Federal Register notice to be published in December 2005. OCRWM missed the December 2005 goal, however it did eventually publish a notice of revised proposed policy on July 23, 2007. At the time, OCRWM planned to solicit comments from the public, then pilot test the procedures. The idea was to incorporate lessons learned from the pilot test into the policy and procedures, with a final policy being published in the Federal Register thereafter (OCRWM 2008d, p. 2). In its comments on the revised plan, the MRMTC noted that it was pleased with the extent to which the revision reflected the input of the Section 180(c) Topic Group. Missing from the plan, however, were three recommendations from the topic group: • OCRWM should“commit to funding the same kind of transportation safety programs that are in place for WIPP shipments;” • OCRWM should “issue a policy and then promulgate a rule for implementation of the policy and grant application;” and • The policy and procedures should “address contingency re- routing so that the states and tribes will have some assurance that shipments will proceed safely even if circumstances require the use of different routes” (Owen and Beetem 2007, p. 2). The Midwest also noted that the draft did not address the question of what would happen with funding in the event of a lapse in shipments (ibid.). In its comments on what would be the last Federal Register notice on Section 180(c) implementation (DOE 2008e, published on October 31, 2008), the Midwest reiterated these same concerns (Leuer and Rasmusson 2009a, p. 2). OCRWMwas unable to conduct a pilot test of the procedures before funding for the transportation programwas eliminated. As a result, OCRWM did not finalize the policy and procedures, or the grant application package, before the Yucca Mountain programwas canceled. Section 180(c) implementation remains open as an issue. The Midwest, for example, continued to list Section 180(c) as a “key issue” related to the OCRWM program until the time of the program’s demise (MRMTC 2008a). The work on this issue stands, however, as an excellent model for how OCRWM or its successor should work to resolve other institutional issues related to the transportation program – indeed, other types of nuclear-waste related issues, such as storage. As noted in a paper authored by OCRWM staff and topic group participants, the process was characterized by: • Direct, frequent interactions between OCRWM and its stakeholders; • Topic groups that recruit members with a broad range of experience; • Program staff that are willing to substantively discuss input from stakeholders; • Aggressive schedules; and • A commitment from program management, staff, and stakeholders to stay on track (Macaluso et al. 2006, p. 6). While there is always room for improvement, the process of developing the proposed policy and procedures – and the draft product itself – reflected a rare commitment by OCRWM not just to listening to stakeholder feedback but to actually incorporating it.
available in the first year a state received assistance, with training grants being awarded starting three years before shipments (ibid., Appendix B, p. 3; Appendix H, p. 4). Consistent with the emphasis on flexibility, states would have the option of applying for assistance with less lead time, if they chose to do so. The group was unable to reach consensus on funding allocation, state fees, and how to fund operational activities (not training related) (ibid., Executive Summary, p. 2). With regard to the funding allocation, three of the four regional groups agreed to a formula proposed in the Federal Register notice that would calculate a variable component of the training grant using a formula. The factors in the formula would be the number of shipments, route miles, affected population, and the number of shipping, receiving, or transfer sites. TheWestern states alone objected to this formula- based approach, requesting instead that OCRWM base the training awards solely on the needs identified by the states. The difficulty in reaching consensus on the issue of state fees resulted from OCRWM being reluctant to accept the topic group’s recommendation that state fees not be deducted automatically from a state’s allocation. Instead, the topic group favored having OCRWM decide on a case- by-case basis whether and, if so, howmuch to deduct from state training grants, with states being required to submit information in their applications to explain what portion, if any, of the fee revenue was typically spent on training (ibid., Appendix I, p. 2). In addition to the discussion papers, the topic group prepared a policy statement and began work on a draft application package and guidance document. The intention was for the “180(c) Issue Paper Package” to be presented to OCRWMmanagement in July, with a
108
Made with FlippingBook Annual report