SENATE COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Transportation

Seventy-second Session

February 28, 2003

The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Vice Chairman Dennis Nolan, at 9:46 a.m., on Friday, February 28, 2003, in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Legislative Building, Room 2149, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman

Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman

Senator Mark E. Amodei

Senator Terry Care

Senator Maggie Carlton

Senator Warren B. Hardy

Senator Michael Schneider

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst

Lee-Ann Keever, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Kevin Rohrer, Team Lead, Office of Public Affairs and Information, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy

J. Russell Dyer, Senior Project Advisor, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Repository Development

Robin Sweeney, Transportation Specialist, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of National Transportation

Allen Benson, Director, Institutional Affairs, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project, Department of Energy

Steve Frishman, Division of Planning, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Planning, Office of the Governor

Chairman Shaffer informed those present the meeting would be chaired by Vice Chairman Nolan.

Vice Chairman Nolan said the meeting would be informational. A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Transportation toured the Yucca Mountain Facility (YMF) on February 27, 2003. The vice chairman thanked the Department of Energy and Nevada’s nuclear management team for coordinating the tour.

Vice Chairman Nolan stated a time line was in place for the operation of the YMF. The Department of Energy intended to begin shipping high-level nuclear waste to the facility in 2010. The shipments could not begin until YMF received approval from the federal government. The Nevada Legislature was very interested in the operation of YMF and had worked with Nevada’s Congressional Delegation and the attorney general in opposing YMF. Despite opposition to the project from Nevada, it appeared as though there is a remote possibility YMF would be opened in Nevada. Vice Chairman Nolan said if the YMF opened as the federal government intended, the Nevada Legislature had a duty to the citizens of the State to protect them. Such protection would ensure the waste was transported in the safest manner possible. Further, if Nevada could realize any benefit from YMF being located in Nevada, then it was the Legislature’s duty to see those benefits were realized.

Vice Chairman Nolan said the meeting’s purpose would be to recap the information the subcommittee had received on its tour of YMF. He informed those present the federal government would be making the presentations at the meeting. The public would have an opportunity to make presentations or ask questions at meetings held at a later date.

Vice Chairman Nolan stated the Senate Committee on Transportation authorized a bill draft request (BDR) relative to the YMF, and the transportation of hazardous waste in and through Nevada. The information the committee received during the presentation would determine how to proceed with the BDR. Vice Chairman Nolan said it was possible the Legislature would authorize a study on the transport of high-level nuclear waste through Nevada. The study’s outcome would determine Nevada’s response to the YMF.

Vice Chairman Nolan introduced Kevin Rohrer, Team Lead, Office of Public Affairs and Information, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Mr. Rohrer thanked the committee members for their interest in the YMF. To those committee members who were unable to participate in the tour on February 27, 2003, he extended an invitation to tour the YMF at their convenience.

Mr. Rohrer said portions of the Phoenix emergency management training facility had been incorporated into his presentation. Mr. Rohrer outlined the history of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The NTS was opened in 1950, and the first atmospheric nuclear test conducted in 1951. The primary mission of the NTS was the support of national security. The means by which the mission was accomplished had changed during the past decade. Mr. Rohrer attributed this to the 1992 moratorium on weapons testing.

Mr. Rohrer explained where the NTS is located in relation to Las Vegas. He added the NTS was the size of Rhode Island, and if one considered all the federal property surrounding the NTS, it would be the size of Connecticut. The remoteness of the NTS’s location allowed for safe and secure testing of national security projects, both classified and unclassified.

Mr. Rohrer reviewed the key programs conducted at the NTS, including a presidential directive to maintain readiness to conduct nuclear testing. The NTS has state and national emergency response capabilities. Those response capabilities would be utilized in the case of a nuclear incident or terrorist threat. The NTS maintained its facilities and infrastructures as a national resource for security missions.

Mr. Rohrer described the NTS Stockpile Stewardship Program which resulted from the 1992 moratorium on weapons testing. As the NTS was no longer allowed to test the nuclear weapons, it had turned to computer modeling for simulated weapons tests. A good computer model required data in order to provide correct information. As computers evolved and times changed, a computer simulation required additional input and factors.

The Stockpile Stewardship Program included physics experiments and research activities to aid the laboratories gathering the required data for the computer simulations. Mr. Rohrer referenced his PowerPoint presentation, page 1 (Exhibit C). He described an experiment involving a gas gun called JASPER and high rates of speed. Mr. Rohrer described Project Atlas which the NTS had taken over from Los Alamos, New Mexico, and was being reconstructed at the NTS.

Mr. Rohrer reviewed Technical Area 18 (TA-18), page 1, Exhibit C, and the transportation implications associated with the area. Mr. Rohrer said TA-18 is located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and is a nuclear criticality machine. Contrary to published newspaper reports, the NTS had not transported any nuclear materials from TA-18 to the NTS. It was uncertain when such materials would be transported into Nevada. Mr. Rohrer said in the interest of national security, such shipments would be classified, and the exact shipment dates would not be made public.

Mr. Rohrer said the TA-18 material would be transported by a safe secure transport operated through the Albuquerque, New Mexico Office of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The material would be transported using techniques developed by the military to move nuclear materials from one location to another. No public notification would be given, and armed guards would accompany all shipments.

Senator Hardy asked for and received the definition of nuclear criticality experiment from Mr. Rohrer. The definition of nuclear criticality is when nuclear material is placed in a specific configuration and allowed a prompt or critical reaction. At times, a bluish glow is emitted from the materials. The process is dangerous, and people have been killed during such experiments. Despite the danger, it was a critical part of the training for the people who worked with nuclear materials.

Mr. Rohrer reiterated the NTS needed to maintain test readiness. The President of the United States determines when testing would resume. Mr. Rohrer emphasized the NTS employees followed the President’s and Congress’ orders. At the President’s request, the National Nuclear Security Administration is committed to providing a more responsive or readiness posture. Mr. Rohrer stated it would take about 18 to 24 months to achieve a readiness posture once the President ordered testing to resume.

Mr. Rohrer said a readiness posture meant both the NTS and NNSA would maintain the skills, workforce, and equipment necessary to national security. Mr. Rohrer explained test readiness meant the existing stockpile of weapons would be tested, and no new weapons or weapon systems were in development. Further, test readiness meant the safety and reliability of the stockpile would be maintained.

Mr. Rohrer said the National Training Center (NTC) operates a program called the National Center for Combating Terrorism. It provides first responder training as part of the program’s curriculum, and additional courses are offered in weapons of mass destruction training and counter terrorism training. The training is provided at different locations at the NTS facility.

Mr. Rohrer stated many of the facilities at the NTS had been vacant due to the 1992 weapons moratorium. These facilities are currently being used to provide training sites for the NTC classes. The training facilities allowed the simulation of real world conditions of nuclear, radiological, chemical, or industrial facilities.

Mr. Rohrer said more than 3000 first responders from all over the country had been trained at the NTS. During the current fiscal year, 8000 individuals would be trained at the NTS through the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Department of Justice’s training program begun in 1999.

Vice Chairman Nolan stated the subcommittee had observed a training facility during their tour of the NTS. Vice Chairman Nolan described the exercise scenario for those present and stated he had been impressed by the training. Vice Chairman Nolan said he thought there would an increased demand for the training provided at the NTS due to the current political climate. He said he hoped in the increased demand for training would result in additional jobs for people in southern Nevada.

Mr. Rohrer said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was providing additional funding for the NTS training program. Both NTS and DHS wanted to develop a strong working relationship to publicize the training on a national level. Mr. Rohrer said when National Guard Civil Support teams trained at NTS their annual certification requirements were met.

The NTS has a hazardous materials spill test facility on-site which is unique and considered a national asset. The State of Nevada permitted the NTS to release toxic and/or dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere due to the remote location and climate of the NTS. The release of the chemicals allowed individuals responding to hazardous material incidents to train in real-world conditions. An individual would have been trained and certified as a hazardous material first responder before being allowed to participate in a training session.

Mr. Rohrer described the NTS’s hydrogen energy station located in Las Vegas at the intersection of Cheyenne Avenue and Buffalo Drive. The NTS partnered with the City of Las Vegas and private industry to develop this first of its kind hydrogen station.

Mr. Rohrer explained how the applications of hydrogen were used. The first application converted natural gas into hydrogen which was then used in generating electricity for use by the citizens of Nevada. The second application combined hydrogen with natural gas which was then used to fuel motor vehicles. The third application provided hydrogen for direct fuel to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

The City of Las Vegas established a natural gas fueling station at the hydrogen energy station. The facility was a state of the art dispensing station which dispensed hydrogen, hydrogen-blend, or natural gas. The NTS was working on the conversion of vehicles such as buses, light-duty trucks, and cars from fossil fuels to hydrogen.

Senator Schneider asked for and received clarification from Mr. Rohrer on the costs of using hydrogen to fuel vehicles. Mr. Rohrer said the cost of hydrogen was more expensive than conventional fossil fuels. As the NTS developed and refined hydrogen fueled vehicles, it hoped that cost would be reduced. He said due to the recent increase in gas prices, the cost of hydrogen fuel might be comparable to the cost of fossil fuel. Mr. Rohrer said the benefit of using hydrogen-based fuels would be environmental in nature.

Mr. Rohrer stated national security missions comprised two-thirds of the NTS’s workload, with environmental management completing the NTS’s assigned tasks. Mr. Rohrer said environmental management included environmental restoration after nuclear testing activities.

Mr. Rohrer said environmental management also included a technology development program which meant the NTS is in the process of constructing an environmental program to monitor water, the identification of radionuclides and other hazardous materials generated by the NTS. Mr. Rohrer said a number of ground water wells had been drilled at the NTS, and the wells would be used to monitor the migration of water off the test site. Additionally, the NTS would take all debris, both radiological and hazardous, off the test site. While, the NTS was halfway through the cleanup activities, the ground water monitoring program was in the start-up stages. It would be another decade before the ground water monitoring program was fully operational.

Mr. Rohrer said waste management had transportation implications. The NTS managed three types of waste: 1) transuranic or mixed transuranic waste; 2) low-level waste, and 3) mixed low-level waste. Mr. Rohrer stated the only low-level waste disposed of by the NTS consisted of low-level waste generated on-site. Mr. Rohrer explained mixed low-level waste was a combination of low‑level waste and hazardous materials as defined in the Conservation and Recovery Act.

Mr. Rohrer referenced page 6, Exhibit C, which showed a cutaway of low-level waste drums and the clothing which was disposed of after a cleanup operation. Mr. Rohrer added any equipment used during a clean up operation was also disposed. The NTS received equipment, construction debris, and/or contaminated soil from generating sites around the country.

The NTS only accepted waste from Department of Energy (DOE) or Department of Defense (DOD) sites. No waste would be accepted from privately operated commercial enterprises including hospitals, pharmaceutical and research laboratories, or private research industry.

Vice Chairman Nolan asked if 80 percent of the high level waste shipments would be from private industry while the low-level shipments would be from the DOD or the DOE. Mr. Rohrer deferred the question to J. Russell Dyer, Robin Sweeney, and Allen Benson. Those individuals would be making a presentation on Yucca Mountain to the committee members, and would have the details and statistics relative to the shipping of high-level nuclear waste.

Mr. Rohrer said low-level nuclear was defined by what it was not. Low-level waste was not high-level, or transuranic waste, nor waste having an atomic number greater than 92 on the periodic table. It was not uranium mine tailings. He added most of the low-level waste received at the NTS had low gamma emissions. While some of the waste received at the NTS required special or remote handling, the majority of waste did not require special handling, equipment, or clothing. The Occupational and Safety Health Administration set the safety standards for the NTS.

Mr. Rohrer talked about the nuclear generating sites shipping low-level waste to the NTS. A map of those sites is on page 3, Exhibit C. Mr. Rohrer reiterated the sites were either DOD or DOE sites. There were 23 sites approved to ship low‑level waste to NTS, but only 19 of them were doing so.

Mr. Rohrer referenced a chart showing how much low-level waste had been shipped to and/or disposed of at NTS since 1985, page 3, Exhibit C. He noted the shipments had doubled in size since 2002, and would likely continue to double in size on a yearly basis.

Senator Schneider asked if other states were accepting low-level nuclear waste. Mr. Rohrer said privately held Envirocare in Utah accepted waste from the DOE and commercial industry. There was a facility in South Carolina which accepted low-level nuclear waste. Both facilities stored the waste in a manner similar to that used at the NTS. Mr. Rohrer said waste received at any facility, government or private, had to be verified and documented before it could be accepted by the facility. This was done to ensure compatibility, and to assess the impact the waste would have on the environment.

Mr. Rohrer said he was not familiar with the certification process a private storage facility would receive for the storage of low-level nuclear waste. He added some of the federal facilities disposed of the waste on-site.

Mr. Rohrer said some low-level nuclear waste was not compatible with a state’s guidelines or regulations for the licensing of the facility. In those instances, the waste would be shipped to the NTS. Senator Schneider asked Mr. Rohrer about the regulations in other states and if those regulations could result in the automatic shipment of low-level nuclear waste to the NTS. Mr. Rohrer said federal regulations, under certain circumstances, sometimes mandated the shipment of low-level nuclear waste to Nevada.

Mr. Rohrer said the NTS had a rigorous waste acceptance process which had to be followed before any low-level waste could be shipped to the NTS. The generation sites and all required supporting documentation must be inspected prior to staff approval for the acceptance of the waste shipment.

On a biannual basis, all nuclear generating sites that shipped wasted to the NTS would be inspected to ensure the paperwork, generated material, and site operations were as described in the waste acceptance criteria and supporting documentation.

Mr. Rohrer talked about the routes used when shipping low-level nuclear waste to Nevada, page 3, Exhibit D (Original is on file in the Research Library.). During the winter months, the southern routes were most commonly used and during the summer months, Interstate-80 would be used.

Mr. Rohrer said the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulated the routes used in the shipment of low-level nuclear waste and the trucking carriers were responsible for selecting the routes to be used. The trucking companies had to follow the regulations and guidelines established by the DOT when selecting a route. Due to Governor Guinn’s concerns, the NTS worked with the generating sites to select routes through Nevada that avoided the high traffic areas in Las Vegas.

Senator Schneider reminded Mr. Rohrer a truck containing a shipment of low‑level nuclear waste had broken down in Kingman, Arizona. The truck had water dripping. The Senator said he wanted to know if the water in that instance had been hazardous. Mr. Rohrer said the dripping water contained no radioactive material. He explained the shipment originated in Ohio which had a higher humidity rate than Nevada. One of the casks in the shipment developed a breach and condensation developed in the material being shipped. The condensation leaked out through the breach in the cask. The driver of the truck called the proper authorities. An inspection of the water showed it was not radioactive and presented no danger. The breach in the cask alerted the NTS and generating sites to the design flaw in the casks. The design flaw had been corrected.

Vice Chairman Nolan said one of his concerns about low-level nuclear waste being shipped through southern Nevada was the hysteria which might result should one of the trucks carrying the low-level nuclear waste have an accident on a Nevada highway. He said people would panic if they knew radioactive materials were involved in an accident, and asked about the safety tolerances of the materials being shipped. Vice Chairman Nolan asked if each state had its own laws and regulations governing the shipment and transportation of low‑level nuclear waste through the state.

Mr. Rohrer said every shipment of low-level nuclear was governed by the DOT’s regulations on highway routing, shipping, and packaging. However, the shipments would still be subject to a state’s regulations on weight, tariffs, and inspections.

Vice Chairman Nolan asked if a low-level nuclear waste shipment would have to abide by a state’s escort regulations. Mr. Rohrer said he did not know if states had specific regulations on the escort of low-level nuclear waste due to the implementation of national regulations by the federal government. He said he was not aware of any state-level regulations mandating escorts for low-level nuclear waste shipments.

Senator Carlton asked if existing federal regulations prohibited a state from providing escorts to low-level nuclear waste shipments due a shipment being classified. Mr. Rohrer said he presumed national security interests would take precedence over a state’s regulations. He added all low-level nuclear waste shipments, especially those carrying classified materials, would be transported in a secure manner consistent with the best interests of national security.

Senator Carlton asked Mr. Rohrer if he could answer questions about a shipment of classified low-level nuclear waste. Mr. Rohrer said if the question related to the shipment of special nuclear materials and its transport, he would not be able the questions.

Mr. Rohrer referenced the low-level waste transportation routes, page 3, Exhibit D. He reiterated NTS’s agreement with Governor Guinn to remove the Las Vegas Spaghetti Bowl interchange and Hoover Dam from the accepted routes. While there were no laws which prohibited the NTS from using certain routes, NTS worked to do what was right for the local communities. The NTS had worked with both Governor Guinn and the Western Governor’s Association (WGA) on routes which would be acceptable for the transport of low-level nuclear waste. In 2002, only three shipments of low-level nuclear waste went through the Las Vegas Spaghetti Bowl (LVSB) interchange. One driver ignored the regulations and had been terminated by the trucking company.

Senator Hardy asked why the NTS did not use air transport in the shipment of low-level nuclear waste. The Senator asked the information be provided to him after the meeting. Mr. Rohrer agreed to provide the information requested by Senator Hardy.

Mr. Rohrer continued his explanation of the other two shipping incidents in 2002. One concerned a trucking company with dual cargo going to the NTS and Nellis Air Force Base. The driver obtained permission from the Nevada Department of Transportation prior to using the LVSB interchange. The other incident concerned an overweight vehicle. The Nevada Highway Patrol used the proper protocol to obtain routing instructions for the overweight vehicle. Those instructions directed the driver to use the LVSB interchange.

Mr. Rohrer said the transportation burden had been shifted to the rural communities in Nevada from the LVSB interchange. The rural communities were concerned with providing an adequate emergency response in case of a spill. To assist the rural counties in Nevada, the NTS initiated a 50-cent surcharge on all low-level waste received at the NTS. The money raised from this surcharge was used to provide grants to emergency response organizations for training purposes. The training was for all types of hazardous waste, in addition to low‑level nuclear waste. The NTS worked with the Division of Emergency Management (DEM) to provide training grants to the rural counties in Nevada.

Vice Chairman Nolan and Mr. Rohrer discussed the budget process by which the funding level for grants was determined. Mr. Rohrer said the NTS had not yet received all the money generated by waste disposal for the year. In order to fund the grant program this year, the NTS had taken $1 million out of its budget and transferred it to the grants program. At the end of the current fiscal year, the money would be repaid from the generating fees received at the NTS.

Vice Chairman Nolan asked about the method in which the grant money would be dispersed to the counties in Nevada. Mr. Rohrer said the money was dispersed on a need basis and the counties were required to submit grant applications showing the need for the training. The money was then provided to the State who issued the grant to the requesting governmental entity. The State had an audit process to ensure the money was used for training purposes only. The DEM handled the disbursement of the grant monies.

Vice Chairman Nolan asked if all the counties applied for grant money from the NTS. Mr. Rohrer said the applications exceeded the available funding.

Mr. Rohrer talked about the storage sites for low-level nuclear waste at the NTS and referenced the Area 3 and Area 5 charts, page 4, Exhibit C. Mr. Rohrer explained how low-level waste was stored in each area. The environment at Area 3 had been contaminated by previous nuclear test explosions. The 55‑gallon drums used to store the low-level nuclear waste were marked with bar codes which permitted the NTS to use computer programs to track the location of the waste. The NTS used a custom computer program to match the profile of the waste with information provided by the generating site.

Mr. Rohrer outlined the Transuranic Waste Program (TWP). He said most of the TWP had been generated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. It was stored at the NTS because there was no room to safely store it at the generating site in California. The waste would have to be characterized in order to meet the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This would allow the waste to be disposed at WIPP.

The first shipment of transuranic waste would be in June 2003. The NTS was working with Governor Guinn and the WGA to determine the best shipment route. Mr. Rohrer said the State of California had not agreed to the proposed route.

Mr. Rohrer reiterated the TA-18 shipments had not been scheduled with specific shipping dates and routes due the classified nature of the materials. Mr. Rohrer recapped the grant program and the means by which it was funded, the TWP and its start date. Mr. Rohrer stressed the TWP meant low-level nuclear waste would be leaving not entering the NTS.

Senator Care asked for and received clarification from Mr. Rohrer on the notice Nevada would receive when classified materials were shipped to the NTS. The Governor would receive some notice, but the exact nature and date of the shipment would not be shared with him. Mr. Rohrer said Senator Townsend had received a copy of the notice sent to the Governor. Mr. Rohrer said he would be glad to provide a copy of the same notice sent to Senator Care.

J. Russell Dyer, Ph.D., Senior Project Advisor, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Repository Development, provided an update on the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) that outlined the environmental impact statement (EIS) for Yucca Mountain (Exhibit D). He said Exhibit D contained two compact discs which made it easier to access the EIS information.

Dr. Dyer provided an overview of the Yucca Mountain Project (Exhibit E). He referenced page 2, Exhibit D, which contained a time frame for the disposal of nuclear waste. Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) in 1982. The NWPA adopted deep geologic disposal as the preferred means of disposing of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel.

Dr. Dyer explained the difference in the waste materials which would be shipped to Yucca Mountain versus those shipped to the NTS. The waste stream for a geologic repository, such as Yucca Mountain, consisted of spent fuel from for profit, commercial reactors or from government owned Department of Energy (DOE) reactors. He said the spent fuel consisted of waste from the cleanup of the defense weapons program. It also came from a variety of sources including the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Hanford Site in Washington. The waste would be mixed with sand and converted into glass logs.

Dr. Dyer said there were two means of disposing of such nuclear waste. The first method would make new reactor fuel from the waste. The second method was the direct disposal method.

Senator Schneider asked if nuclear weapons were dismantled at the NTS. Dr. Dyer said he believed nuclear weapons were being dismantled in Texas, not Nevada.

Dr. Dyer said President Bush approved the YMP in 2002. The decision to use Yucca Mountain as a repository was the culmination of a lengthy site recommendation process. Dr. Dyer further explained the time frame on page 2, Exhibit D.

Dr. Dyer explained the decision-making process as outlined on page 3, Exhibit D, and which decisions certain entities or individuals would be responsible. The President of the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and Congress would all make key decisions relating to the licensing of the YMP. Once a facility had received approval to operate, it would begin the licensing process.

Dr. Dyer said a facility such as YMP could not commence operation until properly licensed. He said the licensing process was lengthy. Once a facility was licensed, it would have to provide retrieval operations for at least 50 years from the date of licensing. This meant if the YMP received licensing approval in 2010, it would have to stay in operation at least until 2060. The YMP had been designed to operate in excess of the 50-year requirement. Once the operators of a facility felt it could be closed with little or no risk to public safety, they could apply to the NRC for permission to close the facility.

Vice Chairman Nolan talked about the tunnel that had been excavated at the YMP and the tests being conducted in it. He said the YMP was not a true storage facility. The true storage facility would be constructed upon approval of the license request.

Vice Chairman Nolan asked if Dr. Dyer’s presentation would include an overview of the employees who would be hired if YMP received licensing approval and began operation. Dr. Dyer said the anticipated YMP workforce was not part of his presentation to the committee members, but would provide the information the vice chairman requested. He added the number of additional employees required to properly operate the YMP had been considered and included in the environmental impact statute.

Dr. Dyer said it was anticipated construction on the YMP would begin in 2008 and would require 2000 to 3000 employees. Construction would be completed in phases and take a decade to complete. The exact duration of the construction and number of employees hired was contingent on funding.

Vice Chairman Nolan requested information relating to the employee workforce, construction trades to be hired, and construction time be provided to the committee members using a bell curve chart. The vice chairman said he wanted information on length of employment included with the chart. He said the YMP employees would become southern Nevada residents, and when the YMP was completed, they might not be able to find employment in southern Nevada.

Dr. Dyer agreed to provide the information in the format Vice Chairman Nolan requested.

Dr. Dyer discussed the YMP’s current management emphasis, page 4, Exhibit E. Since its inception, the YMP had focused on research and development, but when the YMP was designated as a high-level nuclear repository, the focus of the work changed. The organization was renamed Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Repository Development with a focus on obtaining a high-quality licensing application. Dr. Dyer outlined the criteria associated with obtaining a high‑quality license. The criteria included design and refocusing the science program to support the licensing facilities.

Dr. Dyer said transportation planning was an area which had not been previously active. The reason for this being YMP’s focus had been suitability, not transportation. As of October 1, 2002, it has been the intent of Dr. Dyer’s office to begin a transportation program. The transportation aspect of the YMP had been delayed due to funding issues which had not been resolved until February 2003. The funding received was insufficient, and left the YMP with a $130 million shortfall. Dr. Dyer and his staff would determine if the funding shortfall permitted YMP’s transportation program to be pursued as aggressively originally planned.

Vice Chairman Nolan said transportation included the planning and construction of transportation routes in and out of the YMP. He asked if there were other areas of transportation which concerned the YMP, and if the budget shortfall affected the long-term transportation planning at the YMP, specifically, would the 2010 start date would be delayed.

Dr. Dyer said it was too early to know what effect the budget shortfall would have because his office had not the time to make an analysis. He said his office had not made a decision on rail transport. As no decision had been made about rail transport, it might be possible to use a truck-based transport system funded out of the current budget to meet the deadlines.

Vice Chairman Nolan asked if rail transport would include capital investments such as the laying of track into the YMP. Dr. Dyer said he would address the question after he discussed the potential rail routes into the YMP as described in the EIS. He said a new rail route would have to be constructed if a decision was made to transport waste materials by train.

Dr. Dyer said the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management was interacting with the NRC more frequently and referenced pages 4 and 5, Exhibit D which addressed the key licensing activities and current management emphasis. He said the DOE would be the owner and operator of the YMP. A safety analysis for both the opening and closing of the YMP would have to be conducted. The NRC had certain expectations from the YMP including it perform as a nuclear licensee for a nuclear reactor.

Dr. Dyer said Exhibit C and Exhibit D contained maps of the YMP and the proposed transportation routes. He said the safety and health record for transporting spent fuel rods in the United States was impressive. There had been in excess of 3000 shipments over the past 30 years. Additionally, since 1957, the U.S. Navy transported 738 shipments of spent Navy fuel for a total of 1 million miles. Not one of the shipments resulted in the release of materials harmful to people or the environment. In excess of 1500 shipments had been received at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico.

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission established all regulations regarding the transport of waste materials.

Dr. Dyer said a cadre of properly trained emergency responders needed to be established. These individuals would respond in case of an emergency involving high- or low-level nuclear waste, and would assure the community there would be no danger in case of an incident. A network of properly trained emergency responders would be in place sometime during 2010.

Dr. Dyer said Europe has only two-thirds the land the United States does and European countries had shipped more than 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel over the past 2 decades. He noted European countries had a higher concentration of population than the United States. France and Great Britain each averaged 650 shipments of spent fuel per year. The primary reprocessing facilities were located in those two countries.

Dr. Dyer referenced page 7, Exhibit E, which showed both the generating and storage sites of high-level nuclear waste. The amount of high-level nuclear waste stored at each commercial location was listed on page 8, Exhibit E. The amounts listed were an approximation of the uranium stored as the chart was last updated in 1995 and were in metric tons. A metric ton equals 2200 pounds.

Under the current statutory cap, 63,000 metric tons of high-level waste would be stored at the YMP. Under the cap, 70,000 metric tons of high-level waste could be stored at the YMP. Dr. Dyer said 90 percent of the waste would be from commercial reactors with the balance coming from the DOE high-level nuclear waste, the DOE and U.S. Navy spent fuel, or would be comprised of nonproliferation materials.

In order to meet the energy needs of the future, the construction of new nuclear power plants was under discussion by various federal agencies. If such plants were built, the spent fuel from those plants would have to be stored. It was thought the YMP could provide the required storage for the waste. The storage of spent fuels from the proposed power generating plants was addressed in the EIS. If such plants were built, the storage of their spent fuel at the YMP would have to be addressed due to the cap on that facility’s storage capabilities.

Vice Chairman Nolan said once the YMP began operations, it was looking at receiving one and a half shipments a day. He asked when a decision regarding the preferred means of transportation would be made. Dr. Dyer said he had some points to present before he would be able to answer the vice chairman’s questions.

Dr. Dyer said the acceptance capability or storage limits of the YMP was listed on page 9, Exhibit E, and transportation would be affected by the amount of materials which could be stored at the facility. By the year 2034, the YMP would have reached its statutorily imposed capacity limit.

Senator Care asked if alternative repositories had been considered for the storage of high-level nuclear waste or if Yucca Mountain had been the only site considered. Dr. Dyer said other sites had been considered. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to present Congress with a recommendation to either expand the Yucca Mountain facility or build another high-level nuclear waste storage facility. The information is to be supplied to Congress in 2008. The original act looked at a first and second repository.

Dr. Dyer talked about the transportation limitations some sites presented. He said it was not possible for a site to rely totally on either truck or rail for its transportation needs. For the YMP, the EIS expressed a desire for a rail-based transportation system. During its operational life, the YMF would receive 3200 train and 100 truck shipments if rail were the primary means of transportation. The number of shipments would increase if trucks were the primary means of transportation. It was estimated the truck shipments would exceed 53,000 due to the lower level of legal weight capacity of the average truck in America. There would be more than 2200 truck shipments per year during the course of operation.

Dr. Dyer referenced page 10, Exhibit E, outlining the number of rail shipments versus truck shipments. He said no rail or highway routes had been selected. Dr. Dyer outlined the impact on transportation the shipments would have, both nationally and regionally, pages 11, 12, and 13 of Exhibit E. He said the length of a rail route determined the cost; a longer route would be more expensive to build.

Dr. Dyer referenced the components required to successfully and safely transport high-level nuclear waste, pages 14 and 15 of Exhibit E.

Dr. Dyer said if trucks were used to transport the high-level nuclear waste, the trucking companies would have to follow regulations prescribed the DOT. He added if the DOE decided on a truck campaign for the transportation of high‑level nuclear waste, the Governor would be able to designate which Nevada roads would be used by the trucking companies hauling the waste.

Dr. Dyer said the transportation of high-level nuclear waste had to be safe, secure, and reliable. Dr. Dyer stated his office would cooperate with all government entities, including federal, State, and tribal to ensure the waste material was transported in a safe and secure manner. For added security, the vehicles used to transport the high-level nuclear waste would be equipped with a global positioning system.

Dr. Dyer said the DOE needed to make informed decisions and manage the information effectively. In order to make informed decisions, the DOE required input from the citizens and elected officials of Nevada. Dr. Dyer stated the DOE welcomed input from the State and other interested parties as such input would allow the DOE to complete the YMP as it was an important national mission.

Vice Chairman Nolan thanked Dr. Dyer for his complete and informational presentation to the committee members. The vice chairman said he was concerned about the safe transportation of high-level nuclear waste through Nevada and asked what steps the DOE had taken to protect the waste shipments from a terrorist attack.

Dr. Dyer said the NRC shared the vice chairman’s concerns and that security requirements were being reassessed. The Department of Homeland Security would provide either security-related requirements or suggestions or for such shipments.

Vice Chairman Nolan said he wanted to know if the Governor had the ability to veto any highway routes selected by the DOE or DOT for the shipment of high‑level nuclear waste. He asked if the weight factor of the shipments had been taken into consideration as increased loads would strain Nevada’s highways.

Dr. Dyer said all trucks in the transportation of waste material would meet the legal weight limit. He referred to heavy-haul shipments which were shipped by a heavy-duty truck and said the waste materials would not be shipped in that manner.

Robin Sweeney, Transportation Specialist, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of National Transportation. She said a legal weight truck weighed 80,000 pounds or less. The waste material currently being shipped by truck comprised 0.1 percent of commercial truck shipments in the United States.

Ms. Sweeney said she did not think shipping the waste material by truck would impact the interstate highway system. If a state wished to designate a route as an alternative route for the transportation of nuclear waste materials, it would have to comply with the DOT’s regulations. Because a state had the ability to designate alternative routes, the NCR and the DOE would not know the permanent routes for a number of years.

Vice Chairman Nolan said he wanted to know if Dr. Dyer thought the State of Nevada had sufficient time to secure and build the routes necessary for the transportation of nuclear waste. Dr. Dyer said if rail were chosen as the preferred means of transport, it would be a time-consuming project to construct a new rail system. He outlined the process by which a new rail system would be built, and noted the design of a new rail system would take time.

Senator Carlton asked who would be paying for the construction of a new transportation system necessary for the safe and secure transport of nuclear waste.

Dr. Dyer said the DOE and the Nuclear Waste Fund would pay for the installation of a dedicated transportation system. He said he was not sure of the funding mechanism for a non-dedicated transportation system. Dr. Dyer said he thought the cost might be shared; however, there had been no discussion of a non-dedicated transportation system.

Senator Carlton said she wanted to know what people would decide if the transportation system would be dedicated or non-dedicated. Dr. Dyer said the DOE and the President would be part of the decision-making process, but had no idea which other individuals would be involved.

Vice Chairman Nolan said the committee members wanted to receive as much information as possible from all concerned parties in order to make an informed report to the Nevada Legislature.

Steve Frishman, Division of Planning, Agency for Nuclear Planning, Office of the Governor, said he did not have a prepared presentation. Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Planning, Office of the Governor, had made a presentation to the Assembly Committee on Transportation. In the interests of efficiency, Mr. Loux offered to make the same presentation to the Senate Committee on Transportation.

Vice Chairman Nolan stated the Senate Committee on Transportation would hold another meeting at which time public input regarding Yucca Mountain would be received.

There being no further business, Vice Chairman Nolan adjourned the meeting of the Senate Committee on Transportation at 11:43 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Lee-Ann Keever,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman

DATE: