I wanted to pass along some information from the Transportation External Communications Working Group (TEC/WG) meeting earlier this week. The meeting format was dedicated almost entirely to the Topic Groups.

Because many of the Topic Group meetings occurred at the same time, I wasn't able to participate in all of them. I did participate in the Protocols and Communications Topic Groups and I'll provide a summary of both of those meetings in this memo.

It sounded as though the Training Group has made a lot of progress. For example, the modular radiological training program is now available on CD. Bill Craig from Utah participated in that group and reported their activities to the full meeting. I'm sure Bill would be glad to fill you in on any details.

The Topic Group meeting on Consolidated Grants had a lively discussion. I was able to hear just the very ending. While there are strong concerns by many about funding levels, funding formulas and other issues which need to be more fully examined (and better explained), the recommendation coming out of the meeting is to continue the discussions. I believe consolidated funding should continue to be explored. I know some Western state representatives do not agree. The Western States were well represented in the Consolidated Grants discussion. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please talk to one or more of the Western state representatives who attended that meeting - Max Power from Washington, Ron Ross from the Western Governors' Association, Barbara Byron from California, Tammy Ottmer from Colorado, and Craig Halverson from Idaho. There may have been a few others, but those are the ones I'm certain attended that meeting.

Protocols

DOE is in the process of updating, revising, and coordinating the protocols it uses in planning and conducting transportation activities. There are currently 15 protocols in the works. We have yet to see first drafts on six of the 15. They cover the following issues:

· Inspections
· Recovery & Cleanup
· Emergency Planning
· Public Information
· Security
· Transportation Planning

We expect to see first drafts of each of these protocols sometime in April.

Four others are currently being revised based on earlier comments. These cover:

· Transportation Operational Contingencies (mainly bad weather)
· Safe Parking
· Carrier/Driver Requirement
· Shipment Tracking

We also expect to see new drafts of these protocols in April.

During the meeting, we discussed the remaining five protocols.

Shipment Pre-Notification
This was our second review of this protocol. I have a concern that some types of shipments are still not included in this procedure. For example, the cesium capsule shipments that occurred a few years ago involved what DOE considered a "product" rather than a "waste." A "product" - even if it were hundreds of thousands of curies as the cesium capsule shipments were, is not specifically addressed in the protocol. DOE said they will look at how to incorporate these other types of materials into this and other protocols.

DOE has also not yet made a policy decision as to how to address inter-site transuranic waste shipments that are not going to WIPP. The Western states have repeatedly requested that these shipments operate under the same protocols as shipments headed to WIPP. This is an issue in most of the protocols.

Projected Shipment Planning Information
This was also our second look at this draft protocol and some of the same questions exist for this protocol as they do for the previous one. We've also indicated to DOE that we would like to make certain that there is a minimum at which these advance schedules will be updated. Comments during the meeting generally supported a quarterly update. DOE is still looking at using a "Prospective Shipments Module" to provide much of this information. One problem with this tool is that it is not mandatory that all DOE programs provide information for inclusion in the module. That causes us to wonder what's missing when we review this module. We suggested to DOE that it do what it can to make certain all DOE programs provide relevant information for this information tool.

There was also discussion about how to define "high-volume" shipments of low-level waste. The states would then receive planning information only for these high-volume campaigns. DOE proposed a definition for truck shipments of an average of 5 or more trucks per week for a period of 6 or more months. Since that requires a minimum of 120 shipments, I asked that number to be cut in half. DOE said they would consider that. The high-volume definition for rail was an average of 60 railcars per month for a period of six months. Ron Ross suggested that number be lowered as well.

Routing
This was also our second look at the routing module. The first version had a number of "To Be Determined." Much of the discussion focused on low-level shipments. DOE currently proposes to let the carrier select routes based on DOT regulations. Ron Ross suggested adding some "common sense" guidance as well - that carriers should look to use 4 lane roads when possible, avoid tunnels and curvy roads, and take other measures to use the safest route. Eastern state representatives did not want to focus any attention nor add any requirements for low-level shipments, as they were concerned that anything done for these shipments would automatically have to be added to for higher-activity shipments (such as spent fuel shipments). Because there was so much disagreement on this protocol, DOE will accept additional comments and prepare a new draft for review. Comment deadline is March 10. Dale provided an electronic copy of this to everyone last week. If you no longer have this draft protocol, Dale can provide you with a new copy.

Emergency Notification and Emergency Response
This was our first look at these draft protocols. DOE's draft emergency notification protocol lists specific accident situations and criteria under which they would notify states and tribes. Many of us had a number of suggestions to broaden these definitions. We also asked that the protocol clearly state that if there is a doubt whether a situation fits in one of these criteria, that the tendency should be to make the notifications rather than not make them. There were few comments on the first draft of the emergency response protocol. Additional comments will be accepted on both protocols through March 10. Comments should be submitted to Alex Thrower at UETC. If you don't know how to reach Alex, you can send them to me or Dale and we can forward them on.

Communications Topic Group

We went into the meeting thinking that this group might be sunsetted, because we had completed our existing workplan. However, after discussion at the meeting, we came up with several new tasks and will continue with this Topic Group.

Judith Holm mentioned that Sandia Labs is working on a web site to try and explain in simple, real-world terms, the forces involved in cask testing. She says they are using a combination of video, animation and pictures to do this. The Communications Topic Group will provide comments on this web site.

Among other tasks we will be working on is identifying questions about transportation which repeatedly come up (through a review of EIS comments) and then working to better address those questions; and how to improve the basic transportation risk section of EIS's to make them more understandable.

If you have any questions about the TEC/WG meeting, please give me a call.