[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23753-23766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11520]



[[Page 23753]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Safe Routine 
Transportation and Emergency Response Training; Technical Assistance 
and Funding

AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of revised proposed policy and procedures.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) publishes a 
revised proposed policy statement setting forth its revised plans for 
implementing a program of technical and financial assistance to states 
for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local 
government and to Indian tribes through whose jurisdictions the 
Department plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
radioactive waste to a facility authorized under the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act, as amended (Section 180(c) program). The training would 
cover both safe routine transportation and emergency response 
procedures. The purpose of this notice is to communicate to 
stakeholders evolving positions of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management (OCRWM) within the Department regarding Section 180(c) 
policy issues and to respond to stakeholder comments on the previous 
notice. Written comments may be submitted to OCRWM on this document.

DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Department and must be 
received on or before August 1, 1998. The length of this comment period 
is to facilitate the submission of comments after the semiannual 
Transportation External Coordination Working Group Meeting is held on 
July 14-15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: Ms. Corinne 
Macaluso, U.S. Department of Energy, c/o Lois Smith, TRW Environmental 
Safety Systems, Inc., 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 695, Washington, 
D.C. 20024, Attn: Section 180(c) Comments.
    Persons submitting comments should include their names and 
addresses. Receipt of comments in response to this notice will be 
acknowledged if a stamped, self-addressed postal card or envelope is 
enclosed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information on the transportation 
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, please contact: Ms. Corinne Macaluso, Waste 
Acceptance and Transportation Division, Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management, (RW-44), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-2837.
    Information packets are available for interested persons who want 
background information about the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management transportation planning and the Section 180(c) program. To 
receive an information packet, please call 1-800-225-NWPA (or call 202-
488-6720 in Washington, D.C.) or write to the OCRWM National 
Information Center, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 695, Washington, 
D.C. 20024. Information packets also can be requested through the OCRWM 
Home Page at http://www.rw.doe.gov.
    Copies of comments received will be available for examination and 
may be photocopied at the Department's Public Reading Room at 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 1E-190 or at the Nevada Operations 
Office Public Reading Facility at Building B3, 2621 Losee Road, North 
Las Vegas, Nevada or at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office 
Technical Information Center, 1180 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 
89134. They will be available through OCRWM's Home Page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
10101 et seq.) (NWPA or ``the Act''), the Department of Energy is 
responsible for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 
nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. Additionally, the 
Department is responsible for transportation of spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste to a NWPA-authorized Federal storage or 
disposal facility. The Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management is responsible to the Secretary of Energy to carry out 
these responsibilities. The Department is required to implement Section 
180(c) of the Act. Section 180(c) of the Act requires the Department to 
provide technical assistance and funds to States for training public 
safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Indian 
tribes through whose jurisdictions the Secretary plans to transport 
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to NWPA-authorized 
Federal storage and disposal facilities. Section 180(c) further 
provides that training cover procedures required for safe routine 
transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing 
with emergency response situations. Section 180(c) identifies the 
Nuclear Waste Fund under the Act as the source of funds for work 
carried out under this subsection (42 U.S.C. 10175).

II. Section 180(c) History

    OCRWM issued a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register on January 
3, 1995 (60 FR 99), which briefly described various options to 
delineate policies and procedures for implementing Section 180(c) of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Members of the public were invited to 
submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. In the March 14, 1995, 
Federal Register (60 FR 13715) OCRWM extended the deadline for comments 
to May 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). In response to requests for additional 
information, OCRWM issued another, more detailed Notice of Inquiry in 
the Federal Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). Members of the 
public were again invited to submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. 
Next, on May 16, 1996, OCRWM published a Notice of Proposed Policy and 
Procedures (61 FR 24772) describing OCRWM's proposed approach to 
implementing Section 180(c) of the NWPA and responding to public 
comments received on the two prior notices. The public was again 
invited to submit comments on the Proposed Policy and Procedures. In 
response to these comments, and based on further research conducted by 
OCRWM staff, OCRWM decided to publish a Notice of Revised Proposed 
Policy and Procedures on July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38272). The public was 
again invited to submit comments.
    After considering the comments received on the prior notices, input 
from stakeholders in various forums, and conducting extensive research, 
the Department is publishing another Notice of Revised Proposed Policy 
and Procedures. This notice details the policy and procedures by which 
the Department currently intends to implement Section 180(c) of the 
NWPA. These policy and procedures will remain in draft form until 
program progress or legislation provides definitive guidance as to when 
shipments will commence. At that time, OCRWM may finalize these policy 
and procedures or will consider promulgating regulations on Section 
180(c) implementation.
    In addition to the draft notice discussed above, OCRWM's work to 
date on Section 180(c) policy and implementation procedures has been 
discussed extensively in Transportation Coordination Group meetings, 
the Transportation External Coordination (TEC) Working Group meetings, 
and the cooperative agreement group meetings. The TEC Working Group 
comprises

[[Page 23754]]

organizations representing state, tribal, local, professional, 
technical, and industry associations that meet semiannually to identify 
and discuss issues related to the transport of radioactive materials. 
In addition, OCRWM has nine cooperative agreements with national and 
regional organizations representing various constituencies to exchange 
information and solicit input regarding the planned transportation 
activities of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program, 
including Section 180(c) issues. The cooperative agreement groups are 
the Southern States Energy Board, the Western Interstate Energy Board, 
the Council of State Governments Midwestern Office and Eastern Regional 
Conference, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the Conference of 
Radiation Control Program Directors, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the National Congress of American Indians, and the 
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
    OCRWM also has released two documents that discuss Section 180(c) 
policy and implementation. These two documents are the Strategy for 
OCRWM to Provide Training Assistance to State, Tribal, and Local 
Governments (November 1992, DOE/RW-0374P) (the Strategy document), and 
the Preliminary Draft Options for Providing Technical Assistance and 
Funding Under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, As 
Amended (November 1992) (the Options paper). These documents are 
available by requesting the information packet from the OCRWM National 
Information Center.

III. Policy and Procedures

    Note: For definitions of terms used in the notice of final 
policy and procedures, see the appendix at the end of this document.

Policy Statement

    It is OCRWM's policy that, for NWPA shipments, each responsible 
jurisdiction will have the training necessary for safe routine 
transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste and to respond 
to NWPA transportation incidents or accidents. OCRWM will provide 
funding and technical assistance, subject to annual appropriations, to 
assist states and tribes to obtain access to the increment of training 
necessary to prepare for NWPA shipments. This increment of training 
will include procedures for emergency response and safe routine 
transportation. The Department will take into consideration the states' 
and tribes' determinations of their needs when preparing its budget for 
the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. If Congress does not 
fully appropriate the funds requested, the funding to eligible 
jurisdictions will be decreased proportionately.
    Safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
waste will be accomplished through strict compliance with the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) regulations and applicable state, tribal, and local laws and 
regulations. These include safety and enforcement inspections of NWPA 
highway shipments, rail measures that complement DOT's Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) inspection procedures, and continuous satellite 
tracking of all shipments. DOT regulations include requirements for 
highway routing; hazardous materials placarding, marking, and 
documentation; and rail inspections. The NRC has established 
regulations for radioactive materials shipments for protection of 
public health and safety. These regulations include requirements for 
package certification, loading, materials control and accountability, 
safeguards and security, state notification of shipments, quality 
assurance, and tracking. The NRC regulations for radioactive materials 
package certification require maintenance of criticality control and 
radioactive materials containment under credible accident scenarios. 
OCRWM recognizes that tribes are not included in NRC's notification 
regulations and has notified NRC that it intends to provide tribal 
notification of shipments in addition to the state notifications, and 
state and tribal access to satellite tracking information.
    For safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste, it is OCRWM's policy to provide each eligible state and 
tribe the funding and technical assistance to prepare for safety and 
enforcement inspections of NWPA highway shipments, for rail measures 
that complement FRA inspection procedures, and for access to satellite 
tracking equipment and training on that equipment in cases where the 
capability does not already exist. Access to satellite tracking 
equipment and training will be subject to the NRC's verification that 
this use of satellite tracking technology does not violate NRC's 
safeguards and security regulations.
    For dealing with emergency response situations, it is OCRWM's view 
that with implementation of the provisions for safe routine 
transportation, as stated in the previous paragraph, the risk of an 
accident is very low. Further, if an accident were to occur, the risk 
of any significant materials release or harmful increase in radiation 
levels in excess of NRC regulatory standards is extremely low. If an 
accident should occur, with or without a release, state and tribal 
governments have primary responsibility to respond and to protect the 
public health and safety in their jurisdiction. The Federal Government 
and, in particular, the Department have radiological emergency response 
resources available to assist when requested. Federal Government 
assistance is regionally based and can be mobilized and on scene in a 
few hours, although it may take up to forty-eight hours to be fully 
functional. The first responder is typically a local police or fire 
official. This official must be capable of identifying the shipment as 
a radiological materials shipment and notifying the appropriate 
radiological emergency response authorities. It is desirable, but not 
required, for some of the state and tribal responders to have received 
higher levels of hazardous materials training.
    Therefore, for training for dealing with emergency response 
situations, it is OCRWM's policy to provide funds and technical 
assistance to states and tribes to obtain and maintain awareness-level 
training for all local response jurisdictions in the increment specific 
to NWPA shipments. In addition, to the extent funds are available, the 
assistance may be used to obtain an enhanced level of emergency 
response capability. This enhanced level may include operations level 
training, technician level training, and operations level and 
technician level refresher training in an increment specific to NWPA 
shipments.

Objectives

    It is OCRWM's objective to provide a one-time only planning grant 
to every eligible state and tribe to aid in their determination of 
needs for technical assistance and funds to train public safety 
officials in procedures required for safe routine transportation and 
emergency response situations.
    It is OCRWM's objective to provide a base grant to every eligible 
state and tribe to aid in planning and coordination activities for 
training in a timely manner. The base grant will be available every 
year of eligibility once the grant application has been approved. Any 
amount left after completion of the planning and coordination 
activities may be used for other allowable costs under the Section 
180(c) program, at the discretion of the applicant.
    It is OCRWM's objective to provide a two-part variable amount of 
funding and

[[Page 23755]]

technical assistance depending on the amount of assistance each 
applicant needs to obtain the incremental training requirements 
resulting from the planned NWPA shipments. The first part of the 
variable funding and technical assistance may be used only to provide 
training for safety and enforcement inspection training for NWPA truck 
shipments; rail measures that complement FRA inspection procedures; 
awareness level training, awareness level refresher training, and 
awareness level train-the-trainer training for emergency responders.
    The second part of the variable funding, depending on available 
funds, will support an enhanced level of emergency response capability. 
As discussed in the Policy Statement section, OCRWM believes that the 
combination of the Federal radiological emergency response capability 
and a Section 180(c) program that provides inspection and awareness 
level training will provide the nation with an adequate basis to 
respond to any potential transportation emergency that may result from 
NWPA shipments. Nevertheless, to the extent that funds appropriated for 
Section 180(c) are sufficient, OCRWM will fund an enhanced level of 
training. This enhanced level could include operations and/or 
technician level training, and refresher training.
    It is OCRWM's objective to provide funding and technical assistance 
for training for safety and enforcement inspections specific to NWPA 
truck shipments such as those described in the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance's (CVSA) Enhanced North American Standards.
    It is OCRWM's objective to provide funding and technical assistance 
for states and tribes to obtain an increment of the training needed to 
conduct rail inspections under the FRA's State Participation Program. 
Since the FRA covers the training cost to state employees in the State 
Participation Program, there is no direct role for Section 180(c) to 
fund training. Instead, OCRWM will consider applicants' requests to 
fund, in the increment necessary for OCRWM shipments, safe rail 
transportation measures that complement DOT's FRA inspection 
procedures. Since currently there is no mechanism for tribes to 
participate in the State Participation Program, OCRWM will work with 
tribal governments to identify where funding and technical assistance 
may best assist a tribe in addressing procedures for rail safe routine 
transportation.
    DOE intends to offer a variety of training delivery options such as 
a train-the-trainer program, a curriculum to insert into a 
jurisdiction's existing awareness level training programs, and a video 
that states and tribes may distribute to emergency response officials 
along the shipment routes. OCRWM plans to provide funds for the cost of 
the trainers' travel within the jurisdiction. Grant applicants may 
choose the combination of these resources that best matches their 
current training programs. This training should be at least consistent 
with Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations at 
29 CFR 1910.120(q) or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
hazardous material training standards.
    It is OCRWM's objective that any assistance provided supplements 
the applicant's existing safe routine and emergency response structure 
by providing an additional increment of preparedness.
    In addition, OCRWM will adopt, to the extent practicable and 
consistent with the NWPA, any future Department-wide policies adopted 
to standardize assistance to states and tribes for the Department's 
radioactive materials shipments. This could include standardization of 
funding mechanisms, training standards, allowable equipment purchases, 
and the definitions of technical assistance and safe routine 
transportation.

Funding Mechanism

    The Department will implement Section 180(c) through an OCRWM 
grants program. Funding will be provided every year (subject to 
Congressional appropriations) beginning approximately four years prior 
to the first shipment through state or tribal reservation boundaries. 
The grants will be specific to OCRWM's Section 180(c) program and, at 
this time, will not be combined with any other Department-sponsored 
transportation preparedness or training programs, although coordination 
by jurisdictions would be encouraged. The grants program may be 
combined with a Department-wide grants program in the future if one is 
developed, is practicable, and is consistent with existing law.
    The grants program will be administered in accordance with the DOE 
Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR part 600), which implement 
applicable Office of Management and Budget circulars.

Basis for Cost Estimate/Funding Allocation

    The total program cost and the allocation of funds among eligible 
states and tribes will be based on a one-time only planning grant, a 
predetermined base amount, and a variable amount determined through the 
application process. The planning grant of $150,000 will cover costs 
associated with conducting the determination of incremental needs 
required to complete the application package. This amount is based on 
an estimate of several states' past experience with planning for 
shipments to the Department's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, 
New Mexico.
    The base grant will cover costs associated with planning for NWPA 
shipments, and is based on a salary estimate for planning such 
shipments. In 1994, a Conference of Radiation Control Program 
Directors' (CRCPD) survey found the average salary of a state health 
physicist was $35,000. The Department has doubled that figure and 
adjusted for inflation since 1994 to reach the $75,500 base grant. The 
figure was doubled on the assumption that states and tribes can, if 
they so choose, pay the salary of one person each for safe routine 
transportation and emergency response planning. The base amount will be 
adjusted annually for inflation.
    The variable grant amount will be based on two parts of the 
application package process. The first part will ask the applicant to 
determine the amount of financial assistance needed to obtain the 
appropriate increment of awareness level training and to prepare for 
safe routine transportation inspections of NWPA shipments. The second 
part will ask the applicant to determine the amount of financial 
assistance needed to obtain the appropriate increment of operations 
and/or technician level training for emergency response for NWPA 
shipments. This second part of the application will be used to 
determine any enhanced level of training, depending on available funds.

Definition of Key Terms

    The definition of safe routine transportation for the purposes of 
determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section 
180(c) program will be as follows:
    <bullet> Safe routine transportation means the shipment of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository or a 
Monitored Retrievable Storage facility pursuant to the NWPA through 
state, tribal, and local jurisdictions in a manner compliant with 
applicable Federal, state, tribal, and local laws and regulations. Safe 
routine highway transportation is characterized by adequate vehicle, 
driver, and package inspection and enforcement of the Federal Motor

[[Page 23756]]

Carrier Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Regulations. 
Safe routine rail and barge transport is characterized by compliance 
with rail and barge transportation regulations including Federal 
Railroad Administration, Coast Guard regulations, and the Hazardous 
Materials regulations.
    The definition of technical assistance for the purposes of 
determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section 
180(c) program will be as follows:
    <bullet> Technical assistance means assistance, other than 
financial assistance, that the Secretary of Energy can provide that is 
unique to the Department to aid training that will cover procedures for 
the safe routine transportation and emergency response situations 
during the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste to a repository or Monitored Retrievable Storage facility 
pursuant to the NWPA, including, but not limited to, the provision of 
training materials, the provision of public information materials, and 
access to individuals involved in the shipments.
    Technical assistance, as defined, will include access to the 
Department's regional and headquarters representatives involved in the 
planning and operation of NWPA transportation or emergency 
preparedness, provision of information packets that include material 
about the OCRWM program and shipments, and provision of information to 
insert into curricula. Recognizing the Federal Government's government-
to-government relationship with and Trust responsibility toward tribal 
nations, and in response to comments about the lack of hazardous 
materials response capability on some tribal lands, the Department will 
consider making additional technical assistance available to tribes 
upon request.

Eligibility and Timing of the Grants Program

    OCRWM will provide grants and technical assistance to those states 
and tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary of Energy plans to 
transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste pursuant 
to the NWPA. States and tribes having cross-deputization or mutual aid 
agreements with a jurisdiction that does have shipments, even though no 
shipments may occur within the borders of the mutual aid state or 
tribe, may receive funding from the jurisdiction that will receive 
shipments. Additionally, in cases where a route constitutes the border 
between two states, a state and a tribal government, or two tribal 
governments, jurisdictions on both sides of the route will be eligible 
for Section 180(c) assistance.
    OCRWM intends that the application process for grants will begin 
approximately four years prior to transportation through the 
applicant's jurisdiction (about one year for the application process, 
and about three years to implement the program). OCRWM plans to notify 
the governor or tribal leader of the jurisdiction by letter, and 
include an information packet and application package. The governor or 
tribal leader would be requested to select one agency or representative 
within the jurisdiction to apply for and administer the Section 180(c) 
grant. The administering agency or representative would indicate in the 
application how it intends to use the funds. If funding needs to be 
provided to other agencies (for example, from the emergency services 
agency to the highway patrol to pay for inspector training), the 
transfer of funds would be the responsibility of the recipient state or 
tribe. DOE plans to require that information be provided in the 
application regarding the distribution of funds.
    OCRWM plans to identify the preliminary routes that DOE anticipates 
using within state and tribal jurisdictions when it notifies governors 
and tribal leaders of their eligibility. The Regional Servicing 
Contractor (RSC) <SUP>1</SUP> would propose routes in the three years 
prior to shipment. If the selected routes are different than the 
preliminary routes, either as a result of the RSC selection process for 
the proposed routes or state designation of alternative routes, then 
OCRWM would work with those states and tribes affected by any route 
changes to facilitate revision of their grant applications and expedite 
the application review. The Department plans to retain final approval 
of all transportation routes and the RSC(s) would be responsible for 
obtaining NRC approval of the routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ RSC is defined in the draft Acquisition of Waste Acceptance 
and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management as the contractor responsible for all activities 
and services originating in its Servicing Region(s), including the 
provision of Transportation Cask Systems and Storage Systems as 
required to provide the necessary waste acceptance and 
transportation services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Section 180(c), local governments will not 
be eligible to apply for Section 180(c) grants directly. However, 
states, and tribes, if they have subjurisdictions, would be required to 
coordinate their planning with local jurisdictions, indicating in the 
application that the needs of local public safety officials have been 
considered and how the training assistance will be provided to local 
jurisdictions and their appropriate public safety officials. Because of 
the emergency response structure in most jurisdictions, OCRWM 
anticipates that the awareness level training will be made available to 
local public safety officials. OCRWM also anticipates that the 
inspection and enforcement training will be provided to state-level and 
tribal employees since they generally have inspection and enforcement 
authority. The operations and technician level training, to the extent 
they are funded, would be provided to the appropriate public safety 
officials at the grantee's discretion.
    OCRWM expects the application to include a five-year plan detailing 
how the funds would be spent each year. Funding will be disbursed 
annually based on the applicant's five-year plan. The applicant may 
request an amendment to the application if conditions change 
significantly within the five-year period.
    For the purposes of this policy, the year shipments commence is 
defined as ``Transportation Year'' or ``TY.'' During the fourth year 
prior to shipments; i.e., in Transportation Year minus 4 or TY-4, the 
eligible jurisdiction would be conducting its determination of needs 
for the grant application. The $150,000 planning grant would be 
available during TY-4 to conduct this work.
    In the next year of eligibility to receive funding (TY-3), the base 
grant would be available. The next year, two years prior to shipment, 
or TY-2, the base grant and a variable amount of financial assistance 
would be available.
    A state or tribe would continue to be eligible for and receive the 
base and variable amount of funding through TY-1 and TY, and in each 
year of eligibility thereafter as long as NWPA shipments go through its 
jurisdiction. Eligible states and tribes would need to reapply for the 
grant program every five years.
    If there is a lapse of NWPA shipments for three or more years, the 
state or tribe would receive no funds during those years and would 
regain eligibility three years prior to another NWPA shipment through 
its jurisdiction. Three years prior to the resumption of shipments 
through its borders, a state or tribe may again apply for TY-3 grants. 
If the lapse is two years or less between shipments, the Transportation 
Year grants would continue as if shipments had been traversing that 
jurisdiction during the lapse.
    The Section 180(c) program would include the following contingency 
plan for schedule and route changes: in

[[Page 23757]]

general, eligible states and tribes may receive an additional amount of 
financial assistance if asked to complete activities in shorter amounts 
of time; i.e., a state or tribe may receive TY-1 and TY-2 funding in 
the same year. If the route for a shipment is selected too close to the 
start of the shipment to allow for Section 180(c) implementation or for 
any reason the responsible jurisdictions along a selected route lack 
adequate training, OCRWM may use escorts with more training and 
equipment than those normally used for the purpose of security until a 
reasonable time period for training has expired. The contingency plan 
could be activated in case of emergencies, or fraudulent actions or 
non-cooperation by a state or tribe along the route.

Allowable Activities for Funding

    This section describes the types of activities that would be 
allowed under this policy. This is not meant to be a comprehensive 
list, but merely a guide to the types of activities an applicant 
jurisdiction might consider to be eligible for Section 180(c) funding.
    For the most part, it would be the grantee's decision in 
consultation with local governments and first responders along the 
routes to select who gets trained and the organization that administers 
the training. Grantees would describe in their five-year plan their 
incremental training needs, where the training would be obtained, any 
drills and exercises they propose to conduct that are an integral part 
of the training curricula, whether the training curricula needs any 
input from OCRWM about NWPA shipments, what equipment and supplies they 
propose to purchase, and what technical assistance from DOE they 
anticipate requesting. The grantee would specify how this assistance 
augments their current infrastructure for safe routine transportation 
procedures and emergency response.
    The initial planning grant may be used to pay for staff, travel, 
and other costs associated with conducting an assessment of incremental 
training needs. This may include a risk assessment, and other 
assessment activities.
    The base grant could be used to pay for staff, travel, and other 
costs associated with preparing to train public safety officials, and 
the planning and coordination activities associated with interacting 
with local jurisdictions and neighboring jurisdictions. The base grant 
could also be used for training, risk assessment, and other assessment 
activities. The variable amount of funding could be used to pay for 
travel and tuition costs for those receiving training, including drills 
and exercises associated with training, and training on the satellite 
tracking system used for NWPA shipments. Training on the satellite 
tracking system could be contingent on the NRC's ruling as to whether 
state and tribal access to satellite tracking for OCRWM shipments is 
consistent with the safeguards and security regulations.
    It would be the state's or tribe's choice, in consultation with the 
local governments and first responders along the route and within their 
annual budget, to determine who receives refresher training and with 
what frequency. It also would be the state's or tribe's choice, in 
consultation with the local governments and first responders along the 
route and within their annual budget, to determine which new personnel 
receive training and the location of that training. The training could 
apply to state or tribal inspectors, and state, local, or tribal 
emergency response personnel including medical emergency responders.
    Regarding equipment, a grantee would be able to budget, for TY-2 
and TY-1, 25 percent of each year's total Section 180(c) funds to 
purchase appropriate (i.e., training-related) equipment and supplies. 
Such equipment could also be used for inspections and for responding to 
emergencies. After TY-1, the applicant would be able to budget up to 10 
percent of each year's Section 180(c) funds to purchase appropriate 
equipment and supplies. The equipment and supplies to be purchased must 
be identified in the application and the need for the equipment 
justified. The purchase of equipment related to the satellite tracking 
system for NWPA shipments would be included in these percentage caps, 
assuming NRC allows state and tribal access to satellite tracking 
information for OCRWM shipments. The title to equipment would be vested 
in the grantee in accordance with the property provisions at 10 CFR 
600.232.
    A state or tribe would not be authorized to use Section 180(c) 
funds for purposes not related to NWPA shipments such as development of 
a broad-based non-NWPA emergency response program. In cases where basic 
capabilities may be lacking, OCRWM recognizes the need to provide 
additional technical assistance. This assistance is not meant to build 
basic capabilities but to provide the jurisdiction with information 
that may help them prepare for the shipments. For example, DOE could 
provide information about what additional resources may be available to 
state, local, and tribal jurisdictions, what safety measures are being 
taken by the Department to ensure safe shipment despite a lack of local 
capabilities, or what safety measures other jurisdictions may have 
taken in a similar situation.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received on the Notice of Revised 
Proposed Policy and Procedures

    The Department received 19 sets of comments in response to the July 
17, 1997, Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Comments 
were received from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Council of 
State Governments-Midwestern Office; International Association of Fire 
Fighters; International Association of Fire Chiefs; Edlow International 
Company; the Western Interstate Energy Board; Inyo County, California; 
National Congress of American Indians; State of Idaho; State of Nevada; 
Southern States Energy Board; Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition; State 
of New Mexico; National Conference of State Legislatures; Prairie 
Island Indian Community; Nuclear Energy Institute; and the Pueblo of 
Acoma. Some commenters provided more than one set of comments.
    The following section discusses general categories and summarizes 
major points of the comments and the Department's response.

A. Section 180(c) Policy

Policy Statement and General Themes
    Most commenters stated that the needs-based approach described in 
the Revised Proposed Policy is an improvement over the formula-based 
approach described in the May 1996 Proposed Policy. There were positive 
comments on the equal treatment of states and tribes, the broadened 
definition of eligibility, and the broadened scope of allowable 
activities. The Nuclear Energy Institute and Edlow International 
generally endorsed the current proposal. The Nuclear Energy Institute 
applauded OCRWM's acknowledgment of current regulations within the body 
of the proposed policy.
    However, the large majority of commenters emphasized that they 
believe that additional change is still needed in key areas, primarily 
more cooperative route selection and a more cooperative transportation 
planning process. The Western Interstate Energy Board ``continues to 
find the Section 180(c) policy * * * unacceptable because it ignores 
key policy decisions made by the Western Governors * * * and because it 
fails to ensure that an

[[Page 23758]]

effective emergency response mechanism will be in place to handle NWPA 
transportation accidents.'' The Southern States Energy Board, the 
Western Interstate Energy Board, the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance, and Inyo County, California, all recommended the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPP) transportation planning process as a 
good example of cooperative planning. The comment was also made that 
OCRWM should take a leadership role within the Department in developing 
methods to assist state, local, and tribal governments to prepare for 
the shipments, as OCRWM will conduct the nation's single largest 
radioactive materials transportation campaign. One commenter asked 
whether basing the level of assistance on a determination of needs 
means that a ``well-prepared'' state would not be eligible for 
assistance beyond the base amount. Or, will ``relatively prepared'' 
states receive assistance based on the likelihood of a greater number 
of shipments and, therefore, a significant increase in the demands on, 
for example, state inspectors?
    Several comments requested clarification or greater acknowledgment 
of the roles and responsibilities of different governmental levels. The 
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office requested better 
definition of the roles of the Federal agencies involved in radioactive 
materials transportation accidents and how Federal agencies will 
interface with state and local emergency response officials. They also 
requested that the phrase ``state and tribal governments have a 
responsibility to * * * protect the public health and safety * * *'' be 
changed to ``state and tribal governments have primary responsibility 
to * * * protect public health and safety.'' They stated, ``We again 
object to OCRWM's apparent intent to substitute Federal radiological 
emergency response capability for state preparedness. The role of 
Federal resources is to supplement state response capabilities when 
necessary. OCRWM should correct any references in the notice that 
misrepresent the roles of and relationship between state and federal 
response capabilities.'' They emphasized their view that states will 
not turn over the responsibility of protecting citizen health and 
safety to DOE.
    Communications was another frequently mentioned topic. Both the 
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office and the Western 
Interstate Energy Board encouraged OCRWM to place more emphasis on 
early and substantive public outreach, asserting that effective 
communications will help create the public trust necessary for a 
successful transportation program. They are concerned that the field of 
public information will be dominated by an already organized and active 
opposition. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office included 
a Newsday article (August 6, 1997) about the lack of emergency 
preparedness for OCRWM shipments as an illustration of the success of 
these groups. The Western Interstate Energy Board stated that 
communications and interactions with states and tribes cannot 
appropriately be placed in the hands of private contractors because the 
contractors will be seen as acting in their own, profit-driven 
interests. They stated it is DOE's responsibility to secure the 
public's confidence by taking clear responsibility for interacting with 
states and tribes.
    With regard to regulatory compliance, Inyo County, California, 
commented that public tolerance of a campaign of this magnitude will 
not allow minimum safety measures. The International Association of 
Fire Fighters (IAFF) felt that the Revised Proposed Policy and 
Procedures ``mostly sidestepped'' their comments. The IAFF expressed 
its view that strict compliance with regulations is a flaw that 
exaggerates a lack of oversight and enforcement. They added that these 
regulations are being weakened and pointed, as an example, to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs 
Administration approval of a change to 62 FR 46214. They stated that 
this change ``removed Radiation Protection Program regulations and 
related modal provisions that would have required the development and 
maintenance of a written radiation protection program for persons who 
offer, accept for transportation, or transport radioactive materials.'' 
The IAFF's point was that the lessening of such requirements means that 
increased oversight above the regulatory minimum is necessary to 
prevent the politicization of the distributed funds. In contrast, the 
Nuclear Energy Institute stated that additional requirements should be 
considered only if they provide a clear benefit commensurate with their 
cost. The Nuclear Energy Institute stated that radioactive materials 
transportation has been proven safe under the current regulatory 
structure.
    In other comments, the Council of State Governments-Midwestern 
Office and Inyo County, California, commented that OCRWM should commit 
to funding the Section 180(c) program regardless of congressional 
appropriations. Inyo County stated that the wording in the proposal 
``if Congress does not fully appropriate the funds'' suggests that the 
funding may be congressionally controlled and invites Congress to 
micromanage the program. The Western Interstate Energy Board reiterated 
its position that the Nuclear Waste Fund should pay for all costs 
associated with implementing Section 180(c) and transportation 
preparation; if not, the program will be viewed as an unfunded mandate 
in violation of Executive Orders 12866 and 12875. The Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that the wording requiring a 
jurisdiction to coordinate with local jurisdictions to conduct the 
needs assessment also include a reference to coordinate with ``national 
safety organizations'' to ensure that safety inspections are efficient 
and uniform along all the routes.
    The Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition reiterated its previous 
comments that DOE should update NUREG/CR-2225 (1981), An Unconstrained 
Overview of the Critical Elements in a Model State System for Emergency 
Response to Radiological Transportation Incidents. The International 
Association of Fire Fighters requested that OCRWM address 
indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act, particularly as it 
relates to the potential financial impact that an incident involving 
radioactive materials may have on local governments. Specifically, IAFF 
asked whether DOE has an obligation to indemnify the contractor if its 
negligence is the proximate cause of an accident; whether DOE will 
reimburse local officials for the costs it might expend should such an 
accident occur; who precisely is responsible for clean-up; and who will 
pay clean-up costs.
    Response. OCRWM has considered all the comments received in 
response to the Section 180(c) policy development. OCRWM has chosen not 
to incorporate comments when to do so would not increase shipment 
safety or the effectiveness of the grants program, or for other reasons 
is incompatible with OCRWM's mission to implement the Section 180(c) 
program according to the NWPA.
    OCRWM intends that states or tribes be eligible to receive the 
variable amount of the grant regardless of their preparedness level. 
However, a more well-prepared jurisdiction could expect to receive less 
variable funding than a less well-prepared jurisdiction. The number of 
shipments through a jurisdiction would not be a measure of funding 
levels since once staff are trained, the training applies without 
regard to the number of shipments.

[[Page 23759]]

    OCRWM recognizes the primary role of states and tribes in 
protecting the health and safety of their citizens. The language 
regarding the Department's radiological emergency response assets is a 
statement that the Federal capability exists to respond to a 
radiological materials shipment accident even in those areas of the 
country without basic emergency response capabilities. The roles and 
responsibilities of different government levels in preparing for and 
responding to a radiological emergency are defined in the Federal 
Radiological Emergency Response Plan. These roles and responsibilities 
will be further defined as OCRWM's transportation planning process 
continues.
    OCRWM recognizes the crucial role of communications and public 
acceptance in developing a workable transportation program. To this 
end, OCRWM will retain primary responsibility for interactions with 
stakeholders. This will include providing public information to 
jurisdictions along the routes and making Departmental representatives, 
whether Federal or contract employees, available to communities as 
budgets permit. The regional servicing contractors will be required to 
have a Communications and Outreach Plan which will describe how they 
will communicate and interact with stakeholders.
    With regard to regulatory compliance, it is OCRWM's view that the 
current regulatory structure is sufficient to provide for the safety of 
the shipments. In addition to Federal regulations, OCRWM shipments will 
be subject to applicable state, local, and tribal regulations. OCRWM 
also views the current procurement regulations as sufficient to ensure 
that the disbursement of funds will not become politicized within a 
recipient jurisdiction.
    OCRWM disagrees that the phrasing ``if Congress does not fully 
appropriate the funds'' invites Congress to micromanage the grants 
program. The ability of Congress to limit funding to a particular 
program is simply a reality that OCRWM will have to work with to fund 
the grant recipients. Funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund are only 
available to the Department when appropriated to the Department by 
Congress. It is OCRWM's position that the Section 180(c) program should 
provide the increment of assistance needed to respond to an OCRWM 
radiological materials shipment, and should not provide basic emergency 
response capability to jurisdictions along the routes that have always 
been the responsibility of the state, local, and tribal governments. 
These governments are aided by other Federal agencies that have as part 
of their mission the assistance of state, local, and tribal governments 
in attaining more comprehensive emergency response and safe routine 
transportation capabilities. OCRWM does not believe that preparations 
for these shipments would constitute an unfunded mandate if not fully 
funded by the Section 180(c) program because there is no requirement 
under NWPA mandating states to take any particular action with regard 
to these shipments. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's request to 
add coordination with ``national safety organizations'' to the 
requirement on coordination by the grant applicant has not been 
incorporated because OCRWM believes the applicants should decide 
whether or not to coordinate with non-governmental entities.
    Regarding the request to update NUREG/CR-2225, this is a Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission document that the Department does not have the 
authority to update. In addition, the NUREG/CR-2225 document is useful 
for planning in a model scenario, the text states that the study is an 
unconstrained view of the critical elements in a state program for 
radiological emergency response, presuming no bounds of manpower, 
funding, development time, or other real-world constraints. In 
addition, the model does not specify the type of radioactive material; 
therefore, it does not take into account the packaging used for NWPA 
shipments and the low risk of these shipments.
    Liability for accidents that occur while the spent fuel and the 
high-level radioactive waste is in transit from the nuclear power 
plants to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, at a storage 
facility, or at the repository would be determined in accordance with 
applicable state tort law. In applying state tort law, a court normally 
would attribute liability to the person responsible for causing damage. 
If a DOE contractor is liable for nuclear damage or a precautionary 
evacuation resulting from its contractual activities, the contractor 
normally would be indemnified by DOE pursuant to the provisions of the 
Price-Anderson Act.
    DOE's tort liability would be determined in accordance with State 
tort law and the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, under current plans, 
DOE will use contractors to transport the spent fuel and high-level 
waste and to construct and operate the repository and a storage 
facility, if one is constructed. Therefore, Price-Anderson 
indemnification would apply to liability claims arising from these 
activities.
    Although there are certain limitations to the compensation 
available under the Price-Anderson system, it provides very broad 
financial protection to compensate for damage and injury, including 
loss of profits caused by a nuclear incident; costs of a precautionary 
evacuation ordered by an authorized state or local official, if such 
incident or evacuation arose in the course of transportation to a DOE 
storage or disposal site, or while at a DOE storage or disposal 
facility; and all reasonable additional costs incurred by a state or 
political subdivision of a state in the course of responding to a 
nuclear incident or a precautionary evacuation. Price-Anderson coverage 
is available to compensate persons for such losses whether or not 
negligence was the proximate cause of the nuclear incident or 
precautionary evacuation.
Routing Issues
    Many of the comments on routing were alike. Commenters were 
concerned that the role of private contractors in route selection was 
not fully defined. It was a common opinion that routing decisions 
should not be delegated to the four potential regional servicing 
contractors partly because confusion could result from contractors in 
each region of the country selecting routes and modes that do not match 
at state borders. They asked that the policy clearly define this role.
    Another frequently expressed comment was that the critical nature 
of routing decisions means that DOE should make routing decisions early 
to allow plenty of time for planning, and that DOE should commit to a 
cooperative effort to determine the routes. Commenters also encouraged 
DOE to commit to adopting a DOE-standardized policy on early and 
cooperative route selection, and suggested that the cooperative effort 
is needed because strict reliance on regulations will result in too 
many viable routes to focus scarce training and planning resources. The 
Western Interstate Energy Board restated that OCRWM should commit to 
meeting the demands of the Western Governors Association (WGA) for DOE 
to develop responsible routing criteria; to develop a sound methodology 
for evaluating optional mixes of routes and transportation modes; and 
to fix the shipping origins and destination points as early as possible 
[WGA resolution 93-003, Modified and Readopted June 24, 1996]. Other 
commenters stated that the current discussion on routing is inadequate 
to assure local governments that their concerns will be addressed in 
the route selection process.

[[Page 23760]]

    Timing and routing announcements were also an area of concern. 
Several commenters said route identification must be done three to five 
years prior to shipments to enable affected states and tribes to 
designate alternative routes and assess their training and planning 
needs. They felt two years was not sufficient time to prepare for a 
shipping campaign of any magnitude. The Council of State Governments-
Midwestern Office commented that the requirement to consult local 
governments in development of the application's three-year plan cannot 
be met unless routes have been announced. They also asked how states 
will assess state and local training needs in TY-3 if they don't know 
what routes to train along until TY-2. The State of Nevada suggested 
solving this dilemma by providing initial base grants for planning in 
TY-3 and delaying the requirement for submission of a multi-year plan 
until routes are known in TY-2.
    Response. The draft Request for Proposal for the Acquisition of 
Waste Acceptance and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management issued November 24, 1997, clarifies many 
of the issues raised in comments regarding routing. The RSC(s) must 
abide by DOT and NRC routing regulations. The RSCs are also required to 
cooperate with other RSCs, as appropriate, in developing operating 
protocols and other operating procedures that will aid in integrating 
the operating environment throughout all four Servicing Regions. The 
Western Governors Association resolution was considered but not 
incorporated because OCRWM believes the current NRC and DOT routing 
regulations are sufficient to ensure shipment safety.
    The eligible governors and tribal chairmen will be notified of the 
preliminary routes and modes in TY-4 so that they may conduct the 
determination of needs and consult with jurisdictions along the routes. 
The Department is currently considering the development and adoption of 
Department-wide standardized route selection critera through the Senior 
Executive Transportation Forum, established within DOE to coordinate 
the efforts of Departmental elements involved in the transportation of 
radioactive materials.
    There are no regulations addressing the role of local governments 
in the route selection process. The most appropriate place for local 
concerns about routing is during states' selection of alternative 
routes. The DOT Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for 
Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Materials 
indicate that States are required to coordinate and solicit input from 
local governments and other jurisdictions likely to be impacted by a 
routing decision.
    Questions regarding timing of the route announcement have also been 
addressed in this proposed policy and the Draft Acquisition of Waste 
Acceptance and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. The current schedule for route 
announcements should provide grant recipients with sufficient time to 
assess their needs and prepare for NWPA shipments. As stated in the 
Eligibility and Timing section, if there are route changes after an 
application has been submitted, OCRWM will work with those states and 
tribes affected by any route changes to facilitate revision of their 
grant applications and expedite the application review.
Allowable Use of Funds
    The comments on allowable activities generally approved of the 
expansion of allowable activities in the Revised Proposed Policy. There 
were some specific comments and requests for clarification. Regarding 
the use of funds to purchase equipment, three commenters said the ten 
percent and twenty-five percent caps were arbitrary and unnecessary. 
The amount of funding should be negotiated in the grant application, 
allowing each eligible jurisdiction to determine its own equipment 
needs. Another stated that the ten percent cap should be increased to 
twenty percent while another stated that the twenty-five percent 
maximum cap should apply to each grantee's annual budget since few 
entities will have the foresight to accurately determine their full 
equipment needs up front for a program that will operate for decades. 
The National Congress of American Indians said the caps will not be 
sufficient for tribes that lack even basic equipment and trained 
personnel. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the State of 
Nevada asked that the policy clarify that equipment for inspections is 
allowable as well as equipment for emergency response situations. One 
commenter asked whether the twenty-five percent cap would apply if, due 
to a lapse in shipments, a state loses eligibility and then reapplies 
for assistance. Another commenter asked whether the phrase ``train or 
otherwise prepare for'' in the objectives section of the notice meant 
that grant recipients could procure radiation detection/measurement 
instrumentation for use by vehicle inspectors and health physicists.
    Regarding drills and exercises, commenters were pleased that drills 
and exercises will be an allowable expense. Two commenters asked DOE to 
clarify that all costs associated with drills and exercises will be 
covered--not just travel and tuition costs. There was also a question 
as to whether the drills and exercises would be those planned and 
conducted by the states, or whether DOE would plan and conduct the 
drills and exercises. Another commenter requested that drills and 
exercises be funded separately from the base grant as the commenter 
viewed drills and exercises as the most crucial aspect of any emergency 
response training.
    Regarding risk assessment, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures stated that allowing eligible states and tribes to include 
risk assessment costs in their grant application adequately addressed 
this issue. However, the International Association of Fire Fighters 
felt the Revised Proposed Policy had not gone far enough and referred 
to the congressional endorsement of risk assessment ``when it required 
the Secretary of Transportation to conduct such an assessment during a 
study of routes and modes that would enhance overall public safety (49 
U.S.C. Section 5105).'' They stated that, at a minimum, DOE should 
provide technical assistance for grant recipients to conduct risk 
assessments. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office stated 
any risk assessment must include alternative route analysis. They also 
asked OCRWM to clarify its position on risk assessments since the 
notice states in one place that route and risk assessments will be 
allowed, but the definition of safe routine transportation states that 
alternate route analysis will not be allowed.
    Regarding safe routine transportation, a few commenters requested 
that attendance at the Federal Railroad Administration-certified 
railroad inspection classes be an allowable cost. These commenters 
explained that the Federal Railroad Administration will not be prepared 
to handle inspections for the number of shipments required under an 
NWPA shipping campaign due to staff shortages.
    There were a variety of other comments. Two commenters stated that 
travel costs offset by the grants program should cover out-of-state 
travel, not just travel within the jurisdiction as stated in the 
Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Another commenter stated that 
grant recipients should be able to use the base grant for training as 
well as

[[Page 23761]]

for planning and coordination activities. The Council of State 
Governments-Midwestern Office said that DOE must allow funding for the 
enhanced training level in the overall needs assessment, and not just 
as funds are appropriated. Several commenters continued to request that 
funds be allowed to pay for infrastructure improvements, arguing that 
certain improvements are necessary for safe routine transportation. The 
Western Interstate Energy Board and the State of New Mexico both 
reiterated their position that the grants program must cover costs 
associated with equipment maintenance, record-keeping, and related 
costs. Other comments said that completing the needs assessment of the 
application package must be an allowable cost because its preparation 
will be burdensome for some jurisdictions.
    Response. The Department has chosen not to lift the percentage cap 
on equipment in order to ensure that the majority of the funding is 
used for training as directed by the NWPA. If there is a lapse in 
shipments where a state or tribe loses eligibility and then regains 
eligibility because shipments resume through their jurisdiction, the 
same twenty-five percent and ten percent caps will apply to their 
applications. Whether these caps are sufficient to cover grant 
recipients' needs is related to the total amount of the grant awarded 
and that amount has not been determined. It will be a grant recipient's 
choice whether to allocate the money to equipment for training for 
safety inspections or emergency response situations. Both types of 
equipment will be considered an allowable expense. The Department 
recognizes that some tribes lack basic capabilities and will work with 
tribal governments on how best to address this issue.
    Regarding drills and exercises, the Department intends for grant 
applicants to propose in their applications any drills and/or 
exercises, that are an integral part of the training curricula, and 
that they would conduct as part of the variable grant. These drills and 
exercises will be conducted by the states and tribes, not by DOE.
    As indicated previously, risk assessment and alternative route 
analysis is an allowable expense.
    As stated in the Objectives section of the policy, Section 180(c) 
funding may be used for rail safe routine transportation measures that 
complement DOT's FRA inspection procedures. Applicants will be expected 
to specify how these funds will be used in their five-year plan.
    Regarding other comments, the base grant may be used to offset the 
cost of out-of-state travel, or for training after TY-3, as the grant 
recipient wishes. The base grant may also be used to offset the costs 
of equipment maintenance and recordkeeping. Recognizing that 
jurisdictions may wish to train beyond the awareness level, OCRWM 
intends to fund the operations and technician level training as funds 
allow. OCRWM reiterates its position that infrastructure improvements 
such as rail and road improvements are beyond the scope of the Section 
180(c) mandate.
Training Standards
    Comments differed regarding the most appropriate training standards 
for the Section 180(c) program. The most frequent comments encouraged 
OCRWM to offer training courses similar to those offered by WIPP, such 
as incident command training and emergency medical training. Many 
commenters strongly stated that training to the awareness level is 
insufficient and will leave local emergency responders unable to handle 
a radioactive materials accident. Commenters were in general agreement 
that local emergency responders must have at least the equivalent of 
OSHA's operations level training. The International Association of Fire 
Fighters said they believe that ``firefighters, at a minimum, must be 
trained to the operations level'' because of the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) standards which state that ``operational-
level competency is to be attained by those persons such as fire 
fighters and rescue personnel whose duties and functions include 
responding to hazardous materials incidents to mitigate the effects of 
a release without actually trying to stop the release.'' The 
International Association of Fire Chiefs said that OCRWM should provide 
40 hours of training each for the technician and operations level 
responders that are trained under the enhanced level training outlined 
in the Revised Policy. They and other commenters stated that the OSHA 
and NFPA-based training is too generalized for the specific information 
needed for a radiological response since they encompass all hazardous 
materials. The International Association of Fire Chiefs also stated its 
belief that a 4-hour video-based course would be sufficient to train to 
the awareness level. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office 
asked OCRWM to clarify that all emergency responders along a route must 
be trained to the awareness level because references in the notice to 
``the appropriate increment of awareness level training'' does not 
sufficiently convey the sense of providing training to all affected 
local officials.
    Other comments focused more on the delivery of training. The 
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office requested that OCRWM not 
restrict states to a train-the-trainer approach. The Western Governors' 
Association reiterated its request that OCRWM establish Regional 
Training Advisory Teams and a National Training Advisory Committee for 
radiological shipments to help coordinate training across 
jurisdictions. Inyo County, California, stated that OCRWM should 
restrict funds to local use only and not fund any state personnel 
because of the wording in Section 180(c) that says ``technical 
assistance and funds * * * for training public safety officials of 
appropriate units of local governments. * * *'' Another commenter said 
OCRWM should add program-specific instructions to existing training 
programs, not create new programs to train already overburdened 
emergency response officials. The State of Nevada and the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs recommended that OCRWM develop a national 
approach to training for responding to radiological incidents, in 
essence a Federal floor of adequacy for emergency response to these 
shipments. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested this policy 
to state that safety and enforcement training must be given to the law 
enforcement agency having the proper training and authority to conduct 
safety inspections, including roadside inspections.
    The International Association of Fire Fighters stated that it is 
DOE's sole responsibility to have trained emergency response personnel 
with each shipment if local jurisdictions choose not to prepare or 
respond to a radiological accident because they have received 
insufficient training. One commenter asked if the pilot test of a DOE 
Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program module ``Radiation 
Materials Emergency Response: Awareness Level'' is the correct title.
    The National Congress of American Indians, the Pueblo of Acoma, and 
the Prairie Island Indian Community all requested that OCRWM reinstate 
funding to the National Congress of American Indians for the Tribal 
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Workshops. They stated that funding 
the workshops will help DOE meet its Trust responsibilities and assist 
tribes in attaining the proper readiness for NWPA shipments.

[[Page 23762]]

    Response. As previously stated, OCRWM does not believe the enhanced 
level of training as defined in the policy is necessary for shipment 
safety. However, recognizing that jurisdictions may wish to train 
beyond the awareness level, OCRWM intends to fund the operations and 
technician level training as appropriations allow. The type of training 
provided would be left to the discretion of the grant recipient. OCRWM 
would fund train-the-trainer training, will work with the Department's 
existing training programs to include OCRWM-specific shipment 
information in other training programs that states and tribes may 
receive from the Department, and will provide shipment-specific 
information that states, local governments, and tribes can include in 
their training materials. All of this would be at the awareness level.
    The issue of whether DOE is responsible to have trained emergency 
responders to handle an accident if a local fire department chooses not 
to respond because of lack of training is outside the scope of the 
Section 180(c) program. Section 180(c) mandates the provision of 
technical assistance and funds to states and tribes for training public 
safety officials in procedures required for safe routine transportation 
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and emergency 
response situations.
    The request that OCRWM specify that all emergency responders along 
a route will be trained to the awareness level is better left to the 
discretion of the state or tribe conducting the training. It will be 
their choice as to how many staff are trained within each jurisdiction 
along the route. With the high turnover rates among emergency 
responders, it seems unlikely that every emergency responder can be 
trained along every single route. However, OCRWM does anticipate that 
every jurisdiction along a route would have people trained to the 
awareness level for hazardous materials. OCRWM does not find it 
necessary to fund the creation of Regional Training Advisory Teams or a 
National Training Advisory Committee as requested. The eligible 
jurisdictions may use their Section 180(c) funds to coordinate with 
other jurisdictions. The policy does not incorporate CVSA's request 
that funds be directed to law enforcement agencies having the authority 
to conduct safety inspections, including roadside inspections, because 
OCRWM believes the grantee should decide the best distribution of 
funds.
    The language of Section 180(c) does not prevent the program from 
training state-level officials, if appropriate. The correct name of the 
training video referred to in the July 17, 1997, notice is ``Radiation 
Materials Emergency Response: Awareness Level.'' If grantees choose to 
do so, they may use Section 180(c) funds to attend Tribal Emergency 
Preparedness Workshops.
Basis for Cost Estimate
    Most commenters view the needs-based approach to determining grant 
awards as an improvement over the formula-based approach. Otherwise, 
comments primarily dealt with how the money should be allocated to the 
recipients or how the recipients should allocate the funds they 
receive. One commenter said 75 percent of the funds should be spent on 
emergency response personnel, limiting the money spent on 
administrative and other activities. The Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance requested that funding be available for grant recipients to 
hire two people--one for emergency response training activities and one 
for safe routine transportation activities--since it would be difficult 
in most state government structures for one person to administer both 
types of training. The Western Interstate Energy Board stated its view 
that 25 percent of all available funds should be allocated to all 
corridor jurisdictions and the remaining 75 percent of combined grant 
applications should be allocated according to projected shipment miles 
in each jurisdiction as compared to the total number of shipment miles. 
The Nuclear Energy Institute encouraged OCRWM to return to basing the 
grant amount on route miles through each jurisdiction.
    The States of Nevada and New Mexico, the Western Interstate Energy 
Board, and the Southern States Energy Board all objected to the 
methodology used to determine the base amount of funding and said the 
funding level of about $75,000 is insufficient. The Western Interstate 
Energy Board suggested that a $150,000 planning grant be used. The 
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office stated that the 
structure of the base and two variable grants is too restrictive and 
decreases flexibility in how grant recipients use their funds. They 
also requested OCRWM to clarify what a typical grant award might be, 
how often OCRWM intends to adjust the base amount for inflation, and 
what the eligibility criteria would be for the variable funding levels.
    Response. OCRWM has put few requirements on how a jurisdiction 
allocates its funding other than that the determination of needs must 
indicate cooperation with local governments, as stated in the 
Eligibility and Timing section of the policy. OCRWM has not allocated 
total funds according to shipment miles because once emergency 
responders are trained, they are trained without regard to the number 
of shipments. In addition, shipment miles as an allocation method will 
skew funding towards those places with longer routes, but not 
necessarily more population along the routes. This Section 180(c) 
policy will allow the grant recipient to allocate funds to those parts 
of its jurisdiction most in need.
    OCRWM has decided to propose an initial planning grant of $150,000 
to help offset the costs of the determination of needs. Otherwise, the 
structure of the base and variable grants being proposed has remained 
the same. The structure of the grant should not unduly restrict a 
recipient's flexibility in using the funds. OCRWM also plans to work to 
make the grant application as user-friendly as possible. A typical 
grant award cannot be determined without a sample of grant applications 
upon which to base an estimate. The base grant amount would be adjusted 
annually for inflation. OCRWM would consider developing for the 
application package a set of criteria by which to determine eligibility 
for the variable funding level. All grant applicants would apply for 
variable funding levels although the more a jurisdiction has already 
met the policy's training objectives, the less their variable grant 
award would be. This is in keeping with the policy to provide that 
increment of training needed for NWPA transportation preparedness.
Safe Routine Transportation
    The primary comments about the definition of safe routine 
transportation and related policy statements were that they are too 
restrictive. The State of New Mexico stated that ``common sense 
dictates that safety precautions for NWPA shipments should at least be 
on par with those being applied to the WIPP campaign.'' A majority of 
the commenters encouraged OCRWM to use Section 180(c) funding to 
develop protocols similar to those negotiated with WIPP, such as 
carrier record-keeping audits, bad weather protocols, and 
identification of safe parking areas. Another commenter said the 
definition must include activities required for states to escort 
shipments and to plan and prepare for inspections, including paying for 
personnel, equipment, and planning.
    Another frequently mentioned comment was that the policy statement 
regarding rail inspections does not provide sufficient oversight. OCRWM 
was encouraged to allow grant recipients to use funding to attend the

[[Page 23763]]

Federal Railroad Administration's State Participation Program for 
training in rail inspections. This request was based on the fact that 
the Federal Railroad Administration has stated (1) that it has neither 
the budget nor the staff to handle the anticipated volume of NWPA 
shipments and (2) that the State Participation Program could enable 
states to pick up some of the slack if there was sufficient funding to 
train inspectors. The State of Nevada asked how the Federal Railroad 
Administration will interact with states to ensure that rail 
inspections have been conducted and whether it should be assumed that 
the Federal Railroad Administration will ensure that the roadbed for 
the entire route of travel will be inspected and maintained.
    The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office cautioned OCRWM 
against requiring states to abide by the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance enhanced inspection standards. They pointed out that Illinois 
conducts its own inspections on every radiological materials shipment 
through its jurisdiction, wherever the shipment originates. The Nuclear 
Energy Institute cautioned OCRWM against adopting the enhanced North 
American inspection standards since they have not yet been ratified by 
the CVSA membership.
    Other comments were provided on an array of subjects. The 
International Association of Fire Chiefs urged OCRWM to use escorts 
highly trained in emergency response procedures throughout the first 
year of shipment. Another commenter requested that the policy statement 
put equal emphasis on safe routine transportation and emergency 
response procedures. The Nuclear Energy Institute and Edlow 
International both wrote that the broad use of TRANSCOM is a security 
concern. They are concerned that if states and tribes have wide access 
to TRANSCOM tracking information, this will violate Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission safeguards and security regulations. Another commenter 
requested clarification on wording regarding TRANSCOM, asking whether 
OCRWM intends to provide states with ``access to satellite tracking 
information,'' or simply to help states ``to prepare'' for the access. 
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that three definitions 
be added to the appendix in the proposed policy. They are: ``(1) 
Responsible jurisdictions for safety and enforcement inspections means 
a government entity at any level of government, whether state, tribal, 
or any of their subjurisdictions that has the jurisdictional authority 
to conduct safety inspections and initiate law enforcement using the 
appropriate federal and or jurisdiction's laws and regulations; (2) 
Awareness level training also means training for individuals or 
jurisdictions who will accept and grant reciprocity to another 
jurisdiction's inspections; (3) Train-the-trainer also means training 
for certified instructors/individuals so that they may conduct 
refresher inspection courses for their respective jurisdiction's safety 
and enforcement inspectors.''
    Response. OCRWM believes that the current definition of safe 
routine transportation, in combination with the policy statement on 
safe routine transportation, provides a sufficient measure of safety 
for the shipments that will be, at least, on par with the WIPP 
campaign. The requested additional activities would not appreciably 
increase shipment safety. Regarding rail inspections, the Objectives 
section has been changed to state that OCRWM intends to consider 
applicants' requests to fund, in the increment necessary for OCRWM 
shipments, rail safe transportation measures that complement DOT's FRA 
inspection procedures. Since currently there is no mechanism for tribes 
to participate in the State Participation Program, OCRWM plans to work 
with tribal governments to identify where funding and technical 
assistance may best assist a tribe in addressing rail inspections.
    This policy does not require states to abide by the enhanced 
inspection standards developed by the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance largely because the reciprocal inspection standards are 
voluntary by the states who participate. Illinois is a member of the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and its Department of Nuclear Safety 
staff received training in the enhanced standards during November 1997. 
It is OCRWM's understanding that the radiation inspection conducted by 
Illinois's Department of Nuclear Safety is separate from and is 
conducted simultaneously with the Illinois State Police safety 
inspection. The two types of inspections are not mutually exclusive. It 
is worth noting that the full membership of the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance adopted the enhanced inspections standards on October 
1, 1997.
    The policy statement does not intend to put more emphasis on safe 
routine transportation than on emergency response procedures. The 
emphasis each receives will be at the grant recipient's discretion. 
With regard to TRANSCOM, it is OCRWM's intent to allow grant recipients 
to include the purchase of tracking equipment in their equipment 
purchases. However, OCRWM recognizes the possible conflict with the 
NRC's regulations and has requested that the NRC clarify its position 
with regard to OCRWM's provision of a satellite tracking system to 
states and tribes that may wish to use it and agree to safeguard the 
information. If the NRC denies state and tribal access to satellite 
tracking information about NWPA shipments, this provision of the safe 
routine transportation procedures will have to be dropped.
    The definitions requested by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
have been adopted into the appendix of this notice, although not in 
their entirety. The reference to ``subjurisdictions'' was dropped from 
the definition of ``responsible jurisdiction'' because highway safety 
and enforcement inspections are always carried out under the authority 
of the state government, not local governments.
Technical Assistance
    There were few comments on the definition of technical assistance. 
One commenter said that equipment should be included as part of the 
definition and that it is within the Department's discretion to make 
this change. Another commenter requested that OCRWM delete ``unique to 
the Department'' from the definition so as not to restrict DOE from 
either having under contract at some time in the future individuals 
that could provide the type of assistance sought by states and tribes, 
or establishing an agreement with another Federal agency to provide the 
requested assistance. Another commenter asked what scope of technical 
assistance will be available under the grants program.
    Response. The phrase ``unique to the Department'' was not dropped 
from the definition because, as the shipper of record of NWPA 
shipments, DOE will provide technical assistance whether or not the 
Department contracts with other individuals or Federal agencies to 
provide services or technical assistance. Equipment is not included in 
the definition of Technical Assistance because 10 CFR 600 defines 
Financial Assistance to include the provision of equipment, thereby 
precluding it from the definition of Technical Assistance.
Eligibility and Timing
    The comments on eligibility were rather limited while comments on 
timing were more extensive. OCRWM was commended for broadening the 
eligibility requirements where mutual aid and bordering jurisdictions 
are involved. However, two commenters

[[Page 23764]]

pointed out that OCRWM will not be able to notify eligible 
jurisdictions four years in advance of shipments unless routes are 
determined indicating when a route constitutes a border between two 
jurisdictions. Other commenters said that the transfer of funds from an 
eligible jurisdiction to a mutual aid jurisdiction is unlikely. The 
International Association of Fire Fighters viewed OCRWM's position on 
the pass-through of funds to mutual aid jurisdictions as ``patronizing 
and . . . urge[d] DOE to revisit this issue.'' The Pueblo of Acoma 
asked how DOE will ensure that the funds are transferred to mutual aid 
jurisdictions if the recipient jurisdiction does not willingly transfer 
the funds. The National Congress of American Indians stated its 
position that assistance should be provided to states and tribes that 
are near, but not on, transportation routes because their people and 
lands would also be at risk in the event of an accident. This commenter 
added that this is especially true for tribes that have culturally 
significant lands along a route that are not part of tribal lands.
    Regarding issues on timing, three commenters requested 
clarification in the lapse in eligibility when shipments do not pass 
through a jurisdiction for three years or more. The Council of State 
Governments-Midwestern Office stated that two years of full funding 
prior to shipments is not sufficient time to accomplish all that is 
needed, such as considering alternative routes, officially designating 
them, assessing training needs along the route, applying for funding, 
and training the emergency responders along the route. They also asked 
how far in advance of shipments OCRWM will plan to notify governors 
about their individual state's eligibility. Similarly, the Southern 
States Energy Board said that the states and tribes cannot determine 
what training and equipment are necessary until OCRWM establishes more 
specifics on transportation planning, particularly routing. The Western 
Interstate Energy Board reiterated its position taken in prior comments 
and in WGA resolution 97-015 that OCRWM should specify that no 
shipments will occur unless funding has been provided three years prior 
to shipments. According to WGA, the three years is necessary because of 
the amount of time preparations for these shipments will take. The 
State of New Mexico stated its belief that three years of full program 
funding prior to shipments is probably sufficient for most 
jurisdictions if they have already conducted their needs assessments 
and are poised for program implementation.
    The State of New Mexico continued to urge OCRWM to establish an 
administratively simple and efficient grant application process, and to 
develop a user-friendly ``format and content guide'' to assist 
applicants. The state voiced its concern about lack of information on 
the mechanics of the grants program, asking if a three-year budget will 
be negotiated and then funded in one-year increments; what is DOE's 
proposal with respect to re-application after the first three years; 
and what criteria will be used in determining the variable amounts of 
funding to be provided to states and tribes? A commenter asked if there 
is a difference among TY-2, TY-1, and TY grants other than the grant 
applicant's assessment of its needs.
    Response. The wording of Section 180(c) of the NWPA does not allow 
for the funding of jurisdictions that are near, but not on, 
transportation routes. The extensive safety measures taken for these 
shipments make them very low risk and even if an accident or incident 
occurs, any impact on nearby jurisdictions is an even lower risk 
considering the packaging and other precautions taken to ensure 
shipment safety. If a nearby jurisdiction has the potential to respond 
to an NWPA transportation accident under a mutual aid request, then the 
state or tribe whose local jurisdiction may be requested to provide 
mutual aid will be eligible for funding from the state or tribe through 
whose jurisdiction the radioactive waste is transported. The state or 
tribe that has the route through its jurisdiction and that could 
request the mutual aid assistance would also be eligible for funding as 
described in the Eligibility and Timing section.
    With regard to the grant application, OCRWM will consider 
developing a format and content guide to make the grant application as 
user-friendly as possible. In addition, the grant application will be 
written in as straightforward a manner as possible. The intent is that, 
after the initial planning grant, a five-year budget request will be 
established. OCRWM will consider developing qualifying criteria for the 
variable grant requests at a later time. OCRWM intends to include the 
application budget requests in its budget request to Congress and fund 
the applications to the extent Congress makes funds available on an 
annual basis. There are no differences among TY-2, TY-1, and TY grants 
other than the grant applicant's determination of its needs.
    OCRWM believes the current time frame is sufficient to prepare for 
these shipments as outlined in the Policy and Objectives sections of 
this notice. Regarding eligibility after a lapse of shipments, the 
lapse would have to be three or more years for a jurisdiction to become 
ineligible for funding. If the lapse is two years or less, the 
jurisdiction would not lose eligibility. OCRWM plans to notify 
governors in the fourth year prior to shipments through their 
jurisdiction that they will regain eligibility for Section 180(c) 
funding and will receive the base grant.
Contingency Plan
    The Nuclear Energy Institute supports the contingency plan outlined 
in the revised notice and requested that OCRWM add ``emergencies, 
fraudulent actions, or non-cooperation'' as cases where contingency 
shipment plans could be implemented. The Council of State Governments-
Midwestern Office agreed with OCRWM's statement that planning with 
states and tribes along contingency routes should be handled on a case-
by-case basis. The Southern States Energy Board argued that the 
contingency plan continues to address only emergency response 
procedures and not safe routine transportation procedures. The State of 
New Mexico stated that the ``current plan is skeletal and cursory in 
nature at best'' and may not offer adequate protection to public health 
and safety. The Western Interstate Energy Board again asked that OCRWM 
offer assurances that no shipments will occur, even on a contingency 
basis, unless funding has occurred at least three years in advance.
    Response. The contingency plan has not changed significantly in 
this notice except to include cases such as emergencies, fraudulent 
actions, or non-cooperation as examples where contingency shipment 
plans could be implemented. If contingency shipments are made, OCRWM 
may use escorts with more training and equipment than those currently 
used for the purpose of safety until a reasonable time period for 
training has expired. These measures, combined with OCRWM's willingness 
to work with states and tribes on a case-by-case basis to plan for any 
contingency shipments, will ensure that the shipments are made as 
uneventfully as possible. Regarding equal emphasis on safe routine and 
emergency response procedures, OCRWM sees no reason why the current 
contingency plan should focus more on one set of procedures than the 
other. Arrangements for inspections and inspector training are expected 
to be part of the discussion if contingency shipments are necessary.

[[Page 23765]]

Trust Responsibility
    The National Congress of American Indians, the Prairie Island 
Indian Community and the Pueblo of Acoma all stated their position that 
DOE should cite the requirements of DOE's Trust responsibility in the 
policy. They reiterated that the Trust responsibility stems from 
tribes' treaties with the United States government, tribes' status as 
sovereign nations, and the U.S. Constitution. The DOE's fiduciary 
duties to tribal governments have been reinforced by President 
Clinton's Memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government 
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, and the DOE's own 
American Indian Policy. They reiterated their view that the language of 
Section 180(c) does not limit tribal assistance and funding exclusively 
to training as it does to state governments. It is their position that 
nothing in Section 180(c) prevents DOE from funding basic emergency 
response capabilities and that it is part of the DOE's Trust 
responsibility to fund basic capabilities on those reservations which 
lack them.
    Comments were favorable regarding OCRWM's equal treatment of states 
and tribes throughout the policy, with several commenters noting that 
the policy does incorporate many interests of tribal governments.
    Response. OCRWM recognizes that there is a lack of infrastructure 
and trained personnel on many tribal lands. Typically, these areas may 
rely more heavily on technical assistance than other grant recipients. 
Since needs will be so varied and the determination of needs allows 
consideration of an individual jurisdiction's current preparedness 
level, OCRWM sees no purpose in defining further the specific 
activities that may be taken with regard to tribal preparedness. OCRWM 
is aware of its Trust responsibilities to tribes and will take it into 
account in all of OCRWM's decisions that may affect Indian tribes.

B. Section 180(c) Procedures

Funding Mechanism
    While two commenters supported the OCRWM grants approach, the State 
of Idaho reiterated its position that OCRWM should coordinate its 
funding and training program with a Department-wide funding and 
training program. Idaho said that while it recognized the difficulties 
in developing a unified program, it was worth the increased 
effectiveness and efficiency of training emergency responders along a 
route one time for all DOE shipments, rather than training repeatedly 
every time a DOE program ships radioactive materials. The Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that OCRWM allow the possible 
combining of grants programs to train inspectors to allow for cross-
training of inspectors. Similar to Idaho's comment, this would allow 
inspectors to become trained on the enhanced inspection standards once 
rather than attend a separate class every time another DOE program 
ships radioactive materials. The International Association of Fire 
Fighters registered the strongest complaint against the funding 
mechanism, saying the knowledge and expertise necessary to complete the 
needs assessment of the application package will place a tremendous 
administrative burden on the grant applicants.
    Response. While this Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures does 
not combine the grants program with any other Department training or 
funding program, we plan for the grant application to state that OCRWM 
encourages recipients to use their funds in conjunction with other 
programs where the training aims to achieve the same or similar goals. 
For example, if a state were training its inspectors to the enhanced 
inspection standards, it could use the Section 180(c) funding in 
conjunction with funding it may receive from another DOE program to 
send additional inspectors to the same training. OCRWM has stated that 
it may combine the grants program with a Department-wide grant program 
in the future if one is developed and is practicable, and consistent 
with existing law.

C. Applicability of Section 180(c) to Private Shipments

    Many states and state organizations urged that Section 180(c) 
assistance apply to all spent nuclear fuel or defense high-level 
radioactive waste shipments ultimately destined for an NWPA facility, 
whether or not those shipments are transported to and stored on an 
interim basis at a private facility. Commenters stated that 
transportation to a private facility would only be necessary if the 
Department fails to site an interim or permanent storage facility 
according to statutory obligations.
    Response. The Department is currently authorized to implement the 
Section 180(c) program of financial and technical assistance only for 
shipments to a repository or Monitored Retrievable Storage facility 
constructed under the NWPA. However, the many comments on this issue 
have been noted.

D. Policy Development Process

    A few commenters again questioned the Department's plans to issue a 
Notice of Policy and Procedures rather than promulgate regulations. 
They voiced concern that implementation of Section 180(c) through 
regulations is necessary to ensure stability through changes of 
leadership within the Department and that an interpretation of policy 
and procedures is more easily changed.
    Response. OCRWM is developing the Revised Policy and Procedures 
after receipt and consideration of extensive public comments. At some 
future date, OCRWM may decide to promulgate regulations. However, since 
the program's current planning basis is to begin shipping in 2010, it 
is premature to codify the policy in regulations this far in advance of 
shipments. OCRWM will continue to monitor other Departmental 
transportation programs and may consider updating this Revised Policy 
as either a Final Policy or as regulations at a later date.

V. Conclusion

    This notice has presented OCRWM's Revised Proposed Policy and 
Procedures for the Section 180(c) program. It also has presented 
OCRWM's summary of and response to comments received in the prior 
Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures issued July 17, 1997. 
These comments were given careful consideration in developing these 
policy and procedures. The purpose of this notice has been to 
communicate to stakeholders OCRWM's interim preliminary positions 
regarding Section 180(c) policy issues and to respond to stakeholder 
comments on the July notice. These policy and procedures will remain in 
draft form until programmatic decisions or legislation provides 
guidance as to when shipments will commence. At that time, OCRWM may 
finalize these policy and procedures or will consider promulgating 
regulations on Section 180(c) implementation.
    OCRWM will accept comments from the public on this Notice of 
Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 1998.
Lake Barrett,
Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Appendix--Definition of Terms Used in the Notice of Final Policy and 
Procedures

    1. Responsible jurisdiction, for emergency response procedures, 
means a governmental entity at any level of government, whether 
state or tribal, that has the authority to conduct part or all of an 
emergency response

[[Page 23766]]

to a radiological materials transportation accident or incident. 
Responsible jurisdiction for safety and enforcement inspections 
means a governmental entity, whether state or tribal that has the 
authority to conduct safety inspections and initiate law enforcement 
using the appropriate federal and or jurisdiction's laws and 
regulations.
    2. First responders are generally those emergency response 
personnel who (1) assess the risk level of the emergency, (2) take 
defensive action to secure an accident scene, and (3) notify 
additional authorities if needed.
    3. Awareness level training means training for individuals who 
are likely to witness or discover a hazardous materials substance 
release and who have been trained to initiate an emergency response 
sequence by notifying the authorities of the release. First 
responder awareness level training shall provide sufficient training 
to ensure that first responders objectively demonstrate competency 
in the following areas:
    (A) Understand what hazardous substances are, and the risks 
associated with them in an incident.
    (B) Understand the potential outcomes associated with an 
emergency created when hazardous substances are present.
    (C) Recognize the presence of hazardous substances in an 
emergency.
    (D) Identify the hazardous substance, if possible.
    (E) Understand the role of the first responder awareness 
individual in the employer's emergency response plan including site 
security and control and the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
Emergency Response Guidebook.
    (F) Realize the need for additional resources, and make 
appropriate notifications to the communications center.
(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(I)(A-F))
    Awareness level training also means training for jurisdictions 
or individuals who will accept and grant reciprocity to another 
jurisdiction's inspections.
    4. First responder operations level hazardous materials training 
means training that provides for individuals who respond to releases 
or potential releases of hazardous substances as part of the initial 
response to the site for the purpose of protecting nearby persons, 
property, or the environment from the effects of the release and to 
be able to respond in a defensive fashion without actually trying to 
stop the release. Their function is to contain the release from a 
safe distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent exposures. First 
responders at the operations level shall have received at least 
eight hours of training and have had sufficient experience to 
objectively demonstrate competency in the following areas in 
addition to those listed for awareness level, and the employer shall 
so certify:
    (A) Know the basic hazard and risk assessment techniques.
    (B) Know how to select and use proper personal protective 
equipment provided to the first responder operational level.
    (C) Understand basic hazardous materials terms.
    (D) Know how to perform basic control, containment and/or 
confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and 
personal protective equipment available with their unit.
    (E) Know how to implement basic decontamination procedures.
    (F) Understand the relevant standard operating procedures and 
termination procedures.
(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(ii)(A-F))
    5. Hazardous materials technician level training is training for 
individuals who respond to releases or potential releases for the 
purpose of stopping the release. They assume a more aggressive role 
than a first responder at the operations level in that they will 
approach the point of release in order to plug, patch or otherwise 
stop the release of a hazardous substance. Hazardous materials 
technicians shall receive at least 24 hours of training equal to the 
first responder operations level and in addition have competency in 
the following areas, and the employer shall so certify:
    (A) Know how to implement the employer's emergency response 
plan.
    (B) Know the classification, identification and verification of 
known and unknown materials by using field survey instruments and 
equipment.
    (C) Be able to function within an assigned role in the Incident 
Command System.
    (D) Know how to select and use proper specialized chemical 
personal protective equipment provided to the hazardous materials 
technician.
    (E) Understand hazard and risk assessment techniques.
    (F) Be able to perform advance control, containment, and/or 
confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and 
personal protective equipment available with the unit.
    (G) Understand and implement decontamination procedures.
    (H) Understand termination procedures.
    (I) Understand basic chemical and toxicological terminology and 
behavior.
(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(iii)(A-F))

    6. Train-the-trainer training, for emergency response 
procedures, means training for individuals so that they can teach 
other emergency responders to respond to a particular level of 
competency. Train-the-trainer training, for safe routine 
transportation procedures, means training for certified instructors/
individuals so that they may conduct refresher inspection courses 
for their respective jurisdiction's safety and enforcement 
inspectors.

[FR Doc. 98-11520 Filed 4-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P