POLICY ISSUE 

INFORMATION 

July 11, 2008 SECY-08-0101

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: HOW THE NRC COULD BETTER INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT 

 THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF 

RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN THE UNITED STATES 

PURPOSE: 

To report to the Commission how the NRC could better inform the public about the risks 

associated with transportation of radioactive material compared to other hazardous material 

transported across the U.S. and the requirements the NRC has put in place to reduce these 

risks. Staff has chosen to focus on spent fuel because it is shipped in rail and truck casks that 

are comparable in both size and weight to the tank cars used to ship hazardous materials that 

exhibit the greatest transportation risk, and because spent fuel shipments have been a major 

focus of the public and the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M). 

BACKGROUND: 

For the past several years, NRC’s outreach effort in the area of transportation safety has mostly 

focused on the potential shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a 

potential geological repository or interim storage site, and has been addressed primarily to State 

and local government organizations. State and local government organizations have been 

specifically chosen because of: (1) their prospective regulatory roles in such shipments (e.g., 

inspections, routing, fees, etc.); (2) the need to provide States and local governments with 

information useful for their own outreach efforts; and (3) and the long lead times needed by 

State and local governments for planning (e.g., emergency response training, assessment of 

transportation infrastructure, etc.). Staff is prepared to expand its outreach efforts to include a 

wider public audience, as potential spent fuel shipping campaigns become more imminent, and 

to support NRC’s licensing efforts for new power reactors, potential interim storage sites, and the 

proposed geological repository. 

CONTACT: Earl P. Easton, NMSS/SFST 

 (301) 492-3307 
The Commissioners -2- 

Staff has used the communication guidelines set forth in “Effective Risk Communication” 

(NUREG/BR-0308) in developing its safety messages on the transportation of spent fuel based 

on risk comparisons. Staff has also been guided by the stated objectives of openness and 

effectiveness in the NRC’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2008-2013 (NUREG1614, Vol. 4) in 

external communication with stakeholders. As part of this outreach effort, NRC staff has often 

used risk comparisons between the transportation of spent fuel and other hazardous materials, 

such as chlorine, ammonia, gasoline, and propane. The primary purposes of making these 

comparisons have been to illustrate that the risk of shipping spent fuel is very low and is much 

lower than that involved in the shipment of other commonly shipped hazardous materials. These 

comparisons also highlight that the lowered risk results from the way in which risk is managed 

for spent fuel transportation – primarily through the use of “accident-resistant” transportation 

casks. 

DISCUSSION: 

Consistent with the Commission's guidance in Staff Requirement Memorandum (SRM) 

M071114, NRC staff met with representatives from the ACNW&M in March 2008. PowerPoint 

slides used by the staff in the March 2008 briefing can be found at ML081440732. Most of the 

slides contained in the presentation have been used in previous presentations to stakeholders to 

illustrate how the risk of shipping spent fuel compares to that of other commonly shipped 

hazardous materials. 

In using risk comparisons between the transportation of spent fuel and other hazardous 

materials, staff has found that the context and manner in which the message is delivered is often 

as important as the message itself. For some audience members, such comparisons have been 

seen and characterized as an attempt to trivialize the risks of spent fuel shipments. This point of 

view was recently expressed in a paper presented at the 2008 Waste Management Symposia; 

entitled Why DOE’s Messages on Transportation Don’t Resonate with the Public (and What 

DOE Can Do to Fix the Problem) (ML081440733.) For other audience members, it has 

seemingly provided a needed perspective for making an informed judgment. 

The challenge associated with informing the public about the risks of shipping radioactive 

material is not communicating the risks, but it is gaining the public’s acceptance of the message. 

As illustrated in the recent Mega Disaster show entitled “Glow Train Catastrophe,” which aired 

on the History Channel on June 24, 2008, the public views expert assessments of risk 

skeptically and with the expectation that “anything can happen.” 

One way that staff has found risk comparison to be useful for general audiences is to use it as a 

tool to explain how risk is managed for spent fuel transportation. The use of risk comparisons 

can then be seen as a measure of the effectiveness of NRC and Department of Transportation 

(DOT) transportation safety regulations, rather than an attempt to have audiences accept the 

risk based on the fact that other accepted (i.e., necessary) activities are more risky. One of the 

ways this can be done is effectively by framing the risk comparison in the following manner: 

1. Recognize/understand/validate stakeholders’ concerns. 

Avoid risk comparisons implying that spent fuel is not a hazardous or dangerous 

material. Don’t trivialize the hazard. Remember a primary reason that stakeholders are 
The Commissioners -3- 

present is precisely because they believe that spent fuel is, or can be, an extremely 

hazardous commodity to transport. 

2. Explain what the Commission has done to address those concerns. 

Explain what the Commission is doing to manage or reduce the risk (i.e., address 

stakeholder concerns). The risk is reduced because the casks used to transport spent 

nuclear fuel are designed to prevent radioactive material releases or increased radiation 

exposures in a severe transportation accident. The risk is lowered even further because 

of the lower number of spent fuel shipments, and the fact that spent fuel is shipped in a 

solid non-dispersible form. The risks and the way that risk is managed for spent fuel 

shipments (e.g., “accident-resistant” packaging and increased operating controls) are 

different from the way risk is managed for other hazardous material shipments. 

(Comparison of how risk is managed). 

3. Give measures of how NRC efforts have been effective in addressing stakeholder 

concerns. 

The way that risks are managed for spent fuel shipments has resulted in lower risk 

estimates for spent fuel shipments than for shipment of almost any other hazardous 

material. This is borne out by DOT accident statistics, studies by independent agencies 

and expert panels such as the National Academy of Sciences, and NRC’s own risk 

studies (e.g., NUREG-0170 and NUREG/CR-6672) (comparison of risks as a result of 

risk management). 

4. Reinforce/emphasize the NRC commitment to protect public health and safety and 

common defense and security. 

Even though the risk of shipping spent fuel is significantly lower than the risks of other 

hazardous material shipments, NRC is continually reviewing severe accidents and 

sabotage scenarios to ensure that current regulations still protect public health and 

safety. 

Future Focus

In accordance with the Commission’s guidance in SRM M071114, the NRC staff has adopted a 

three-pronged approach that includes both short-term and long-term actions to appropriately 

communicate the risks involved with transportation of radioactive materials, and NRC’s actions 

to mitigate those risks. First, in the short term, NRC’s outreach effort in the area of 

transportation safety will remain focused on State and local government organizations. One of 

the goals is to provide States and local governments with information that could be useful for 

their own outreach efforts, including comparisons of the overall risks of shipping spent fuel and 

other hazardous materials. The NRC's short-term outreach efforts should remain focused on the 

potential shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a potential geological 

repository or interim storage site. 

Second, the staff is prepared to expand its outreach efforts to include a wider public audience, 

as potential spent fuel shipping campaigns become more imminent, and to support NRC’s 
The Commissioners -4- 

licensing efforts for new power reactors, potential interim storage sites, and a geological 

repository. To address a wider public audience, the staff is making greater use of web-based 

materials and is considering whether to develop appropriate factsheets. Staff is currently 

developing a web-based interactive brochure on the risks associated with the transportation of 

radioactive materials, including spent nuclear fuel, and how the requirements NRC has put into 

place for transportation of radioactive materials have reduced those risks. 

Finally, the staff is also participating in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Transportation External 

Coordination (TEC) Working Group’s effort to develop more effective ways to communicate 

transportation safety messages with stakeholders. The TEC working group, which is chartered 

to coordinate transportation safety activities between the Federal Government and the States, 

has recently created a topic group dedicated to transportation safety and risk communication. 

One of the topics to be explored is how risk comparisons should be used to communicate the 

safety of spent fuel shipments. 

Staff will continue to monitor the effectiveness of its use of risk comparisons by monitoring public 

media coverage and through soliciting feedback from its external stakeholders. 

RESOURCES: 

No additional resources are required to maintain staff’s current level of outreach activities for 

transportation safety. Staff also believes that current FY 2009 resources of 0.5 FTE (fee based) 

and 1 FTE (Nuclear Waste Fund) and FY 2010 resources of 0.5 FTE (fee based) and 0.5 FTE 

(Nuclear Waste Fund) are adequate to support additional limited outreach activities related to 

NRC licensing actions for new reactors, potential interim storage sites, and a potential geologic 

repository. Outreach efforts will be curtailed if the amount of resources available from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund is reduced in FY 2010. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper, and has no legal objection. The 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no 

objections. 

/RA Martin J. Virgilio for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 
The Commissioners -4- 

licensing efforts for new power reactors, potential interim storage sites, and a geological 

repository. To address a wider public audience, the staff is making greater use of web-based 

materials and is considering whether to develop appropriate factsheets. Staff is currently 

developing a web-based interactive brochure, expected to be completed in the first quarter of 

fiscal year 2009, on the risks associated with the transportation of radioactive materials, 

including spent nuclear fuel, and how the requirements NRC has put into place for transportation 

of radioactive materials have reduced those risks. 

Finally, the staff is also participating in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Transportation External 

Coordination (TEC) Working Group’s effort to develop more effective ways to communicate 

transportation safety messages with stakeholders. The TEC working group, which is chartered 

to coordinate transportation safety activities between the Federal Government and the States, 

has recently created a topic group dedicated to transportation safety and risk communication. 

One of the topics to be explored is how risk comparisons should be used to communicate the 

safety of spent fuel shipments. 

Staff will continue to monitor the effectiveness of its use of risk comparisons by monitoring public 

media coverage and through soliciting feedback from its external stakeholders. 

RESOURCES: 

No additional resources are required to maintain staff’s current level of outreach activities for 

transportation safety. Staff also believes that current FY 2009 resources of 0.5 FTE (fee based) 

and 1 FTE (Nuclear Waste Fund) and FY 2010 resources of 0.5 FTE (fee based) and 0.5 FTE 

(Nuclear Waste Fund) are adequate to support additional limited outreach activities related to 

NRC licensing actions for new reactors, potential interim storage sites, and a potential geologic 

repository. Outreach efforts will be curtailed if the amount of resources available from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund is reduced in FY 2010. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper, and has no legal objection. The 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no 

objections. 

/RA Martin J. Virgilio for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML081410175 WITS200700472/EDATS: SECY-2007-0584 

OFFICE NMSS/SFST NMSS/SFST NMSS/SFST TechEd 

NAME EEaston NMamish EWBrach EKraus 

DATE 05/20/08 05/27/08 06/24/08 05/27/08 

OFFICE OCFO OGC NMSS EDO 

NAME LBarnett APessin MWeber RWBorchardt (MVirgilio for) 

DATE 06/24/08 06/17/08 06/30/08 07/11/08 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY