Department of Energy (DOE), Transportation External Coordination (TEC) Working Group
February 6-7, 2008 - San Antonio, TX
MEETING SUMMARY and PRESENTATIONS
 To view PDF files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) Update
Gary Lanthrum, Director; DOE-OCRWM Office of Logistics Management
PowerPoint Presentation
Funding cuts may delay submission of the license application for the construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Earlier estimates planned for submission by June 30, 2008.
The Yucca Mountain project has already undergone personnel layoffs (particularly at the site), and additional layoffs will come.
Events/Decisions to come this year:
- Expecting a Record of Decision on the draft supplemental environmental impact statements OCRWM released in October 2007 on the Yucca Mountain repository and rail corridor/alignment in Nevada.
- A supplemental Federal Register Notice on the distribution method for 180(c) funding to tribes. (Funding and technical assistance to states and tribes along transportation routes was required in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. A state formula for distribution of funds was released in 2007).
- Ward Sproat, director of OCRWM is set to testify at a congressional budget hearing on February 12.
Problems with the budget seem to be circular. Budget shortfalls stymie progress with the project, which leads to uncertainty in Congress and decreased support.
Environmental Management (EM) Program Update
William Spurgeon, Transportation Specialist; DOE-EM Office of Packaging and Transportation (fill in for Ella McNeil)
PowerPoint Presentation
The DOE Environmental Management program, responsible for cleaning up legacy waste from nuclear weapons production during the Cold War, has 24 sites left around the country. Most sites are on tap for completion by 2018 - exceptions being bigger sites with ongoing missions such as Hanford (WA), Idaho National Lab, Paducah (KY), Portsmouth (OH), Oak Ridge (TN), Savannah River Site (SC), Nevada Test Site, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (NM).
Shipments underway or planned:
- Spent fuel from Hanford to Idaho (ongoing)
- Depleted uranium oxide from Savannah River to EnergySolutions in Utah (to begin in fiscal year 2009)
- Spent fuel between Idaho and Savannah River (30 shipments per year, to begin in calendar year 2009)
- Uranium oxide from Portsmouth and Paducah to the Nevada Test Site (products of depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion, may begin in 2009).
Tribal Cultural Presentation
Richard Arnold, Pahrump Paiute Tribe and Lalovi Miller, Moapa Band of Paiutes
Tribes near Yucca Mountain have strongly held beliefs about water, and a long history of agricultural development (controlled burns, etc.). Yucca Mountain is many things to the tribes that depend on it: a grocery store, pharmacy, school and church.
The Southern Paiute has a holy land 30 miles from Yucca Mountain. Indians received the right to practice their own religions in the 1970s. Other tribes such as the Western Shoshone would also be affected due to the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. All tribes near Yucca Mountain signed an agreement that they opposed studying the location for characterization for a nuclear waste repository - but decided to get involved in the process to have a voice.
Indians have concerns about the safety of transporting radioactive waste and permanently disposing of it in a repository. DOE environmental impact statements (EISs) did not include Indian concerns, so Indians became more actively involved and wrote a resource document. Pieces of the document were included in later EISs.
Tribes have many concerns that are not fully understood or respected. Indians have historical knowledge of the land, and believe that radioactivity is a spiritual being that cannot be contained. There are real and calculated risks, as well as unique, perceived risks based on culture.
Evaluation of Short Line Railroads; Department of Transportation (DOT) -Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Track Safety Standards PowerPoint Presentation
Evaluation of Short Line Railroads PowerPoint Presentation
Winchester and Western Railroad Assessment PowerPoint Presentation
Considering Social Risks of Nuclear Materials Management
Dr. Hank Jenkins-Smith; University of Oklahoma, Department of Political Science
PowerPoint Presentation
There is a special nature to "nuclear" risk perceptions, due to a social tag on all things radioactive (comic books, weapons usage). Risk perception is context dependent, and should involve a risk/benefit trade off. Is one (clean, nuclear energy) worth the other (radioactive waste).
Social risk is amplified or attenuated depending on what each side is trying to "sell," and on their ability to inform about their perspective as to the reality of a situation. Trust and confidence in the speaker colors people's perception of risk.
Perceived risk is also shaped by gender, cultural and ethnic disposition, age, mobility or lack thereof (ties to the land). The fact that perceived risk is so difficult to quantify means that it is so often ignored or downplayed in a technical project such as Yucca Mountain.
DOE has largely ignored social risk, so most of the scientific research coming out on the issue is from the State of Nevada, which amplifies concerns. Findings from national surveys show that support for nuclear energy is growing though, and that most people support a centralized storage facility. Perceived risks have not diminished, but perceived benefits have increased, so DOE should tap into support by highlighting benefits as well as risks.
Breakout Session on Environmental Management (EM)
- Spent Fuel Transfer between Savannah River (SRS) and Idaho National Lab
Scotty DeClue, Federal Project Director; DOE-EM
PowerPoint Presentation
Aluminum clad spent nuclear fuel will be transported from Idaho to SRS (to be blended down at H-Canyon) - 4,000 assemblies/pieces
Non-aluminum clad spent fuel will be transported from SRS to Idaho - 2,000 assemblies/pieces.
Transfer will begin in fiscal year 2010 (Oct. 2009) and completed in fiscal year 2019. There will be 2-3 shipments per month (versus the current 1-2 shipments per year). Shipments will likely involve the same routes that are used now for transporting spent fuel.
Transportation planning involves tapping into the experiences and knowledge of each DOE office that has shipped spent fuel. Scotty DeClue's office will issue a Spent Nuclear Fuel Transfer Transportation Plan and Security Plan that will follow examples from the Domestic Research Reactor, Foreign Research Reactor, and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant shipping campaigns.
DOE is still deciding how to conduct communication/notification with states and tribes as some of the information will be safeguarded. The goal is to follow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safeguards regulations and standards, to gain the confidence of states and tribes.
The campaign may use Foreign Research Reactor-type casks (leasing them). Early planning suggests perhaps 2-3 casks (trucks) per shipment, and a 3-5 day turnaround time.
DOE considered hosting a workshop in March at Savannah River, but that is now in question due to funding constraints. Ella McNeil, acting director of EM's Office of Transportation, will determine whether to host such a workshop.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Update
William Mackie, Manager of Institutional Affairs; DOE-Carlsbad Field Office, National TRU Program
PowerPoint Presentation
As of the end of January, WIPP had received 6,292 shipments of contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste, and 109 shipments of remote-handled (RH) TRU waste for disposal in their underground salt repository.
The goal for 2008 includes five RH shipments per week; the first half to come from Idaho, then from Argonne (IL) in June, Argonne and Savannah River in July, Savannah River in August, Savannah River and Oak Ridge (TN) in Sept., Oak Ridge and Los Alamos (NM) in Oct., and Oak Ridge and Idaho in Nov. and Dec.
Los Alamos shipments will need prior approval from the state Environmental Department as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Training is currently underway along Interstate 59 - the route between Birmingham, AL and Oakridge. WIPP must verify that training is completed before opening that route for RH shipments. WIPP also plans to do a road show along the route for state and public information purposes.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Disposition Activities Update
Douglas Tonkay, Engineer; DOE-EM Office of Disposal Operations
PowerPoint Presentation
Mr. Tonkay's office established a Corporate Board to work initiatives and ongoing planning activities, identify new technology and packaging, and look for efficiencies.
Current issues: impacts of reduced budgets, disposal of classified waste, large objects, etc., new onsite disposal cells, future disposal of mixed-LLW, limited cadre of Q-clearance (high level security clearance) drivers, reducing transport costs.
Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste - Section 631 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires a report to Congress on how to dispose of GTCC LLW and "like" DOE waste.
DOE completed a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to identify disposal alternatives and potential locations for the total inventory of GTCC - 5,600 cubic meters.
The report to Congress is planned for 2009 and the proposed disposal method may likely by intermediate depth borehole disposal. After the report is submitted Congress will act, and then DOE will issue a Record of Decision based on congressional action.
An online waste disposition forecast program (including waste locations and planned shipments) is publicly available at: http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/wims/. An update including 2008-2009 shipments is expected in March, followed by successive updates every six months.
Breakout Session on the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Frank Moussa, Supervisor; DOE-OCRWM Office of Logistics Management
PowerPoint Presentation
The National Transportation Plan (NTP), an OCRWM strategic plan for transporting spent fuel from around the country to Yucca Mountain, was released before the last TEC meeting in Kansas City in July 2007. Comments where received and discussed at the Kansas City meeting, but the NTP has since been rescinded for revision. It will be released again in 1-3 months.
Comment: Usually transportation plans are operational. Stakeholders need the details of operations to provide meaningful input. Stakeholders understand that it might have to be created farther into the future, given the fact that shipments are at least 10 years out. The original strategic plan should be worked through at TEC to eventually get to a detailed, operational plan.
Comment: Infrastructure needs at reactor sites should be included in the NTP.
TEC will be reforming its Communications Topic Group, and can review fact sheets and update those. Insights as to perceptions of risk given in Dr. Jenkins-Smith's presentation should be incorporated.
Status on 180(c) funding to states and tribes for emergency preparedness along transportation routes. DOE received 50 responses: 11 from states, 3 from State-Regional Groups, 3 from tribes, and several others from cities, professional groups, etc. These comments will be uploaded to the OCRWM website. A pilot project to study distribution of funds is on hold due to budget cuts. Are there activities at the state, tribal, or local level that DOE can piggy back on to keep communications open?
Suggestions: Department of Homeland Security state work, use WIPP procedures as a model for funding distribution, incorporate Foreign Research Reactor funding to states (small, but used for training).
--------------------------------------
A full set of meeting notes, participants, and presentations may be found on the TEC website at: http://www.tecworkinggroup.org/meetings.html.
|
