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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Safe Routine

Transportation and Emergency Response Training; Technical Assistance

and Funding

AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of revised proposed policy and procedures.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) publishes a

revised proposed policy statement setting forth its revised plans for

implementing a program of technical and financial assistance to states

for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local

government and to Indian tribes through whose jurisdictions the

Department plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level

radioactive waste to a facility authorized under the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act, as amended (Section 180(c) program). The training would

cover both safe routine transportation and emergency response

procedures. The purpose of this notice is to communicate to

stakeholders evolving positions of the Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management (OCRWM) within the Department regarding Section 180(c)

policy issues and to respond to stakeholder comments on the previous

notice. Written comments may be submitted to OCRWM on this document.

DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Department and must be

received on or before August 1, 1998. The length of this comment period

is to facilitate the submission of comments after the semiannual

Transportation External Coordination Working Group Meeting is held on

July 14-15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: Ms. Corinne

Macaluso, U.S. Department of Energy, c/o Lois Smith, TRW Environmental

Safety Systems, Inc., 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 695, Washington,

D.C. 20024, Attn: Section 180(c) Comments.

Persons submitting comments should include their names and

addresses. Receipt of comments in response to this notice will be

acknowledged if a stamped, self-addressed postal card or envelope is

enclosed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information on the transportation

of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, please contact: Ms. Corinne Macaluso, Waste

Acceptance and Transportation Division, Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management, (RW-44), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-2837.

Information packets are available for interested persons who want

background information about the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management transportation planning and the Section 180(c) program. To

receive an information packet, please call 1-800-225-NWPA (or call 202-

488-6720 in Washington, D.C.) or write to the OCRWM National

Information Center, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 695, Washington,

D.C. 20024. Information packets also can be requested through the OCRWM

Home Page at http://www.rw.doe.gov.

Copies of comments received will be available for examination and

may be photocopied at the Department's Public Reading Room at 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 1E-190 or at the Nevada Operations

Office Public Reading Facility at Building B3, 2621 Losee Road, North

Las Vegas, Nevada or at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office

Technical Information Center, 1180 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV

89134. They will be available through OCRWM's Home Page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (42 U.S.C.

10101 et seq.) (NWPA or ``the Act''), the Department of Energy is

responsible for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent

nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. Additionally, the

Department is responsible for transportation of spent nuclear fuel and

high-level radioactive waste to a NWPA-authorized Federal storage or

disposal facility. The Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management is responsible to the Secretary of Energy to carry out

these responsibilities. The Department is required to implement Section

180(c) of the Act. Section 180(c) of the Act requires the Department to

provide technical assistance and funds to States for training public

safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Indian

tribes through whose jurisdictions the Secretary plans to transport

spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to NWPA-authorized

Federal storage and disposal facilities. Section 180(c) further

provides that training cover procedures required for safe routine

transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing

with emergency response situations. Section 180(c) identifies the

Nuclear Waste Fund under the Act as the source of funds for work

carried out under this subsection (42 U.S.C. 10175).

II. Section 180(c) History

OCRWM issued a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register on January

3, 1995 (60 FR 99), which briefly described various options to

delineate policies and procedures for implementing Section 180(c) of

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Members of the public were invited to

submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. In the March 14, 1995,

Federal Register (60 FR 13715) OCRWM extended the deadline for comments

to May 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). In response to requests for additional

information, OCRWM issued another, more detailed Notice of Inquiry in

the Federal Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). Members of the

public were again invited to submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry.

Next, on May 16, 1996, OCRWM published a Notice of Proposed Policy and

Procedures (61 FR 24772) describing OCRWM's proposed approach to

implementing Section 180(c) of the NWPA and responding to public

comments received on the two prior notices. The public was again

invited to submit comments on the Proposed Policy and Procedures. In

response to these comments, and based on further research conducted by

OCRWM staff, OCRWM decided to publish a Notice of Revised Proposed

Policy and Procedures on July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38272). The public was

again invited to submit comments.

After considering the comments received on the prior notices, input

from stakeholders in various forums, and conducting extensive research,

the Department is publishing another Notice of Revised Proposed Policy

and Procedures. This notice details the policy and procedures by which

the Department currently intends to implement Section 180(c) of the

NWPA. These policy and procedures will remain in draft form until

program progress or legislation provides definitive guidance as to when

shipments will commence. At that time, OCRWM may finalize these policy

and procedures or will consider promulgating regulations on Section

180(c) implementation.

In addition to the draft notice discussed above, OCRWM's work to

date on Section 180(c) policy and implementation procedures has been

discussed extensively in Transportation Coordination Group meetings,

the Transportation External Coordination (TEC) Working Group meetings,

and the cooperative agreement group meetings. The TEC Working Group

comprises

[[Page 23754]]

organizations representing state, tribal, local, professional,

technical, and industry associations that meet semiannually to identify

and discuss issues related to the transport of radioactive materials.

In addition, OCRWM has nine cooperative agreements with national and

regional organizations representing various constituencies to exchange

information and solicit input regarding the planned transportation

activities of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program,

including Section 180(c) issues. The cooperative agreement groups are

the Southern States Energy Board, the Western Interstate Energy Board,

the Council of State Governments Midwestern Office and Eastern Regional

Conference, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the Conference of

Radiation Control Program Directors, the National Conference of State

Legislatures, the National Congress of American Indians, and the

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

OCRWM also has released two documents that discuss Section 180(c)

policy and implementation. These two documents are the Strategy for

OCRWM to Provide Training Assistance to State, Tribal, and Local

Governments (November 1992, DOE/RW-0374P) (the Strategy document), and

the Preliminary Draft Options for Providing Technical Assistance and

Funding Under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, As

Amended (November 1992) (the Options paper). These documents are

available by requesting the information packet from the OCRWM National

Information Center.

III. Policy and Procedures

Note: For definitions of terms used in the notice of final

policy and procedures, see the appendix at the end of this document.

Policy Statement

It is OCRWM's policy that, for NWPA shipments, each responsible

jurisdiction will have the training necessary for safe routine

transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste and to respond

to NWPA transportation incidents or accidents. OCRWM will provide

funding and technical assistance, subject to annual appropriations, to

assist states and tribes to obtain access to the increment of training

necessary to prepare for NWPA shipments. This increment of training

will include procedures for emergency response and safe routine

transportation. The Department will take into consideration the states'

and tribes' determinations of their needs when preparing its budget for

the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. If Congress does not

fully appropriate the funds requested, the funding to eligible

jurisdictions will be decreased proportionately.

Safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

waste will be accomplished through strict compliance with the

Department of Transportation (DOT) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) regulations and applicable state, tribal, and local laws and

regulations. These include safety and enforcement inspections of NWPA

highway shipments, rail measures that complement DOT's Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) inspection procedures, and continuous satellite

tracking of all shipments. DOT regulations include requirements for

highway routing; hazardous materials placarding, marking, and

documentation; and rail inspections. The NRC has established

regulations for radioactive materials shipments for protection of

public health and safety. These regulations include requirements for

package certification, loading, materials control and accountability,

safeguards and security, state notification of shipments, quality

assurance, and tracking. The NRC regulations for radioactive materials

package certification require maintenance of criticality control and

radioactive materials containment under credible accident scenarios.

OCRWM recognizes that tribes are not included in NRC's notification

regulations and has notified NRC that it intends to provide tribal

notification of shipments in addition to the state notifications, and

state and tribal access to satellite tracking information.

For safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-

level waste, it is OCRWM's policy to provide each eligible state and

tribe the funding and technical assistance to prepare for safety and

enforcement inspections of NWPA highway shipments, for rail measures

that complement FRA inspection procedures, and for access to satellite

tracking equipment and training on that equipment in cases where the

capability does not already exist. Access to satellite tracking

equipment and training will be subject to the NRC's verification that

this use of satellite tracking technology does not violate NRC's

safeguards and security regulations.

For dealing with emergency response situations, it is OCRWM's view

that with implementation of the provisions for safe routine

transportation, as stated in the previous paragraph, the risk of an

accident is very low. Further, if an accident were to occur, the risk

of any significant materials release or harmful increase in radiation

levels in excess of NRC regulatory standards is extremely low. If an

accident should occur, with or without a release, state and tribal

governments have primary responsibility to respond and to protect the

public health and safety in their jurisdiction. The Federal Government

and, in particular, the Department have radiological emergency response

resources available to assist when requested. Federal Government

assistance is regionally based and can be mobilized and on scene in a

few hours, although it may take up to forty-eight hours to be fully

functional. The first responder is typically a local police or fire

official. This official must be capable of identifying the shipment as

a radiological materials shipment and notifying the appropriate

radiological emergency response authorities. It is desirable, but not

required, for some of the state and tribal responders to have received

higher levels of hazardous materials training.

Therefore, for training for dealing with emergency response

situations, it is OCRWM's policy to provide funds and technical

assistance to states and tribes to obtain and maintain awareness-level

training for all local response jurisdictions in the increment specific

to NWPA shipments. In addition, to the extent funds are available, the

assistance may be used to obtain an enhanced level of emergency

response capability. This enhanced level may include operations level

training, technician level training, and operations level and

technician level refresher training in an increment specific to NWPA

shipments.

Objectives

It is OCRWM's objective to provide a one-time only planning grant

to every eligible state and tribe to aid in their determination of

needs for technical assistance and funds to train public safety

officials in procedures required for safe routine transportation and

emergency response situations.

It is OCRWM's objective to provide a base grant to every eligible

state and tribe to aid in planning and coordination activities for

training in a timely manner. The base grant will be available every

year of eligibility once the grant application has been approved. Any

amount left after completion of the planning and coordination

activities may be used for other allowable costs under the Section

180(c) program, at the discretion of the applicant.

It is OCRWM's objective to provide a two-part variable amount of

funding and

[[Page 23755]]

technical assistance depending on the amount of assistance each

applicant needs to obtain the incremental training requirements

resulting from the planned NWPA shipments. The first part of the

variable funding and technical assistance may be used only to provide

training for safety and enforcement inspection training for NWPA truck

shipments; rail measures that complement FRA inspection procedures;

awareness level training, awareness level refresher training, and

awareness level train-the-trainer training for emergency responders.

The second part of the variable funding, depending on available

funds, will support an enhanced level of emergency response capability.

As discussed in the Policy Statement section, OCRWM believes that the

combination of the Federal radiological emergency response capability

and a Section 180(c) program that provides inspection and awareness

level training will provide the nation with an adequate basis to

respond to any potential transportation emergency that may result from

NWPA shipments. Nevertheless, to the extent that funds appropriated for

Section 180(c) are sufficient, OCRWM will fund an enhanced level of

training. This enhanced level could include operations and/or

technician level training, and refresher training.

It is OCRWM's objective to provide funding and technical assistance

for training for safety and enforcement inspections specific to NWPA

truck shipments such as those described in the Commercial Vehicle

Safety Alliance's (CVSA) Enhanced North American Standards.

It is OCRWM's objective to provide funding and technical assistance

for states and tribes to obtain an increment of the training needed to

conduct rail inspections under the FRA's State Participation Program.

Since the FRA covers the training cost to state employees in the State

Participation Program, there is no direct role for Section 180(c) to

fund training. Instead, OCRWM will consider applicants' requests to

fund, in the increment necessary for OCRWM shipments, safe rail

transportation measures that complement DOT's FRA inspection

procedures. Since currently there is no mechanism for tribes to

participate in the State Participation Program, OCRWM will work with

tribal governments to identify where funding and technical assistance

may best assist a tribe in addressing procedures for rail safe routine

transportation.

DOE intends to offer a variety of training delivery options such as

a train-the-trainer program, a curriculum to insert into a

jurisdiction's existing awareness level training programs, and a video

that states and tribes may distribute to emergency response officials

along the shipment routes. OCRWM plans to provide funds for the cost of

the trainers' travel within the jurisdiction. Grant applicants may

choose the combination of these resources that best matches their

current training programs. This training should be at least consistent

with Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations at

29 CFR 1910.120(q) or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

hazardous material training standards.

It is OCRWM's objective that any assistance provided supplements

the applicant's existing safe routine and emergency response structure

by providing an additional increment of preparedness.

In addition, OCRWM will adopt, to the extent practicable and

consistent with the NWPA, any future Department-wide policies adopted

to standardize assistance to states and tribes for the Department's

radioactive materials shipments. This could include standardization of

funding mechanisms, training standards, allowable equipment purchases,

and the definitions of technical assistance and safe routine

transportation.

Funding Mechanism

The Department will implement Section 180(c) through an OCRWM

grants program. Funding will be provided every year (subject to

Congressional appropriations) beginning approximately four years prior

to the first shipment through state or tribal reservation boundaries.

The grants will be specific to OCRWM's Section 180(c) program and, at

this time, will not be combined with any other Department-sponsored

transportation preparedness or training programs, although coordination

by jurisdictions would be encouraged. The grants program may be

combined with a Department-wide grants program in the future if one is

developed, is practicable, and is consistent with existing law.

The grants program will be administered in accordance with the DOE

Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR part 600), which implement

applicable Office of Management and Budget circulars.

Basis for Cost Estimate/Funding Allocation

The total program cost and the allocation of funds among eligible

states and tribes will be based on a one-time only planning grant, a

predetermined base amount, and a variable amount determined through the

application process. The planning grant of $150,000 will cover costs

associated with conducting the determination of incremental needs

required to complete the application package. This amount is based on

an estimate of several states' past experience with planning for

shipments to the Department's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad,

New Mexico.

The base grant will cover costs associated with planning for NWPA

shipments, and is based on a salary estimate for planning such

shipments. In 1994, a Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors' (CRCPD) survey found the average salary of a state health

physicist was $35,000. The Department has doubled that figure and

adjusted for inflation since 1994 to reach the $75,500 base grant. The

figure was doubled on the assumption that states and tribes can, if

they so choose, pay the salary of one person each for safe routine

transportation and emergency response planning. The base amount will be

adjusted annually for inflation.

The variable grant amount will be based on two parts of the

application package process. The first part will ask the applicant to

determine the amount of financial assistance needed to obtain the

appropriate increment of awareness level training and to prepare for

safe routine transportation inspections of NWPA shipments. The second

part will ask the applicant to determine the amount of financial

assistance needed to obtain the appropriate increment of operations

and/or technician level training for emergency response for NWPA

shipments. This second part of the application will be used to

determine any enhanced level of training, depending on available funds.

Definition of Key Terms

The definition of safe routine transportation for the purposes of

determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section

180(c) program will be as follows:

Safe routine transportation means the shipment of spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository or a

Monitored Retrievable Storage facility pursuant to the NWPA through

state, tribal, and local jurisdictions in a manner compliant with

applicable Federal, state, tribal, and local laws and regulations. Safe

routine highway transportation is characterized by adequate vehicle,

driver, and package inspection and enforcement of the Federal Motor

[[Page 23756]]

Carrier Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

Safe routine rail and barge transport is characterized by compliance

with rail and barge transportation regulations including Federal

Railroad Administration, Coast Guard regulations, and the Hazardous

Materials regulations.

The definition of technical assistance for the purposes of

determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section

180(c) program will be as follows:

Technical assistance means assistance, other than

financial assistance, that the Secretary of Energy can provide that is

unique to the Department to aid training that will cover procedures for

the safe routine transportation and emergency response situations

during the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste to a repository or Monitored Retrievable Storage facility

pursuant to the NWPA, including, but not limited to, the provision of

training materials, the provision of public information materials, and

access to individuals involved in the shipments.

Technical assistance, as defined, will include access to the

Department's regional and headquarters representatives involved in the

planning and operation of NWPA transportation or emergency

preparedness, provision of information packets that include material

about the OCRWM program and shipments, and provision of information to

insert into curricula. Recognizing the Federal Government's government-

to-government relationship with and Trust responsibility toward tribal

nations, and in response to comments about the lack of hazardous

materials response capability on some tribal lands, the Department will

consider making additional technical assistance available to tribes

upon request.

Eligibility and Timing of the Grants Program

OCRWM will provide grants and technical assistance to those states

and tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary of Energy plans to

transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste pursuant

to the NWPA. States and tribes having cross-deputization or mutual aid

agreements with a jurisdiction that does have shipments, even though no

shipments may occur within the borders of the mutual aid state or

tribe, may receive funding from the jurisdiction that will receive

shipments. Additionally, in cases where a route constitutes the border

between two states, a state and a tribal government, or two tribal

governments, jurisdictions on both sides of the route will be eligible

for Section 180(c) assistance.

OCRWM intends that the application process for grants will begin

approximately four years prior to transportation through the

applicant's jurisdiction (about one year for the application process,

and about three years to implement the program). OCRWM plans to notify

the governor or tribal leader of the jurisdiction by letter, and

include an information packet and application package. The governor or

tribal leader would be requested to select one agency or representative

within the jurisdiction to apply for and administer the Section 180(c)

grant. The administering agency or representative would indicate in the

application how it intends to use the funds. If funding needs to be

provided to other agencies (for example, from the emergency services

agency to the highway patrol to pay for inspector training), the

transfer of funds would be the responsibility of the recipient state or

tribe. DOE plans to require that information be provided in the

application regarding the distribution of funds.

OCRWM plans to identify the preliminary routes that DOE anticipates

using within state and tribal jurisdictions when it notifies governors

and tribal leaders of their eligibility. The Regional Servicing

Contractor (RSC) 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.

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

\1\ RSC is defined in the draft Acquisition of Waste Acceptance

and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management as the contractor responsible for all activities

and services originating in its Servicing Region(s), including the

provision of Transportation Cask Systems and Storage Systems as

required to provide the necessary waste acceptance and

transportation services.

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

In accordance with the Section 180(c), local governments will not

be eligible to apply for Section 180(c) grants directly. However,

states, and tribes, if they have subjurisdictions, would be required to

coordinate their planning with local jurisdictions, indicating in the

application that the needs of local public safety officials have been

considered and how the training assistance will be provided to local

jurisdictions and their appropriate public safety officials. Because of

the emergency response structure in most jurisdictions, OCRWM

anticipates that the awareness level training will be made available to

local public safety officials. OCRWM also anticipates that the

inspection and enforcement training will be provided to state-level and

tribal employees since they generally have inspection and enforcement

authority. The operations and technician level training, to the extent

they are funded, would be provided to the appropriate public safety

officials at the grantee's discretion.

OCRWM expects the application to include a five-year plan detailing

how the funds would be spent each year. Funding will be disbursed

annually based on the applicant's five-year plan. The applicant may

request an amendment to the application if conditions change

significantly within the five-year period.

For the purposes of this policy, the year shipments commence is

defined as ``Transportation Year'' or ``TY.'' During the fourth year

prior to shipments; i.e., in Transportation Year minus 4 or TY-4, the

eligible jurisdiction would be conducting its determination of needs

for the grant application. The $150,000 planning grant would be

available during TY-4 to conduct this work.

In the next year of eligibility to receive funding (TY-3), the base

grant would be available. The next year, two years prior to shipment,

or TY-2, the base grant and a variable amount of financial assistance

would be available.

A state or tribe would continue to be eligible for and receive the

base and variable amount of funding through TY-1 and TY, and in each

year of eligibility thereafter as long as NWPA shipments go through its

jurisdiction. Eligible states and tribes would need to reapply for the

grant program every five years.

If there is a lapse of NWPA shipments for three or more years, the

state or tribe would receive no funds during those years and would

regain eligibility three years prior to another NWPA shipment through

its jurisdiction. Three years prior to the resumption of shipments

through its borders, a state or tribe may again apply for TY-3 grants.

If the lapse is two years or less between shipments, the Transportation

Year grants would continue as if shipments had been traversing that

jurisdiction during the lapse.

The Section 180(c) program would include the following contingency

plan for schedule and route changes: in

[[Page 23757]]

general, eligible states and tribes may receive an additional amount of

financial assistance if asked to complete activities in shorter amounts

of time; i.e., a state or tribe may receive TY-1 and TY-2 funding in

the same year. If the route for a shipment is selected too close to the

start of the shipment to allow for Section 180(c) implementation or for

any reason the responsible jurisdictions along a selected route lack

adequate training, OCRWM may use escorts with more training and

equipment than those normally used for the purpose of security until a

reasonable time period for training has expired. The contingency plan

could be activated in case of emergencies, or fraudulent actions or

non-cooperation by a state or tribe along the route.

Allowable Activities for Funding

This section describes the types of activities that would be

allowed under this policy. This is not meant to be a comprehensive

list, but merely a guide to the types of activities an applicant

jurisdiction might consider to be eligible for Section 180(c) funding.

For the most part, it would be the grantee's decision in

consultation with local governments and first responders along the

routes to select who gets trained and the organization that administers

the training. Grantees would describe in their five-year plan their

incremental training needs, where the training would be obtained, any

drills and exercises they propose to conduct that are an integral part

of the training curricula, whether the training curricula needs any

input from OCRWM about NWPA shipments, what equipment and supplies they

propose to purchase, and what technical assistance from DOE they

anticipate requesting. The grantee would specify how this assistance

augments their current infrastructure for safe routine transportation

procedures and emergency response.

The initial planning grant may be used to pay for staff, travel,

and other costs associated with conducting an assessment of incremental

training needs. This may include a risk assessment, and other

assessment activities.

The base grant could be used to pay for staff, travel, and other

costs associated with preparing to train public safety officials, and

the planning and coordination activities associated with interacting

with local jurisdictions and neighboring jurisdictions. The base grant

could also be used for training, risk assessment, and other assessment

activities. The variable amount of funding could be used to pay for

travel and tuition costs for those receiving training, including drills

and exercises associated with training, and training on the satellite

tracking system used for NWPA shipments. Training on the satellite

tracking system could be contingent on the NRC's ruling as to whether

state and tribal access to satellite tracking for OCRWM shipments is

consistent with the safeguards and security regulations.

It would be the state's or tribe's choice, in consultation with the

local governments and first responders along the route and within their

annual budget, to determine who receives refresher training and with

what frequency. It also would be the state's or tribe's choice, in

consultation with the local governments and first responders along the

route and within their annual budget, to determine which new personnel

receive training and the location of that training. The training could

apply to state or tribal inspectors, and state, local, or tribal

emergency response personnel including medical emergency responders.

Regarding equipment, a grantee would be able to budget, for TY-2

and TY-1, 25 percent of each year's total Section 180(c) funds to

purchase appropriate (i.e., training-related) equipment and supplies.

Such equipment could also be used for inspections and for responding to

emergencies. After TY-1, the applicant would be able to budget up to 10

percent of each year's Section 180(c) funds to purchase appropriate

equipment and supplies. The equipment and supplies to be purchased must

be identified in the application and the need for the equipment

justified. The purchase of equipment related to the satellite tracking

system for NWPA shipments would be included in these percentage caps,

assuming NRC allows state and tribal access to satellite tracking

information for OCRWM shipments. The title to equipment would be vested

in the grantee in accordance with the property provisions at 10 CFR

600.232.

A state or tribe would not be authorized to use Section 180(c)

funds for purposes not related to NWPA shipments such as development of

a broad-based non-NWPA emergency response program. In cases where basic

capabilities may be lacking, OCRWM recognizes the need to provide

additional technical assistance. This assistance is not meant to build

basic capabilities but to provide the jurisdiction with information

that may help them prepare for the shipments. For example, DOE could

provide information about what additional resources may be available to

state, local, and tribal jurisdictions, what safety measures are being

taken by the Department to ensure safe shipment despite a lack of local

capabilities, or what safety measures other jurisdictions may have

taken in a similar situation.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received on the Notice of Revised

Proposed Policy and Procedures

The Department received 19 sets of comments in response to the July

17, 1997, Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Comments

were received from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Council of

State Governments-Midwestern Office; International Association of Fire

Fighters; International Association of Fire Chiefs; Edlow International

Company; the Western Interstate Energy Board; Inyo County, California;

National Congress of American Indians; State of Idaho; State of Nevada;

Southern States Energy Board; Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition; State

of New Mexico; National Conference of State Legislatures; Prairie

Island Indian Community; Nuclear Energy Institute; and the Pueblo of

Acoma. Some commenters provided more than one set of comments.

The following section discusses general categories and summarizes

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

A. Section 180(c) Policy

Policy Statement and General Themes

Most commenters stated that the needs-based approach described in

the Revised Proposed Policy is an improvement over the formula-based

approach described in the May 1996 Proposed Policy. There were positive

comments on the equal treatment of states and tribes, the broadened

definition of eligibility, and the broadened scope of allowable

activities. The Nuclear Energy Institute and Edlow International

generally endorsed the current proposal. The Nuclear Energy Institute

applauded OCRWM's acknowledgment of current regulations within the body

of the proposed policy.

However, the large majority of commenters emphasized that they

believe that additional change is still needed in key areas, primarily

more cooperative route selection and a more cooperative transportation

planning process. The Western Interstate Energy Board ``continues to

find the Section 180(c) policy * * * unacceptable because it ignores

key policy decisions made by the Western Governors * * * and because it

fails to ensure that an

[[Page 23758]]

effective emergency response mechanism will be in place to handle NWPA

transportation accidents.'' The Southern States Energy Board, the

Western Interstate Energy Board, the Commercial Vehicle Safety

Alliance, and Inyo County, California, all recommended the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPP) transportation planning process as a

good example of cooperative planning. The comment was also made that

OCRWM should take a leadership role within the Department in developing

methods to assist state, local, and tribal governments to prepare for

the shipments, as OCRWM will conduct the nation's single largest

radioactive materials transportation campaign. One commenter asked

whether basing the level of assistance on a determination of needs

means that a ``well-prepared'' state would not be eligible for

assistance beyond the base amount. Or, will ``relatively prepared''

states receive assistance based on the likelihood of a greater number

of shipments and, therefore, a significant increase in the demands on,

for example, state inspectors?

Several comments requested clarification or greater acknowledgment

of the roles and responsibilities of different governmental levels. The

Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office requested better

definition of the roles of the Federal agencies involved in radioactive

materials transportation accidents and how Federal agencies will

interface with state and local emergency response officials. They also

requested that the phrase ``state and tribal governments have a

responsibility to * * * protect the public health and safety * * *'' be

changed to ``state and tribal governments have primary responsibility

to * * * protect public health and safety.'' They stated, ``We again

object to OCRWM's apparent intent to substitute Federal radiological

emergency response capability for state preparedness. The role of

Federal resources is to supplement state response capabilities when

necessary. OCRWM should correct any references in the notice that

misrepresent the roles of and relationship between state and federal

response capabilities.'' They emphasized their view that states will

not turn over the responsibility of protecting citizen health and

safety to DOE.

Communications was another frequently mentioned topic. Both the

Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office and the Western

Interstate Energy Board encouraged OCRWM to place more emphasis on

early and substantive public outreach, asserting that effective

communications will help create the public trust necessary for a

successful transportation program. They are concerned that the field of

public information will be dominated by an already organized and active

opposition. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office included

a Newsday article (August 6, 1997) about the lack of emergency

preparedness for OCRWM shipments as an illustration of the success of

these groups. The Western Interstate Energy Board stated that

communications and interactions with states and tribes cannot

appropriately be placed in the hands of private contractors because the

contractors will be seen as acting in their own, profit-driven

interests. They stated it is DOE's responsibility to secure the

public's confidence by taking clear responsibility for interacting with

states and tribes.

With regard to regulatory compliance, Inyo County, California,

commented that public tolerance of a campaign of this magnitude will

not allow minimum safety measures. The International Association of

Fire Fighters (IAFF) felt that the Revised Proposed Policy and

Procedures ``mostly sidestepped'' their comments. The IAFF expressed

its view that strict compliance with regulations is a flaw that

exaggerates a lack of oversight and enforcement. They added that these

regulations are being weakened and pointed, as an example, to the U.S.

Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs

Administration approval of a change to 62 FR 46214. They stated that

this change ``removed Radiation Protection Program regulations and

related modal provisions that would have required the development and

maintenance of a written radiation protection program for persons who

offer, accept for transportation, or transport radioactive materials.''

The IAFF's point was that the lessening of such requirements means that

increased oversight above the regulatory minimum is necessary to

prevent the politicization of the distributed funds. In contrast, the

Nuclear Energy Institute stated that additional requirements should be

considered only if they provide a clear benefit commensurate with their

cost. The Nuclear Energy Institute stated that radioactive materials

transportation has been proven safe under the current regulatory

structure.

In other comments, the Council of State Governments-Midwestern

Office and Inyo County, California, commented that OCRWM should commit

to funding the Section 180(c) program regardless of congressional

appropriations. Inyo County stated that the wording in the proposal

``if Congress does not fully appropriate the funds'' suggests that the

funding may be congressionally controlled and invites Congress to

micromanage the program. The Western Interstate Energy Board reiterated

its position that the Nuclear Waste Fund should pay for all costs

associated with implementing Section 180(c) and transportation

preparation; if not, the program will be viewed as an unfunded mandate

in violation of Executive Orders 12866 and 12875. The Commercial

Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that the wording requiring a

jurisdiction to coordinate with local jurisdictions to conduct the

needs assessment also include a reference to coordinate with ``national

safety organizations'' to ensure that safety inspections are efficient

and uniform along all the routes.

The Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition reiterated its previous

comments that DOE should update NUREG/CR-2225 (1981), An Unconstrained

Overview of the Critical Elements in a Model State System for Emergency

Response to Radiological Transportation Incidents. The International

Association of Fire Fighters requested that OCRWM address

indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act, particularly as it

relates to the potential financial impact that an incident involving

radioactive materials may have on local governments. Specifically, IAFF

asked whether DOE has an obligation to indemnify the contractor if its

negligence is the proximate cause of an accident; whether DOE will

reimburse local officials for the costs it might expend should such an

accident occur; who precisely is responsible for clean-up; and who will

pay clean-up costs.

Response. OCRWM has considered all the comments received in

response to the Section 180(c) policy development. OCRWM has chosen not

to incorporate comments when to do so would not increase shipment

safety or the effectiveness of the grants program, or for other reasons

is incompatible with OCRWM's mission to implement the Section 180(c)

program according to the NWPA.

OCRWM intends that states or tribes be eligible to receive the

variable amount of the grant regardless of their preparedness level.

However, a more well-prepared jurisdiction could expect to receive less

variable funding than a less well-prepared jurisdiction. The number of

shipments through a jurisdiction would not be a measure of funding

levels since once staff are trained, the training applies without

regard to the number of shipments.

[[Page 23759]]

OCRWM recognizes the primary role of states and tribes in

protecting the health and safety of their citizens. The language

regarding the Department's radiological emergency response assets is a

statement that the Federal capability exists to respond to a

radiological materials shipment accident even in those areas of the

country without basic emergency response capabilities. The roles and

responsibilities of different government levels in preparing for and

responding to a radiological emergency are defined in the Federal

Radiological Emergency Response Plan. These roles and responsibilities

will be further defined as OCRWM's transportation planning process

continues.

OCRWM recognizes the crucial role of communications and public

acceptance in developing a workable transportation program. To this

end, OCRWM will retain primary responsibility for interactions with

stakeholders. This will include providing public information to

jurisdictions along the routes and making Departmental representatives,

whether Federal or contract employees, available to communities as

budgets permit. The regional servicing contractors will be required to

have a Communications and Outreach Plan which will describe how they

will communicate and interact with stakeholders.

With regard to regulatory compliance, it is OCRWM's view that the

current regulatory structure is sufficient to provide for the safety of

the shipments. In addition to Federal regulations, OCRWM shipments will

be subject to applicable state, local, and tribal regulations. OCRWM

also views the current procurement regulations as sufficient to ensure

that the disbursement of funds will not become politicized within a

recipient jurisdiction.

OCRWM disagrees that the phrasing ``if Congress does not fully

appropriate the funds'' invites Congress to micromanage the grants

program. The ability of Congress to limit funding to a particular

program is simply a reality that OCRWM will have to work with to fund

the grant recipients. Funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund are only

available to the Department when appropriated to the Department by

Congress. It is OCRWM's position that the Section 180(c) program should

provide the increment of assistance needed to respond to an OCRWM

radiological materials shipment, and should not provide basic emergency

response capability to jurisdictions along the routes that have always

been the responsibility of the state, local, and tribal governments.

These governments are aided by other Federal agencies that have as part

of their mission the assistance of state, local, and tribal governments

in attaining more comprehensive emergency response and safe routine

transportation capabilities. OCRWM does not believe that preparations

for these shipments would constitute an unfunded mandate if not fully

funded by the Section 180(c) program because there is no requirement

under NWPA mandating states to take any particular action with regard

to these shipments. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's request to

add coordination with ``national safety organizations'' to the

requirement on coordination by the grant applicant has not been

incorporated because OCRWM believes the applicants should decide

whether or not to coordinate with non-governmental entities.

Regarding the request to update NUREG/CR-2225, this is a Nuclear

Regulatory Commission document that the Department does not have the

authority to update. In addition, the NUREG/CR-2225 document is useful

for planning in a model scenario, the text states that the study is an

unconstrained view of the critical elements in a state program for

radiological emergency response, presuming no bounds of manpower,

funding, development time, or other real-world constraints. In

addition, the model does not specify the type of radioactive material;

therefore, it does not take into account the packaging used for NWPA

shipments and the low risk of these shipments.

Liability for accidents that occur while the spent fuel and the

high-level radioactive waste is in transit from the nuclear power

plants to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, at a storage

facility, or at the repository would be determined in accordance with

applicable state tort law. In applying state tort law, a court normally

would attribute liability to the person responsible for causing damage.

If a DOE contractor is liable for nuclear damage or a precautionary

evacuation resulting from its contractual activities, the contractor

normally would be indemnified by DOE pursuant to the provisions of the

Price-Anderson Act.

DOE's tort liability would be determined in accordance with State

tort law and the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, under current plans,

DOE will use contractors to transport the spent fuel and high-level

waste and to construct and operate the repository and a storage

facility, if one is constructed. Therefore, Price-Anderson

indemnification would apply to liability claims arising from these

activities.

Although there are certain limitations to the compensation

available under the Price-Anderson system, it provides very broad

financial protection to compensate for damage and injury, including

loss of profits caused by a nuclear incident; costs of a precautionary

evacuation ordered by an authorized state or local official, if such

incident or evacuation arose in the course of transportation to a DOE

storage or disposal site, or while at a DOE storage or disposal

facility; and all reasonable additional costs incurred by a state or

political subdivision of a state in the course of responding to a

nuclear incident or a precautionary evacuation. Price-Anderson coverage

is available to compensate persons for such losses whether or not

negligence was the proximate cause of the nuclear incident or

precautionary evacuation.

Routing Issues

Many of the comments on routing were alike. Commenters were

concerned that the role of private contractors in route selection was

not fully defined. It was a common opinion that routing decisions

should not be delegated to the four potential regional servicing

contractors partly because confusion could result from contractors in

each region of the country selecting routes and modes that do not match

at state borders. They asked that the policy clearly define this role.

Another frequently expressed comment was that the critical nature

of routing decisions means that DOE should make routing decisions early

to allow plenty of time for planning, and that DOE should commit to a

cooperative effort to determine the routes. Commenters also encouraged

DOE to commit to adopting a DOE-standardized policy on early and

cooperative route selection, and suggested that the cooperative effort

is needed because strict reliance on regulations will result in too

many viable routes to focus scarce training and planning resources. The

Western Interstate Energy Board restated that OCRWM should commit to

meeting the demands of the Western Governors Association (WGA) for DOE

to develop responsible routing criteria; to develop a sound methodology

for evaluating optional mixes of routes and transportation modes; and

to fix the shipping origins and destination points as early as possible

[WGA resolution 93-003, Modified and Readopted June 24, 1996]. Other

commenters stated that the current discussion on routing is inadequate

to assure local governments that their concerns will be addressed in

the route selection process.

[[Page 23760]]

Timing and routing announcements were also an area of concern.

Several commenters said route identification must be done three to five

years prior to shipments to enable affected states and tribes to

designate alternative routes and assess their training and planning

needs. They felt two years was not sufficient time to prepare for a

shipping campaign of any magnitude. The Council of State Governments-

Midwestern Office commented that the requirement to consult local

governments in development of the application's three-year plan cannot

be met unless routes have been announced. They also asked how states

will assess state and local training needs in TY-3 if they don't know

what routes to train along until TY-2. The State of Nevada suggested

solving this dilemma by providing initial base grants for planning in

TY-3 and delaying the requirement for submission of a multi-year plan

until routes are known in TY-2.

Response. The draft Request for Proposal for the Acquisition of

Waste Acceptance and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management issued November 24, 1997, clarifies many

of the issues raised in comments regarding routing. The RSC(s) must

abide by DOT and NRC routing regulations. The RSCs are also required to

cooperate with other RSCs, as appropriate, in developing operating

protocols and other operating procedures that will aid in integrating

the operating environment throughout all four Servicing Regions. The

Western Governors Association resolution was considered but not

incorporated because OCRWM believes the current NRC and DOT routing

regulations are sufficient to ensure shipment safety.

The eligible governors and tribal chairmen will be notified of the

preliminary routes and modes in TY-4 so that they may conduct the

determination of needs and consult with jurisdictions along the routes.

The Department is currently considering the development and adoption of

Department-wide standardized route selection critera through the Senior

Executive Transportation Forum, established within DOE to coordinate

the efforts of Departmental elements involved in the transportation of

radioactive materials.

There are no regulations addressing the role of local governments

in the route selection process. The most appropriate place for local

concerns about routing is during states' selection of alternative

routes. The DOT Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for

Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Materials

indicate that States are required to coordinate and solicit input from

local governments and other jurisdictions likely to be impacted by a

routing decision.

Questions regarding timing of the route announcement have also been

addressed in this proposed policy and the Draft Acquisition of Waste

Acceptance and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management. The current schedule for route

announcements should provide grant recipients with sufficient time to

assess their needs and prepare for NWPA shipments. As stated in the

Eligibility and Timing section, if there are route changes after an

application has been submitted, OCRWM will work with those states and

tribes affected by any route changes to facilitate revision of their

grant applications and expedite the application review.

Allowable Use of Funds

The comments on allowable activities generally approved of the

expansion of allowable activities in the Revised Proposed Policy. There

were some specific comments and requests for clarification. Regarding

the use of funds to purchase equipment, three commenters said the ten

percent and twenty-five percent caps were arbitrary and unnecessary.

The amount of funding should be negotiated in the grant application,

allowing each eligible jurisdiction to determine its own equipment

needs. Another stated that the ten percent cap should be increased to

twenty percent while another stated that the twenty-five percent

maximum cap should apply to each grantee's annual budget since few

entities will have the foresight to accurately determine their full

equipment needs up front for a program that will operate for decades.

The National Congress of American Indians said the caps will not be

sufficient for tribes that lack even basic equipment and trained

personnel. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the State of

Nevada asked that the policy clarify that equipment for inspections is

allowable as well as equipment for emergency response situations. One

commenter asked whether the twenty-five percent cap would apply if, due

to a lapse in shipments, a state loses eligibility and then reapplies

for assistance. Another commenter asked whether the phrase ``train or

otherwise prepare for'' in the objectives section of the notice meant

that grant recipients could procure radiation detection/measurement

instrumentation for use by vehicle inspectors and health physicists.

Regarding drills and exercises, commenters were pleased that drills

and exercises will be an allowable expense. Two commenters asked DOE to

clarify that all costs associated with drills and exercises will be

covered--not just travel and tuition costs. There was also a question

as to whether the drills and exercises would be those planned and

conducted by the states, or whether DOE would plan and conduct the

drills and exercises. Another commenter requested that drills and

exercises be funded separately from the base grant as the commenter

viewed drills and exercises as the most crucial aspect of any emergency

response training.

Regarding risk assessment, the National Conference of State

Legislatures stated that allowing eligible states and tribes to include

risk assessment costs in their grant application adequately addressed

this issue. However, the International Association of Fire Fighters

felt the Revised Proposed Policy had not gone far enough and referred

to the congressional endorsement of risk assessment ``when it required

the Secretary of Transportation to conduct such an assessment during a

study of routes and modes that would enhance overall public safety (49

U.S.C. Section 5105).'' They stated that, at a minimum, DOE should

provide technical assistance for grant recipients to conduct risk

assessments. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office stated

any risk assessment must include alternative route analysis. They also

asked OCRWM to clarify its position on risk assessments since the

notice states in one place that route and risk assessments will be

allowed, but the definition of safe routine transportation states that

alternate route analysis will not be allowed.

Regarding safe routine transportation, a few commenters requested

that attendance at the Federal Railroad Administration-certified

railroad inspection classes be an allowable cost. These commenters

explained that the Federal Railroad Administration will not be prepared

to handle inspections for the number of shipments required under an

NWPA shipping campaign due to staff shortages.

There were a variety of other comments. Two commenters stated that

travel costs offset by the grants program should cover out-of-state

travel, not just travel within the jurisdiction as stated in the

Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Another commenter stated that

grant recipients should be able to use the base grant for training as

well as

[[Page 23761]]

for planning and coordination activities. The Council of State

Governments-Midwestern Office said that DOE must allow funding for the

enhanced training level in the overall needs assessment, and not just

as funds are appropriated. Several commenters continued to request that

funds be allowed to pay for infrastructure improvements, arguing that

certain improvements are necessary for safe routine transportation. The

Western Interstate Energy Board and the State of New Mexico both

reiterated their position that the grants program must cover costs

associated with equipment maintenance, record-keeping, and related

costs. Other comments said that completing the needs assessment of the

application package must be an allowable cost because its preparation

will be burdensome for some jurisdictions.

Response. The Department has chosen not to lift the percentage cap

on equipment in order to ensure that the majority of the funding is

used for training as directed by the NWPA. If there is a lapse in

shipments where a state or tribe loses eligibility and then regains

eligibility because shipments resume through their jurisdiction, the

same twenty-five percent and ten percent caps will apply to their

applications. Whether these caps are sufficient to cover grant

recipients' needs is related to the total amount of the grant awarded

and that amount has not been determined. It will be a grant recipient's

choice whether to allocate the money to equipment for training for

safety inspections or emergency response situations. Both types of

equipment will be considered an allowable expense. The Department

recognizes that some tribes lack basic capabilities and will work with

tribal governments on how best to address this issue.

Regarding drills and exercises, the Department intends for grant

applicants to propose in their applications any drills and/or

exercises, that are an integral part of the training curricula, and

that they would conduct as part of the variable grant. These drills and

exercises will be conducted by the states and tribes, not by DOE.

As indicated previously, risk assessment and alternative route

analysis is an allowable expense.

As stated in the Objectives section of the policy, Section 180(c)

funding may be used for rail safe routine transportation measures that

complement DOT's FRA inspection procedures. Applicants will be expected

to specify how these funds will be used in their five-year plan.

Regarding other comments, the base grant may be used to offset the

cost of out-of-state travel, or for training after TY-3, as the grant

recipient wishes. The base grant may also be used to offset the costs

of equipment maintenance and recordkeeping. Recognizing that

jurisdictions may wish to train beyond the awareness level, OCRWM

intends to fund the operations and technician level training as funds

allow. OCRWM reiterates its position that infrastructure improvements

such as rail and road improvements are beyond the scope of the Section

180(c) mandate.

Training Standards

Comments differed regarding the most appropriate training standards

for the Section 180(c) program. The most frequent comments encouraged

OCRWM to offer training courses similar to those offered by WIPP, such

as incident command training and emergency medical training. Many

commenters strongly stated that training to the awareness level is

insufficient and will leave local emergency responders unable to handle

a radioactive materials accident. Commenters were in general agreement

that local emergency responders must have at least the equivalent of

OSHA's operations level training. The International Association of Fire

Fighters said they believe that ``firefighters, at a minimum, must be

trained to the operations level'' because of the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) standards which state that ``operational-

level competency is to be attained by those persons such as fire

fighters and rescue personnel whose duties and functions include

responding to hazardous materials incidents to mitigate the effects of

a release without actually trying to stop the release.'' The

International Association of Fire Chiefs said that OCRWM should provide

40 hours of training each for the technician and operations level

responders that are trained under the enhanced level training outlined

in the Revised Policy. They and other commenters stated that the OSHA

and NFPA-based training is too generalized for the specific information

needed for a radiological response since they encompass all hazardous

materials. The International Association of Fire Chiefs also stated its

belief that a 4-hour video-based course would be sufficient to train to

the awareness level. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office

asked OCRWM to clarify that all emergency responders along a route must

be trained to the awareness level because references in the notice to

``the appropriate increment of awareness level training'' does not

sufficiently convey the sense of providing training to all affected

local officials.

Other comments focused more on the delivery of training. The

Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office requested that OCRWM not

restrict states to a train-the-trainer approach. The Western Governors'

Association reiterated its request that OCRWM establish Regional

Training Advisory Teams and a National Training Advisory Committee for

radiological shipments to help coordinate training across

jurisdictions. Inyo County, California, stated that OCRWM should

restrict funds to local use only and not fund any state personnel

because of the wording in Section 180(c) that says ``technical

assistance and funds * * * for training public safety officials of

appropriate units of local governments. * * *'' Another commenter said

OCRWM should add program-specific instructions to existing training

programs, not create new programs to train already overburdened

emergency response officials. The State of Nevada and the International

Association of Fire Chiefs recommended that OCRWM develop a national

approach to training for responding to radiological incidents, in

essence a Federal floor of adequacy for emergency response to these

shipments. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested this policy

to state that safety and enforcement training must be given to the law

enforcement agency having the proper training and authority to conduct

safety inspections, including roadside inspections.

The International Association of Fire Fighters stated that it is

DOE's sole responsibility to have trained emergency response personnel

with each shipment if local jurisdictions choose not to prepare or

respond to a radiological accident because they have received

insufficient training. One commenter asked if the pilot test of a DOE

Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program module ``Radiation

Materials Emergency Response: Awareness Level'' is the correct title.

The National Congress of American Indians, the Pueblo of Acoma, and

the Prairie Island Indian Community all requested that OCRWM reinstate

funding to the National Congress of American Indians for the Tribal

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Workshops. They stated that funding

the workshops will help DOE meet its Trust responsibilities and assist

tribes in attaining the proper readiness for NWPA shipments.

[[Page 23762]]

Response. As previously stated, OCRWM does not believe the enhanced

level of training as defined in the policy is necessary for shipment

safety. However, recognizing that jurisdictions may wish to train

beyond the awareness level, OCRWM intends to fund the operations and

technician level training as appropriations allow. The type of training

provided would be left to the discretion of the grant recipient. OCRWM

would fund train-the-trainer training, will work with the Department's

existing training programs to include OCRWM-specific shipment

information in other training programs that states and tribes may

receive from the Department, and will provide shipment-specific

information that states, local governments, and tribes can include in

their training materials. All of this would be at the awareness level.

The issue of whether DOE is responsible to have trained emergency

responders to handle an accident if a local fire department chooses not

to respond because of lack of training is outside the scope of the

Section 180(c) program. Section 180(c) mandates the provision of

technical assistance and funds to states and tribes for training public

safety officials in procedures required for safe routine transportation

of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and emergency

response situations.

The request that OCRWM specify that all emergency responders along

a route will be trained to the awareness level is better left to the

discretion of the state or tribe conducting the training. It will be

their choice as to how many staff are trained within each jurisdiction

along the route. With the high turnover rates among emergency

responders, it seems unlikely that every emergency responder can be

trained along every single route. However, OCRWM does anticipate that

every jurisdiction along a route would have people trained to the

awareness level for hazardous materials. OCRWM does not find it

necessary to fund the creation of Regional Training Advisory Teams or a

National Training Advisory Committee as requested. The eligible

jurisdictions may use their Section 180(c) funds to coordinate with

other jurisdictions. The policy does not incorporate CVSA's request

that funds be directed to law enforcement agencies having the authority

to conduct safety inspections, including roadside inspections, because

OCRWM believes the grantee should decide the best distribution of

funds.

The language of Section 180(c) does not prevent the program from

training state-level officials, if appropriate. The correct name of the

training video referred to in the July 17, 1997, notice is ``Radiation

Materials Emergency Response: Awareness Level.'' If grantees choose to

do so, they may use Section 180(c) funds to attend Tribal Emergency

Preparedness Workshops.

Basis for Cost Estimate

Most commenters view the needs-based approach to determining grant

awards as an improvement over the formula-based approach. Otherwise,

comments primarily dealt with how the money should be allocated to the

recipients or how the recipients should allocate the funds they

receive. One commenter said 75 percent of the funds should be spent on

emergency response personnel, limiting the money spent on

administrative and other activities. The Commercial Vehicle Safety

Alliance requested that funding be available for grant recipients to

hire two people--one for emergency response training activities and one

for safe routine transportation activities--since it would be difficult

in most state government structures for one person to administer both

types of training. The Western Interstate Energy Board stated its view

that 25 percent of all available funds should be allocated to all

corridor jurisdictions and the remaining 75 percent of combined grant

applications should be allocated according to projected shipment miles

in each jurisdiction as compared to the total number of shipment miles.

The Nuclear Energy Institute encouraged OCRWM to return to basing the

grant amount on route miles through each jurisdiction.

The States of Nevada and New Mexico, the Western Interstate Energy

Board, and the Southern States Energy Board all objected to the

methodology used to determine the base amount of funding and said the

funding level of about $75,000 is insufficient. The Western Interstate

Energy Board suggested that a $150,000 planning grant be used. The

Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office stated that the

structure of the base and two variable grants is too restrictive and

decreases flexibility in how grant recipients use their funds. They

also requested OCRWM to clarify what a typical grant award might be,

how often OCRWM intends to adjust the base amount for inflation, and

what the eligibility criteria would be for the variable funding levels.

Response. OCRWM has put few requirements on how a jurisdiction

allocates its funding other than that the determination of needs must

indicate cooperation with local governments, as stated in the

Eligibility and Timing section of the policy. OCRWM has not allocated

total funds according to shipment miles because once emergency

responders are trained, they are trained without regard to the number

of shipments. In addition, shipment miles as an allocation method will

skew funding towards those places with longer routes, but not

necessarily more population along the routes. This Section 180(c)

policy will allow the grant recipient to allocate funds to those parts

of its jurisdiction most in need.

OCRWM has decided to propose an initial planning grant of $150,000

to help offset the costs of the determination of needs. Otherwise, the

structure of the base and variable grants being proposed has remained

the same. The structure of the grant should not unduly restrict a

recipient's flexibility in using the funds. OCRWM also plans to work to

make the grant application as user-friendly as possible. A typical

grant award cannot be determined without a sample of grant applications

upon which to base an estimate. The base grant amount would be adjusted

annually for inflation. OCRWM would consider developing for the

application package a set of criteria by which to determine eligibility

for the variable funding level. All grant applicants would apply for

variable funding levels although the more a jurisdiction has already

met the policy's training objectives, the less their variable grant

award would be. This is in keeping with the policy to provide that

increment of training needed for NWPA transportation preparedness.

Safe Routine Transportation

The primary comments about the definition of safe routine

transportation and related policy statements were that they are too

restrictive. The State of New Mexico stated that ``common sense

dictates that safety precautions for NWPA shipments should at least be

on par with those being applied to the WIPP campaign.'' A majority of

the commenters encouraged OCRWM to use Section 180(c) funding to

develop protocols similar to those negotiated with WIPP, such as

carrier record-keeping audits, bad weather protocols, and

identification of safe parking areas. Another commenter said the

definition must include activities required for states to escort

shipments and to plan and prepare for inspections, including paying for

personnel, equipment, and planning.

Another frequently mentioned comment was that the policy statement

regarding rail inspections does not provide sufficient oversight. OCRWM

was encouraged to allow grant recipients to use funding to attend the

[[Page 23763]]

Federal Railroad Administration's State Participation Program for

training in rail inspections. This request was based on the fact that

the Federal Railroad Administration has stated (1) that it has neither

the budget nor the staff to handle the anticipated volume of NWPA

shipments and (2) that the State Participation Program could enable

states to pick up some of the slack if there was sufficient funding to

train inspectors. The State of Nevada asked how the Federal Railroad

Administration will interact with states to ensure that rail

inspections have been conducted and whether it should be assumed that

the Federal Railroad Administration will ensure that the roadbed for

the entire route of travel will be inspected and maintained.

The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office cautioned OCRWM

against requiring states to abide by the Commercial Vehicle Safety

Alliance enhanced inspection standards. They pointed out that Illinois

conducts its own inspections on every radiological materials shipment

through its jurisdiction, wherever the shipment originates. The Nuclear

Energy Institute cautioned OCRWM against adopting the enhanced North

American inspection standards since they have not yet been ratified by

the CVSA membership.

Other comments were provided on an array of subjects. The

International Association of Fire Chiefs urged OCRWM to use escorts

highly trained in emergency response procedures throughout the first

year of shipment. Another commenter requested that the policy statement

put equal emphasis on safe routine transportation and emergency

response procedures. The Nuclear Energy Institute and Edlow

International both wrote that the broad use of TRANSCOM is a security

concern. They are concerned that if states and tribes have wide access

to TRANSCOM tracking information, this will violate Nuclear Regulatory

Commission safeguards and security regulations. Another commenter

requested clarification on wording regarding TRANSCOM, asking whether

OCRWM intends to provide states with ``access to satellite tracking

information,'' or simply to help states ``to prepare'' for the access.

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that three definitions

be added to the appendix in the proposed policy. They are: ``(1)

Responsible jurisdictions for safety and enforcement inspections means

a government entity at any level of government, whether state, tribal,

or any of their subjurisdictions that has the jurisdictional authority

to conduct safety inspections and initiate law enforcement using the

appropriate federal and or jurisdiction's laws and regulations; (2)

Awareness level training also means training for individuals or

jurisdictions who will accept and grant reciprocity to another

jurisdiction's inspections; (3) Train-the-trainer also means training

for certified instructors/individuals so that they may conduct

refresher inspection courses for their respective jurisdiction's safety

and enforcement inspectors.''

Response. OCRWM believes that the current definition of safe

routine transportation, in combination with the policy statement on

safe routine transportation, provides a sufficient measure of safety

for the shipments that will be, at least, on par with the WIPP

campaign. The requested additional activities would not appreciably

increase shipment safety. Regarding rail inspections, the Objectives

section has been changed to state that OCRWM intends to consider

applicants' requests to fund, in the increment necessary for OCRWM

shipments, rail safe transportation measures that complement DOT's FRA

inspection procedures. Since currently there is no mechanism for tribes

to participate in the State Participation Program, OCRWM plans to work

with tribal governments to identify where funding and technical

assistance may best assist a tribe in addressing rail inspections.

This policy does not require states to abide by the enhanced

inspection standards developed by the Commercial Vehicle Safety

Alliance largely because the reciprocal inspection standards are

voluntary by the states who participate. Illinois is a member of the

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and its Department of Nuclear Safety

staff received training in the enhanced standards during November 1997.

It is OCRWM's understanding that the radiation inspection conducted by

Illinois's Department of Nuclear Safety is separate from and is

conducted simultaneously with the Illinois State Police safety

inspection. The two types of inspections are not mutually exclusive. It

is worth noting that the full membership of the Commercial Vehicle

Safety Alliance adopted the enhanced inspections standards on October

1, 1997.

The policy statement does not intend to put more emphasis on safe

routine transportation than on emergency response procedures. The

emphasis each receives will be at the grant recipient's discretion.

With regard to TRANSCOM, it is OCRWM's intent to allow grant recipients

to include the purchase of tracking equipment in their equipment

purchases. However, OCRWM recognizes the possible conflict with the

NRC's regulations and has requested that the NRC clarify its position

with regard to OCRWM's provision of a satellite tracking system to

states and tribes that may wish to use it and agree to safeguard the

information. If the NRC denies state and tribal access to satellite

tracking information about NWPA shipments, this provision of the safe

routine transportation procedures will have to be dropped.

The definitions requested by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

have been adopted into the appendix of this notice, although not in

their entirety. The reference to ``subjurisdictions'' was dropped from

the definition of ``responsible jurisdiction'' because highway safety

and enforcement inspections are always carried out under the authority

of the state government, not local governments.

Technical Assistance

There were few comments on the definition of technical assistance.

One commenter said that equipment should be included as part of the

definition and that it is within the Department's discretion to make

this change. Another commenter requested that OCRWM delete ``unique to

the Department'' from the definition so as not to restrict DOE from

either having under contract at some time in the future individuals

that could provide the type of assistance sought by states and tribes,

or establishing an agreement with another Federal agency to provide the

requested assistance. Another commenter asked what scope of technical

assistance will be available under the grants program.

Response. The phrase ``unique to the Department'' was not dropped

from the definition because, as the shipper of record of NWPA

shipments, DOE will provide technical assistance whether or not the

Department contracts with other individuals or Federal agencies to

provide services or technical assistance. Equipment is not included in

the definition of Technical Assistance because 10 CFR 600 defines

Financial Assistance to include the provision of equipment, thereby

precluding it from the definition of Technical Assistance.

Eligibility and Timing

The comments on eligibility were rather limited while comments on

timing were more extensive. OCRWM was commended for broadening the

eligibility requirements where mutual aid and bordering jurisdictions

are involved. However, two commenters

[[Page 23764]]

pointed out that OCRWM will not be able to notify eligible

jurisdictions four years in advance of shipments unless routes are

determined indicating when a route constitutes a border between two

jurisdictions. Other commenters said that the transfer of funds from an

eligible jurisdiction to a mutual aid jurisdiction is unlikely. The

International Association of Fire Fighters viewed OCRWM's position on

the pass-through of funds to mutual aid jurisdictions as ``patronizing

and . . . urge[d] DOE to revisit this issue.'' The Pueblo of Acoma

asked how DOE will ensure that the funds are transferred to mutual aid

jurisdictions if the recipient jurisdiction does not willingly transfer

the funds. The National Congress of American Indians stated its

position that assistance should be provided to states and tribes that

are near, but not on, transportation routes because their people and

lands would also be at risk in the event of an accident. This commenter

added that this is especially true for tribes that have culturally

significant lands along a route that are not part of tribal lands.

Regarding issues on timing, three commenters requested

clarification in the lapse in eligibility when shipments do not pass

through a jurisdiction for three years or more. The Council of State

Governments-Midwestern Office stated that two years of full funding

prior to shipments is not sufficient time to accomplish all that is

needed, such as considering alternative routes, officially designating

them, assessing training needs along the route, applying for funding,

and training the emergency responders along the route. They also asked

how far in advance of shipments OCRWM will plan to notify governors

about their individual state's eligibility. Similarly, the Southern

States Energy Board said that the states and tribes cannot determine

what training and equipment are necessary until OCRWM establishes more

specifics on transportation planning, particularly routing. The Western

Interstate Energy Board reiterated its position taken in prior comments

and in WGA resolution 97-015 that OCRWM should specify that no

shipments will occur unless funding has been provided three years prior

to shipments. According to WGA, the three years is necessary because of

the amount of time preparations for these shipments will take. The

State of New Mexico stated its belief that three years of full program

funding prior to shipments is probably sufficient for most

jurisdictions if they have already conducted their needs assessments

and are poised for program implementation.

The State of New Mexico continued to urge OCRWM to establish an

administratively simple and efficient grant application process, and to

develop a user-friendly ``format and content guide'' to assist

applicants. The state voiced its concern about lack of information on

the mechanics of the grants program, asking if a three-year budget will

be negotiated and then funded in one-year increments; what is DOE's

proposal with respect to re-application after the first three years;

and what criteria will be used in determining the variable amounts of

funding to be provided to states and tribes? A commenter asked if there

is a difference among TY-2, TY-1, and TY grants other than the grant

applicant's assessment of its needs.

Response. The wording of Section 180(c) of the NWPA does not allow

for the funding of jurisdictions that are near, but not on,

transportation routes. The extensive safety measures taken for these

shipments make them very low risk and even if an accident or incident

occurs, any impact on nearby jurisdictions is an even lower risk

considering the packaging and other precautions taken to ensure

shipment safety. If a nearby jurisdiction has the potential to respond

to an NWPA transportation accident under a mutual aid request, then the

state or tribe whose local jurisdiction may be requested to provide

mutual aid will be eligible for funding from the state or tribe through

whose jurisdiction the radioactive waste is transported. The state or

tribe that has the route through its jurisdiction and that could

request the mutual aid assistance would also be eligible for funding as

described in the Eligibility and Timing section.

With regard to the grant application, OCRWM will consider

developing a format and content guide to make the grant application as

user-friendly as possible. In addition, the grant application will be

written in as straightforward a manner as possible. The intent is that,

after the initial planning grant, a five-year budget request will be

established. OCRWM will consider developing qualifying criteria for the

variable grant requests at a later time. OCRWM intends to include the

application budget requests in its budget request to Congress and fund

the applications to the extent Congress makes funds available on an

annual basis. There are no differences among TY-2, TY-1, and TY grants

other than the grant applicant's determination of its needs.

OCRWM believes the current time frame is sufficient to prepare for

these shipments as outlined in the Policy and Objectives sections of

this notice. Regarding eligibility after a lapse of shipments, the

lapse would have to be three or more years for a jurisdiction to become

ineligible for funding. If the lapse is two years or less, the

jurisdiction would not lose eligibility. OCRWM plans to notify

governors in the fourth year prior to shipments through their

jurisdiction that they will regain eligibility for Section 180(c)

funding and will receive the base grant.

Contingency Plan

The Nuclear Energy Institute supports the contingency plan outlined

in the revised notice and requested that OCRWM add ``emergencies,

fraudulent actions, or non-cooperation'' as cases where contingency

shipment plans could be implemented. The Council of State Governments-

Midwestern Office agreed with OCRWM's statement that planning with

states and tribes along contingency routes should be handled on a case-

by-case basis. The Southern States Energy Board argued that the

contingency plan continues to address only emergency response

procedures and not safe routine transportation procedures. The State of

New Mexico stated that the ``current plan is skeletal and cursory in

nature at best'' and may not offer adequate protection to public health

and safety. The Western Interstate Energy Board again asked that OCRWM

offer assurances that no shipments will occur, even on a contingency

basis, unless funding has occurred at least three years in advance.

Response. The contingency plan has not changed significantly in

this notice except to include cases such as emergencies, fraudulent

actions, or non-cooperation as examples where contingency shipment

plans could be implemented. If contingency shipments are made, OCRWM

may use escorts with more training and equipment than those currently

used for the purpose of safety until a reasonable time period for

training has expired. These measures, combined with OCRWM's willingness

to work with states and tribes on a case-by-case basis to plan for any

contingency shipments, will ensure that the shipments are made as

uneventfully as possible. Regarding equal emphasis on safe routine and

emergency response procedures, OCRWM sees no reason why the current

contingency plan should focus more on one set of procedures than the

other. Arrangements for inspections and inspector training are expected

to be part of the discussion if contingency shipments are necessary.

[[Page 23765]]

Trust Responsibility

The National Congress of American Indians, the Prairie Island

Indian Community and the Pueblo of Acoma all stated their position that

DOE should cite the requirements of DOE's Trust responsibility in the

policy. They reiterated that the Trust responsibility stems from

tribes' treaties with the United States government, tribes' status as

sovereign nations, and the U.S. Constitution. The DOE's fiduciary

duties to tribal governments have been reinforced by President

Clinton's Memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government

Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, and the DOE's own

American Indian Policy. They reiterated their view that the language of

Section 180(c) does not limit tribal assistance and funding exclusively

to training as it does to state governments. It is their position that

nothing in Section 180(c) prevents DOE from funding basic emergency

response capabilities and that it is part of the DOE's Trust

responsibility to fund basic capabilities on those reservations which

lack them.

Comments were favorable regarding OCRWM's equal treatment of states

and tribes throughout the policy, with several commenters noting that

the policy does incorporate many interests of tribal governments.

Response. OCRWM recognizes that there is a lack of infrastructure

and trained personnel on many tribal lands. Typically, these areas may

rely more heavily on technical assistance than other grant recipients.

Since needs will be so varied and the determination of needs allows

consideration of an individual jurisdiction's current preparedness

level, OCRWM sees no purpose in defining further the specific

activities that may be taken with regard to tribal preparedness. OCRWM

is aware of its Trust responsibilities to tribes and will take it into

account in all of OCRWM's decisions that may affect Indian tribes.

B. Section 180(c) Procedures

Funding Mechanism

While two commenters supported the OCRWM grants approach, the State

of Idaho reiterated its position that OCRWM should coordinate its

funding and training program with a Department-wide funding and

training program. Idaho said that while it recognized the difficulties

in developing a unified program, it was worth the increased

effectiveness and efficiency of training emergency responders along a

route one time for all DOE shipments, rather than training repeatedly

every time a DOE program ships radioactive materials. The Commercial

Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that OCRWM allow the possible

combining of grants programs to train inspectors to allow for cross-

training of inspectors. Similar to Idaho's comment, this would allow

inspectors to become trained on the enhanced inspection standards once

rather than attend a separate class every time another DOE program

ships radioactive materials. The International Association of Fire

Fighters registered the strongest complaint against the funding

mechanism, saying the knowledge and expertise necessary to complete the

needs assessment of the application package will place a tremendous

administrative burden on the grant applicants.

Response. While this Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures does

not combine the grants program with any other Department training or

funding program, we plan for the grant application to state that OCRWM

encourages recipients to use their funds in conjunction with other

programs where the training aims to achieve the same or similar goals.

For example, if a state were training its inspectors to the enhanced

inspection standards, it could use the Section 180(c) funding in

conjunction with funding it may receive from another DOE program to

send additional inspectors to the same training. OCRWM has stated that

it may combine the grants program with a Department-wide grant program

in the future if one is developed and is practicable, and consistent

with existing law.

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

Many states and state organizations urged that Section 180(c)

assistance apply to all spent nuclear fuel or defense high-level

radioactive waste shipments ultimately destined for an NWPA facility,

whether or not those shipments are transported to and stored on an

interim basis at a private facility. Commenters stated that

transportation to a private facility would only be necessary if the

Department fails to site an interim or permanent storage facility

according to statutory obligations.

Response. The Department is currently authorized to implement the

Section 180(c) program of financial and technical assistance only for

shipments to a repository or Monitored Retrievable Storage facility

constructed under the NWPA. However, the many comments on this issue

have been noted.

D. Policy Development Process

A few commenters again questioned the Department's plans to issue a

Notice of Policy and Procedures rather than promulgate regulations.

They voiced concern that implementation of Section 180(c) through

regulations is necessary to ensure stability through changes of

leadership within the Department and that an interpretation of policy

and procedures is more easily changed.

Response. OCRWM is developing the Revised Policy and Procedures

after receipt and consideration of extensive public comments. At some

future date, OCRWM may decide to promulgate regulations. However, since

the program's current planning basis is to begin shipping in 2010, it

is premature to codify the policy in regulations this far in advance of

shipments. OCRWM will continue to monitor other Departmental

transportation programs and may consider updating this Revised Policy

as either a Final Policy or as regulations at a later date.

V. Conclusion

This notice has presented OCRWM's Revised Proposed Policy and

Procedures for the Section 180(c) program. It also has presented

OCRWM's summary of and response to comments received in the prior

Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures issued July 17, 1997.

These comments were given careful consideration in developing these

policy and procedures. The purpose of this notice has been to

communicate to stakeholders OCRWM's interim preliminary positions

regarding Section 180(c) policy issues and to respond to stakeholder

comments on the July notice. These policy and procedures will remain in

draft form until programmatic decisions or legislation provides

guidance as to when shipments will commence. At that time, OCRWM may

finalize these policy and procedures or will consider promulgating

regulations on Section 180(c) implementation.

OCRWM will accept comments from the public on this Notice of

Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 1998.

Lake Barrett,

Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

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

Procedures

1. Responsible jurisdiction, for emergency response procedures,

means a governmental entity at any level of government, whether

state or tribal, that has the authority to conduct part or all of an

emergency response

[[Page 23766]]

to a radiological materials transportation accident or incident.

Responsible jurisdiction for safety and enforcement inspections

means a governmental entity, whether state or tribal that has the

authority to conduct safety inspections and initiate law enforcement

using the appropriate federal and or jurisdiction's laws and

regulations.

2. First responders are generally those emergency response

personnel who (1) assess the risk level of the emergency, (2) take

defensive action to secure an accident scene, and (3) notify

additional authorities if needed.

3. Awareness level training means training for individuals who

are likely to witness or discover a hazardous materials substance

release and who have been trained to initiate an emergency response

sequence by notifying the authorities of the release. First

responder awareness level training shall provide sufficient training

to ensure that first responders objectively demonstrate competency

in the following areas:

(A) Understand what hazardous substances are, and the risks

associated with them in an incident.

(B) Understand the potential outcomes associated with an

emergency created when hazardous substances are present.

(C) Recognize the presence of hazardous substances in an

emergency.

(D) Identify the hazardous substance, if possible.

(E) Understand the role of the first responder awareness

individual in the employer's emergency response plan including site

security and control and the U.S. Department of Transportation's

Emergency Response Guidebook.

(F) Realize the need for additional resources, and make

appropriate notifications to the communications center.

(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(I)(A-F))

Awareness level training also means training for jurisdictions

or individuals who will accept and grant reciprocity to another

jurisdiction's inspections.

4. First responder operations level hazardous materials training

means training that provides for individuals who respond to releases

or potential releases of hazardous substances as part of the initial

response to the site for the purpose of protecting nearby persons,

property, or the environment from the effects of the release and to

be able to respond in a defensive fashion without actually trying to

stop the release. Their function is to contain the release from a

safe distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent exposures. First

responders at the operations level shall have received at least

eight hours of training and have had sufficient experience to

objectively demonstrate competency in the following areas in

addition to those listed for awareness level, and the employer shall

so certify:

(A) Know the basic hazard and risk assessment techniques.

(B) Know how to select and use proper personal protective

equipment provided to the first responder operational level.

(C) Understand basic hazardous materials terms.

(D) Know how to perform basic control, containment and/or

confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and

personal protective equipment available with their unit.

(E) Know how to implement basic decontamination procedures.

(F) Understand the relevant standard operating procedures and

termination procedures.

(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(ii)(A-F))

5. Hazardous materials technician level training is training for

individuals who respond to releases or potential releases for the

purpose of stopping the release. They assume a more aggressive role

than a first responder at the operations level in that they will

approach the point of release in order to plug, patch or otherwise

stop the release of a hazardous substance. Hazardous materials

technicians shall receive at least 24 hours of training equal to the

first responder operations level and in addition have competency in

the following areas, and the employer shall so certify:

(A) Know how to implement the employer's emergency response

plan.

(B) Know the classification, identification and verification of

known and unknown materials by using field survey instruments and

equipment.

(C) Be able to function within an assigned role in the Incident

Command System.

(D) Know how to select and use proper specialized chemical

personal protective equipment provided to the hazardous materials

technician.

(E) Understand hazard and risk assessment techniques.

(F) Be able to perform advance control, containment, and/or

confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and

personal protective equipment available with the unit.

(G) Understand and implement decontamination procedures.

(H) Understand termination procedures.

(I) Understand basic chemical and toxicological terminology and

behavior.

(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(iii)(A-F))

6. Train-the-trainer training, for emergency response

procedures, means training for individuals so that they can teach

other emergency responders to respond to a particular level of

competency. Train-the-trainer training, for safe routine

transportation procedures, means training for certified instructors/

individuals so that they may conduct refresher inspection courses

for their respective jurisdiction's safety and enforcement

inspectors.

[FR Doc. 98-11520 Filed 4-29-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P