the web site, we are also 
                     
               2    establishing a mailing list.  There are forms in the 
                     
               3    back and on the tables outside the door.  And if you 
                     
               4    fill out the form and leave it with us tonight or mail 
                     
               5    it to us, we will add you to the mailing list and inform 
                     
               6    you when, when we have had at various points as we 
                     
               7    progress down the study.   
                     
               8                  And finally, we're having these workshops. 
                     
               9    This is a, today is the second of these round-table 
                     
              10    workshops we've been having.  We had one in Bethesda, 
                     
              11    Maryland on November 17th.  And as Susan mentioned, 
                     
              12    we've been in this room since 8 a.m. today with a 
                     
              13    round-table type workshop.   
                     
              14                  But there's a lot to discuss for a day 
                     
              15    long meeting, and we wanted to make sure that we came 
                     
              16    back tonight and gave the audience whereas today was 
                     
              17    focused more on the round-table discussion, we wanted to 
                     
              18    give the audience and any interested members of the 
                     
              19    public that couldn't make it today, we wanted to make 
                     
              20    sure that we had a chance to hear what those concerns 
                     
              21    were, so that we could add that on to the study as well. 
                     
              22                  We're going on to Pahrump tomorrow from 10 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           291 
 
               1    to noon at the Mountainview Casino and we will hear the 
                     
               2    specific concerns that Nye County may have because Nye 
                     
               3    County is of course the location for the potential 
                     
               4    depository of Yucca Mountain Pass.   
                     
               5                  And when we publish the first part of this 
                     
               6    package performance study that looks at accidents and 
                     
               7    the year 2000 report that I mentioned that is an update 
                     
               8    our risk estimates, early next year we'll be publishing 
                     
               9    this for you, for the public to look at.   
                     
              10                  These last two products will be publishing 
                     
              11    them and we want to come back once people have had a 
                     
              12    chance to look at them and get further views because 
                     
              13    early next year, I should say in the summer of next 
                     
              14    year, we'll be deciding how we want to proceed with this 
                     
              15    package performance study to look at the accidents, this 
                     
              16    transportation accidents.   
                     
              17                  So we want to make sure that when we 
                     
              18    decide how to proceed that we've had, everybody's had a 
                     
              19    chance to give us their views on what we're doing.  
                     
              20    Thank you.  And I turn it back over to Chip. 
                     
              21             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thanks, Rob.  We just have 
                     
              22    one, one more short presentation for you and then we'll 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           292 
 
               1    go on to you.   
                     
               2                  And Dr. Charles Massey is going to, from 
                     
               3    Sandia Lab is going to give us some information on the 
                     
               4    spent fuel casks that we're talking about.   
                     
               5                  And by way of introduction, Dr. Massey is 
                     
               6    the manager of the transportation safety and security 
                     
               7    analysis department at Sandia National Lab in 
                     
               8    Albuquerque, New Mexico.  And his group's responsible 
                     
               9    for design testing analysis of all types of radioactive 
                     
              10    material packages such as the spent fuel casks.   
                     
              11                  And Dr. Massey has been in Sandia for 10 
                     
              12    years.  He has a master, two master's degrees from the 
                     
              13    University of Pittsburgh and a doctorate in radiation 
                     
              14    health from the University of Pittsburgh.  Charles?  And 
                     
              15    I will remember to give this to you. 
                     
              16             MR. MASSEY:  Thank you, Chip.  Good evening, 
                     
              17    everyone.  I want to give a little background on what 
                     
              18    exactly it is that we're talking about, movement in the 
                     
              19    spent fuel casks and real descriptions of what the cask 
                     
              20    is and its design and then talk very briefly about some 
                     
              21    of the suggestions that Sandia has developed for 
                     
              22    consideration by you as sort of box simulators for 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           293 
 
               1    things that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would like 
                     
               2    to maybe perhaps look at in the package performance 
                     
               3    study.   
                     
               4                  Now what I've got up on the overhead right 
                     
               5    now is picture of a fresh nuclear assembly typical of 
                     
               6    types of assemblies of a fuel package in a spent fuel 
                     
               7    cask once it's come out of the reactor and is in storage 
                     
               8    period for transportation to its ultimate disposal site, 
                     
               9    and this is the material.  Once its out of the reactor, 
                     
              10    it's highly radioactive, it contains a highly 
                     
              11    radioactive material.   
                     
              12                  We're making sure it stays within the 
                     
              13    package safely while it's transported from the imported 
                     
              14    site and ultimately goes to the disposal site.   
                     
              15                  The spent fuel cask itself is a very 
                     
              16    substantial piece of equipment.  I can sort of go 
                     
              17    through the major pieces of it and when we get to some ig these things are and pick 
                     
               5    it up and you get a real feel for the weight.  A very 
                     
               6    substantial piece of equipment.   
                     
               7                  Then we have some shielding for neutrons 
                     
               8    that are admitted by the spent fuel inside the package. 
                     
               9    We have some gamished (phonetic) extra shielding 
                     
              10    material and more stainless steel for structural 
                     
              11    integrity.   
                     
              12                  Inside the cavity in the cask is where the 
                     
              13    spent fuel assemblies, typically the bundle.  The next 
                     
              14    piece then is to essentially enclose the fuel inside the 
                     
              15    cask.  There's a very substantial lid that is attached 
                     
              16    to the cask.  You can see in the bolts.   
                     
              17                  Then the final stuff is to put it on these 
                     
              18    impact absorbers, impact parameters which contain 
                     
              19    crushable material so if there is an accident, it begins 
                     
              20    with a head on or a side corner kind of impact.  These 
                     
              21    will help absorb some of the collision forces and help 
                     
              22    protect the integrity of the cask.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           295 
 
               1                  Just to give you a little bit of a scale 
                     
               2    size, you can see here's a cask with this impact 
                     
               3    perimeters on.  This is sitting on a flat bed.  Another 
                     
               4    piece just to show one going down the road.  You can see 
                     
               5    these are large structures, weigh a lot.  And we have 
                     
               6    lots of confidence in the ability to safely transport 
                     
               7    radioactive material.                 
                     
               8                  Now based on the series of studies that 
                     
               9    Mr. Lewis quickly went over, starting with the 1977 
                     
              10    Barnicle (phonetic) statement, Sandia has reviewed that 
                     
              11    current state of knowledge that's been accumulated over 
                     
              12    the years, said okay, if we're going to do a package 
                     
              13    performance, what would that spear on a modal study, 
                     
              14    sort of complete some of the picture of what it is 
                     
              15    that's of interest to the public.   
                     
              16                  And from a technical standpoint where we 
                     
              17    see some areas where we can do some investigation, we've 
                     
              18    come up with a list of suggestions that we're 
                     
              19    considering proposing but I want to get your feedback on 
                     
              20    because that's something that modal can incorporate, 
                     
              21    look at for our proposal to the Regulatory Commission.  
                     
              22                  The first is look at the accident rate 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           296 
 
               1    data.  How likely is it that there could be an accident 
                     
               2    in truck transport or rail transport of the spent 
                     
               3    nuclear fuel.  And go out at and look at the highway, 
                     
               4    the railway type of scenarios and get some idea what's 
                     
               5    the likelihood that there could be a derailment or 
                     
               6    collision.   
                     
               7                  The next step in that is if there is a 
                     
               8    derailment or collision, what happens?  If the train car 
                     
               9    goes off the track, will it roll over on its side; if it 
                     
              10    impacts another structure, how hard is that structure.  
                     
              11                  So we developed essentially little trees 
                     
              12    of events that can happen, and it will give us an idea 
                     
              13    of forces of the cask we see.  Is there a fire or not at 
                     
              14    the end of that accident.   
                     
              15                  In the past -- as I showed you the 
                     
              16    proponents on the cask, there's quite a bit of detail, 
                     
              17    particularly when you look at the seal out here on these 
                     
              18    bolts.  In the past we've taken a sort of conservative 
                     
              19    engineering approach to the modeling, how the cask, 
                     
              20    particularly these closure features, respond in the 
                     
              21    event of an accident.   
                     
              22                  I guess we want to do, we'd like to do in 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           297 
 
               1    the package performance study is go into much greater 
                     
               2    detail and look at these bolts.   
                     
               3                  For example, if you start to see failure 
                     
               4    on one bolt, essentially you view it as like a zipper is 
                     
               5    that when one starts to go, now there will be more force 
                     
               6    put on the next one, we'll want to see how different the 
                     
               7    collision impact will be that affects the performance of 
                     
               8    the bolts.   
                     
               9                  We also look at thermal environments, how 
                     
              10    that would affect the spent fuel assembly inside the 
                     
              11    cask.  To do that analysis, one the things we want to do 
                     
              12    is look at the cask in detail and then do a test, 
                     
              13    actually look at the cask and compare it with our 
                     
              14    pretest conditions at speeds somewhere greater than 60 
                     
              15    miles per hour.  And then we're looking for some input 
                     
              16    as to what that speed should be and how the scenario and 
                     
              17    position that can get us to that side.   
                     
              18                  From thermal fire perspective, one of the 
                     
              19    things we'd like to do is do pretest calculations using 
                     
              20    a newly developed three dimensional code on response to 
                     
              21    the cask to the fire alarm.   
                     
              22                  We would then like to do a one-hour test. 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           298 
 
               1    And this is simply a suggestion on our part.  One hour 
                     
               2    we look at how much fuel is available to fuel a fire 
                     
               3    right now versus -- our thought is that one-hour's test 
                     
               4    of a 20 foot standard fuel oil with a fuel fire where 
                     
               5    the cask is sitting in the fuel and oil on fire and the 
                     
               6    cask is lying on the ground.   
                     
               7                  For the regulatory tests that Mr. Lewis 
                     
               8    described earlier, cask is essentially suspended in the 
                     
               9    air and a cask fully engulfed by the fire.   
                     
              10                  We believe in most accident conditions a 
                     
              11    cask will probably be lying on the ground so we would 
                     
              12    like to actually look at a more real-life situation and 
                     
              13    see how our ability to predict the performance, how good 
                     
              14    that really is.   
                     
              15                  Just a couple more items here.  Looking at 
                     
              16    the fuel rods inside the cask, we'd like to do more 
                     
              17    analysis and do some experimentation on how the fuel 
                     
              18    inside the package performs in the severe accident 
                     
              19    environment.   
                     
              20                  In the past, we have not done more 
                     
              21    realistic examinations of how that fuel performed.  
                     
              22    We've done some conservative estimates on cask failure, 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           299 
 
               1    how much material you can have with the rod inside the 
                     
               2    cask.  And we'd really like to do some more 
                     
               3    experimentation to get some more realistic estimations 
                     
               4    of fuel application (phonetic).  That's sort of a big 
                     
               5    change in approach to the study of severe accident 
                     
               6    analogy.   
                     
               7                  I think what we're proposing is that in 
                     
               8    this case we go out and do our pretest calculations of 
                     
               9    the response of the cask and its contents to the thermal 
                     
              10    environment that we will define and to the collision 
                     
              11    environment that we will define.  Do a test and then 
                     
              12    compare it to and see how well in this sort of severe 
                     
              13    regimes, how well is our ability to protect cask 
                     
              14    performance.   
                     
              15                  What we want to do then is if you have a 
                     
              16    representative in that cask, then use the models that we 
                     
              17    now appropriately demonstrate the accuracy of and apply 
                     
              18    that to other packages that would be used for 
                     
              19    transportation of spent fuel.   
                     
              20                  With that, I turn it back over to Chip. 
                     
              21             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, that's great.  And let's 
                     
              22    leave that up there.  You've heard a lot of about what 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           300 
 
               1    the NRC is proposing to do and there's been some 
                     
               2    discussion about NRC regulations and also the role of 
                     
               3    other federal agencies.   
                     
               4                  We are here tonight to give you 
                     
               5    information and get your comments about this proposed 
                     
               6    update that the NRC is going to do.   
                     
               7                  But if you may have questions about the 
                     
               8    NRC regulations, about how the shipment of spent fuel is 
                     
               9    regulated in general, we'll be, we'll be more than happy 
                     
              10    to try to provide you with the information on how that 
                     
              11    all works and hear your comments on that.   
                     
              12                  So now it's your turn to let us know what, 
                     
              13    what you're thinking.  And I would just ask if there's 
                     
              14    any, any questions or comments from the audience at the 
                     
              15    point. 
                     
              16             MS. LEVENSON:  We're kind of outnumbered.  It 
                     
              17    seems like there's more people in suits than there are 
                     
              18    citizens here tonight.  I don't think I need a 
                     
              19    microphone, I can speak loud enough.   
                     
              20                  (Whereupon, Mr. Cameron handed her the 
                     
              21                  microphone.)   
                     
              22             MS. LEVENSON:  I have a lot of questions to 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           301 
 
               1    ask.  And the first, we know how notorious the 
                     
               2    government is about O rings and unfortunately we've had 
                     
               3    many accidents.  I'd like to know about leaking and 
                     
               4    about how you can ensure that these rings will not leak 
                     
               5    in any way. 
                     
               6             MR. CAMERON:  Caren, could you introduce your 
                     
               7    position and everything?  Caren is with the local county 
                     
               8    advisory committee. 
                     
               9             MS. LEVENSON:  Well, I have many hats tonight. 
                     
              10    I am a citizen of this county, I represent my school's 
                     
              11    PTA as a legislative advisor and presently writing 
                     
              12    resolutions for the state of Nevada's PTA against the 
                     
              13    transportation of nuclear waste.  I sit on the Clark 
                     
              14    County Citizen's Advisory Board, Comprehensive Planning 
                     
              15    Nuclear Waste, but I forget the whole long title.  So I 
                     
              16    have a lot of hats in one tonight. 
                     
              17             MS. SHANKMAN:  I'm not exactly sure what your 
                     
              18    question is asking.  In cask designs there is a closure. 
                     
              19    And Ron do you want to speak to how that closure is 
                     
              20    tested?   
                     
              21             MR. PARKHILL:  Sure.  Do you want me to use a 
                     
              22    microphone? 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           302 
 
               1             MS. SHANKMAN:  Yeah. 
                     
               2             MS. LEVENSON:  Well, what I'm looking at is the 
                     
               3    seal and between that and the outer wall. 
                     
               4             MS. SHANKMAN:  Right.  The thing that closes 
                     
               5    the cask and makes it suitable for -- 
                     
               6             MR. PARKHILL:  You can see it right there and 
                     
               7    it's held down through bolts.  And this thing is 
                     
               8    analyzed under our regulations to prevent leakage from 
                     
               9    beyond the certain A2 (phonetic) value.   
                     
              10                  So basically we do the analysis to 
                     
              11    demonstrate that the cask will not leak beyond a certain 
                     
              12    leakage weight.  And we fully test that leakage weight 
                     
              13    to demonstrate that a certain amount that's considered 
                     
              14    permissible won't go beyond that amount.   
                     
              15                  So it's been analyzed, it's been tested 
                     
              16    and that's our normal way of insuring that these casks 
                     
              17    won't leak.   
                     
              18                  But the study here is actually going 
                     
              19    beyond what we do.  Typically in design basis is 
                     
              20    considering severe accidents, accidents that would 
                     
              21    happen possibly on highways that could be construed to 
                     
              22    be beyond our design limits.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           303 
 
               1                  So this, this study will postulate failure 
                     
               2    in a very high consequence or very low probability 
                     
               3    arena.  So the leakage will be evaluated against the 
                     
               4    scenario that's being evaluated and an assessment will 
                     
               5    be done as to whether or not that leakage will be 
                     
               6    acceptable based on the risk study.   
                     
               7                  But typically for transportation spent 
                     
               8    fuel, we've had no leakage for the accidents that have 
                     
               9    happened, the eight accidents that Bob talked about 
                     
              10    earlier.  So we're designed for it, we test for it. 
                     
              11             MS. LEVENSON:  And how do weather conditions 
                     
              12    factor in?  When you're transporting from Ohio or New 
                     
              13    York State all the way across country, how do you factor 
                     
              14    in sudden tornados, earthquakes, ice storms, wind.   
                     
              15                  I don't know how many of you were here 
                     
              16    yesterday.  This area had lost power just because of 
                     
              17    wind.   
                     
              18                  How can you ensure driver error in trying 
                     
              19    to compensate for weather conditions and a driver making 
                     
              20    an error and having an accident severe enough to do 
                     
              21    damage? 
                     
              22             MR. PARKHILL:  You asked, I guess, a multi-part 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           304 
 
               1    question here.  I guess weather comes into play, that's 
                     
               2    why you look at severe temperatures, very cold, very 
                     
               3    hot.  We looked at structural bloatings (phonetic) from 
                     
               4    a standpoint of again within our regulatory framework, 
                     
               5    the accidents we look at, we analyze the loadings from 
                     
               6    impact, we look at funnel stresses under it.   
                     
               7                  So for the design basis, we basically 
                     
               8    evaluate and determine that the casks will not leak 
                     
               9    under those conditions.   
                     
              10                  And you know, again, we have a very 
                     
              11    conservative regulatory basis that we analyze this thing 
                     
              12    for.  It doesn't analyze for all severe accidents.  And 
                     
              13    severe accidents is what we're, part of what we're 
                     
              14    studying and poses to this panel on of those 
                     
              15    consequences and the actual, look at failure of that 
                     
              16    seal, I guess up until it fails and beyond if it fails 
                     
              17    so that we actually give you the results of that as it 
                     
              18    did on the modal study.  That's already been done.   
                     
              19                  And those consequences were determined 
                     
              20    that the buyer by that study be acceptable. 
                     
              21             MS. LEVENSON:  And with the sudden and very 
                     
              22    drastic temperature changes that we have here.  I mean, 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           305 
 
               1    to vary 30 degrees from nighttime to mid-day is normal 
                     
               2    here. 
                     
               3             MR. PARKHILL:  Actually from a temperature 
                     
               4    standpoint during the day, these casks do not change 
                     
               5    that drastically with quick changes to temperature 
                     
               6    outside.  It takes a longer sustained very hotter or 
                     
               7    colder period for it to react to have a thermal nersha, 
                     
               8    I guess it's not called in plain English, but it takes 
                     
               9    awhile for the extremes to really have an affect and we 
                     
              10    do analyze for an extreme conditions of hot and cold. 
                     
              11             MS. LEVENSON:  My other questions deal with 
                     
              12    mostly the transportation and security issues.  Okay.  
                     
              13    Hijackings, terrorist attacks, things of that nature. 
                     
              14             MS. SHANKMAN:  Are you familiar with the NRC 
                     
              15    regulations on physical security? 
                     
              16             MS. LEVENSON:  I am.  I have heard a lot of 
                     
              17    different things.  The only security is the guy sitting 
                     
              18    in the passenger seat with the driver.  There is very, 
                     
              19    very little security during transportation. 
                     
              20             MR. CAMERON:  Could someone provide sort of an 
                     
              21    overview on this for Caren?  Earl? 
                     
              22             MR. EASTON:  Basically there are a lot of 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           306 
 
               1    measures in place that are more than just having to ask 
                     
               2    for it, that is the person in the other driver's seat.  
                     
               3                  We require that the truck be in 
                     
               4    communication.  They have to report in every two hours. 
                     
               5    There's a mobilization device that a driver, he can 
                     
               6    activate that will immobilize the truck.   
                     
               7                  We check for every route availability with 
                     
               8    law enforcement along those routes, that law enforcement 
                     
               9    can respond to a given period of time, very short period 
                     
              10    of time, typically 15 minutes or so.  We make sure that 
                     
              11    the cellular communications are adequate all along the 
                     
              12    route and those sort of things.  There are a lot more 
                     
              13    measures than just an escort.  They're tabulated in Part 
                     
              14    73 of their regulation. 
                     
              15             MR. CAMERON:  Caren, let me check and see if 
                     
              16    anybody from the other federal agencies that are here 
                     
              17    tonight, whether they want to offer anymore background 
                     
              18    on the security issue.  Anybody?  Okay. 
                     
              19             MS. LEVENSON:  Okay.  Really -- and my last 
                     
              20    questions have to do with growth along routes, 
                     
              21    especially in Nevada where growth is so, can't be 
                     
              22    planned for from day-to-day.  I deal with the school 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           307 
 
               1    district so I know about that one.   
                     
               2                  And how you will not allow growth and 
                     
               3    construction within a certain amount of feet, yards, 
                     
               4    miles from these routes that are presently -- most of 
                     
               5    that land is under government control, but we know the 
                     
               6    BLM now is selling off their land here.   
                     
               7                  And how you can assure us that these 
                     
               8    routes that are still rural can remain rural to the test 
                     
               9    site storage facility cuz they're the same and along any 
                     
              10    other routes with explosive growth out here and also 
                     
              11    damage to our infrastructure and our roads that we 
                     
              12    presently have.   
                     
              13                  From what I understand, the weight of 
                     
              14    these trucks and the amount of transportation of this 
                     
              15    over the decade or 12 years that will do -- we have 
                     
              16    enough problems with our roads.  We don't need trucks 
                     
              17    tearing up our roads that we can't seem to not tear up 
                     
              18    ourselves. 
                     
              19             MR. CAMERON:  It seems there is some 
                     
              20    information on how routes are selected to consider 
                     
              21    factors like that that might be informative for Caren.  
                     
              22                  Does anybody from the NRC or from the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           308 
 
               1    Department of Transportation want to deal with that? 
                     
               2             MS. SHANKMAN:  Let someone from the Department 
                     
               3    of Transportation answer that because the rules for 
                     
               4    selecting routes come from the U.S. Department of 
                     
               5    Transportation. 
                     
               6             MR. CAMERON:  This is Richard Swedberg. 
                     
               7             MR. SWEDBERG:  Richard Swedberg with Department 
                     
               8    of Transportation.  The route selection belongs to the 
                     
               9    State of Nevada.  And so the State of Nevada can analyze 
                     
              10    and look at the different routes that they want to use. 
                     
              11    And then because of that analysis, they can decide using 
                     
              12    our guidelines what routes they want to have the state 
                     
              13    use.  And so it's more localized.  You have more 
                     
              14    influence on that because again, the federal government 
                     
              15    only records the routes that the State of Nevada picks 
                     
              16    for these types of shipments.   
                     
              17                  One thing I didn't mention, too, and I 
                     
              18    wanted to talk about is that you mentioned driver and 
                     
              19    driver error.  There are a lot of regulations for 
                     
              20    drivers who drive spent fuel trucks.  They have to be 
                     
              21    specially trained, they have to have medical waivers, 
                            
               9    spent nuclear fuel transportation have to have an 
                     
              10    excellent safety record.  They have to have a lot of 
                     
              11    extra qualifications.  There's a lot of work that are 
                     
              12    put into the drivers.   
                     
              13                  So does that answer your question? 
                     
              14             MS. LEVENSON:  Somewhat. 
                     
              15             MR. SWEDBERG:  Okay.  But mainly the most 
                     
              16    important thing is that the State of Nevada has a lot of 
                     
              17    influence on route selection.  That belongs to the 
                     
              18    state.  That's not something that the federal government 
                     
              19    has. 
                     
              20             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thanks, Richard.  And 
                     
              21    Caren, you may have some more questions and comments 
                     
              22    before the night is over so we may be back to you.  
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           310 
 
               1                  Let's go to this gentlemen right here.  
                     
               2    Yes, sir?   
                     
               3             MR. BUSHMAN:  Yeah.  I'll probably make a fool 
                     
               4    of myself but one needs to make attempts.  I'm Ernie 
                     
               5    Bushman.  I'm from Michigan, in particular, the FERME 
                     
               6    (phonetic) operation area and at one point was an 
                     
               7    activist in opposition to FERME program.  And I'm trying 
                     
               8    to stay abreast of the changes and things that are 
                     
               9    occurring.   
                     
              10                  And my curiosity now goes to the fuel cask 
                     
              11    and thermal dynamics, and I'm wondering what you're 
                     
              12    doing with the heat.  I know there's still heat here.  I 
                     
              13    guess there's also some kind of a water jacket involved 
                     
              14    in this thing.  My concern goes to that because I know 
                     
              15    that those are the kind of problems that were 
                     
              16    experienced in most of the accidents that have occurred 
                     
              17    in the nuclear power plants.  It had to do with being 
                     
              18    able to handle the heat.   
                     
              19                  And I also wonder if somebody can tell me 
                     
              20    if there are thermal excursions occurring within this 
                     
              21    cask and if not why not. 
                     
              22             MS. SHANKMAN:  I'm glad we brought Ron 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           311 
 
               1    Parkhill.   
                     
               2             MS. BUSHMAN:  Please.   
                     
               3             MS. SHANKMAN:  Who reviews the thermal issues 
                     
               4    related to the cask and so we'll ask him to answer your 
                     
               5    specific questions.   
                     
               6             MR. CHIP:  And while Ron's coming up, he may 
                     
               7    want to talk a little bit about the conversation that 
                     
               8    happened this afternoon about for purposes of the 
                     
               9    updated study what type of spent fuel, what assumptions, 
                     
              10    assumptions do you make about the type of spent fuel 
                     
              11    that should be shipped.  Go ahead, Ron. 
                     
              12             MR. PARKHILL:  Well to answer your question, 
                     
              13    yes, the package is analyzed for the K heat that's 
                     
              14    included or that's licensed to be shipped in the 
                     
              15    package.  Generally the packages are evaluated for the 
                     
              16    maximum to take heat and they're evaluated to dissipate 
                     
              17    that the K heat order jacket that you referred to is for 
                     
              18    neutron shielding in ways necessary for dissipation of 
                     
              19    the heat even though the order that is taking credit for 
                     
              20    its analysis for shielding purposes.  It is also 
                     
              21    considered thermal for the conduction that they have.  
                     
              22    That's not really necessary, but we do.  So yes, they're 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           312 
 
               1    analyzed and evaluated.   
                     
               2                  And once the package, before it's first 
                     
               3    used, a thermal test is done providing there's a K heat 
                     
               4    floating into the package above the certain value.  The 
                     
               5    package will be tested to verify that the, or the 
                     
               6    temperature package will be measured to verify that the 
                     
               7    analysis is roughly correct.   
                     
               8                  So there's physical verification on the 
                     
               9    thermal analysis deal that tests.  I guess you have -- 
                     
              10    (inaudible).   
                     
              11             MR. BUSHMAN:  In particular about the 
                     
              12    excursions that occur in reactors, will the thermal 
                     
              13    excursions, can they occur within your cask I guess is 
                     
              14    the question? 
                     
              15             MR. PARKHILL:  Basically no.  The package is 
                     
              16    analyzed from a reactivity standpoint.  It's analyzed 
                     
              17    for -- even though the package is designed not to let 
                     
              18    water in, it's analyzed for having water in it from the 
                     
              19    reactivity standpoint.  And it is only in this case of 
                     
              20    water critical that you really start generating more 
                     
              21    heat, so that the K heat actually dissipates over time. 
                     
              22                  So the longer the fuel system cools for 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           313 
 
               1    exposure into one of these casks, the cooler it gets, 
                     
               2    the analysis actually assumes the hottest fuel that has 
                     
               3    been licensed.  So it's generally found in the analysis 
                     
               4    of fuel.   
                     
               5                  So we're pretty confident that the package 
                     
               6    has been analyzed for heat. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  Ray, do you have something that 
                     
               8    you wanted to offer in terms of our -- 
                     
               9             MR. LAMBERT:  I'm afraid I'll miss the point, 
                     
              10    but I think the concern is about reactors, what happens. 
                     
              11    And you know, young people tend to assume reactors are 
                     
              12    like a shipping cask.  And we're talking in shipping 
                     
              13    with fuel that has heat for the order of one kilowatts 
                     
              14    of fuel.  These are like many orders of magnitudes less 
                     
              15    than a popular reactor, a reactor when I was going 
                     
              16    fishing, and they have very high levels of heat 
                     
              17    associated.   
                     
              18                  There's no mechanism in a transport from 
                     
              19    to generate other than the K heat that exists.  And as 
                     
              20    mentioned by Ron, it continues to go down.  It's really 
                     
              21    formal reaction and this therefore can't go through it. 
                     
              22    There's no problems for excursions, no high reaction.  
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           314 
 
               1    It just can't happen.   
                     
               2             MR. BUSHMAN:  What kind of temperature are we 
                     
               3    running then internally? 
                     
               4             MR. LAMBERT:  The maximum planning temperature 
                     
               5    on the fuel at the design basis could be designed to run 
                     
               6    the order of about 380 BC.  It normally runs about half 
                     
               7    of that. 
                     
               8             MR. BUSHMAN:  Okay.  Then my next question goes 
                     
               9    to -- 
                     
              10             MR. CAMERON:  Let me have you -- 
                     
              11             MR. BUSHMAN:  I guess these questions are just 
                     
              12    coming out of -- most of the utilization of the fuels 
                     
              13    themselves as I seen it were in a vertical position.  
                     
              14    And certainly I believe that storage on site is vertical 
                     
              15    or horizontal.  Can anybody tell me?   
                     
              16             MS. SHANKMAN:  Both. 
                     
              17             MR. BUSHMAN:  Both.  Are there thermodynamic 
                     
              18    differences that occur just as a result of what a uteral 
                     
              19    (phonetic) fuel in a vertical position or a horizontal 
                     
              20    position because as you see here, you're transporting it 
                     
              21    horizontally.   
                     
              22                  And I don't expect you to be able to 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           315 
 
               1    transport it vertically at this point, but I'm wondering 
                     
               2    about that fact, you know.  We utilize it vertically, 
                     
               3    how are you gonna finally store it down at Yucca, and 
                     
               4    are there some differences here that are the result of 
                     
               5    its position on the truck? 
                     
               6             UNIDENTIFIED:  We're not here really does to 
                     
               7    discuss Yucca Mountain. 
                     
               8             MR. BUSHMAN:  No.  I'm sorry. 
                     
               9             UNIDENTIFIED:  All configurations of that fuel 
                     
              10    is stored in and transported in are analyzed for the 
                     
              11    removal of that. 
                     
              12             MR. BUSHMAN:  Vertically? 
                     
              13             UNIDENTIFIED:  Yes.  There's storage, there's 
                     
              14    a, one side I can think of stores it horizontally.  It's 
                     
              15    analyzed in that configuration.  Most of the storage 
                     
              16    designs are in the vertical configuration and they're 
                     
              17    analyzed for that.  And for the transportation they're 
                     
              18    analyzed for the configuration of transport and it goes 
                     
              19    on.   
                     
              20             MR. CAMERON:  So it's always in all cases 
                     
              21    horizontally is I think what Ernie is asking about. 
                     
              22             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Thank you. 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           316 
 
               1             MR. MASSEY:  If I can follow up on that.   
                     
               2             MR. CAMERON:  Yeah.  Go ahead, Charles. 
                     
               3             MR. MASSEY:  The gentleman brings up a good 
                     
               4    point.  One of the things that we're looking at in the 
                     
               5    package performance study is the fact that this spent 
                     
               6    fuel, it generates some heat.   
                     
               7                  And as he stated, it could be a hundred 
                     
               8    degrees, it could be 108 degrees Fahrenheit, a hundred, 
                     
               9    and 212 degrees Fahrenheit.   
                     
              10                  (Whereupon, Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Massey 
                     
              11                  to speak up.)   
                     
              12             MR. MASSEY:  So there is some heat associated 
                     
              13    with the spent fuel itself.  And one thing we want to 
                     
              14    look at is in a thermal environment, how does the heat 
                     
              15    that's already representative by the spent fuel inside, 
                     
              16    how does that add to any loads that you may see as a 
                     
              17    result of the fire.   
                     
              18                  So you bring up a good point from the 
                     
              19    package performance study.  And we need to take into 
                     
              20    account the spent fuel that's already in the package is 
                     
              21    that an elevated temperature in relation to the normal 
                     
              22    outside temperature and how does that temperature of the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           317 
 
               1    spent fuel itself, how does that add to any loads that 
                     
               2    we may see representative by a fire if the casks 
                     
               3    (inaudible.) 
                     
               4                    So it's a very good point and 
                     
               5    appropriate, too.  One of the things we'd like to look 
                     
               6    at in a package performance study. 
                     
               7             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Do we have any, anything 
                     
               8    more from the NRC or anybody else to add to, to the 
                     
               9    question that, questions that just came up?  Shall we 
                     
              10    move on to the next person?   
                     
              11                  All right.  Anybody else have a comment or 
                     
              12    question on spent fuel transportation, particularly this 
                     
              13    this packaging issue.  Paul? 
                     
              14             PAUL     :  I know this is contrary to the 
                     
              15    American way of life, but is it possible that the NRC in 
                     
              16    their regulations could encourage a particular  
                     
              17    shipper -- 
                     
              18             MR. CAMERON:  Can you stand up, Paul. 
                     
              19             PAUL     :  -- to use a consistent cask design? 
                     
              20    That wouldn't necessarily mean that everybody had to use 
                     
              21    the same design, but at least a particular campaign 
                     
              22    would use the same design.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           318 
 
               1                  You're going to look into human factors 
                     
               2    affects, and I think that human factors affects are 
                     
               3    significant and different if you have a series of 
                     
               4    different types of casks all thrown into the same place 
                     
               5    and versus having all the same kind.   
                     
               6                  And I was wondering if there's any way you 
                     
               7    could encourage specific shippers to use the same type 
                     
               8    of casks in their campaign. 
                     
               9             MR. CAMERON:  All right.  Susan?  Thank you, 
                     
              10    Paul. 
                     
              11             MS. SHANKMAN:  Let me answer that question by 
                     
              12    saying that we have a consistent level of safety and our 
                     
              13    regulations speak to criteria against which we judge all 
                     
              14    designs.   
                     
              15                  Human factors is not part of that review; 
                     
              16    however, we do require that cask users, Department of 
                     
              17    Transportation as well as NRC expects that cask shippers 
                     
              18    and carriers will have trained personnel.   
                     
              19                  So you're right that consistency of 
                     
              20    training and consistency of use can do something to 
                     
              21    standardize human performance.   
                     
              22                  But my area of expertise is human factors 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           319 
 
               1    engineering and there are many ways to standardize 
                     
               2    performance, having procedures, having standard check 
                     
               3    lists.  There are many ways to standardize performance. 
                     
               4                  And we do expect anybody who's in cask to 
                     
               5    follow the certificate of compliance and make sure that 
                     
               6    the cask is used consistent with what we've approved.  
                     
               7    And all those approvals as I say are all measured 
                     
               8    against the standard review plan in which we look for 
                     
               9    certain attributes.   
                     
              10                  In direct answer to your question, no, the 
                     
              11    NRC could not encourage anybody to use any particular 
                     
              12    design, but they cannot use a design that hasn't had a 
                     
              13    certificate of compliance from the NRC and that hasn't 
                     
              14    been reviewed by us.  So that way we ensure that there's 
                     
              15    a consistent margin of safety.   
                     
              16                  Does that answer your question? 
                     
              17             PAUL     :  Yes. 
                     
              18             MS. SHANKMAN:  Okay. 
                     
              19             MR. CAMERON:  All right.  I thought that I 
                     
              20    would just introduce someone.  Calvin Meyers is with us 
                     
              21    from the Moapa Paiutes and he's a transportation expert 
                     
              22    for them.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           320 
 
               1                  Calvin, do you want to have to offer 
                     
               2    anything or -- at this point?  And I apologize to the 
                     
               3    camera, but do you mind going up here a little bit and 
                     
               4    then I can get you on camera, okay. 
                     
               5             MR. MEYERS:  All right.  Good evening.  As Chip 
                     
               6    says, my name is Calvin Meyers.  I'm a member of the 
                     
               7    Moapa Paiutes.  I'm a former tribal counsel member.  I 
                     
               8    was vice chairman for three years.   
                     
               9                  I watched you people work and I watched 
                     
              10    you people disobey the law, in disobeying the law.  In 
                     
              11    February or March, I was at a commission meeting I was 
                     
              12    invited to in Washington.  I had asked a question at 
                     
              13    that meeting about trust responsibility.  Counsel has 
                     
              14    never given me a letter saying anything about trust 
                     
              15    responsibility.  And they know what it is now.  They're 
                     
              16    supposed to know.   
                     
              17                  It's not up to us to train you, it's up to 
                     
              18    you to obey what's there.   
                     
              19                  I have a few -- well, a lot, I guess, 
                     
              20    concerns.  But some of the concerns that I really have 
                     
              21    is about when you transport, no matter how safe you make 
                     
              22    it, you're still gonna have human error.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           321 
 
               1                  And when you study human error, you use 
                     
               2    the public.  Well, we're not part of the public.  I'm 
                     
               3    sorry.  We're not part of the county or the state, we 
                     
               4    are a nation of our own.   
                     
               5                  But I've talked to people about what would 
                     
               6    happen if say when your truck drivers just fell asleep. 
                     
               7    That's easy to do on these roads.  I see a lot of people 
                     
               8    run off the road where it's straight.   
                     
               9                  What happens if they -- say our tribal 
                     
              10    counsel is going to a meeting maybe here in Las Vegas, 
                     
              11    maybe in Utah, it could be anywhere, and all of our 
                     
              12    leaders are in that van?  Do you guys -- your shipment 
                     
              13    hits that van killing everybody on board?  Not only do 
                     
              14    you destroy our government for the moment, which you've 
                     
              15    also destroyed six or seven lives, which -- and I know 
                     
              16    in the studies that have been done, it's acceptable.  
                     
              17    But for the public, but we're not public.  Six or seven 
                     
              18    lives is a lot of people for us because we only have, we 
                     
              19    have less than 290 enrolled members.   
                     
              20                  And in -- and I'm not sure of where what 
                     
              21    you guys are gonna do about it or if you're ever gonna 
                     
              22    think about it because I don't think anybody has because 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           322 
 
               1    nobody's ever said anything.   
                     
               2                  And most tribes, especially the Paiute 
                     
               3    tribe, there's seven or eight of us.  We're all small.  
                     
               4    I think Moapa is one of the bigger ones or it might be 
                     
               5    the biggest one.  So that could happen to any of the 
                     
               6    tribes, not just to my tribe.   
                     
               7                  And I have a concern about the 
                     
               8    accumulation of radio, radio leak right along side the 
                     
               9    road.   
                     
              10                  I'm, I was on the site team for the 
                     
              11    innermost transportation to Nevada Test Site for the 
                     
              12    Department of Energy Nevada operations.  Well when you 
                     
              13    look at the study, the study had talked about nothing 
                     
              14    but the area of where the innermost site was at.  It 
                     
              15    didn't say it was gonna go down what road because they 
                     
              16    didn't study the road and how it's gonna get there or 
                     
              17    how it's gonna get to the site and then from the site to 
                     
              18    the test site.   
                     
              19                  That's -- to me, that's your way of 
                     
              20    thinking because when I first started, my reservation 
                     
              21    wasn't even on the map and we've been here a hell of a 
                     
              22    lot longer than you guys have.  We've been here way 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           323 
 
               1    before.  We said hi to you many, many years ago and now 
                     
               2    we're kind of sorry about it.   
                     
               3                  But, but what we, what we had done with 
                     
               4    about the region of influence because we, we think not 
                     
               5    just of the way you're gonna walk on the sidewalk, we 
                     
               6    think about what's crossing that sidewalk, how far does 
                     
               7    the animals come to feed off of that sidewalk.  You 
                     
               8    know, everything that happens that concerns that 
                     
               9    sidewalk.  That's what we think about.  We don't think 
                     
              10    about well, we're gonna put it down the road and not 
                     
              11    worry about it.  And so we had taken their region of 
                     
              12    influence from 50 feet to 20 or 30 miles.  And if you 
                     
              13    don't really actually want to think that way, well then 
                     
              14    you're in big trouble because that's what happens.   
                     
              15                  Life in a city is completely different 
                     
              16    from life in a rural place like where I live at.  
                     
              17    There's not many people out there.  We don't have the 
                     
              18    pool from the government.  The State does, we don't, yet 
                     
              19    we're supposed to have that government-to-government 
                     
              20    relationship with the United States government, but 
                     
              21    everybody else has more than we do.   
                     
              22                  And just to show that fact, there's not 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           324 
 
               1    one tribe in the state of Nevada that's effective.  So I 
                     
               2    always tell them, you know, you people, the only way 
                     
               3    (unintelligible) light a balloon over your railroad and 
                     
               4    your interstate when you think about it.  These things 
                     
               5    are passing over my lands to protect me?  I don't think 
                     
               6    so.   
                     
               7                  And all the, al          18    you guys are going to obey the laws that are on the 
                     
              19    lands already.  Thank you. 
                     
              20             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Calvin.  I think 
                     
              21    that there's a couple of points here that we may be able 
                     
              22    to, to address.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           325 
 
               1                  One is the, the whole issue of human error 
                     
               2    that Calvin brought up in terms of how our regulatory 
                     
               3    framework or how the federal regulatory framework deals 
                     
               4    with human error, the whole human factors discussion 
                     
               5    that we had.   
                     
               6                  And I guess the second point, and this 
                     
               7    specifically goes to Calvin's point on trust 
                     
               8    responsibilities and the tribes, is could we offer any 
                     
               9    information on how tribal governments specifically are 
                     
              10    brought in in terms of the transportation of spent fuel? 
                     
              11                  And that's not just directed at the NRC.  
                     
              12    It's directed at any of the federal agencies that are 
                     
              13    here.   
                     
              14                  I think we can offer some things that we 
                     
              15    are doing, the NRC is doing on that in terms of trying 
                     
              16    to fulfill our trust responsibility to the tribes.   
                     
              17                  But why don't we start with human factors, 
                     
              18    first, Susan. 
                     
              19             MS. SHANKMAN:  Okay.  As I mentioned, there are 
                     
              20    many ways of standardizing human performance.  The three 
                     
              21    basic ways that are used by anyone who is performing a 
                     
              22    task or having a task performed are simply either to 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           326 
 
               1    engineer it in so that you can do it, if you have a bolt 
                     
               2    where you can only screw it in one way and if you don't 
                     
               3    do it that way, it won't screw in.  So that would be an 
                     
               4    engineer's way of controlling human behavior.   
                     
               5                  Another way to have procedures in which 
                     
               6    there is check and recheck and the cask is checked by 
                     
               7    somebody other than the person who did it.   
                     
               8                  And a third way is through training.  As I 
                     
               9    said, the Department of Transportation expects that the 
                     
              10    people involved in the shipment of radioactive material 
                     
              11    and spent fuel are trained.   
                     
              12                  The NRC also reviews the designs and 
                     
              13    conditions of use, so that in our certificates we will 
                     
              14    say there are certain tests that have to be performed 
                     
              15    before something is shipped to ensure that it meets the 
                     
              16    regulations, whether it's in testing radioactivity, 
                     
              17    thermal tests, leak tests so that these, these must be 
                     
              18    performed before it can be shipped.  And there are these 
                     
              19    conditions of use so to speak are in the certificate of 
                     
              20    compliance.   
                     
              21                  The point of human error is that it 
                     
              22    occurs.  I'm not gonna tell you that people do not make 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           327 
 
               1    errors.  The point of what we did when we did designs is 
                     
               2    to look at the potential for human error and make sure 
                     
               3    that if there are any things that must be checked before 
                     
               4    a shipment is made, that there is a check to make sure 
                     
               5    that it complies with the regulations so that if it's 
                     
               6    loaded properly and it has the right combination within 
                     
               7    the cask, then the radioactivity that's tested for will 
                     
               8    not exceed the regulation.  I don't know if I've 
                     
               9    answered you directly. 
                     
              10             MR. CAMERON:  Well, let's give Ron a chance to 
                     
              11    supplement that.  Ron? 
                     
              12             MR. PARKHILL:  Well, I like what Susan said.  
                     
              13    You mentioned that specifically about a driver falling 
                     
              14    asleep, that type of human error.   
                     
              15                  I think that that type of human error in 
                     
              16    particular will be part of the study because when we do 
                     
              17    our predictions for the accident rates, so that we can 
                     
              18    predict how many accidents we might expect.   
                     
              19                  We'll use historical records to make our 
                     
              20    prediction about gas and the rates.  And those 
                     
              21    historical records, as you know a lot of accidents 
                     
              22    happened to be because of driver error and those are in 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           328 
 
               1    the historical records of accidents.                 
                     
               2                  So we would expect driver error in the 
                     
               3    future to be included in the study with an upcoming 
                     
               4    packet role study. 
                     
               5             MS. SHANKMAN:  I think to answer your question 
                     
               6    another way, driver error encourage safety are at far 
                     
               7    something that we're aware of and therefore we rely on 
                     
               8    the cask and not the mode of transportation for 
                     
               9    containing radioactivity when it's been transported.   
                     
              10                  The cask itself is the protection of 
                     
              11    public health and safety, not carriage.  Not the truck, 
                     
              12    not the train. 
                     
              13             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Before we go to some 
                     
              14    comments on this specific tribal issue, let's see what 
                     
              15    Calvin has to offer on that. 
                     
              16             MR. MEYERS:  I'm really not worried about the 
                     
              17    radioactivity getting out of the cask.  What I commented 
                     
              18    more on is, is the lives that could be lost from the 
                     
              19    tribe and there's no way that you can repay us for 
                     
              20    those.   
                     
              21                  And while you were talking, I was thinking 
                     
              22    about the Department of Energy or the other atomic 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           329 
 
               1    energy commission when they were doing above-ground 
                     
               2    tests.  We already, we have enough cancers, thank you, 
                     
               3    we don't need anymore.  And to me this is -- and when I 
                     
               4    talk to people about it they think it's worst than I do 
                     
               5    because I know a little bit about what you guys are 
                     
               6    talking about.                 
                     
               7                  But the public at home, my public, is 
                     
               8    afraid of it.  They're not real sure what it can do to 
                     
               9    you.  And in fact, you people don't really know what it 
                     
              10    can do to you because you haven't played with it long 
                     
              11    enough.   
                     
              12                  You can do the studies, you can do 
                     
              13    whatever you want, but there's always gonna be -- I 
                     
              14    mean, even when you built that thing, how do people know 
                     
              15    that they're all the same like the exact same as they 
                     
              16    were tested, materials, craftsmanship, everything.   
                     
              17                  And you people seem to want to just focus 
                     
              18    on just one little portion of the project.  But it's a 
                     
              19    project.  It's a, it's a big project.  It's not just 
                     
              20    well, I'm gonna do this and I'm gonna do that type of 
                     
              21    thing.  And it's -- and the training for the truck, 
                     
              22    truck drivers, it still, it doesn't make that much 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           330 
 
               1    difference to me because you're still gonna have the 
                     
               2    errors.   
                     
               3                  I mean, some of you could be driving down 
                     
               4    the road.  I've seen it a lot where they go north on the 
                     
               5    southbound lane.  And it happens clear out in the middle 
                     
               6    of the desert and there's no way that you can get on the 
                     
               7    freeway.  So there's a lot of things.   
                     
               8                  In fact, what I would like to do is see 
                     
               9    one of these meetings out at my reservation.  Come out 
                     
              10    there and see where we live.  You people never come to 
                     
              11    the reservations.  I guess you're afraid of us.  I guess 
                     
              12    you might think you're gonna get some of that radiation 
                     
              13    from us that we already have.   
                     
              14                  And so I don't know what, how we can make 
                     
              15    our point come across because it seems like it's always 
                     
              16    come to deaf ears where they really don't want to listen 
                     
              17    to us because we can raise questions that they can't 
                     
              18    answer because they don't, they don't know the, they 
                     
              19    don't understand us.   
                     
              20                  We don't think in, in the microscopic 
                     
              21    world.  We think of the whole world as one thing because 
                     
              22    it's all tied together.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           331 
 
               1                  And one of these days you guys will learn 
                     
               2    and you should have learned a long time ago when you 
                     
               3    were told not to even play with the nuclear stuff that 
                     
               4    you're playing with.  Because you were told a long time 
                     
               5    ago by a medicine man before you guys really got into it 
                     
               6    that it's gonna kill you, it's gonna destroy you.  And 
                     
               7    it will because you don't want to learn.  You want to do 
                     
               8    what you can do to make that dollar, and that dollar is 
                     
               9    gonna kill you.  And that's the way, that's the way we 
                     
              10    see the world. 
                     
              11             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, Calvin.  I think that -- 
                     
              12    and I won't, can't really speak for the NRC staff that 
                     
              13    are here, but I think that the NRC staff would come out 
                     
              14    definitely to talk to the tribal counsel and all we need 
                     
              15    do is to try to arrange that, but I know there is a 
                     
              16    willingness to come out and talk and we'll figure out 
                     
              17    how to do that.   
                     
              18                  And other NRC staff people may want to 
                     
              19    talk to that, but I'd like to have two people address 
                     
              20    Calvin's concern about how the tribes are consulted in 
                     
              21    terms of transportation.   
                     
              22                  And first we're gonna go to Bob Alcock 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           332 
 
               1    from the Department of Energy and then we're going to go 
                     
               2    to Earl Easton from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  
                     
               3    Bob?   
                     
               4             MR. ALCOCK:  Thank you.  I didn't know about 
                     
               5    the cameras.  Let me just address the Department of 
                     
               6    Energy is a shipper of nuclear materials.  There are 
                     
               7    many thousand of shippers of nuclear material every day 
                     
               8    in the United States.  We are but one of them.   
                     
               9                  We are regulated by the Department of 
                     
              10    Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
                     
              11    with the things that we do.  We are also required by 
                     
              12    presidential executive order and the departments on 
                     
              13    Indian policy to consult the tribal nations when we 
                     
              14    prepare shipping campaigns.   
                     
              15                  And in this case of material for instance 
                     
              16    that goes to our site in Idaho, we consult early on and 
                     
              17    consistently with Shoshone Bannicks because both the 
                     
              18    highway and rail routes into the Idaho national nuclear 
                     
              19    and environment laboratory crosses the reservation 
                     
              20    lanes.   
                     
              21                  About a year and a half ago we had a case 
                     
              22    in northern Nevada with the Pyramid Lake Paiutes where 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           333 
 
               1    we were shipping research reactor fuel across their 
                     
               2    reservation there on a rail line.  We brought them into 
                     
               3    the transportation planning process early on.   
                     
               4                  And as a matter of fact, I've got a 
                     
               5    meeting next week in Washington to follow-up on some 
                     
               6    emergency response preparedness issues.  We are 
                     
               7    continuing to work with that tribe as, as a result of 
                     
               8    that shipping campaign.  Even though the shipment 
                     
               9    happened a year and a half ago, we're still working with 
                     
              10    them.   
                     
              11                  And in our case in Nevada, we have a 
                     
              12    gentleman here from RW who can maybe speak to this, but 
                     
              13    there are both internal and external issues as you well 
                     
              14    know related to the tribal nations here.   
                     
              15                  But we do have in our Nevada operations 
                     
              16    office a means of consulting with the tribes in the area 
                     
              17    on the Yucca Mountain project.   
                     
              18                  And I hope I'm not with the department in 
                     
              19    2010 or 12 and 15 when we start shipping material, if we 
                     
              20    start shipping material to depository.  But I, I can't 
                     
              21    imagine the tribes in Nevada and the tribes in proximity 
                     
              22    to all the shipping routes that come into Nevada from 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           334 
 
               1    whatever point in the United States where this material 
                     
               2    is now that the nuclear reactor would not be consulted 
                     
               3    early on in the routing decisions and the security 
                     
               4    decisions and the public health and safety issues, in 
                     
               5    issues like where the safe havens might be or the rest 
                     
               6    stops might be or the, you can, you know, they wouldn't 
                     
               7    where appropriate where they have emergency response 
                     
               8    responsibilities it would be involved in training, in 
                     
               9    the training which we would pay for.  The whole panophly 
                     
              10    (phonetic) of logistical questions the tribes would be 
                     
              11    consulted on. 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thanks, Bob.  I'm going to 
                     
              13    go to Earl Easton now from the NRC staff and then we'll 
                     
              14    see who else has questions here.  And if Calvin has a 
                     
              15    comment, we'll come back to you. 
                     
              16             MR. EASTON:  I'd just like to make two brief 
                     
              17    comments about your second one, the rights of Native 
                     
              18    Americans and that shipping study.  First, I think it's 
                     
              19    an excellent idea to go visit the reservation.  We have 
                     
              20    done so.  We have an application in the state of Utah 
                     
              21    where we have held meetings on reservations, on 
                     
              22    sovereign Indian nations.  They're up against the 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           335 
 
               1    problem was the state.  The state thought that they 
                     
               2    didn't have the influence.  So I think it's a great 
                     
               3    suggestion and I think we ought to follow-up on that.   
                     
               4                  The second, the commission is undertaking 
                     
               5    an initiative.  We have an advance notice of public rule 
                     
               6    making that's bureaucratic jargon for saying we're 
                     
               7    asking people for comments on a ruling about 
                     
               8    notification of Native Americans when there are spent 
                     
               9    fuel shipments.   
                     
              10                  And this is out for comment.  I don't 
                     
              11    think it's necessarily that the comments have to be 
                     
              12    narrowed in scope so if there are other issues that are 
                     
              13    related to shipment of spent fuel, I think they're 
                     
              14    welcome.   
                     
              15                  And I think this is really a first stage 
                     
              16    in this dialogue, this type of dialogue to get the 
                     
              17    public and Native Americans involved. 
                     
              18             MR. CAMERON:  And thanks, Earl.  And I think 
                     
              19    just one technical correction on that is I don't think 
                     
              20    it's been issued for comment yet although it has been 
                     
              21    approved.  And Calvin, we will make sure that we get you 
                     
              22    a copy of that for, for commenting.  When it comes out, 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           336 
 
               1    we'll send it to you directly.   
                     
               2                  I think Richard Swedberg from the 
                     
               3    Department of Transportation has something to offer on 
                     
               4    this.  Go ahead, Richard. 
                     
               5             MR. SWEDBERG:  Calvin, I just want to tell you 
                     
               6    also to follow-up with what the Department of Energy 
                     
               7    says that we in the code of federal regulations for 
                     
               8    Department of Transportation, we recognize Indian tribes 
                     
               9    and their sovereignty for wherever our routes cross 
                     
              10    Indian lands and the definition in 49 CFR 397 where we 
                     
              11    talk about routing authority in gratitude (phonetic.)  
                     
              12    Any time a route crosses Indian tribal lands, that state 
                     
              13    routing agency has the sovereignty and ability to 
                     
              14    designate wherever routes they want to transportation to 
                     
              15    proceed.   
                     
              16                  So if there's any time that a route 
                     
              17    crosses an Indian land, you can have -- we recognize as 
                     
              18    separate from the State routing agency Indian tribal 
                     
              19    routing agency, and you can route of where you want the 
                     
              20    shipments to go as long as it's within your sovereignty. 
                     
              21                  The other part of it is is that the, there 
                     
              22    are also registration fees that are prepaid for all 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           337 
 
               1    hazardous materials transportation.  And those funds are 
                     
               2    also opened to tribal lands (inaudible) for emergency 
                     
               3    responses. 
                     
               4             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thanks, Richard, for 
                     
               5    telling us about that.  Before I check back with Calvin 
                     
               6    or Ernie or Caren, does anybody else, or Paul or anybody 
                     
               7    else who has a question or comment for the NRC at this 
                     
               8    point?  Okay.   
                     
               9                  Caren, do you have any other discussions 
                     
              10    or anymore questions from your perspective? 
                     
              11             MS. LEVENSON:  No. 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Ernie? 
                     
              13             MR. BUSHMAN:  Well, I just -- 
                     
              14             MR. CAMERON:  And let me bring you the mic. 
                     
              15             MR. BUSHMAN:  I just wanted to say thanks for 
                     
              16    the outreach effort that seems to be appearing.  It's 
                     
              17    more than has happened in the 40 or 50 years of the 
                     
              18    nuclear industry.  There's been so much that's been 
                     
              19    placed or played so close to the chest of the agency 
                     
              20    that the public really has not known and probably could 
                     
              21    not know what was being done.   
                     
              22                  But the nuclear agents certainly has been 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           338 
 
               1    here during my life time and it's certainly impacted my 
                     
               2    life personally.  And for that reason I find myself here 
                     
               3    in Henderson after retiring from Michigan and finding 
                     
               4    the same stuff standing up there on the board that I saw 
                     
               5    way back there with the Repo Ferme 1 (phonetic) and the 
                     
               6    Repo Ferme 2 (phonetic) and Palisades and all the 
                     
               7    accidents that we need not mention.  But certainly some 
                     
               8    effort's being made to deal with the public now and I'm 
                     
               9    thankful for that. 
                     
              10             MR. CAMERON:  Thank you, Ernie.  And thank you 
                     
              11    for being here.  I mean, that's what makes it all 
                     
              12    possible, that people from the public come out to, to 
                     
              13    talk to, to the agency.   
                     
              14                  Paul, do you have anything else at this 
                     
              15    point? 
                     
              16             PAUL     :  No. 
                     
              17             MR. CAMERON:  All right.  Calvin, do you have 
                     
              18    anything?   
                     
              19             MR. MEYERS:  It's all good and well to hear 
                     
              20    that current management does have some type of a 
                     
              21    program.  Consultation to me and if you ask the tribe, 
                     
              22    it's getting the big boys to talk to our counsel.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           339 
 
               1                  When you go to Japan, when President 
                     
               2    Clinton talks to Japan, he doesn't send the janitor 
                     
               3    over, he goes himself or he sends the people that's 
                     
               4    rightful.  He doesn't send the janitor.  He goes.  They 
                     
               5    get higher up people, we get the flunkies, we get the 
                     
               6    janitors.  That's not government, government.   
                     
               7                  When you say consultation, sending a 
                     
               8    letter in the mail is not consultation.  And who says 
                     
               9    that that letter gets to the tribe?   
                     
              10                  Some of the things that I heard tonight 
                     
              11    too is surprising because I've never heard it.  That's 
                     
              12    how much early on involvement the tribe has.   
          
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           340 
 
               1                  The Department of Energy really doesn't 
                     
               2    have a consultation to the tribe.  The Yucca Mountain 
                     
               3    project, and you're talking about part of it, has come 
                     
               4    out to my reservation once in the whole time they've 
                     
               5    been looking at Yucca Mountain.  That's consultation.  
                     
               6                  Consultation is getting the tribes 
                     
               7    involved early on.  But when I talk to you about that 
                     
               8    study that I was on for the Nevada Test Site, their 
                     
               9    study was already over.  It was already written.  That's 
                     
              10    how early on, not just the Department of Energy, not 
                     
              11    just NRC, but the whole, it seems like the whole 
                     
              12    government itself treats the tribes.   
                     
              13                  I can stand up here and really just say a 
                     
              14    lot, but I don't know if -- to me this isn't the right 
                     
              15    place.  I mean, I can talk to you individually and tell 
                     
              16    you how I feel about what should happen.   
                     
              17                  And I know one thing is that if the tribe 
                     
              18    is at fault for not giving you in my mind the way you're 
                     
              19    supposed to consult with us, but consulting is not up to 
                     
              20    the tribe to go to the DOE and ask them for pennies so 
                     
              21    we can go somewhere, but it's up to the DOE to bring us 
                     
              22    dollars because they're the ones -- the Department of 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           341 
 
               1    NRC, you people are the ones that are doing the action 
                     
               2    that can get back the tribes, it's not the tribes 
                     
               3    getting back the action.   
                     
               4                  So let's -- and I kind of -- when I 
                     
               5    listened to the guy from the Department of 
                     
               6    Transportation, that rule is nice and fine but there's 
                     
               7    only two roads on the reservation.   
                     
               8                  The power of the reservation is not just 
                     
               9    within its boundaries, the power of the reservation is 
                     
              10    outside of its boundaries.  And that's written into the 
                     
              11    law with the sacred sites law that's out.  And sacred 
                     
              12    sites are always on the reservation within, within the 
                     
              13    boundaries.   
                     
              14                  So I, I know that transportation, we've 
                     
              15    always been told they can't tell us because we're a 
                     
              16    security risk.  I've heard that many times.  And they've 
                     
              17    never told us anything.  They've never told us when 
                     
              18    they're coming down the road, they never told us what's 
                     
              19    even in the shipment because we're considered national 
                     
              20    security risk.   
                     
              21                  I'm not sure if all tribes are, and I know 
                     
              22    that Idaho works better with the tribes up there, but we 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           342 
 
               1    have Yucca Mountain.  And they don't know how to work 
                     
               2    with the tribes.  They have geologists as their head 
                     
               3    consultant to the tribes.  A geologist.  And then I'll 
                     
               4    tell you this and this is the way I feel about what goes 
                     
               5    on.   
                     
               6                  In '93, '92, '93, I was at a meeting here 
                     
               7    in Las Vegas with the Aladdin with the national counsel, 
                     
               8    national congress of American Indians.  I was asking 
                     
               9    Carl Briggs who is the acting manager, they've always 
                     
              10    got the acting in front, too, the question about -- I 
                     
              11    can't remember what the question was, but anyways he 
                     
              12    wouldn't give me an answer.  He talked about the man on 
                     
              13    the moon, but he wouldn't answer my question.   
                     
              14                  Well after the meeting was over with and I 
                     
              15    was the vice-chair for the tribe at the time.  So not 
                     
              16    only was I there as a representative of the tribe in the 
                     
              17    nuclear waste division, but I was also there as a 
                     
              18    counsel member.   
                     
              19                  Well, after this meeting was over with, 
                     
              20    the two consultants, one of them is a geologist and I 
                     
              21    don't know what the other, what the lady was, came and 
                     
              22    yelled and screamed at me.  They screamed so bad, so 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           343 
 
               1    hard that they started turning red.  And I stood there 
                     
               2    and I listened.  And I didn't say anything back to them. 
                     
               3    I let them do whatever they wanted, but a couple days 
                     
               4    later the secretary of energy knew about it.   
                     
               5                  That's the way a lot of the, especially 
                     
               6    with Yucca Mountain project, treats the tribes.  And 
                     
               7    even though I stand up and I'll, I'll tell you things 
                     
               8    like no trust responsibility, that's not a lie.  That's 
                     
               9    not something to fight about, that's something that 
                     
              10    needs to be worked over, that needs to be talked about, 
                     
              11    that needs to be implemented, not just go in one ear and 
                     
              12    out the other.   
                     
              13                  So it's hard for me to tell you, go on 
                     
              14    with this because it takes too much time. 
                     
              15             MR. CAMERON:  Okay, thank you, Calvin.  You 
                     
              16    made very important points about what early consultation 
                     
              17    means, what it has to mean and personal interaction 
                     
              18    between the agency and the high level management of the 
                     
              19    agency and the tribal counsel.   
                     
              20                  And I'm sure that there may be NRC staff 
                     
              21    who will take you up on your offer to talk to you 
                     
              22    personally after we break tonight.   
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           344 
 
               1                  Are there other comments?  And we're gonna 
                     
               2    go to you now.   
                     
               3                  I would just say from the film crew that 
                     
               4    if there are other people here who want to do an 
                     
               5    interview with the, with the film crew that didn't want 
                     
               6    to talk now for whatever reason, that they will be 
                     
               7    available and would like to do an interview with anybody 
                     
               8    who wants to share their perspectives on spent fuel 
                     
               9    transportation, right, Jennifer?  
                     
              10             JENNIFER     :  We'll be in 5C across the haul. 
                     
              11             MR. CAMERON:  5C.  There's a room over there.  
                     
              12    They'll be there after the meeting is over.  Anybody who 
                     
              13    wants to take that opportunity, please do so.   
                     
              14                  And I think we're gonna, we're gonna go 
                     
              15    for one more brief comment and then I think we'll 
                     
              16    probably be ready to adjourn for the evening.   
                     
              17                  And if you can just stand up and just -- 
                     
              18    and stand up and be short and -- 
                     
              19            MR. VESPERMAN:  Okay.   
                     
              20             MR. CAMERON:  And just introduce yourself to 
                     
              21    everybody. 
                     
              22             MR. VESPERMAN:  Yeah.  My name is Gary 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           345 
 
               1    Vesperman.  I live here in Henderson, and I have been 
                     
               2    associated with two companies of interest here.  One is 
                     
               3    the Containment System Incorporated.  They have results 
                     
               4    for a cask that's standard of EPA standard, safer, 
                     
               5    stronger and half the price of the one we've been 
                     
               6    talking about.  They also have just had an engineering 
                     
               7    nearly completed on the portable truck mounted nuclear 
                     
               8    fuel, radioactive fuel neutralizer.   
                     
               9                  The actual transportation technology was 
                     
              10    developed by another company I have been associated with 
                     
              11    and that is Cridergy (phonetic.)   
                     
              12                  This is a photograph of a flake of 
                     
              13    non-radioactive copper that used to be radioactive 
                     
              14    thorium.  The flake of radioactivity is called lower 
                     
              15    energy nuclear transportation, and currently it can 
                     
              16    change or transmit radioactive thorium and increase the 
                     
              17    radioactivity of storing by 90 percent in about an hour 
                     
              18    by day and the radioactivity's about all gone.   
                     
              19                  They have also developed the biggest of 
                     
              20    another process similar to this that they did about a 
                     
              21    million times more powerful than the one that they have. 
                     
              22                  So really, folks, I believe that exercise 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           346 
 
               1    that we would be indulging in is kind of academic 
                     
               2    because we now have the method, the technology for 
                     
               3    neutralizing the radioactivity of waste nuclear fuels 
                     
               4    right on site at the nuclear power plant. 
                     
               5             MR. CAMERON:  Okay.  Thank you, Gary.  And 
                     
               6    there is a formal statement that was submitted that will 
                     
               7    be part of the record. 
                     
               8             MR. VESPERMAN:  I have extra copies of my 
                     
               9    letter if anybody wants a copy. 
                     
              10             MR. CAMERON:  And if you want to talk to Gary 
                     
              11    about this or get a copy of the letter, just see him 
                     
              12    after we adjourn the meeting.   
                     
              13                  I don't think that -- anybody have any 
                     
              14    final comments for us besides the deputy director of the 
                     
              15    spent fuel project?  Susan?   
                     
              16             MS. SHANKMAN:  I just want to sort of mention 
                     
              17    the next steps.  As Rob told you, you have way to get in 
                     
              18    touch with us if you want to get on our mailing list.  
                     
              19                  The other thing is the end of phase one 
                     
              20    which is the development of the study design will occur 
                     
              21    in the spring.  We will be back in Nevada, we will 
                     
              22    probably be as I said in St. Louis and probably in 
                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           347 
 
               1    Atlanta.   
                     
               2                  But the point is that I will tell you that 
                     
               3    the study design will be on the web site at least five 
                     
               4    weeks ahead of the first meeting.   
                     
               5                  So I would ask that anyone here who's 
                     
               6    interested would either be on the mailing list or 
                     
               7    interact with the web site and make sure that you know 
                     
               8    what Sandia is proposing to the NRC as a study design.  
                     
               9    So we can get your comments either at the meeting or 
                     
              10    through the web site.  So thank you for coming tonight. 
                     
              11    Chip. 
                     
              12             MR. CAMERON:  I would just, I don't think 
                     
              13    anything more needs to be said.  Thank you.  Thank you 
                     
              14    all.  And we'll be here for personal interactions.  
                     
              15    Thank you.   
                     
              16                  (Whereupon, the proceedings 
                     
              17                  concluded at 8:55 a.m.) 
                     
              18     
                     
              19     
                     
              20     
                     
              21     
                     
              22