Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 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 highlevel 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 NWPAauthorized 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 highlevel radioactive waste to NWPAauthorized 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
23754 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

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 awarenesslevel 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 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 trainthe-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 Departmentwide 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 Departmentsponsored 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:

• 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
23756 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

1RSC 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.

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:

• 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 crossdeputization 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) 1

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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 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
23758 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

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 GovernmentsMidwestern 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 GovernmentsMidwestern 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 PriceAnderson 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 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 nongovernmental 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 DOEstandardized 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.
23760 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

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 GovernmentsMidwestern 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 multiyear 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23761

for planning and coordination activities.

The Council of State GovernmentsMidwestern 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, recordkeeping, 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.
23762 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

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 needsbased 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 recordkeeping 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 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 GovernmentsMidwestern 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
23764 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

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 reapplication 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 noncooperation 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 caseby-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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 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
23766 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

1See 80 FERC ¶ 61,264 (1997); order denying

reh’g issued January 28, 1998, 82 FERC ¶ 61,058

(1998).

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-thetrainer 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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. SA98–24–001]

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation; Notice of

Amendment of Petition for Adjustment

April 24, 1998.

Take notice that on April 20, 1998,

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Cabot)

amended its March 9, 1998 petition for

adjustment under section 502(c) of the

Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA)

[15 U.S.C. § 3142(c) (1982)], by filing a

copy of Cabot’s Escrow Agreement with

the Chase Bank of Texas, N.A. (Chase),

for incorporation into the record in that

proceeding. Cabot’s April 20

amendment is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

In its March 9 petition, Cabot

requested an extension of the

Commission’s March 9, 1998 refund

deadline for first sellers to make Kansas

ad valorem tax refunds to their

respective pipeline purchasers,

otherwise required by the Commission’s

September 10, 1997 order in Docket No.

RP97–369–000 et al.1 Cabot’s March 9

petition also indicated that Cabot

intended to place refund amounts

claimed by Williams Gas Pipelines

Central, Inc., formerly: Williams Natural

Gas Company, (Williams) and

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company

(Panhandle) into an escrow account.

Cabot’s April 20 amendment states

that Cabot placed $1,187,513 into its

escrow account with Chase on April 9,

1998 ($492,285 of principal and

$695,228 in interest), under the

aforementioned Escrow Agreement.

Any person desiring to answer Cabot’s

April 20 amendment should file such

answer with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, on

or before 15 days after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register, in accordance with the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.213, 385.215,

385.1101, and 385.1106).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–11463 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. SA98–82–000]

Helmerich & Payne, Inc.; Notice of

Petition for Adjustment

April 24, 1998.

Take notice that on April 21, 1998,

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (H&P), filed a

petition, pursuant to section 502(c) of

the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, on

behalf of Ivy League, Inc. (Ivy), one of