.

.. .., _

f - - The Secretary of Energy% g Washington, DC 20585

*

July 7, 1994

The Ilonorable Ivan SelinChairmanNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission participated with the Departmentof Energy and other Federal agencies in the study, " Safety of Shipmentsof Plutonium by Sea." This effort was required by Section 2904 of theEnergy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act) and was completed on February 8,1994, with the submittal of the study to Congress. In addition to thestudy, the Act also requires the submittal of an Implementation Plan toCongress. The draft plan for implementing the study's recommendationsis enclosed.

To meet administrative deadlines, it would be beneficial to receive yourconcurrence on the Implementation Plan within 30 days of receipt ofthis letter. If you have any questions, please call me, or have a memberof your staff call Dr. Daniel Lillian, Deputy Director, Office ofTransportation, Emergency Management and Analytical Serviceson 301-427-1675.

Mr. Earl Easton of your staff has been a member of the InteragencyCommittee that was formed to conduct the study and write theImplementation Plan. Mr. Easton has provided invaluable service to theInteragency Committee during the conduct of the study and in thewriting of the plan. The submittal of the Implementation Plan toCongress will satisfy all requirements of the Act, and the InteragencyCommittee will be dissolved.

The Department of Energy has committed to perform follow-on studieson issues associated with the sea shipment of plutonium and productsresulting from reprocessing. The Department of Energy will continue to

9408250204 940816PDR COMMS NRCCCORRESPONDENCE PDR

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

2

communicate and cooperate with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission onthese studies.

I would like to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the levelof support it has provided to this endeavor. The professionalism andtechnical expertise represented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionon the Interagency Committee was excellent. The Department ofEnergy looks forward to continued interactions with the NuclearRegulatory Commi .; ion on this and other important radioactivematerials transportation issues.

Sincere ,

-

Hazel R. Leary

Enclosure

.- _ .. - -

. . - _. . . ,. . -

.

4

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

for implementing the recommendations in the

" Safety of Shipments of Plutonium by Sea" Study

Introduction

Section 2904 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires the President, in consultation with theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to conduct a study on the safety of shipping plutoniumby sea. Section 2904 includes four requirements:

1. STUDY - The President, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shallconduct a study on the safety of shipments of plutonium by sea. The study shallconsider the following:

(a) - De safety of the casks containing the plutonium.(b)- The safety risks to the States of such shipments.(c)- Upon the request of any State, the adequacy of that State's emergency ,

plans with respect to such shipments.(d)- The Federal resources needed to assist the States on account of such

shipments.

2. REPORT - The President shall, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment ofthis Act, transmit to the Congress a repon on the study conducted under subsection (1),together with his recommendations based on the study.

3. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - The President, in consultation with the NuclearRegulatory Commission, shall establish a plan to implement the recommendationscontained in the study conducted under subsection (1) and shall, not later than 90 daysafter transmitting the report to the Congress under subsection (2), transmit to theCongress that implementation plan.

4. DEFINITION - as used in this section, the term ' State" includes the District ofColumbia and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. ;

On January 7,1993, President Bush issued a Delegation of Responsibilities letter delegating theSecretary of Energy to act on the President's behalf to satisfy the requirements (1) through (3)of Section 2904 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Further, this Delegation of Responsibilities

1 )

l|

I

-

w _ _ _

_.

.

.

letter stated that the Secretary of Energy shall conduct this effort "only with the concurrence ofthe Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, the Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, theDirector of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Commandant of the UnitedStates Coast Guard, and in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

The study has been completed and submitted to Congress, thus satisfying the first tworequirements of Section 2904. This Implementation Plan satisfies the third requirement ofSection 2904. The study and this Implementation Plan also comply with the PresidentialDelegation of Responsibilities letter in that all identified Federal agencies have concurred withboth documents.

This Implementation Plan provides a specific plan of action for enacting the sixrecommendations included in the study, " Safety of Shipments of Plutonium by Sea."

Recommendations from tlw Study. " Safety of Shipments of Plutonium by Sea"

1. Executive Branch departments and agencies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shouldensure that they remain informed about potential shipments of plutonium beyond thosecurrently planned, and should remain alert te the possible need for revisions to existinginternational transportation standards and national regulations should changes in thecircumstances relating to such shipments indicate that revised transportation standards are )necessary.

2. The Secretary of Energy should (a) arrange for the availability of this Study by publishing anotice in the Feder;11 Reeister, (b) make available the Study to the appropriate emergencypreparedness authorities of each coastal state, commonwealth, territory and possession of the ,

United States and of the District of Columbia, (c) provide the Study to the international |Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with a request that it be distributed to all member states ofthe Agency, and (d) make the Study available to the International Maritime Organization |

(IMO) with a request that it be widely distributed to IMO member states.

3. Relevant Federal agencies should continue to participate fully in study groups or workinggroups that may be instituted by the IAEA, the IMO, or other international bodies onpossible revisions to standards relevant to international transportation. In addition, relevantFederal agencies should seek to expand the involvement of industry and the general public inthe regulation process by publicizing the meetings of such groups in advance, by requestingtheir review of proposed regulations, and by making available the minutes of these meetings.

2

-

_ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . .

4. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should promptly review the adequacyof the State and U.S. Territorial emergency plans with respect to plutonium shipments asalready requested by certain States pursuant to Section 2904 (a)(3) of the Energy Policy Actof 1992, and advise all other coastal States of the provisions of this Section. Upon requestby any coastal State or Territory, FEMA will provide guidance for the development of suchplans and review each plan to determine its adequacy. FEMA's review will be based on theguidance provided in FEMA-REP-5, Duidance for Develonine State. Tribal. IxcalRadiolocical Emercency Resnonse Plannine and Prenaredness for Transnortation Accidents.

The guidance in this document is limited to accidents involving the potential for or actual

| impact of atmospheric materials releases and ground deposition, not the impact of radioactiveI materials released in marine environments. Therefore, FEMA's review of these plans will

be limited to the type of accident covered by its guidance and occurring in or near seaports.

5. Federal agencies should, as appropriate, take into account the need for any Federal resourcesidentified in FEMA's evaluation of State emergency response plans in preparing agencybudget submissions for Fiscal Year 1994 and subsequent fiscal years.

6. The Federal agencies responsible for maintaining the Federal Radiological EmergencyResponse Plan (FRERP) should revise the plan to clearly establish the appropriate level ofresponse for accidents involving transient shipments of radioactive material.

|

iimplementation Plan for the Recommendations

Recommendation 1

Executive Branch departments and agencies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shouldensure that they remain informed about potential shipments of plutonium beyond those currentlyplanned, and should remain alert to the possible need for revisions to existing internationaltransportation standards and national regulations should changes in the circumstances relating tosuch shipments indicate that revised transportation standards are necessary.

Imniementation Plan for Recommendation 1

1. Potential shipments of plutonium beyond those currently planned.

(a) The United States has access to Japanese plans for shipping plutonium by sea pursuant tothe guidelines set forth in Annex 5 of the Implementing Agreement of the 1988Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation between the United States of America and

3.

m

M

- - y

_

.

.

Japan. Annex 5 requires Japan to prepare a transportation plan for any shipment fromEurope to Japan of plutonium recovered from spent fuel subject to the U.S. - Japanagreement. The Annex 5 guidelines provide for the transportation plan to be established"with the cooperation and assistance of the parties," i.e., Japan and the United States.Japan and the United States will consult with regard to scheduling shipments ofplutonium. The 1988 Agreement has an initial term of thirty years.

For the initial Japanese shiprnent of plutoniurn from France to Japan which left France in |

November 1992 for a two month voyage to Japan, six United States agencies reviewedand concurred with the Japanese transportation plan. These agencies, led by theDepartment of State, included the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), theDepartment of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,and the U.S. Coast Guard.

(b) U.S. purchase of Russian 2nPu - The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear i

Energy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) addressing the sea shipment of |

Russian Pu-238. The EA, and associated Finding of No Significant impact (FONSI),were issued in June 1993.

There are no other known plans for shipping plutonium by sea that would directly affect theU.S.

II. Standards and Regulations

in terms of monitoring international and national regulations, the U.S. is actively engaged in allinternational standards activities associated with the packaging and transportation of plutonium.The primary international standards bodies regarding these matters are the International AtomicEnergy Agency and the International Maritime Organization. If specific revisions are requiredto the regulations as a result of future plutonium shipments, the U.S. will be positioned toactively pursue enactment of revisions based on official U.S. policy. The U.S. is also in aposition to propose revisions that it deems necessary to provide adequate safety to suchshipments.

Becommendation 2

The Secretary of Energy should (a) arrange for the availability of this Study by publishing anotice in the Federal Recister, (b) make available the Study to the appropriate emergencypreparedness authorities of each coastal state, commonwealth, territory, and possession of theUnited States and of the District of Columbia, (c) provide the Study to the International AtomicEnergy Agency with a request that it be distributed to all member states of the Agency, and (d)

4

-

..

.

.-

|

make the Study available to the International Maritime Organization with a request that it bewidely distributed to IMO member states.

Imnlementation Plan for Recommendation 2

This recorranendation has been implemented.

(a) Announcement of the availability of the study was published in the February 28,1994edition of the Federal Register.

(b) FEMA has sent announcements of the availability of the study to the emergencypreparedness authorities of each coastal state, commonwealth, territory and possession ofthe United States and of the District of Columbia.

(c) The DOE sent a letter, dated March 21,1994, to Mr. H.A. Selling, Technical Secretaryfor the Division of Nuclear Safety, at the IAEA with a request to distribute the study toall member states of the Agency.

(d) The DOE sent a letter, dated March 21, 1994, to Mr. B. Okamura, at the IMO with arequest to distribute the study to IMO member states.

Recomrnen ation 3J

Relevant Federal agencies should continue to participate fully in study groups or working groupsthat may be instituted by the IAEA, the IMO, or other international bodies on possible revisionsto standards relevant to international transportation. In addition, relevant Federal agenciesshould seek to expand the involvement of industry and the general public in the regulationprocess by publicizing the meetings of such groups in advance, by requesting their review ofproposed regulations, and by making available the minutes of these meetings.

Imnlementation Plan for Recommendation 3

As participating members on the IAEA and IMO standards groups, U.S. representatives willcontinue to have access to all pertinent working groups that may be instituted by the IAEA andthe IMO.

Examples of U.S. participation in such groups within the IAEA include the " TechnicalCommittee on the Comprehensive Review of the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport ofRadioactive Materials," the Standing Advisory Group for the Safe Transport of RadioactiveMaterials (SAGSTRAM), and numerous technical committee meetings, including, for example,

G

-

-- . .. .

.

,

the Technical Committee Meeting on the Safe Handling, Transport, and Storage of Plutonium.Within the IMO, the United States participates on all pertinent committees associated withinternational transportation. The United States also participates in joint IAEA/IMO committeework associated with transportation of radioactive material.

Recommendation 4

The Federal Emergency Management Agency should promptly review the adequacy of the Stateand U.S. Territorial emergency plans with respect to plutonium shipments as already requestedby certain States pursuant to Section 2904 (a)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992; and adviseall other coastal States of the provisions of this Section. Upon request by any coastal State orTerritory, FEMA will provide guidance for the development of such plans and review each planto determine its adequacy. FEMA's review will be based on the guidance provided in FEMA.REP-5, Guidance for Deve|oninc State. Tribal. Local Radiological Emercency ResponsePlannine and Prenaredness for Transportation Accidenti. The guidance in this document islimited to accidents involving the potential for or actual impact of atmospheric materials releasesand ground deposition, not the impact of radioactive materials released in marine environments.Therefore, FEMA's review of these plans will be limited to the type of accident covered by itsguidance and occurring in or near seaports,

implementation Plan for Recommendation 4

The Federal Emergency Management Agency will provide each coastal state, commonwealth,territory and possession of the United States, and the District of Columbia a copy of the study,offer to review their emergency response plans and determine their adequacy with respect to aplutonium hazard, and provide assistance, if requested, on the inclusion of planning elements toaddress a plutonium hazard in their emergency plans. The review of plans with regard to theimpact of an accident on the marine environment will be done on a case-by-case basis focusingon post-emergency protection of the public health and safety and effects on the food chain. Theletter transmitting the study and offering assistance is included herewith.

6

-

- , - - ,,. ~ . .

|

I'

,

Dear Governor:

In connection with the shipment of reprocessed plutonium from France to Japan in the summerof 1992, the Congress became concerned over the possible safety risks such shipments may poseto the United States. Thus, in Section 2904 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congressdirected the President, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to conduct astudy on the safety of the shipment of plutonium by sea. The President delegated responsibilityfor preparing the study to the Department of Energy in collaboration with other FederalDepartments and Agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

,

The study has been completed and the report entitled " Safety of Shipments of Plutonium bySea" is enclosed. 'Ihe report states: "After reviewing the hazards posed by the plutonium,applicable transportation safety and physical protection regulations, pertinent research andexperience, and contingency plans, the agencies conclude that plutonium can be shipped safelyby sea " FEMA recommends that the report be read in its entirety.

Section 2904.a(3) of the Act requires that the Federal Government review, "upon the request byany State, the adequacy of that State's emergency plans with respect to such shipments." FEMAsuggests that you review your plan to ensure that it specifically addresses the hazards thatplutonium may pose in the event of an emergency. If it does not, one of the following

,

approaches may be useful.

1. The plutonium hazard may be addressed in your State's emergency response plans forhazardous material, transportation accidents or radiological emergency preparedness.

2. State response plans may include agreements with the Department of Energy and/or theDepartment of Defense for utilizing their expertise in the event of an emergency.

FEMA can provide or secure technical assistance, if needed, for developing or amending yourState's plan if you request assistance. If you submit a plan for Federal review, FEMA willprovide a determination of its adequacy. Please send your plan to the appropriate FEMARegional Offke (addresses enclosed).

For further information, your staff may contact Mr. William F. McNutt at (202) 646-2857.

Sincerely,FEMA Director

Enclosures: (1) List of Addresses of FEMA Regional Offices(2) Study Report: " Safety of Shipments of Plutonium by Sea"

l

7

. - , - - - . . - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - . - - - . _ - - - - -

--.

.

.

FEMA Regional Offices & Regional Directors

Recion I Recion VI

Daniel W. Warren, HI Raymorx! L. YoungActing Regional Director Regional DirectorFEMA Region I FEMA Region VI442 J. W. McCormack POCII Federal Regional Center, RM 206 !Boston, MA 02109-4595 800 North Imop 288(617) 223-9540 Denton, TX 76201-3698

(817) 898-9399

Begion 11 Recion VII

Bruce J. Campbell Francis P. BegleyActing Regional Director Acting Regional DirectorFEMA Region 11 FEMA Region VU26 Federal Plaza, Room 1338 911 Walnut Street, RM 200 |

New York, NY 10278 @ 02 Kansas City MO 64106-2085(212) 225-7209 (816) 283-706i |

1

Recion til Recion Vill I

Frank II. Thomas Jerome 11. Oakley jActing Regional Director Acting Regional DirectorFEM A Region !!I FEMA Region VID

ILiberty Square Building Denver Federal Center, Bldg 710105 S. Seventh Street Box 25267Plutadelphia, PA 19106-3316 Denver, CO 80225 0267(215) 931 5500 (303) 235-4811

Recion IV Recion IX

Major P. May William M. MedigovichRegional Director Regional DirectorFEMA Region IV FEMA Region IXSuite 700 Building 1051371 Peachtree Street, N.E. 7he Presidio of San FranciscoAtlanta, GA 30309 3108 San Francisco, CA 94129-1250

(404) 853 4200 (415) 923-7100

Recion V Region )(

John R. Powers Raymond C. WilliamsActing Regional Director Acting Regional DirectorFEMA Region V FEMA Region X175 West Jackson Blvd. Federal Regional CenterCidcago, IL 60604-2698 130 228th St., S. W.(312) 408-5500 Bothell, WA 98021-97 %

(206) 487-8800

8

-awwrr

. -. . . . .-_ -- - - - - -. . .- - . -- - - - -.

.

?,

Recommendation 5

Federal agencies should, as appropriate, take into account the need for any Federal resourcesidentified in FEMA's evaluation of State emergency response plans in preparing agency budgetsubmissions for Fiscal Year 1994 and subsequent fiscal years.

Implementation Plan for Recommendation 5'

The Federal Emergency Management Agency may, if needed, undertake a project to develop aplanning document that would provide technical guidance for state, commonwealth, territorial ,

possessions and local governments to use when addressing the plutonium hazard in their |

emergency response plans. A determination on the need of such guidance would be madefollowing review of State emergency plans as provided in Section 2904.a(3) of the EnergyPolicy Act of 1992. The cost of this project would be included in a FEM A's budget submittalto the Congress in accordance with Section 2904.a(4) of the Act.

Fecommendation 6

The Federal agencies responsible for maintaining the FRERP should revise the plan to clearly,

establish the appropriate level of response for accidents involving transient shipments of l

radioactive material. ;

1

Implementation Plan for Recommendation 6l'

The Federal Response Subcommittee of the Federal Radiological Preparedness CoordinatingCommittee is addressing this recommendation in its current efforts to revise and update theexisting Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP), which was published in theEqderal Recister on November 8,1985 (Vol. 50, No. 217, pp. 46542 - 46570). The proposedrevisions to the FRERP state that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be the LeadFederal Agency (LFA) for an emergency that involves radioactive material from a foreignsource that has actual, potential, or perceived radiological consequences in the United States, itsterritories, or possessions. The foreign source may be a reactor (e.g., Chernobyl), a spacecraft(e.g., Cosmos), or shipment of radioactive material (e.g., Japanese shipments of plutonium).

As LFA, EPA will be responsible for coordinating all Federal onscene actions to assist State andlocal governments in determining measures to protect life, property, and the environment andwill ensure that FEMA and other Federal agencies assist the State and local governmeat agenciesin implementing the protective actions, as requested.

!|

|

9

-

,. ---.n.., - . .

. -. _ - _ .

.

'.

The draft FRERP will be submitted to each Federal agency that will be a signatory to the planfor a 45-day review / comment period. Upon approval by all agencies, the proposed plan will be !

published in the federal Registet. All interested parties will have at least 30 days to providecomments on the proposed plan. After all public comments have been reviewed and addressedas appropriate, the FRERP will be signed by the Federal agencies and published in the FederalRegister as an operating plan.

;

l

).

;

10

il

-

, . - , , ._, . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .- . - .. _ _ . . - _ _ - . ~ . . _ . . .. . . - - . - - . . .. _ . . .

GO-00-1094 14:33 12O204707?C OC3 P.02g

b0 4'

ORIG LETTER TO ADDRE8sEE VIA COURIERORIG ACTMEH/ COPY.0F LETTER TO QIS

COPIES Tos

DEPARTMENT or STAYEDON 1LOND-2 WASHINGTON

E M -0 P b M August 6, 1994E

Tcs/Pss-2

$ Dear Masas secretary:

$" Thank you for your letter of July 7 in which you request<

the concurrence of the Department of State in a plan toa implement the study, " Safety of shipments of Plutonium by Sea,"g that was submitted to Congress earlier this year in compliance[ with section 2904 of the Anergy Policy Act of 1992 ("the Act").

[e[3 The' Department of State is pleased to concur in the*

g g ,, proposed implementation. plan.You refer also to a Department of Energy intention "to

perform follow-on studies on issues associated with the seashipment of plutonium and ptoducts resulting from reprocessing."As I understand it, these " studies" would be carried out underthe direction of DOE's office of Transw rtation, EmergencyManagement and Analytical services. Tsey would (1) re-examine

rotection standards for shipments of plutonium byphysical p(2) extend earlier analytical work on the safety- (andsea, andperhaps physical protection) of such shipments to cover seashipments of other radioactive substances as well. .

In meetings earlier this yect of the interagency groupestablished to conduet the study es11ed for by section 2904 ofthe Act, the Department of state and other interested federalagencies, including the U.S.. competent egencies for regulatingthe transport of radioactive substances, informed the DOEchairman that they failed to see the need for preparation ofadditional studies beyond those mandated by the Act. Theyexpressed serious conoero that additlenal studies wouldundermine confidence in existing standards only recentlyreviewed and upgraded by the International Atomio Energy Agencyand the International Maritime Organisation. They also pointedout that other nations would interpret un11st9eal U.S. a *.ivity

The HonorableMazel R. o' Leary,

Secretary of Energy.

_ _ . _ . _ _ __ _ _ - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ __. _ _

_ . - - ~ -- --.= . - . - -- -

Go OO-1994 14:34 12020470773 OCO P.03g

.

st

-2-.,

.

in this area as an indication that the United states might belooking for a basis to renege on certain commitments under itsagreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation, including the 1988U.S.-Japan Agreement. I regret to say that the DOE ehaissandismissed these concerns and stated d at DOE would proceed withthe studies on its own.,

Given the extsasive work that has alread been done, therecan be no doubt at this point about the app riste physioelprotection standards for shipments of pluton um in all its -

forms. U.S. experts 9tudied this matter in comprehensivedetail for several years prior to conclusica of the U.S.-JapanAgreement in 1988. They developed stringent physicalprotection guidelines, and these were incorporated in theAgreement. The guidelines were intensively scrutinised bycongress before the Agreement was brought into force. Sincethen, they have demonstrated their adequacy in connection withan actual shipment.

There is simply no need for a new study on physicalprotection of sea shipments of plutonium. Unnecessary reviewof standards and practices already judged adequate by theresponsible agencies can only raise doubts, in Japan andelsewhere, about U.S. steadfastness and predictabllity as apeaceful nuclear partner. Conducting a gratuitous review willdamage our effort to negotiate a new agreement for peaceful

~

nuclear cooperation with EURATOM, where we currently lackimportant controls and consent rights. It also runs the riskthat new standards emerging from such studies will interferewith other U.S. foreign policy objectivas that entail th4,shipment of nuclear materials. These' include the p'rchase ofu

,

highly enriched uranium recovered from former Soviet weapons, !

the return of spent research reactor' fuel to the U.S. Lh' !

pursuit of our Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactors |.

(RERTR) ' program, and the possible need to remove spent fuel |from countries of proliferation concern. |

In view of these risks, I ask that DOS reconsider itsposition on this matter.

Sincerely,O

fib .

.

Richard M. seActing Secretary

-.. . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . . .

AUG-03-1994 16:13 RSPWMHl15 202 366 3753 P.02/03..

t!)>-

USDeporiment .on s ,,em suev. s wWs Mston 0 C 20590ofianspor10t10n

menearch and

-

AUG 31994

Mr. Randal ScottDeputy Assistant Secretary for compliance

and Program CoordinationDepartment of EnergyWashington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Scott

Secretary O' Leary's July 7 letter to Secretary Pena requested Ithe Department of Transportation's (DOT) concurrence in a plan j

to implement the " Safety,of Shipment of Plutonium by Sea" Study i

(SSPS). Secretary Pena will respond directly to Secretary IO' Leary regarding the requested concurrence. Secretary O' Leary !also mentioned two follow-on studies associated with sea 1

|

reprocessing, plutonium and products resulting fronshipments of

which we understand would include unprocessedspent nuclear fuel. The purpose of this letter is to express )our concern in regard to the new studies.

I am concerned that DOT was not advised that there wereexceptions to the conclusions of the SSPS study to such anextent that the Department of Energy (DOE) made an unilateraldecision to conduct two new studies. I am also concerned thatthis decision was made without giving full consideration to the |

vast reservoir of existing data and analyses produced during !

past studies. I believe that the decision to conduct the nov !

studies suggests that the SSPS study is flawed. It alsosuggests that some of the existing DOT and Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) regulations may be flawed. '

I request a meeting for clarification of DOE's intentionsregarding the studies, including their application to spent |nuclear fuel. DOT has been called upon on many occasions to !

support national policy initiatives regarding the return of I

spent fuel to the Uniteo dtates and other sea transportoperations. This includes congressional correspondance and

Irepresentations to the media. The immediate question iswhether we should continue to support those operations iffurther study is necessary to determine the adequacy of currentsafety control measures.

. - . . .. --. . . _. _ _ _ _- _ _ - .

. . . - - - . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . - . - - _

AUG-03-1994 16813 RSFfuAAHMS 202 366 3753 P.03.'03.'

|3

.

I look forward to hearing from you concerning a meeting date.It is important that we reestablish a working relationship thatwill benefit all who are concerned with transportation safetymatters as well as those concerned with national securityissues.

t

dincerely,

dAlan I. RobertsAssociate Administrator'

Hazardous Mater $als Safety

.

O

q

0

TOTAL P,03.