Meetings

Breakout Items

Action Items

Topic Group Summaries

Fixed Price Contracting

Albuquerque Meeting - July 1997

MEETING SUMMARY

Over 150 Members, participants, and observers representing state, tribal, and local governments, regional groups, industry, professional organizations, and the Department of Energy, met to address a variety of issues related to DOE transportation activities for radioactive materials. A number of Departmental Programs with transportation components were represented, including: the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (including the Yucca Mountain Project Office), the Office of Naval Reactors, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, and the Office of Defense Programs.

Training Topic Group

1. What level of competency/equipment does the first responder need?
2. Is the proper action to move in quickly, or hang back and wait for direction from other personnel on the scene?
3. Clearly state what the expectations are, both for supervisors and for first responders.
4. the problem is that the definition of severity differs across the board, from OSHA to EPA to DOE, there are many different standards. OSHA rules restrict the capacity to respond.
5. DOE training modules should explicitly state the realities of each material and type of accident. Standard operating procedures, however defined, will have to respond to the facts.

Routing Topic Group

The issue of routing has become increasingly important. The topic group consensus is that DOE has no comprehensive routing policy. There are many potential conflicts west of the Mississippi between RW/EM/and WIPP and states. Stakeholders are unhappy because of the lack of consensus on routing beyond the time frame of the current regulations. The Routing Topic Group is developing a 10 page white paper on this issue for DOE managers and policymakers. There are several assumptions that the group are using: (1) WIPP is operational; (2) the accelerated cleanup plan is operational; (3) foreign spent fuel shipments are on schedule; (4) and that there are no new DOT regulations. The paper will cover explanation of shipment modes, different regulations effecting them, and other constraints and factors.  The draft paper will be available at least 30 days prior to the next TEC/WG meeting for the larger group's review.

Rail Topic Group

• The Group is developing two matrices; the first will review rail laws and regulations and their applicability to states, tribes, and carriers. This addresses the issue of a jurisdiction's right to inspect rail shipments.
• The second matrix looks at the enhanced CVSA truck inspection program, and how it might translate to rail. The Group will be using the FRA's Motive Power & Equipment Inspection Report as its starting point. At the last TEC/WG meeting, Kevin Blackwell requested comments on state inspection standards.   The Group has decided to present FRA inspection standards, and show states how to get involved.
• Mike Calhoun (FRA) briefed the TEC/WG on the State Participation Program. This program is the only way that States and Tribes (although Tribes are not specifically called out in the regulations) can regulate through inspection of these cargoes. There is little independent jurisdiction left. States can participate, or impose a more stringent standard, if the following conditions are met: it is necessary to reduce a local hazard; it does not impose a burden on interstate commerce; and it does not contradict federal laws. The FRA no longer offers a 50/50 grant program, but does provide on-the-job training to inspectors, coordinates direct inspection, and avoids duplication by monitoring state activities.

Breakout Sessions:

General Planning

Discussion Items:

• Draft National Action Plan on Environmental Management Intersite Transfers of Waste and Nuclear Materials.

• Transportation: Issues Related to the 2006 Plan.

• Complex-Wide Environmental Management Integration.

• Section 180(c) Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures.

Member suggestions and comments:

• DOE needs to clarify the meaning of the WMPEIS "cumulative impacts worst case scenario" versus other transportation planning data previously provided to the TEC/WG.

• Members of the group suggested that they wanted to see profiles of waste transfers over time.

• What is the level of integration between DOE programs within the National Transportation Program?

• DOE should not conduct routing on a material-specific basis, but rather select routes that all DOE shipments would use -- reducing the overall number of routes and jurisdictions that would need training.

• Move route selection up to Tier 1 of the National Transportation Program's planning process. 

• DOE create an all-hazards approach to routing by developing a national routing scheme that all Departmental programs would use to select routes.

• Regarding Section 180(c), who determines need in the application package? 

• DOE should notify local governments that funding has been made available to their state and that training should be available, to remedy concerns that Section 180(c) does not provide for sufficient oversight of funds and that state-level politics will determine who receives Section 180(c) funding. Corinne Macaluso responded that the oversight provisions of 10 CFR 600 should prevent this from occurring.

Emergency Management Training and Technical Assistance

This breakout included several presentations and handouts designed to provide background and update participants on DOE emergency preparedness training and technical assistance activities.

Presentations included an update on implementing the Transportation Emergency Preparedness Training Coordination Program.    DOE emphasized that the overall goal of the program is to provide governments at various levels with access to the training curriculum and other technical assistance so that stakeholders' concerns are addressed.

Key areas discussed were:

• development of an awareness level video (Radioactive Materials Basics for Emergency Responders), including the results of a survey assessing customers' evaluation of the video;
• training curriculum and documents currently under review; and

• the skills and knowledge analysis matrix being developed in consultation with the TEC Training Topic Group and others (a more detailed job task analysis will be developed for TEC/WG review).

Handouts distributed:

• One-page background information on the Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program (TEPP);
• Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program, Radioactive Materials Basics for Emergency Responders survey results, July 1997;
• Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program Training Coordination Program, Products for Review, July 1997;
• One-page graphic incorporating 8 viewgraphs on the Region 6 TEPP Pilot Program; and
• Westcott Communications Resources Brochure and Fire & Emergency Television Network and Law Enforcement Information packages.

Participants submitted the following comments:

• DOE should develop one set of training objectives;
• DOE should coordinate training with other Federal agencies;
• Provide meaningful training aids, e.g. empty packaging, labels, and equipment;
• Seek professional peer review and partnership of the medical community in the development of curricula to engage them in identifying concerns and ensuring technical accuracy;
• Develop ways to provide medical training for a larger audience that is currently beng served.

Transportation Operations

Discussion focused on the following Task Plans and subjects.  Click on any link for a detailed summary.

• TO-3, Notification Policy, is intended to support tribal pre-notification of DOE spent fuel shipments, which is not currently required by the NRC.

• TO-16, CVSA Inspections, is intended to track the development of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's (CVSA) enhanced standards for inspections of truck shipment of radioactive materials.

• TO-19, Rail Inspection, is intended to determine what authority states and tribes have to stop and conduct inspections of rail cars carrying radioactive materials, and how states that do conduct such inspections carry them out

• TO-22, TEC/WG Routing Discussion Paper, supports the work of the Routing Topic Group, a subgroup of the larger TEC/WG.

• Discussion of "fixed-price" type contracts

Plenary Session #6: Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 2006

Gene Schmitt, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Site Operations, DOE-EM-70 explained the Ten-Year Vision, which provides for completing cleanup at most sites within ten years, although at a small number of sites treatment will continue for a few legacy waste streams. This ten-year vision will drive budget decisions, sequencing of projects, and actual actions taken to meet program objectives. It will be implemented in collaboration with regulators and stakeholders. Mr. Schmitt explained that the need for a Ten Year Vision was driven by a life-cycle study which estimated the cost of cleanup could be greater that $220 billion and take up to 50 years to complete.

Mr. Schmitt said that Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 2006, Discussion Draft, was issued in June, 1997. The 2006 Plan is on a deliberate path: (1) meeting with stakeholders, (2) formal and written comments received until September 9, 1997, (3) a Draft 2006 Plan available in late 1997, and (4) the Initial 2006 Plan issued in early 1998. The 2006 Plan will be a living document and used as a guide for the planning process and as a budget driver. Assumptions of the Discussion Draft include: consideration of existing DOE/EM facilities and inventories only; 2006 plan limited to scope of DOE/EM activities; weapons sites excluded. Newly generated waste management would be the responsibility of the generating programs by FY 2000. Two planning scenarios were used for discussion: Low Case, $5.5B/year and High Case, $6.0B/year. Early drafts revealed that some sites did not meet objectives even at the $6.0B scenario.

Mr. Schmitt provided a cost analysis, in which the life-cycle cost ranged from ~$146B to ~$156B; under the low planning scenario only two Field Offices would complete cleanup of all sites by 2006, while under the high planning scenario four Field Offices would complete cleanup of all sites by 2006. 60% of all costs would be incurred after 2006. Mr. Schmitt stressed that enhanced Program performance is essential to achieving completion and compliance goals. Enhanced performance includes institutionalizing DOEís past successes, focusing on privatization and fixed price contracts, examining other government agencies for success stories, identifying potential savings with technology development and integration opportunities, and ensuring EMís productivity targets are consistent with industry.

Mr. Schmitt went on to discuss the DOE National Transportation Program, which is designed to alleviate duplication between Headquarters and field offices. A partnership, the National Transportation Program between Headquarters, Albuquerque, and Idaho was established by a formal MOU on July 2, 1997.

DOE made the decision to reduce Headquarters involvement and make the site project manager accountable.

The National Transportation Programís scope is commodities and radioactive materials, hazardous waste, and mixed waste related to ongoing operations and cleanup of surplus facilities; however, it will provide a focus for complex-wide coordination, consultation, and information/technology development exchange. A Transportation Steering Committee will provide guidance and issue resolution; Headquarters will have primary responsibility for program coordination, Albuquerque will be responsible for ensuring efficient transportation operations, and Idaho will be responsible for systems engineering functions.