[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38272-38285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18840]



[[Page 38272]]

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

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 Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) publishes for 
public comment a revised proposed policy statement setting forth its 
plans for implementing technical and financial assistance to States for 
training public safety officials of appropriate units of local 
governments and Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the Department 
plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste 
(Section 180(c) program). The training would cover both safe routine 
transportation procedures and emergency response procedures.

DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) of the Department and must be 
received on or before September 15, 1997 to ensure consideration by 
OCRWM.

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, SW., Suite 695, Washington, DC 
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 nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, please contact: Ms. Corinne 
Macaluso, Waste Acceptance and Transportation Division, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, (RW-44), U.S. Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 
202-586-2837.
    Information packets are available for interested persons who want 
background information about the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management transportation planning and the Section 180(c) program prior 
to providing comments. To receive an information packet, please call 1-
800-225-NWPA (or call 202-488-6720 in Washington, DC.) or write to the 
OCRWM National Information Center, 600 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 695, 
Washington, DC 20024.
    Copies of comments received will be available for examination and 
may be photocopied at the Department's Public Reading Room at 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1E-190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
10101 et seq.) (NWPA or ``the Act''), the Department of Energy is 
responsible for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and 
civilian spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. 
Additionally, the Department is responsible for transportation of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a Federal storage or 
disposal site. The Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management is responsible to the Secretary of Energy to carry out these 
responsibilities. The Department is required to implement Section 
180(c) of the Act. Section 180(c) of the Act requires the Department to 
provide technical assistance and funds to States for training public 
safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Indian 
tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport 
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to NWPA authorized 
Federal storage and disposal facilities. Section 180(c) further 
provides that training cover procedures required for safe routine 
transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing 
with emergency response situations. Section 180(c) identifies the 
Nuclear Waste Fund under the Act as the source of funds for work 
carried out under this subsection (42 U.S.C. 10175).

II. Section 180(c) History

    OCRWM issued a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register on January 
3, 1995 (60 FR 99), which briefly described various options to 
delineate policies and procedures for implementing Section 180(c) of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Members of the public were invited to 
submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. In the March 14, 1995, 
Federal Register (60 FR 13715) OCRWM extended the deadline for comments 
to May 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). In response to requests for additional 
information, OCRWM issued another, more detailed Notice of Inquiry in 
the Federal Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). Members of the 
public were again invited to submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. 
Next, on May 16, 1996, OCRWM published a Notice of Proposed Policy and 
Procedures (61 FR 24772) describing the OCRWM's proposed approach to 
implementing Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 
responding to public comments received from the two prior Notices. The 
public was again invited to submit comments on the Proposed Policy and 
Procedures. In response to these comments, and based on further 
research conducted by OCRWM, OCRWM has decided to make changes 
significant enough to warrant publishing this Revised Proposed Policy 
and Procedures. Included in this Notice is a summary of the comments 
received on the Proposed Policy and Procedures and OCRWM's response to 
those comments. OCRWM welcomes comments in response to this Federal 
Register Notice on the Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures for 
implementation of Section 180(c).
    OCRWM plans to publish, in early 1998, a Notice of Final Policy and 
Procedures which OCRWM intends to follow in implementing Section 180(c) 
of the NWPA. Section 180(c) provides for assistance when the Department 
ships spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a geologic 
repository or a storage facility pursuant to the NWPA.
    In addition to the draft publications discussed above, OCRWM's work 
to date on the Section 180(c) policy and implementation procedures has 
been discussed extensively in Transportation Coordination Group 
meetings, the Transportation External Coordination (TEC) Working Group 
meetings, and the cooperative agreement group meetings. The TEC Working 
Group comprises organizations representing state, tribal, local, 
professional, technical, and industry associations and will continue to 
meet periodically to identify and discuss issues related to the 
transport of radioactive materials. In addition, OCRWM has nine 
cooperative agreements with national and regional organizations 
representing various constituencies to provide information and solicit 
input regarding the planned transportation activities of the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program, including Section 180(c) 
issues. The cooperative agreement groups are the Southern States Energy 
Board, the Western Interstate Energy Board, the Council of State 
Governments Midwestern Office and Eastern Regional Conference, the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the Conference of Radiation Control 
Program Directors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National Congress of American Indians,

[[Page 38273]]

and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
    OCRWM also has released two documents that discuss Section 180(c) 
policy and implementation. These two documents are the Strategy for 
OCRWM to Provide Training Assistance to State, Tribal, and Local 
Governments (November 1992, DOE/RW-0374P) (the Strategy document), and 
the Preliminary Draft Options for Providing Technical Assistance and 
Funding Under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as 
Amended (November 1992) (the Options paper). These documents are 
available by requesting the information packet from the OCRWM National 
Information Center.

III. Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures

Introduction

    OCRWM has made significant changes to the May 16, 1996, Section 
180(c) Notice of Proposed Policy and Procedures. These changes are 
based on information gained by studying industry standards and 
practices and stakeholder comments. These changes and the supporting 
reasoning are described below.
    The revised proposed policy and procedures are divided into seven 
subject areas: the policy statement, objectives, proposed funding 
mechanism, basis for cost estimate/funding allocation, definitions of 
key terms, eligibility and timing of the grants, and allowable 
activities. Policy Statement describes OCRWM's policy towards providing 
Section 180(c) assistance. Objectives describes OCRWM's objectives in 
providing Section 180(c) assistance. Funding Mechanism describes the 
method by which funds would be disbursed to states and Federally 
recognized tribes. Basis for Cost Estimate/Funding Allocation describes 
the basis for the base and variable amount of funding. Definition of 
Key Terms defines 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 states and tribes are 
eligible and the timing of the grants process. Allowable Activities for 
Funding describes the types of activities for which the funding could 
be used. When OCRWM issues the final policy and procedures, it may 
differ based on comments received, and any new legislation.
    The Appendix of this Notice provides the definitions of terms used 
in this proposed Section 180(c) policy and procedures and footnoted in 
the text.

Policy Statement

    It is OCRWM's policy that each responsible jurisdiction \1\ will 
have the training necessary for safe routine transportation of spent 
nuclear fuel or high-level waste and to respond to NWPA transportation 
incidents or accidents. OCRWM will provide funding and technical 
assistance, subject to annual appropriations, to assist states and 
tribes to obtain access to the increment of training necessary to 
prepare for NWPA shipments. This increment of training will include 
procedures for emergency response and safe routine transportation. The 
Department will take into consideration the states' and tribes' 
determination of their needs when preparing its budget for the Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management Program. If Congress does not fully 
appropriate the funds requested, the funding to eligible jurisdictions 
will be decreased accordingly.
    With respect to safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel 
and high-level waste, it is OCRWM's view that strict compliance with 
Department of Transportation (DOT) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) regulations and applicable state, tribal, and local laws and 
regulations combined with state and tribal safety and enforcement 
inspections of NWPA highway shipments and continuous satellite tracking 
of all shipments will provide for safe routine transportation. DOT 
regulations include requirements for routing; hazardous materials 
placarding, marking, and documentation; and rail inspections. NRC has 
established regulations for protection of the public health and safety 
of radioactive material shipments. These regulations include 
requirements for package certification, loading, materials control and 
accountability, safeguards and security, notification of shipments, 
quality assurance and tracking. OCRWM has notified NRC that it intends 
to provide tribal notification of shipments and state and tribal access 
to satellite tracking information. The NRC regulations for radioactive 
material package certification requires maintenance of criticality 
control and radioactive material containment under credible accident 
scenarios.
    For safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste, it is proposed that OCRWM's policy include the provision 
to each eligible state and tribe the funding and technical assistance 
to prepare for safety and enforcement inspections of NWPA highway 
shipments and for access to satellite tracking information.
    With respect to responding to a spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
radioactive waste transportation accident or incident, it is OCRWM's 
view that with implementation of the provisions for safe routine 
transportation as stated in the previous paragraph the risk of an 
accident resulting in a radioactive materials release is extremely low. 
Further, if an accident were to occur, the risk of any significant 
material release or harmful increase in radiation levels is also 
extremely low. If an accident should occur, with or without a 
radioactive materials release, state and tribal governments have a 
responsibility to respond and to protect the public health and safety 
and the environment in their jurisdiction. The Federal government and, 
in particular, the Department have radiological emergency response 
assets available. Federal government assistance is regionally based and 
can be mobilized in a few hours, although it may take up to forty-eight 
hours to be fully functional. The first responder \2\ is typically a 
local police or fire official. This official must be capable of 
identifying the shipment as a radiological materials shipment and 
notifying the proper radiological emergency response authorities. It is 
desirable for some of the state and tribal responders to have received 
higher levels of hazardous materials training.
    Therefore, for responding to a spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
radioactive waste transportation accident or incident, it is proposed 
that OCRWM's policy include the provision of funds and technical 
assistance to states and tribes necessary to address the incremental 
training requirements resulting from the NWPA shipments, in particular, 
to obtain and maintain awareness-level training for all local response 
jurisdictions in the increment specific to radioactive materials 
shipments. In addition, to the extent funds are available, the 
assistance could be used to obtain an enhanced level of emergency 
response capability. This enhanced level could include operations level 
training, technician level training, and operations level and 
technician level refresher training in an increment specific to 
radioactive materials shipments.

Objectives

    It is OCRWM's objective to provide a base grant to every eligible 
state and tribe to aid in planning and coordination activities for 
training in a timely manner. These activities could include funding the 
salary of personnel in safe routine transportation and emergency 
response agencies,

[[Page 38274]]

determining a jurisdiction's training needs, and coordinating with 
local jurisdictions or neighboring states and tribes. A variable amount 
of funding and technical assistance would be available depending on the 
amount of assistance each applicant needs to obtain the incremental 
training requirements resulting from the NWPA shipments, in particular, 
specific to radioactive materials shipments for the inspection 
training, and awareness level training.\3\ The assistance could be used 
to obtain awareness level refresher training, awareness level train-
the-trainer training,\5\ or a module to insert into existing awareness 
level training programs. And, depending on available funds, additional 
amounts of funding and technical assistance would be available to 
obtain the increment of training to prepare for radioactive materials 
shipments for the operations level,\4\ and/or technician level \6\ and 
refresher training.
    OCRWM will base its evaluation of the grant applications on several 
factors. First, the three-year plan section of the application package 
demonstrates how this assistance corresponds to the applicant's 
existing safe routine and emergency response structure. The application 
must explain how these functions are currently structured and how the 
Section 180(c) assistance will provide an additional increment of 
preparedness onto this existing structure. Second, the grant 
applications must indicate how the requested assistance is consistent 
with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) training 
standards or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) training 
standards and reasonable standards for inspector training, such as that 
offered by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). In addition, 
OCRWM will adopt, to the extent practicable, any future Department-wide 
standardization of assistance to states and tribes for the Department's 
radioactive materials shipments. This could include standardization of 
funding mechanisms, training standards, equipment purchases, and the 
definition of technical assistance.
    It is the objective of OCRWM to provide to each eligible state and 
tribe financial and technical assistance to train or otherwise prepare 
for safety and enforcement inspections of NWPA truck shipments such as 
those described in the CVSA Enhanced North American Standards. Rail 
inspections are not included because the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) conducts inspections of rail cars and tracks used 
to ship radioactive materials.
    OCRWM proposes to fund or make available a first responder's 
awareness level videotape, consistent with OSHA requirements 10 CFR 
1910.120(q), or a module, specific to radioactive materials shipments, 
to insert into an existing awareness level training program, for states 
and tribes to distribute to local public safety officials along the 
shipment routes.
    OCRWM also plans to provide financial and technical assistance to 
allow train-the-trainer classes for those states and tribes that wish 
to provide the radioactive materials information in their existing 
awareness level training programs. OCRWM plans to provide funds for the 
cost of the trainers' travel within the jurisdiction.
    As discussed in the Policy Statement section, OCRWM believes that 
the combination of the Federal radiological emergency response 
capability and a program that accomplishes the above 180(c) related 
objectives will provide the nation an adequate basis to respond to any 
potential transportation emergency that may result from NWPA shipments. 
Nonetheless, to the extent that funds appropriated for Section 180(c) 
are available, OCRWM will also support an enhanced level of emergency 
response capability. The enhanced level of emergency response 
capability could include access to training or training materials 
specific to responding to a radioactive materials transportation 
accident at the operations level, technician level, and refresher 
training. This training should be in accordance with OSHA or NFPA 
training standards.

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 state or 
tribal reservation boundaries. The grants would be specific to OCRWM's 
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 may be combined with a Department-wide grant program in the 
future if one is developed and is practicable, and consistent with 
existing law.
    The grants program would be administered in accordance with the DOE 
Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR part 600), which implement 
applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars. In order to 
preserve flexibility, the Department does not presently plan to codify 
the policy and procedures in this notice as substantive regulations.

Basis for Cost Estimate/Funding Allocation

    The total program cost and the allocation of funds among eligible 
states and tribes would be based on a predetermined base amount, and a 
variable amount determined through the application process. The base 
grant would cover costs associated with planning for NWPA shipments, 
and is based on a salary estimate for planning such shipments. In 1994, 
a Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors' (CRCPD) survey 
found the average salary of a state health physicist was $35,000. The 
Department has doubled that figure and adjusted for inflation during 
1995 and 1996 to reach the $74,152 base grant. This figure was doubled 
to allow states and tribes to pay the salary of one person each to 
carry out safe routine transportation and emergency response planning.
    The variable grant amount would be based on two parts of the 
application package process. The first part would ask the applicant to 
determine the amount of financial assistance needed to obtain the 
appropriate increment of awareness level training and to prepare for 
safe routine transportation inspections of NWPA shipments. The second 
part would ask the applicant to determine the amount of financial 
assistance needed to obtain the appropriate increment of operations 
and/or technician level training for emergency response to prepare for 
NWPA shipments. A state or tribe would not be authorized to use Section 
180(c) funds for purposes not related to NWPA shipments such as 
development of a broad-based non-NWPA emergency response program. In 
cases where basic emergency response capabilities are lacking, OCRWM 
recognizes the need to assist jurisdictions through technical 
assistance and increased financial assistance.

Definition of Key Terms

    The definition of safe routine transportation for the purposes of 
determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section 
180(c) program would be as follows:
     Safe routine transportation means the shipment of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository or a 
Monitored Retrievable Storage facility pursuant to the NWPA through 
state, tribal, and local jurisdictions in a manner compliant with 
applicable Federal, state, tribal, and local laws and regulations. Safe 
routine highway transportation is

[[Page 38275]]

characterized by adequate vehicle, driver, and package inspection and 
enforcement of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations. Safe routine rail and barge transport 
is characterized by compliance with rail and barge transportation 
regulations including Federal Railroad Administration, Coast Guard 
regulations, and the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
    The definition of technical assistance for the purposes of 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 provision of information to 
insert into curricula. Recognizing the Federal Government's government-
to-government relationship with and Trust responsibility toward tribal 
nations, and in response to comments about the lack of hazardous 
materials response capability on some tribal lands, the Department will 
consider making additional technical assistance available to tribes 
upon request.

Eligibility and Timing of the Grants Program

    OCRWM intends to provide grants and technical assistance to those 
states and tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary of Energy 
plans to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 
pursuant to the NWPA. States and tribes having cross-deputization or 
mutual aid agreements with a jurisdiction that does have shipments, 
even though no shipments may occur within the borders of the responding 
state or tribe, may receive funding from the jurisdiction that will 
receive shipments. Additionally, in cases where a route constitutes the 
border between two states, a state and a tribe, or two Indian tribes, 
jurisdictions on both sides of the route would be eligible for Section 
180(c) assistance.
    OCRWM intends that the application process for grants begin 
approximately four years prior to transportation (about one year for 
the application process, about three years to implement the program) 
through the applicant's jurisdiction. OCRWM intends to notify the 
governor or tribal leader of the jurisdiction with a letter, 
information packet, and application package.
    The governor or tribal leader would be requested to select one 
agency or representative within the jurisdiction to apply for and 
administer the Section 180(c) grant. The administering agency or 
representative would indicate in the application how it intends to use 
the funds. If funding needs to be provided to other agencies (for 
example, from the emergency services agency to the highway patrol to 
pay for inspector training), the transfer of funds would be the 
responsibility of the recipient state or tribe. DOE would require 
information regarding the ultimate recipient of the funds to be 
provided in the application.
    Eligible states and tribes would submit a grant application to the 
Department. 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 eligible state 
and tribe would receive a base amount of funding for each year of 
eligibility. A variable amount of funding, based on the applicant's 
determination of its needs to attain an adequate level of training and 
the enhanced level of capability, would be available after the first 
year of eligibility.
    Local governments would not be eligible to apply for Section 180(c) 
grants directly. However, states, and tribes if they have 
subjurisdictions, would be required to coordinate their planning with 
local jurisdictions, indicating in the application that the needs of 
local public safety officials have been considered and how the 
financial assistance will be distributed to local and any other 
jurisdictions and their appropriate public safety officials. The 
awareness level training would be made available to all local public 
safety officials. OCRWM expects the inspection and enforcement training 
to be provided to state-level and tribal employees since they generally 
have inspection and enforcement authority. The operations and 
technician level training, to the extent they are funded, would be 
provided to appropriate public safety officials at the grantee's 
discretion.
    OCRWM anticipates knowing three to four years prior to shipment 
through which states or tribal lands the shipments will likely travel, 
even if specific routes have not been selected. Using this information, 
OCRWM would notify these states and tribes about their potential 
eligibility for the Section 180(c) program. Two years prior to the 
shipments going through a state or tribe, the OCRWM would announce 
proposed routes within that state or tribal jurisdiction.
    Within the first year of eligibility to receive funding 
(Transportation Year [defined as the year shipments will commence] 
minus 3 or TY-3), the base grant will be available. Within the second 
year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 2 or TY-2), a base grant 
and a variable amount of financial assistance for those jurisdictions 
that qualify would be available.
    Within the third year of eligibility (Transportation Year minus 1 
or TY-1), a base grant and a variable amount of financial assistance 
for those jurisdictions that qualify would be available.
    In the year transportation commences, Transportation Year grants 
(base plus variable) will be made available. A state or tribe would 
continue to be eligible for and receive Transportation Year grants and 
technical assistance 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 regain eligibility three years prior to another NWPA 
shipment through its jurisdiction. Three years prior to the resumption 
of shipments through its borders, a state or tribe may again apply for 
TY-3 grants. If the lapse is of two years or less between shipments, 
the Transportation Year grants would continue as if shipments had been 
traversing that jurisdiction during the lapse.
    After a suitable period of Section 180(c) implementation, an 
evaluation may be conducted by OCRWM to determine if some adjustment to 
the base amount needs to be made because the need for planning and 
coordination activities associated with NWPA shipments will be reduced. 
For example, perhaps only one person in a state agency will be handling 
both safe routine transportation and emergency response functions or 
half a person will be needed for each of these functions and the 
available funds might be more effectively applied to training.

[[Page 38276]]

    The Section 180(c) program would include the following contingency 
plan for schedule and route changes: in general, eligible states and 
tribes may receive an additional amount of financial assistance if 
asked to complete activities in shorter amounts of time, i.e., a state 
may receive TY-1 and TY-2 funding in the same year. If the route for a 
shipment is definitized too close to the start of the shipment to allow 
for Section 180(c) implementation or for any reason the responsible 
jurisdictions along a definitized route lack adequate training, OCRWM 
may use escorts with more training and equipment than those currently 
used for the purpose of security until a reasonable time period for 
training has expired.

Allowable Activities for Funding

    This section describes the type of activities that would be allowed 
under this proposal. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but 
merely a guide to the types of activities an applicant jurisdiction 
might consider to be eligible for 180(c) funding.
    For the most part, it would be the grantee's decision in 
consultation with the local governments and first responders along the 
routes to select who gets trained and the organization that administers 
the training. Grantees would describe in their three-year plan how they 
plan to assess their incremental training needs, where the training 
would be obtained, any exercises they propose to conduct, whether the 
training curriculum needs any input from OCRWM about NWPA shipments, 
what equipment and supplies they propose to purchase, and what 
technical assistance from DOE they anticipate requesting. The grantee 
would specify how this assistance augments their current infrastructure 
for safe routine transportation procedures and emergency response.
    Specifically, a grantee would be able to budget, for TY-2 and TY-1, 
25 percent of each year's total Section 180(c) funds to purchase 
appropriate (i.e., training-related) equipment and supplies. Such 
equipment may also be used for responding to emergencies. After TY-1, 
the applicant would be able to budget up to 10 percent of each year's 
Section 180(c) funds to purchase appropriate equipment and supplies. 
The equipment and supplies to be purchased must be identified in the 
application and the need for the equipment justified. The purchase of 
equipment related to the satellite tracking system for NWPA shipments 
could be included in these percentage caps. The title to equipment 
would be vested in the grantee in accordance with the property 
provisions at 10 CFR 600.232.
    The base grant may be used to pay for staff, travel, and other 
costs associated with conducting an assessment of incremental training 
needs, and the planning and coordination activities associated with 
interacting with local jurisdictions and neighboring jurisdictions. The 
variable amount of funding may be used to pay for travel and tuition 
costs for those receiving training, including exercises and drills, and 
training on the satellite tracking system used for NWPA shipments.
    It would be the state's or tribe's choice, in consultation with the 
local governments and first responders along the route and within their 
annual budget, to determine who receives refresher training and with 
what frequency. It also would be the state's or tribe's choice in 
consultation with the local governments and first responders along the 
route and within their annual budget, to determine which new personnel 
receive training and the location of that training.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received on the Notice of Proposed 
Policy and Procedures

    The Department received 43 comments in response to the May 16, 
1996, Notice of Proposed Policy and Procedures. Comments were received 
from the Emergency Nurses Association; Western Governors' Association; 
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office; National Conference of 
State Legislatures; Churchill County, Nevada Administration Office; 
Lincoln City, Nevada Board of County Commissioners; League of Women 
Voters Education Fund; County of Inyo, California Planning Department; 
Office of the Governor, Pueblo of Acoma; Lander, Nevada County Board of 
Commissioners; Nye County, Nevada; Western Interstate Energy Board; 
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force; Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; 
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects; Nuclear Waste Project Office; 
Portland General Electric Trojan Nuclear Plant; Oregon Nuclear Safety 
Division; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition; 
Southern States Energy Board; International Association of Fire 
Fighters; Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference; 
Michigan Department of the Attorney General; Nuclear Waste Strategy 
Coalition; National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; 
State of Idaho's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory Oversight Program; National Congress of American Indians; 
New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department; Nuclear 
Information and Resource Service; Governor of Nebraska; Eureka County, 
Nevada; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Nuclear Energy Institute; 
Prairie Island Indian Community; MCT Industries Inc.; New York State 
Emergency Management Office; Yakama Indian Nation; and the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, and a summary of comments 
made at the July 1996 TEC meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Some 
commenters provided more than one set of comments.
    The following section discusses general categories and summarizes 
major points of the comments and the Department's response.

Major Issues

A. Section 180(c) Policy

General Themes

    The Department received opposing comments on the philosophy of 
providing only the incremental amount of assistance needed for 
jurisdictions to respond appropriately to an NWPA transportation 
accident or incident. Comments ranged from stating the proposal was 
unacceptable because individual applicant's needs were not sufficiently 
considered, to praising the proposal for taking into the account the 
shipments' low risk. Several western states wrote to support the 
Western Interstate Energy Board's and the Western Governors' 
Association's comment that the proposal is unacceptable because it does 
not incorporate the position of western governors on radioactive 
materials transportation, does not consider individual applicant's 
planning and preparedness needs, and therefore, does not protect the 
public's health and safety. Critics argued that the policy would not 
fully cover the cost of preparing for NWPA shipments, thereby creating 
an unfunded mandate for the states. Others argued the policy is not 
flexible or generous enough to adequately prepare rural and tribal 
jurisdictions where public safety measures may be lacking. Another 
commenter argued the incremental approach discounts the radiological 
risk of an NWPA transportation accident.
    Other commenters argued that incremental assistance was 
sufficiently protective of health and safety given the low risk of the 
shipments and the efforts made to involve stakeholders in the policy 
development. The National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners and others encouraged the incremental approach as long as 
the

[[Page 38277]]

program builds on existing knowledge about transporting spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Another commenter approved of 
the incremental approach provided the needs of the least prepared 
communities were considered. Similarly, the National Congress of 
American Indians and the Pueblo of Acoma commented that while the 
incremental approach was reasonable, it should incorporate some element 
of a needs assessment as a means to determine a supportable Section 
180(c) budget and to satisfy the Department's Trust responsibility 
toward tribal nations.
    Several commenters from a variety of organizations raised issues of 
public acceptance in the NWPA transportation program. Commenters stated 
that a successful transportation program requires public acceptance of 
the risk. To achieve that acceptance they urged the Department to 
communicate shipment risks (including updating the risk analysis 
conducted in NUREG/CR-2225), security and accident prevention measures, 
and emergency response capabilities. The Council of State Governments-
Midwestern Office asked the Department to consider what else can be 
done, within the scope of the Section 180(c) program, to increase 
stakeholder confidence and make the transportation program more 
workable. The Prairie Island Indian Community pointed out that the lack 
of tribal participation in emergency response activities associated 
with the nearby Northern States Power Prairie Island Nuclear Power 
Plant has increased public fear of the site and that participation in 
developing safety precautions is an effective counter to these fears. 
The National Congress of American Indians pointed out that perceived 
risk may be higher on tribal lands because Indian peoples' attachment 
to the land is strong and moving away from a perceived risk is not an 
option. The Shoshone-Bannock tribes pointed out that public acceptance 
of risk is influenced by the degree to which tribal members believe 
true preparedness has been achieved. Several commenters pointed out 
that trained local responders are a very effective means to calm public 
fears.
    The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office and several 
other commenters urged the Department to limit or prohibit shipments 
until jurisdictions have received funding in time to fully train and 
equip their public safety personnel. Specifically, the Western 
Interstate Energy Board said routes must be named and funding provided 
at least three years prior to shipment through a jurisdiction. These 
commenters urged the Department to begin Section 180(c) assistance as 
soon as possible in case Congress passes legislation that mandates the 
siting of an interim storage facility and shipping begins within the 
four-year time frame scheduled for Section 180(c) implementation. 
Several related comments stated the position that the Department has an 
obligation to begin accepting waste in 1998, and argued that Section 
180(c) should be implemented quickly so as to meet the acceptance date.
    Several states and state organizations again encouraged the 
Department to begin as soon as possible the process of route selection, 
in cooperation with the states. They argued that jurisdictions need 
sufficient time to assess risk levels and training needs in case 
shipment occurs within the next few years.
    In other comments, the Department was encouraged to increase 
coordination among its related transportation training programs, 
thereby reducing costs and building a more efficient assistance 
program. Nye County, Nevada said additional provisions should be 
available for the host community, including clarification of emergency 
response roles and responsibilities across federal lands. Some 
suggested that assistance should apply to all waste destined for 
geologic disposal, not just spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste. One commenter questioned the wisdom of centralized 
storage and opposed the program on the grounds that the Ruby Valley 
Treaty invalidates Federal ownership of the land. Another commenter 
urged the Department to post a bond to insure future funding for 
Section 180(c). And another commenter asked the Department to clarify 
whether a Department contractor would be subject to the registration 
requirements of 49 USC 5108(a) through (h).

Response

    It is OCRWM's position that the purpose of a Section 180(c) program 
is to provide jurisdictions with financial and technical 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 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 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 existing emergency response capabilities, will 
help jurisdictions prepare for these shipments. At the same time, OCRWM 
recognizes that the amount will vary by jurisdiction, depending on 
their current preparedness level. Therefore, the revised proposed 
policy and procedures for the grant application process requires that 
the applicant determine the assistance needed to obtain the training 
objectives. This more flexible determination of the assistance level 
will take into account the varied preparedness levels of applicants. At 
the same time, it is OCRWM's position that the safety measures such as 
the robustness of the casks and the Department's existing emergency 
response capabilities make these shipments extraordinarily safe, 
presenting minimal risk to public health and safety.
    OCRWM recognizes the crucial role of communications and public 
acceptance in developing a workable transportation program. OCRWM 
intends to provide public information to jurisdictions along the routes 
and to make Departmental representatives, whether federal employees or 
contract employees, available to communities as budgets permit. The 
training objectives in this proposal were developed with the crucial 
role of local responders in communicating risk and preparedness in 
mind.
    Regarding the concern that shipments may occur with less than three 
years' preparation, this proposed policy includes a contingency plan 
should OCRWM have to ship spent fuel through a jurisdiction with less 
than three years notice. In addition, OCRWM 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 that occur on a 
contingency basis. With the contingency plan in place, OCRWM sees no 
public health or safety reason to limit or prohibit shipments through a 
jurisdiction until all training is completed.
    This proposal allows sufficient flexibility for states and tribes 
to conduct route and risk assessments if they choose. Applicants may 
request technical assistance to aid in their efforts.
    In response to the comments regarding better coordination among the 
Department's transportation programs, OCRWM continues to work with the 
Transportation External Coordination

[[Page 38278]]

(TEC) Working Group and other internal channels to increase 
coordination among the Department's various programs. Regarding Nye 
County, Nevada's request, OCRWM believes that discussions about roles 
and responsibilities and any unique needs of Nye County can be 
addressed through Nevada's grant and technical assistance application 
process. Regarding including all waste destined for geological disposal 
under the Section 180(c) program, the language of Section 180(c) is 
clear that assistance is intended for the transport of spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level radioactive waste. However, the Department 
continues its effort to provide training assistance for its other 
radioactive materials shipping campaigns even when Section 180(c) is 
not the appropriate avenue for assistance. Regarding opposition to the 
program and the statement that the Treaty of Ruby Valley invalidates 
Federal ownership of the land, those comments are noted but are beyond 
the scope of Section 180(c) policy development. With regard to posting 
a bond to ensure future Section 180(c) funding, the Department intends 
to provide funds for the Section 180(c) program through the 
appropriations process as required of all Federal agencies. Lastly, 
OCRWM's transportation contractors will be subject to all applicable 
federal, state, and local regulations.

Safe Routine Transportation

    Several comments were received stating that the definition of safe 
routine transportation was too narrow and should follow more closely 
the definition developed by TEC. An expanded definition was encouraged 
to allow assistance for salaries, equipment and supplies, planning 
activities, activities related to state escorts, record-keeping, 
compliance audits, development and application of bad weather 
procedures, identification and use of safe parking procedures, 
prenotification and monitoring of shipments, alternate route analysis 
and designation, infrastructure improvements, and public information 
and involvement efforts. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) 
recommended designation of a CVSA subcontractor as the central 
inspection data collection agency in order to keep the Out-of-Service 
criteria up-to-date. Their comments also encouraged the Department to 
adopt the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPP) stringent driver 
qualification and inspection standards, including requiring that 
transportation occur under the North American enhanced inspection 
standards. Regarding rail issues, the Southern States Energy Board said 
the lack of rail inspection standards creates a negative public 
perception about the Department's efforts to ensure rail transport 
safety.

Response

    The definition of safe routine transportation 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 specifically indicate what training for safe routine 
transportation procedures 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 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. The revised proposed 
policy and procedures allow for other activities to occur using the 
base grants.
    Regarding CVSA's comment about funding a subcontractor, such 
activities may be funded through a cooperative agreement, but would be 
outside the scope of Section 180(c) which requires that funding and 
technical assistance be used for training. Compliance with the North 
American enhanced inspection standards would not be required although 
the Department anticipates states will abide by these standards once 
adopted by the full CVSA membership.
    Regarding the comments that the Department's lack of rail 
inspection standards creates a negative public perception, both the 
rail companies and the Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad 
Administration have stringent standards for the transportation of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. Focusing more communications 
efforts on rail safety measures may help address concerns about rail 
transport.

Technical Assistance and Equipment

    Technical assistance and equipment were frequently mentioned 
together in the comments. Both state and tribal commenters stated that 
equipment and infrastructure improvements should be available as part 
of technical assistance. With regard to tribes, the Department was 
requested to clarify why equipment would not be included under the 
definition of technical assistance since supplying equipment would be 
part of the government's Trust responsibility to tribes. In some cases, 
commenters encouraged the Department to expand the definition of 
technical assistance to include the purchase, calibration, and 
maintenance of equipment. A couple of commenters asked the Department 
to clarify what was meant by the phrase ``unique to the Department'' 
used in the definition and whether access to Department representatives 
meant access to contractor personnel as well as Departmental employees.
    Many commenters disagreed with the 10 percent cap of total funding 
to purchase equipment. Instead, they suggested allowing applicants to 
assess their own equipment needs and include it in the application 
package. Other commenters stated the 10 percent cap might work for most 
applicants but suggested allowing the cap to be waived in some 
instances, or create a sliding scale that allowed more funding for 
equipment in the early years of training when more equipment would be 
needed. Portland General Electric and the International Association of 
Fire Chiefs suggested 10 percent was an insufficient cap and should be 
increased to 25 percent. The Nuclear Energy Institute stated the 10 
percent cap was appropriate because it ensured the majority of the 
funding will be used for training purposes. Another commenter said the 
10 percent cap was sufficient as long as the Department assisted 
jurisdictions in interpreting federal requirements related to 
federally-purchased equipment. Several commenters made the point that 
restricting equipment purchases to ``training-related'' equipment would 
create an unfunded mandate because jurisdictions could purchase 
equipment to train but not have it available to them during an actual 
emergency response or inspection situation. One comment recommended 
that inspection equipment specifically be an allowable expense. A 
couple of local governments argued that equipment should be provided 
directly to local responders. One commenter requested clarification on 
whether the cap pertained to the total annual Section 180(c) budget 
allocation to a state or tribe, or to the assistance passed on to each 
local jurisdiction. They also asked for clarification on what should be 
done with equipment provided along routes not ultimately used.

Response

    The definition of technical assistance proposed in this Notice 
combines parts of the Strategy definition and TEC

[[Page 38279]]

definition. Some activities, such as infrastructure improvements are 
far outside the scope of assistance for training and therefore not 
covered by the Section 180(c) program. OCRWM will allow states and 
tribes to use a percentage of each years's grant budget for the 
purchase of equipment. OCRWM cannot include equipment in the definition 
of technical assistance. This is consistent with the Departmental and 
Government-wide policy which clearly delineates what is financial 
assistance and what is technical assistance. In 10 CFR 600.202 
Definitions, the term ``grant'' means an award of financial assistance, 
including cooperative agreements, in the form of money, or property in 
lieu of money, by the Federal Government to an eligible grantee. The 
term does not include technical assistance which provides services 
instead of money * * *''. The phrase in the definition ``unique to the 
Department'' was not meant to limit the Department's technical 
assistance, but to recognize that some jurisdictions may not be 
familiar with the NWPA shipments' regulatory structure, safety 
measures, or other issues specific to these shipments. The access to 
Department representatives was intended to mean access to both federal 
employees and contractor personnel.
    Regarding equipment issues, equipment purchases, calibration, and 
maintenance are not specifically allowed under the definition of 
technical assistance although such activities may be allowable under a 
recipient's grant. OCRWM anticipates that the provision of technical 
assistance may include, if the applicant requests it, advice on 
appropriate equipment and the appropriate training for use of the 
equipment. In response to the arguments against the 10 percent cap on 
equipment purchases, OCRWM has changed the policy to allow up to 25 
percent of each applicant's annual Section 180(c) funding in TY-2 and 
TY-1 to purchase equipment. Ten percent of each recipient's annual 
Section 180(c) funding may be used to purchase equipment in the 
transportation years after TY-1. Allowable types of equipment would 
include communications equipment, basic emergency response equipment, 
and radiological detection equipment. A percentage cap remains in 
place, albeit a higher cap, to ensure that the majority of Section 
180(c) funding is used for training first responders for NWPA shipments 
while giving grant recipients the flexibility to target their funding 
from year to year. The ``training-related'' phrase was retained in the 
policy. However, as previously stated, such equipment may also be used 
during actual emergency responses, not just for training. Equipment is 
not being provided directly to local governments because the Section 
180(c) language and legislative history clearly indicate that 
assistance should be provided to states. In addition, it is within the 
states' authority, not the federal government's, to determine the 
public safety structure within their state. In response to the 
questions posed, the cap pertains to the total annual Section 180(c) 
budget allocation to a state or tribe. For equipment that is supplied 
along routes not ultimately used for NWPA shipments, the Department 
would advise the state or tribe on requirements related to equipment 
acquired under the grant, and the appropriate disposition of the 
equipment. Inspection equipment is not specifically mentioned in the 
policy because it will be the grant recipient's choice as to whether to 
purchase emergency response or inspection equipment.

Training Standards

    Comments on training standards were fairly consistent. Commenters 
requested the Department to define more clearly the roles and 
responsibilities of local and state emergency responders and the 
training goals for each level of emergency response. Several commenters 
encouraged the Department to set training goals for local responders by 
defining what ``adequate'' training means and by defining the specific 
tasks required to respond to an NWPA transportation incident or 
accident. They requested the Department to fund training to a level 
consistent with the defined roles and responsibilities, allowing the 
grant recipients to decide how best to meet those goals. The Southern 
States Energy Board said that awareness level training for local 
responders was not sufficient. The International Association of Fire 
Chiefs, on the other hand, said local responders are already 
overburdened with training and that two to four hours, possibly in a 
video format, would be sufficient. They also recommended not using the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 1910.120(q) regulations 
as they were too great a burden. Another commenter requested that the 
Department's training standards include Attachment H, ``Recommended 
Sequence of Radiological Training,'' of FEMA TD-100, ``Management Plan 
for Radiological Training Series.'' Another commenter said the 
standards in the proposed policy were inadequate and encouraged the 
Department to look at NUREG/CR-2225 (1981) ``An Unconstrained Overview 
of the Critical Elements in a Model State System for Emergency Response 
to Radiological Transportation Incidents.''
    Several commenters wanted the Department to work more cooperatively 
to define the interface between the federal and state or tribal levels 
of public safety officials. A few commenters recommended using the 
transportation programs for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New 
Mexico and the Department's Cesium shipments as models for this 
cooperation. The Western Interstate Energy Board again requested the 
Department to write a transportation plan that provides a basis for 
interaction among the various governmental levels regarding routing, 
training, operations, and other transportation matters. They also 
reiterated their desire for the Department to establish Regional 
Training Advisory Teams and a National Training Advisory Committee. To 
support program flexibility, one state requested that the Department 
allow states to prioritize training assistance along the routes.
    The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that the 
Department increase efficiency and consistency regarding inspection and 
enforcement training by funding CVSA to conduct the training, and 
requiring grant recipients to attend CVSA's North American Enhanced 
Inspection Standard training and refresher training. They based their 
argument on the fact that they are the only organization in North 
America that offers standardized inspection training across North 
America for radiological materials transportation, and that requiring 
participation in the CVSA enhanced inspection program, where 
participating states agree not to reinspect shipments already inspected 
by another participating state, would limit the number of inspections 
and increase the transportation program's efficiency.
    In other comments, the League of Women Voters Education Fund 
recommended developing training modules and information packets in 
conjunction with TEC and emergency response personnel. A county 
supported modular training formats and distance learning as well as 
preserving the training resources at the Department's Nevada Test Site. 
The Nuclear Waste Citizen's Coalition stated that the Department should 
mandate attention to antiterrorism training and the development of 
potential terrorist scenarios and provide the carrier with a list of 
emergency response contact numbers at each jurisdiction along the 
route. The Emergency Nurses

[[Page 38280]]

Association stated that hospitals need access to information about 
available training and that they should qualify for the same training 
as other public safety personnel.

Response

    This revised policy addresses many of the commenters' concerns. 
OCRWM has stated in this revised policy what it views as adequate 
training for safe routine transportation and emergency response 
capabilities along NWPA routes. The states and tribes have the right 
and responsibility to determine how best to apply this training and to 
determine how best to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their 
citizens. The powers and responsibilities of local governments depend 
on the state constitution under which they operate. In order to receive 
Section 180(c) funds, OCRWM will require that the states (and tribes if 
they have subjurisdictions within their government) consult with the 
first responders and local governments regarding awareness level 
training in order to determine the level of assistance needed to meet 
OCRWM's training goals. OCRWM has stated its objective that, at a 
minimum, all local response jurisdictions have awareness level training 
in order to recognize an NWPA shipment, know its contents, its 
associated risk, and what authorities to notify in case of an accident 
or incident. Coordinating Section 180(c) assistance with FEMA training 
programs or other training programs that a grant recipient may already 
be using is encouraged, however, OCRWM sees no need to limit all grant 
recipients to Attachment H of FEMA's Management Plan for Radiological 
Training Series. In addition, the NUREG/CR-2225 document is a useful 
document for planning in a model scenario. However, the text states 
that the study is an unconstrained view of the critical elements in a 
state program for radiological emergency response, presuming no bounds 
of manpower, funding, development time, or other real-world 
constraints. In addition, the model does not specify the type of 
radioactive material, therefore, it does not take into account the 
packaging used for NWPA shipments and the low risk of these shipments.
    OCRWM decided to rely on the OSHA 1910.120(q) regulations as those 
most relevant to providing emergency response training for spent fuel 
shipments since these are the regulations applicable to employers whose 
employees respond to hazardous materials emergencies and spent nuclear 
fuel is a class of hazardous materials. These requirements can be 
addressed through the use of the NFPA training standards or other 
implementing guidelines.
    The Department recognizes the need for clear lines of 
responsibility and communication during a transportation emergency and 
anticipates working with grant recipients on these matters through the 
provision of technical assistance and, as budget allows, by conducting 
drills and exercises. Grant recipients may use their funds to 
coordinate their emergency response planning with other grant 
recipients if they wish; however, OCRWM believes establishing regional 
and national training advisory teams would drain financial assistance 
away from grant recipients. The Department has not yet prepared an 
OCRWM transportation plan because these types of plans require 
knowledge of a level of detail that has not yet been determined. For 
example, included in the plan would be points-of-contacts along the 
routes, origins and destinations of shipments, and shipment schedules. 
This does not preclude OCRWM from developing a transportation plan in 
the future, when these open issues are resolved.
    The policy does not specifically require states and tribes to take 
CVSA training; however, since CVSA is the only organization in North 
America that offers standardized motor-carrier inspection training and 
49 states participate in CVSA, OCRWM anticipates that jurisdictions 
will abide by the CVSA reciprocal inspection standards program.
    In response to the other comments, the Department's Transportation 
Emergency Preparedness Program has an ongoing effort to coordinate and 
make available training curricula to the stakeholders. The focus of 
this program is the consolidation and enhancement of ongoing training 
into a flexible, modular format for incorporation into federal, state, 
tribal, and local training programs. A key element of this program is 
coordination via public forums, surveys, and pilot testing by public 
groups such as TEC, and professional and volunteer emergency response 
officials. A current effort is the final pilot test of the Radiation 
Materials Emergency Response: Awareness Level module due for final 
release this fall. Regarding terrorist concerns, the NRC requires that 
the security plan for the shipments consider terrorist scenarios. It 
should be noted that the formidable containers and nonvolatile nature 
of the contents, which enhance survival, even in severe accidents, 
would likewise minimize the affect of terrorist attack. While not 
required by federal statute, the drivers of other DOE shipments have 
had access to an emergency response contact list for the jurisdictions 
they pass through. The Department finds no reason to discontinue this 
practice. This proposal does not include the training of hospital 
personnel as an objective, but grant recipients may use their funds for 
this purpose if they believe they have met the policy's other training 
objectives. OCRWM will provide, for public information and as part of 
awareness training, information about Oak Ridge National Laboratory's 
Radiological Emergency Assistance Center and Training Site and its 24-
hour on-call assistance.

Timing and Eligibility

    For the most part, commenters supported the eligibility 
requirements proposed in the last notice. Several Nevada counties 
recommended that local governments, since in most cases their public 
safety officials will respond first to an accident or incident, be 
directly eligible for assistance. Nye County requested the Department 
take into account the unique position of the host community and define 
their eligibility and funding assistance differently than jurisdictions 
along the routes. Other commenters suggested that jurisdictions be 
eligible when they have emergency response authority over a route, 
regardless of whether the shipment travels through their jurisdiction, 
i.e., when a mutual aid agreement exists between two jurisdictions 
although the responding jurisdiction may not have any NWPA shipments 
through its borders. Another commenter suggested that all potentially 
affected jurisdictions should be eligible regardless of whether they 
have an emergency response role over the route. Several tribes and the 
National Congress of American Indians urged the Department to consider 
the rights some tribes have over culturally significant lands. The 
comments stated that tribes should be eligible when they have an 
interest in protecting and preserving these areas even though they may 
not have emergency response authority over those lands. The Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Alliance stated that the state agency responsible for 
on-highway enforcement of motor carrier regulations should be specified 
as the agency designated to receive funds for safe routine 
transportation procedures, ensuring that training assistance reaches 
the personnel responsible for motor carrier regulation.
    Comments received on the timing of the assistance ranged from one 
statement that a four-year process is too long to another statement 
that the WIPP

[[Page 38281]]

experience shows four years is the minimum time required given the 
number of applicants and the slow process of application review. The 
governor of Oregon stated that the application process should be 
streamlined to less than a year and the Council of State Governments-
Midwestern Office stated that the assistance should be provided one to 
two years prior to shipment. A couple of commenters suggested the 
program would be more flexible if assistance were allowed to begin more 
than fours years prior to shipment for jurisdictions that need extra 
preparation. The National Congress of American Indians argued that 
tribes, when they lack infrastructure and emergency response 
preparedness, need assistance to begin now. The emergency preparedness 
workshops the National Congress of American Indians conducted in the 
last three years has indicated that a critical lack of trained people 
and infrastructure exist on most Indian lands. In addition, the Council 
of State Governments--Midwestern Office stated that to prepare 
sufficiently and to target resources, the Department must announce the 
queue, the routes, the modes, and the process of interaction with the 
private transportation contractors. Several western states argued that 
routes should be announced and assistance should begin three to five 
years prior to shipment to allow for alternate routing and to assess 
training and related needs.
    Others expressed concern about the possibility of a Congressionally 
mandated interim storage site resulting in transportation across their 
jurisdictions in less than the four-year time frame. The governor of 
Nebraska, the National Congress of American Indians, and the Nevada 
Nuclear Waste Task Force said that current preparations for these 
shipments are not sufficient for public safety and expressed concern 
that delaying Section 180(c) implementation now risked having less than 
four years to prepare should Congress site an interim storage facility. 
The Southern States Energy Board stated the four-year time frame is 
irrelevant since the Department is scheduled to begin shipping spent 
nuclear fuel within two years.
    Commenters offered several suggestions on the contingency plan 
which called for more highly trained and equipped escorts in some cases 
and to provide funding and assistance in a shorter time frame in other 
cases. While no comments were strongly critical of the contingency 
plan, one state organization requested that the Department detail the 
potential contingencies the Department envisions, and reiterated their 
position that contingency escorts would be acceptable for only limited 
numbers of shipments and any large-scale movement of spent nuclear fuel 
would require sufficient assistance and time to prepare. Similarly, 
another state organization warned that contingency plans do not 
compensate for sufficient planning and preparations. The Nuclear 
Information and Resource Service stated that escorts must be highly 
trained to handle accident conditions. The Nuclear Energy Institute 
encouraged the flexibility of contingency plans in order that 
transportation not be interrupted by bad weather, road maintenance, 
noncompliance by grant recipients, or other potential delays. The 
Southern States Energy Board pointed out that the contingency plan only 
deals with emergency response procedures and not safe routine 
transportation procedures. They questioned whether the level of 
assistance to train inspectors would allow states to move inspectors 
quickly within a state should a route be changed suddenly.
    One commenter said escorts must be trained in the incident command 
system and be prepared to provide radiological information to a local 
incident commander. Another commenter said the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's (NRC) regulations on escorts were not sufficient in rural 
areas because the escort would be nothing more than a replacement 
driver.

Response

    The Department based its proposed requirements for eligibility on 
the statutory language of the NWPA and OCRWM's prior discussions with 
stakeholders about beginning assistance three to five years prior to 
commencement of shipping through a jurisdiction. Eligibility was 
expanded to permit states and tribes to transfer funds to those 
jurisdictions with mutual aid or cross-deputization agreements for 
emergency response and to include both jurisdictions in those cases 
where a route constitutes the border between two jurisdictions. These 
changes allow all parties with authority over an accident or incident 
to receive training assistance for NWPA shipments. Local governments 
are not eligible for direct assistance because the language in the 
statute provides that state governments allocate the assistance to 
local jurisdictions. For a tribe, in those instances where a tribe has 
rights to culturally significant lands, OCRWM anticipates working with 
the tribal government through the provision of technical assistance. 
Regarding CVSA's request that the state agency responsible for on-
highway enforcement of motor carrier regulations be eligible for direct 
funding, OCRWM believes it is the role of the state governor to 
determine what agency is responsible for the Section 180(c) program.
    OCRWM would have to use contingency plans for Section 180(c) if the 
Department were directed to ship prior to full implementation of 
Section 180(c), which means with a preparation period of less than 
approximately four years. OCRWM did not make any changes to the timing 
of the grants process because the current proposed four-year time frame 
provides sufficient flexibility. Should shipment have to occur within 
less than the time frame planned, the contingency plan will assist 
jurisdictions in preparing for the shipments at no risk to shipment 
safety. Under the Department's current Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management Program Plan, the earliest transportation could begin is 
2004. If Congress mandates an interim storage site, the contingency 
plan can accommodate early shipment. Similarly, if routes are announced 
two years prior to shipment, grant recipients should have ample time to 
consider alternate routes and interact with the private transportation 
contractors. Information is available about the queue through documents 
such as DOE/RW-0457 ``Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity 
Report.'' Regarding the preparedness concerns of tribal governments, 
this proposal does expand the application of technical assistance to be 
responsive to these concerns where warranted. OCRWM has tried to 
correct the lack of safe routine transportation contingency plans by 
allowing grant recipients to determine the number of inspectors to 
train. When escorts are part of the contingency plan, OCRWM has stated 
the escorts would be more highly trained and equipped than those 
routinely used for the purposes of safeguards and security.
    Regarding the comments on escorts, OCRWM anticipates that escorts 
used on a contingency basis would have significant training in the 
radiological emergency response procedures and be fully versed in 
issues of federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictional authority 
under accident or incident conditions. There is no safety reason to 
increase the number of escorts beyond the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's regulatory requirements.

Funding Allocation Formula

    The funding allocation formula, presented in the appendix to the 
May 16, 1996, Proposed Policy and Procedures, was roundly criticized.

[[Page 38282]]

Almost all the commenters said the measures used to determine funding 
levels, for example, the numbers of people trained and the route miles 
as a basis for the variable funding, were an arbitrary determination by 
the Department and did not correspond to real training needs in the 
jurisdictions. Many commenters objected to the Department's determining 
the funding level and not discussing with eligible jurisdictions the 
planning issues that impact training needs such as the routes, the 
number of shipments, and the shipment schedules. A frequent 
recommendation was that the number of people trained and the number of 
trainers should be negotiated. Similar recommendations included basing 
funding on the training and equipment needs of local responders, and 
using the Western Governors' Association straw man regulations. 
Commenters frequently mentioned that if the Department failed to use a 
needs-based system for the funding allocation, the policy would be 
viewed as an unfunded mandate.
    Recommendations on how the funding allocation should occur were 
varied but generally included some level of needs assessment as 
determined by the eligible state or tribe. Comments on the role of 
population in determining funding levels ranged from the International 
Association of Fire Fighters and the Council of State Governments/
Eastern Regional Conference stating that higher population levels 
require the training of more public safety personnel to Nye County, 
Nevada stating that population should be used as an inverse funding 
variable since rural areas tend to be less prepared and need more 
assistance. Several tribal commenters encouraged the Department not to 
use population at all as a factor because low population on tribal 
lands tends to limit the assistance available to tribes.
    Others recommended using shipment miles, not route miles as part of 
the allocation basis. Another commenter recommended including accident 
rates along routes as the allocation basis. The Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance recommended that funding for inspector training be 
based on a combination of population, number of inspectors, number of 
inspections, and the number of points of entry for each eligible 
jurisdiction, similar to the present policy in calculating the U.S. 
DOT's hazardous materials registration program, 49 CFR 107-601.
    The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office and the Eastern 
Regional Conference both requested that the Department inform the 
governors of the annual funding projections for their state and work to 
keep funding levels constant to assist states with their planning and 
budgeting cycles.

Response

    OCRWM has fundamentally changed the funding allocation formula in 
this revised proposed policy. The formulaic approach has been dropped 
and a more needs-based approach developed. The new approach, while 
limited by OCRWM's training objectives, will allow more flexibility for 
grant recipients to determine how much assistance they need to be 
prepared for NWPA shipments. Instead of using population or other 
variables to determine funding levels, the level of preparedness will 
factor into the funding allocation. The needs-based approach would 
apply both to safe routine transportation training and emergency 
response training, negating the need for a specific funding formula for 
either type of procedures. The comments about projected funding and 
consistent funding levels are noted.

Allowable Use of Funds

    Comments on the allowable use of funds tended to overlap with 
comments on training standards and overall program policy. Commenters, 
including the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 
the International Association of Fire Fighters, a couple of counties, 
and most states encouraged the Department to fund some form of route 
and risk assessments. Route and risk assessments, it was argued, are 
the first steps in preparing for NWPA shipments, assisting 
jurisdictions to identify specific hazards, write an effective 
emergency response plan, more efficiently deploy Section 180(c) 
resources, and take specific accident prevention measures. The 
Department was encouraged to conduct early route selection in 
cooperation with states and tribes as an initial step in defining the 
appropriate increment of assistance, and to reduce confusion and 
antagonism in jurisdictions along the routes. The point was made that a 
cooperative approach to route and risk analysis and related planning 
activities would take more than two years or the Department would risk 
inadequate planning involving stakeholders. Defining the interface 
among the federal government, private contractors, and involved 
jurisdictions was suggested as part of an overall cooperative approach. 
One commenter suggested that the Department should make technical 
assistance available to assist jurisdictions in conducting risk 
assessments even if financial assistance is not available. One 
commenter asked why states' ability to determine the appropriate use of 
funds was inconsistent with tribal governments' ability.
    A variety of commenters encouraged the Department to allow funds to 
pay for administrative costs such as salaries and record-keeping. 
Lincoln County, Nevada suggested the Department pay for 75 percent of a 
person's salary in each local jurisdiction, while a few states 
commented that states should receive funding for one person each to 
carry out safe routine transportation and emergency response planning 
activities. One commenter asked whether states would have to cover the 
cost of Federal employees participating in public meetings. Commenters 
also requested clarification on the use of funds to train state 
personnel as well as local personnel given that Section 180(c) states 
assistance is for ``public safety officials of appropriate units of 
local government. * * *'' On the subject of pass-through requirements, 
a few commenters requested the proposal require a pass-through of funds 
to the local level. One suggested 75 percent of funds be passed-through 
while another said even if funds are not passed through, the majority 
of training assistance should reach the local level.
    By far the most frequent comment was an expression of disagreement 
with the Department's decision not to allow drills and exercises as 
part of training. Almost every commenter made the point that exercises 
and drills are an essential part of the learning process. One commenter 
suggested funding a percentage of a jurisdiction's cost for drills and 
exercises saying it would be more effective and less costly for the 
Department to fund state and local level drills and exercises than to 
conduct large-scale joint federal, state, and tribal exercises. An 
alternative suggestion was to fund a fixed number of multi-
jurisdictional exercises each year.
    A mix of views was expressed on the Department's statement 
encouraging grant recipients to coordinate their training for NWPA 
shipments with other training programs such as FEMA's radiological 
training. One commenter said it would be illegal to use other federal 
programs to pay for NWPA training. The State of New Mexico and the 
Nuclear Energy Institute both encouraged coordination with other 
training programs to provide states flexibility in obtaining training 
and maximizing the effectiveness of Section 180(c) funds. On a slightly 
different note, commenters cautioned the Department not to rely on 
other federal programs to provide more elementary emergency response 
and safe routine

[[Page 38283]]

transportation capabilities because cutbacks in federal spending have 
jeopardized programs such as FEMA's equipment calibration laboratories.

Response

    The revised proposed policy and procedures increase the types of 
activities that Section 180(c) funds may cover. While the base grant 
was derived from a salary estimate, it could be used to offset the cost 
of salaries, to conduct planning activities such as route and risk 
assessments, to coordinate with neighboring grant recipients and local 
jurisdictions, or interact with the private transportation contractors 
or federal employees. The base amount of funding doubled the original 
salary estimate to allow states and tribes to pay the salary of one 
person each to carry out safe routine and emergency response procedures 
planning, if that is what the state or tribe chooses to do. The 
proposed policy and procedures did not differentiate between a state's 
authority to determine the best use of funds within their jurisdiction 
from a tribal government's authority to determine the best use of funds 
within their jurisdiction. This policy intends to give equal treatment 
to state and tribal governments with regard to eligibility, use of 
funds, and other policy matters. The policy will have to make 
allowances for different governmental structures of state and tribes, 
since for example, tribes seldom have subjurisdictions with which to 
coordinate and plan.
    The prescriptive pass-through of funds to the local level is not 
required because it is unclear that such a pass-through would result in 
the most efficient use of training resources. Training for safe routine 
transportation procedures, as defined for the Section 180(c) program, 
would occur at the state level since state-level employees have motor-
carrier inspection and enforcement powers. OCRWM anticipates that local 
public safety officials will receive increased training benefits under 
this proposed policy because of the increased requirement to ensure 
planning and coordination at the local level and to ensure that local 
responders will be the recipients of the awareness level training. The 
recipient state (or tribe if they have subjurisdictions) will determine 
whether local salaries are offset.
    Federal representatives' attendance at public meetings will be 
funded by OCRWM, not out of grant recipients' funds. OCRWM plans to 
allow grant applicants to factor in the cost of drills and exercises as 
part of their grant applications.
    Regarding the coordination of Section 180(c) assistance with other 
training programs, the Department retains its position of encouraging 
grant recipients to detail in their three-year plans how this 
assistance will enhance their current efforts to prepare for 
radiological materials shipments. For example, if a grant recipient 
already relies on FEMA training classes to prepare their first 
responders, then they would be encouraged to use Section 180(c) 
assistance to send additional responders to those classes. Or if a 
state or tribe conducts its own awareness level training, they could 
use the assistance to offset the costs of sending first responders to 
that training, or updating their curricula to include information about 
NWPA shipments.

Concerns of Local, Rural, and Tribal Governments

    Many of the comments on the concerns of local, rural and tribal 
governments have already been summarized in the previous sections. The 
following summarizes the comments specific to these jurisdictional 
levels.
    Several counties expressed their view that the proposed policy 
diminishes the role of local governments in preparing for NWPA 
shipments. They expressed dissatisfaction that local governments did 
not have a more guaranteed role in the planning and needs assessment 
stages of the application process, that notification of eligibility 
would go to the state and tribal governments only, that training and 
guidance were not directly available to local governments, and that 
insufficient attention was given to establishing basic infrastructure 
where needed. The point was made that the Department should have an 
oversight and enforcement mechanism to ensure wise use of funds and 
readiness at the local level. Other commenters said clear training 
standards for the local level are needed to minimize the role of state 
politics in distributing funds and to guarantee readiness. Commenters 
also stated that local governments should have direct access to 
Departmental personnel to communicate concerns and obtain direct 
assistance if the local government has a dispute with the state. The 
Department was encouraged to consider the needs of rural volunteer 
emergency responders who lack the funding and the time to attend 
extensive training classes by providing distance learning and other 
flexible, low cost training alternatives. Another commenter said local 
governments must be invited to consider mechanisms to limit exposure to 
the public and get assistance to reduce radiation exposure from 
shipping casks. Nye County, Nevada stated that local governments and 
rail carriers should be involved in developing policy for best 
practices and new technology for rail shipments and that the states 
should immediately pass on to local governments the information 
provided by the Department.
    Tribal concerns centered on the issue of how to implement Section 
180(c) in a manner consistent with the government-to-government 
relationship and Trust responsibility of the Federal government toward 
tribal governments. Commenters stated that the Trust responsibility 
requires the Federal government and agencies to take proper care to 
protect the rights and interests of each tribal government. Actions 
suggested to properly meet the Trust responsibility included increasing 
assistance to the National Congress of American Indians to reach out to 
tribal governments about this program, consulting directly with tribal 
governments to resolve issues related to NWPA transportation, and 
acting as an advocate of tribal interests with other federal agencies 
as stated in the Department's American Indian Policy. The commenters 
felt the proposed policy failed to analyze the requirements of the 
Trust responsibility.

Response

    OCRWM 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 grant recipients. In recognition of these 
concerns, OCRWM has increased the requirement on states to consult and 
involve local jurisdictions in the planning and training activities. 
Under the new training objectives, in those states where local 
governments have significant emergency response authority, most of the 
assistance should flow to the local emergency response agencies. 
Regarding oversight and enforcement of training readiness, the OSHA 
standards are very clear that verifying training is the employer's 
responsibility. It is not the role of the federal government to set 
requirements on local governments, circumventing the state/local 
government relationship. OCRWM has and will continue to consider the 
financial and time constraints of volunteer and rural responders in the 
development and distribution of training materials. With regard to 
local governments involvement in the reduction of radiation exposure, 
the radiation exposures from the shipping casks will be within the 
levels for routine safe

[[Page 38284]]

shipments as defined by the competent regulatory authorities. The local 
governments may, consistent with the DOT routing guidelines, work with 
state routing agencies to define preferred routes that limit population 
exposure. In addition, current safeguards and security regulations 
prevent the release of information about the time of shipments through 
a particular route. Regarding local governments' involvement in the 
development of rail practices, this is an issue that may need to be 
addressed with the Department, but is beyond the scope of the Section 
180(c) policy development process.
    OCRWM has agreed to work directly with tribal governments unless 
requested otherwise by the applicant. OCRWM 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.
B. Section 180(c) Procedures

Funding Mechanism

    The comments on the funding mechanism were almost unanimously 
supportive of the grants program directed to states and tribes. There 
were a couple of states that encouraged the Department to combine 
Section 180(c) funding with existing federal programs that offer 
training for emergency response and safe routine transportation 
training and one of them requested the funding be provided as an up-
front distribution instead of reimbursement for costs. A couple of 
states that supported the grants mechanism requested the Department 
provide for coordination of the assistance with other state, tribal, 
and federally-supported training programs for emergency response and 
safe routine transportation procedures, even if the funding mechanisms 
were not combined. The State of Idaho supported combining Section 
180(c) funding with other training assistance programs within the 
Department in order to make the Department's training assistance less 
campaign-specific. Several tribal government commenters favorably noted 
the equal treatment between states and tribes. The International 
Association of Fire Fighters stated that the grant mechanism would 
place too heavy a burden on the states for planning, administration, 
and needs assessment and could require the creation of state-level 
offices analogous to the Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management.

Response

    OCRWM made no changes to the funding mechanism in this revised 
proposed policy and procedures, in part because states and tribal 
commenters did not find the grant mechanism to be overly burdensome, 
particularly if staff and administrative costs are offset. This new 
proposal does note that in the event there is a Department-wide funding 
mechanism for training assistance, the Section 180(c) program would be 
combined with it to the extent practicable. OCRWM finds combining the 
Section 180(c) funding mechanism with a federal program outside the 
Department would increase administrative costs and reduce program 
flexibility. As discussed in the allowable use of funds section, grant 
recipients will be encouraged to coordinate their training under the 
Section 180(c) program with their existing training efforts to the 
extent practicable.

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

    Many states and state organizations urged that Section 180(c) 
assistance should apply to all spent nuclear fuel or defense high-level 
radioactive waste shipments ultimately destined for an NWPA facility, 
whether or not those shipments are transported to and stored on an 
interim basis at a private facility. Commenters cited that 
transportation to a private facility would only be necessary if the 
Department fails to site an interim or permanent storage facility 
according to statutory obligations.

Response

    The Department is currently authorized to implement the Section 
180(c) program of financial and technical assistance only for shipments 
to a repository or MRS constructed under the NWPA. However, the many 
comments on this issue have been noted.
D. Policy Development Process
    A few commenters again questioned the Department's plans to issue a 
Notice of Policy and Procedures rather than promulgate regulations. 
They voiced concern that implementation of Section 180(c) through 
regulations is necessary to ensure stability through changes of 
leadership within the Department and that an interpretation of policy 
and procedures is more easily changed. An expedited rulemaking was 
suggested to accommodate time constraints.

Response

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

V. Conclusion and Request for Submission

    This notice has presented the OCRWM's revised proposal for a policy 
and procedures for the Section 180(c) program. It also has presented 
OCRWM's summarization of and response to comments received on the prior 
Notice of Proposed Policy and Procedures. Relevant comments on this 
proposal will be given careful consideration and responses will be 
included in the Notice of Final Policy and Procedures, which OCRWM 
intends to publish in 1998. The purpose of this notice 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 Statutory direction, and any policy 
changes caused by the new Statutory direction.
    OCRWM solicits comments from the public on this revised proposal to 
issue Section 180(c) policy and procedures.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 11, 1997.
Ronald A. Milner,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management.

Appendix--Definition of Terms As Used in the Revised Proposed Policy 
and Procedures

    1. Responsible Jurisdiction means a governmental entity at any 
level of government, whether state, tribal, or any of their 
subjurisdictions, that has the authority to conduct part or all of 
an emergency response to a radiological materials transportation 
accident or incident.
    2. First Responders are generally those emergency response 
personnel who (1) assess the risk level of the emergency, (2) take 
defensive action to secure an accident scene, and (3) notify 
additional authorities if needed.
    3. Awareness level training means training for individuals who 
are likely to witness or discover a hazardous substance release and 
who have been trained to initiate an emergency response sequence by 
notifying the authorities of the release. First responders awareness 
level training shall provide sufficient training to ensure that 
first responders objectively demonstrate competency in the following 
areas:
    (A) Understand what hazardous substances are, and the risks 
associated with them in an incident.

[[Page 38285]]

    (B) Understand the potential outcomes associated with an 
emergency created when hazardous substances are present.
    (C) Recognize the presence of hazardous substances in an 
emergency.
    (D) Identify the hazardous substance, if possible.
    (E) Understand the role of the first responder awareness 
individual in the employer's emergency response plan including site 
security and control and the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
Emergency Response Guidebook.
    (F) Realize the need for additional resources, and to make 
appropriate notifications to the communications center.
    (29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(I)(A)).
    4. First responder operations level hazardous materials training 
means training that provides for individuals who respond to releases 
or potential releases of hazardous substances as part of the initial 
response to the site for the purpose of protecting nearby persons, 
property, or the environment from the effects of the release to be 
able to respond in a defensive fashion without actually trying to 
stop the release. Their function is to contain the release from a 
safe distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent exposures. First 
responders at the operations level shall have received at least 
eight hours of training and have had sufficient experience to 
objectively demonstrate competency in the following areas in 
addition to those listed for the awareness level, and the employer 
shall so certify:
    (A) Know the basic hazard and risk assessment techniques.
    (B) Know how to select and use proper personal protective 
equipment provided to the first responder operational level.
    (C) Understand basic hazardous materials terms.
    (D) Know how to perform basic control, containment and/or 
confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and 
personal protective equipment available with their unit.
    (E) Know how to implement basic decontamination procedures.
    (F) Understand the relevant standard operating procedures and 
termination procedures.
    (29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(ii)(A)).
    5. Train-the-Trainer training means training for individuals so 
that they can teach other emergency responders to respond to a 
particular level of competency.
    6. Hazardous materials technician level training is training for 
individuals who respond to releases or potential releases for the 
purpose of stopping the release. They assume a more aggressive role 
than a first responder at the operations level in that they will 
approach the point of release in order to plug, patch or otherwise 
stop the release of a hazardous substance. Hazardous materials 
technicians shall have received at least 24 hours of training equal 
to the first responder operations level and in addition have 
competency in the following areas, and the employer shall so 
certify:
    (A) Know how to implement the employer's emergency response 
plan.
    (B) Know the classification, identification and verification of 
known and unknown materials by using field survey instruments and 
equipment.
    (C) Be able to function within an assigned role in the Incident 
Command System.
    (D) Know how to select and use proper specialized chemical 
personal protective equipment provided to the hazardous materials 
technician.
    (E) Understand hazard and risk assessment techniques.
    (F) Be able to perform advance control, containment, and/or 
confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and 
personal protective equipment available with the unit.
    (G) Understand and implement decontamination procedures.
    (H) Understand termination procedures.
    (I) Understand basic chemical and toxicological terminology and 
behavior.
    (29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii)(A)).

[FR Doc. 97-18840 Filed 7-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P