|
Important Dates
|
|
*All times are Central Time
March 8-12:
March 10-12:
April 13:
Regional Tribal Engagement Work Group Quarterly Conference Call - 2 PM*
April 20-24:
April 28:
April 29:
May 5-7:
May 18:
TRMTC Spring Meeting - Scottsdale, AZ
May 19-21:
May 19:
June 8-11:
Dresden/Morris DOE Site Visit - *Tentative Dates*
June 8-9:
Regional Tribal Engagement Work Group Quarterly Conference Call - 2 PM*
September 16-18:
September 29:
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) Exercise - Moberly, MO
Regional Tribal Engagement Work Group Quarterly Conference Call - 2 PM*
|
|
Join Our List
|
|
|
|
COMMITTEE HAPPENINGS
|
|
 On February 18, the Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee (MRMTC) and the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) co-hosted a web-training for MRMTC members and other interested parties. Led by Erica Bickford of DOE-NE and Mark Abkowitz of Vanderbilt University, this web-training covered the basics of the DOE Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START). START is a decision-support tool for the purpose of evaluating routing options associated with the transportation of radioactive shipments.
After reviewing different basemaps and data layers such as rail networks, schools, and nuclear reactors, attendees learned the beginnings of how to determine routes between origins and destinations. Attendees also learned how to create routes with different buffer distances to key locations and assets like fire stations and TEPP-trained emergency responders.
If you were unable to join the web-training on February 18, you can find a recording on the
MRMTC website
under "Webinars." DOE-NE and the MRMTC have discussed the possibility of follow-up web-training(s) that will take a deeper dive into START's uses. These follow-ups would start after the Annual Meeting of the National Transportation Stakeholders Forum (NTSF) this May.
Speaking of the Annual Meeting of the NTSF, the MRMTC hopes you will attend the MRMTC Spring Meeting that will take place on May 19.
This web-page will have the agenda and expected attendee list leading up to the meeting, and also contain presentations and a summary following the meeting.
|
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDERS FORUM
|
|
 The Annual Meeting of the NTSF is about two and a half months away. Gathering representatives from states, Tribes, local governments, federal agencies, and private industry to discuss safe radioactive materials transportation, this event is the one-stop-shop to increase your knowledge, network with colleagues, and learn what developments may be coming down the pipeline. Hosted by the
Western Governors' Association (WGA) and the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB), attendees will see presentations on low-level waste management and transportation, international shipment coordination, Vermont Yankee decommissioning shipments, and many other topics.
If this will be your first NTSF Meeting, or even if you would just like a refresher, you are highly encouraged to register for the
Newcomers Orientation Webinar which will be taking place on April 28, at 1:00 PM Central Time. This webinar will cover the structure of the NTSF, its goals, and what you can expect at the meeting. Newcomers should also attend the breakfast session on May 19, which will compliment (not duplicate) the information on the webinar.
|
|
 |
|
Newly Appointed NTSF Chair, Julia Shenk
|
|
Finally, the MRMTC would like to welcome newly appointed Director of the Office of Packaging and Transportation Julia Shenk as the new Chair of the NTSF. Julia has been with DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) since 2014, holding positions in the areas of radioactive waste disposal, high-level waste interpretation, and supporting the Transuranic (TRU) Waste Program Office. Prior to joining DOE, Julia worked for the Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command as Branch Chief for Transportation Policy and Procedures. She has a bachelor's degree from Syracuse University and an MBA from Washington University in St. Louis. If you have not yet met Julia, you will be able to in May in Scottsdale.
|
| FOCUS THIS MONTH |
|
|
Late last month, the Trump Administration released their FY21 Budget Request for DOE and the rest of the federal government. For MRMTC, and everyone involved in the NTSF, the biggest proposed change is the discontinuation of the Integrated Waste Management program. Replacing this program's activities and functions would be a new Interim Storage and Nuclear Waste Fund Oversight program.
The budget request asks for $27.5 million for the new program. $20 million is requested "to establish a new program for an interim storage capability for earlier acceptance of nuclear waste to contribute to the safe and secure management of nuclear waste currently located at numerous sites across the United States." The remaining $7.5 million "supports maintaining safety and security and other fiduciary responsibilities for the Yucca Mountain site and continued oversight of the Nuclear Waste Fund." The Integrated Waste Management System had a FY20 enacted budget of $25 million.
Some of the listed activities that would fall under the jurisdiction of the new program include:
- "Working with State, Tribal and local governments and other affected federal agencies;
- Initiating processes to identify potential sites;
- [And,] Continuing efforts to establish system capabilities and infrastructure needs for large scale transportation."
|
|
|
Yucca Mountain, NV. The Trump Administration's new budget request moves away from a proposed repository here. |
The request goes on to state that the Administration understands new legislation will be needed to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA) to allow for interim storage sites, and that they will be introducing legislation to do so.
The budget request came a few weeks after President Trump's
tweeted reversal on Yucca Mountain that surprised even his own Administration: "Nevada, I hear you on Yucca Mountain and my Administration will RESPECT you!" The tweet goes on to say the Administration will explore innovative approaches to find lasting solutions. Shortly after that tweet, Mark W. Menezes, a nominee for deputy energy secretary, testified to Congress that DOE was trying "to put together a process that will give us a path to permanent storage at Yucca." Mr. Menezes later backtracked and said he supports the decision not to pursue the Yucca Mountain project.
Reactions on Capitol Hill were mixed, and not on usual partisan lines.
In the House, Reps. Mike Simpson (R-ID), John Shimkus (R-IL), and Fred Upton (R-MI) expressed skepticism at the idea. Rep. Simpson wondered how the decision would affect communities currently considering interim storage, saying "All of a sudden those communities are going to be going, 'S**t, we're going to become permanent storage.'"
However, in the Senate, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) seemed to support the policy shift and expressed hope that it would kick-start interim storage efforts. Just this week at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee meeting, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette agreed to work with the Senate if they pass legislation authorizing interim storage. When asked if DOE could implement
S. 1234 as it is currently written, Brouillette said, "Absolutely."
|
NUCLEAR NEWS
|
|
|
Trump Proposes Domestically Sourced Uranium Reserve
With mining for uranium and other nuclear fuels in the United States reaching its lowest point since the advent of nuclear weapons, the Trump Administration has proposed the creation of a $1.5 billion national uranium stockpile. U.S. production of yellowcake uranium dropped 88% between 2018 and 2019 and only three mining sites in the country remain active.
Uranium mining reached its peak in 1980, producing 44 million pounds to power new nuclear power plants and continue the arms race with the Soviet Union. The USSR's collapse in 1991 and the shrinking fleet of American nuclear power plants severely decreased uranium demand. Add to that the Megatons to Megawatts program that converted former Soviet warheads into commercial nuclear fuel that was shipped to the U.S., and that's a recipe for an already massive stockpile. In 2017, DOE estimated that it controlled 208 million to 260 million pounds of excess uranium.
Proponents of the proposed domestically-produced reserve say that uranium imports, especially those from Russia, pose a national security risk because they create a supply chain that could be cut off at a moment's notice. Opponents of the reserve say it amounts to a subsidy of an unneeded mining industry and threatens protected lands like Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.
E&E News has more details of the proposed reserve.
Legislative Leadership Sought on Nuclear Waste Standstill
A recent editorial in the
Toledo Blade starts by praising U.S. politicians, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH) in particular, for their vocal opposition to Ontario Power Generation's (OPG) proposed low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste repository near Lake Huron's eastern shoreline. As discussed in
last month's newsletter, OPG promised that they would not build the repository unless they received consent from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), on whose ancestral land OPG would build the repository. The SON rejected the proposal, earning the praise of Reps. Kaptur, Dan Kildee (MI), and John Moolenaar (MI); and Sens. Debbie Stabenow (MI) and Gary Peters (MI).
However, the editorial goes on to point out the irony of such vocal opposition by U.S. politicians to Canadian nuclear waste storage on the Great Lakes when so much of
America's nuclear waste is stored on the Great Lakes. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) has been stored on the shores of Lake Michigan (Point Beach, Kewaunee, Zion, Palisades, Cook, and Big Rock Point), Lake Erie (Fermi, Davis Besse, and Perry), and Lake Ontario (Ginna, Nine Mile Pt., and FitzPatrick) for decades. The editorial acknowledges how difficult it has been to find a political solution to this quagmire, but it calls on Rep. Kaptur (whose district includes Toledo) to utilize her long tenure in Congress to lead the search for a solution.
In Other Canadian Nuclear Waste News
Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has narrowed down its search for a national deep-geologic repository (DGR) to two possible sites. One of the proposed host towns, South Bruce, Ontario, has been divided over the proposal. Located in southeastern Ontario, near Lake Huron, local politicians have sounded off, one way or the other, on how they feel about storing Canada's nuclear waste several hundred meters below their feet.
Chris Peabody, the mayor of nearby Brockton, opposes the DGR because of the proximity to the Teeswater River, which several communities get their drinking water from aquifers along the river. Even if the DGR were moved farther away from the Teeswater, he fears the devaluation of the area's fertile farmland.
On the other hand, Saugeen Shores Mayor Luke Charbonneau supports the DGR because nuclear energy must be available to fight climate change and meet Canada's future energy demands. In order to keep and expand nuclear energy, said the mayor, there needs to be a permanent solution to the resulting radioactive waste.
And on the "Lighter" Side
 If you ever get frustrated by anti-nuclear propaganda or opposition to radioactive waste transportation that is not based on scientific arguments, just know this is not a new phenomenon. Just take a look at this anti-electric light cartoon from the late 19th Century. Please keep your loved ones away from all streetlamps and overhead l
ight fixtures.
Thanks to Greg Gothard for sharing this image.
|
|
Thank you for reading. Watch for the next edition to come out on
April 2, 2020
|
Missed a newsletter? Past issues are
archived
on the committee's webpage.
|
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-NE0008604, DE-EM0004869, and DE-EM0005168.
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.
|
|
|
