MRMTC Regional Priorities for the NFST Planning Project MOVE FORWARD WITH NON-SITE-SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES Section 180(c): • release comments received/DOE response • revisit/finalize policy and procedures and grant application • pilot test procedures Inspections: • DOE to organize group to establish the draft inspection forms developed by the Midwest, Northeast, and the FRA • Develop plan for when to inspect, to what level, how (including security) Transportation plan: • release comments received/DOE response • revise plan, working cooperatively with states Security: • arrange for NRC briefing for states (following up on the SRGs’“Cask Vulnerability Information Sharing”work 4 ) • develop escort plan/requirements Near-site infrastructure: • rail infrastructure assessments (FRA activity in partnership with the regions) Communications: • develop communications plan (transparency, timely, regu- lar frequency, multiple means [print, web, webinars], goal) • possibly conduct survey research to establish baseline, but first better articulate purpose • prepare new materials, as needed Package Performance Study: • this is NRC's activity, but make sure states are involved and have a plan for translating the information gleaned into something useful for the states (e.g., emergency response actions to be taken) Timeline: • develop generic timeline (use TEC/WG rail timeline as a starting point 5 ) PREPARE FOR SITE-SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
The Transportation Core Group gradually settled on a schedule of meeting twice each year — in winter/spring in Washington, DC, and then in the summer hosted by one of the regions or TRMTC on a rotating basis. Subjects addressed at the meetings included DOE-NE’s engagement of states, Tribes, and the public; plans for implementing the BRC recommendations, as documented in the “Strategy” document; development of electronic resources (see the section on System Analysis Tools ); route-selection for shipments; rail inspections; and models for understanding and planning transportation logistics. Following the initial Transportation Core Group meeting in October 2012, the SRGs prepared a letter stating their expectations on key issues that were discussed at the meeting. “The States’ Expectations for Consultation and Cooperation in Developing and Operating a Transportation System to Move Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste”guided the SRGs’ interactions with DOE-NE through the Transportation Core Group, with meetings organized around the issues articulated in the document (CSG Midwest et al. 2013). Each meeting involved a thorough review of actions agreed to at the previous meeting and their status. To track the group’s progress on key issues related to transportation, the members developed an issues matrix to use as their framework for meeting agendas and the discussions that were planned to take place (CSG Midwest et al. 2017). The matrix was based on the recommendations of two significant studies: 1) the 2012 final report of the BRC, and 2) Going the Distance? The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States , published in 2006 by the Transportation Research Board and National Research Council of the National Academies (TRB/NRC 2006). The document compiled recommendations from the two studies on topics such as route selection, use of dedicated trains, and full-scale cask testing, as well as the SRGs recommendation and the rationale for the states’ interest. The matrix stands today as an excellent resource for understanding key issues related to transporting SNF. The consultation envisioned by the Midwest and its counterparts involved three key elements (CSG Midwest et al. 2013, pp. 2-3): 1. Adherence to a model process for successful shipping campaigns, characterized by: • Direct, frequent interaction between DOE and the states. • The establishment of a national working group with regional representatives selected by the individual regions to ensure a broad range of experience. • Regional representatives contributing substantively to written work products rather than limiting their role to a formal process of reviewing and commenting.
Route identification: •
criteria/principles/definitions
• •
tools
timeframe (tied to timeline)
• webinar to refresh people on highway route selection, new info on rail route selection, NRC security reviews
4 See the article in the 2010 edition of this archive. 5 See the article on the rail timeline in the 2010 edition of this archive.
20
Made with FlippingBook Annual report