Discussion of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Issues
Earl Easton, Senior Scientist for Transportation Issues; NRC

Question 1:  What is the status of the information sharing initiative requested by the states?
A:  NRC appreciates the states submitting their information requests.  Sharing of sensitive information requires approval from the top levels of NRC.   There is no timetable, but NRC is working to get it out.

Question 2:  What is happening with the route approval process for shipments?
A:  NRC continues to review routes; will drive or fly a prospective route ahead of a shipment as necessary to ensure viability, not in every case (generally do not fly routes).  NRC has rejected a route or required an alternative route occasionally at times of higher risk.  NRC is expecting to update the 1980 guidelines in the near future.

Question 3:  What is the status of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on potential terrorist attacks at Diablo Canyon?
A:  The 9^th Circuit Court directed NRC to redo its EIS of the independent spent fuel storage installation being built at Diablo Canyon in California to include consideration of a terrorist attack.  The Supreme Court refused to take the NRC's appeal in February, so in compliance with the lower court's decision, the NRC announced that it would submit a revised EIS.  Appeals have been filed in three Circuits, and if one is contradictory to the 9^th, the Supreme Court will be obligated to take the case.

Question 4:  What is the status of new power plant applications and what are expectations for the future?
A:  NRC will be very busy from 2007 to 2012.  Expect about 25 applications to be submitted.
The application process has been streamlined.  Early site permits allow corporations intending to build plants to conduct initial work ahead of full approval.  The NRC has encouraged the use of standard development design.  In a combined license review period, the public can comment.  After construction begins, NRC will examine the facility and ensure that it complies with the license.

Question 5:  What does NRC require to ship nuclear waste to France?
A:  Such shipments require a transport license from the NRC with specific criteria.  Considerations include who is shipping the waste and to whom it’s being shipped, and is subject to executive review (State Dept.).  The same process is required for material being shipped to the U.S.  AREVA Corporation in France has said that international shipping costs are a huge impediment. 

Question 6: How does NRC propose to address transportation, aging, and disposal (TAD) canister design proposals?
A:  TADs will be looked at under at least four parts of NRC regulations (50, 71, 72, and 63).  There will be a separate, independent process in each part. 
The NRC has an intra-agency group that coordinates activities so that those involved in the various part reviews are aware of what is being done elsewhere in the agency.

Question 7:  In light of the Baltimore tunnel fire study, does the NRC agree and accept the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) recommendations for further testing of transportation casks?
A:  Reviews and investigations are ongoing.  There is no formal way to respond to the NAS study group.  NRC feels that it has met the intent of the regulations. 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) Program Update and General Discussion
Alex Thrower; DOE-OCRWM
There are four strategic objectives under which OCRWM is operating (developed by director Ward Sproat):

• Submit a docketable license application (LA) by June 30, 2008;
• Establish a nuclear culture among its staff;
• Address the growing liability from DOE's inability to accept waste from generators; and
• Develop and implement a national transportation plan that takes state, tribal and local concerns into consideration. 

Part of the reformation of the program will require bringing in a younger generation to work on the project with a focus on needed skill sets moving past the original scientific review phase toward the construction and operational phases of the project.

Congress has approved a $444.5 million budget for OCRWM in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution.

The Bush administration proposed legislation again this year to speed progress at the Yucca Mountain repository (similar to a bill introduced in 2006).  Key provisions of the legislation include:

• Land withdrawal around Yucca Mountain;
• Access to the Nuclear Waste Fund (fees paid by utility rate-payers for disposal of spent fuel); and
• Removal of the statutory limit on the amount of waste that can be buried at Yucca Mountain.

2007 Priorities for the Office of Logistics Management under OCRWM:

• Draft a national transportation plan;
• Complete the Supplemental Rail Environmental Impact Statement;
• Publish the method by which funds for emergency preparedness to states and tribes, required under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, will be handled;
• Expand benchmarking to identify best practices;
• Coordinate the TAD canister system development effort; and
• Work on routing criteria for a preliminary suite of routes.

The Nevada Transportation Project has changed significantly in the last few days.  The Mina Corridor has been removed from consideration as the Walker River Paiute Tribe has re-raised objections to analysis of the route which runs through their reservation.  Current plans project that the Nevada rail will be operational in 2014.  OLM now looking at previous shipping campaigns, identifying best practices, and receiving guidance from other entities in developing a suite of routes. 

Responses to Questions
DOE has conducted experiments to test how certain materials might behave if targeted in a terrorist attack.  Preliminary results seem to show that the potential risks might not be as catastrophic or dangerous as was originally feared.  Bob Halstead of Nevada noted that many have criticized the attack studies for looking at one form of attack at a time, rather than examining results of a scenario where multiple weapons or forms of attack are used.  Under a multilateral agreement, test data could shared by countries that will reveal greater information on these types of questions.

DOE will be able to finish the Supplemental Rail EIS and continue to support its cooperative agreements with State Regional Groups under the current budget conditions. 

In the administration's proposed legislation, the federal government's ability to preempt state rules and regulations regarding transportation would operate exactly as it does now - no additional preemption.  They would go through the Department of Transportation the same way other licensees would.  (State groups don't understand why it is necessary to create new law around preemption if this is the case.)

National Transportation Plan Development
Judith Holm; DOE-OCRWM
Creating a National Transportation Plan is one of OCRWM Director Ward Sproat’s priorities.  The plan includes operations, transportation system/infrastructure development, institutional outreach, a situation assessment, and a schedule and cost baseline.

ORCWM will review past planning efforts to identify gaps in planning and attempts to fill these needs.  Congress and other stakeholders are the intended audience for the plan. 

The release of a draft plan for comment is expected before the Transportation External Coordination Working Group meeting in July.  The project would like to issue the final plan in September or October, 2007, although it would be a living document and reflect changes in the program as they occur. 

States have the opportunity to contribute in areas such as infrastructure development, emergency preparedness, routing, operations planning, and identification of unresolved issues.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act Routing Issues
Bob Halstead; State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects
The routing process underway presents problems because:

• There are limited route options in the west;
• It is currently unclear where authority lies over rail routing; and
• Plans need to incorporate suggestions from states and railroads.

Using a suite of routes to transport waste is attractive because it promotes flexibility, security, and greater equity across regions.  This approach also adds complexity to the system that state, local and tribal governments must contend with.

More attention needs to be paid to potential effects of the chosen routes.  If the suite approach is chosen, how will DOE decide which to use among multiple choices available?

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP): Program Status and Transportation Implications
Jack Wheeler; DOE - Office of Nuclear Energy
President Bush requested $243 million for GNEP in fiscal year 2007.  With energy consumption increasing worldwide, the administration hopes to promote "clean" nuclear power by providing fuel to user nations and recycling spent fuel in a safe manner to reduce the waste burden.

Major elements include:

• Recycling spent nuclear fuel (SNF);
• Creating advanced burner reactors to be fueled by waste streams left in the recycled SNF; and
• Using an international fuel service to reduce proliferation concerns.

DOE is examining three fuel cycle facilities to support GNEP:

• Nuclear fuel recycling center
• Advanced burner reactor
• Advanced fuel cycle research facility

The administration's requested budget for GNEP in fiscal year 2008 is $395 million.

Thirteen sites are currently being considered to locate facilities for the program.  Five sites are non-DOE controlled.