EMERGENCY RESPONSE In the mid-1980s, OCRWM identified the possible need for the program to develop guidance for emergency response to a transportation accident involving NWPA shipments. The program also reported on stakeholders’ concerns about financial assistance being available to help states, tribes, and local governments prepare for emergencies. This issue was effectively closed with the passage of Section 180(c) of the NWPA and the establishment of the National Incident Management System. In its report Going the Distance , the NAS recognized“emergency responder preparedness [as] an essential element of safe and effective programs for transporting spent fuel and high-level waste” (NAS 2006, p. 20). To its credit, OCRWM had the same recognition back in 1986 when it published the Transportation Institutional Plan , which included the issue of emergency response. At issue, specifically, was stakeholders’ desire to see “OCRWM specify its expected role in coordinated emergency-response planning and the development of nationally uniform emergency-response capabilities for all transportation accidents involving radioactive and other hazardous materials” (emphasis in original) (DOE 1986c, p. A-57). In addition, stakeholders requested that OCRWM“specify the extent to which it will assist States, Indian Tribes, and local governments in the development of emergency-response capabilities for potential NWPA transportation accidents” (ibid., p. A-58). As part of the second issue element, OCRWM suggested that there might be a need to define “the appropriate emergency response actions to be taken by first responders,” to“identify training requirements, equipment requirements, and appropriate procedures for the maintenance of equipment,” and“to define sources and levels of financial assistance for emergency-response activities” (ibid., p. A-58). As noted in OCRWM’s Strategy for OCRWM to Provide Training Assistance to State, Tribal, and Local Governments , with the passage of Section 180(c) of the NWPA, Congress mandated that OCRWM be the source of financial assistance for emergency-response activities, with funding available through the Nuclear Waste Fund (DOE 1992b, p. 6). As a result, this part of the emergency response issue – identifying a source of funding – is closed (see the section on Section 180(c) Implementation ). The issue element pertaining to the need for “nationally uniform emergency-response capabilities for all accidents involving hazardous materials” is also essentially closed. DHS established such uniform procedures in 2004 with the release of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Ordered by Homeland Security Presidential Directive #5, Management of Domestic Incidents, “NIMS provides a consistent nationwide template to enable Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity” (DHS 2008, p. i). The NAS recommended that OCRWM“work with the Department of Homeland Security to provide consolidated ‘all-hazards’ training materials and programs for first responders that build on the existing
As a shipper, OCRWM has the responsibility for managing emergencies involving its shipments. DOE’s “Program Manager’s Guide to Transportation Planning” recommended that “program managers, transportation managers, and public information managers…work with their TEPP [Transportation Emergency Management Program] and emergency management coordinators to identify and address emergency preparedness requirements in the early stages of transportation planning” (DOE 1998c, p. 27). The guide identified DOE’s responsibilities as a shipper as including the provision of information identified in 49 CFR 172.600 and “adequate technical assistance for emergency response should the carrier fail to do so” (ibid., p. 27). DOE’s Radiological Assistance Program teams have long been available to assist in emergencies involving shipments of radioactive waste. OCRWM expressed its intention to prepare an emergency management plan as part of the development of the transportation system. As envisioned, the plan would provide “requirements and guidelines to be followed by DOE management personnel in the event an off normal or emergency situation occurs during an en-route transportation activity” (DOE 2007a, p. 38). Like other DOE emergency response plans for shipments, OCRWM’s plan would include the following: • A list of emergency response agency contacts in the states and tribes; • Specific guidance directing appropriate response actions; • Coordination with on-scene response personnel; • Notifications and other communications with other government agencies at all levels; • Guidance for actions to be taken by on-scene personnel; and • Guidelines for briefing the media (ibid., p. 38). Carriers would be required to develop their own emergency response plans (ibid.). The 2009 edition of OCRWM’s transportation plan confirmed these plans (DOE 2009, p. 23). DOE’s “Program Manager’s Guide” listed several resources available to DOE personnel, including resources for planning, training, and guidance documents (DOE 1998c, pp. 30-32). Although some of the referenced items may no longer be available, the TEPP programmaintains a website with model plans and procedures ( http://teppinfo.com/ ). In addition, examples of emergency management plans from other DOE programs (such as DOE 2008j) are available to OCRWM transportation staff. OCRWM’s “Benchmarking” report identified emergency planning as a program element that all shipping campaigns considered “vital” to the “implementation of a successful shipping campaign” and highlighted this activity as an important part of the contingency planning process (DOE 2007c, p. 14). OCRWM was unable to produce a draft emergency management plan prior to the Yucca Mountain program being terminated in 2009. Because emergency planning is not site-specific, OCRWM or its successor could prepare an emergency management plan in concert with the overall transportation planning process.
103
Made with FlippingBook Annual report