Date: 1985-07-16
Speaker: RONALD W. COCHRAN (republican)
Chamber: H

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Materials. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. COCHRAN: Earlier this year you met with Administrator Cindy Douglass to discuss the Department of Energys (DOE) plans to commence transportation of spent nuclear fuel from Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. New York to Idaho Falls. Idaho. At that time. you discussed several topics of mutual interest. including certain questions which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had raised concerning the MH1A cask which had been certified by DOE using the NRC performande standards set forth in 10 CFR Part 71. By letter dated January 17. 1985. you stated that NRC representatives had agreed that all questions had been postively addressed in a meeting with members of your staff. Accordingly. the MH1A cask was delivered to Brookhaven and transportation commenced shortly thereafter. The Department of Transportations (DOT) willingness to provide regulatory recognition of DOEapproved package designs is based on the premise that the DOE evaluation and approval process will provide an assurance of safety equivalent to that required by the NRC. such assurance can be provided only by: 1. Requiring the DOE package designs meet the standards of 10 CFR Part 71 or their equivalent. and 2. Ensuring that the evaluation methods used to demonstrate compliance with the standards are equivalent to those used by NRC in their evaluation of commercial package designs. The requirement of 49 CFR 173.7(d) is very clear on the first point. allowing the use of DOEapproved packagings only when ". . . evaluated. approved. and certified by the Department of Energy against packaging standards equivalent to those specified in 10 CFR Part 71." The second point is implicit and inescapable since equivalent safety can only be assured through the use of equivalent evaluation techniques and methodologies. Additionally. DOE has always maintained that. its evaluation techniques and methodologies are at least equivalent to those of NRC. The case of the MH1A cask design has raised questions concerning the equivalence of these evaluation processes and DOEs compliance with section 173.7(d). On May 21. 1985. I participated in a meeting with representatives of both DOE and NRC to discuss some of the concerns which NRC had expressed earlier this year. Although these questions had been addressed earlier. it appears that they have yet to be resolved. The essence of the meeting was stated succinctly in Mr. Richard E. Cunninghams letter of May 22. 1985. to Mr. David B. Leclaire (enclosed). The premise upon which DOE based its application for NRC certification of the MH1A cask is that it provides a level of safety far in excess of that which is actually required for the type of wastes being transported from Brookhaven. As Mr. Cunningham pointed out. this approach might not be the only way in which DOE could demonstrate that the MH1A cask meets the standards of 10 CFR Part 71. But having taken that approach. DOE must provide the analysis to support its premise. It is this underlying analysis which NRC has preliminarily found to be defective. Since DOE has asked NRC for an evaluation and the NRC has responded with substantial reservations. DOT must conclude that serious questions exist as to the "equivalence" of the evaluation on which DOE based its certification of the MH1A cask. Clearly. NRC concerns must be resolved before equivalence is assured to any degree. This will require that DOE respond to the NRC concerns and withdraw the cask from service until NRC has formally agreed with the resolution of the issues. I understand that DOE. upon being notified of NRCs concerns. voluntarily postponed a planned shipment from Brookhaven which was to have used the MHlA cask. Pending resolution of those concerns. DOE may wish to continue the Brookhaven shipping campaign using casks other than the MH1A. I further understand that DOE is giving consideration to revising its application for NRC certification by seeking separate approvals for: (1) use of the cask for Brookhaven type wastes. and (2) use of the cask as set forth in the original application. This is an eminently reasonable course of action. I am sure you appreciate the seriousness of this situation and request that you keep me informed of DOEs actions to resolve the issue. Sincerely.