Ward Sproat recently became director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

• Hopes to reorganize and "flatten" the organizational chart

Budget

• FY 2006 Appropriations- $305.9 million
• FY 2007 Request- $355. 4 million
  • Senate below request

Program Priorities

• Submit License Application to the NRC by 2008
• Create better organization and culture to operate Yucca Mountain Project
• Address impasse associated with unmet contractual obligations for storage
• Complete transportation planning with state, local, and tribal governments

New Schedule

• License application submitted and docketed by 2008
  • Represents the "best achievable" schedule
  • "Optimistic, but reasonable"
  • Schedule would allow Yucca Mountain to begin receiving shipments by 2017

Cansitered Approach- intended to simplify operations

• Transportation, Aging and Disposal canisters (TAD) - request for comment on draft specifications of TAD
• CD-1 Package: Revised CD-1 package is being prepared that reflects a new canister-based concept for shipments and storage at/to Yucca Mountain
  • 5-10% bare fuel handling

Pahrump Info Center

• Opened July 27, 2006
• Exhibits, videos, and interactive computer programs
• Purpose- help explain the research of Yucca Mountain and the development of the Nevada rail

Transportation System:

Updating Radioactive Materials Transportation Practices Manual (DOE M 460.2-1)

2006 Transportation Priorities:

• Focus on completing NV Rail EIS
  • Hoping to release draft EIS for comment soon
  • Activities after the draft:
    • Hold public hearings
    • Issue final RA-EIS
    • Release Issue record and secure the Right of Way
    • Finish alignment characterization
    • Finish procurement processes
    • Final design and construction
      • Rail line
      • Structures
      • Support facilities
• Dedicated trains
  • Increased efficiency and operational control
    • Avoid extended dwell times -> shorter transit time
    • Better command and control capabilities
    • More routing flexibility, operational control over the shipments
    • Shorter transit time -> more efficient use of resources
• Accelerate development of transportation infrastructure
• Benchmarking Project ("Best practices analysis")
  • Four critical factors assessed:
    • Transportation business model (management)
    • Outsourcing (accountability of commercial sector)
    • Stakeholder involvement
    • Contingency Planning
  • Conducted lessons learned examination of selected DOE and commercial SNF shipping campaigns
  • Reviewed WIPP shipping experience
  • Additional benchmarking includes Naval Nuclear Propulsion SNF, Dept. of Defense, private sector domestic shipments, and foreign experience
  • Staff recommendations on program changes will be made to management in August based on review
  • Interim report completed in a couple of months
• Coordinate with stakeholders on specific issues, i.e. with SRGs to develop regional suites of routes, with Tribes for 180(c) and routing.
  • Routing Process:
    • OCRWM is developing a process to identify potential suites o national transportation routes in concert with states, tribes, and other stakeholders -> Identify criteria to apply to routing process
    • Rationale  for developing suites of routes will be based on:
      • Security based principle of using non-predictable routes
      • Seasonal or weather conditions that require alternatives
      • Operating and emergency situations requiring rerouting (maintenance of track, flooded roadways, etc.)
    • Issue report on routing approach per NAS study and OCRWM management direction
  • Policy Implementation Process: Section 180(c)
    • Section 180(c) of Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires DOE to provide funding and technical support to states and tribes through whose jurisdictions DOE will transport waste, and to public safety officials for safe routine transportation and emergencies
      • Covers all modes of transportation
      • Funding will come from NWF
    • Proposed Policy and Procedures that were published in the Federal Register in April 1998, reflected input from over ten years worth of interaction with stakeholders
    • Changes in homeland security and DOE's transportation practices made it timely for OCRWM to update the 1998 proposal
    • 180(c) Topic Group was formed under the protection of TEC
      • Participants include Federal, state, tribal, and local officials, emergency response associations, and nuclear and transportation industry representatives
      • Topic group meeting planned for September in Green Bay
      • Then will move ahead with the pilot program
    • Funding allocation proposals for states include:
      • Formula for taking into account population, route mills, number of shipments and facilities in a state engaged in shipping or receiving
      • Planning grant of $200,000 four to five years ahead of the beginning of shipments
      • Formula-based training grants three years ahead of shipments
    • A needs-based funding approach for Tribes is being considered
    • Developed Section 180(c) Policy and grant guidance document

National Academies' Study on the Safe Transport of SNF/HLW

• Key points:
  • No fundamental technical barriers to the safe transportation of waste in the U.S.
  • U.S. regulations are adequate to provide effective containment over a wide range of transportation conditions
  • The Committee endorsed the Department's choice of a rail-centered transportation system and the use of dedicated trains
  • Opportunities to control social risks still exist
• Response to the Study:
  • OLM has initiated a "best practices" study to seek expert advice on transportation operations
  • Completion of the Nevada rail line is a high priority
    • Inter-modal service is being studied as an alternative if the line is not complete
  • OLM is engaging stakeholders on routing criteria that will lead to selection of suites of routes
    • Campaign-specific routes will be identified later and protected appropriately
  • Proactive management of social risks involved
    • May establish risk/risk perception topic group to provide feedback to DOE on risk characterization and improved communications methods
    • Begin training and operational exercises at the earliest point possible
  • Proposed policy and grant procedures are currently part of internal review
    • OLM proposed a pilot to test implementation of the 180(c) program in the FY 2007 budget
    • OCRWM has committed to provide funding and training for states and tribes at least five years ahead of shipments

Proposed Legislation, Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act (S.2589):

• Purpose:
  • Improve the country's ability to manage and dispose of SNF and HLW
  • Provide stability, clarity, and predictability to the OCRWM program
  • Help lay the foundation for the country's energy security
• Fulfills a commitment made in President Bush's 2007 budget
• Key components of the proposal:
  • Permanently withdraw the use of public land necessary to meet the NRC licensing requirement
  • Facilitate Congress' ability to provide adequate funding for the project
  • Repeal the 70,000 metric ton limit on storage at Yucca Mountain
  • Streamline the NRC licensing process
  • Allow for initiation of rail line construction in order to connect Yucca Mountain with the rail network

GNEP- intended to promote new nuclear technology while avoiding proliferation

Conclusions

• Continue Yucca Mountain process
  • Transportation is key
  • Stakeholder involvement important

Q&A
- Comment: Russia agreeing once again to take foreign SNF.
- Comment: Once considered MRS, now interim storage.  Concerns of terrorism with on-site storage
- What is the latest estimate on the Caliente rail spur project?
    o 2 billion (group answer).
- Comment: How does GNEP fit into the budget?  Are they receiving NWF dollar?
    o Money for GNEP currently coming out of DOE kitty.

---------------------------

Current Issues in Radioactive Waste
Christina Nelson, Policy Associate; NCSL

S 2589 UPDATE

Background:

• Energy Sec Bodman sent the legislation to Senate President Cheney on April 5.
• Domenici introduced the bill with James Inhofe of OK as co-sponsor on April 6.
  • Status:  Read twice and referred to Domenici's Committee on Energy and NR.  That committee held a hearing on the bill and OCRWM's new Yucca schedule on August 3^rd.
• Inhofe proposed a similar bill (S.2610) focusing on the environmental aspects of the bill so that his committee on Environment and Public Works could take it up, but there has been no major action on it yet. 
• A House version (HR 5360) was introduced as well by Rep Barton who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee.  This bill has been referred to several committees based on the different jurisdictional areas within the bill - and from there to several subcommittees. 
• Uncertain what kind of action to expect this year.  Not likely anything major, but now is the time to get comment in before potential new versions are introduced next year.  Will likely be pushed tremendously in the next two years before Bush is out of office.

Section 3 - Land Withdrawal and Reservation

• Permanently withdraws from public use approx 147,000 acres in Nye County for geological repository operations
  • Transfers jurisdiction to Secretary of Energy from Sec of Air Force and/or Sec of Interior.
  • Revokes existing land orders and rights-of-way on the withdrawn land
• Requires development of a land management plan to be delivered to Congress and the State of Nevada within three years.

Section 4 - Application Procedures and Infrastructure
Amends the NRC licensing process in several respects:

• Repeals the 70,000 metric ton limit on the quantity of SNF.
• Establishes an expedited one-year schedule, and a simplified, informal process for the NRC's consideration of an application to receive and possess nuclear materials.

(NRC letter to Domenici - Agency believes that the process would take at least one more year beyond the expanded time of 1 ½ years.  The schedule is largely dependent upon hearings and comments.)

• Allows DOE to undertake infrastructure activities to further waste disposal activities at Yucca, such as building a rail line, prior to NRC authorization of license to construct.
• Initial application for construction authorization would not have to include surface facilities or others not related to initial operations.
• Directs relevant federal, state, and tribal officials to grant expeditiously, to the extent consistent with law, rights of way and other authorizations for infrastructure activities.

Section 5 - Nuclear Waste Fund

• Makes a budgetary classification change.  Would list fees collected from utilities as "discretionary" instead of "mandatory" in order to allow for them to legally offset repository program expenditures, which are classified as discretionary.
• Adds infrastructure activities as an allowable expense to come out of the Nuclear Waste Fund.

Section 6 - Regulatory Requirements

• Exempts from federal, state, and local requirements under RCRA, any DOE-owned materials transported or stored in NRC-certified containers, or located at Yucca managed in accordance with NRC license to receive and possess.
• Designates the EPA to issue, administer, and enforce air quality permits - and prohibits the state or local government from issuing, administering, or enforcing new or existing air quality requirements affecting facilities or activities at Yucca.

Section 7 - Transportation
This is the most contentious part of the bill for states as expressed at the State-Regional Group meetings.

• Allows the Secretary to determine the extent to which transportation done under the NWPA would be regulated exclusively under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as with weapons grade material).
• Allows the Secretary to request that the Secretary of Transportation preempt any requirement of state or tribes regarding DOE transportation under NWPA.  This is irrespective of whether the transportation would otherwise be subject to regulation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994.

Comment: Inspection Requirements - States can sometimes go overboard in terms of oversight.  There may be a more standardized approach to take.
Comment: Should include Level VI inspections.  No level 6 inspection for rail, but must follow comparable program standards.
Comment: Need to balance efficiency with states' rights.  Minor changes to the bill would get the entire group behind it.

Section 8 - Water Rights

• Declares that use of water from any source for carrying out NWPA is beneficial to interstate commerce and does not harm the public interest.
• Prohibits states from enacting or applying any law that discriminates against this use.

Comment: States in the West are constantly tied up with water rights concerns.  Will need to review this language with legal council before determining whether this section's language deserves official comment.

Section 9 - Waste Confidence

• Requires the NRC, when considering whether to permit the construction or operation of a nuclear facility, to deem without further consideration that sufficient capacity will be available in a timely manner to dispose of SNF.

Comment: If we really believe in nuclear power, changing the law to state a path forward (that there will be a repository) is necessary for nuclear power plants to be established.

NCSL Draft of HLWWG Executive Committee Letter on S. 2589:

• Read through letter.
• Legislators to send in final comments by Friday, August 25.
• Letter to be sent to Senate Energy Committee, cc'd to Sec. Bodman, by end of August.  Signed by Chair Heaton on behalf of group.
• Letter does not address each of the group's individual concerns, only those where there has been consensus found.

INTERIM STORAGE in SENATE ENERGY APPROPRIATION

History:

• Initially thought interim storage - even at Yucca - would be included in the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act.  Was not.
• Domenici was not happy with the exclusion and therefore included interim storage language in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill which passed through the full Senate Appropriations Committee at the end of June (6/29/06).
• The conference report on the bill language (included in your folder) explains that a new Director of Consolidation and Preparation at DOE would work with Governors to determine siting of facilities in each state, or regional, for the temporary storage of SNF.
• After a site is designated, the Secretary would submit a license to the NRC within 30 days.  The term of that license would be for 25 years - without chance for renewal.
• House side did not have such language in its version of the bill, which passed the full House at the end of May (5/24/06).
• If there is floor consideration of this bill in the Senate, a point of order could be raised against legislating on an appropriations bill - which would require 60 votes for passage.
• But insiders now believe it will not reach the floor independently, and instead be included in an omnibus appropriations bill after the election.

NCSL Letter:

• NCSL staff in DC work exclusively on federal legislation and have followed this inclusion closely.
• NCSL decided to sign a joint letter with the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the US Conference of Mayors on the inclusion of interim storage in an appropriations bill.
• It was sent to all US Senators on July 28.
• Main point is that although the organizations agree that accomplishing the goals Congress set forth in the NWPA is complicated, slipping the siting and implementation of interim storage sites into an appropriations bill is not advisable.
  • Doesn't allow for review, consideration, and comments that would ordinarily take place in a hearing.
  • Limited state consultation outlined in bill.
  • Bill does not reference related issues, such as transportation, emergency response, public education, state permits.
• Because of all of these unanswered questions, NCSL and the other signed organizations urge the Senate to strike the CAP proposal during floor consideration - so that it can instead be referred to the appropriate authorizing committee for further examination.

Comment: If reprocessing is to be part of the future, there must be some way to make fuel available to that project.  Interim storage for short-term, while deciding on reprocessing technologies and finishing Yucca.
Comment: Give interested states the opportunity to host interim storage

------------------------------------------

STATE-REGIONAL GROUP/OTHER UPDATES:

South
Cloyce Brackett, Policy Analyst; Nuclear Programs, Southern States Energy Board

Transportation Activities Update

SSEB is a non-profit organization.

Mission- Economic development through environmental and energy development

Radioactive Materials Committee:

• Deals with transportation from commercial reactor to federal repository
• Activities:
  • Maryland meeting- Opportunity to tour NRC operations center
  • May presentation at the Department of Homeland Security
  • Drafting Implementation Guide for transportation

Transuranic (TRU) Waste Transportation Working Group

• Identify and prioritize issues in TRU transportation
• Accident in June with a shipment to WIPP
  • Georgia media made no issue of it

Radioactive Materials Program

• Five shipments from Savannah River to Idaho for storage

Southern Emergency Response Council

Southern Mutual Radiation Assistance Plan (SMRAP)- Implements agreement for assistance between participating Southern states.

• Upcoming Meetings:
  • September 2006 in Mobile, AL
  • October 2006 in San Diego

Midwest
Rep. Jeff Elgin, Member; Council of State Governments- Midwest Region

CSG Midwest represents the upper 12 Midwestern states (Dakotas do not actively participate - have no nuclear power plants or shipping routes).  Two meetings per year.

Over the past year and a half, the committee has completed the Midwest route selection:

• Used route software to establish routes
• Presented to DOE in September, 2005

November 2005- Hosted 30 person tour at Yucca Mountain

• Allowed group and legislators to see the facility.
• Group aims to get greater participation by legislators.
• Legislators not impressed with Yucca tour since it is a non-operational facility.  Only heard DOE's perspective on Yucca Mountain Project.

Other activities:

• Looking into 180 (c) funding
• Commenting on DOE transport practice manual
• Rail Subtopic group- Attempt to find common ground on rail inspections
• Security Topic Group
  • Difficult to decide who is authorized to see what
• Made comments on S. 2589
  • Proposed to eliminate Section 7
• Next meeting in Carlsbad, NM at WIPP site to show working facility.  Maybe TRANSCOM as well.

Larry Stern, Director; Level VI Inspection Program, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Association represents law enforcement agencies across North America and is based in Washington, D.C.   Provides training for safe transportation all over the country.

Activities:

• Peer reviews on Level VI programs
  • All agencies involved with shipments
  • Gives states guides and an opportunity to showcase their performance
  • By December will publish a report on the peer reviews
  • Sets up guidelines/examples for shipments
• Preparing to publish the 2005 Level VI analysis online
• Public Outreach Program - mock inspections of Level VI program
• Formed Work Group to examine technology and security for Yucca Mountain operations ("Best practices out there.")
• Training inspectors and shippers
  • Level VI class conducted once per month
  • 3 additional training sessions requested by DOE
• January 2005- Rule put in place that requires HRC-2 to be inspected under Level VI upon departure.
• Looking at an electronic identification system instead of peel-off decals for inspections because of concerns with terrorism.
• Cobalt 60 shipments arriving from Canada require states to conduct Level VI upon entry
  • Mostly to California for medical purposes
  • Numerous in shipments
• No violations in their inspections.

------------------------------------

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Update
Earl Easton, Senior Level Advisor for Transportation; Spent Fuel Project Office, U.S. NRC

Personal thoughts from Energy Summit:

• "Not in my backyard, but give me the energy"
• There is no energy crisis in terms of quantity; but there is in terms of getting it into a form that people can/will use.
• If the United States wanted to be independent, we would find ways to convert the forms of energy we have into the kinds we need.

NRC Mission:

• Safety
• Security
• Openness
• Effectiveness
• Regulate
  • Radioactive Materials
  • Commercial Nuclear Plants
  • Storage/Transportation
  • Geological Repository

• NRC creates shipping regulations throughout the transportation process

DCS Mixed Oxide Fuel

• Savannah River
• Possesses construction license; operation license will come later (process has been streamlined)

Expect 25 applications for new reactors between 2008 and 2010 (NRC looking to hire 300 new engineers).  Reorganized division of nuclear reactors by "old" and "new."

Compact Licenses, Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications

• 4 or 5 different reactor designs
• One site for hearings/input
• Reactors have become more passive and less complex
• Newer expedited process is cheaper and shorter
• Under new system, process should be cut from approximately 10 to 3 years

Question: In the past, how many applications were rejected?
Answer: Relatively few were ultimately rejected, but many were forced to alter parts of their applications during the process before receiving authorization.

Status of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Instillations

• 42 licensed facilities in 26 states
• 15 announced renewal plans
• Approximately 800 loaded dry casks
• 15 approved storage cask designs (including 8 dual purpose)
• 1^st dry cask placed in service July 1986
• No Safety Problems

Spent Fuel Dry Storage

• Dresden
• Susquehanna

1992- Congress allowed general license (streamlined way of gaining storage).

NRC requires enough space in a pool to totally off load the reactor.

Holtec HI-STORM 100 cask system

• Average 200 cask per year intake
• 400 MTU (4,000 canisters)

Status of Private Fuel Storage

• Being sued by State of Utah because the NRC authorized PFS.
• PFS is required to obtain BIA final approval of the lease and BLM approval of ROW for rail line.

Current Activities

• Finalize rules on Yucca Mountain to coincide with EPA
• Continue pre-licensing application process with DOE
• Interact with interested stakeholders

NAS study on transportation ("Going the Distance?")

• No fundamental barriers to safe transportation
  • 2 more studies since completed
• Risk from severe fires is very low
• In all ten accidents, they involved only one train (one occurred in a tunnel)
• Worst case- Getting caught in a tunnel fire
  • Policy- Train with hazardous materials must stop and let train pass in tunnel

Security - NRC Perspective

• Focus has been there since the '70s
• Standing security policy is adequate
• Additional security measures were implemented following September 11

Q/A:
- Logistics within PFS facility if it gets past legal hurdles?
    o 200 casks per year -> biggest campaign of its kind, but still relatively with other hazardous materials shipments.

- Ownership once waste moves from utility site?
    o DOE takes title and goes to Yucca Mountain.  Waste at PFS is still owned by utility though, so if Yucca repository not opened and PFS closes or utility no longer pays, it
       goes back to original utility site.

-----------------------------------

National Academies of Science Report on Safe Transport of SNF/HLW
Bob Fry, Policy Associate; NCSL

Study done by the National Research Council under NAS

• Sponsored by DOE, NRC, etc.
• Available for purchase online
• Good historical review of spent fuel
• Based on the assumption of transportation to Yucca Mountain, but applies to other shipments/routes, such as to PFS

Concerns:

• Technical
• Procedural
• Study did not address security risks of information
  • Clearance issues
  • Recommended independent study on security
• Did not examine temporary storage
• Did not take into account what risks are acceptable (more of a policy decision)

Safety

• Technically speaking very safe
• Four decades of worldwide transportation
• Containers in use today are very good
• Security still remains the biggest concern
• Recommends that an independent group without a conflict of interest examine security

Risks

• Safety
• "Social Risks"- The word "nuclear" tends to scare people
  • No way to quantify
  • Potential lawsuits on the way to Yucca Mountain
  • Decreased tourism (case made by Nevada)
  • Increase in anxiety levels
• Radiological risk - Typically very small

Recommendation

• Examine risks on each transportation route
• Create a Transportation Risk Advisory Board to explain the risks and how they can be avoided

Route Selection Procedures

• Work with states and tribes
• Generally supposed to use fastest routes
  • Cannot take into account all factors (e.g. special events, traffic, etc.) -> Makes local involvement even more important
• Dept. of Transportation Regulations
  • Generally successful
  • Require sound risk assessments (coordination and government-to-government relations are critical
• Rail is the preferred option
  • Less traffic
  • More efficient
  • Public generally more separated from rail than highways
  • Fewer shipments necessary

Transport to Yucca Mountain

• Concern that rail might not be completed when Yucca Mountain begins operations
• Route Selection (big issue for states and tribes)
  • How much input will contractors have?
  • Important for states to know routes well for better preparation

What gets shipped where and when?

• Older -> Less radioactive, ship it first.  (The hotter the waste, the more dangerous it is.)
• Should this decision be made by the legislature?
• Need to address coordination issues before shipments start
  • Sharing of information is critical to implementation
  • Guidelines for information disclosure are necessary
• Recommendation: Funding is critical (particularly reliable funding) for program implementation

Q&A:
- Funding depends on Congress, but does any money come from utilities and the NWF or just tax dollars?
    o The Nuclear Waste Fund is tapped for the Yucca Mountain repository and transportation thereto.      

--------------------------------------

Update on Progress of 3-year HLWWG Work Plan
Christina Nelson, NCSL

Held an executive committee meeting in Charleston, SC last November, which included a tour of SRS.  Purpose of meeting was to create a Three-Year Work Plan.  A few of the items that came out of that meeting include:

• Issue areas -
  • Top three agreed upon:
    • Reprocessing
    • Yucca Mountain Progress
    • Interim Storage

(Have also been the focus at the federal level!)

• NCSL staff tracks these and other issues very closely and provides info to legislators in a few ways:
  • Website
    • Changed main page to Nuclear Waste Cleanup from Environmental Cleanup, so hopefully easier to find.  Still categorized under Environmental Protection issue area.
    • Written summaries of big issues in RW and EM at Nuclear unWASTEd News.  Highlights current news/legislation and provides links to news articles, bills, hearings testimony, press releases, and academic reports, etc.. (examples in folder).
    • Coordinate all articles quarterly into an issue-oriented newsletter - also found on the website.
    • Notes from RW meetings we attend - will discuss shortly.
    • Two databases of state legislation:
      • Radioactive Waste
      • Environmental Justice
  • Individual information requests - by call in.  One recently on states with bans on constructing new nuclear facilities until there is a federal waste disposal resolution.
• Looking into state-tribal MOUs and other possible formal agreement mechanisms that would ensure emergency response capabilities exist - i.e. usage of 180(c) funds for Tribes who do not have/want to build an emergency response system.
• Providing input to NCSL's updated spent fuel transportation primer.  Now completed - in DOE review process.  The document has been expanded to provide a solid background for new legislators/legislative staff on the repository program as well as the importance of state-tribal cooperation/collaboration.
• Working more closely with regional groups - this includes a formal partnership between NCSL and SSEB.  Bringing legislators to SRG meetings were possible (Deb to NE).  Joint meeting with SSEB and WGA in Oct. 2006.

Executive committee members met in Denver, end of June, to take up current issues:

• federal legislation, S.2589
• GNEP
• PFS
• NCSL policies

Other RW meetings we've attended:

• NAS Nuclear Radiation Studies Board meeting on radiation risk assessment at low doses last December in DC.
• U.S. Transport Council
  • Fall 2005, Washington, DC
• NARUC Yucca Mountain Task Force
  • Winter 2005, Washington, DC
• NWTRB
  • November 2005, Las Vegas
  • Meeting on radionuclide transport and seepage: February 2006, Las Vegas
• TEC Working Group
  • October 2005, Phoenix, AZ
  • March 2006, Washington, DC
  • All attending the Green Bay meeting in about a month on the Oneida reservation. (September 13 and 14).
• Waste Management Symposium
  • March 2006, Tucson, AZ
• Linda and I testified before the 8-member Nevada Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste in Las Vegas in April. 
• I attended all five of the SRG spring meetings

NCSL also runs an Environmental Management project that hosts roundtables for state legislators whose districts or states house former nuclear weapons complex sites which DOE is currently cleaning up.  This EM group had a joint briefing with some HLWWG members at our Spring Forum in April in DC. 

• GNEP and recent federal legislation

In addition to our HLW and EM work, our team staffs three additional Tribal-State Projects:

• NCSL Staffs the National Caucus of Native American State Legislators.  Functions similarly to the Black and Hispanic caucuses.
  • The Caucus is comprised of 58 Native American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian State Legislators.
  • They are meeting today here at Opryland as well.
  • The Caucus has 6 Committees and has asked to be kept informed of activities related to both the OCRWM and EM programs given the significant impact to many tribes.
• NCSL continues to work closely with the tribal leaders as well through its' State-Tribal Relations Project on issues related to spent fuel transportation.  Our last meeting between tribal leaders and state legislators was in May in New York City.
  • SNF transportation will be part of the State-Tribal Legislative Staff Training Institute schedule for this fall.
• Finally, NCSL also staffs the State and Tribal Government Working Group that focuses on EM at the former nuclear weapons complex sites.  Had our Spring meeting at Hanford in May which focused on long-term stewardship of these sites and also on an Implementation Framework document this group is working on to help DOE execute its Indian Policy.  Usually along side these STGWG meetings, we also hold one of the EM Roundtables for state legislators that I mentioned before.  The next STGWG and EM Roundtable sessions will be held at the Intergovernmental Meeting in DC the last week in November.

 Return to the Nuclear Waste Cleanup Menu Page