Greenpeace

Transportation workshop
May 20-22, 1999
Cincinnati, Ohio

STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS

Statement 1: Routes for radioactive materials and waste should be pre-negotiated using a model that allows for:
• The identification of proposed routes by DOE based on a comprehensive risk analysis that considers radiological and non-radiological hazards;
• An opportunity for states, Tribal Nations, local Governments, and the public to review and propose alternative routes;
• Future changes in route alternatives and infrastructure using the model;
• Consideration of existing routes based on safety and cost. This should not interrupt existing shipments.

Statement 2: DOE must not predetermine a specific mode of transportation. In selecting a mode, DOE should consider the local community impacts, community impacts along the corridor, and environmental justice. Alternative modes should be considered based on risk analysis and life-cycle costs and benefits.

Statement 3: In order to enhance safety and to save time and money:
• The container system for the transportation of radioactive materials and waste should be standardized as much as possible within the waste acceptance criteria at the destination site or facility.
• Transportation protocols should be standardized whenever possible, irrespective of the mode (truck, rail, or intermodal).

Statement 4: The risks associated with the transportation of radioactive materials and waste should be estimated using up-to-date, independently validated methods. For purposes of education, the public should be encouraged to be actively involved from the beginning. The methods for assessing the risks of radioactive materials and waste transportation and estimated risks should be communicated comprehensively to the public, especially along the corridors/routes.

Statement 5: During the conceptual stages of planning, DOE should begin a dialogue with the public, Tribal nations, and other impacted parties whenever developing policy initiatives, planning, and implementing activities for the transportation of radioactive waste and materials. This dialogue must be continue throughout the decision-making process.

Statement 6: With regard to the transportation of radioactive waste and materials, DOE should facilitate partnerships to develop and implement two-way education and information sharing with and among:
• the public
• Tribal nations
• Educational institutions and officials
• Federal, state, and local agencies, and both elected and other officials
• The media
• DOE Headquarters, Field Offices and Sites

To better facilitate these partnerships, it is especially important for DOE Headquarters, Field Offices, sites and programs to communicate effectively with and among each other.

Statement 7: Should an incident or event occur during a radioactive materials or waste shipment, the availability of a professionally trained and well-equipped emergency response teams is vital. DOE and other entities, such as state, Tribal nations, and local governments, should provide appropriate funding and resources earmarked for emergency response programs along the transportation corridors.

Statement 8: DOE, in conjunction with states and Tribal nations, should develop notification protocols for the transportation of radioactive materials and waste and for shipping incidents or accidents. The states are urged to establish standardized procedures for subsequent notification to appropriate local governments. Notification should be tailored to correlate with the level of hazard of the materials shipped. DOE should take advantage of the best available technologies to facilitate uniform and universal notification.

A note from Paige: All participants were encouraged to sign on to whichever of these statements we, as an individual, could stand behind. I did not sign on to statement number 4, the one on risk, because I (and others) wanted a more complete definition of risk than some of the risk spin doctors and their followers at the conference we willing to accept. All of these statements were worked hard by a wide range of participants and in my opinion, are a good first step toward having public involvement in policy-making which is what I think should be our goal. Please send me any feedback, a discussion of any of these statements or other thoughts. Thanks!!