[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24771-24783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12283]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24772]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Safe
Transportation and Emergency Response Training; Technical Assistance
and Funding
AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed policy and procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department) publishes for public
comment a proposed policy statement setting forth its plans for
implementing a program of technical and financial assistance to states
for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local
government and to Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the
Department plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste. The training would cover both safe routine
transportation procedures and emergency response procedures.
DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Department and must be
received on or before August 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: Corinne Macaluso,
U.S. Department of Energy, c/o Lois Smith, TRW Environmental Safety
Systems, Inc., 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 695, Washington, D.C.
20024, Attn.: Section 180(c) Comments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses. Receipt of comments in response to this Notice will be
acknowledged if a stamped, self-addressed postal card or envelope is
enclosed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information on the transportation
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, please contact: Ms. Corinne Macaluso,
Environmental and Operational Activities, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, (RW-45), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-
2837.
Information packets are available for interested persons who want
background information about the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management transportation program and the Section 180(c) program prior
to providing comments. To receive an information packet, please call 1-
800-225-NWPA (or call 202-488-6720 in Washington, D.C.) or write to the
OCRWM Information Center, Post Office Box 44375, Washington, D.C. 20026
or the Yucca Mountain Science Center, 4101B Meadows Lane, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89107.
Copies of comments received will be available for examination and
may be photocopied at the Department's Public Reading Room at 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 1E-190, Washington, D.C.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose and Need for Agency Action
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (42 U.S.C.
10101 et seq.) (NWPA or ``the Act''), the Department of Energy
(Department) is responsible for the disposal of high-level radioactive
waste and civilian spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository.
The Department is also responsible for the possible monitored
retrievable storage (MRS) of spent nuclear fuel prior to disposal.
Additionally, the Department is responsible for transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste to the Department's disposal
or storage sites. To carry out these responsibilities, the Department
is required to implement Section 180(c) of the Act. Section 180(c) of
the Act requires the Department to provide technical assistance and
funds to States for training for public safety officials of appropriate
units of local government and Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction
the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste. Section 180(c) further provides that training cover
procedures required for safe routine transportation of these materials,
as well as procedures for dealing with emergency response situations.
Section 180(c) identifies the Nuclear Waste Fund under the Act as the
source of funds for work carried out under this subsection. [42 U.S.C.
10175]
II. Section 180(c) History
The Department issued a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register
on January 3, 1995, (60 FR 99) which briefly described various options
to delineate Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act policy and
procedures. Members of the public were invited to submit comments on
the Notice of Inquiry. In the March 14, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR
13715) the Department extended the deadline for comments to May 18,
1995. In response to requests for additional information, the
Department issued another, more detailed Notice of Inquiry in the
Federal Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). Members of the public
were again invited to submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. In a
continuing effort to include stakeholders in predecisional discussions,
the Department has developed the proposed Section 180(c) policy and
procedures, presented below, that comprise the Department's proposed
approach to implementing Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act. Included in this Notice is a summary of the comments received from
the two prior Notices of Inquiry and the Department's response to those
comments. The Department welcomes comments in response to this Federal
Register notice on the proposed Section 180(c) policy and procedures.
The Department plans to publish, in 1997, a Notice of Final Policy
and Procedures that the Department intends to follow in implementing
the Section 180(c) program. The Section 180(c) program encompasses the
shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a
geologic repository or a monitored retrievable storage facility
pursuant to the NWPA.
The Department's work to date on the Section 180(c) policy and
implementation procedures has been discussed primarily in
Transportation Coordination Group meetings and Transportation External
Coordination (TEC) Working Group meetings. The Transportation External
Working Group will continue to meet periodically to identify and
discuss issues related to the transport of radioactive materials. In
addition, the Department has ten cooperative agreements with national
and regional organizations representing state, local and tribal
constituencies to provide information and solicit input regarding the
transportation aspects of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management program.
The Department has also released two documents that discuss Section
180(c) policy and implementation. These two documents are the Strategy
for OCRWM to Provide Training Assistance to State, Tribal, and Local
Governments (November 1992, DOE/RW-0374P) (the Strategy document), and
the Preliminary Draft Options for Providing Technical Assistance and
Funding Under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as
Amended (November 1992) (the Options paper). These documents are
available by requesting the information packet from the OCRWM National
Information Center or the Yucca Mountain Science Center.
III. Proposed Section 180(c) Policy and Procedures
Introduction
This section is divided into four subject areas. It includes a
discussion of the proposed funding mechanism,
[[Page 24773]]
definitions of key terms, eligibility and timing of the grants, and
allowable activities. This proposal is based on information gained by
studying industry regulations, legal requirements, and stakeholder
comments. Funding Mechanism describes the method by which funds would
be disbursed to states and tribes, hereafter referred to as
jurisdictions. Definition of Key Terms describes the definition of safe
routine transportation and technical assistance for the purposes of the
Section 180(c) program. Eligibility and Timing of the Grants Program
describes when jurisdictions are eligible and the timing of the grants
process. Allowable Activities describes the types of activities the
funding could be used for as well as some activities that would be
disallowed. The final policy and procedures may differ based on
comments received on this proposal, any new legislation, and any
program and policy changes caused by new Congressional direction.
The Appendix to this Notice provides the cost basis for this
proposed Section 180(c) program.
Funding Mechanism
The Department intends to implement Section 180(c) through an OCRWM
grants program. Funding would be provided every year beginning
approximately three years prior to the first shipment through a state
or tribal land. The Department would administer the grants but the
grants would be specific to the Section 180(c) program and would not be
combined with any other Department-sponsored transportation
preparedness or training programs, although coordination by
jurisdictions would be encouraged.
The grant program would be administered in accordance with the DOE
Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR 600), which implement OMB Circular
A-87, Cost Principles for Grants, Contracts and Other Agreements with
Local Governments, OMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative
Agreements with State and Local Governments, and OMB Circular A-128,
Audits of State and Local Governments. In order to preserve
flexibility, the Department does not presently plan to codify the
policy and procedures in this notice as substantive regulations.
Definitions of Key Terms
The definition of safe routine transportation for the purposes of
determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section
180(c) program would be as follows:
Safe routine transportation means the enforcement of
standards and inspection of shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste to a repository or an MRS pursuant to the NWPA
through state, tribal, and local jurisdictions in a manner compliant
with applicable Federal, state, tribal, and local laws and regulations.
Safe routine highway transportation is characterized by adequate
vehicle, driver, and package inspection and enforcement of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials
Regulations. Safe routine transportation is also characterized by
compliance with rail and barge transportation regulations including
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Coast Guard regulations.
The definition of technical assistance for the purposes of the
Section 180(c) program would be as follows:
Technical assistance means assistance, other than
financial assistance, that the Secretary of Energy can provide that is
unique to the Department to aid training that will cover procedures for
the safe, routine transportation and emergency response situations
during the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste to a repository or MRS pursuant to the NWPA, including, but not
be limited to, the provision of training materials, the provision of
public information materials, and access to individuals involved in the
shipments.
Technical assistance, as defined, would include access to the
Department's regional and headquarters representatives involved in the
planning and operation of NWPA transportation or emergency
preparedness, provision of information packets that include information
about the OCRWM program and shipments, and attendance and support from
OCRWM program representatives for public meetings upon request and
consistent with the OCRWM budget. It would not include the provision of
equipment, although recipients would be able to budget up to ten
percent of their allocated funds to purchase equipment if they chose to
do so.
Eligibility and Timing of the Grants and Technical Assistance Program
The Department intends to provide grants and technical assistance
under the Section 180(c) program for the safe routine transportation of
NWPA shipments as these terms are defined above. The Department intends
that the application process for grants and technical assistance begin
approximately four years prior to transportation (about one year for
the application process, about three years to implement the program)
through a jurisdiction. The Department intends to notify the governor
or tribal leader of the jurisdiction with a letter and information
packet, including an application. The Department intends to calculate
the base amount and variable amount available to each jurisdiction and
include that information in the application package. The governor or
tribal leader would be requested to select one agency or representative
within the jurisdiction to apply for and administer the Section 180(c)
grant and technical assistance. The administering agency or
representative would indicate in the application how it intends to use
its budget. If funding needs to be passed on to other agencies (for
example, from the emergency services agency to the highway patrol to
pay for inspector training) then that would be the responsibility of
the recipient state or tribe. That information should be identified in
the application.
Eligible jurisdictions would submit an application to the
Department beginning approximately four years prior to the first
shipment through a jurisdiction. The application would include a three-
year plan detailing how the funds would be spent each year. Funding
would be disbursed annually based on the applicant's three-year plan.
Each jurisdiction would receive a base amount of funding for each year
of eligibility. A variable amount of funding, based on route miles,
would be available after the first year of eligibility for those
jurisdictions that qualify pursuant to the plan discussed in the
Appendix.
Local governments would not apply for Section 180(c) grants or
technical assistance directly. Local participation would be coordinated
through the state or tribe, if they have subjurisdictions. However, the
applicant would be required to demonstrate in its plan how the local
jurisdictions are benefiting from the program. Each jurisdiction would
be requested to submit a description of the coordination procedure as
part of its grant application. This approach builds flexibility into
the use of the funds and responds to commenters' concerns that
assistance may not reach the local level.
The Department anticipates knowing three to four years prior to
shipment which states or tribal land the shipments will travel through,
even if routes have not been selected. Using this information, the
Department would notify these jurisdictions about their potential
eligibility for the Section 180(c) program. The Department would
include in the information to the jurisdiction the total amount of
budget
[[Page 24774]]
it would be eligible for as determined by the cost estimates described
in the Appendix to this Notice. Two years prior to the shipments going
through a jurisdiction, the Department would announce proposed routes.
Within the first year of eligibility to receive funding
(Transportation Year [defined as the year that shipments will commence]
minus 3 or TY-3), a base grant would be available.
Within the second year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 2
or TY-2), a base grant and a variable amount of money for those
jurisdictions that qualify would be available. Proposed routes would be
announced during the second year of eligibility.
Within the third year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 1
or TY-1), a base grant and a variable amount of money for those
jurisdictions that qualify would be available.
A state or tribe would continue to be eligible for and receive
Transportation Year grants as long as NWPA shipments go through its
jurisdiction each year. If there is a lapse of NWPA shipments for three
or more years, the state or tribe would receive no funds for those
years and would only regain eligibility three years prior to another
NWPA shipment through its jurisdiction. Three years prior to the
resumption of shipments through its borders, a state or tribe may again
apply for TY-1 grants. If the lapse is of two years or less between
shipments, the Transportation Year grants would continue as if
shipments had been traversing that jurisdiction during the lapse.
A significant route change made later than two years prior to the
expected start of NWPA shipments through a jurisdiction could generate
some difficulty in administering Section 180(c). The Section 180(c)
program would include contingencies for changes in schedule and route.
In general, jurisdictions may receive an additional amount of funding
and technical assistance if asked to complete activities in shorter
amounts of time, i.e., a state may receive TY-1 and TY-2 funding in the
same year. If the route change is made too close to the time of
shipment to allow for Section 180(c) preparations, OCRWM may use
escorts with more training and equipment than those currently used for
the purpose of safeguards until a reasonable time period for training
has expired.
Allowable Activities for Funding
This section describes the types of activities that would be
allowed under this proposal and some of the specific activities that
would be disallowed. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but
merely a guide to the types of activities an applicant jurisdiction
might consider and some of the activities that would be considered
outside the scope of the program and therefore not eligible for Section
180(c) funding.
For the most part, it would be the applicant's decision as to who
gets trained, the level of training obtained, and the organization that
administers the training. Applicants would be encouraged to describe in
their three- year plans how the budget would be integrated with other
available training such as that offered through the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Conference on Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development, the state,
or regional organizations. The application package would request
information on how the applicant would use the budget as part of a
larger effort to augment their current infrastructure for safe routine
transportation procedures and emergency response as well as how the
applicant anticipates using technical assistance.
Specifically, an applicant would be able to budget up to ten
percent of each year's 180(c) funds to purchase appropriate (i.e.,
training-related) equipment provided the equipment is identified in its
application and approved in the grant.
Funding may be used for refresher training and to train new public
safety personnel. During the years NWPA transportation is occurring in
a jurisdiction (Transportation Year), two-thirds of the budget provided
in TY-1 would help offset the costs of refresher and new personnel
training. The two-thirds multiplier is a conservative estimate based on
the assumption that after the initial training in TY-1 and TY-2, each
jurisdiction would experience a personnel turnover rate of
approximately two-thirds of its staff each year. The turnover of
personnel, particularly in the emergency response area, means that new
people will need training if shipments continue through a jurisdiction
over an extended period of time. It would be the jurisdiction's choice,
within the limits of their Section 180(c) annual budget, to determine
who receives refresher training and with what frequency. It would also
be the jurisdiction's choice, within the limits of its annual Section
180(c) budget, which new personnel receive training and the type and
location of the training.
Section 180(c) funds would not be available for the conduct of
drills and exercises. The Department anticipates that it will conduct
drills and exercises which will be conducted in conjunction with
states, tribes and local governments in preparation for NWPA shipments.
However, drills and exercises are generally considered a means to
measure preparedness, an activity the Department views as beyond the
scope of the 180(c) program which is limited by statute to provision of
funds and technical assistance for training.
IV. Discussion of Comments Received on the NOIs
The Department received 38 comments in response to the January 3,
1995, Notice of Inquiry and an additional 13 comments in response to
the July 18, 1995, Notice of Inquiry: Supplemental Information.
Comments were received from the Council of State Governments--
Midwestern Office, Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional
Conference, Southern States Energy Board, Western Interstate Energy
Board, two private citizens, Ohio Division of Emergency Medical
Services, State of California Department of Transportation, White Pine
County Nuclear Waste Project Office, Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance, International Association of Fire Fighters, Texas Department
of Public Safety, Lander County Commission, Yakima Indian Nation,
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Association of American Railroads,
Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, Oregon Department
of Energy, State of Kansas, Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information
Office, New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department,
National Conference of State Legislatures, County of Inyo Planning
Department, Nuclear Waste Repository Oversight Program, National
Congress of American Indians, Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Lincoln County Nuclear
Waste Project, Nuclear Energy Institute, Vermont Department of Public
Service, Commonwealth Edison Company, Ohio Emergency Management Agency,
Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio, Northern States Power Company, Ohio Emergency
Management Agency, Virginia Power, State of Nebraska Civil Defense
Agency and the State of Colorado. The commenters held very diverse
opinions; no single theme for implementing Section 180(c) was apparent.
The following section discusses general categories and summarizes
[[Page 24775]]
major points of the comments and the Department's response.
Major Issues
A. Section 180(c) Policy
The commenters raised many topics related to defining a Section
180(c) policy. Although the Department recognizes that these topics are
closely related and overlap each other, this section divides those
topics into the following subsections: general themes for a Section
180(c) program, safe routine transportation, emergency response
procedures, eligibility criteria, funding allocation formula, allowable
use of funds, technical assistance and equipment, and concerns of rural
and tribal governments.
General Themes
A number of commenters offered ideas about the philosophy and
general structure of the 180(c) program. These ranged from developing a
needs-based type of program to one that offers assistance for an
additional incremental level of training in existing hazardous
materials transportation training to cover NWPA shipments. An example
of comments related to a needs-based program is the Colorado Emergency
Planning Commission recommendation to conduct a risk assessment that
balances the likelihood of an accident, the response capability of the
jurisdiction to react, and the likely affected population, then, from
that assessment, identify the preparedness, response, and recovery
needs of each jurisdiction. Similarly, the Western Governors'
Association (WGA), through the Western Interstate Energy Board,
submitted straw man regulations for a program that assesses the current
capabilities of jurisdictions, assesses the needed level of readiness
for NWPA shipments, and then provides Section 180(c) assistance to make
up the difference. WGA suggested that planning grants could be used to
fund jurisdictions to complete the capabilities assessment while
implementation grants could be used to carry out the identified
activities. They recommended the Department fund one national and
several regional training advisory committees to help states and tribes
coordinate their training activities. Most of the comments supporting a
needs-based program either implied or stated the belief that Section
180(c) assistance should cover all costs associated with the Federal
government's transportation of spent nuclear fuel.
In contrast, other comments urged the Department to only provide
training and assistance as an increment above what currently exists.
These comments urged the Department to take into account the low level
of risk presented by spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste shipments and proportion the assistance and training among
recipients accordingly. These commenters maintained that current
hazardous materials transportation training for safe routine and
emergency response procedures is sufficient to handle any
transportation radiological accident that may occur. Creating a Section
180(c) program that goes beyond current hazardous materials
transportation training would send a message that the NWPA shipments
are more hazardous than they really are. Still other commenters stated
that nuclear utilities will, in effect, pay twice for emergency
response and safe routine practices through contributions to the
Nuclear Waste Fund, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform
Safety Act fees for transporters of hazardous material, and through
various state and local fee assessments and programs.
Other recurring comments urged the Department to either not ship or
to limit the number of shipments until a Section 180(c) program is in
place. This comment was frequently presented in conjunction with the
belief that the Department has an obligation to accept waste in 1998,
and if Congress identifies a storage facility, shipping may well begin
in 1998 or shortly thereafter. In addition, these commenters urged the
Department to accelerate Section 180(c) implementation and to ask for a
Section 180(c) budget allocation in the 1996 budget request to
Congress.
Several commenters encouraged the Department to begin as soon as
possible the process of route selection, in cooperation with the
states, to give jurisdictions sufficient time to assess their training
needs. They argued that jurisdictions need to know what routes will be
used so that they may begin planning immediately for shipments and be
prepared if shipping occurs within the next few years.
Response
It is the Department's position that the purpose of a Section
180(c) program is to provide jurisdictions assistance in an increment
above their current level of preparedness rather than to supply
complete emergency response or safe routine transportation capabilities
along NWPA transportation routes. Other Federal agencies such as FEMA
and the Department of Transportation, as part of their respective
missions, assist states and tribes in the creation of more
comprehensive emergency response and safe routine transportation
capabilities. Therefore, this proposal is designed to provide
incremental assistance, above what currently exists, to help
jurisdictions prepare for NWPA shipments. This program, in combination
with the Department's emergency response capabilities, will help
jurisdictions train for these shipments and increase their preparedness
level.
While the Department has not adopted the Western Governor's
Association straw man regulations specifically, the Department's
proposal would allow states and tribes the flexibility to implement
many provisions of the straw man regulations as they choose. The
Department's proposed technical assistance would help provide the
planning and coordination called for in the straw man regulations at a
reasonable cost to the program. In addition, the proposed training
advisory groups could drain financial assistance away from recipient
jurisdictions. Training up to two years prior to shipments will provide
inspectors and emergency responders with current information about the
NWPA shipments.
Regarding the concern that shipments will occur with less than
three years' preparation, this proposed policy includes a contingency
plan should the Department have to ship spent fuel through a
jurisdiction with less than three years notice. In addition, the
Department will work with jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis to meet
the intent of Section 180(c) prior to any shipments through a
jurisdiction.
Regarding the comments that the Department should request Section
180(c) funding in fiscal year 1996 and announce routes as soon as
possible, funding requests for Section 180(c) and a determination of
routes cannot be completed until a destination and initial shipping
date have been identified.
Safe Routine Transportation
Commenters offered several suggestions concerning the definition of
safe routine transportation as used in 180(c). Four commenters
specifically supported the Transportation External Coordination Working
Group definition while other commenters wrote more expansive
definitions to include combinations of alternate route analysis,
inspection and enforcement training, en route contingency plans,
transportation infrastructure improvements, shipment notification and
tracking, escorts, public information, and development and distribution
of training curricula and course materials. The Western Governor's
Association straw man
[[Page 24776]]
regulations would add record-keeping audits, operating protocols, and
improving confidence in the shipping package to the definition.
A number of viewpoints were expressed on inspections as part of
safe routine transportation activities. For example, the Public Utility
Commission of Ohio stated that safe routine transportation includes
more than inspections and should include detailed carrier and shipper
compliance reviews pursuant to 49 CFR 100-177 requirements. The
Department was also encouraged to develop inspection standards for rail
transport serving the same purpose as the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance's enhanced inspection standards for truck shipments.
Regarding the relative emphasis and scope of safe routine
transportation activities, the Council of State Governments--Midwestern
Office and the Public Utility Commission of Ohio recommended placing
equal emphasis on safe routine transportation activities as on
emergency response activities. In contrast, the Ohio Emergency
Management Agency recommended placing more emphasis on emergency
response activities. One commenter said Section 180(c) assistance
should fully fund state costs for state inspections and escorts related
to NWPA shipments.
The need for and training of escorts was also a topic. The
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors questioned the need
for escorts as an expensive option considering the actual level of risk
compared to other hazardous material shipments. Two commenters called
for the Department to examine the possibility of either state or
Federal response teams traveling with the shipments to reduce the need
for local first-responder training.
A global positioning system for shipment tracking was encouraged as
a way to build trust in the safety of the shipments and work more
closely with the corridor jurisdictions.
Response
The definition of safe routine transportation proposed in this
notice combines part of the TEC definition and the Strategy document
definition. The complete TEC definition was not used because it is very
broad and does not indicate specifically what training for safe routine
transportation activities would be covered by Section 180(c)
assistance. Many activities suggested in the comments are already
required of the shipper or carrier such as developing operating
protocols and using escorts. This negates the need to include the
activities in the definition of safe routine transportation for the
purposes of providing Section 180(c) assistance. Some other requested
activities, such as alternate route analysis and record-keeping audits,
are outside the realm of training for safe transport of NWPA shipments,
and therefore not included in the definition.
Regarding the comments that the Department should develop rail
inspection standards, the Department representatives will work
cooperatively with the railroad companies and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) on inspection and enforcement matters. Both the
rail companies and the FRA have stringent standards for the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. The
Department has no plans to develop rail inspection criteria.
The proposed policy permits enough flexibility that a recipient
jurisdiction may distribute the money between training for emergency
response procedures and safe routine transportation procedures as they
choose. Again, this proposal is intended to assist jurisdictions to
incrementally increase their level of preparedness for NWPA shipments.
However, the Department maintains the position that to pay for all
costs associated with state inspections and escorts is beyond the scope
of the Section 180(c) program and is not necessary for shipment safety.
These shipments will be made in accordance with NRC safeguards and
security requirements. The issue of whether escorts must be used is
partially answered by NRC regulations, which require escorts (10 CFR
73.37).
Emergency Response Procedures
The comments on providing assistance for emergency response
training procedures were particularly varied. In keeping with the
needs-based approach to assistance, a number of commenters recommended
funding planning activities to determine the type and amount of
training. These suggestions include Departmental delineation of the
roles and responsibilities of each jurisdiction in an emergency
response situation and assistance to each jurisdiction in carrying out
that role; funding to jurisdictions to conduct route and risk
assessments prior to deciding whom to train and to what standards; or
using the State Emergency Response Commissions and the Local Emergency
Planning Committees as points of contact to decide who should receive
assistance and to determine the needed level of training.
Various training standards for different levels of responders were
also suggested. These included awareness training for local first-
responders and higher-level training for more specialized responders,
refresher training for first-responders, maintenance of on-call systems
for radiological responders, and periodic exercises for personnel
responding to accidents. The Western Governor's Association straw man
regulations recommended the above activities plus accident
notification, safe parking procedures, equipping personnel responding
to NWPA accidents, development and/or revision of courses and course
materials, and assessing opportunities to coordinate training,
emergency response, and exercises. One commenter praised the emergency
response training at the Department's Nevada Test Site and asked that
it be used for Section 180(c) funded training.
A frequent comment supported integration of emergency response
training for local public safety officials into existing hazardous
materials training because the response requirements for radiological
incidents fall within the requirements for other hazardous materials
shipments.
The Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office asserted that
current capabilities at the state, tribal and local level are
inadequate in most jurisdictions to handle the number and frequency of
planned OCRWM shipments. In contrast, two other commenters recommended
only incremental assistance to first-responders because current
Departmental resources can support any incident that may occur during
transport.
Comments on training for hospital personnel ranged from the need to
provide awareness training to specialized decontamination equipment and
training. Two commenters argued that training for hospital personnel
was not necessary at all. The Council of State Governments/Eastern
Regional Conference said assistance was not necessary for hospitals
because the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care
Organizations requires hospitals to be able to treat patients exposed
to radioactive contamination before receiving their accreditation.
Response
This proposed policy is flexible enough that a recipient
jurisdiction could conduct many of the suggested activities. The
Department recognizes the need for clear lines of responsibility and
communication during a transportation emergency and anticipates working
with recipient jurisdictions on these matters through
[[Page 24777]]
the provision of technical assistance and, as budget allows, by
conducting exercises and drills. While exercises and drills, will be
conducted separately from the Section 180(c) program, the assistance
may be used to support participation in, or observation of, exercises
and drills if the recipient jurisdiction desires. Similarly, reliance
on the State Emergency and Response Commissions and Local Emergency
Planning Committees infrastructure will be left to the applicant
jurisdiction's discretion. This proposal does not allow Section 180(c)
assistance to be used to conduct route and risk assessments because
these activities are outside the scope of training for emergency
response and safe routine transportation activities.
Regarding the specific activities allowed under this proposal, each
jurisdiction will be allowed to choose the training they wish and to
train the public safety personnel of their choosing. The funding
provided is intended to defray the costs of attending advanced courses
such as those offered by the Department. In many cases, the applicants
will have their own less expensive training programs (FEMA and the
Department do not charge tuition, although this proposal uses the cost
of tuition as a basis of the estimate for the cost of each trainee) and
may use the remaining assistance for other activities related to
training for safe routine and emergency response transportation
procedures.
The Department will provide awareness training materials for local
responders and public information material to the recipient
jurisdictions. For more advanced training courses, it is expected the
recipient jurisdictions will either use their own training courses, if
available, or attend existing hazardous materials or radiological
emergency response classes. Equipment will not be provided for
directly, but up to ten percent of a recipient's funds may be used to
purchase equipment of the recipient's choosing. Again, the basis of
estimate in the proposal does not explicitly provide for training
hospital personnel, but recipient jurisdictions may use their funds for
this purpose if they choose. The Department's awareness materials will
include information about Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Radiological
Emergency Assistance Center and Training Site and its 24-hour on-call
assistance.
Regarding the preparedness level of state and tribal jurisdictions,
the Department understands that there are greatly varying levels of
preparedness. The financial and technical assistance provided through
this proposed program, in combination with the Department's resources,
will assist recipient jurisdictions to incrementally increase their
level of preparedness for NWPA shipments. The Department will work with
a jurisdiction to provide information about the shipments, the safety
precautions taken, and the Department's resources to assist the
jurisdiction in case of an accident or incident.
Eligibility Criteria
Comments on eligibility criteria focused on which jurisdictional
level should be eligible to apply for funds. Some argued that if local
governments were eligible to receive funds directly, then this would
reduce administrative costs and give local governments more control
over the assistance. Several counties simply requested that they be
guaranteed an amount of budget and given some discretion in using the
assistance. Other commenters said only state and tribal agencies are
eligible to apply for assistance. Some commenters made suggestions
regarding how the timing of NWPA shipments through a jurisdiction
impacts eligibility. The WGA straw man regulations defined an eligible
state or tribe as ``a host(s) and corridor states or Indian tribes
through which shipments under the NWPA are planned within six years.''
Others said training should begin from one to three years prior to
shipment.
One commenter said that eligibility should not be restricted by
waste type or destination, but rather should help local governments
prepare for all types of hazardous materials transportation
emergencies.
The point was also raised that tribes and states near, but not on,
transportation routes should be eligible for assistance, since their
lands and people would be at risk in case of a transportation accident
or incident. Another commenter disagreed, saying that only
jurisdictions traversed by NWPA shipments should be eligible for
assistance.
Response
The Department based its proposed requirements for eligibility on
the wording in the NWPA and the Department's prior discussions with
stakeholders about beginning assistance three to five years prior to
commencement of shipping through a jurisdiction. The statute provides
that state governments determine how best to allocate the assistance to
local jurisdictions. The Department plans to assist tribal governments
directly unless requested otherwise by the tribal government.
Recipients will be required to encourage local government participation
in planning and training and to provide awareness training materials
and public information supplied by the Department to local public
safety officials along the shipment routes.
The Department does not propose to use the Western Governor's
Association straw man regulations indicating that eligible
jurisdictions should receive assistance six years prior to
transportation. Since states and tribes have primary responsibility to
plan for hazardous materials transportation through their jurisdictions
regardless of Federal shipments, and given the high rate of turnover
among emergency response personnel, the Department believes that
assistance provided so far in advance of shipments would not be
effective.
In response to the request to provide assistance regardless of
destination or type of waste, Section 180(c) provides that assistance
is only available for those jurisdictions through whom the Secretary
[of Energy] plans to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear
waste to a repository or MRS under the NWPA. Assistance will not be
provided to jurisdictions that do not have NWPA shipments through their
borders, nor will assistance be provided for other types of wastes.
Funding Allocation Formula
Once eligibility criteria are determined, the total assistance
available will have to be allocated among the eligible parties.
Commenters were explicit in their views of how funds should be
allocated. A frequent comment was that funds should be allocated
according to the shipment miles through a jurisdiction. The Western
Governor's Association defined shipment miles as the product of the
expected number of shipments multiplied by the distance of such
shipments. The Western Governor's Association straw man regulations
recommended annual implementation grants of 75% of the funds allocated
according to shipment miles and 25% allocated to ensure minimum funding
levels and program capabilities. The Nuclear Energy Institute countered
that the number of shipment miles through a jurisdiction does not
automatically result in greater impact to a jurisdiction and therefore
should not qualify them for additional assistance.
Other commenters suggested funding be allocated to each eligible
jurisdiction based on a formula that includes both the number of route
miles in the jurisdiction and the population at risk along the shipment
route(s), with
[[Page 24778]]
consideration given to existing capabilities, and to the number of
shipments. Population was frequently mentioned as a valid determinant
of funding allocations. Several commenters stated that there should be
a base level of funding for each jurisdiction.
The Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office and
Commonwealth Edison Company recommended that the Department consult
with recipients to determine their funding level based on the impact of
the shipments to that jurisdiction. The Council of State Governments/
Eastern Regional Conference said the funds for first-responders should
be proportional to the number of responders along a route and the
funding available for inspectors should be a function of the number of
shipments.
The Texas Department of Public Safety recommended using the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Training and Planning Grants
approach to allocating funds.
Response
The Department agrees with many commenters that a base level of
assistance should be available to all jurisdictions to be crossed by
NWPA shipments. Number of shipments was not used as a determinant of
funding level because training of safety officials is required no
matter how many shipments cross their jurisdiction. A jurisdiction may
need additional inspectors as the number of shipments increases.
Population was not used to determine funding levels because the same
level of effort is required in responding to an emergency no matter how
many people may be affected.
The Department does not foresee working with each eligible
jurisdiction to determine assistance levels because the number of
eligible jurisdictions in a given year would make such an interactive
process prohibitively costly, lengthy and administratively burdensome.
It would require significant resources from both the Department and the
applicant with little or no increased level of safety. Jurisdictions
will be able to obtain guidance from Department representatives to
determine how best to allocate the funds and what type of training to
obtain.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act model for fund
allocation has merit but the Department believes the allocation method
proposed in this Notice is more appropriate to a Section 180(c)
program. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act program has
virtually the same number of eligible jurisdictions from year to year
whereas the Section 180(c) program may have large annual variations in
the number of eligible jurisdictions. The funding allocation method
proposed in the appendix of this Notice would allow the Department to
prepare its draft annual budget request based on anticipated needs for
each year of shipment. Finally, both the Department and some commenters
maintain that the reimbursement aspect of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act is not appropriate for a Section 180(c) program.
Allowable Use of Funds
Elements of this discussion overlap with the discussion of program
scope and the definitions of key terms. Several state agencies and
organizations said that states and tribes should prioritize their own
training needs. They argued that the Department must balance
accountability with an applicant's need for latitude in deciding how to
spend funds because of the varying levels of preparedness, divisions of
responsibility, and other differences. Commenters suggested the
Department could help recipient jurisdictions by supplying information
and expertise to help beneficiaries determine how best to use the
funds.
Many commenters, however, said that the final allocation of funding
should guarantee a specific portion of the funding for local
governments to use as they see best. Other suggestions were to give
local governments explicit standing on any planning, training or
advisory groups formed as a result of Section 180(c), to reserve a
certain percentage of the funds for distribution to local governments,
and to require recipients to notify local governments of the program
and to encourage their participation. One commenter objected to
exclusively funding training for local governments and excluding
training for state personnel and recommended the Department check the
intent of Congress in this regard.
Other commenters argued that the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act grant program provides a good model for allowable activities. These
regulations require recipient jurisdictions to describe existing
programs and explain how the requested funds supply necessary
improvements to the existing capabilities. They also provide for
monitoring of the program's effectiveness. The Department's Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) assistance program was also mentioned as a
successful model to help determine allowable activities.
Two states said that Section 180(c) assistance should pay for
infrastructure improvements along routes. Another frequently mentioned
point was that the Section 180(c) program should not require any
matching funds from the jurisdiction in order to receive assistance.
The Western Governor's Association straw man regulations provide that
the funds be distributed for training along specific shipment routes,
unlike FEMA programs that work to enhance overall preparedness. Several
comments recommended that exercises and drills be funded by Section
180(c) assistance, either to test the adequacy of the training or to
determine the training needed.
Response
The Department's proposal would allow states and tribes to
determine their own training needs as long as it is in accordance with
their current public safety infrastructure. The Department took this
approach because it allows maximum flexibility for applicants to tailor
the assistance to their priorities. Because of the need for
flexibility, the proposal does not require applicants to provide a
guaranteed percentage of funds to local public safety officials. The
Department's existing grants process under 10 CFR Part 600 would
provide for accountability with 10 CFR Part 600 without being too
cumbersome for the Department or the applicants and would allow
Department representatives to provide advice and answer questions. We
do not intend to request matching funds because most commenters and the
Department found no basis for such a requirement and there is no legal
requirement for matching funds.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and WIPP examples for
allowable use of funds both have merit. If a jurisdiction wishes to
follow the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act or WIPP example in
prioritizing use of their grant monies, that would be described in the
grant application. Similarly, recipients may decide to provide funds
only along a route or throughout their jurisdiction as they choose.
Recipients would not be prevented from using the assistance to
participate in, or observe, exercises and drills but they are not
included in the Department's proposed basis for estimating funding
levels.
Section 180(c) authorizes assistance only for training. Therefore,
the Department does not intend to allow the use of 180(c) funds for
infrastructure improvements.
[[Page 24779]]
Technical Assistance and Equipment
Almost every comment that addressed the issue of technical
assistance identified the need for equipment. Some commenters suggested
that the Department use the Transportation External Coordination
Working Group definition of technical assistance. Another suggested
using the Department's 1992 Draft Options Paper definition. The Council
of State Governments--Midwestern Office offered the following
definition, ``The term `technical assistance' as it is used in Section
180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act means a variety of activities
designed to ensure that state, tribal and local governments are trained
for safe routine transportation practices as well as responding to
transportation emergencies within their jurisdictions, including but
not limited to planning guidance, training support, practical support,
funding of pre-identified equipment, and expertise.'' They also believe
the Department should supply funding for equipment, its maintenance and
calibration, and that states should have funding to purchase computer
software and hardware to assist with monitoring and response
activities.
New Mexico specifically stated it preferred the TEC definition's
greater specificity and clarity over the definition offered by the
Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office. ``However, [it]
recommend[ed] two revisions to the definition: (1) The first sentence
should read `* * * to ensure that States and tribal governments are
trained for safe routine transportation practices as well as capable of
responding safely and effectively to spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste transportation emergencies with their jurisdictions.' (2) The
second sentence should read `* * * and for public information,
outreach, and participation efforts.' ''
Other suggestions were broader in their application, encompassing
such things as emergency response equipment, inspection equipment,
assistance in route planning, emergency response plan development,
course development and exercises, tracking capability, equipment and
training for hospital personnel, 24-hour access to Federal radiological
safety personnel, carrier qualifications, and funding, among others.
The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors questioned
the need for equipment, especially for local responders. They argued
that the low risk of these shipments does not justify a response
capability beyond what currently exists. FEMA, on the other hand,
offered its assistance to the Department in providing technical
assistance and equipment to responders through its role as provider of
emergency and disaster preparedness for state, tribal, and local
governments.
Response
The definition of technical assistance proposed in this Notice
combines parts of the Strategy definition and the Transportation
External Coordination Working Group definition. The bulk of the
Transportation External Coordination Working Group definition was not
included because many of the activities listed, such as assistance in
route planning, maintaining equipment, providing on-site emergency
response assistance, and remediation assistance are outside the scope
of training and therefore not covered by Section 180(c). The Department
has resources already available, upon request of the state or tribe, to
provide monitoring and recovery advice if there has been an accident or
incident. In addition, the shipper and carrier can provide shipment-
specific assistance.
The definition in this proposal allows for Department
representatives to provide technical support on training needs and
response strategies as budget constraints allow. As explained in the
proposal, conduct of drills and exercises are not included under the
definition of technical assistance although it is anticipated that the
NWPA transportation staff, or DOE representatives, may, as budget
allows, conduct exercises and drills with state, local, and tribal
jurisdictions along the transportation routes.
Concerns of Rural and Tribal Governments
Few additional comments that dealt specifically with the concerns
of rural and tribal governments were received in response to the July
18, Notice of Inquiry. Both New Mexico and the Council of State
Governments--Midwestern Office reiterated the Department's
responsibility to work with tribes on a government-to-government basis.
Other comments stressed the Department's Trust responsibility towards
tribal governments. One comment encouraged the Department to begin
direct communications with tribal governments near reactor locations to
address their particular concerns. The Department was also encouraged
to contact tribal governments who may not know they could have NWPA
shipments crossing their lands.
Commenters encouraged the Department to take extra steps to address
the lack of infrastructure and resources on many of the tribal lands
that will be crossed by NWPA shipments. Recommendations included
providing resources to allow tribes to participate in the OCRWM program
and beginning early to build an emergency response infrastructure for
those tribes lacking basic infrastructure. One comment urged expansion
of the cooperative agreement with the National Congress of American
Indians to help facilitate communication with tribal governments.
Other commenters suggested how a Section 180(c) program could
address the concerns specific to rural areas. Rural jurisdictions often
rely heavily on volunteer public safety personnel with high turnover
rates, serve large areas with few staff, have few resources for
training, with little or no ability to travel to obtain training. The
commenters encouraged the Department to offer training in the
communities where the local responders reside and to guarantee that
certain levels of training and equipment would be supplied.
Response
The Department recognizes that there is a lack of infrastructure
and trained personnel on many tribal lands and in many rural counties
across the nation. Typically, these areas may rely more heavily on
technical assistance than other recipient jurisdictions. As stated
earlier, the Department believes that a jurisdiction's lack of
emergency response infrastructure does not compromise shipment safety
when a jurisdiction is aware of the steps taken to ensure safety and
the Department's readiness to provide on-site assistance. The basic
awareness training modules will be provided to jurisdictions to
distribute to responders along each shipping route and will not require
public safety officials to travel outside their jurisdiction. These
training modules will inform local public safety officials of what
steps to take in case of a transportation emergency in their
jurisdiction and what staff will be traveling with the shipments that
can be a source of information and assistance.
The Department has agreed to work directly with tribal governments
unless requested otherwise by the applicant. As far as working with
tribes located near reactors sites, the Department will continue to
work through the mechanism of its cooperative agreement with the
National Congress of American Indians to reach out to tribes across the
nation and encourage their participation in the program.
[[Page 24780]]
B. Section 180(c) Procedures
The comments received from both Notices showed a preference among
the commenters for an OCRWM grants program. While twelve commenters
recommended a Department or OCRWM grants program, eight commenters
supported the next most popular option, the use of existing Federal
programs. Of these, four recommended using FEMA, two recommended the
Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
program, and two recommended other Federal programs. At the same time,
eight commenters specifically criticized the use of existing Federal
programs. Three commenters either requested a combination of options or
expressed moderate support for a combination of options; one commenter
said this was not viable. Three commenters were opposed to disbursing
the funds through cooperative agreements, whereas eight commenters said
cooperative agreements were either a very good idea or gave conditional
support for the idea. Several commenters identified a preferred option
but also listed other options as acceptable.
The most common theme among the comments on procedural options was
the importance of minimizing the administrative burden on all parties.
Another common theme was to limit the layers of bureaucracy and
administration through which funding must pass.
The following describes more detailed comments provided about each
option.
Use Established Federal Agency Programs Other Than the Department's
The Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference, the
Ohio Emergency Management Agency, the Texas Department of Public
Safety, Division of Emergency Management and FEMA all commented that
receiving additional assistance through FEMA's Comprehensive
Cooperative Agreement program (to be replaced with the Performance
Partnership Agreements beginning in FY96) would be the least
administratively burdensome since they already participate in this FEMA
program. The Council of State Governments--Midwestern Office commented
that FEMA should be a vehicle for assistance only after the Department
and the recipient have agreed to use FEMA for that recipient. The
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act grant program was mentioned by
the Nuclear Energy Institute and Northern States Power Company as a
desirable option to reduce multiple Federal programs and the chance
that utilities would pay twice for emergency response through hazardous
materials transportation fees and the Nuclear Waste Fund.
FEMA provided descriptions of their current regulatory authority to
monitor and assess emergency management plans and preparedness, and a
proposal for how they could administer the Section 180(c) program. FEMA
discussed its current training programs and expertise in the emergency
management field and stressed its all-hazards approach to preparedness
that includes radioactive materials shipments within the larger scope
of emergency preparedness.
The most common concern from the state and county perspective was
that other Federal programs would add administrative layers and reduce
the funds available for the recipients. The Western Interstate Energy
Board, in particular, felt that FEMA was not an appropriate avenue
because ``FEMA's Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement program has been
the subject of substantial disagreement with several western states and
is viewed by experts in our region as ineffective and inappropriate for
dealing with spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.'' In
fact, one commenter criticized FEMA for placing emphasis on
preparations for nuclear attacks rather than transportation incidents.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and FRA programs were seen
as too narrowly focused to work well as a vehicle to implement a
Section 180(c) program.
From the tribal perspective, the most common critique of other
Federal programs was that none of the options discussed in the Notices
has an effective mechanism in place to work with tribes. Commenters
advocated exploration of other funding mechanisms that tribes use more
frequently, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development and Block Grant Program, and suggested
establishing a separate funding mechanism for tribal governments.
Other commenters were concerned that using other Federal programs
would diminish focus on NWPA shipment safety and increase impacts from
government downsizing. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Association also
pointed out that it may put expertise and training further away from
the intended delivery point.
Establish Agreements With State, Local, Tribal, and Other Organizations
This option prompted a variety of interpretations. Agreements or
Memoranda of Understanding among recipients, agreements between the
Department and recipients, or agreements between the Department and
regional or national coordinating organizations were all discussed.
Some identified the potential improvements in regional cooperation and
efficiency as the biggest benefit to establishing agreements with
regional or national organizations. One commenter suggested cooperative
agreements would allow negotiations each year between recipients and
the Department that would permit adjustment among recipients' with
dissimilar training goals. The Colorado Emergency Planning Commission
said consideration should be given to working through the WGA or a
similar organization to promote coordination. The Commission suggested
that WIPP's cooperative agreement with WGA could be a useful mechanism
to mimic.
Expanding the cooperative agreement with the National Congress of
American Indians was recommended as a possible way to ensure up front
consultation with tribal recipients. Such expansion of cooperative
agreements with tribes could balance the differences between tribes and
other recipients governments.
Many commenters, however, saw the development of cooperative
agreements as a lengthy, involved process that could take too long to
implement effectively. Two commenters specifically noted the WIPP
cooperative agreements worked well because there was a smaller group of
participants and it was developed over several years. NWPA requirements
may not be compatible with this experience. This option was criticized
for creating an unnecessary administrative layer that would take away
from total funding to be spent on training.
Other comments encouraged cooperative agreements with organizations
that could, in turn, train state, local and tribal public safety
officials. The Association of American Railroads' Technical Training
Center in Pueblo, Colorado and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
were both identified as organizations with the capability to train
recipients for emergency response for rail incidents and for truck
inspections, respectively.
Establish a Department-Wide Grant Program
Response to this option was mixed. Some called a Department-wide
program inappropriate, citing the difficulty of co-mingling Nuclear
Waste Fund money with other Department transportation activities.
Commenters expressed concern over coordinating the diverse shipping
campaigns of the
[[Page 24781]]
Department in a timely manner. Supporting this option, one commenter
noted that the fewer points-of-contact between the Department and
stakeholders would be beneficial.
Establish an OCRWM Grant Program
Many commenters saw this as the best option, listing such benefits
as minimizing bureaucracy and administration and increasing
flexibility. Some commented on the benefit of distributing Section
180(c) assistance without involving other programs as would happen
through a Department-wide grant program. Others noted that an OCRWM
grant program would more easily adjust to the diversity and number of
recipient jurisdictions and thus, Department control and accountability
would be easier.
The Western Interstate Energy Board commented on this option
favorably, provided that such a grant program incorporates flexibility
to allow states to coordinate the training and funding. The Southern
States Energy Board and the National Conference of State Legislatures
both identified this option as favorable if additional national or
regional coordination efforts were also supported.
Many county commenters interpreted this option as similar to the
direct payments made to local governments through Yucca Mountain
oversight programs. They were generally in favor of options that assist
local governments as directly as possible.
Use Elements From the Previous Four Groups
Three commenters agreed that a combination of options would be best
because it could provide the proper degree of direct contact between
the Department and recipient governments while encouraging national or
regional planning, coordination, and uniformity. The Council of State
Governments--Midwestern Office said the Department should negotiate
with the recipients to provide assistance through a variety of
mechanisms ``to accommodate the needs of as many states and tribes as
possible.'' Commonwealth Edison Company concurred with the Council of
State Government's opinion. The Southern States Energy Board
recommended using a combination of direct grants to states and tribes
with cooperative agreements to regional organizations to provide
coordination and consultation.
Response
This proposal recommends distributing funds through an OCRWM grants
program because the Department believes this is the most flexible,
least administratively burdensome and least costly method of all the
procedural options investigated. This mechanism will allow the greatest
amount of appropriated funds to be distributed directly to the
recipients rather than diverted to cover administrative costs.
Distributing the funds through a grant program rather than a
cooperative agreement program lowers the cost of administration for
both recipients and the Department, and gives the recipients more
discretion in use of the funds. Under the proposed policy, recipients
would have a great deal of flexibility in use of the grants and could
account for varying levels of preparedness.
The Department did not choose to implement Section 180(c) through
another Federal program for many of the same reasons commenters were
critical of this option. While the FEMA option may have been flexible
enough to meet the requirements of a Section 180(c) program, the time
and effort to set up a program at another agency would have increased
administrative cost, decreased the program's flexibility and reduced
the funds available for recipients. Since the Department can perform
the same function, there is no reason to involve another agency. The
Department of Transportation programs were not similar enough to the
requirements for a Section 180(c) program and would have required
significant effort to meld the programs together.
A Department-wide grants program would require overcoming difficult
legal and logistical problems. The logistical problems of creating one
Department-wide emergency response and safe routine transportation
grants program for all eligible recipients would require extensive
administrative work. It would also likely create legal and procedural
paperwork tangles to keep from mingling the appropriations for various
programs within the Department. As long as the various Department
offices cooperate on an informal basis, there appears to be little
benefit to formally combining programs.
Combining elements of each option was not selected because it would
create logistic difficulties and would not be very efficient or cost
effective. For example, if the Department sent some recipients'
assistance through the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act program,
some through FEMA, and some directly from the Department, it would
significantly increase the administrative costs, increase oversight and
accountability problems and create a very confusing and disjointed
program for both the Department and the recipients.
C. Applicability of Section 180(c) to Private Shipments
Many states, counties, and regional groups urged that the Section
180(c) program should apply to all commercial spent nuclear fuel or
defense high-level radioactive waste shipments ultimately destined for
an NWPA facility, whether or not those shipments are transported to and
stored on an interim basis at a private facility. Commenters cited that
any large-scale shipping campaign of such materials will have virtually
the same impact on states and tribes as that envisioned in the NWPA.
Response
The Department is currently authorized to implement the Section
180(c) program of financial and technical assistance only for shipments
to a repository or MRS constructed under the NWPA. However, the many
comments on this issue have been noted.
D. Policy Development Process
A few commenters questioned the Department's plans to issue a
Notice of Policy and Procedures rather than establish the program in
regulations. They voiced concern that implementation of Section 180(c)
through regulations is necessary to ensure stability through changes of
leadership within the Department and that an interpretation of policy
and procedures is ``less robust.'' An expedited rulemaking process was
suggested to accommodate time constraints.
Response
The Department is developing the Policy and Procedures after
receipt and consideration of extensive public comments. At some future
date, the Department may decide to promulgate regulations. At this
time, however, it is the Department's intent to remain flexible in
order to work through unforeseen problems without committing to binding
regulations.
V. Conclusion and Request for Submission
This paper has presented the Department's proposal for a policy and
procedures for the Section 180(c) program. It has also presented the
Department's summarization of and response to comments received on
prior Notices of Inquiry about Section 180(c) policy and procedures.
Comments on this proposal will be included in the Notice of Final
Policy and Procedures,
[[Page 24782]]
which the Department intends to publish in 1997. The purpose of this
document has been to share with stakeholders the progress to date on
developing Section 180(c) policy and procedures and to request
additional comments from interested parties. The final policy and
procedures may reflect changes as a result of comments, new
Congressional direction, and any policy changes caused by the new
Congressional direction.
The Department solicits comments from the public on this proposal
to issue Section 180(c) policy and procedures.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 10, 1996.
Daniel A. Dreyfus,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Appendix--Basis for Cost of Program
To determine the cost of the program and a feasible approach to
allocate funding among eligible participants, the Department intends
to estimate reasonable activities that could be achieved each year
to use, not as prescribed activities for the applicants, but to
determine the dollar amount of the grant each recipient should
receive. Since the Department has found no industry or regulatory
standards on what constitutes a sufficient emergency response to a
spent fuel transportation accident, it expects to rely on training
standards and regulations (discussed below) to reach conclusions
about what type of training would be reasonable. To reach
conclusions with regard to which and how many people should be
trained and to what levels, the Department intends to look at
industry regulations, the Department's own capabilities to support
state and tribal governments, and the comments provided by
stakeholders. Based on the information from these sources, the
Department intends to determine the activities on which it would
base its grant allocations and then estimate the costs for these
activities.
The training standards the Department intends to use for
emergency response are consistent with the level of training
recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Safety
Series No. 87, 1988), the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.120) and the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) (NFPA 471 and 472). The training
standards we intend to use for safe routine transportation are
consistent with current practices and the regulatory limitations
placed on states and tribes for safe routine transportation
activities. Recognizing that not everyone will agree with this
application of the standards to the training goals, there would be
few limitations on how the recipient actually spends its budget, as
long as they are used for training related to safe routine
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste and emergency response procedures.
The training goals for both safe routine transportation and
emergency response procedures that the Department intends to use as
a basis for determining a grant allocation are as follows:
Emergency Response
First-on-scene and first responder personnel: Self-
directed awareness training material would be supplied by the
Department. The Department-provided awareness material would include
information for medical personnel. Up to two people from each state
or tribe would be funded to attend train-the-trainer classes of the
jurisdiction's choice to teach the classroom awareness training to
first-responders. Section 180(c) funding would partially offset the
cost of in-state training.
State/tribal hazardous materials or radiological
response: Up to three people would receive funding to attend more
specialized training, selected by the jurisdiction. Additional
personnel may be trained, depending on route miles.
Transportation Public Information: Another one person
from each state or tribe would be funded to attend public
information training (such as that offered at the Nevada Test Site
[NTS]).
Safe Routine Transportation
State/tribal inspectors for highway and rail: In
addition to the funding for emergency response activities, up to
three inspectors from each state or tribe may be funded to attend
training of their choice in either rail or highway inspection
procedures. Jurisdictions without an inspection program may use the
funds to coordinate observation of another jurisdiction's
inspection. Rail inspections may be limited because of legal
restrictions on inspecting rail shipments for both states and
tribes. Funding may be used to coordinate observation of other
agencies' inspection of the shipments, including the Department of
Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA), the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC), the Department of Energy's or
the state of origin's inspections of both highway and rail shipments
and to coordinate with rail and trucking companies on safety and
inspection issues.
Along with the training activities described above, the
Department intends to provide funding to cover some planning and
coordination costs, as estimated below.
If an eligible jurisdiction takes the training activities
described above and the method of estimating the costs for these
activities (the Department did not actually attach dollar figures to
these activities in this proposal), it could estimate how much
assistance it would be eligible for each year. However, the
Department is proposing some time restrictions on the funding. These
would be as follows:
Within the first year of eligibility to receive funding
(Transportation Year [defined as the year that shipments will
commence] minus 3 or TY-3): A base grant would be available to help
offset planning and coordination costs.
Within the second year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus
2 or TY-2): A base grant would be available to help offset estimated
travel and tuition costs to send personnel to train-the trainer
training, emergency response training, and planning and coordination
activities. A variable amount of budget would be available, for
those jurisdictions that qualify, to train additional emergency
response personnel. Proposed routes would be announced during the
second year of eligibility.
Within the third year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus
1or TY-1): The base grant would be available to offset estimated
travel and tuition costs to train transportation public information
staff, inspectors, three trips for the awareness trainers to train
local responders, and planning and coordination activities. A
variable amount of money, if a jurisdiction qualifies, would be
available to help offset estimated travel and tuition costs to train
additional emergency response personnel, if necessary. The
Department would send out self-taught awareness packages to states
and tribes to distribute to first-on-scene and first responder
personnel.
Within the Transportation Year (TY): Two-thirds of the budget
provided in TY-1 would help offset refresher and new personnel
training. The two-thirds multiplier is derived from a conservative
estimate that after the initial training in TY-1 and TY-2, each
jurisdiction would experience a personnel turnover rate of
approximately two-thirds of their staff each year.
The information below describes the assumptions that the
Department intends to use to form cost estimates for the
Department's annual allocations to recipients.
The Base Amount
Planning and Coordination Costs--The Department intends to make
these estimates by taking the estimated salary of a health physicist
employed full-time by a state government and providing a percentage
of that salary. The salary estimate can be made either by using a
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors' salary quote or
by sampling health physicist salaries in various states and taking
the average of the sample. One planning and coordination trip would
also be estimated in this cost (see travel costs for the cost
estimate of this trip).
Travel Costs--Planning and coordination trips would be estimated
to last three days. Travel for hazardous materials responder,
inspector, train-the-trainer, and public communications training
would be estimated to last five days. In-state awareness training
would be estimated to last five days and include planning and
coordination costs. Air travel cost would be estimated by
calculating the average airfare from several locations around the
country to the NTS and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
training centers. Per diem costs would be estimated by using the
Federal government's per diem costs for the NTS and FEMA training
locations.
Tuition Costs--Tuition costs would be estimated by taking the
estimated cost to the DOE of an NTS Radiological Emergency
Operations course and dividing it by 25 students per class. This
tuition cost would be applied to each trainee in a hazardous
materials emergency response, inspector and train-the-trainer class.
[[Page 24783]]
The base amount of money would be determined from these cost
estimates of the training activities described above.
The Variable Amount
To determine the variable amount of money, each eligible
jurisdiction would receive funds to train three additional hazardous
materials personnel for every 160 miles along a route. If routes
through a jurisdiction intersect, or are less than 80 miles apart,
the route miles could not be double-counted if they fall within an
80 mile radius of another route.
The Department intends to provide a variable amount of funding
based on route miles because it believes that it is the best measure
to capture any variation in impact on a jurisdiction's ability to
prepare for NWPA shipments. The 160 mile estimate was used because
other emergency response organizations have used a two-hour response
time as the limit to how frequently hazardous materials response
teams should be placed. From the two-hour measure, one can
conservatively say it would take an emergency response vehicle an
hour to travel 80 miles in either direction.
[FR Doc. 96-12283 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P