[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24771-24783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12283]



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

[[Page 24772]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy and procedures.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department) publishes for public 
comment a proposed policy statement setting forth its 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 jurisdiction the 
Department plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
radioactive waste. The training would cover both safe routine 
transportation procedures and emergency response procedures.

DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Department and must be 
received on or before August 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: 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, 
Environmental and Operational Activities, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management, (RW-45), 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 program and the Section 180(c) program prior 
to providing comments. 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 Information Center, Post Office Box 44375, Washington, D.C. 20026 
or the Yucca Mountain Science Center, 4101B Meadows Lane, Las Vegas, 
Nevada 89107.
    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, Washington, D.C.

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 
(Department) is responsible for the disposal of high-level radioactive 
waste and civilian spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. 
The Department is also responsible for the possible monitored 
retrievable storage (MRS) of spent nuclear fuel prior to disposal. 
Additionally, the Department is responsible for transportation of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste to the Department's disposal 
or storage sites. 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 for public safety officials of appropriate 
units of local government and Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction 
the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
radioactive waste. 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

    The Department issued a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register 
on January 3, 1995, (60 FR 99) which briefly described various options 
to delineate Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act policy and 
procedures. Members of the public were invited to submit comments on 
the Notice of Inquiry. In the March 14, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 
13715) the Department extended the deadline for comments to May 18, 
1995. In response to requests for additional information, the 
Department 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. In a 
continuing effort to include stakeholders in predecisional discussions, 
the Department has developed the proposed Section 180(c) policy and 
procedures, presented below, that comprise the Department's proposed 
approach to implementing Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. Included in this Notice is a summary of the comments received from 
the two prior Notices of Inquiry and the Department's response to those 
comments. The Department welcomes comments in response to this Federal 
Register notice on the proposed Section 180(c) policy and procedures.
    The Department plans to publish, in 1997, a Notice of Final Policy 
and Procedures that the Department intends to follow in implementing 
the Section 180(c) program. The Section 180(c) program encompasses the 
shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a 
geologic repository or a monitored retrievable storage facility 
pursuant to the NWPA.
    The Department's work to date on the Section 180(c) policy and 
implementation procedures has been discussed primarily in 
Transportation Coordination Group meetings and Transportation External 
Coordination (TEC) Working Group meetings. The Transportation External 
Working Group will continue to meet periodically to identify and 
discuss issues related to the transport of radioactive materials. In 
addition, the Department has ten cooperative agreements with national 
and regional organizations representing state, local and tribal 
constituencies to provide information and solicit input regarding the 
transportation aspects of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management program.
    The Department has also 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 or the Yucca Mountain Science Center.

III. Proposed Section 180(c) Policy and Procedures

Introduction

    This section is divided into four subject areas. It includes a 
discussion of the proposed funding mechanism,

[[Page 24773]]

definitions of key terms, eligibility and timing of the grants, and 
allowable activities. This proposal is based on information gained by 
studying industry regulations, legal requirements, and stakeholder 
comments. Funding Mechanism describes the method by which funds would 
be disbursed to states and tribes, hereafter referred to as 
jurisdictions. Definition of Key Terms describes the definition of safe 
routine transportation and technical assistance for the purposes of the 
Section 180(c) program. Eligibility and Timing of the Grants Program 
describes when jurisdictions are eligible and the timing of the grants 
process. Allowable Activities describes the types of activities the 
funding could be used for as well as some activities that would be 
disallowed. The final policy and procedures may differ based on 
comments received on this proposal, any new legislation, and any 
program and policy changes caused by new Congressional direction.
    The Appendix to this Notice provides the cost basis for this 
proposed Section 180(c) program.

Funding Mechanism

    The Department intends to implement Section 180(c) through an OCRWM 
grants program. Funding would be provided every year beginning 
approximately three years prior to the first shipment through a state 
or tribal land. The Department would administer the grants but the 
grants would be specific to the Section 180(c) program and would not be 
combined with any other Department-sponsored transportation 
preparedness or training programs, although coordination by 
jurisdictions would be encouraged.
    The grant program would be administered in accordance with the DOE 
Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR 600), which implement OMB Circular 
A-87, Cost Principles for Grants, Contracts and Other Agreements with 
Local Governments, OMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative 
Agreements with State and Local Governments, and OMB Circular A-128, 
Audits of State and Local Governments. In order to preserve 
flexibility, the Department does not presently plan to codify the 
policy and procedures in this notice as substantive regulations.

Definitions of Key Terms

    The definition of safe routine transportation for the purposes of 
determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section 
180(c) program would be as follows:
    <bullet> Safe routine transportation means the enforcement of 
standards and inspection of shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste to a repository or an MRS 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 Carrier Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations. Safe routine transportation is also characterized by 
compliance with rail and barge transportation regulations including 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Coast Guard regulations.
    The definition of technical assistance for the purposes of the 
Section 180(c) program would be as follows:
    <bullet> Technical assistance means assistance, other than 
financial assistance, that the Secretary of Energy can provide that is 
unique to the Department to aid training that will cover procedures for 
the safe, routine transportation and emergency response situations 
during the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste to a repository or MRS pursuant to the NWPA, including, but not 
be 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, would 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 information 
about the OCRWM program and shipments, and attendance and support from 
OCRWM program representatives for public meetings upon request and 
consistent with the OCRWM budget. It would not include the provision of 
equipment, although recipients would be able to budget up to ten 
percent of their allocated funds to purchase equipment if they chose to 
do so.

Eligibility and Timing of the Grants and Technical Assistance Program

    The Department intends to provide grants and technical assistance 
under the Section 180(c) program for the safe routine transportation of 
NWPA shipments as these terms are defined above. The Department intends 
that the application process for grants and technical assistance begin 
approximately four years prior to transportation (about one year for 
the application process, about three years to implement the program) 
through a jurisdiction. The Department intends to notify the governor 
or tribal leader of the jurisdiction with a letter and information 
packet, including an application. The Department intends to calculate 
the base amount and variable amount available to each jurisdiction and 
include that information in the 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 and technical assistance. The administering agency or 
representative would indicate in the application how it intends to use 
its budget. If funding needs to be passed on to other agencies (for 
example, from the emergency services agency to the highway patrol to 
pay for inspector training) then that would be the responsibility of 
the recipient state or tribe. That information should be identified in 
the application.
    Eligible jurisdictions would submit an application to the 
Department beginning approximately four years prior to the first 
shipment through a jurisdiction. The application would include a three-
year plan detailing how the funds would be spent each year. Funding 
would be disbursed annually based on the applicant's three-year plan. 
Each jurisdiction would receive a base amount of funding for each year 
of eligibility. A variable amount of funding, based on route miles, 
would be available after the first year of eligibility for those 
jurisdictions that qualify pursuant to the plan discussed in the 
Appendix.
    Local governments would not apply for Section 180(c) grants or 
technical assistance directly. Local participation would be coordinated 
through the state or tribe, if they have subjurisdictions. However, the 
applicant would be required to demonstrate in its plan how the local 
jurisdictions are benefiting from the program. Each jurisdiction would 
be requested to submit a description of the coordination procedure as 
part of its grant application. This approach builds flexibility into 
the use of the funds and responds to commenters' concerns that 
assistance may not reach the local level.
    The Department anticipates knowing three to four years prior to 
shipment which states or tribal land the shipments will travel through, 
even if routes have not been selected. Using this information, the 
Department would notify these jurisdictions about their potential 
eligibility for the Section 180(c) program. The Department would 
include in the information to the jurisdiction the total amount of 
budget

[[Page 24774]]

it would be eligible for as determined by the cost estimates described 
in the Appendix to this Notice. Two years prior to the shipments going 
through a jurisdiction, the Department would announce proposed routes.
    Within the first year of eligibility to receive funding 
(Transportation Year [defined as the year that shipments will commence] 
minus 3 or TY-3), a base grant would be available.
    Within the second year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 2 
or TY-2), a base grant and a variable amount of money for those 
jurisdictions that qualify would be available. Proposed routes would be 
announced during the second year of eligibility.
    Within the third year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 1 
or TY-1), a base grant and a variable amount of money for those 
jurisdictions that qualify would be available.
    A state or tribe would continue to be eligible for and receive 
Transportation Year grants as long as NWPA shipments go through its 
jurisdiction each year. If there is a lapse of NWPA shipments for three 
or more years, the state or tribe would receive no funds for those 
years and would only 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-1 grants. If the lapse is of two years or less between 
shipments, the Transportation Year grants would continue as if 
shipments had been traversing that jurisdiction during the lapse.
    A significant route change made later than two years prior to the 
expected start of NWPA shipments through a jurisdiction could generate 
some difficulty in administering Section 180(c). The Section 180(c) 
program would include contingencies for changes in schedule and route. 
In general, jurisdictions may receive an additional amount of funding 
and technical assistance if asked to complete activities in shorter 
amounts of time, i.e., a state may receive TY-1 and TY-2 funding in the 
same year. If the route change is made too close to the time of 
shipment to allow for Section 180(c) preparations, OCRWM may use 
escorts with more training and equipment than those currently used for 
the purpose of safeguards until a reasonable time period for training 
has expired.

Allowable Activities for Funding

    This section describes the types of activities that would be 
allowed under this proposal and some of the specific activities that 
would be disallowed. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but 
merely a guide to the types of activities an applicant jurisdiction 
might consider and some of the activities that would be considered 
outside the scope of the program and therefore not eligible for Section 
180(c) funding.
    For the most part, it would be the applicant's decision as to who 
gets trained, the level of training obtained, and the organization that 
administers the training. Applicants would be encouraged to describe in 
their three- year plans how the budget would be integrated with other 
available training such as that offered through the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
Conference on Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development, the state, 
or regional organizations. The application package would request 
information on how the applicant would use the budget as part of a 
larger effort to augment their current infrastructure for safe routine 
transportation procedures and emergency response as well as how the 
applicant anticipates using technical assistance.
    Specifically, an applicant would be able to budget up to ten 
percent of each year's 180(c) funds to purchase appropriate (i.e., 
training-related) equipment provided the equipment is identified in its 
application and approved in the grant.
    Funding may be used for refresher training and to train new public 
safety personnel. During the years NWPA transportation is occurring in 
a jurisdiction (Transportation Year), two-thirds of the budget provided 
in TY-1 would help offset the costs of refresher and new personnel 
training. The two-thirds multiplier is a conservative estimate based on 
the assumption that after the initial training in TY-1 and TY-2, each 
jurisdiction would experience a personnel turnover rate of 
approximately two-thirds of its staff each year. The turnover of 
personnel, particularly in the emergency response area, means that new 
people will need training if shipments continue through a jurisdiction 
over an extended period of time. It would be the jurisdiction's choice, 
within the limits of their Section 180(c) annual budget, to determine 
who receives refresher training and with what frequency. It would also 
be the jurisdiction's choice, within the limits of its annual Section 
180(c) budget, which new personnel receive training and the type and 
location of the training.
    Section 180(c) funds would not be available for the conduct of 
drills and exercises. The Department anticipates that it will conduct 
drills and exercises which will be conducted in conjunction with 
states, tribes and local governments in preparation for NWPA shipments. 
However, drills and exercises are generally considered a means to 
measure preparedness, an activity the Department views as beyond the 
scope of the 180(c) program which is limited by statute to provision of 
funds and technical assistance for training.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received on the NOIs

    The Department received 38 comments in response to the January 3, 
1995, Notice of Inquiry and an additional 13 comments in response to 
the July 18, 1995, Notice of Inquiry: Supplemental Information. 
Comments were received from the Council of State Governments--
Midwestern Office, Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional 
Conference, Southern States Energy Board, Western Interstate Energy 
Board, two private citizens, Ohio Division of Emergency Medical 
Services, State of California Department of Transportation, White Pine 
County Nuclear Waste Project Office, Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance, International Association of Fire Fighters, Texas Department 
of Public Safety, Lander County Commission, Yakima Indian Nation, 
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Association of American Railroads, 
Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, Oregon Department 
of Energy, State of Kansas, Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information 
Office, New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, 
National Conference of State Legislatures, County of Inyo Planning 
Department, Nuclear Waste Repository Oversight Program, National 
Congress of American Indians, Conference of Radiation Control Program 
Directors, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Lincoln County Nuclear 
Waste Project, Nuclear Energy Institute, Vermont Department of Public 
Service, Commonwealth Edison Company, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, 
Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, Public Utilities 
Commission of Ohio, Northern States Power Company, Ohio Emergency 
Management Agency, Virginia Power, State of Nebraska Civil Defense 
Agency and the State of Colorado. The commenters held very diverse 
opinions; no single theme for implementing Section 180(c) was apparent.
    The following section discusses general categories and summarizes

[[Page 24775]]

major points of the comments and the Department's response.

Major Issues

A. Section 180(c) Policy
    The commenters raised many topics related to defining a Section 
180(c) policy. Although the Department recognizes that these topics are 
closely related and overlap each other, this section divides those 
topics into the following subsections: general themes for a Section 
180(c) program, safe routine transportation, emergency response 
procedures, eligibility criteria, funding allocation formula, allowable 
use of funds, technical assistance and equipment, and concerns of rural 
and tribal governments.

General Themes

    A number of commenters offered ideas about the philosophy and 
general structure of the 180(c) program. These ranged from developing a 
needs-based type of program to one that offers assistance for an 
additional incremental level of training in existing hazardous 
materials transportation training to cover NWPA shipments. An example 
of comments related to a needs-based program is the Colorado Emergency 
Planning Commission recommendation to conduct a risk assessment that 
balances the likelihood of an accident, the response capability of the 
jurisdiction to react, and the likely affected population, then, from 
that assessment, identify the preparedness, response, and recovery 
needs of each jurisdiction. Similarly, the Western Governors' 
Association (WGA), through the Western Interstate Energy Board, 
submitted straw man regulations for a program that assesses the current 
capabilities of jurisdictions, assesses the needed level of readiness 
for NWPA shipments, and then provides Section 180(c) assistance to make 
up the difference. WGA suggested that planning grants could be used to 
fund jurisdictions to complete the capabilities assessment while 
implementation grants could be used to carry out the identified 
activities. They recommended the Department fund one national and 
several regional training advisory committees to help states and tribes 
coordinate their training activities. Most of the comments supporting a 
needs-based program either implied or stated the belief that Section 
180(c) assistance should cover all costs associated with the Federal 
government's transportation of spent nuclear fuel.
    In contrast, other comments urged the Department to only provide 
training and assistance as an increment above what currently exists. 
These comments urged the Department to take into account the low level 
of risk presented by spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste shipments and proportion the assistance and training among 
recipients accordingly. These commenters maintained that current 
hazardous materials transportation training for safe routine and 
emergency response procedures is sufficient to handle any 
transportation radiological accident that may occur. Creating a Section 
180(c) program that goes beyond current hazardous materials 
transportation training would send a message that the NWPA shipments 
are more hazardous than they really are. Still other commenters stated 
that nuclear utilities will, in effect, pay twice for emergency 
response and safe routine practices through contributions to the 
Nuclear Waste Fund, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform 
Safety Act fees for transporters of hazardous material, and through 
various state and local fee assessments and programs.
    Other recurring comments urged the Department to either not ship or 
to limit the number of shipments until a Section 180(c) program is in 
place. This comment was frequently presented in conjunction with the 
belief that the Department has an obligation to accept waste in 1998, 
and if Congress identifies a storage facility, shipping may well begin 
in 1998 or shortly thereafter. In addition, these commenters urged the 
Department to accelerate Section 180(c) implementation and to ask for a 
Section 180(c) budget allocation in the 1996 budget request to 
Congress.
    Several commenters encouraged the Department to begin as soon as 
possible the process of route selection, in cooperation with the 
states, to give jurisdictions sufficient time to assess their training 
needs. They argued that jurisdictions need to know what routes will be 
used so that they may begin planning immediately for shipments and be 
prepared if shipping occurs within the next few years.

Response

    It is the Department's position that the purpose of a Section 
180(c) program is to provide jurisdictions assistance in an increment 
above their current level of preparedness rather than to supply 
complete emergency response or safe routine transportation capabilities 
along NWPA transportation routes. Other Federal agencies such as FEMA 
and the Department of Transportation, as part of their respective 
missions, assist states and tribes in the creation of more 
comprehensive emergency response and safe routine transportation 
capabilities. Therefore, this proposal is designed to provide 
incremental assistance, above what currently exists, to help 
jurisdictions prepare for NWPA shipments. This program, in combination 
with the Department's emergency response capabilities, will help 
jurisdictions train for these shipments and increase their preparedness 
level.
    While the Department has not adopted the Western Governor's 
Association straw man regulations specifically, the Department's 
proposal would allow states and tribes the flexibility to implement 
many provisions of the straw man regulations as they choose. The 
Department's proposed technical assistance would help provide the 
planning and coordination called for in the straw man regulations at a 
reasonable cost to the program. In addition, the proposed training 
advisory groups could drain financial assistance away from recipient 
jurisdictions. Training up to two years prior to shipments will provide 
inspectors and emergency responders with current information about the 
NWPA shipments.
    Regarding the concern that shipments will occur with less than 
three years' preparation, this proposed policy includes a contingency 
plan should the Department have to ship spent fuel through a 
jurisdiction with less than three years notice. In addition, the 
Department will work with jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis to meet 
the intent of Section 180(c) prior to any shipments through a 
jurisdiction.
    Regarding the comments that the Department should request Section 
180(c) funding in fiscal year 1996 and announce routes as soon as 
possible, funding requests for Section 180(c) and a determination of 
routes cannot be completed until a destination and initial shipping 
date have been identified.

Safe Routine Transportation

    Commenters offered several suggestions concerning the definition of 
safe routine transportation as used in 180(c). Four commenters 
specifically supported the Transportation External Coordination Working 
Group definition while other commenters wrote more expansive 
definitions to include combinations of alternate route analysis, 
inspection and enforcement training, en route contingency plans, 
transportation infrastructure improvements, shipment notification and 
tracking, escorts, public information, and development and distribution 
of training curricula and course materials. The Western Governor's 
Association straw man

[[Page 24776]]

regulations would add record-keeping audits, operating protocols, and 
improving confidence in the shipping package to the definition.
    A number of viewpoints were expressed on inspections as part of 
safe routine transportation activities. For example, the Public Utility 
Commission of Ohio stated that safe routine transportation includes 
more than inspections and should include detailed carrier and shipper 
compliance reviews pursuant to 49 CFR 100-177 requirements. The 
Department was also encouraged to develop inspection standards for rail 
transport serving the same purpose as the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance's enhanced inspection standards for truck shipments.
    Regarding the relative emphasis and scope of safe routine 
transportation activities, the Council of State Governments--Midwestern 
Office and the Public Utility Commission of Ohio recommended placing 
equal emphasis on safe routine transportation activities as on 
emergency response activities. In contrast, the Ohio Emergency 
Management Agency recommended placing more emphasis on emergency 
response activities. One commenter said Section 180(c) assistance 
should fully fund state costs for state inspections and escorts related 
to NWPA shipments.
    The need for and training of escorts was also a topic. The 
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors questioned the need 
for escorts as an expensive option considering the actual level of risk 
compared to other hazardous material shipments. Two commenters called 
for the Department to examine the possibility of either state or 
Federal response teams traveling with the shipments to reduce the need 
for local first-responder training.
    A global positioning system for shipment tracking was encouraged as 
a way to build trust in the safety of the shipments and work more 
closely with the corridor jurisdictions.

Response

    The definition of safe routine transportation proposed in this 
notice combines part of the TEC definition and the Strategy document 
definition. The complete TEC definition was not used because it is very 
broad and does not indicate specifically what training for safe routine 
transportation activities would be covered by Section 180(c) 
assistance. Many activities suggested in the comments are already 
required of the shipper or carrier such as developing operating 
protocols and using escorts. This negates the need to include the 
activities in the definition of safe routine transportation for the 
purposes of providing Section 180(c) assistance. Some other requested 
activities, such as alternate route analysis and record-keeping audits, 
are outside the realm of training for safe transport of NWPA shipments, 
and therefore not included in the definition.
    Regarding the comments that the Department should develop rail 
inspection standards, the Department representatives will work 
cooperatively with the railroad companies and the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) on inspection and enforcement matters. Both the 
rail companies and the FRA have stringent standards for the 
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. The 
Department has no plans to develop rail inspection criteria.
    The proposed policy permits enough flexibility that a recipient 
jurisdiction may distribute the money between training for emergency 
response procedures and safe routine transportation procedures as they 
choose. Again, this proposal is intended to assist jurisdictions to 
incrementally increase their level of preparedness for NWPA shipments. 
However, the Department maintains the position that to pay for all 
costs associated with state inspections and escorts is beyond the scope 
of the Section 180(c) program and is not necessary for shipment safety.
    These shipments will be made in accordance with NRC safeguards and 
security requirements. The issue of whether escorts must be used is 
partially answered by NRC regulations, which require escorts (10 CFR 
73.37).

Emergency Response Procedures

    The comments on providing assistance for emergency response 
training procedures were particularly varied. In keeping with the 
needs-based approach to assistance, a number of commenters recommended 
funding planning activities to determine the type and amount of 
training. These suggestions include Departmental delineation of the 
roles and responsibilities of each jurisdiction in an emergency 
response situation and assistance to each jurisdiction in carrying out 
that role; funding to jurisdictions to conduct route and risk 
assessments prior to deciding whom to train and to what standards; or 
using the State Emergency Response Commissions and the Local Emergency 
Planning Committees as points of contact to decide who should receive 
assistance and to determine the needed level of training.
    Various training standards for different levels of responders were 
also suggested. These included awareness training for local first-
responders and higher-level training for more specialized responders, 
refresher training for first-responders, maintenance of on-call systems 
for radiological responders, and periodic exercises for personnel 
responding to accidents. The Western Governor's Association straw man 
regulations recommended the above activities plus accident 
notification, safe parking procedures, equipping personnel responding 
to NWPA accidents, development and/or revision of courses and course 
materials, and assessing opportunities to coordinate training, 
emergency response, and exercises. One commenter praised the emergency 
response training at the Department's Nevada Test Site and asked that 
it be used for Section 180(c) funded training.
    A frequent comment supported integration of emergency response 
training for local public safety officials into existing hazardous 
materials training because the response requirements for radiological 
incidents fall within the requirements for other hazardous materials 
shipments.
    The Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office asserted that 
current capabilities at the state, tribal and local level are 
inadequate in most jurisdictions to handle the number and frequency of 
planned OCRWM shipments. In contrast, two other commenters recommended 
only incremental assistance to first-responders because current 
Departmental resources can support any incident that may occur during 
transport.
    Comments on training for hospital personnel ranged from the need to 
provide awareness training to specialized decontamination equipment and 
training. Two commenters argued that training for hospital personnel 
was not necessary at all. The Council of State Governments/Eastern 
Regional Conference said assistance was not necessary for hospitals 
because the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care 
Organizations requires hospitals to be able to treat patients exposed 
to radioactive contamination before receiving their accreditation.

Response

    This proposed policy is flexible enough that a recipient 
jurisdiction could conduct many of the suggested activities. The 
Department recognizes the need for clear lines of responsibility and 
communication during a transportation emergency and anticipates working 
with recipient jurisdictions on these matters through

[[Page 24777]]

the provision of technical assistance and, as budget allows, by 
conducting exercises and drills. While exercises and drills, will be 
conducted separately from the Section 180(c) program, the assistance 
may be used to support participation in, or observation of, exercises 
and drills if the recipient jurisdiction desires. Similarly, reliance 
on the State Emergency and Response Commissions and Local Emergency 
Planning Committees infrastructure will be left to the applicant 
jurisdiction's discretion. This proposal does not allow Section 180(c) 
assistance to be used to conduct route and risk assessments because 
these activities are outside the scope of training for emergency 
response and safe routine transportation activities.
    Regarding the specific activities allowed under this proposal, each 
jurisdiction will be allowed to choose the training they wish and to 
train the public safety personnel of their choosing. The funding 
provided is intended to defray the costs of attending advanced courses 
such as those offered by the Department. In many cases, the applicants 
will have their own less expensive training programs (FEMA and the 
Department do not charge tuition, although this proposal uses the cost 
of tuition as a basis of the estimate for the cost of each trainee) and 
may use the remaining assistance for other activities related to 
training for safe routine and emergency response transportation 
procedures.
    The Department will provide awareness training materials for local 
responders and public information material to the recipient 
jurisdictions. For more advanced training courses, it is expected the 
recipient jurisdictions will either use their own training courses, if 
available, or attend existing hazardous materials or radiological 
emergency response classes. Equipment will not be provided for 
directly, but up to ten percent of a recipient's funds may be used to 
purchase equipment of the recipient's choosing. Again, the basis of 
estimate in the proposal does not explicitly provide for training 
hospital personnel, but recipient jurisdictions may use their funds for 
this purpose if they choose. The Department's awareness materials will 
include information about Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Radiological 
Emergency Assistance Center and Training Site and its 24-hour on-call 
assistance.
    Regarding the preparedness level of state and tribal jurisdictions, 
the Department understands that there are greatly varying levels of 
preparedness. The financial and technical assistance provided through 
this proposed program, in combination with the Department's resources, 
will assist recipient jurisdictions to incrementally increase their 
level of preparedness for NWPA shipments. The Department will work with 
a jurisdiction to provide information about the shipments, the safety 
precautions taken, and the Department's resources to assist the 
jurisdiction in case of an accident or incident.

Eligibility Criteria

    Comments on eligibility criteria focused on which jurisdictional 
level should be eligible to apply for funds. Some argued that if local 
governments were eligible to receive funds directly, then this would 
reduce administrative costs and give local governments more control 
over the assistance. Several counties simply requested that they be 
guaranteed an amount of budget and given some discretion in using the 
assistance. Other commenters said only state and tribal agencies are 
eligible to apply for assistance. Some commenters made suggestions 
regarding how the timing of NWPA shipments through a jurisdiction 
impacts eligibility. The WGA straw man regulations defined an eligible 
state or tribe as ``a host(s) and corridor states or Indian tribes 
through which shipments under the NWPA are planned within six years.'' 
Others said training should begin from one to three years prior to 
shipment.
    One commenter said that eligibility should not be restricted by 
waste type or destination, but rather should help local governments 
prepare for all types of hazardous materials transportation 
emergencies.
    The point was also raised that tribes and states near, but not on, 
transportation routes should be eligible for assistance, since their 
lands and people would be at risk in case of a transportation accident 
or incident. Another commenter disagreed, saying that only 
jurisdictions traversed by NWPA shipments should be eligible for 
assistance.

Response

    The Department based its proposed requirements for eligibility on 
the wording in the NWPA and the Department's prior discussions with 
stakeholders about beginning assistance three to five years prior to 
commencement of shipping through a jurisdiction. The statute provides 
that state governments determine how best to allocate the assistance to 
local jurisdictions. The Department plans to assist tribal governments 
directly unless requested otherwise by the tribal government. 
Recipients will be required to encourage local government participation 
in planning and training and to provide awareness training materials 
and public information supplied by the Department to local public 
safety officials along the shipment routes.
    The Department does not propose to use the Western Governor's 
Association straw man regulations indicating that eligible 
jurisdictions should receive assistance six years prior to 
transportation. Since states and tribes have primary responsibility to 
plan for hazardous materials transportation through their jurisdictions 
regardless of Federal shipments, and given the high rate of turnover 
among emergency response personnel, the Department believes that 
assistance provided so far in advance of shipments would not be 
effective.
    In response to the request to provide assistance regardless of 
destination or type of waste, Section 180(c) provides that assistance 
is only available for those jurisdictions through whom the Secretary 
[of Energy] plans to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear 
waste to a repository or MRS under the NWPA. Assistance will not be 
provided to jurisdictions that do not have NWPA shipments through their 
borders, nor will assistance be provided for other types of wastes.

Funding Allocation Formula

    Once eligibility criteria are determined, the total assistance 
available will have to be allocated among the eligible parties. 
Commenters were explicit in their views of how funds should be 
allocated. A frequent comment was that funds should be allocated 
according to the shipment miles through a jurisdiction. The Western 
Governor's Association defined shipment miles as the product of the 
expected number of shipments multiplied by the distance of such 
shipments. The Western Governor's Association straw man regulations 
recommended annual implementation grants of 75% of the funds allocated 
according to shipment miles and 25% allocated to ensure minimum funding 
levels and program capabilities. The Nuclear Energy Institute countered 
that the number of shipment miles through a jurisdiction does not 
automatically result in greater impact to a jurisdiction and therefore 
should not qualify them for additional assistance.
    Other commenters suggested funding be allocated to each eligible 
jurisdiction based on a formula that includes both the number of route 
miles in the jurisdiction and the population at risk along the shipment 
route(s), with

[[Page 24778]]

consideration given to existing capabilities, and to the number of 
shipments. Population was frequently mentioned as a valid determinant 
of funding allocations. Several commenters stated that there should be 
a base level of funding for each jurisdiction.
    The Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office and 
Commonwealth Edison Company recommended that the Department consult 
with recipients to determine their funding level based on the impact of 
the shipments to that jurisdiction. The Council of State Governments/
Eastern Regional Conference said the funds for first-responders should 
be proportional to the number of responders along a route and the 
funding available for inspectors should be a function of the number of 
shipments.
    The Texas Department of Public Safety recommended using the 
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Training and Planning Grants 
approach to allocating funds.

Response

    The Department agrees with many commenters that a base level of 
assistance should be available to all jurisdictions to be crossed by 
NWPA shipments. Number of shipments was not used as a determinant of 
funding level because training of safety officials is required no 
matter how many shipments cross their jurisdiction. A jurisdiction may 
need additional inspectors as the number of shipments increases. 
Population was not used to determine funding levels because the same 
level of effort is required in responding to an emergency no matter how 
many people may be affected.
    The Department does not foresee working with each eligible 
jurisdiction to determine assistance levels because the number of 
eligible jurisdictions in a given year would make such an interactive 
process prohibitively costly, lengthy and administratively burdensome. 
It would require significant resources from both the Department and the 
applicant with little or no increased level of safety. Jurisdictions 
will be able to obtain guidance from Department representatives to 
determine how best to allocate the funds and what type of training to 
obtain.
    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act model for fund 
allocation has merit but the Department believes the allocation method 
proposed in this Notice is more appropriate to a Section 180(c) 
program. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act program has 
virtually the same number of eligible jurisdictions from year to year 
whereas the Section 180(c) program may have large annual variations in 
the number of eligible jurisdictions. The funding allocation method 
proposed in the appendix of this Notice would allow the Department to 
prepare its draft annual budget request based on anticipated needs for 
each year of shipment. Finally, both the Department and some commenters 
maintain that the reimbursement aspect of the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act is not appropriate for a Section 180(c) program.

Allowable Use of Funds

    Elements of this discussion overlap with the discussion of program 
scope and the definitions of key terms. Several state agencies and 
organizations said that states and tribes should prioritize their own 
training needs. They argued that the Department must balance 
accountability with an applicant's need for latitude in deciding how to 
spend funds because of the varying levels of preparedness, divisions of 
responsibility, and other differences. Commenters suggested the 
Department could help recipient jurisdictions by supplying information 
and expertise to help beneficiaries determine how best to use the 
funds.
    Many commenters, however, said that the final allocation of funding 
should guarantee a specific portion of the funding for local 
governments to use as they see best. Other suggestions were to give 
local governments explicit standing on any planning, training or 
advisory groups formed as a result of Section 180(c), to reserve a 
certain percentage of the funds for distribution to local governments, 
and to require recipients to notify local governments of the program 
and to encourage their participation. One commenter objected to 
exclusively funding training for local governments and excluding 
training for state personnel and recommended the Department check the 
intent of Congress in this regard.
    Other commenters argued that the Hazardous Materials Transportation 
Act grant program provides a good model for allowable activities. These 
regulations require recipient jurisdictions to describe existing 
programs and explain how the requested funds supply necessary 
improvements to the existing capabilities. They also provide for 
monitoring of the program's effectiveness. The Department's Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) assistance program was also mentioned as a 
successful model to help determine allowable activities.
    Two states said that Section 180(c) assistance should pay for 
infrastructure improvements along routes. Another frequently mentioned 
point was that the Section 180(c) program should not require any 
matching funds from the jurisdiction in order to receive assistance. 
The Western Governor's Association straw man regulations provide that 
the funds be distributed for training along specific shipment routes, 
unlike FEMA programs that work to enhance overall preparedness. Several 
comments recommended that exercises and drills be funded by Section 
180(c) assistance, either to test the adequacy of the training or to 
determine the training needed.

Response

    The Department's proposal would allow states and tribes to 
determine their own training needs as long as it is in accordance with 
their current public safety infrastructure. The Department took this 
approach because it allows maximum flexibility for applicants to tailor 
the assistance to their priorities. Because of the need for 
flexibility, the proposal does not require applicants to provide a 
guaranteed percentage of funds to local public safety officials. The 
Department's existing grants process under 10 CFR Part 600 would 
provide for accountability with 10 CFR Part 600 without being too 
cumbersome for the Department or the applicants and would allow 
Department representatives to provide advice and answer questions. We 
do not intend to request matching funds because most commenters and the 
Department found no basis for such a requirement and there is no legal 
requirement for matching funds.
    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and WIPP examples for 
allowable use of funds both have merit. If a jurisdiction wishes to 
follow the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act or WIPP example in 
prioritizing use of their grant monies, that would be described in the 
grant application. Similarly, recipients may decide to provide funds 
only along a route or throughout their jurisdiction as they choose. 
Recipients would not be prevented from using the assistance to 
participate in, or observe, exercises and drills but they are not 
included in the Department's proposed basis for estimating funding 
levels.
    Section 180(c) authorizes assistance only for training. Therefore, 
the Department does not intend to allow the use of 180(c) funds for 
infrastructure improvements.

[[Page 24779]]

Technical Assistance and Equipment

    Almost every comment that addressed the issue of technical 
assistance identified the need for equipment. Some commenters suggested 
that the Department use the Transportation External Coordination 
Working Group definition of technical assistance. Another suggested 
using the Department's 1992 Draft Options Paper definition. The Council 
of State Governments--Midwestern Office offered the following 
definition, ``The term `technical assistance' as it is used in Section 
180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act means a variety of activities 
designed to ensure that state, tribal and local governments are trained 
for safe routine transportation practices as well as responding to 
transportation emergencies within their jurisdictions, including but 
not limited to planning guidance, training support, practical support, 
funding of pre-identified equipment, and expertise.'' They also believe 
the Department should supply funding for equipment, its maintenance and 
calibration, and that states should have funding to purchase computer 
software and hardware to assist with monitoring and response 
activities.
    New Mexico specifically stated it preferred the TEC definition's 
greater specificity and clarity over the definition offered by the 
Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office. ``However, [it] 
recommend[ed] two revisions to the definition: (1) The first sentence 
should read `* * * to ensure that States and tribal governments are 
trained for safe routine transportation practices as well as capable of 
responding safely and effectively to spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
waste transportation emergencies with their jurisdictions.' (2) The 
second sentence should read `* * * and for public information, 
outreach, and participation efforts.' ''
    Other suggestions were broader in their application, encompassing 
such things as emergency response equipment, inspection equipment, 
assistance in route planning, emergency response plan development, 
course development and exercises, tracking capability, equipment and 
training for hospital personnel, 24-hour access to Federal radiological 
safety personnel, carrier qualifications, and funding, among others.
    The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors questioned 
the need for equipment, especially for local responders. They argued 
that the low risk of these shipments does not justify a response 
capability beyond what currently exists. FEMA, on the other hand, 
offered its assistance to the Department in providing technical 
assistance and equipment to responders through its role as provider of 
emergency and disaster preparedness for state, tribal, and local 
governments.

Response

    The definition of technical assistance proposed in this Notice 
combines parts of the Strategy definition and the Transportation 
External Coordination Working Group definition. The bulk of the 
Transportation External Coordination Working Group definition was not 
included because many of the activities listed, such as assistance in 
route planning, maintaining equipment, providing on-site emergency 
response assistance, and remediation assistance are outside the scope 
of training and therefore not covered by Section 180(c). The Department 
has resources already available, upon request of the state or tribe, to 
provide monitoring and recovery advice if there has been an accident or 
incident. In addition, the shipper and carrier can provide shipment-
specific assistance.
    The definition in this proposal allows for Department 
representatives to provide technical support on training needs and 
response strategies as budget constraints allow. As explained in the 
proposal, conduct of drills and exercises are not included under the 
definition of technical assistance although it is anticipated that the 
NWPA transportation staff, or DOE representatives, may, as budget 
allows, conduct exercises and drills with state, local, and tribal 
jurisdictions along the transportation routes.

Concerns of Rural and Tribal Governments

    Few additional comments that dealt specifically with the concerns 
of rural and tribal governments were received in response to the July 
18, Notice of Inquiry. Both New Mexico and the Council of State 
Governments--Midwestern Office reiterated the Department's 
responsibility to work with tribes on a government-to-government basis. 
Other comments stressed the Department's Trust responsibility towards 
tribal governments. One comment encouraged the Department to begin 
direct communications with tribal governments near reactor locations to 
address their particular concerns. The Department was also encouraged 
to contact tribal governments who may not know they could have NWPA 
shipments crossing their lands.
    Commenters encouraged the Department to take extra steps to address 
the lack of infrastructure and resources on many of the tribal lands 
that will be crossed by NWPA shipments. Recommendations included 
providing resources to allow tribes to participate in the OCRWM program 
and beginning early to build an emergency response infrastructure for 
those tribes lacking basic infrastructure. One comment urged expansion 
of the cooperative agreement with the National Congress of American 
Indians to help facilitate communication with tribal governments.
    Other commenters suggested how a Section 180(c) program could 
address the concerns specific to rural areas. Rural jurisdictions often 
rely heavily on volunteer public safety personnel with high turnover 
rates, serve large areas with few staff, have few resources for 
training, with little or no ability to travel to obtain training. The 
commenters encouraged the Department to offer training in the 
communities where the local responders reside and to guarantee that 
certain levels of training and equipment would be supplied.

Response

    The Department recognizes that there is a lack of infrastructure 
and trained personnel on many tribal lands and in many rural counties 
across the nation. Typically, these areas may rely more heavily on 
technical assistance than other recipient jurisdictions. As stated 
earlier, the Department believes that a jurisdiction's lack of 
emergency response infrastructure does not compromise shipment safety 
when a jurisdiction is aware of the steps taken to ensure safety and 
the Department's readiness to provide on-site assistance. The basic 
awareness training modules will be provided to jurisdictions to 
distribute to responders along each shipping route and will not require 
public safety officials to travel outside their jurisdiction. These 
training modules will inform local public safety officials of what 
steps to take in case of a transportation emergency in their 
jurisdiction and what staff will be traveling with the shipments that 
can be a source of information and assistance.
    The Department has agreed to work directly with tribal governments 
unless requested otherwise by the applicant. As far as working with 
tribes located near reactors sites, the Department will continue to 
work through the mechanism of its cooperative agreement with the 
National Congress of American Indians to reach out to tribes across the 
nation and encourage their participation in the program.

[[Page 24780]]

B. Section 180(c) Procedures
    The comments received from both Notices showed a preference among 
the commenters for an OCRWM grants program. While twelve commenters 
recommended a Department or OCRWM grants program, eight commenters 
supported the next most popular option, the use of existing Federal 
programs. Of these, four recommended using FEMA, two recommended the 
Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 
program, and two recommended other Federal programs. At the same time, 
eight commenters specifically criticized the use of existing Federal 
programs. Three commenters either requested a combination of options or 
expressed moderate support for a combination of options; one commenter 
said this was not viable. Three commenters were opposed to disbursing 
the funds through cooperative agreements, whereas eight commenters said 
cooperative agreements were either a very good idea or gave conditional 
support for the idea. Several commenters identified a preferred option 
but also listed other options as acceptable.
    The most common theme among the comments on procedural options was 
the importance of minimizing the administrative burden on all parties. 
Another common theme was to limit the layers of bureaucracy and 
administration through which funding must pass.
    The following describes more detailed comments provided about each 
option.

Use Established Federal Agency Programs Other Than the Department's

    The Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference, the 
Ohio Emergency Management Agency, the Texas Department of Public 
Safety, Division of Emergency Management and FEMA all commented that 
receiving additional assistance through FEMA's Comprehensive 
Cooperative Agreement program (to be replaced with the Performance 
Partnership Agreements beginning in FY96) would be the least 
administratively burdensome since they already participate in this FEMA 
program. The Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office commented 
that FEMA should be a vehicle for assistance only after the Department 
and the recipient have agreed to use FEMA for that recipient. The 
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act grant program was mentioned by 
the Nuclear Energy Institute and Northern States Power Company as a 
desirable option to reduce multiple Federal programs and the chance 
that utilities would pay twice for emergency response through hazardous 
materials transportation fees and the Nuclear Waste Fund.
    FEMA provided descriptions of their current regulatory authority to 
monitor and assess emergency management plans and preparedness, and a 
proposal for how they could administer the Section 180(c) program. FEMA 
discussed its current training programs and expertise in the emergency 
management field and stressed its all-hazards approach to preparedness 
that includes radioactive materials shipments within the larger scope 
of emergency preparedness.
    The most common concern from the state and county perspective was 
that other Federal programs would add administrative layers and reduce 
the funds available for the recipients. The Western Interstate Energy 
Board, in particular, felt that FEMA was not an appropriate avenue 
because ``FEMA's Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement program has been 
the subject of substantial disagreement with several western states and 
is viewed by experts in our region as ineffective and inappropriate for 
dealing with spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.'' In 
fact, one commenter criticized FEMA for placing emphasis on 
preparations for nuclear attacks rather than transportation incidents. 
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and FRA programs were seen 
as too narrowly focused to work well as a vehicle to implement a 
Section 180(c) program.
    From the tribal perspective, the most common critique of other 
Federal programs was that none of the options discussed in the Notices 
has an effective mechanism in place to work with tribes. Commenters 
advocated exploration of other funding mechanisms that tribes use more 
frequently, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Community Development and Block Grant Program, and suggested 
establishing a separate funding mechanism for tribal governments.
    Other commenters were concerned that using other Federal programs 
would diminish focus on NWPA shipment safety and increase impacts from 
government downsizing. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Association also 
pointed out that it may put expertise and training further away from 
the intended delivery point.

Establish Agreements With State, Local, Tribal, and Other Organizations

    This option prompted a variety of interpretations. Agreements or 
Memoranda of Understanding among recipients, agreements between the 
Department and recipients, or agreements between the Department and 
regional or national coordinating organizations were all discussed. 
Some identified the potential improvements in regional cooperation and 
efficiency as the biggest benefit to establishing agreements with 
regional or national organizations. One commenter suggested cooperative 
agreements would allow negotiations each year between recipients and 
the Department that would permit adjustment among recipients' with 
dissimilar training goals. The Colorado Emergency Planning Commission 
said consideration should be given to working through the WGA or a 
similar organization to promote coordination. The Commission suggested 
that WIPP's cooperative agreement with WGA could be a useful mechanism 
to mimic.
    Expanding the cooperative agreement with the National Congress of 
American Indians was recommended as a possible way to ensure up front 
consultation with tribal recipients. Such expansion of cooperative 
agreements with tribes could balance the differences between tribes and 
other recipients governments.
    Many commenters, however, saw the development of cooperative 
agreements as a lengthy, involved process that could take too long to 
implement effectively. Two commenters specifically noted the WIPP 
cooperative agreements worked well because there was a smaller group of 
participants and it was developed over several years. NWPA requirements 
may not be compatible with this experience. This option was criticized 
for creating an unnecessary administrative layer that would take away 
from total funding to be spent on training.
    Other comments encouraged cooperative agreements with organizations 
that could, in turn, train state, local and tribal public safety 
officials. The Association of American Railroads' Technical Training 
Center in Pueblo, Colorado and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
were both identified as organizations with the capability to train 
recipients for emergency response for rail incidents and for truck 
inspections, respectively.

Establish a Department-Wide Grant Program

    Response to this option was mixed. Some called a Department-wide 
program inappropriate, citing the difficulty of co-mingling Nuclear 
Waste Fund money with other Department transportation activities. 
Commenters expressed concern over coordinating the diverse shipping 
campaigns of the

[[Page 24781]]

Department in a timely manner. Supporting this option, one commenter 
noted that the fewer points-of-contact between the Department and 
stakeholders would be beneficial.

Establish an OCRWM Grant Program

    Many commenters saw this as the best option, listing such benefits 
as minimizing bureaucracy and administration and increasing 
flexibility. Some commented on the benefit of distributing Section 
180(c) assistance without involving other programs as would happen 
through a Department-wide grant program. Others noted that an OCRWM 
grant program would more easily adjust to the diversity and number of 
recipient jurisdictions and thus, Department control and accountability 
would be easier.
    The Western Interstate Energy Board commented on this option 
favorably, provided that such a grant program incorporates flexibility 
to allow states to coordinate the training and funding. The Southern 
States Energy Board and the National Conference of State Legislatures 
both identified this option as favorable if additional national or 
regional coordination efforts were also supported.
    Many county commenters interpreted this option as similar to the 
direct payments made to local governments through Yucca Mountain 
oversight programs. They were generally in favor of options that assist 
local governments as directly as possible.

Use Elements From the Previous Four Groups

    Three commenters agreed that a combination of options would be best 
because it could provide the proper degree of direct contact between 
the Department and recipient governments while encouraging national or 
regional planning, coordination, and uniformity. The Council of State 
Governments--Midwestern Office said the Department should negotiate 
with the recipients to provide assistance through a variety of 
mechanisms ``to accommodate the needs of as many states and tribes as 
possible.'' Commonwealth Edison Company concurred with the Council of 
State Government's opinion. The Southern States Energy Board 
recommended using a combination of direct grants to states and tribes 
with cooperative agreements to regional organizations to provide 
coordination and consultation.

Response

    This proposal recommends distributing funds through an OCRWM grants 
program because the Department believes this is the most flexible, 
least administratively burdensome and least costly method of all the 
procedural options investigated. This mechanism will allow the greatest 
amount of appropriated funds to be distributed directly to the 
recipients rather than diverted to cover administrative costs. 
Distributing the funds through a grant program rather than a 
cooperative agreement program lowers the cost of administration for 
both recipients and the Department, and gives the recipients more 
discretion in use of the funds. Under the proposed policy, recipients 
would have a great deal of flexibility in use of the grants and could 
account for varying levels of preparedness.
    The Department did not choose to implement Section 180(c) through 
another Federal program for many of the same reasons commenters were 
critical of this option. While the FEMA option may have been flexible 
enough to meet the requirements of a Section 180(c) program, the time 
and effort to set up a program at another agency would have increased 
administrative cost, decreased the program's flexibility and reduced 
the funds available for recipients. Since the Department can perform 
the same function, there is no reason to involve another agency. The 
Department of Transportation programs were not similar enough to the 
requirements for a Section 180(c) program and would have required 
significant effort to meld the programs together.
    A Department-wide grants program would require overcoming difficult 
legal and logistical problems. The logistical problems of creating one 
Department-wide emergency response and safe routine transportation 
grants program for all eligible recipients would require extensive 
administrative work. It would also likely create legal and procedural 
paperwork tangles to keep from mingling the appropriations for various 
programs within the Department. As long as the various Department 
offices cooperate on an informal basis, there appears to be little 
benefit to formally combining programs.
    Combining elements of each option was not selected because it would 
create logistic difficulties and would not be very efficient or cost 
effective. For example, if the Department sent some recipients' 
assistance through the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act program, 
some through FEMA, and some directly from the Department, it would 
significantly increase the administrative costs, increase oversight and 
accountability problems and create a very confusing and disjointed 
program for both the Department and the recipients.
C. Applicability of Section 180(c) to Private Shipments
    Many states, counties, and regional groups urged that the Section 
180(c) program should apply to all commercial 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 cited that 
any large-scale shipping campaign of such materials will have virtually 
the same impact on states and tribes as that envisioned in the NWPA.

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 MRS constructed under the NWPA. However, the many 
comments on this issue have been noted.
D. Policy Development Process
    A few commenters questioned the Department's plans to issue a 
Notice of Policy and Procedures rather than establish the program in 
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 ``less robust.'' An expedited rulemaking process was 
suggested to accommodate time constraints.

Response

    The Department is developing the Policy and Procedures after 
receipt and consideration of extensive public comments. At some future 
date, the Department may decide to promulgate regulations. At this 
time, however, it is the Department's intent to remain flexible in 
order to work through unforeseen problems without committing to binding 
regulations.

V. Conclusion and Request for Submission

    This paper has presented the Department's proposal for a policy and 
procedures for the Section 180(c) program. It has also presented the 
Department's summarization of and response to comments received on 
prior Notices of Inquiry about Section 180(c) policy and procedures. 
Comments on this proposal will be included in the Notice of Final 
Policy and Procedures,

[[Page 24782]]

which the Department intends to publish in 1997. The purpose of this 
document has been to share with stakeholders the progress to date on 
developing Section 180(c) policy and procedures and to request 
additional comments from interested parties. The final policy and 
procedures may reflect changes as a result of comments, new 
Congressional direction, and any policy changes caused by the new 
Congressional direction.
    The Department solicits comments from the public on this proposal 
to issue Section 180(c) policy and procedures.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 10, 1996.
Daniel A. Dreyfus,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Appendix--Basis for Cost of Program

    To determine the cost of the program and a feasible approach to 
allocate funding among eligible participants, the Department intends 
to estimate reasonable activities that could be achieved each year 
to use, not as prescribed activities for the applicants, but to 
determine the dollar amount of the grant each recipient should 
receive. Since the Department has found no industry or regulatory 
standards on what constitutes a sufficient emergency response to a 
spent fuel transportation accident, it expects to rely on training 
standards and regulations (discussed below) to reach conclusions 
about what type of training would be reasonable. To reach 
conclusions with regard to which and how many people should be 
trained and to what levels, the Department intends to look at 
industry regulations, the Department's own capabilities to support 
state and tribal governments, and the comments provided by 
stakeholders. Based on the information from these sources, the 
Department intends to determine the activities on which it would 
base its grant allocations and then estimate the costs for these 
activities.
    The training standards the Department intends to use for 
emergency response are consistent with the level of training 
recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Safety 
Series No. 87, 1988), the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.120) and the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) (NFPA 471 and 472). The training 
standards we intend to use for safe routine transportation are 
consistent with current practices and the regulatory limitations 
placed on states and tribes for safe routine transportation 
activities. Recognizing that not everyone will agree with this 
application of the standards to the training goals, there would be 
few limitations on how the recipient actually spends its budget, as 
long as they are used for training related to safe routine 
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste and emergency response procedures.
    The training goals for both safe routine transportation and 
emergency response procedures that the Department intends to use as 
a basis for determining a grant allocation are as follows:

Emergency Response

    <bullet> First-on-scene and first responder personnel: Self-
directed awareness training material would be supplied by the 
Department. The Department-provided awareness material would include 
information for medical personnel. Up to two people from each state 
or tribe would be funded to attend train-the-trainer classes of the 
jurisdiction's choice to teach the classroom awareness training to 
first-responders. Section 180(c) funding would partially offset the 
cost of in-state training.
    <bullet> State/tribal hazardous materials or radiological 
response: Up to three people would receive funding to attend more 
specialized training, selected by the jurisdiction. Additional 
personnel may be trained, depending on route miles.
    <bullet> Transportation Public Information: Another one person 
from each state or tribe would be funded to attend public 
information training (such as that offered at the Nevada Test Site 
[NTS]).

Safe Routine Transportation

    <bullet> State/tribal inspectors for highway and rail: In 
addition to the funding for emergency response activities, up to 
three inspectors from each state or tribe may be funded to attend 
training of their choice in either rail or highway inspection 
procedures. Jurisdictions without an inspection program may use the 
funds to coordinate observation of another jurisdiction's 
inspection. Rail inspections may be limited because of legal 
restrictions on inspecting rail shipments for both states and 
tribes. Funding may be used to coordinate observation of other 
agencies' inspection of the shipments, including the Department of 
Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA), the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC), the Department of Energy's or 
the state of origin's inspections of both highway and rail shipments 
and to coordinate with rail and trucking companies on safety and 
inspection issues.
    Along with the training activities described above, the 
Department intends to provide funding to cover some planning and 
coordination costs, as estimated below.
    If an eligible jurisdiction takes the training activities 
described above and the method of estimating the costs for these 
activities (the Department did not actually attach dollar figures to 
these activities in this proposal), it could estimate how much 
assistance it would be eligible for each year. However, the 
Department is proposing some time restrictions on the funding. These 
would be as follows:
    Within the first year of eligibility to receive funding 
(Transportation Year [defined as the year that shipments will 
commence] minus 3 or TY-3): A base grant would be available to help 
offset planning and coordination costs.
    Within the second year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 
2 or TY-2): A base grant would be available to help offset estimated 
travel and tuition costs to send personnel to train-the trainer 
training, emergency response training, and planning and coordination 
activities. A variable amount of budget would be available, for 
those jurisdictions that qualify, to train additional emergency 
response personnel. Proposed routes would be announced during the 
second year of eligibility.
    Within the third year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 
1or TY-1): The base grant would be available to offset estimated 
travel and tuition costs to train transportation public information 
staff, inspectors, three trips for the awareness trainers to train 
local responders, and planning and coordination activities. A 
variable amount of money, if a jurisdiction qualifies, would be 
available to help offset estimated travel and tuition costs to train 
additional emergency response personnel, if necessary. The 
Department would send out self-taught awareness packages to states 
and tribes to distribute to first-on-scene and first responder 
personnel.
    Within the Transportation Year (TY): Two-thirds of the budget 
provided in TY-1 would help offset refresher and new personnel 
training. The two-thirds multiplier is derived from a conservative 
estimate that after the initial training in TY-1 and TY-2, each 
jurisdiction would experience a personnel turnover rate of 
approximately two-thirds of their staff each year.
    The information below describes the assumptions that the 
Department intends to use to form cost estimates for the 
Department's annual allocations to recipients.

The Base Amount

    Planning and Coordination Costs--The Department intends to make 
these estimates by taking the estimated salary of a health physicist 
employed full-time by a state government and providing a percentage 
of that salary. The salary estimate can be made either by using a 
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors' salary quote or 
by sampling health physicist salaries in various states and taking 
the average of the sample. One planning and coordination trip would 
also be estimated in this cost (see travel costs for the cost 
estimate of this trip).
    Travel Costs--Planning and coordination trips would be estimated 
to last three days. Travel for hazardous materials responder, 
inspector, train-the-trainer, and public communications training 
would be estimated to last five days. In-state awareness training 
would be estimated to last five days and include planning and 
coordination costs. Air travel cost would be estimated by 
calculating the average airfare from several locations around the 
country to the NTS and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
training centers. Per diem costs would be estimated by using the 
Federal government's per diem costs for the NTS and FEMA training 
locations.
    Tuition Costs--Tuition costs would be estimated by taking the 
estimated cost to the DOE of an NTS Radiological Emergency 
Operations course and dividing it by 25 students per class. This 
tuition cost would be applied to each trainee in a hazardous 
materials emergency response, inspector and train-the-trainer class.

[[Page 24783]]

    The base amount of money would be determined from these cost 
estimates of the training activities described above.

The Variable Amount

    To determine the variable amount of money, each eligible 
jurisdiction would receive funds to train three additional hazardous 
materials personnel for every 160 miles along a route. If routes 
through a jurisdiction intersect, or are less than 80 miles apart, 
the route miles could not be double-counted if they fall within an 
80 mile radius of another route.
    The Department intends to provide a variable amount of funding 
based on route miles because it believes that it is the best measure 
to capture any variation in impact on a jurisdiction's ability to 
prepare for NWPA shipments. The 160 mile estimate was used because 
other emergency response organizations have used a two-hour response 
time as the limit to how frequently hazardous materials response 
teams should be placed. From the two-hour measure, one can 
conservatively say it would take an emergency response vehicle an 
hour to travel 80 miles in either direction.

[FR Doc. 96-12283 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P