[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36793-36804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17627]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

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

ACTION: Notice of inquiry; supplemental information.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department) intends to implement 
a program of technical assistance and funds to States for training for 
public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and 
Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary of Energy plans 
to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste. The 
training would cover both safe routine transportation procedures and 
emergency response procedures. The Department issued a Notice of 
Inquiry in the Federal Register on January 3, 1995 (60 FR 99) which 
briefly describes various options to delineate Section 180(c) of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act policy and procedures. Members of the public 
were invited to submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. In the March 
14, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 13715) the Department extended the 
deadline for comments to May 18, 1995. In a continuing effort to 
include stakeholders in pre-decisional discussions, the Department has 
developed additional information, presented below, that discusses 
options for policy and procedures and their applicability to the 
Section 180(c) mandate. The discussion below does not reflect final 
Departmental policy. The Department welcomes comments in response to 
this Federal Register notice on how best to implement the Section 
180(c) program. Comments to the previous notice will also be 
considered.
    The Department intends to prepare a Notice of Proposed Policy and 
Procedures for the Section 180(c) program in 1996.

DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Department and must be 
received on or before September 30, 1995.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
transportation of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, please contact: Ms. Corinne Macaluso, 
Operational Activities, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 
(RW-45), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-2837.
    Information packets are available for interested persons who want 
background information about the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management (OCRWM) transportation program and the Section 180(c) 
program prior to providing comments. To receive an information packet, 
please call: 1-800-225-NWPA (or call 202-488-6720 in Washington, D.C.) 
or write to the OCRWM Information Center, Post Office Box 44375, 
Washington, D.C. 20026.
    Copies of comments received will be available for examination and 
may be photocopied at the Department's Public Reading Room at 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 1E-190, Washington, D.C. 

[[Page 36794]]


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 disposal of civilian spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste in a deep geologic repository. The Department is also 
responsible for managing the disposal of spent nuclear fuel from 
civilian nuclear power plants and high-level nuclear waste, and for 
possible monitored retrievable storage of spent nuclear fuel prior to 
disposal. Additionally, the Department is responsible for 
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to the 
Department's disposal or storage sites. To carry out these 
responsibilities, the Department needs to implement Section 180(c) of 
the Act. Section 180(c) of the Act states:

    The Secretary [of Energy] shall provide technical assistance and 
funds to States for training for public safety officials of 
appropriate units of local government and Indian tribes through 
whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear 
fuel or high-level radioactive waste under subtitle A or under 
subtitle C. Training shall cover procedures required for safe 
routine transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for 
dealing with emergency response situations. The Waste Fund shall be 
the source of funds for work carried out under this subsection. [42 
U.S.C. 10175]

    In the interest of obtaining input from the broadest range of 
stakeholders, the Department began to develop the Section 180(c) 
program by publishing a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register on 
January 3, 1995 (60 FR 99). The Notice of Inquiry briefly described 
various policy and administrative options the Department was 
considering and invited members of the public to submit comments. In 
response to comments requesting more information on these options, the 
Department is presenting additional information in this Notice of 
Inquiry.
    The analysis presented here contains three main sections: Guiding 
Principles for Section 180(c) Policy and Procedures, Options for 
Section 180(c) Policy and Procedures, and Summary of Public Comments 
received in response to the January 3, 1995, Notice of Inquiry.

II. Guiding Principles for Section 180(c) Policy and Procedures

    Section 180(c) requires the Department to provide financial and 
technical assistance for training. Within this mandate, specific 
training elements must be addressed. Training must encompass procedures 
for both emergency response and safe routine transportation for public 
safety officials and appropriate units of local government and Indian 
tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport fuel 
or high-level radioactive waste.
    While the mechanism for distributing the funding and technical 
assistance for training is not specifically provided for in the Act, 
the legislative history (S. Rep. No. 152, 100th Cong., 1987) of this 
section suggests that Congress intended for the Department to provide 
direct funding to States and they, rather than the Department, would 
determine how best to allocate the funds. The Department will retain 
the responsibility of ensuring that Section 180(c) funds are 
distributed consistent with the NWPA.
    In addition, the Department has identified several guiding 
principles that it intends to follow in carrying out the requirements 
of Section 180(c). The following are not listed in any particular 
order.
     The Department recognizes that State, tribal, and local 
jurisdictions vary in organizational and staffing structures, 
philosophies on roles and responsibilities of public safety officials, 
and levels of preparedness and training. The Department will strive to 
develop a program with enough flexibility to accommodate the wide 
variety of State, tribal, and local assistance needs associated with 
NWPA shipments and Departmental responsibilities under Section 180(c).
     Where possible, the Section 180(c) program should be 
integrated into established Federal, State, and tribal training 
structures.
     The Department's responsibilities under other statutory 
authorities must be considered in the Department's options evaluation. 
These Departmental responsibilities exist under the Federal 
Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP), coordinated by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department's 5500 series 
Orders, and other radiological emergency preparedness and response 
programs.
     The Department will strive to minimize the Section 180(c) 
program's administrative burden on the Department and recipient 
jurisdictions.
     Distribution or use of Section 180(c) funds must be in 
accordance with restrictions applicable to the Nuclear Waste Fund as 
indicated in the NWPA.

III. Options For Section 180(c) Policy and Procedures

    This section is divided into two parts. The first part discusses a 
range of policy options that, when defined, will largely characterize 
the scope of the Section 180(c) program. These policy options are 
inextricably linked to how the Department will define the training 
goals and terms relevant to Section 180(c). Therefore, the policy 
options are discussed in terms of: (1) Emergency response training 
goals, (2) Safe routine transportation training goals and definitions, 
(3) Technical assistance definitions, (4) Eligibility criteria, (5) 
Funding allocation formulas, and (6) Restrictions on use of funds.
    Second part discusses the procedural options through which Section 
180(c) assistance might be administered. These options include other 
Federal training programs that the Department may be able to use to 
meet Section 180(c) requirements and funding mechanisms that may be 
used to distribute assistance.
A. Discussion of Policy Options

Emergency Response Training Goals
    Jurisdictions have differences in philosophy, in division of 
responsibility, and in levels of resources when planning for hazardous 
materials emergency response procedures. Some jurisdictions want those 
officials responsible for initial response action (``first 
responders'') at the local level to have the highest levels of training 
and equipment to prepare for all events. Conversely, other 
jurisdictions direct resources to more specialized response 
capabilities of regional or State hazardous materials response teams 
and provide first-on-scene personnel and first responders with only 
awareness training. The Department will take both these positions into 
account when delineating the scope of the Section 180(c) program.
Safe Routine Transportation Definitions and Training Goals
    The Federal government and State, tribes and local governments 
currently engage in a range of activities related to safe routine 
transportation and accompanying training. Part of setting the scope of 
Section 180(c) will be identifying what in the existing range is 
appropriate for NWPA shipments. Most safe transportation activities are 
designated the responsibility of the shipper and carrier by Federal 
regulatory action. However, States and tribes, in varying degrees, 
perform conveyance inspections and impose restrictions and penalties as 
part of safe transportation and its enforcement. The Federal government 
carries out three types of activities related to safe routine 
transportation. The Department of Transportation sets regulations for 
driver qualifications, hours of operation, 

[[Page 36795]]
labeling and placarding and related activities. They also conduct the 
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program discussed later in this paper 
that provides funding to encourage States to enforce uniform motor 
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations. In addition, the 
Department of Energy has implemented stringent driver qualifications 
and vehicle inspection standards for the eventual shipments to the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico. State and tribal 
regulatory authority for safe transportation inspections or enforcement 
is much more limited for rail transportation than for highway 
transportation.
    Some potential definitions of safe, routine transportation have 
been developed by the Department and stakeholder groups. The two 
definitions listed below may not be comprehensive and additional 
activities will be considered when defining safe routine 
transportation. Through such definitions, training needs may be better 
identified and provided for in a Section 180(c) program.
    Proposed definition from Strategy \1\ document: ``Safe, routine 
transportation is the condition of incident-free transportation. It 
involves the inspection and enforcement of shipments through State, 
Tribal, and local jurisdictions. Safe routine highway transportation is 
characterized by adequate vehicle, driver, and package inspection, and 
enforcement of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations. Rail and barge transportation 
regulations include the Federal Railroad Administration and Coast Guard 
regulations. Compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements 
for prenotification and physical protection also contributes to safe, 
routine transportation.''

    \1\ U.S. Department of Energy, 1992 Strategy for OCRWM to 
Provide Training Assistance to State, Tribal, and Local Governments, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, DOE/RW-0374P, 
November 1992, Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed definition from Transportation External Coordination 
Working Group \2\: ``Safe Routine Transportation is the uneventful 
movement, from origin to destination, of hazardous materials in a 
manner that does not present an undue risk to human health or the 
environment and is in compliance with applicable Federal, State, tribal 
and local laws and regulations.'' If this definition is chosen, the 
word ``hazardous'' will be replaced by the words ``radioactive waste''.

    \2\ The Transportation External Coordination Working Group is a 
group of national and regional organizations that participates in 
the Department's efforts to identify significant issues related to 
the transportation of hazardous and radioactive materials, recommend 
activities to resolve those issues, and implement appropriate 
activities as Transportation External Coordination Working Group 
tasks. All meetings are open to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Assistance Definitions
    The Department needs to determine what constitutes ``technical 
assistance'' as it applies to the Section 180(c) program. As with safe 
routine transportation, technical assistance has been widely discussed 
in the Transportation External Coordination Working Group and other 
forums where the Department and stakeholders discuss transportation 
issues. The following illustrate a range of possible definitions of the 
term ``technical assistance''.
    Proposed definition from Strategy document: ``Technical assistance 
is 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. 
If a definition of technical assistance is provided in the 
implementation of Section 117 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation 
Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA), OCRWM will use that definition for future 
planning regarding emergency situations.''

    Note: The Department of Transportation (DOT) does not provide a 
definition of technical assistance in the HMTUSA regulations.

    Proposed definition from Transportation External Coordination 
Working Group: ``The term Technical Assistance as it is used in Section 
180(c) implies that the Department of Energy will, in general, provide 
planning guidance, training support, available definitions of technical 
standards and criteria, practical support, and expertise to ensure that 
State and tribal governments are trained for safe routine 
transportation practices as well as capable of responding to spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level waste transportation emergencies within 
their jurisdictions. More specifically, activities may include aid in 
developing, implementing, and evaluating readiness and response plans; 
assistance in developing, conducting and evaluating exercises and 
training programs, support for coordination between neighboring groups, 
coordination between other government agency programs, and for public 
information and education efforts; on-site response support in the 
event of an accident or incident; and logistical and scientific 
expertise for recovery, reentry, and remediation activities at an 
emergency site. Technical assistance may include activities that 
monitor and assess the capabilities of groups in order to make funding 
decisions. Financial assistance or direct funding, however, is 
considered to be beyond the scope of this definition.''
    Proposed definition from the Council of State Governments 
Midwestern Office: ``The term Technical Assistance as it is used in 
Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act means a variety of 
activities designed to ensure that state, tribal, and local governments 
are trained for safe routine transportation practices as well as 
responding to transportation emergencies within their jurisdictions, 
including but not limited to planning guidance, training support, 
practical support, funding of pre-identified equipment, and 
expertise.''
Eligibility Criteria
    While the NWPA clearly directs the Department to provide technical 
assistance and funds to States for training for public safety officials 
of appropriate units of local government and Indian tribes through 
whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear fuel 
or high-level radioactive waste, a key determination is the eligibility 
of jurisdictions in light of the shipment schedule throughout the life 
of the shipment program.
    The Department has stated previously that implementation of the 
Section 180(c) program will begin three to five years prior to 
shipments. Although the Department has not yet selected routes or final 
disposal or interim storage sites, current contracts with utilities 
identify a sequence of acceptance from utility sites. Eligibility may 
be tied to transportation activity within a jurisdiction. 
Alternatively, all jurisdictions could receive assistance in the first 
year and throughout a Section 180(c) program. The Department must 
consider how eligibility may be tied to transportation activity both 
before shipments begin and in those cases of years where there is no 
transportation activity planned through a particular jurisdiction.
Funding Allocation Formulas
    A funding allocation formula is another element of the Section 
180(c) program whose definition might assist in establishing the scope 
of the program. A funding allocation formula is often the primary tool 
in a grants program 

[[Page 36796]]
identifying the variables that affect the amount of funding to go to a 
particular recipient. A formula may identify a percentage of a pool 
that has been appropriated for an entire program or identify 
qualification for predetermined amounts. The formula may identify a 
single amount for each recipient or a series of smaller amounts for the 
recipient to use toward specified goals.
    For the implementation of Section 180(c), funding allocation may be 
based on a variety of factors. Some of these factors include the 
following:
    Shipment miles. This is an estimation of miles that a shipment 
would cover through a jurisdiction combined with the frequency of 
shipments. A slightly different approach would include route miles. 
This estimation is a measure of the length of a route through a 
jurisdiction but does not include frequency of shipments. The two 
measurements produce different results. Using shipment miles would 
imply that two jurisdictions with routes of equal length would receive 
different funding levels if one jurisdiction experienced a higher 
number of shipments compared to the other.
    Number of affected jurisdictions. Because training is targeted for 
people rather than mileage, the identification of the number of groups 
at the State, local, or tribal level that should receive assistance may 
be an effective way to determine funding. Using this measure, 
allocation could effectively mirror highly populated metropolitan areas 
and less populated rural areas. However, the number of affected 
jurisdictions may prove too difficult to defend, particularly when 
considering the differing training goals of dissimilar areas. As an 
example, areas of higher population may have more emergency response 
personnel to train, but in general they may already be better trained 
and have considerably smaller response areas. Rural emergency response 
jurisdictions may cover considerably wider areas with a much smaller 
response group.
    Population may be a factor in funding allocation as it indicates 
the number of people along a route of a particular shipment. However, 
this implies areas of lower population would receive lower levels of 
assistance and those with higher populations would receive more. 
Including a measure of population in an allocation formula may be more 
effective if used in conjunction with other measures.
    Agreements between neighboring jurisdictions. In some cases, a 
State or tribe not receiving funding in a given year may still share 
some responsibility with neighboring States or tribes that do receive 
funding. An allocation may include a provision for additional 
cooperative activities in these cases. However, it is also conceivable 
that States and tribes would be asked to rely on their existing 
cooperative agreements.
    Annual timing of funding. The Department has stated that 
implementation should begin three to five years prior to shipments but 
some recipients may want to apply the bulk of assistance closer to a 
potential shipment date to ensure the highest possible training 
retention. Assistance may be provided at the start of the program to 
all recipients or it may be linked to transportation activity in a 
recipient's jurisdiction. A combination of these two possibilities may 
provide basic assistance for all recipients at the program's start and 
additional, more specific assistance based on transportation activity 
within the jurisdictions.
    Designation of a proportion of the assistance for training in 
specific areas. For example, funding could be divided by the formula 
for training in each mode of transportation, i.e., rail or highway. 
Likewise, it could be divided into assistance for routine 
transportation training and assistance for emergency response training. 
The Department may also choose to leave decisions to recipients on the 
specific areas of funding.
Restrictions on Use of Funds
    A Section 180(c) program may include some restrictions on the use 
of funds to ensure that the Department's intentions for direction and 
administration of the program are met. Any restrictions will also 
impact the program's scope.
    Funding restrictions may affect the choice of training courses, 
division of funds for local governments, or coordination activities. 
Training costs may be limited to tuition for Department-approved 
courses, or recipients may be able to develop or choose their own 
training programs with their funding allocation. The Department might 
simply suggest a course list to recipients. The Department may limit 
the percentage of an allocation to be spent on administrative 
activities or specify a percentage that must reach a local or regional 
level. Some specification for sharing funds with neighboring 
jurisdictions may be included, particularly where Memoranda of 
Understanding (MOU) or mutual aid agreements exist between 
jurisdictions for emergency response activities.
    Some direction may be included governing the use of funds to 
purchase equipment. While the Act states that financial assistance is 
for training, some have argued that training is only valuable in 
conjunction with equipment that will be used. The Department may 
develop a list of approved equipment for use, develop a list of 
approved equipment for training, or restrict equipment purchase to a 
percentage of discretionary funding. Similar choices may be made 
regarding travel costs for training of individuals and travel and 
salary costs for trainers.
    Restrictions may be identified that address the timing of funding 
use. For example, recipients may be required to use allocated funds 
within each year, within some specified time, or within the life of the 
program. An alternate option is to annually reimburse approved expenses 
by each recipient.

B. Discussion of Procedural Options

    The following section discusses the Department's current research 
on procedural options for a Section 180(c) program and the existing 
Federal programs that could be used as funding mechanisms or to provide 
technical assistance. Also, the section discusses ways to combine 
elements of existing options to create new programs for funding and 
training. An analysis of each procedural option is included in terms of 
the intent of the NWPA and the stated goals of the Section 180(c) 
program. The options can be considered either as avenues through which 
to administer Section 180(c) or as models that the Department could 
emulate.
    The existing Federal training programs are discussed in terms of 
their safe routine transportation and emergency preparedness 
activities, and ways in which they are administered. Options discussed 
include: (1) the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act grants, (2) the Department of Transportation's Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program, (3) the Department of 
Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration's State Participation 
Program, (4) current DOE training programs, (5) the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement program, (6) 
cooperative agreements and grants, (7) Department-wide or OCRWM 
assistance programs, and (8) combinations of options from previous 
groups. 

[[Page 36797]]

1. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs 
Administration,
Interagency Hazardous Materials; Public Sector Training and Planning 
Grants
    This program of Federal grants is primarily considered in this 
document for its applicability to emergency response training for 
highway shipments.
    DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has 
developed a program for reimbursable training and planning grants (49 
CFR Part 110). The program was established by the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended by the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990. It is intended to enhance 
existing State, tribal, and local hazardous materials transportation 
emergency preparedness and response programs by providing financial and 
technical assistance, national direction, and guidance that enhances 
overall implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). The program scope is broader than that of 
Section 180(c), covering all hazardous materials, not just radioactive 
materials. The program is supported by fees collected from a 
registration program for shippers and carriers of certain hazardous 
materials.
    RSPA has issued a list of activities eligible for funding under 
this program. States and tribes must complete application packages 
which require specific information on the intended use of a proposed 
grant. Applications are reviewed semi-annually and approved or declined 
by an RSPA grants administrator.
    Applications include detailed descriptions of proposed programs of 
planning or training. For training grants, the application includes a 
letter from the governor of the State or from the tribal government 
with authorization for a particular State agency or tribal organization 
to receive or administer the grant; a statement explaining current 
practices for collecting fees on the transportation of hazardous 
materials and whether such fees are used to support hazardous materials 
transportation; a statement outlining individuals who will be 
responsible for coordinating and administering the program; a detailed 
narrative of goals and objectives; a statement of work, associated 
costs, and schedule; and a description of major costs.
    For planning grants, the application includes a certification for 
compliance with EPCRA; a statement of aggregate expenditures for the 
previous two fiscal years; an agreement to make 75% of the grant 
available to Local Emergency Preparedness Committees (LEPC) or their 
designees; other specifics on who will administer the grant and how; 
and a statement that the State Emergency Response Commission has 
reviewed the grants application.
    The recipient agency is required to provide 20% of direct and 
indirect costs, acceptable in funds or in labor and equipment 
equivalents. Although limited needs-based advances are allowable in 
some cases, in general the grants are reimbursed. An existing grant is 
not a commitment of future Federal funding. Training and/or planning 
grants have been awarded to 50 States, 5 territories, and 11 Indian 
tribes. Indian tribes had been restricted to only receiving planning 
grants, but as of 1995 will also be eligible for training grants.
    As directed within the HMTA, allocation criteria for both training 
and planning grants are based on the needs of applicants. A portion of 
the grants is set aside for separate distribution to tribes. Allocation 
factors include objective criteria and criteria based on performance, 
compliance, and innovation. Some factors considered in allocating funds 
include: number of hazardous materials facilities, types and amounts of 
hazardous materials transported, population at risk, frequency and 
number of incidents reported in past years, high mileage transportation 
corridors, whether fees are collected on transportation of hazardous 
materials, and whether such fees are used to carry out purposes related 
to this activity. This places the burden on RSPA to identify the most 
needy applicants in the application review process and reflect their 
assessment in each award.
    Assistance under Section 180(c) is not needs-based but provided to 
each jurisdiction along NWPA transportation routes. The Department will 
identify a program-specific basis for Section 180(c) funding 
allocation.
2. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program
    The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) is primarily 
considered in this document for its applicability to training for safe 
routine transportation procedures for highway shipments.
    DOT provides Federal funds to the States for a variety of 
commercial motor vehicle activities that encourage each State to 
enforce uniform motor carrier safety and hazardous materials 
regulations through MCSAP. The program was established in the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and reauthorized in the Motor 
Carrier Act of 1991 (Title IV of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991). Present funding levels exceed $80 million.
    The objective of MCSAP is to reduce the number and severity of 
accidents and hazardous materials incidents involving commercial motor 
vehicle carriers by substantially increasing the level and 
effectiveness of enforcement activity and the likelihood that problems 
affecting, or potentially affecting, safe vehicle operations will be 
detected and corrected. More specifically, States use MCSAP funds to 
train personnel to inspect vehicles and driver records, conduct reviews 
of carrier operations, and promote public awareness of commercial 
vehicle laws and safety. Also, States may use funds to support truck 
weight enforcement, drug interdiction activities, uniform truck and bus 
accident reporting, Commercial Drivers License enforcement, hazardous 
materials requirements training, research and development, public 
education, and enforcement of State traffic laws in conjunction with 
MCSAP roadside inspections.
    Uniformity and compatibility of State regulatory requirements 
affecting interstate and intrastate carriers is a primary goal of the 
MCSAP. As a prerequisite for MCSAP funding, the Federal Highway 
Administration requires that States adopt or agree to adopt interstate 
and intrastate regulations which are compatible with Federal safety 
regulations. Currently, 48 States and 4 Territories actively 
participate in MCSAP but not Indian tribes.
    To receive basic MCSAP funding, a State must first agree to adopt 
and assume responsibility for enforcing the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 390-399) and highway related portions 
of the Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 107, 171-
173, 177, 178 and 180) or compatible State regulations. Each State must 
also submit annually a State Enforcement Plan for the conduct of an 
effective safety program. The Federal Highway Administration uses this 
plan as a basis for monitoring and evaluating performance of the State.
    The Federal Highway Administration, through regulations in 40 CFR 
350, lists other specifics for basic grant approval and identifies in 
more detail the contents of the State Enforcement Plan including 
requirements of State participation in North American Uniform Driver/
Vehicle Inspection 

[[Page 36798]]
standards and other Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance programs. (The 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance is a national organization that has 
developed uniform inspection procedures, and trains inspectors in these 
procedures.)
    Available MCSAP funds are distributed in three separate grants: 
Basic, Supplemental, and Special. Basic grants are given to each State 
with an approved State Enforcement Plan according to an allocation 
formula based on the most recent reliable data concerning the following 
factors in equal proportion: road mileage, vehicle miles traveled, 
number of commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds, population, and 
special fuel consumption. Supplemental grants are used to encourage 
innovative, successful, cost efficient or cost effective programs and 
may include emphasis areas identified through consultation between the 
Federal Highway Administration and States. To be eligible for a 
supplemental grant, a State must qualify for a basic grant. Special 
grants are awarded for activities that help States meet the 
requirements of eligibility for basic grants; or for States already 
participating in the basic program, to develop the prerequisites for 
expanded activities not presently part of their basic programs. Special 
grants are also available for research or data collection activities. 
To be eligible for a special grant, a State need not qualify for a 
basic grant.
    MCSAP reimburses States for 80% of eligible costs identified in the 
State's State Enforcement Plan. The other 20% must be provided by the 
State. Eligible costs are defined in 49 CFR 350.29 but include salaries 
and benefits of inspection and enforcement personnel, recruitment 
costs, training, equipment, vehicles, uniforms, motor fuel and oil, 
communications equipment, travel costs and per diem, and special 
inspection equipment, among others.
3. DOT, Federal Railroad Administration, State Participation Program
    The Department has studied this program as a possible avenue to 
provide training for safe routine transportation procedures for rail 
transportation.
    Initial responsibility for the inspection of hazardous material 
shipments by rail, which travel on private property, historically has 
been placed with the railroads. Government oversight of these type of 
inspections has been shared by both the Interstate Commerce Commission 
and the Federal Railroad Administration. To date, States and tribes 
have played a limited role in these inspections and no monetary Federal 
assistance is currently provided in regard to the performance of the 
inspections. Following passage of HMTUSA, the Federal Railroad 
Administration promulgated regulations on State participation in 
railroad safety inspections and investigations concerning 
transportation of hazardous materials.
    The State Participation Program (49 CFR Part 212) for inspector 
training began in 1992. State participation is voluntary. The Federal 
Railroad Administration pays for each State participant's travel 
expenses, per diem allowance, and course tuition associated with any 
conferences, seminars, workshops or classroom training. The State is 
then required to provide salary and benefits for the trained inspector 
who is expected to spend fifty percent of his/her time conducting 
Federal Railroad Administration-related inspections. Federal Railroad 
Administration training does not include provision of gear or 
equipment.
    The Federal Railroad Administration trains inspectors in five 
disciplines: track, motive power and equipment, operating practices, 
signal and train control, and hazardous materials. In 1995 there are 
283 Federal Inspectors and 60 safety discipline specialists spread 
across the eight standard Federal regions. Currently, 30 States 
participate in the program with 134 State inspectors encompassing all 
five safety disciplines.
    The number of both Federal and State inspectors who receive 
training in any given fiscal year is dependent upon two factors. These 
factors are the training budget allocated to the Federal Railroad 
Administration as an agency and the reallocation of the training funds 
within the Federal Railroad Administration which determines the 
training offered and the number of inspectors, both State and Federal, 
who will attend the training. If the cost of training all the 
perspective Federal and State inspectors in a single fiscal year would 
place a drain on the training budget, then the participation in 
training is limited.
    Prior to applying for the Federal Railroad Administration inspector 
training program, a State employee must meet the minimum apprentice 
level requirements as stated in 49 CFR Part 212. The Federal Railroad 
Administration will work with the apprentice applicant to gain the 
necessary field experience in order to become certified as a Federal 
Railroad Administration inspector under the auspices of the State 
Participation Program.
4. Current DOE Training Programs
    Current Department training programs are considered in this 
document as possible sources of training for all aspects required of a 
Section 180(c) program, regardless of chosen funding mechanisms.
    The Department of Energy has an extensive infrastructure with which 
to train personnel for safe transportation of radioactive materials, 
compliance with Federal regulations, and preparedness and response to 
radiological materials accidents at fixed facilities and during 
shipment. The following discussion describes the current divisions of 
responsibility within the Department for transportation and emergency 
response policy, current training programs for transportation-related 
activities, and the applicability of these to a Section 180(c) program. 
This is not a comprehensive description of the Department's programs 
but rather an outline of those training programs with potential 
relevance to a Section 180(c) program.
    The Department maintains a radiological accident response 
capability for the Federal government. The Department's Assistant 
Secretary for Defense Programs manages the Radiological Assistance 
Program and ensures that the necessary emergency plans, procedures, and 
resources are developed and maintained. Qualified Radiological 
Assistance Program teams are located in ten regions of the United 
States ready to respond when summoned by any other Federal agency, 
State, tribe, local government official, private industry 
representative, or private citizen. The Department's Office of 
Nonproliferation and National Security is responsible for coordinating 
the development and operation of the overall Departmental Emergency 
Management System, including maintenance of an Emergency Operations 
Center. The Department also provides this capability in support of the 
Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, which outlines the roles 
and responsibilities of all Federal agencies in situations involving 
radioactive materials.
    Within the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of 
Transportation, Emergency Management, and Analytical Services is 
responsible for setting Departmental policy on transportation matters. 
As part of this responsibility, the Office of Emergency Management (EM-
26) Emergency Management Team administers the Transportation Emergency 
Preparedness Program, to coordinate all non-weapons transportation 
emergency preparedness 

[[Page 36799]]
across the DOE complex. The Transportation Emergency Preparedness 
Program was established in 1991 to coordinate the development and 
maintenance of uniform policies and approaches for Department programs 
and field offices responsible for transportation emergency preparedness 
activities.
    The Department is also involved in activities at national 
laboratories and regional operations offices around the country that 
require employees and contractors to be trained in proper handling/
treatment of radioactive materials in routine and emergency situations. 
Transportation operations personnel must be trained to meet the same 
Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations required of all shippers of 
hazardous materials. Because of the variety and magnitude of such 
activities, the Department has developed a number of training courses 
that deal with radioactive materials. Many are offered to State, 
tribal, and local public safety officials as well as Department and 
contractor personnel.
    Section 180(c) program development could use existing Departmental 
courses in several ways. Whether funding were received through the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DOT, the Department, or some 
combination, the training programs could be modified to accept State 
and tribal members and train for NWPA shipments. The courses may be 
required, approved, or simply suggested by Section 180(c) policy. 
Department training may provide the added benefit of consistent, 
accurate training. The Department offices that share responsibilities 
for the Department's transportation and preparedness policies and 
infrastructure, Defense Programs, National Security and Non-
Proliferation, and Environmental Management Offices, will be consulted 
as the Section 180(c) program is developed. Any training that is 
provided under Section 180(c) will be most effective when it enables 
civil safety officials understand and work better within the existing 
Departmental and Federal systems.
5. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Comprehensive Cooperative 
Agreements
    The Department has studied this program as a possible avenue to 
channel financial and technical assistance for all aspects of the 
Section 180(c) mandate.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been charged with 
building and supporting the nation's emergency management system. The 
Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsible for coordinating 
emergency planning, preparedness, mitigation, and assistance functions 
for the Federal government. As part of that mission, the Comprehensive 
Cooperative Agreement mechanism channels financial and technical 
assistance to State, tribal and local governments. The Comprehensive 
Cooperative Agreement program (Public Law 95-224, Federal Grant and 
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977) is a possible mechanism through 
which Section 180(c) assistance could be administered.
    Each Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement program (the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency currently administers about fifteen 
different Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement programs) can be tailored 
to meet specific needs of the recipients and the requirements of the 
authorizing legislation. Other agencies, including the Department of 
Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, have used 
Comprehensive Cooperative Agreements to deliver funding and technical 
assistance to meet the needs of their programs and their statutory 
obligations.
    There is considerable flexibility in the Comprehensive Cooperative 
Agreement and Cooperative Agreement programs that would help cover 
several of the statutory mandates of Section 180(c). The money could be 
sent to a designated State or tribal emergency response agency and then 
passed through to the agency responsible for safe transport activities. 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency already has the means to 
earmark funds as Nuclear Waste Fund money, making it easier to monitor 
proper use and effectiveness of the program. Lastly, the Comprehensive 
Cooperative Agreement program allows each statement of work to be 
different to suit recipients' unique needs within the program's 
parameters.
    Whether the Department uses the Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement 
process as a funding mechanism, the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's lead agency responsibility for coordinating Federal emergency 
management makes it a candidate source for technical assistance under 
Section 180(c). The Federal Emergency Management Agency has lead agency 
responsibility for monitoring hazardous materials planning and training 
under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 
1992, for the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, 
and for the Radiological Assistance Committees.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency submitted a proposal to the 
Department for administration of the Section 180(c) program. Their 
proposal is referred to in the Summary of Public Comments in this 
notice and will be considered along with other comments received in 
response to the January 1995 notice.
6. Cooperative Agreements and Grants
    Two basic mechanisms are used by Federal agencies to distribute 
funds to State and tribal governments: cooperative agreements and 
grants. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (P.L. 95-224) 
outlines the proper use of each type of mechanism. Grants primarily 
indicate a transfer of funds, while cooperative agreements imply more 
substantial involvement between parties. Grant mechanisms can be 
further subdivided into categorical grants, block grants, and direct 
payments for a specified use. A Section 180(c) program may make use of 
any of these mechanisms.
    Cooperative agreements reflect a more interactive relationship 
between the Federal government and a State or local government or other 
recipient. As with grants the principal purpose of the cooperative 
agreement relationship is the transfer of money, property, or services 
to the State or local government or other recipient to accomplish a 
public purpose of support authorized by Federal statute. But unlike 
grants, substantial involvement is anticipated between the Federal 
agency and the State or local government or other recipient during the 
planned activity.
    Although grants usually present less of an administrative burden 
than cooperative agreements, Section 180(c) policy may require 
increased interaction between some recipients and the Department. 
Cooperative agreements generally require more communication between the 
Department and the recipient jurisdiction to develop scope of work, 
monitor activities, and complete reporting requirements. Grants can be 
narrowly focused in purpose and well defined so that once an 
application has been approved the Department's role is limited with the 
recipient jurisdiction having more flexibility and fewer record keeping 
and monitoring requirements.
    The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management currently has 
cooperative agreements with ten regional and national organizations. A 
cooperative agreement mechanism could be utilized to administer Section 
180(c) funds to State and tribal recipients. While it might add a layer 
of bureaucracy and increase administrative costs, it may reduce the 
long range costs to the Department. 

[[Page 36800]]

    The Department could use a combination of grants and cooperative 
agreements based on the recipient jurisdiction's level of preparedness. 
In general, cooperative agreements could be established with recipients 
who lacked basic public safety infrastructure, while a grant program 
could be established for recipients with more developed 
infrastructures. This approach could help address the lack of working 
infrastructure for safe routine transportation and emergency response 
in some jurisdictions and the fact that many existing Federal programs 
do not currently fund tribes as they do States.
    The combination of cooperative agreements and grants would allow 
for increased involvement between the Department and the recipient 
jurisdiction when necessary while not requiring it of all participants. 
Once a basic level of preparedness had been reached, a jurisdiction 
could transfer to the grant program. With this option the Department 
could define a basic level of preparedness and identify applicants 
accordingly, or allow each applicant to determine the type of funding 
mechanism most appropriate to them.
7. Department-Wide Assistance Program or OCRWM Assistance Program
    The options discussed above can be considered either as avenues 
through which to administer Section 180(c) or as models that the 
Department could emulate. If none of the options are seen as sufficient 
to meet the statutory requirements of Section 180(c), it is possible 
that the Department could develop an assistance program to consolidate 
all activities of similar nature. In a more directed approach, OCRWM 
could create its own assistance program tailored for Section 180(c).
    Under a Department-wide program, OCRWM would participate with other 
Departmental offices in establishing a program to coordinate provision 
of financial and technical assistance across all Department of Energy 
programs. The assistance could be designed to address training needs 
for both emergency response and safe routine transportation of 
radioactive materials for States and Indian tribes for the whole range 
of DOE nuclear shipments. These shipments include NWPA shipments, 
transuranic waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 
defense, and other Departmental shipments.
    This approach presents a comprehensive program covering both safe 
routine transportation and emergency response for both States and 
tribes. It would promote coordination, increase efficiency, consistency 
and uniformity throughout the Department; and allow for a high degree 
of Departmental control and oversight. One potential difficulty with 
this approach would be that different Departmental offices responsible 
for shipping work under different legal requirements that may not be 
compatible. A Departmental assistance program would also require a 
commitment of resources to consolidate the functional programs that 
have traditionally operated relatively independently. A Departmental 
program may also adversely impact the current schedule for developing 
the Section 180(c) program.
    OCRWM could develop and implement its own program, specifically 
tailored to Section 180(c) requirements. The benefits of this approach 
are that OCRWM could develop a program focusing solely on NWPA 
requirements. This offers greater flexibility in designing funding 
mechanisms and funding formulas. The disadvantages include duplication 
of State and tribal training within the Department and overlap efforts 
of other Federal agencies.
8. Combination of Elements from the Previous Groups
    In order to encompass safe routine transportation and emergency 
response training, for rail transportation and highway transportation, 
and for State and tribal recipients, a combination of procedural 
options may be most effective. There are many ways to combine the 
options to meet the Section 180(c) requirements.
    Some options discussed above have the potential to meet all of a 
Section 180(c) program's mandates while others have the potential to 
cover only a portion. If the Federal Railroad Administration and the 
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program are used to implement Section 
180(c) safe routine transportation training, then a further combination 
of options will be necessary. Emergency response training procedures 
and tribal government participation requirements would be met through 
other avenues.
    Current Department programs, the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Comprehensive Cooperative Agreements, a Department-wide 
program, or an OCRWM-wide program offer the best choices for 
implementing a complete Section 180(c) program through a single option, 
but even here combinations are possible. If funding and technical 
assistance are distributed through the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, current Departmental training programs could supply the 
necessary training courses.
    Other combinations are certainly possible and may include options 
not discussed in this paper, such as using funds to obtain training 
from private sources and from carriers of hazardous materials.
IV. Summary of Public Comments

    The Department received 36 comments in response to the January 3, 
1995, Notice of Inquiry. Comments were received from several State 
agencies, an Indian tribal government, a tribal organization, county 
governments, national transportation safety organizations, national and 
regional state government organizations, one Federal agency, a nuclear 
energy business organization, a utility and two citizens. The 
commenters held very diverse opinions; no single theme for implementing 
Section 180(c) was apparent.
    The following section discusses general categories and summarizes 
major points of comments and the Department's response, where 
appropriate. The Department will provide more-detailed responses to 
these comments and any additional comments resulting from this Notice 
of Inquiry; Supplemental Information when the Notice of Proposed Policy 
and Procedures is issued in early 1996.

Major Issues

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

General Themes

    A number of commenters offered ideas about the philosophy and 
general structure of the program. These ranged from developing a needs-
based type of program to one that offers assistance for an additional 
incremental level of training in existing hazardous materials 
transportation training.
    Several commenters requested a program that assesses the current 
capabilities of jurisdictions, assesses the needed level of readiness 
for NWPA shipments, and then provides Section 180(c) assistance to make 
up the difference. They suggested that planning grants could fund 
jurisdictions to complete the capabilities assessment. 

[[Page 36801]]
Then, implementation grants could be provided to carry out the 
identified activities.
    Another general theme urged the Department to take into account the 
low level of risk presented by spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste shipments and proportion the assistance and training 
accordingly. They maintained that current hazardous materials 
transportation training for safe routine and emergency response 
procedures is sufficient to handle any situation that may occur. 
Creating a Section 180(c) program that went beyond the current 
hazardous materials transportation training would send a message that 
the NWPA shipments are more hazardous than they really are.
    Separate from the issue over the basis for distributing assistance, 
several commenters recommended using the State Emergency Planning 
Committees and the Local Emergency Planning Committees as points of 
contact to decide who should receive assistance and to determine the 
needed level of training.
    Other frequently occurring comments urged the Department not to 
ship or to limit the number of shipments until a Section 180(c) program 
is in place. This comment was often made in conjunction with the 
comment that the Department has an obligation to accept waste in 1998, 
and if Congress identifies a storage facility, shipping may well begin 
in 1998 or shortly thereafter. In addition, these commenters urged the 
Department to accelerate Section 180(c) implementation and to ask for a 
Section 180(c) budget allocation in the 1996 budget request to 
Congress.
    Several commenters encouraged the Department to quickly announce 
potential routes. They argued that jurisdictions need to know as soon 
as possible what routes will be used so that they may begin planning 
immediately for shipments and be prepared if shipping occurs prior to 
the year 2010 currently targeted by the Department.

Safe Routine Transportation

    Several definitions of safe routine transportation were offered. 
These often included activities commenters thought should be included 
in training for safe routine transportation. One commenter endorsed the 
Transportation External Coordination Working Group definition while two 
commenters wrote more expansive definitions to include combinations of: 
alternate route analysis, inspection and enforcement training, en route 
contingency plans, transportation infrastructure improvements, shipment 
notification and tracking, escorts, public information, and development 
and distribution of training curricula and course materials.
    Not all comments referred to safe routine transportation directly, 
but identified the need for escorts and a satellite tracking system. 
The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors questioned the 
need for escorts as an expensive option considering the actual level of 
risk compared to other hazardous material shipments. The National 
Conference of State Legislatures called for the Department to examine 
the possibility of response teams travelling with the shipments. The 
tracking system was encouraged as a way to build trust in the safety of 
the shipments and work more closely with the corridor jurisdictions.

Emergency Response Procedures

    Several commenters offered either definitions of emergency response 
procedures or offered activities that they thought should be covered by 
training for emergency response procedures. Frequently, the Department 
was asked to delineate the responsibilities of each response level in 
case of a spent nuclear fuel transportation incident or accident. Only 
then would the best funding mechanism be identified.
    It was frequently commented that emergency response training for 
local public safety officials should be integrated into existing 
hazardous materials training. A couple of comments pointed out that 
current hazardous materials training was sufficient for local 
responders because the response requirements for radiological incidents 
fall within the requirements for other hazardous materials shipments.
    Contradictory comments were received concerning training for 
hospital personnel. One commenter argued that training for hospital 
personnel was not necessary, while others comments ranged from the need 
to provide simple awareness training to specialized decontamination 
equipment and training.

Eligibility Criteria
    Comments on eligibility criteria focused on which jurisdictional 
level should be eligible to apply for funds. Some argued that local 
governments should be eligible to receive funds directly. They argued 
that this would reduce administrative costs and give local governments 
more control over the assistance. Several counties simply requested 
that they be guaranteed an amount of funding and given some discretion 
in using the assistance. Other commenters said only States and tribal 
agencies are eligible to apply for assistance.
    Some commenters made suggestions regarding how the timing of NWPA 
shipments through a jurisdiction impacts eligibility. The Western 
Interstate Energy Board defined an eligible state or tribe as host and 
corridor states or tribes through which shipments under the NWPA are 
planned within six years. Others said training should begin one to 
three years prior to shipment.
    The point was also raised that tribes near corridor jurisdictions 
should be eligible for assistance, since their lands and people would 
be at risk in case of a transportation accident or incident.

Funding Allocation Formula

    Once eligibility criteria are determined, the total assistance 
available will have to be allocated among the eligible parties. 
Commenters were fairly specific in their views of how funds should be 
allocated. A frequent comment was that funds should be allocated 
according to the shipment miles through a jurisdiction. The Western 
Interstate Energy Board commented that annual implementation grants 
should have 75% of the funds allocated according to shipment miles and 
25% allocated to ensure minimum funding levels and program 
capabilities. They defined shipment miles as the product of the 
expected number of shipments multiplied by the distance of such 
shipments. The Nuclear Energy Institute countered that the number of 
shipment miles through a jurisdiction does not automatically make a 
jurisdiction more impacted and therefore does not qualify them for 
additional assistance. They requested that the Department allocate 
funding to incrementally increase preparedness above what exists, 
rather than build a new radiological response capability.
    The Southern States Energy Board suggested that funding should be 
allocated to each eligible jurisdiction based on a formula that 
includes both the number of routes miles in the jurisdiction and the 
population at risk along the shipment route(s), with consideration 
given to existing capabilities.
    The HMTA Training and Planning Grants approach (discussed on pages 
8 and 9 of this notice) to allocating funds was also suggested as a 
model.

Allowable Use of Funds

    The Notice asked stakeholders what types of activities should be 
allowed once funding has been allocated. This discussion often overlaps 
with the discussion of program scope and the 

[[Page 36802]]
definition of key terms. Several State agencies and organizations said 
that States and tribes should be the ones to prioritize needs and 
decide who needs training. They argued that recipients need wide 
latitude in deciding how to spend funds because of the varying levels 
of preparedness, divisions of responsibility, and other differences 
among jurisdictions. Many commenters, however, said that the final 
allocation of funding should guarantee a specific portion of the 
funding for local governments to use as they see best.
    Another comment argued that the DOT Research and Special Programs 
Administration grants program provides a good model for allowable 
activities. These regulations require recipient jurisdictions to 
describe existing programs and explain how the requested funds supply 
necessary improvements to the existing capabilities. They also provide 
for monitoring of the program's effectiveness.
    Another frequently mentioned point was that the Section 180(c) 
program should not require any matching funds from the jurisdiction in 
order to receive assistance.
    The final Section 180(c) program will indicate what, if any, 
restrictions there will be on the use of funds. Most likely, the types 
of activities that the Department will consider in this area include: 
what, if any, equipment a jurisdiction could purchase; what, if any, 
training courses would be mandated or recommended; and what, if any, 
percentage of funds would have to be distributed to local public safety 
officials as opposed to State, tribal, and regional officials.

Technical Assistance and Equipment

    Several commenters discussed the definition of technical assistance 
in addition to equipment issues. All the comments that included 
definitions of technical assistance identified the need for equipment 
in that definition. Therefore, these topics are being discussed 
together in this section.
    Some commenters suggested that the Department use the 
Transportation External Coordination Working Group definition of 
technical assistance cited in the text above. Another suggested using 
the Department's 1992 Draft Options Paper definition, also cited above. 
Other suggestions were more broad in their application, encompassing 
such things as emergency response equipment, inspection equipment, 
assistance in route planning, emergency response plan development, 
course development and exercises, tracking capability, equipment and 
training for hospital personnel, 24-hour access to Federal radiological 
safety personnel, carrier qualifications, and funding, among others.
    The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors questioned 
the need for equipment, especially for local responders. They argued 
that the low risk of these shipments does not justify a response 
capability beyond what currently exists. The Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, on the other hand, offered their assistance to the 
Department in providing technical assistance and equipment to 
responders through their role as providers of emergency and disaster 
preparedness for State, tribal, and local governments.
    One of the broader views on equipment came from the Council of 
State Governments-Midwestern Office. They believe the Department should 
supply funding for equipment, its maintenance and calibration, and that 
States should have funding to purchase computer software and hardware 
to assist with monitoring and response activities.

Concerns of Rural and Tribal Governments

    Many comments reflected concerns of jurisdictions in rural parts of 
the country and of tribal governments. Issues of concern to tribal 
governments are often very separate because of their sovereign nation 
status. However, in many instances, concerns overlap with those of 
rural jurisdictions.
    Comments received that dealt directly with tribal issues reiterated 
the Department's responsibility to work with tribes on a government-to-
government basis and to fulfill the Department's Trust responsibility 
towards tribal governments. One comment encouraged the Department to 
begin direct communications with tribal governments near reactor 
locations to address their particular concerns. The Department was also 
encouraged to contact tribal governments who may not know they could 
have NWPA shipments crossing their lands.
    The Department was also encouraged to take extra steps to address 
the lack of infrastructure and resources on many of the tribal lands 
that will be crossed by NWPA shipments. This should include providing 
resources to allow tribes to participate in the OCRWM program and to 
begin early to build an emergency response infrastructure for those 
tribes lacking basic infrastructure. One comment urged expansion of the 
cooperative agreement with the National Congress of American Indians to 
help facilitate communication with tribal governments.
    Other commenters made suggestions about how a Section 180(c) 
program could address the concerns specific to rural areas. Rural 
jurisdictions often rely heavily on volunteer public safety personnel 
with high turnover rates, they serve large areas with few staff, have 
few resources for training, and little or no ability to travel to 
obtain training. The commenters encouraged the Department to offer 
training in the community where the local responders reside and to 
guarantee that certain levels of training and equipment would be 
supplied.
    Both tribal governments and rural local and state governments 
expressed concern about lack of infrastructure or basic funding and 
personnel to build infrastructure. The transportation emergency 
response workshops sponsored by the National Congress of American 
Indians through their cooperative agreement with the Department of 
Energy, are a way to address tribal concerns. This preliminary type of 
awareness training may help provide some of the basic knowledge and 
know-how commenters mentioned as lacking.
    How much training and assistance is available for any eligible 
jurisdiction will depend on how Section 180(c) policy is defined. What 
training goals are set for what level of public safety official will 
give an indication of the assistance available at various governmental 
levels. These types of decisions will also determine whether the 
Department provides funding for the State and tribe to distribute as 
they see fit, whether certain portions of funding are required to be 
spent at the local level, whether training is proscribed at one or two 
locations around the country, or whether the Department sends materials 
to the local jurisdiction for their own self-study.
    The Department has made no decisions regarding Section 180(c) 
policy or the associated definitions and activities discussed above. 
These comments and others received throughout the development of the 
Policy and Procedures will be considered in the Department's decisions.
B. Section 180(c) Procedures
    Of the options for implementation outlined in the Preliminary Draft 
Options paper and the January Notice of Inquiry, no clear-cut choice 
was identified in the comments. Some commenters suggested additional 
sources to consider for implementation procedures, and a few suggested 
new combinations of existing options. 

[[Page 36803]]

    One theme found among comments on procedural options was the 
request to minimize the administrative burden on all parties. Depending 
on the perspective of the commenter, this appeared as requests to 
either enhance or avoid existing programs. The theme also surfaced as 
requests to limit layers of bureaucracy and administration through 
which funding must be passed.
(1) Use Established Federal Agency Programs Other Than the Department's
    From the State perspective, the Texas Department of Public Safety, 
Division of Emergency Management commented that receiving additional 
assistance through an existing and familiar program would be the least 
administratively burdensome. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement program, and the Research and 
Special Programs Administration program, under the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act were both mentioned as good options to avoid 
multiple Federal agency coordination requirements. New assistance 
programs, some felt, would create new administrative burdens.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency commented extensively with 
descriptions of their current regulatory authority to monitor and 
assess emergency plans and preparedness and a proposal for how they 
could administer the Section 180(c) program. This agency has current 
training programs and expertise in the emergency management field. 
Although a commenter criticized the agency for placing emphasis on 
preparations for nuclear attacks rather than transportation incidents, 
the Federal Emergency Agency stressed their all-hazards approach to 
preparedness that includes radioactive materials shipments within the 
larger scope of emergency preparedness.
    The Nuclear Energy Institute commented that a separate program for 
Section 180(c) in addition to the Research and Special Programs 
Administration under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act program 
will force utilities to pay twice for emergency preparedness. They 
suggested that working with RSPA could address this issue.
    Both tribal and non-tribal commenters identified problems 
associated with existing Federal programs and a dissimilar approach to 
tribal assistance. Many concluded that the Department will need to 
address tribes in separate agreements. Also, it was suggested that the 
Department explore more current funding mechanisms used by tribes such 
as the Department of Housing and Urban Development Community 
Development and Block Grant Program.
    Many county commenters expressed concern that any additional 
involvement of the Federal government would detract from the amount of 
funding ultimately destined for training costs and equipment. Others 
cited a diminished focus on NWPA shipments, Nuclear Waste Fund issues, 
government downsizing, or added administration as negative aspects of 
this option. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Association also pointed out 
that it may put expertise and training further away from the intended 
delivery point.
(2) Establish Agreements With State, Local, Tribal, and Other 
Organizations
    This option prompted a variety of interpretations. Some identified 
the potential improvements in regional cooperation and efficiency as 
the biggest benefit to establishing agreements with organizations. 
Agreements or Memoranda of Understanding between recipients, agreements 
between the Department and recipients, or agreements between the 
Department and regional or national coordinating organizations were all 
discussed. Overall, State and regional coordination was identified as a 
benefit.
    This option, specifically through an additional agreement with the 
National Congress of American Indians, was indicated as a potential 
solution to the Department ensuring up front consultation with tribal 
recipients. It was suggested that expansion of cooperative agreements 
with tribes would be beneficial, particularly in light of the 
differences between tribes and other recipients governments.
    Many commenters, however, after praising the benefits of 
cooperative agreements pointed out that their development is a lengthy, 
involved process and may take too long to implement effectively. Two 
specifically cited the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant program, which has 
developed over six years and only involves seven States substantively. 
Also, this option was named as an unnecessary administrative layer that 
would take away from total funding to be spent on training.
    Some other organizations were suggested for total or partial 
implementation or training support. The Association of American 
Railroads' Technical Training Center in Pueblo, Colorado is well suited 
to train emergency responders for rail incidents and is currently in 
operation. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance has worked closely 
with the Department to develop enhanced uniform inspection standards 
and train inspectors.
(3) Establish a Department-Wide Grant Program
    Response to this option was mixed. Some called it inappropriate or 
difficult, citing the Nuclear Waste Fund issues of commingling funds or 
the inability to coordinate with the diverse shipping campaigns of the 
Department in a timely manner. Another commenter noted that the fewer 
points-of-contact between the Department and stakeholders would be 
beneficial.
    One comment praised the current training courses offered at the 
Nevada Test Site and encouraged the Department to include them in 
Section 180(c) training. Another commenter suggested a review of the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant project as an effective implementation of 
similar goals. However, it was noted that this project targeted a 
smaller and better identified group, and modifications would be 
necessary.
(4) Establish an OCRWM Grant Program
    Many commenters saw this option as the most direct funding option. 
Some pointed to a minimized bureaucracy and administration, increased 
flexibility, and a resultant reduction in competition with other 
funding priorities as benefits of distributing Section 180(c) 
assistance without involving other programs. Also, the diversity of 
recipients and increased Department control and accountability were 
mentioned as benefits.
    The Western Interstate Energy Board commented on this option 
favorably, provided that such a grant program incorporates flexibility 
to allow States to coordinate the training and funding. The Southern 
States Energy Board and the National Conference of State Legislatures 
both identified this option as favorable if additional national or 
regional coordination efforts were also supported.
    Many county commenters interpreted this option as similar to the 
direct payments made to local governments through Yucca Mountain 
oversight programs. They were generally in favor of options that assist 
local governments as directly as possible.
(5) Use Elements From the Previous Four Groups
    Two commenters agreed that a combination of OCRWM grants and 
regional/national group cooperative agreements would be best. This 
could provide the proper degree of direct contact between the 
Department and recipient governments while also 

[[Page 36804]]
encouraging national or regional planning, coordination, and 
uniformity.
    It may be necessary to apply a combination of options to encompass 
the wide array of objectives outlined in the NWPA. This range was 
discussed above in part III.B.8, Combination of Elements from the 
Previous Groups.
C. Applicability of Section 180(c) to Private Shipments
    Many States, counties, and regional groups urged that the Section 
180(c) program should apply to all commercial spent nuclear fuel or 
defense high-level radioactive waste shipments ultimately destined for 
a NWPA facility, whether or not those shipments are transported to and 
stored on an interim basis at a private facility. Commenters cited that 
any large-scale shipping campaign of such materials will have virtually 
the same impact on States and tribes as that envisioned in the NWPA.
    The Department does not currently have the legal authority to 
implement a program of financial and technical assistance for shipments 
other than those outlined by the NWPA. However, the many comments on 
this issue have been noted.
D. Policy Development Process
    A few commenters questioned the Department's plans to issue a 
Notice of Policy and Procedures rather than establish the program in 
regulations. They voiced concern that implementation of Section 180(c) 
through regulations is necessary to ensure stability through changes of 
leadership within the Department and that an interpretation of policy 
and procedures is ``less robust.'' An expedited rulemaking process was 
suggested to accommodate time constraints.
    The Department's response to these comments is that development of 
the Interpretation of Policy and Procedures has followed and will 
continue to follow Notice and Comment Procedures of the Federal 
Rulemaking process. At some future date the option of converting Policy 
and Procedures to a rulemaking may be acted upon. In development, 
however, it was the Department's intent to remain flexible in order to 
work through unforeseen problems without rulemaking requirements.

V. Conclusion and Request for Submission

    This paper has presented a discussion of options for Section 180(c) 
policy and procedures. The subjects discussed here should not be viewed 
as the only potential options for the program. Comments received on 
this Notice and continuing research on these options may still identify 
aspects of the program not discussed here that will be included in the 
Notice of Proposed Policy and Procedures, which the Department intends 
to publish in 1996. The purpose of this document has been to share with 
stakeholders the research to date and request additional comments from 
interested parties.
    The Department solicits comments from the public on all aspects of 
Section 180(c) implementation.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., July 12, 1995.
Daniel A. Dreyfus,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
[FR Doc. 95-17627 Filed 7-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P