December 6, 1993

Ms. Susan Smith
Mr. Steve Gomberg
U.S. Department of Energy/OCRWM
RW-431
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Ms. Smith and Mr. Gomberg:

The Western Interstate Energy Board's High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee appreciates this opportunity to provide input to the U.S. Department of Energy on the preliminary draft Options for Providing Technical Assistance and Funding Under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as Amended (Policy Options paper). The following recommendations address funding and technical assistance issues, which are the focus of the Policy Options paper. The recommendations are based on previous WIEB reports, protocols developed for emergency preparedness and response for WIPP shipments, and the Committee's draft Section 180(c) rules.

The Committee is encouraged that the Policy Options paper appears to cover the full range of options for providing funds and technical assistance under Section 180(c) to corridor states/tribes for NWPA shipments. We are also encouraged by the inclusion of the "two key planning principles" which guide the discussion in the paper -- (1) DOE's commitment to develop a 180(c) program with flexibility, and (2) that assistance will be integrated into established assistance systems. Those have been consistent themes in Committee recommendations for several years. The following recommendations address funding and technical assistance.

Funding Grants to implement Section 180(c) assistance should be made directly to each eligible host and corridor state or Indian tribe. The Nuclear Waste Fund should be the source of the grants.

OCRWM should begin to address funding levels for eligible states or tribes. Funding levels should be based on a formula, but additional dialogue is needed to determine the specific Section 180(c) implementation grant formula (e.g., should it be based on shipment-miles, ton-miles, cask-miles, or population, should there be a minimum grant level). Section 180(c) assistance should be implemented by rulemaking.

Planning grants should be made to each eligible state or Indian tribe to develop a plan for 180(c) assistance. The plan should identify: (1) the minimum elements necessary to ensure safe routine transportation and procedures for dealing with emergency response situations; (2) current capabilities along each corridor; (3) activities needed to achieve minimum elements; and (4) performance measures to evaluate programs implemented under the plan. The plan should specify how activities will be coordinated with programs sponsored by other federal agencies and related state, tribal, and local government programs. The plans should also identify procedures for coordinating activities with neighboring jurisdictions along the transportation corridor.

Implementation grants should be provided annually to eligible states and Indian tribes which have prepared plans.

Initial planning grant funds should be available to eligible host/corridor states and tribes prior to the start of shipments, based upon estimates for the time needed to: prepare the plan mentioned above; coordinate activities with adjacent jurisdictions; conduct route-specific baseline surveys and needs assessments; plan and schedule activities; and conduct training. Also, states may need time to modify existing training courses or develop new courses if they desire. Timing of funding should be flexible and take into account the differing circumstances and needs facing various states and tribes.

Technical Assistance

The language in Section 180(c) ["The Secretary of Energy shall provide technical assistance and funds to States for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Indian tribes....] leaves the Department of Energy with significant latitude in determining what constitutes technical assistance for NWPA shipments. The Committee offers the following comments:

Generally, the Committee believes the scope of technical assistance must be broad. The options for defining the scope of technical assistance identified in the Policy Options paper (providing advice, providing training support, providing equipment, or a combination of these activities) are a good starting point. However, additional dialogue between states and DOE is needed to help focus the discussion on the scope of technical assistance.

In the Policy Options paper, DOE addresses the issues how and by whom technical assistance would be provided to states/tribes under Section 180(c). DOE interprets technical assistance "as any assistance (other than funds) in providing the intended training." (emphasis added) DOE also notes that assistance could be provided by "other agencies, organizations, and individuals on DOE's behalf." Those interpretations could be acceptable, however, in this context, it is important to recognize that "training" encompasses planning, administration, and any other activities necessary to operationalize adequate preparations for NWPA shipments.

Host or corridor states/tribes should have the flexibility to determine: their own training needs; what constitutes technical assistance; and how technical assistance should be provided. If DOE offers technical assistance, states/tribes should have the option of accepting the offer or an equivalent amount of funding to obtain technical assistance from other sources, such as from private firms or industry.

Other

We take this opportunity to reiterate the Committee's view that 180(c) policy be developed in a cooperative manner with the full participation of states, rather than affording states only the opportunity to comment on DOE efforts. In addition, the Committee determined at its last meeting that the TEC working group is not the proper forum for determining Section 180(c) policies. The TEC should rather focus on DOE-wide transportation activities and the consistency of emergency preparedness integration among various radioactive material shipping campaigns -- the original objectives for the TEC.

The Committee would welcome discussions with you or others at OCRWM on issues raised in the draft Policy Options paper at the next WIEB High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee meeting, including funding options, integration, training, what constitutes technical assistance, the role for the TEC, and/or the possibility of a negotiated rulemaking for implementing Section 180(c).

We look forward to continued interaction with you and others at OCRWM on Section 180(c) development. Please advise Jim Miernyk at WIEB (303/573-8910) concerning the proposal to discuss these matters further at the next High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee meeting.

Sincerely,

Joe Strolin, Committee Co-Chair
Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office

cc: Elissa Turner
Jim Carlson