On July 13-15, the Department of Energy hosted a meeting of the Transportation External Coordination Working Group (TEC/WG). The TEC/WG meets twice each year to bring stakeholders and interested parties together with DOE officials to discuss issues relating to the transportation of radioactive waste. The July meeting was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The meeting included an opening plenary session which allowed the TEC/WG topic groups to provide summaries of their most recent activities. The groups include: a Rail Topic Group; a Training Topic Group; a Medical Practices Topic Group; a Tribal Issues Topic Group; a Communications Topic Group; and a Routing Topic Group.
The Rail Topic Group said that it had finalized a series of matrices including one regarding state, tribal, and federal authority, which had been forwarded to the Tribal Issues Topic Group. [Click here to download the matrices] The Rail group is currently reviewing the WIPP Program Implementation Guide to determine its applicability to rail shipments.
The Training Topic Group reported that it was continuing work on the development of 18 modules for a radioactive waste transportation training program. Members from the HAMMER organization stated that the first eight training modules have been completed and have been piloted in Oregon. Work on modules 9-18 continues.
The Medical Practices Topic Group focused its discussions on providing appropriate and adequate medical training for potential emergency responders, including nurses, doctors, EMTs, firefighters, and police. The group is debating the advantages of separating training objectives based on pre-hospital and at-hospital care. The group is working towards developing a planning document that will outline performance-based training objectives for responders.
The newly formed Tribal Issues working group focused much of its discussion on membership issues and ensuring that the appropriate tribes are invited to participate in the group.
The Communications Topic Group reported that it was developing a checklist review sheet to accompany all DOE shipments. The Group is also discussing the creation of a brochure to act as a guide for DOE's National Transportation Program. The group was also surveying selected local communities to determine the level of satisfaction with state notification procedures.
Alex Thrower, of the UETC provided an overview of the Routing Topic Group's recently completed Routing Paper. [Click here to view the full Routing Paper] The paper includes sections reflecting federal, state, local, tribal, and environmental viewpoints on issues involving route selection for shipments of radioactive waste. The paper also includes a section on "stakeholder recommendations to DOE on routing issues." Stakeholders recommended to DOE in this section that:
1. DOE should develop a standardized, cooperative approach to route selection for all unclassified shipping campaigns involving radioactive materials. As its model, DOE should use the route-selection process established for the WIPP program, at a minimum incorporating the following elements: a) timely initiation of the route-selection process to enable the approval of final routes well in advance of the start of shipments (opinion among the topic group members concerning the necessary advance time period varied from 1 to 3 years; b) proposal of preliminary primary and secondary routes, consistent with any state or regional routing plans, to the affected states, tribes, and local governments for their review and comment, with the goal of reaching agreement among the affected parties; c) full use of the regional, tribal, and local cooperative-agreement groups in initiating contacts with the states, tribes, and local governments and in coordinating the review and comment process; and d) inclusion of approved primary and secondary routes as a specific, enforceable provision in contracts with carriers.
2. DOE's route selection process should be aimed at achieving three main goals: a) promoting safety and public acceptance of the selected routes by making the federal government, not a private company, accountable for route-selection; b) allowing resources (inspections, emergency response, etc.) to be focused by reducing the total number of routes; and c) giving states and communities sufficient time to prepare for shipments by eliminating the uncertainty regarding which routes will be used.
Mr. Thrower informed the TEC working group that the paper had been "formally transmitted" to DOE's Senior Transportation Forum, and that the paper's findings would "influence development" of DOE's routing policy. Several comments from the audience lauded the Routing Topic Group's work on the Routing Paper, and Mr. Thrower added that the paper had generally received excellent reviews.
Jim Carlson, from DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, outlined OCRWM's recent reorganization, which was to be effective starting July 19. Following a May 1998 "reduction in force" and in response to an expected shortfall in funding requested for the agency from Congress, OCRWM is moving personnel out of its transportation program.
The plenary session was followed by a series of breakout sessions addressing transportation operations, general planning issues, and emergency management planning and training assistance. The transportation operations breakout session included a presentation by Jose R. Masionet from the DOE Office of Emergency Response. Mr. Masionet provided an update of the activities of DOE's Senior Executive Transportation Forum. The forum was created in January 1998 to "address and resolve common transportation issues across DOE programs at the Senior DOE management level." Members of this forum include representatives from across all of DOE's departments which have an interest in radioactive waste transportation and emergency response issues. Mr. Masionet stated that the forum is currently working on developing a standardized set of protocols for Department-wide transportation activities. The forum has identified 17 transportation protocols and has grouped them into four topical areas, including: pre-shipment, shipment, post-shipment, and accident/incident. Mr. Masionet said that the forum is contemplating having all funding and technical assistance provided through a single "umbrella grant," that would cover all programs shipping DOE materials. He also stated that the forum has the TEC/WG Routing Topic Group's Routing Paper, and that the forum has forwarded this paper to its Protocol Working Group for further action. He further indicated that the forum plans to share its recommendations with stakeholders.
Mike Giblin from DOE's Nevada office discussed DOE's environmental assessment for low level radioactive waste intermodal transportation. DOE is examining the impacts of shipping waste from Arizona and California to the Nevada Test Site using intermodal alternatives to avoid the Hoover Dam and the Las Vegas area. DOE is currently discussing five alternative shipping possibilities, including shipping through Caliente, Nevada. A draft of the environmental assessment will be available in early September. There will be a 60 day comment period. The final version of the assessment will not be issued until the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision has been issued.
A presentation was also given concerning the Fernald, Arizona "White Box" incident in which several radioactive waste containers were found to have leaked liquid while being transported to the Nevada Test Site for storage in December 1997. Mona Williams, Acting Director of DOE's National Transportation Program at the Albuquerque Operations Office reported that as a result of the incident, which involved low specific-activity sludge material, the city of Flagstaff, Arizona had voted to become a "nuclear free" zone. Williams also added that following an investigation into the incident, it was determined that no release of radioactive material above background radiation levels took place. A report was issued on February 4, 1998 stating that the cause of the incident was that the "Fluor Daniel Fernald contracting process did not deliver a strong, tight container as required by contract specifications." Other causes for the incident that were indicated in the report included a "lack of understanding of the waste stream," and a "lack of formality and rigor in DOE contractor oversight." A series of recommendations were made aimed at preventing any similar future incidents from occurring, including: standardizing waste package specifications, establishing verification of waste at the receiver site; establishing more regimented, participative container procurement processes, using industrial package specifications as a minimum for shipping low specific activity waste; and establishing enhanced reporting requirements for breached containers. Corrective actions were to be taken by DOE and implemented by September 1998.
The breakout session on general planning included a presentation by Jim Carlson of DOE-OCRWM on the status of the agency's development of a program to provide technical assistance and funding to states and tribes to prepare for shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Carlson reviewed OCRWM's most recent Federal Register Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures for Safe Transportation and Emergency Response Training; Technical Assistance and Funding which was released for public comment on April 30, 1998. In addition, Carlson stated that the 180(c) program was currently being shelved by OCRWM along with the agency's other transportation-related activities.
Karen Guevara, from DOE's Office of Planning and Analysis provided an update on DOE complex-wide integration issues. Guevara discussed the benefits to be gained from complex-wide integration, including the sharing of technical information, and the minimization of duplication of efforts. She also outlined the linkage between complex-wide integration and the DOE Department of Environmental Management's strategy for accelerating the cleanup of DOE sites around the country.
Before adjourning the meeting it was announced that the next TEC/WG would take place in January 1999 in Jacksonville, Florida.