|
Important Dates
|
June 22-26:
DOE Training Course, Aspects of U.S.-Domestic Security of Nuclear and other Radioactive Material during Transport, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois:
Register Here
More Information
June 24: Webcast: U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Summer 2015 Meeting:
View Webcast (day of)
More Information
August 11-12: DOE-NE Core Group Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts
August 25-28: NEMA Risk Communications Workshop, Lincoln, Nebraska:
Register Here
More Information
September 17:
NNPP
M-290 Spent Fuel Shipping Container Accident Exercise, Rock Springs, Wyoming:
Request more information
November 17-18 (TENTATIVE): MRMTC Fall 2015 Meeting, Des Moines, Iowa
|
|
Join Our List
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITTEE HAPPENINGS
|
|
Committee Happenings
The committee's spring meeting took place on May 12 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in conjunction with the 2015 Annual Meeting of the National Transportation Stakeholders Forum (NTSF) (see the
second article
). The final agenda, attendance list, and action items, along with documents referenced during the meeting, are available on the
MRMTC Spring Meeting 2015 web page. The meeting summary is being prepared and will be posted soon.
In Albuquerque, the committee chose preferred dates and a location for the Fall 2015 Meeting. Please tentatively mark your calendars for
November 17-18 in
Des Moines, Iowa. Meeting logistics and a preliminary agenda will be shared with members as we get closer to the date.
|
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDERS FORUM
|
|
Review of the Annual Meeting
The 2015 Annual Meeting of the NTSF took place on May 12-14 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
A total of 194 people attended.
Slides from speaker presentations and other meeting documents are posted on the NTSF wiki site's Albuquerque 2015 page.
This year the NTSF Planning Committee gathered attendee feedback via an online survey. The survey asked for opinions about the hotel accommodations, individual sessions, speakers, and suggestions for future meetings.
Meeting attendees also participated in a TurningPoint evaluation on the last day of the meeting. Along with gathering demographics, the evaluation polled the audience to identify future webinar topics and ideas for ad hoc working groups. Attendees indicated they'd like to see an ad hoc working group address Best Practices in Transportation Safety Programs. A schedule for the next series of webinars will be worked out by a subgroup of the Planning Committee.
The Southern States Energy Board is hosting the 2016 Annual Meeting of the NTSF. Everyone mark your calendars with the tentative dates and location for the meeting, June 7-9 in sunny Orlando, Florida! Laura Dresen (Indiana) and John Holder (Michigan) volunteered to represent the Midwest on the FY 16 Planning Committee. Thanks, Laura and John! Thanks also to Teri Engelhart (Wisconsin) whose term on the Planning Committee will end this month.
For up-to-date information about NTSF events and ad hoc working groups, visit the NTSF wiki site. If you aren't a member of the wiki site, visit the link and click on the button to apply to join. Note that, if your office email has an aggressive spam filter, you might want to follow the lead of other members who have used their personal email addresses when they sign up for a free account at Wikidot.
|
FOCUS THIS MONTH
|
|
Federal Nuclear Legislation
Two pieces of legislation, one in the U.S. House and one in the U.S. Senate, include measures that could affect nuclear waste in the future.
On May 1, the House approved the FY 2016 Energy and Water Appropriation bill on a vote of 240-177. According to the bill summary, the FY 16 appropriations includes "$150 million for the Nuclear Waste Disposal program and $50 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue the adjudication of DOE's Yucca Mountain License application. The legislation also denies an Administration proposal for non-Yucca nuclear waste activities." In the other chamber is Senate Bill 854, otherwise known as the "Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2015." The bill's co-sponsors are Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Ark.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The bill is identical to S. 1240, the "Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013." Both bills were intended to implement recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Unlike the House appropriations bill, S. 854 does not address Yucca Mountain funding. The bipartisan legislation outlines a consent-based process for siting a pilot storage facility for "priority waste," one or more additional storage facilities for non-priority waste, and one or more repositories for permanent disposal. "Priority waste" includes spent fuel from permanently shutdown reactors and emergency deliveries of nuclear waste. In addition, the bill establishes guidelines for transportation, including the requirement for federal support for state and tribal transportation safety programs. This provision would bring the federal requirements for the spent fuel transportation program in line with what is required for shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP. S. 854 also allows the Nuclear Waste Administration (an independent agency established by the bill) to work with a private storage facility if it has an NRC license. This provision is significant because two entities (Waste Control Specialists in Texas and Eddy-Lea Alliance in New Mexico) have expressed their intention to apply for an NRC license. The bill specifies that, for the first 10 years, pilot interim storage site can only take priority waste. After 10 years, the site cannot take any waste unless a permanent repository has been identified. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing on July 9 at 10:00 am "to receive testimony on the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle and related legislation," according to the committee's website. The hearing will be webcast.
|
NUCLEAR NEWS
|
|
 Legislators Oppose Waste Site Near Lake Huron
In May, a Canadian government panel issued a recommendation to approve a deep geologic repository for nuclear waste at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station near Kincardine, Ontario. According to the Detroit Free Press, Ontario Power Generation wants to store radioactive waste (but not spent nuclear fuel) from its 20 nuclear power reactors at an underground site less than a mile from Lake Huron. Canada's federal minister of the environment must approve the plan before it can forward, but it was first considered by a joint review panel. On May 6, the panel concluded that the proposed repository "is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects." However, Michigan legislators at both the state and federal level are concerned about the effects an accidental release could have on the Great Lakes. They are harshly criticizing the recommendation and have introduced resolutions calling for the International Joint Commission, a joint U.S. and Canadian agency that works to resolve boundary water disputes, to review the plan. They are also urging Ontario Power Generation to find an alternative location. Michigan state legislators have also asked their colleagues from other Great Lakes states to sign a letter of opposition to the Ontario DGR.
Presidential Hopefuls on Yucca Mountain
As the race for president begins to ramp up, likely contenders are being asked to weigh in on Yucca Mountain. According to the National Journal, two early voting states, South Carolina and Nevada, are on opposite ends of the divide. In South Carolina, voters are eager to ship their waste out of the state. Nevadans, however, are adamantly opposed to building a repository at the Yucca Mountain repository.
Republican presidential candidates are divided on the issue, and some have voiced their opinion in recent weeks. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson have all expressed support of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, has dismissed the project, but acknowledged the need for a long-term repository says the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
In a statement to National Journal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said that "the citizens of Nevada -- not federal bureaucrats -- should determine the future of Yucca Mountain. As a former governor, I believe the federal government should not force Nevada to accept nuclear waste against their will, but work with Nevada officials to find a mutually agreeable solution."
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, and Democratic former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not made recent statements on Yucca Mountain, but in 2008 then-Senator Clinton said she was opposed.
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board to Discuss DOE Transportation Activities at Summer Meeting At its summer meeting on June 24, the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will review DOE transportation activities. According to the NWTRB press release, the main focus of the meeting will be on DOE's efforts to prepare for the transportation of fuel from commercial reactors to a potential interim storage site and/or geologic repository. Representatives from DOE and the NRC will join the discussion.
A detailed agenda will be available on the Board's website www.nwtrb.gov approximately one week before the meeting. For the first time, the NWTRB will webcast the meeting, starting at 8:00 am MDT and ending at 5:00 pm MDT. To view the webcast visit this link. Transcripts of the meeting will be available on the board's website at a later date.
|
|
Thanks for reading! Watch for the next edition to
come out on July 7, 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.
|
|
|
