1. CSG-ERC High-Level Radioactive Waste Transportation Task Force
Developing a Proposed Policy to Implement Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act: A Summary of Activities To Date
Erica Bickford, PhD
Transportation Program Manager
Office of Integrated Waste Management
November 1, 2017 Portland, ME
CSG-ERC High-Level Radioactive Waste Transportation Task Force

2. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, ad amended:
What Is Section 180(c)?
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, ad amended:
Sec. 180.
“(c) The Secretary shall provide technical assistance and funds to States for training for public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste [to an NPWA facility]. Training shall cover procedures required for safe routine transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing with emergency response situations. The Waste Fund shall be the source of funds for work carried out under this subsection.”

3. Timeline 1987: Included in amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
1990s: DOE pursued development of policy to implement Section 180(c)
2000s: DOE continued to work with state and tribal representatives to develop policy for implementing Section 180(c), culminating in a revised proposed policy published in Federal Register in 2008
2010:
DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is closed
DOE forms the National Transportation Stakeholders Forum (NTSF)
2012:
DOE establishes a waste management planning program within the Office of Nuclear Energy
DOE resumes 180(c) activities through the NTSF 180(c) Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG)

4. Proposed Policy Implementation Exercise
Spring 2013: The Section 180(c) AHWG endorsed the idea of an exercise
Spring 2014: The Section 180(c) AHWG asked DOE to write a proposal for the design of the exercise and met to discuss DOE draft Exercise proposal; Exercise volunteers were sought
Early 2015: The Section 180(c) Propose Policy Implementation Exercise began
Originally envisioned as a 6 month paperwork exercise
A few months in, Exercise volunteers expressed interest in expanding the scope of the Exercise to create a template for future needs
Exercise was modified to accommodate expanded scope and timeline

5. Proposed Policy Implementation Exercise
The Exercise was intended to test the operability of the grant program described in the 2008 FRN:
DOE provided mock notifications to volunteers about shipping schedules, shipment numbers, and eligible funding levels
Mock routes were identified by volunteers to be their planning routes
Volunteers conducted mock needs assessments, and developed mock grant applications
Mock grant applications were reviewed by a Mock Merit Review Panel, comprised of DOE and contractor staff subject matter experts, and included state and tribal observers
The Mock Merit Review Panel provided feedback on the mock grant applications
Originally envisioned as a 6 month paperwork exercise
A few months in, Exercise volunteers expressed interest in expanding the scope of the Exercise to create a template for future needs
Exercise was modified to accommodate expanded scope and timeline

6. Exercise Volunteers – Mock Routes
8 States and 1 Tribal Nation Volunteered for the Exercise

7. Revised proposed policy published in a Federal Register Notice (FRN), 73 FR 64933, Oct. 31, 2008
Two grants:
Assessment & Planning Grant (A&P)
Training Grant
Timing:
States/Tribes notified of eligibility approx. 5 years prior to shipments scheduled through their jurisdictions
A&P funds available 4 years prior to shipments
Training funds available 3 years prior to, and every year that shipments are scheduled through a jurisdiction
Funding Allocation
A&P grant of up to $200,000, adjusted annually for inflation, based on available funds
Training grant base amount of up to $100,000, adjusted annually for inflation, plus a variable amount (i.e., potential for more if justified and funds available)

8. States’ Goals for the Exercise – submitted by the state Exercise volunteers
To better understand how the recommendations of the 180(c) IRT* will apply to the Grant Program.
To gain experience and obtain feedback from the mock merit review panel on the budget justification process (e.g., the level of detail required in application justifications).
To evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the communication process between DOE and the applicants and provide feedback to DOE.
To evaluate the proposed draft funding allocation method identified by the IRT.
*IRT is the Inter-regional Team that was formed by the State Regional Groups in 2013 to work on 180(c) issues

9. Tribal Goals for the Exercise, Abbreviated List – submitted by the Tribal exercise volunteer
Learn more about the effectiveness of communications between DOE and tribal applicants
To look at similarities and differences between states and Tribes, and among individual Tribes, including jurisdictional issues
Identify jurisdictional issues between states and Tribes that arise around public safety planning
Investigate the manner in which DOE will address the government-to-government responsibilities and Trust relationship in regard to Section 180(c)
To explore flexible funding options for Tribes
To gain a better understanding of the needs assessment process
To better understand the training needs and requirements
To identify information gaps in DOE’s START tool and determine whether there is sufficient information for routing decisions, and define Tribes’ ability and authority to influence routing decisions.

10. DOE Goals for the Exercise
Compare policy options
Learn more about implementation logistics
Enhance DOE and stakeholder understanding of program implementation
Generate an experiential basis to inform future policy decisions

11. What Happened The scope and timeframe of the Exercise expanded
Went from 6 months to 18 months
Mismatched expectations between what states wanted to achieve and what DOE originally designed the Exercise to achieve
Impacted their volunteer time commitment
The information provided to the volunteers was insufficient
What states and Tribal volunteers needed differed from what DOE had expected
Some policy and operational decisions were not yet available
Some volunteers were unclear about what training would be needed to prepare for shipments, who should receive the training, who would deliver the training.

12. What Happened There was a wide range of preparedness levels
Experience with WIPP or HRCQ shipments impacted ease of participation
One grant (for up to 5 years) preferred by volunteers over two grants (Assessment and Planning for 1 year, then Training for 4 years)
Would help streamline the grant process
Would increase flexibility when planning
Covering the cost of operational activities
States and Tribes clearly stated their expectations that DOE should cover the cost of operational activities such as the cost of conducting inspections, handling safeguards materials, and responding to incidents
Section 180(c) statutory language covers training only
For the Exercise, some volunteers estimated operational activities and costs as a data point for future discussions

13. What Happened: Operational Activities
For the purposes of the Exercise volunteers had the option to include operational activities and costs to provide DOE with data on what operational activities were anticipated for spent fuel shipments – some examples are below
Rail Inspections
Salary at $57,195 a year
Salary and travel at $226,983 for two years ($112,367 for FY18 and $114,616 for FY19)
Inspect 10 shipments in a year for $3,279  
Point-of-origin inspections
From $54 - $135 per inspection
Shipment tracking using TRANSCOM or similar software
3 individuals to monitor TRANSCOM during each shipment, one each at the Emergency Operations Center, the Radiation Transportation Program, and the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division
Route assessment for security/safety
Using a Drone [Note: requires Federal Aviation Administration approval]
Weather assessment of route prior to and during shipment

14. What Happened: Tribal Involvement
The Prairie Island Indian Community’s participation helped identify the Tribe’s concerns
Honoraria for Tribal Council members
MOU with neighboring jurisdiction
Sacred sites along shipping routes
Limited staffing resulting in government personnel holding multiple positions
Limited resources resulting in limited preparedness along shipping routes
Last sub-bullet – was because the states without experience requested staff salaries be off-set. States with experience already had staff and usually requested only partial salary off-sets.

15. What Happened: Base Grants
Base Grant Awards in the 2008 FRN proposed up to $200,000 for Assessment and Planning activities and up to $100,000 annually for training activities
The IRT requested base grants of up to $250,000 annually + plus a variable grant based on the 2008 FRN formula + a total DOE budget for grant determined by multiplying the number of eligible jurisdictions by $500,000.
The Exercise had Assessment and Planning funding requests ranging from $67, to $331,559.00
The Exercise had Training Grant funding requests ranged from $120, to $490, per year
Explain that funding levels should correspond to a combination of risk and need. Risk is generally understood to be higher in high population areas and need is generally understood to be the level of readiness in a community to respond to an accident or incident involving SNF or HLW.
Second sub bullet – add that DOE did not agree to the IRT request but suggested the volunteers apply for the funds in their mock grant applications based on their assessment of the cost of their Assessment and Planning activities and Training activities, not relying on a pre-determined amount.
Could also make the point that the goal of the funding allocation approach is:
to be transparent,
to be distributed according to a combination of risk and need,
and to assist states and tribes in preparing for shipments.
Assessment and Planning funding requests ranged from:
$67, (4.6 miles and 987 population within 2500 meters of mock route) to
$331, (434.2 miles and 1,376,900 population)
Training Grant funding requests ranged from $120,943 to $490,671 per year.
Depended partly on whether and how much equipment was requested.
The highest training request, $490,671, came from a state that made the assumption they would host one of the SNF facilities.
States with WIPP or HRCQ experience generally requested less than states that were not familiar with WIPP or other HRCQ shipments

16. What Happened: Base Grant ranges
Assessment and Planning Grants
Total Population within
2500 m (either side of route)
Route Mileage
Year 1
3,716,920
599.9
$120,943.00
1,376,900
434.2
$331,559.00
987
4.6
$67,068.00
Training Grants
Years 2-5
4,219,830
312.6
Y2: $122, Y4: $294,588
Y2: $120,943 – Y4: $490,671
1,936,314
430.2
Y1: $245,955 – Y3: $122,320**
**This state combined planning and training activities in year 1. Year 3 included only training activities.

17. What Happened: Variable Grant Awards
DOE attempted to evaluate the formula used in the 2008 FRN
DOE used the assumptions from the 2008 timeframe, scaled to the size of the Exercise, to calculate variable funding amounts using the formula
The limited scope of the Exercise made it uncertain whether the calculated amounts were representative of a full-scale transportation program
The volunteers and DOE agreed to find another way to evaluate the funding formula after concluding the Exercise

18. What We Learned Staff Turnover Necessitates Continual Learning
Streamline the Grant Writing Process
Training requires more discussion
There is a wide gap in knowledge and preparedness among States and among Tribes
Operational costs were instructive
Staff Turnover Necessitates Continual Learning
The knowledge from mid-2000s effort did not transfer to new federal and state staff
Document the reasoning behind decisions to facilitate institutional learning
Early efforts to build common base of knowledge reduces confusion later
Streamline the Grant Writing Process
Detailed instruction will be needed on how to complete the needs assessment and the grant forms
Explicit direction will be needed about the purpose of provided tools and data, their source, and limitations
One grant is more streamlined and flexible than two grants
Training requires more discussion
Who should get trained? Which pubic safety officials?
What level of training is needed?
How will training be provided? By whom? How frequently should it be offered?
There is a wide gap in knowledge and preparedness among States and among Tribes
Design instructions and engagement practices to accommodate the differences
Operational costs were instructive
Proposed costs related to travel and staff time related to conducting inspections and staff time related to monitoring the shipments

19. What We Learned
Some Tribal-specific issues were identified and will require additional consideration/analysis
Base Grants – A more standardized approach to the who, what, and how of training could be reached through continued discussions among the states, Tribes, and DOE staff
Variable Funding Amounts -- The variable funding allocation approach will need additional analysis
DOE has done some additional analysis after completion of the Exercise
DOE and interested states and Tribes are discussing the results and next steps
Tribal-specific issues were identified if not always answered
Government-to-government interactions may require different or additional formal engagements before staff engagements begin
Follow DOE’s American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Government Policy and associated DOE Orders and Implementation Framework
Sacred sites
Lack of personnel related to lack of funding
Some Tribes may request funding for staff time to write initial grant
Will likely require adapting technical assistance and engagement to address individual Tribal governments
Jurisdictional issues and MOUs
Base Grants - Variability in funding requests stems from:
Different views about how to conduct the needs assessment
The type of training needed
How the training should be delivered,
Which public safety officials need equipment and what equipment is appropriate
Some states have statutory requirements for certain equipment
Variable Funding Amounts -- The variable funding allocation approach will need additional analysis
DOE has done some additional analysis after completion of the Exercise
DOE and the interested states and Tribes are discussing the results and next steps

20. Exercise Results Exercise was valuable but not always as expected
Taking sufficient time early in an engagement with states and Tribes builds common body of knowledge and expectations. This saves time and confusion later.
DOE staff hope to use lessons learned from the Exercise in developing a final version of the Section 180(c) policy

21. Current status of 180(c)
Two follow-on items from the Exercise included:
Evaluating the proposed variable funding formula
Developing a template to clarify the information needed and streamline the process for applicants
Spring 2017 – DOE through Oak Ridge National Lab produced analysis of the funding formula under a variety of shipping scenarios
Has been presented and discussed with the AHWG. Has addressed current questions with the formula, and no changes are proposed at this time.
Spring/summer 2017 – DOE developed a draft template
Have received feedback from the AHWG
Need to discuss outstanding questions with DOE procurement staff
Share draft with Mock Merit Review Panel from Exercise

22. Questions?