• Select a mixed group of options comprising elements from the previous four groups (ibid.). The authors stated that the paper was guided by “two key principles”: • OCRWM will strive to develop a program with enough flexibility to accommodate the wide variety of State, Tribal, and local assistance needs. • OCRWM training assistance will be integrated into established Federal, State, and Tribal assistance structures, where possible (ibid., p. 37). Before OCRWM published a final version of the options paper, OCRWM announced it would no longer pursue monitored retrievable storage as part of its program strategy (Wentz 1995, p. 4). OCRWM did proceed with the publication in the Federal Register of a “notice of inquiry” on 180(c) implementation in January 1995 (DOE 1995b). This notice “briefly described various options to delineate policies and procedures” for implementing Section 180(c) (DOE 1995c, p. 36793). The MHLRWC comments on these notices expressed three principal concerns, starting with the need for OCRWM to “place a high priority on developing a policy and procedures for implementing Section 180(c)” (Borchert 1995, p. 1). The Midwestern states were concerned about the possibility of OCRWM shipping spent fuel “through our region without providing the states with sufficient time to prepare adequately for monitoring and response activities” (ibid.). At the time the Midwest sent its letter, the consortium Private Fuel Storage was moving forward with plans to develop a private interim storage facility. The states had identified a deficiency in Section 180(c) in that it applied only to shipments to NWPA- authorized facilities, not private ones. Therefore, a second key point expressed by the Midwest was that Section 180(c) assistance “ must apply to all large-scale shipping campaigns involving civilian spent nuclear fuel” (emphasis in original) (ibid.). Finally, the region felt that Section 180(c) assistance should be “administered directly to tribes in the same manner as states” in order to be consistent with respect to the tribes’ status as sovereign nations (ibid.). According to the Midwest’s letter, the Midwestern, Southern, andWestern states were in agreement on these three issues. In comments on specific aspects of the assistance program, the Midwest highlighted the “pivotal role of route selection” in making it possible for OCRWM to meet its obligation to provide funding and technical assistance for training (ibid., p. 4). OCRWM ultimately published a more detailed notice of inquiry (DOE 1995c), a notice of proposed policy and procedures (DOE 1996), a notice of revised proposed policy and procedures (DOE 1997b), and yet another notice of revised proposed policy and procedures (DOE 1998b). The Midwestern region, as well as other groups, responded with comments each time. In the 1998 notice, OCRWM stated that the notice “details the policy and procedures by which the Department currently intends to implement Section 180(c),” and that the plans would “remain in draft form until program progress or legislation provides definitive guidance as to when shipments will commence” (ibid., p. 23753). Upon receiving that guidance, “OCRWM may finalize these policy and procedures
or will consider promulgating regulations on Section 180(c) implementation” (ibid.). Four years later, in 2002, OCRWM received the direction it needed in the form of Congress passing S.J. 34, a resolution“Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.” With the reestablishment of its cooperative agreement with OCRWM in 2002, the Midwestern committee identified the publication of a final policy and procedures for Section 180(c) implementation as a “key issue” for the region (MRMTC 2004, p. 3). As of June 2004, OCRWM had begun organizing a TEC/WG Topic Group to work on the Section 180(c) policy and procedures. All of OCRWM’s cooperative agreement groups would participate in that activity. OCRWM had also indicated its intention of republishing the draft policy and procedures for comment in 2005, however that activity was deferred until the Section 180(c) Topic Group could complete its work. Starting in July 2004 and running through 2005, the TEC/WG Section 180(c) Topic Group worked aggressively to review the prior work on Section 180(c) and devise recommendations for changing the draft policy. As part of their contribution to the topic group’s work, early in 2005, the four regional groups jointly developed a set of “Principles of Agreement Among States on Expectations Regarding Preparations for OCRWM Shipments” (Niles et al. 2005). The principles identified the states’ expectations “for a fully functioning transportation program for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste” (ibid., p. 3). First among the principles was the states’ position that “the overall objective of the 180(c) program must be to assist states in developing the capability to help prevent accidents and respond in a timely, appropriate fashion to accidents involving spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments” (ibid.). Other principles addressed the need for predictable funding amounts; awarding funding to states at least three years prior to shipments commencing; and certainty regarding the routes and the schedule for shipping so that states could plan accordingly. These points, as well as others like the need for states to have “maximum flexibility,”were consistent with the positions taken by the regional groups during the 1990s. An additional concern was that, since Section 180(c) applied only to training, OCRWM should make assistance available to the states not just for training but also for “operations activities as long as shipments continue along a shipping corridor” (ibid.) (see the section on Transportation Safety Program Funding ). The work of the Section 180(c) Topic Group entailed developing a set of issue papers on 11 topics. On eight topics, the group members, including OCRWM, were able to reach consensus: Funding distribution mechanism; timing and eligibility; allowable activities/training (including a discussion of hospital personnel and equipment); definitions; pass-through requirements; contingency plans; promulgating rules on 180(c) implementation; and matching funds (TEC 180 TG 2005, Executive Summary, p. 2). With regard to timing and eligibility, OCRWM agreed to notify the state governors of their eligibility to receive assistance four years prior to the start of shipments. A planning grant (up to $200,000) would be
107
Made with FlippingBook Annual report