Office of Environmental Management (EM)
Bill Spurgeon; DOE-EM, Office of Transportation

Cleaning up 114 sites.  Ashtabula (Ohio), Fernald (Ohio), Columbus (Ohio), and Lawrence Berkley National Lab (California) to be finished in FY2007.  12 sites expected to be cleaned to completion in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Number of shipments is going down because of closure of Rocky Flats and Fernald, but shipments will continue with additional activities.

Transuranic waste (TRU) shipments are fairly steady because they're governed by the number of canisters available (1128 in 2006 and 290 through 1/22/07 - 5377 total to date).  First remote-handled waste (RH) has been shipped to WIPP without incident.

Changes to “incident” criteria may be made in order to correctly calculate for yearly review and to compare with transportation of other materials.  Dennis Ashworth meeting with stakeholders now to discuss this.

Performance:

       2004 to 2005- decrease in incidents 
       2006- spike again
       2007- 1 incident, 3 events (reportable, but no threat to safety)

TransCare- partnership with entities concerned with Hazmat transportation; working to improve transportation safety.

Update of Radioactive Material Transportation Practices Manual expected to be final in April 2007.

DOE/UNLVRF Truck Tracking Study:

• Many incidents have been caused by lack of attention that could have been prevented.
• Demonstration two weeks ago in Columbia, SC with another coming up in Las Vegas on February 21.

Future of EM Program:

• Disposal of Greater than Class C low-level waste- in the process of writing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for site selection of a disposal facility for commercial and government waste that fits this category (currently orphan waste); 5,000 cubic meters of waste; hoping for a solution by October 2008. 
• Transportation from Portsmouth and Paducah- these facilities are taking uranium hexafluoride and converting the material to uranium oxide.  Cylinders of uranium oxide will be packed in gondola cars.  Shipping campaign to last 20-25 years (5 to 6 shipments per week with 6 cars - to begin in about a year and a half).

Comment: Wish TEC meeting hadn’t been scheduled at the same time as the incident criteria meeting.  It is important to report in the future the same "incidents" as what you have reported in the past.  A distinction between what is considered important to health and safety is fine, but it should all be reported. 

Answer:  Will still report all "incidents" just not count them against our record.  You will get the same information in the future, but trying to distinguish between what is relevant to health and safety and what is not.

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)
Gary Lanthrum, Director; DOE-OCRWM, Office of Logistics Management

OCRWM Director Ward Sproat has four Strategic Objectives:

• Submit high quality license application (LA) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 30, 2008;
• Design, staff, and train OCRWM to represent appropriate culture within the repository program;
• Address the growing government liability associated with its breach of contract to accept industry waste; and
• Develop and begin implementation of a national transportation plan addressing stakeholder interests.

Dates:

• May 2008- Supplemental Repository EIS
• June 2010- Rail line operational
• 2017 - Waste acceptance at Yucca Mountain

Budget- Area of concern and interest.  FY2007 - still working under a continuing resolution (CR), scheduled to run through mid-February.  FY2008 budget not yet finalized.

Legislative Proposals:

• Land withdrawal (NRC requirement)
• Reclassifying waste fund receipts
• Capacity limit

Near-term Priorities:

• Complete draft LA.
• Transportation, Aging, and Disposal (TAD) canister systems
• Transportation planning system
• Build “nuclear culture”
• OCRWM must have a specific set of skills to be an NRC licensee and facility operator.

Transportation:

• National transportation project
• Nevada transportation project

2006 Accomplishments:

• Caliente draft rail alignment is essentially finished.
• Substantial benchmarking work done
• Continued consultation with stakeholders

Nevada Transportation Project Status:

• Caliente selected from possible options.
• Walker River Paiute Tribe asked for Mina route to be considered with goal of improving transportation.
• Expecting to have draft rail alignment EIS completed by September-October 2007.

Working on a National Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Transportation Plan- process includes requirements, infrastructure development, institutional outreach, operations. 

2007  Priorities:

• Publish draft 180(c) policy and appropriations procedures
• Continue work on routing criteria
• Complete Draft Supplemental EIS (and rail)

Q: Transportation Concept of Operations Document? Is this new?
A: Completed in April of 2006.  Will email it to TEC members.

C: Draft EIS coming out soon; it’s not clear how you’ll handle transportation analysis nationally.  Those concerned with national transportation will need to look at the Nevada analysis as well.  Someone needs to ensure that transportation analyses are consistent. 

C: In conducting the transportation strategic plan, there are a lot of open-ended issues (e.g. nuclear renaissance, GNEP, interim storage, and additional repositories) that should be taken into account.

A: We can’t address all of these things because they aren’t “real” yet.  OCRWM is charged with addressing a facility at Yucca Mountain.

C: There are so many documents casually referred to that it would be useful to have a list of all relevant documents for the project. 

Plenary II – Overview of Proposed Rail Safety & Security Rulemaking

Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Kevin Blackwell, DOT-FRA

DOT has authority to regulate transportation of hazmat.

DOT's new proposed rule focuses on routing, whereas the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) is more concerned with security (control, custody, and documentation).

DOT NPRM HM 232E- seeks to clarify and enhance existing regulations.  Requires railroads to:

• Collect data on routes
• Analyze safety and security risks, and next most commercially practicable route (in order to choose the safest).
• Communicate and address transit delays with cosignees.
• Address enroute storage.
• All carriers would be required to perform security inspections in conjunction with required safety inspections.
• FRA could require re-routing.
• Currently a proposal, not final

2 Public Meetings announced by DOT

• February 1- Washington
• February 9- Dallas
• Comment period closes on February 20, 2007

Q: What would the security inspection include?
A: Ground-level security inspection for tampering of car, anything on the car that shouldn’t be there, etc.

Q: At the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board meeting it was implied that additional TSA/DOT rulemaking would be forthcoming.
A: Not to my knowledge.

Q: In assessing how the rulemaking would affect transportation to Yucca Mountain, what are this rule's direct implications for DOE on routing?
A: Until you see how this actually plays out, that would be very hard to say.

TSA Rail Security Rule (worked in conjunction with DOT on this). - Seeks to enhance the security of the nation’s rail transportation system.

• Applies to all rail carriers, not just freight, and to fixed facilities that ship specific hazmat.
• Clarifies TSA's inspection authority.
• Designates a Rail Security Coordinator to report significant safety concerns.
  • Requires car location reporting (provide TSA information on hazmat shipments they have in high threat urban areas within one hour after a request, and provide car location and shipping information in acceptable formats)
  • Chain of custody and control would require:
    • Security inspections by shipper and rail carrier within and outside of high threat urban areas.
    • Documentation of custody transfer - shipper, carrier, co-signee
    • Secure control - shipper, carrier, co-signee.
• Public meeting February 1, 2007 in Arlington, VA.  Comment period ends February 20.

DOT/DHS Memorandum of Understanding - FRA/TSA September 28, 2006 Annex to coordinate procedures.

Public/Private Partnership:

• $5 million grant to Railroad Research Foundation
• Rail Corridor Risk Management tool
• Safe Haven Pilot Project-NJ
• Rail Corridor HM Response and Recovery Tool
• Provides formal methodology for compliance with regulations as well as a framework for improving communications

Plenary III – Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP), State of West Virginia Transportation Exercise

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Raymond English, DOE/NNPP

NNPP- handles all nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers in the fleet.

• Established in 1958
• Cradle to grave responsibility
• Outstanding safety, environmental, and operational record.

776 containers of nuclear material have been shipped since March, 1957 - all to Idaho National Laboratory for research to create high-performance, long-lasting fuel.  When began, naval nuclear reactors had life of 2 year, now 30+ years (life of carrier).

Shipping forecast for next 10 years = approx. 10 containers per year.

Navy shipments are safe because:
       Material is rugged - solid metallic form (not flammable or explosive)
       Containers are robust - M140 transportation cask
       Procedures are sound to handle any problems
       Shipments are escorted by NNPP personnel

Emergency Response priorities:
       Emergency first aid
       Summon assistance       
       Prevent further injury/damage
       Verify radiological condition

Bettis Laboratory- center for emergency response (“accident recovery and response”).  Lab acts as a bridge between shipper, carrier, and civilian authorities to coordinate communication with states involved in an emergency.

West Virginia Exercise (October 12, 2006) - 90% of lessons learned occur before the actual exercise takes place.

Exercise Model:

• Conceptual organizational meeting
• Detailed planning meeting (discuss scenario)
• Table top meeting
• Comm. link verification
• Walk Through/Dry Run meeting
• Exercise Day- intended to be a show for those concerned in the region.

Next exercise perhaps in 2009; in the process of site selection.

2/3 of their next 100 shipments will be coming from the east coast.

Q: Any lessons learned from the derailment and tip over of an empty container at the Buffalo Junction rail yard in September, 2005?
A: Mishandling during switching of cars at Portsmouth (so nothing logistical), which toppled the container over. Response was controlled due to being in a rail yard. Because procedures were in place, the state was immediately contacted (NNPP deals with state, who coordinates with local), responders were dispatched quickly from Bettis, and the railroad responded quickly.  The container was uprighted and ready to go within 48 hours of the incident.  Did learn that labels need to be placed on all sides of containers (top and bottom included), since when the container was on its side they couldn't see what materials the container held. Operationally, there was nothing that could’ve been done differently.

Q: How often are contracts renegotiated with railroads?
A: There is a common carrier relationship with class one railroads.  Currently negotiating long-term rates with the railroads.

Q: Are you AAR compliant?
A: Container was developed 12 years ago, and met all dynamic requirements at the time.

2 Pieces to Routing:

• What the rail shipper does - picks carrier and interchanges
• What the carrier does - How the carrier will route shipments in their custody.  The proposed rule affects this.

If the goal or the TEC Routing Group is to minimize miles and handoff points, the routes should be easy to pick.

Tribal Topic Group
Jay Jones; OCRWM/Office of Logistics Management

Nevada Rail Corridors:

• Looked at 5 corridors initially
• Caliente was chosen from the five
• Walker River Paiutes wrote letter allowing examination of Mina in 2006
• “Mostly rail” and dedicated trains designated as the preferred mode of transportation

Nevada Specific Tribal Activities:

• Initiating programmatic outreach with interested and historically connected tribes
• Have identified several tribes with historical ties to Yucca Mountain (YM)

YM Project Native American Interaction Program:

• Initiated in 1987
• 17 tribes and organizations
• Three ethnic groups in NV, AZ, CA, UT
• Program accomplishments- effectively talking with such a wide range of groups (official tribal contact representatives); tribal update meetings in Las Vegas once or twice a year for information exchange; extending visits to areas surrounding YM which have special significance to tribes.

Caliente Route:

• Cultural data gathering needs to take place in assessment
• Participation on Caliente EIS
• Visits to tribal locations to discuss events with interested members
• American Indian Writers Subgroup- field trips along the Caliente Corridor; preparation of EIS reference document
• Similar process would be used in evaluation of the Mina Route

Mina corridor would bring in another 8 affected tribes if considered

Q: What is a “directly-affected tribe?”
A: Determined by a half-mile stretch on either side of the route on which the waste will be shipped.  Tribes closest to routes would receive funding for emergency response capability.

Section 180(c) in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires funding for tribes for this purpose.  Determining now the best way to allocate funds for tribes in TEC's 180(c) Topic Group.  With states, using a formula, but with tribes will likely follow a needs basis.

Upcoming Tribal Workshop:

• 46 tribes
• April 24-26 in Denver (tribes requested a meeting on a reservation or one that would include a tour of Yucca Mountain).
• Input welcome on agenda presented at TEC

Rail Topic Group
Alex Thrower; OCRWM/Office of Logistics Management

Subgroups:

Inspections – Tim Runyon and Carlisle Smith

• Received feedback on the railroad security checklist - too lengthy.  Have shortened.
• Next Steps – present checklist to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) state managers, then Department of Transportation (DOT), FRA – to get it into regulation like CVSA highway inspections.
• FRA representatives did a test run with a railroad at a point of origin on two locomotives.  The total inspection took 1 hour and went very well.
• Instead of a checklist, should call the document an inspection verification document.
• Still taking feedback on document for about two months.  Won't finalize it until take it to FRA at the June '07 meeting.

Tracking and Radiation Monitoring – Sarah Wochos

• Tracking group recommendations sent by email to subgroup members.
• Group has done what it can do at this point.  Haven't even started on radiation monitoring.  No expertise in the group.
• Tracking useful to avoid constant stops for inspections.  Should have Radiation Monitoring subgroup – to include inspections.
• Technology will change, so need to keep up on it.

• TRANSCOM tracks the truck shipment, not the individual cars.  Should we track cars individually?  If one part of a shipment breaks down and is left, need to know that.  Leaving a part behind is a concept of operations decision, not a technical question.

• Item #47, regarding consolidated shipments to Yucca, to be emailed to group by Bob Halstead.  OCRWM using the Concept of Operations.

Planning – Ken Niles and Lisa Janairo

Planning timeline – no changes since last TEC meeting, review every 6 months with topic group by conference call.

Lessons Learned – Jane Beetem

• Revised draft emailed to rail topic group last week. 
• Organizational change (subcategories) and added executive summary.  Added comments from original draft in parenthesis. 
• One comment – some lessons conflicted with each other.  These are important to reflect though and need to be discussed. 
• Some repetition, but wanted it to be comprehensive.  Will eliminate repetition in the executive summary though.
• Will continue to take comments if provide new information.
• Draft fairly well finalized.

Suggestion: So many lessons learned documents; this one is good because it includes all viewpoints (including states).  Dovetail all three mail lessons learned documents into one?  DOE agrees.

General Comments:
FRA – Measuring doses, mostly low-level so less shielded, and getting only 60 to 70 mrem counts.

Future work on Supplemental or Rail EIS?

Future work should look at intermodal changes, potential issues with contracts with railroads.

Should train railroads to do radiation inspection work when do other inspections.  FRA – railroads have no money to purchase radiation survey equipment.

DOE - Maybe change Rail Topic Group to Operations Topic Group.

Look at task plan and see what is left to do.

Sandia - Has a database of all accidents that have ever occurred.  Available now to anyone, but stopped recording data in 1999.  Can get figures since then through DOT, but it is difficult to sort through all of the data.  Should we revive previous tracking process?

SCOP – 2/3 to 3/4 done through October, but new security rules proposed in December.  Need to find a way to update it without making it immediately irrelevant.  Revision probably done by summer 2007.

Tracking subgroup to now become Radiation Monitoring Subgroup.

CSG-ERC to lead Intermodal Subgroup?

Next Steps:
Next Rail Topic Group call will be a plenary call to determine which subgroups need to remain or be formed and to seek membership for those.  Will send around task plan and recommend changes to it based on priorities. 

Subgroups can meet by conference call and then decide if they want to sunset.

DOE - Groups must remain timely.

Routing Topic Group
Jay Jones; OCRWM/Office of Logistics Management

Introduction:

Three parts to transportion – safety, security, economics.

Topic Group seek to define a formula or set of weighted criteria to determine routes.

Suite of routes – more than one route, similar to Foreign Research Reactor (FRR) shipping program.  As shipment date gets closer, will pick one primary route.

Comment: This won't work for distributing 180(c) emergency preparedness funding - need to know which cities and tribes will be affected by which routes will be used in order to fund them.  Should pick one main route and one backup route.

Comment: Operational approach (FRR) versus planning approach (one main route for 180c) doesn't work.

Comment: If suite of routes is for security or weather reasons – perhaps we can narrow distance of routes so states can plan.

DOE: Looking nationally, not from reactor to highway or rail link.

Comment:  Need to talk about legs of the journey.  First leg – from reactor to first choice (not suites here).  Second leg – from choice to consolidated route, etc.  Are we to adopt the concept of consolidated routes?

Task Plan:
Task plan timeline fluid.
Progression: criteria, preliminary suite of routes will highlight what is possible and practical, choose best from here.

General Overview:
After much confusion from the group about its role in selecting routes, DOE explained the following charge:

• Purpose is operational flexibility.  This group created to identify criteria priorities.
• Local choices may be plentiful, but there aren't many cross-country options to weed through, particularly out west.
• In terms of consolidation, may have some cross connect when get to main lines, but initially, shipments will go directly from reactors to Yucca Mountain.  There will be a small number of shipments to start, and there is plenty of spent fuel at each location to make its own shipment.  Later, could realize benefits of consolidation, in which case there could be marshalling yards at a cross connect, which would become the main shipping point.
• Suggestion from American Association of Railroads (AAR): Have the railroads look at what is possible, then talk to states about among these, which is preferred.  No need to start with an unlimited number of options when some will not be available for these shipments.

Tools Presentations:

TRAGIS: Paul Johnson, Transportation Geographer; Oak Ridge National Laboratory-GIS and Technology Group

Presented an exercise showing 8 possible routes cross country from the H.B. Robinson site in South Carolina to the Caliente Corridor in Nevada based on different criteria priorities.  Important to keep in mind railroad rights and preferences.

RADTRAN: Ruth Weiner; Sandia National Laboratories-Transportation Risk and Packaging

Using same routes as TRAGIS exercise, provided probability and consequence for three potential transportation scenarios: incident-free routine transportation radiation risk, non-radiological accident, radiological accident (used accident rates from Sarricks and Tompkins, ANL 1999).

Because radiological accident highly unlikely (1 in 1.1 billion), should look at minimizing miles and switches to limit time and exposure to radiation in canisters by drivers/inspectors.  States can then provide local perspectives if certain areas should be avoided in a shipping campaign.

FRA: Kevin Blackwell, Railroad Safety Specialist; DOT-Federal Railroad Admin.

FRA also completed a railroad routing study, which can be used as a companion to the TRAGIS program.