Committee Business
The Committee met from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 9. The Committee first addressed several business items on the agenda including the election of a new Co-chair and a new representative to the DOE Transportation External Coordination Working Group (TEC/WG) to replace Rick Moore (WY). The Committee recommended that Captain Allan Turner (CO) be appointed the new Co-chair, and Ken Niles (OR) was appointed the new TEC/WG representative.
Doug Larson (staff) gave the Committee a brief budget report. Larson stated that the Committee has been conserving the limited funds available to it over the past year, but that when the Committee's Cooperative Agreement with DOE is renewed in April 1998, there will be no "carry-over" funds left. The Committee will therefore be operating at the reduced rate of $49,000 per year. Larson stated that this level of funding will only be sufficient to support one Committee meeting between December 1997 and April 1999. The Committee will continue to send a Committee representative and staff person to the TEC/WG meetings, and will continue to prepare comments on major DOE/OCRWM program documents. Staff will also continue to keep the Committee apprised of program developments by utilizing electronic media such as e-mail and the Internet. Joe Strolin (NV) asked if there were any way to bring more pressure to bear on DOE to increase the Committee's funding. Larson responded that to do this it would most likely be necessary to get the support of the other three regional cooperative agreement groups (Midwest CSG, Northeast CSG, and SSEB) on this issue. Rick Moore (WY) added that this issue could be an area of "common ground" to be discussed during the joint meeting session with the other cooperative agreement groups. Moore also said that the priority at present should be maintaining staff support.
Interim Nuclear Waste Storage Proposals
Suzanne Winters (UT) briefed the Committee on a proposal by Private Fuel Storage (PFS) to construct an interim nuclear waste storage facility on the Goshute Indian reservation in Utah. (Click here for a map showing major transportation routes and watercourses near the proposed interim storage facility). Winters said that the agreement between the Goshutes and PFS was signed approximately one year earlier, and that the State of Utah was not informed of the agreement until after it was signed. PFS, which currently consists of eight utilities, has not been forthcoming in sharing details or information, according to Winters. The agreement calls for the storage of approximately 40,000 MTU on the Goshute reservation. The waste acceptance rates would be 2000 MTU per year. The Goshutes would provide PFS a 25 year lease, with an option to extend the lease an additional 25 years. PFS has also filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a 20 year license to operate the facility, with an option to extend the license by an additional 20 years. The facility would be a dry cask storage facility, with the casks stored on top of concrete pads. The acceptance of spent fuel at the proposed site would not be limited to PFS members.
According to Winters, the NRC licensing process allows only minimal opportunities for intervention by outside parties. Thus far, six parties have petitioned for such intervention. She added that the PFS application to the NRC has virtually no transportation plan, and does not address seismic concerns or the fact that there are live-ammunition test flights which take place in the same area as the proposed site. (Click here to view a map showing the land ownership surrounding the proposed interim storage facility). The application also has no requirements for the provision of technical or financial assistance to states. Winters noted that PFS is a limited liability corporation with limited assets, and that there are no provisions in the application which address the contingency of leaking casks at the proposed facility. She added that there will be two bills in the Utah legislature to fund opposition to the plan.
Bill Craig (UT) asked if the Committee could adopt a resolution to the NRC concerning the provision of Section 180(c) funding to prepare for any shipments to the proposed Goshute facility. Doug Larson (staff) said that such a resolution would comport with the current resolutions of the Western Governors' Association which state that 180(c) funding must be provided by DOE regardless of whether SNF/HLW shipments are traveling to a publicly or privately owned facility. Craig said that Utah would work on drafting a resolution for the states to consider. Ron Ross (WGA) said that WGA would send a letter along with the appropriate WGA resolution, to the NRC.
Joe Strolin (NV) and Rick Moore (WY) provided brief updates on the status of interim storage proposals in their states. Strolin said that Nevada continues to oppose the siting of an interim storage facility near Yucca mountain. Nevada does not believe that the interim storage legislation currently in Congress has sufficient support to overcome a promised Presidential veto. Moore said that Governor Geringer in Wyoming has also opposed an interim storage proposal in Fremont County. Wyoming law requires the legislature and governor to approve storage proposals in the state.
Foreign Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments
Ron Ross (WGA) told the Committee that DOE was planning on conducting the first shipment of foreign fuel by rail from the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Ross said that DOE has been conducting negotiations with local government entities concerning these shipments. Ross added that such negotiations are acceptable to WGA as long as the states are involved as well. With regard to the cross country foreign fuel shipments from Savannah River to INEEL, Dave Rich (ID) said that it did not make sense to undertake the risk and expense of shipping these materials across the country simply to move them from one spent fuel storage pool to another. Barbara Byron (CA) told the Committee that although the number of expected shipments from Concord to INEEL under this particular program is small, they are still important in setting a precedent for how future shipments will be conducted. Byron said that California is asking for support from other states in calling on DOE to examine additional factors and conducting further analyses in selecting routes for these shipments. She also reported on pending litigation against DOE by California local governments.
Joe Strolin (NV) said that Nevada's governor has three essential requirements for the foreign fuel shipments, including: 1) DOE must hold public hearings; 2) DOE must conduct a comprehensive risk assessment for all routes; and 3) DOE must provide technical assistance and training to states and tribes to prepare for the shipments. He reported that Bob Alcock (DOE) told the Washoe County Commission that there would be no shipments until training had been provided. The state intends to hold DOE to this commitment. Bill Craig (UT) said that a major unresolved issue with respect to these shipments passing through Utah was the provision of training for hospital workers in the event of an accident. Craig also said that neither the state, nor DOE and its contractors, have the resources to properly train the necessary personnel in Utah. Ken Niles (OR) noted that a pending lawsuit by Contra Costa County opposing the shipments claimed that the foreign fuel shipments should instead arrive through Portland. Niles said, however, that the longshoreman in Portland have already refused to handle any such spent nuclear fuel shipments. He added that Oregon does not agree with the foreign fuel environmental impact statement finding that Portland should be the alternate port if Concord cannot be used. Max Power (WA) stated that Washington has the same concerns with the potential use of the port at Tacoma as Oregon has with Portland.
WIPP Update
Chris Wentz (NM) gave the Committee a brief update of activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. Wentz said that DOE had previously committed to not shipping any transuranic waste to the WIPP facility until all of the appropriate permits were issued, including a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B permit for "mixed" (hazardous/radioactive) waste from the State of New Mexico. However, now that the RCRA Part B permit was expected to be issued several months later than EPA's disposal certification, DOE has announced it will not wait for issuance of the State permit to commence shipments to WIPP. The EPA certification, expected in May 1998, would allow only non-mixed transuranic waste to be brought to WIPP.
Wentz said that environmental groups are expected to take all legal steps possible to block the opening of the WIPP facility. Protests and acts of civil disobedience are also expected. Dry shipment runs from INEEL, Rocky Flats and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are expected to take place in early 1998, although LANL is currently the only site officially certified for shipping.
State Roundtable Discussion
The Committee discussed recent developments related to the transportation of radioactive waste in the west. Barbara Byron (CA) said that California Governor Pete Wilson has a lawsuit pending against the Department of the Interior concerning the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste site. A hearing on this suit is scheduled for January 1998. Captain Allan Turner (CO) said that a contentious issue in Colorado lately has been whether C-470 or Interstate 225 would be used for highway shipments to the WIPP facility in New Mexico.
Chuck Fraley informed the Committee that he would be taking Rick Moore's place as Wyoming's representative starting in 1998. Fraley said that, in the future, information related to Committee activities can also be e-mailed to Amy Childers (childersa@wy-iso.army.mil). Childers is the Public Information Officer for Wyoming's Emergency Management Agency (WEMA). He reported that a surprising number of railroad personnel participated in radiation awareness training at a state-sponsored meeting in Casper, which is indicative of the very limited expertise the railroads have regarding radiation. Joe Strolin (NV) said that Nevada has been looking more closely at the low level radioactive waste shipments which are planned to arrive at the Nevada Test Site over the next 15-20 years. Strolin said the state expects approximately 25,000 low level shipments over that time period. Larry Pearce (NB) said that a group was created in Nebraska approximately one year ago to develop a draft nuclear waste transportation plan for states. The plan has not yet been completed. Max Power (WA) said that, regarding the Hanford Site in Washington, DOE may not fund the operation of the WIPP packaging plant that was recently constructed. Power also said that the League of Women Voters held two focus groups in Oregon and a series of four workshops in both Washington and Oregon to discuss the intersite transfer of radioactive wastes. The workshops, which were attended by approximately 450 people, revealed that the public largely does not differentiate between the varying types of waste to be shipped. In addition, the workshops revealed the public's belief that intersite shipments should not occur unless there is a good common sense reason for DOE to move the waste from one site to another. Power added that the Oregon Department of Energy was a key participant in the exercise.
Bill Craig (UT) said that the Envirocare facility in Utah is currently undergoing relicensing. The operating contractor for the facility has filed for a low level waste storage permit, however this application was turned down by the local county planning commission. Kathleen Trever (ID) said that Idaho is conducting a transportation risk assessment for both foreign research reactor fuel and Navy spent nuclear fuel designated for transportation and storage at INEEL. Ken Niles (OR) said that a meeting was to be held between the Umatilla Indian Tribe and the states to discuss Navy spent nuclear fuel shipments. Chris Wentz (NM) said that, with regard to shipments planned between the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the WIPP facility, shipments traveling through Santa Fe between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. will be escorted as a matter of policy. This policy may eventually become a city ordinance.
Pending Legislation
Doug Larson (staff) briefed the Committee on legislation currently in Congress which would force the construction and operation of an interim SNF/HLW storage facility near Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Larson compared the House (HR 1270) and Senate (S.104) versions of the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997," focusing on key radioactive waste transportation provisions, including: full-scale cask testing, mode and route analysis and selection, assistance to state and local governments, the provision of 180(c) funds regardless of whether shipments are traveling to a publicly or privately operated storage facility, use of the WIPP program as a model, and preemption of state and local laws. Charts comparing the two bills were included in the Committee briefing book along with excerpts of S.104 and HR 1270.
Consensus Issues
The remainder of the meeting was spent discussing the possibilities for building a consensus with the other regional high-level radioactive waste transportation committees on nuclear waste transportation policies. Both Bob Halstead (NV) and Joe Strolin (NV) expressed concern that this exercise could jeopardize and weaken the policy positions which western states have developed over the years by working through the Committee. Chris Wentz (NM) and Max Power (WA) both felt, however, that the exercise could be worthwhile in order to establish common ground between all of the regions that could make the voice of the west even stronger on certain succinct issues. Power added that the discussions should not necessarily be restricted to OCRWM shipments. Rick Moore (WY) said that he believed this process would be similar to the one utilized at the First Joint Meeting of the Regional Radioactive Waste Transportation Committees held in Chicago in 1995.
The Committee then proceeded to discuss potential areas of consensus with the other regions, and developed the following position statements to be discussed during the breakout sessions planned for the following day:
