October 6, 2015

Dear Reader,

In order to provide you with the best possible reading experience, we would like to find out how you view our newsletter. Smartphone? Computer? Tablet? Please take a moment to let us know here.

Thank you! We appreciate your feedback. 
In This Issue
Committee
NTSF
Mr. Horn Goes to Washington
Nuclear News
Midwest Fun Fact
Important Dates
Quick Links
Join Our List
COMMITTEE HAPPENINGS
More Appointees and Meeting Updates
We are excited to welcome four new legislative appointees to the Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee (MRMTC)! Ohio Rep. Doug Green, Kansas Sen. Mike Petersen, Indiana Rep. Edmond Soliday, and Illinois Rep. Pat Verschoore were all appointed to the committee last month. An up-to-date MRMTC roster is available online.
 
We hope to meet all of the new members at the committee's F all meeting on November 17-18 in Des Moines, Iowa. The registration deadline is November 2, so please be sure to complete your online registration before then. A preliminary agenda is now available and will be updated as we get closer to the meeting.
 
Please note, the National Transportation Stakeholders Forum (NTSF) Rail/Routing ad hoc working group will be meeting in conjunction with the MRMTC in November. The meetings have been scheduled so that those who are members of both will not have to miss out on either meeting. For convenience, CSG Midwest has set up a single registration site for both meetings.  When you register, make sure to specify whether you are attending one or both meetings. Please contact Lisa Janairo with any meeting-related questions.

In other committee news, MRMTC co-chair Kelly Horn (Illinois) was invited to testify at a Congressional Subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C., earlier this month. He did a great job discussing the importance of state involvement in planning for the transportation of nuclear material. Read more about Kelly's testimony in the newsletter's third article below.

Finally, we would like to give a big congratulations to John Holder (Michigan) who was promoted to lieutenant last month. John will no longer be the hazmat contact for the Michigan State Police, but his replacement will remain active with the committee. We hope to see John and meet his replacement at the NTSF Annual Meeting in Orlando next June. Thanks Lt. Holder, for all your hard work on the Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Project!
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDERS FORUM NTSF
NTSF Events NTSF
The Rail/Routing ad hoc working group (AHWG) will be meeting November 17 and 18 in Des Moines, Iowa, in conjunction with the MRMTC's Fall 2015 committee meeting. Members of the AHWG may register for the meeting online and are welcome to attend the Midwest's meeting, if interested. The AHWG will be developing its agenda on its October 7 conference call. 

In other NTSF news, the first webinar in the FY 2016 webinar series was held on October 1. During the webinar, Chris Machenberg, director of hazardous materials at CSX Transportation, gave an overview of hazardous material shipping on rail lines and discussed emergency training, planning, and operations specific to CSX. If you were not able to join, a recording of the webinar and a copy of Mr. Machenberg's slides are available.

The next NTSF webinar, "NRC Regulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments," will be presented on October 19 at 1:00 pm CDT. During this webinar, NRC staff will explain how selected routes for spent nuclear fuel shipments are reviewed and approved by the commission staff. Participants will also learn about requirements for advance notification of shipments of spent nuclear fuel, including the timing, recipients, and restrictions on sharing safeguards information. Additionally, attendees will hear about the requirements for pre-planning and coordination (as found in NRC Regulation 10 CFR Part 73.37) and will be provided an overview of NRC Regulation 10 CFR Part 37 (Physical Protection of Category 1 & 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material). Register online now!

A proposed list of webinar ideas and a tentative schedule for the remaining FY 2016 series can be found here. As part of improving the webinars, we are tapping Planning Committee members and AHWG leads to help develop this series. Please send any suggestions for webinar topics or speakers to Katelyn Tye.

The 2016 Annual Meeting of the NTSF will take place in Orlando, Florida, at the Rosen Plaza Hotel on June 7-9. T he Southern States Energy Board and NTSF Tribal Caucus are co-hosting the meeting and a "save-the-date" message will be sent out soon. As in past years, the MRMTC will hold its spring meeting in conjunction with the NTSF annual meeting. The NTSF Planning Committee will be developing the 2016 meeting agenda in the coming weeks, so if anyone has ideas for speakers or topics to include on the agenda, please contact Katelyn Tye.

For up-to-date information about NTSF events and ad hoc working groups, visit the NTSF wiki site. Note that to view NTSF-related links in this article, you must be a member of the site. To become a member, click this link and follow the instructions for joining.  
FOCUS THIS MONTH third
Mr. Horn Goes to Washington
Kelly testifying during a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy on October 1, 2015
On October 1, MRMTC co-chair Kelly Horn testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy during a hearing entitled, " Transporting Nuclear Materials: Design, Logistics, and Shipment."

Chaired by U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (Illinois), the subcommittee is part of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is chaired by U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan). Kelly was invited to speak about transportation of spent nuclear fuel, the important role states have in this matter, and current interactions between states and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

"
As a region, the Midwest has a very large stake in the future federal program to transport spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants," Kelly testified, noting the region's geographical location, large nuclear fleet, and sizable inventory of spent fuel. "We are working cooperatively with DOE's Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Planning Project, and we're making some progress. The pace of progress will understandably be slow, however, until a definite path forward is identified for the nation's civilian radioactive waste management program."

Kelly's testimony emphasized the difference between future spent fuel shipments and shipments of transuranic (TRU) waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). DOE's TRU waste transportation plan was cited by the Blue Ribbon Commission and others as a model for shipments of commercial spent fuel and high-level waste.
One difference, he said, relates to the federal financial assistance mechanism.

"
Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Section 16(d) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act both require federal financial and technical assistance for states and tribes that will be affected by shipments. Section 180(c) refers to this assistance being intended 'for training,' and DOE has interpreted this provision very narrowly," Kelly testified. "Grants that may be available someday under Section 180(c) are, therefore, not likely to allow states to recoup costs for operational activities such as safety inspections or security escorts."

He contrasted Section 180(c) with Section 16(d) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, which refers to "transportation safety programs." As a result, for WIPP shipments, states can use DOE assistance "to do more than just train--we have the flexibility to effectively manage and mitigate all the impacts we experience because of WIPP shipments."

Another important difference between TRU waste shipments and spent fuel shipments, according to Kelly, is that DOE will transport spent fuel mostly by train, whereas WIPP shipments travel solely by truck. For WIPP shipments, the states conduct rigorous safety inspections following the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Level VI inspection procedure. Kelly said for rail shipments of spent fuel, there is no enhanced reciprocal inspection protocol, nor do states have the same authority to designate routes as they do for highway shipments. 
Kelly Horn and U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.) on October 1, 2015

The general theme among witness testimony was perhaps an obvious point: to make real progress on transportation, DOE first needs to have a destination for the waste--whether it be an interim storage site or permanent disposal facility. There was also discussion about the technical, legislative, and societal challenges to transporting spent fuel.

Franklin Rusco, Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S. Government Accountability Office referenced a October 2014 report wherein the office recommended that "DOE develop and implement a coordinated outreach strategy for providing information to the public on their spent nuclear fuel program."

Mr. Rusco continued, "Specifically, unless and until there is a broad understanding of the issues associated with management of spent nuclear fuel, specific stakeholders and the general public may be unlikely to support any spent nuclear fuel program."
Witnesses testifying during a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy on October 1, 2015 (From L to R: Christopher Kouts, Kelly Horn, Edward R. Hamberger, and Robert Quinn. Photo courtesy of the U.S. House of Representatives)
Kelly echoed this sentiment in his testimony, citing the "States' Expectations" document developed by the four regions in 2013. "The states recognize that the public will hold large-scale shipments of spent fuel to a higher standard than that for other DOE shipments," he said. "So we feel strongly that DOE must not only meet the standard set by the WIPP program, but exceed those requirements by adopting reasonable measures to minimize public risk and maximize public confidence in the transportation program."

He listed components of the WIPP model, such asstate involvement in route identification; the development of a rigorous reciprocal inspection program; and financial support, not just for training, but for state transportation safety programs.

"The states believe DOE will need to implement--at a minimum--these same elements in order to achieve the goal of transporting spent fuel in a manner that is safe, secure, efficient, and merits public confidence."

You can click here to view a recording of the entire subcommittee hearing, and here to read witnesses' written testimonies.
NUCLEAR NEWS NuclearNews
What's Stirring in the Great Lakes?
The discussion of nuclear energy, both positive and negative, has continued in the Great Lakes Region over the past month. 

On September 17, the Council of the Great Lakes Region, a member-based organization of stakeholders from the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors, released a study entitled, " Driving Economic Growth and Keeping the Air Clean: The Role of Nuclear Power in the Great Lakes Region." The report provided findings favorable to the use of nuclear energy.

According to the executive summary, the 55 nuclear units operating across the Great Lakes Region employ 80,000 people through direct and indirect employment, and the industry injects between $10 and $12 million into the region annually. The report also estimates that nuclear energy's "emissions-free electricity" avoids spewing 250 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The report was a collaboration between the Council of the Great Lakes Region, Bruce Power, and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. Bruce Power (Canada's first private nuclear generator) owns and operates the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, a proposed site for construction of a deep geologic repository for Canada's low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste. This site-proposal from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has become a highly controversial issue, especially among lawmakers in the region.

On September 26, the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus (GLLC), a nonpartisan group of state and provincial lawmakers from eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces, adopted a resolution opposing the proposed construction of a nuclear waste repository of any kind in the Great Lakes basin. In the resolution, the GLLC urges (1) the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to reject the proposal by OPG and consider other options and (2) President Obama to refer the matter to the International Joint Commission for further study.

In an op-ed column in The Oakland Press, Michigan State Sen. Phil Pavlov (Michigan) expressed his concern that a draft Water Strategy report released by the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes last month didn't address protection from nuclear waste contamination. Sen. Pavlov, who is also a GLLC member, writes, "As drafted, the 30-year Water Strategy speaks to the issues of improper waste disposal and governance. The report's failure to mention the OPG plan as a real risk is a glaring oversight."

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency accepted public comments on the proposed repository and the Federal Minister of the Environment is scheduled to make a decision on whether or not to authorize the project by December 2.

Nuclear Reactors: Past, Present, and Future
In reactor news, starting with commercial reactors, Exelon announced on September 10 that it plans to continue operating its Quad Cities plant through at least May 2018 and will operate its Byron plant through May 2019. Earlier this year, the company cited financial concerns and publicly considered ceasing operations at the two plants. According to an Exelon news release, "the decision to defer retirement decisions comes after rigorous analysis of the present and future economics of the plants."

Moving onto research reactors, two Midwestern universities are developing their nuclear research capabilities. Kansas State University announced at the end of September that it had received a $1.5 million Nuclear Engineering University Partnerships grant from DOE to upgrade its nuclear reactor equipment. According to a press release, the university's TRIGA Mark II, which was procured second hand in 1990, will receive an entirely new control console. The university says the reactor components were becoming unreliable and difficult to repair and the new technology will make the reactor safer and provide more opportunities for lab experiments.

At the University of Michigan, which disassembled its nuclear reactor over 10 years ago, $12 million is being allocated to renovate the former reactor space and create a Nuclear Engineering Laboratory.

"The Nuclear Engineering Laboratory will function as a center for professors, researchers and students to continue research on topics like nuclear energy and advancements in power plant technology," according to an article in The Michigan Daily.
Students and personnel at the university's department of nuclear engineering and radiological sciences plan to use the building's gamma ray testing centers and student collaboration rooms to research nuclear thermal hydraulics and nuclear nonproliferation, and say they hope to improve public perceptions of nuclear energy.

Familiar Faces, New Visions at DOE-EM and NRC
Last month, the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) published an interview with newly confirmed Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Dr. Monica Regalbuto. In the interview, Dr. Regalbuto mentions priorities such developing the office's workforce and physical infrastructure and maintaining worker and facility safety management systems.

"I want to ensure we properly invest in operations and infrastructure to support safe mission accomplishment," she said. "Another priority is to continue to work closely with the National Nuclear Security Administration and the [DOE] offices of Science and Nuclear Energy to ensure we maintain key capabilities that serve the Department's broader needs."

Dr. Regalbuto says she looks forward to the reopening of WIPP and would like to use advanced technologies, such as robotics, to reduce the time and life-cycle costs of cleanup at DOE sites.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced management changes "that help streamline agency management and broaden the scope and diversity of its leadership at the top as the agency works to reduce its size in coming years."

According to the NRC press release, in early November, Mike Weber will become director for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (current deputy executive director for material, waste, research, state, tribal, and compliance programs) and Director of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Catherine Haney will become the Region II regional administrator in January. The agency will also be consolidating some of its offices and management roles.
MIDWEST FUN FACT NuclearNews
Did you know?
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator (courtesy of Chicago Harris)  
Robert Rosner , former director of Argonne National Laboratories and professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, along with a team of researchers has developed the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator , a new online tool that allows users to input different variables to determine the cost per kilowatt-hour of nuclear energy. 

According to an article from Chicago Harris, the calculator "also has the ability to project the costs of recycling versus disposing of spent nuclear fuel--a subject hotly debated among energy experts--and reveals that, when all costs are added in, recycling fuel results in consumers paying more per kilowatt-hour."
Thank you for reading. Watch for the next edition to
come out on November 3, 2015.

Please do not reproduce or create new content from this material without the prior express written permission of CSG Midwest.

This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Numbers DE-NE0000555, DE-EM0002121, and DE-EM00002327.  

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.