began (TEC 180c TG 2005, Appendix C, p. 2). OCRWM’s rationale appeared to be that “most jurisdictions should already have the equipment needed for hazardous materials response because it can be assumed that most jurisdictions already have a hazardous materials response capability” (ibid., p. 7). In its comments on the 1998 policy, the MHLRWC was generally accepting of the 25-percent cap, although it did express concern that an arbitrary cap would not “reflect the needs and differences of the states that will be involved in the program” (Flater 1998, p. 2). The committee recommended that OCRWM“consider raising the cap on equipment purchases to 25 percent per year of eligibility [i.e., lifting the 10-percent cap during shipping years], and expand the category to include equipment purchase, maintenance, and calibration” (ibid.). In 2005, when the Section 180(c) Topic Group was actively revising the draft policy, the topic group members expressed their disagreement with OCRWM’s earlier reasoning and recommended that “there be no limit on the percentage of funds available to purchase equipment” (TEC 180c TG 2005, Appendix C, p. 7). Consistent with the desire to make the Section 180(c) program flexible, the members felt a better approach would be to allow the recipients of funding to make “their own equipment purchase decisions with a review by the Department of Energy in the grant application” (ibid., p. 8). The topic group members also recommended against trying to define “training-related equipment,”preferring instead to let each applicant justify any requests for funding to purchase equipment (ibid.). The recommendation that went to OCRWMmanagement, therefore, was that “there be no caps on the percentage of the grant that can be used to purchase, calibrate, and maintain equipment as long as the equipment is training-related” (ibid.). When OCRWM published the revised draft policy and procedures in 2007, it included in the list of allowable activities “Equipment purchases, calibration, and maintenance for training purposes” (DOE 2007b, p. 40143). The notice included a footnote that stated, “Grant funds can be used to purchase equipment for training purposes. They can also be used to calibrate and maintain equipment as long as the equipment is training-related and specific to the needs created by NWPA shipments” (ibid.). Earlier in the Federal Register notice, OCRWM’s policy statement gave a slightly different description of Section 180(c)-funded equipment purchases: “Equipment purchased with Section 180(c) funds is intended to be used for training to prepare for the specific hazards presented by shipments to a NWPA-authorized facility. If necessary, such equipment could then be used for inspections and for responding to emergencies” (ibid., p. 64934). A revision to the revised draft, published in October 2008, included identical language. In its comments on the 2008 notice, the MRMTC noted the apparent inconsistency between the two statements OCRWMmade with regard to equipment purchases – with equipment, on one hand, being solely related to training, and on the other, being available for use in responding to emergencies (Leuer and Rasmusson 2009a, p. 3). The Midwest requested clarification from OCRWM, however the Yucca Mountain project was terminated before
national emergency response platform” (NAS 2006, p. 21). The recommendation appears to focus more on innovative approaches to delivering training – e.g., having DOE and DHS team up to provide the training – rather than suggesting that there was a need to improve upon the existing guidance or training (ibid., p. 256). EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Early in the process of resolving the issue of Section 180(c) assistance, it was unclear whether OCRWM would allow states to purchase, maintain, and calibrate equipment. The latest version of the Section 180(c) policy and procedures does allow for equipment-related purchases, but there may be limitations. As part of the “emergency response” issue covered in OCRWM’s 1986 Transportation Institutional Plan , the program expected to “define specific needs for training and equipment to support all NWPA emergency-preparedness activities by 1993” (DOE 1986c, p. A-60). Included in this expectation was the possibility of establishing “guidelines for the maintenance and calibration of radiation-monitoring equipment” (ibid.). Years later, this level of detail was made unnecessary by advances in state programs for maintaining and calibrating their own equipment to established standards. The issue of emergency response equipment surfaced again, however, in connection with the development of a policy and procedures for implementing Section 180(c). In 1998, OCRWM’s draft policy and procedures placed significant limitations on the use of Section 180(c) funding with regard to equipment. Specifically, the draft would have allowed states to buy equipment for training-related purposes only. Additionally, such purchases would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the total funding received during the first two years of receiving assistance, and only 10 percent of total funds once shipments
104
Made with FlippingBook Annual report