~ Meeting Summary ~
(PowerPoint presentations and any additional comments provided below.)

Plenary I - Department of Energy Program Updates

• Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) - Ward Sproat, Director (PowerPoint)

Key Issues
Budget - The Bush administration requested $494.5 million for fiscal year 2008, but OCRWM is planning for two potential scenarios: full funding or $50 million less if the Senate appropriation of $444.5 wins out (House version fully funds the program).

Mina Route - This rail route that goes through the Walker River Paiute reservation has been taken out of consideration for the rail line to Yucca Mountain, but the study will be included in the updated environmental impact statement (EIS).

Revised Cost Estimates - The budget authority requirements through 2023 (end of the construction phase) will require a cash flow at peaks of construction and operations at close to $2 billion.  The total system lifecycle cost should not exceed the value of the Nuclear Waste Fund (paid into by nuclear utility ratepayers for waste disposal).  Reactors are working longer and creating more waste, but are therefore also paying more into the fund.

Nuclear Waste Fund - $750 million is added each year by utility ratepayers.  The balance is now at about $19.5 billion, which is invested in treasury bills and getting about five percent interest each year.  There is enough money in the fund if OCRWM had access to it.  They are now dependent on Congress appropriating the necessary amounts.  Congress should take the fund off budget or change the "mandatory" characterization of the receipts into the fund to "discretionary," in order to match the discretionary characterization of the appropriation.

• OCRWM Office of Logistics Management – Gary Lanthrum, Director (PowerPoint)
  
  
• Office of Environmental Management (EM) - James Rispoli, Assistant Secretary (PowerPoint)

Ella McNeil will be taking over Dennis Ashworth's job as Director of the Office of Transportation.

The U.S. recently signed a cooperative agreement with the United Kingdom, which is likewise working toward clean up of legacy waste.

The EM program averages about 45 shipments of waste per day over time; truck being the primary mode of transportation.  Safe transportation is an integral part of the success of this program.

• EM Office of Transportation - Ella McNeil, Transportation Specialist (PowerPoint)

Q&A
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Section 180(c) funding for states is meant for emergency preparedness training, but what about funds for operations (escorts, inspections, etc)?

- What costs are appropriate uses of 180(c) is part of an ongoing discussion.  DOE plans to have its own escorts on shipments.  Gaps will need to be addressed.

What are your plans for plutonium consolidation?

- Making a business case for it to Congress.
- The MOX (mixed oxide) facility at Savannah River Site is due to begin construction on August 1, so could convert the plutonium waste there.  Vitrification (encasing waste in glass logs) could occur there for other wastes.

When will the 180(c) funding allocation for Native Americans be determined?  What about those tribes that already have resources?

- The planned allocation based on the Federal Register Notice is a one-time distribution of $200,000 for planning grants and $100,000 annually for training grants, without reference to mileage/population, etc.  Additional money for states will be based on a formula.  For tribes, DOE is working with stakeholders to determine how best to work this - likely with a needs assessment.

OCRWM – one of your strategies is working with states on transportation, yet you support Section 7 (a piece within a proposed federal bill for Yucca Mountain which reiterates DOE's/DOT's authority to preempt state rules in transportation).  And DOE suggest that 180(c) funds should not be used for inspections, etc.

- Section 7 was put into the federal bill to make it clear that if DOE was to run into local government obstacles, they could legally get around them.

Should state regional groups and tribes draft an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to ease funding restrictions?

- It would help.

What is the schedule for determining the need for a second repository?

- The Energy Secretary must report to Congress by 2010 regarding the need for a second repository.  The statutory amount of waste allowed at Yucca Mountain - 70,000 metric tons - is not scientific, but arbitrary.  If this figure holds, then the country will need a second repository even if no more nuclear plants are built and no more waste is created.  We should maximize the capacity of Yucca Mountain, and several pieces of legislation currently in Congress aim to do so.  Some studies have shown as much as double the current limit.  DOE will provide a report to Congress in the second half of 2008 that the country will need a second repository if the capacity at Yucca Mountain is not raised.

What is the cost differential between the Mina Route and the Caliente Corridor (two potential routes for the new rail line to be built in Nevada to Yucca Mountain)?  Can you incentivize a deal for tribes or the state of Nevada?

- The Walker River Paiute agreement was only for an environmental study.  The costs for Mina vs. Caliente would have equaled a savings of several hundred million dollars.  But the tribe pulled out of consideration because of safety concerns.

Could the Mina option be reopened?

- The draft rail environmental impact statement is due out this October; the final in the June 2008 timeframe.  A record of decision will be made shortly thereafter as a final answer to which rail line will be used.

Are states including reservation land in mileage for 180(c) funding calculations?

- The Routing Topic Group, where some of these questions will be asked, is open to all stakeholders.  Implementation of funding will have to look at how routes are calculated for states.  The tribal calculation will be completely separate and not affected by the state formula.

What are your views on the fines stacking up for the federal government for not removing the waste from utility sites by 1998, as contracted?  Do you have a preference for interim/temporary storage?  Would you consider co-locating Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) reprocessing facilities there?  What are the legal barriers to reprocessing by private companies?

- Interim storage – Is absolutely a good idea that has the potential to limit the federal government's liability.  DOE does not have the legal authority to do it until Yucca Mountain is open unless Congress changes the law.
- Reprocessing – The administration supports it, but it needs to make business sense and the legislature will need to help with its legality.
- Co-locating GNEP and interim storage makes a lot of sense.  Many in the private sector and administration want to do that, but are looking for consensus in Congress, etc.

How soon could Congress authorize interim storage?  How quickly could you put together a transportation plan?

- There would need to be a critical mass of interest on this issue for Congress to move on it; not enough focus for that to happen at the moment.
- The speed with which plans for transportation could be put together would depend on where the waste was going.  The Senate last year had a bill for several sites around the country.  These would all require environmental assessments, NRC licenses – so could take as long as the Yucca Mountain process.

Plenary II - Intermodal Operations Panel

• Federal Railroad Administration - Kevin Blackwell (PowerPoint)

Evaluation of Short Line Railroads.

• MHF Logistical Solution - Gene Gleason

MHF helps move waste for DOE's Environmental Management program.  They specialize in transportation, but are getting into the decommissioning of plants in the United Kingdom.

Standard operations include health, safety, security, and emergency procedures.  MHF works in full compliance with all federal/tribal/state/local laws and regulations.  It is important to conduct discussions of transload facility feasibility with tribes and local stakeholders.

• Edwards Moving and Rigging - Wes Knapp

Edwards is involved in heavy transport and moves heavy loads on a daily basis.  They have moved radioactive materials for decommissioned sites.  Edwards presents traffic plans to local DOT in advance of shipments for their input on traffic patterns and controls.  Bridges are the biggest hindrance to ease of heavy transport.

Many carriers find it difficult to adhere to all of the various state laws related to transportation of hazardous wastes; must meet multiple requirements for permits, escorts, etc. 

• National Nuclear Security Administration - Chuck Messick (PowerPoint)

Concurrent Breakout Sessions

• National Transportation Plan - Judith Holm and Corinne Macaluso, OCRWM (PowerPoint)

DOE will make some changes to the plan and re-release the draft in August.  The comment period will run through the first part of September.

The National Transportation Plan (NTP) outlines the strategy and process for developing and implementing the transportation system to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from its origin sites to Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  The NTP includes the status of current activities and timeline for future developments, outlines the role of participants and opportunities for stakeholder input, and reviews issues/decisions that have shaped the plan.

Q&A
What affect with new rules/regulations regarding transportation requirements have on this plan?

- DOE is keeping an eye on the new federal rail security legislation and the DOT/Transportation Security Administration rulemakings related to rail transport of hazardous materials (see PowerPoint presentation on the rulemakings below).
- 180(c) will be handled in stages, so DOE is not concerned about releasing funds before they are certain that those routes will comply with whatever rules and regulations apply at the time the shipping campaign begins.  They are currently in the Federal Register Notice stage, moving next toward deciding on criteria for pilot projects.

As 180(c) must be used only for emergency preparedness training purposes, will there be additional/alternate funding for equipment, calibration, etc.?

- DOE is still looking into this.  States will need to inform DOE of how they are meeting the needs of local officials as a criterion for receiving a grant under the program.

Why are you creating the plan before your benchmarking studies have been completed?

- This is an umbrella plan; more specific plans will follow with operational details that will require information/lessons learned from the benchmarking study.

Suggestion: Identify a small business plan for procurement.

The procurement strategy is not detailed in this plan.

- Certain decisions have not yet been made, but the overall procurement strategy is not being made public due to business sensitivity.

Suggestion: Seek input from local government and states as to local tax revenue, hiring, regulations.

Is interim storage required in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?

- No.  There was a short period of time where Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) was permitted, but that window has closed.  Interim storage in Nevada is now barred by law.

• Update on EM Activities - Christine Gelles, Scott DeClue, and Bill Mackie, EM

Environmental Management Waste Disposition (PowerPoint)
Spent Nuclear Fuel Transfer Project (PowerPoint)
Waste Isolation Pilot Project (PowerPoint) 

A Federal Register Notice was released on July 23, 2007 regarding Greater than Class C waste (GTCC - a designation of radioactive waste with higher concentration of radioactivity than that found in low-level A, B, and C wastes) and disposal alternatives for GTCC (http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov/).  A New Mexico tribal member expressed concern that Los Alamos National Laboratory is mentioned as a possible disposal site for GTCC since there are sacred grounds there.  Another New Mexico meeting participant thinks WIPP is an appropriate place, but would need to look into New Mexico agreement specifications.

TEC Topic Groups

• 180(c) Topic Group

The topic group did not meet, but Corinne Macaluso, DOE project lead for the group, made the following presentation during TEC detailing the Federal Register Notice on Nuclear Waste Policy Act Section 180(c) funds for states and tribes for emergency preparedness for radioactive waste transportation to Yucca Mountain.
(Topic Group Recommendations vs. Revised Proposed Policy presentation)

• Tribal Topic Group (Agenda)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Section 180(c) Funding
DOE is requesting that when tribes conduct a needs assessment for 180(c) emergency preparedness funding, they take into account all of the federal funding they receive for hazardous materials or other related programs and not incur redundancy or double payments.  DOE will likely shape a formula for 180(c) similar to the Hazardous Management Emergency Program through DOT. 

DOE is putting together a grant guidance document (instructions for applying for 180(c)).  By a certain date, all federal grants must be applied for online.

DOE hoped to do a 180(c) pilot program this year, but didn't have the funding, so will try again next year.  DOE is considering using one state from each region and a couple of tribes to walk through the whole process: application, evaluation, pretend dissemination of money, how things are coordinated and the money is used, and how monetary uses are reported back to DOE.

Eligible tribes (those along transportation routes to Yucca Mountain) will receive 180(c) funds in three general categories:
1) to do planning and needs assessment
2) for training (annual amount for the life of the transportation campaign)
3) on a case by case basis as to needs (for states, a formula is being used for this portion)

Cultural Presentation - Richard Arnold, Pahrump Paiute Tribe, Nevada
The University of Michigan conducted a literary review of affected tribes around Yucca Mountain, which resulted in three major groups:
     - Western Shoshone
     - Southern Paiute
     - Owens Valley
(from these, 16 tribes can be broken out)

Some tribal elders had a difficult time understanding radiation, so used the analogy of an angry rock.  Elders did not want these angry rocks from around the country to be brought to Yucca Mountain and in term make the mountain angry.

All tribes were opposed to the Yucca Mountain project.  But there were two options for moving forward:
1) Could recommend against Yucca Mountain and walk away.
2) Could voice opposition to Yucca Mountain, but get involved in the process.  The tribes chose this option as a proactive strategy.  As Yucca Mountain was going to happen regardless of their concerns, the tribes at least wanted to be involved in identifying important natural resources that should be protected, which they did by writing a resource document (related to the environmental impact study).  They wanted to ensure that the Indian belief system was included in decisions where possible.

Indians must work with various offices within DOE, as each seems to have separate Indian programs (RW, EM, NNSA, etc.).  This can be very confusing for some, but tribes need to work within the system.

Yucca Mountain has been removed from public access, but Indians have a mental knowledge of its history based on explorations of the area before it became federal land.  Contrary to popular belief, the Nevada Test Site is not a wasteland, it is home to several tribes.  Some parts are pristine, and others are contaminated.  Waste will pass through the states, but it will rest in the backyards of tribes.

Implementation Framework - Kristin Ellis, DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
The DOE Offices of EM, NNSA, Nuclear Energy, and Science have all signed on to the Indian Policy Implementation Framework, which instructs the offices on how to meet commitments in the DOE Indian Policy.  The document also covers tribal interaction and communication with DOE.

OCRWM would like to have an implementation framework as well based on its unique duties.  The Tribal Topic Group may be an appropriate place to explore this further.

The new Office of Indian Energy Policy will have more of an energy development focus, and include opportunities for energy generation on tribal lands for those who would like to get involved.

Tribal Involvement Plan
The purpose of the Tribal Involvement Plan is to find effective ways to involve tribes more in DOE stakeholder outreach.  The plan will document efforts with tribes – meetings, tours, reservation visits - and chart future actions.  The plan is in concurrence now and will be available for comment soon.  Paloma Hill is the main contact for this plan.

Comments/Questions:
Did the tribes find the Denver Workshop on radioactive waste transportation useful; should DOE host one each year?
     - Yes.
     - Perhaps the next Tribal Workshop could be planned as a pre-conference in advance of a TEC meeting or somehow piggyback to avoid extra travel.
     - Could potentially link with State-Tribal Government Working Group meetings, although those focus on EM issues.

Big issues for tribes:  Who is eligible for 180(c) funding?  Which routes will be chosen and who are the tribes along those routes?  What about tribes with, or without, "infrastructure?"  Each tribe should do a needs assessment and a lessons learned of their own experiences with hazardous materials transportation across their reservation.  Appreciate the idea of having a tribal summit every year.

Tribes should participate in all of the topic groups at TEC to ensure their knowledge and input covers all issue areas.

DOE is seeking comments from tribes on the recently released National Transportation Plan (see notes above) as well as on the 180(c) Federal Register Notice, where it applies to tribes, within 90 days.  With 180(c), tribes are interested in eligibility, that the merit review panel involve at least one tribal representative from each region, and that the allowable activities for use of funds include personnel.

The state formula is not appropriate for tribes because it is based on numbers that would not translate, such as population size and miles traveled.  Tribes are concerned about mileage across reservations being counted in the state allocation (example: Laguna Pueblo has roads and rail running through their lands; if the state claims the mileage and population for their funding allocation, that will take away from the tribe.  But the tribe will be the first responders because the state municipalities are more than 30 miles away.).

Should eliminate block granting ($100,000, etc.) if choosing to follow a needs assessment.  Needs may not fit within these funding limits in some cases, or may be far less in other cases.

Concerns about exclusion of affected, but non-federally-recognized tribes. 

180(c) will last throughout the shipment campaign.  Every part of the Federal Register Notice is applicable to tribes, except for the method of allocation; a supplemental notice is forthcoming. 

DOE will host a teleconference to discuss the Indian needs assessment method and will work with tribes to craft a supplement to the Federal Register Notice laying out funding for affected Indian nations.

"Affected status" funds are different than 180(c) funds.  180(c) purely relates to transportation issues for any shipments conducted under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.  "Affected status" deals with a county or tribe's proximity to Yucca Mountain.

Tribes should strive to interact with their state congressional leaders.

• Routing Topic Group (Agenda)

The Routing Topic Group is currently working to define "suite of routes" to clarify the end goal of its work over the next 1-2 years.

Routing Topic Group Task Plan comments:

- The DOE Notice of Public Intent, which includes public involvement, is not incorporated into the task plan.  This may be done separately through DOE.
- The topic group should test criteria on previous shipping campaigns to see if they are viable, not on future campaigns.
- It is unclear how detailed DOE would like the criteria to be?  The regional attempts at routing included extensive criteria, whereas it seems DOE would like fewer.
- The topic group need not define everything in advance or predetermine an outcome.  The approach may not be sequential, so the topic group should not try to build a methodology now.
- The topic group need not do a criteria review for the whole nation now; this will fall out in the process.  Comment: Should not push the criteria review aside though and ignore it.  The topic group needs guidance with these decisions.
- The topic group should address 180(c) when discussing routing to optimize where the dollars go.  Preparedness and emergency response are for safety, but they are also important for public perception.
- The topic group should review the routes provided in the National Environmental Protection Act documents for Yucca Mountain, expected in Oct./Nov.

Overview of the Proposed Rail Safety and Security Rulemakings (PowerPoint)
The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) released new proposed rulemakings in December, 2006 related to the transportation of hazardous materials.

Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, Survey of Docketed Comments (PowerPoint)
The comment period on the proposed rulemakings ended in February, 2007; the final rulemakings are expected in September, 2007.

- The majority of comments dealt with routing (pros included the additional routing considerations-safety/security/uniformity, the antis included costs/liability/pre-emption, etc. – about half and half).
- Only five percent of comments dealt with nuclear material.
- Comments are publicly available.

Topic Group comments on DOT/TSA rulemakings:

- Previously thought these rulemakings would influence Yucca Mountain shipment routing, but they don't seem as relevant for cross-country spent fuel shipments.  Railroads have already chosen their preferred routes.
- Why aren't DOT/DHS choosing the routes?  DOE: If their rulemakings supersedes our work, then our efforts with routing will cease.  Comment: Rules won't narrow down the routing options to one though.
-  reality of routing is that one to two years out from shipments to Yucca Mountain, the railroads will look at available routes and propose a plan to DOE.  Decisions will be made through agreement between carriers and DOE.
-  topic group should study the proposed rulemakings to ensure that all factors are considered.  Comment: But the comment period is now over and the final decision is expected in September.
- Special circumstances will allow for the input of local stakeholders regardless of these rulemakings.
- The DOT rulemaking is focused on routing, whereas the TSA rule focuses on security/tracking.

Suite of Routes Definition comments:

- The Midwest regional meeting discussed routes as just the main lines, not from each origin site (usually only one choice from origin to main line).  The definition should be about broad concepts/goals, not operations.
- DOE met with railroads and studied five sites and potential routes from those.
- Need practical criteria at the beginning of a routing project to winnow down routes to those that are actually possible.  Should have rail companies look at all options first and weed out what is impossible (based on criteria – tunnels, railroad conditions etc.).
- DOE comment: Don't need to trip over terminology – a suite is necessary to allow for some operational flexibility.  This topic group should look at the big picture when planning a strategy for selecting routes - focus on what we want to end up with.  If the topic group is more comfortable with it, DOE can just call the result of the group's work "routes," versus a "suite" if that helps move the process along.

Topic group to host a conference call around August 15.

• Security Topic Group

The Security Topic Group is going on hiatus primarily because security-related information can't be discussed in an open forum such as TEC. 

(Draft Annotated Bibliography Review - PowerPoint)
A draft bibliography of security information may be unsuitable for DOE sponsorship (won't be released; no further action by DOE is planned for this topic group).  Question exists as to determining the suitability of information for possible dissemination.  One option: convene law enforcement officers and others with clearances through the state regional groups, and invite DOE, to closed-door sessions. 

(Information Sharing for Transportation - PowerPoint)
Comments on the draft Information Sharing Document (not a protocol) are due in one month.  Once final, the Security Topic Group will sunset.

• Rail Topic Group

(Overview of Proposed Rail Legislation - PowerPoint)
There are competing bills on Capitol Hill right now dealing with rail transportation safety and security: HR1518/S918 vs. HR2095.  The Department of Transportation (DOT) supports HR1518/S918, not HR2095 (a main difference involves the handling of railroad operating employee fatigue issues).

Rail safety and security rulemakings: DOT and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) share responsibility and authority for the safe transportation of hazardous materials.  The DOT rulemaking requires certain carriers to analyze routing data, considering no fewer than 27 risk factors to ensure they are choosing the safest and most secure routes.  (Kevin Blackwell presentation above details these rulemakings.)

Closing comments:

-  has been discussion about possibly starting a Social Risk Topic Group in TEC, which DOE is now considering.
- The next TEC meeting will probably be in the northwest (Portland/Seattle) in February.