High Level Waste Committee


7:30 a.m.	Continental Breakfast

8:30 a.m.	States' Only Meeting
	· States' Roundtable

	Members of the TEC topic group

	WGA Transportation Resolution 04-02 Assessing the Risks of Terrorism and Sabotage Against High Level Nuclear Waste Shipments to a Geologic Repository or Interim Storage Facility
	WGA Waste Management Resolution 03-16 Assessing the Risks of Terrorism and Sabotage Against High Level Nuclear Waste Shipments to a Geologic Repository or Interim Storage Facility
	WGA Transportation Resolution 02-05 Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

	Staff Report on Activities Since Last Meeting
	· Chronology of Actions

	· Briefing by consultant, Dan Nix, on DOE models and Committee's strategic plan
	> HLW LP Overview
	> Strategic Plan

	Dan will provide a briefing on DOE's transportation Investment Planning Model and its relationship to WIEB's strategic plan.

	Based on the last HLW committee meeting in San Diego, staff has written up seven what if scenarios. These scenarios will be applied to the committee's strategic plan to determine how the plan should be adjusted or refined.

	- "What if?" Scenario

	· Report of Committee's 180(c) working group
	> Truck Shipments of High-Level Waste: Alternate Impacts, Nevada presentation


	For the last six months, a subcommittee of the HLW committee has been participating in a series of meetings and teleconferences with DOE and other state regional groups. As a result, the group has developed four issue papers. The attached four issue papers will ultimately be incorporated into a Federal Register Notice describing DOE's policies and procedures for 180(c). The most important issue is the question of how 180(c) monies will be distributed to the states. A separate memo has been sent to the committee outlining two proposals: 1) An agreement reached by the SRGs; 2) An alternative proposal by Ken Niles

	-180(c) Potential outline of DOE policies
	-180(c) Funding distribution method rev 3
	-180(c) Allowable activities issue paper rev 3
	-180(c) Funding Allocation method rev 4
	-180(c) Training levels issues paper rev 3

	· Update on Rail Routing Topic Group - Scott Ramsay

	This group is evolving into a general routing topic group. The group will focus on rail routing as this is the most undefined mode.

	· Update on Security Topic Group - Bill Mackie

10:15 a.m.	Break

11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.	Lunch on your own

1:00 p.m.	Committee Meeting

	OCRWM Report - Judith Holm, OCRWM
	>Holm presentation

	Some of the questions we have asked OCRWM to address include:

	- What is the budget outlook for 2005-2006?
	- What are DOE’s expectations for funding levels for 180(c)?
	- Will DOE consider developing a rule rather than a policy on 180(c)?
	- Has DOE made a final decision on whether or not to do full scale testing?
	- How will DOE eventually respond to NRC’s safeguards and security regulations?
	- Will DOE prepare a Comprehensive Transportation Plan?
	- When will DOE make its decision on whether to use dedicated trains?
	- What is the schedule for building rail access in Nevada?
	- What should the states expect under the mostly rail scenario – will we see a combination of rail and truck?
	- Regarding routing, will DOE use the representative routes presented in the EIS as strawman routes?

2:00 p.m.	Commentary on key issues - Nevada
	> Nevada presentation

2:15 p.m.	Potential Refinements of Tragis and Sandia Models
	· Dan Nix, WIEB Consultant
	· Judith Holm, OCRWM
	· Sandia National Laboratory
	· Oak Ridge National Laboratory

	Background materials
	National Transportation Model Logistics presentation
	July 6, 2004 WEBCAST meeting notes

3:00 p.m.	Break

5:30 p.m.	Recess


7:30 a.m.	Continental breakfast

8:00 a.m.	Activities of Other regions
	· Midwest Council of State Governments
	· Southern States' Energy Board
	· Council of State Governments

9:00 a.m.	NRC Briefing - Earl Easton

	Questions NRC has been asked to address include:

	1. NRC has stated that its role in regulating DOE shipments to Yucca Mountain will be limited to requiring use of NRC-certified casks and notifying states (and possibly tribes) in advance of shipments. Has NRC General Counsel issued an opinion on this matter? What written documentation can NRC provide regarding this matter?

	2. We understand that NRC is considering a regulatory change that will classify rail cars designed to carry spent fuel casks as special use vehicles. Would this regulation apply to DOE shipments to Yucca Mountain? How would the change affect routine (non-accident) radiation exposures to transportation workers and the general public? What is the reason for this change?

	3. Will Yucca Mountain transportation issues be addressed during the NRC repository licensing process? Will NRC prepare a new NEPA analysis of transportation issues as part of the licensing process, or will NRC adopt the DOE Final EIS for Yucca Mountain? Will transportation issues be addressed in public hearings during the NRC licensing process?

	4. What is the status of PRM 73-10, the petition for rulemaking regarding terrorism and sabotage risks, filed by the State of Nevada in June, 1999, and endorsed by the Western Governor’s Association?

	5. Please provide an overview of the NRC Package Performance Study.

	6. In July, 2004, the NRC adopted a position on full-scale cask testing – SECY-04-0135. Is this the Commission’s final decision on cask testing as part of the Package Performance Study (PPS)? How does this position differ from earlier NRC cask testing proposals, such as the staff recommendations in NUREG-1768?

	7. Please explain the Commission’s current plan for full-scale cask testing: What is the objective of the cask testing program? When will the test program be initiated and completed? What cask or casks will be tested, and what is the basis for selection of the test cask or casks? What tests will be performed? What contractor organizations and facilities are being considered for the tests, and when will final selections be made? Is NRC considering use of testing facilities in the United Kingdom, Germany, or other countries? Will the tests be peer reviewed? What provision will NRC make for stakeholder review of, and participation in, the test program? What is the estimated cost of the test program? How will the test program be funded?

	8. How does NRC respond to the PPS comments filed by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) regarding what ARR sees as the need for testing to determine cask failure thresholds?

	>Nevada presentation on cask testing

10:15 a.m.	Alternative view of cask testing - Bob Halstead, Nevada

10:30 a.m.	Private Fuel Storage - John Parkyn
	>Parkyn presentation

	Mr. Parkyn is the CEO of the Private Fuel Storage Project. He will give a general presentation on the PFS. He estimates that the facility could open as early as 2007. Questions we might ask include:

	- How long before shipments begin would ER training begin?
	- Who would do the training?
	- What type of training would it be?
	- Would there be any cost to local responders?
	- Would the training be offered along every shipping route that shipments would be made to the PFS?
	- Who would decide when a shipping corridor is trained?

	Background materials
	Private Fuel Storage, LLC

Noon	Adjourn