[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23753-23766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11520]
[[Page 23753]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Safe Routine
Transportation and Emergency Response Training; Technical Assistance
and Funding
AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of revised proposed policy and procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) publishes a
revised proposed policy statement setting forth its revised plans for
implementing a program of technical and financial assistance to states
for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local
government and to Indian tribes through whose jurisdictions the
Department plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste to a facility authorized under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, as amended (Section 180(c) program). The training would
cover both safe routine transportation and emergency response
procedures. The purpose of this notice is to communicate to
stakeholders evolving positions of the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management (OCRWM) within the Department regarding Section 180(c)
policy issues and to respond to stakeholder comments on the previous
notice. Written comments may be submitted to OCRWM on this document.
DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Department and must be
received on or before August 1, 1998. The length of this comment period
is to facilitate the submission of comments after the semiannual
Transportation External Coordination Working Group Meeting is held on
July 14-15, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: Ms. Corinne
Macaluso, U.S. Department of Energy, c/o Lois Smith, TRW Environmental
Safety Systems, Inc., 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 695, Washington,
D.C. 20024, Attn: Section 180(c) Comments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses. Receipt of comments in response to this notice will be
acknowledged if a stamped, self-addressed postal card or envelope is
enclosed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information on the transportation
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, please contact: Ms. Corinne Macaluso, Waste
Acceptance and Transportation Division, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, (RW-44), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-2837.
Information packets are available for interested persons who want
background information about the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management transportation planning and the Section 180(c) program. To
receive an information packet, please call 1-800-225-NWPA (or call 202-
488-6720 in Washington, D.C.) or write to the OCRWM National
Information Center, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 695, Washington,
D.C. 20024. Information packets also can be requested through the OCRWM
Home Page at http://www.rw.doe.gov.
Copies of comments received will be available for examination and
may be photocopied at the Department's Public Reading Room at 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 1E-190 or at the Nevada Operations
Office Public Reading Facility at Building B3, 2621 Losee Road, North
Las Vegas, Nevada or at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office
Technical Information Center, 1180 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV
89134. They will be available through OCRWM's Home Page.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose and Need for Agency Action
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (42 U.S.C.
10101 et seq.) (NWPA or ``the Act''), the Department of Energy is
responsible for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent
nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. Additionally, the
Department is responsible for transportation of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste to a NWPA-authorized Federal storage or
disposal facility. The Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management is responsible to the Secretary of Energy to carry out
these responsibilities. The Department is required to implement Section
180(c) of the Act. Section 180(c) of the Act requires the Department to
provide technical assistance and funds to States for training public
safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Indian
tribes through whose jurisdictions the Secretary plans to transport
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to NWPA-authorized
Federal storage and disposal facilities. Section 180(c) further
provides that training cover procedures required for safe routine
transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing
with emergency response situations. Section 180(c) identifies the
Nuclear Waste Fund under the Act as the source of funds for work
carried out under this subsection (42 U.S.C. 10175).
II. Section 180(c) History
OCRWM issued a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register on January
3, 1995 (60 FR 99), which briefly described various options to
delineate policies and procedures for implementing Section 180(c) of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Members of the public were invited to
submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry. In the March 14, 1995,
Federal Register (60 FR 13715) OCRWM extended the deadline for comments
to May 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). In response to requests for additional
information, OCRWM issued another, more detailed Notice of Inquiry in
the Federal Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793). Members of the
public were again invited to submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry.
Next, on May 16, 1996, OCRWM published a Notice of Proposed Policy and
Procedures (61 FR 24772) describing OCRWM's proposed approach to
implementing Section 180(c) of the NWPA and responding to public
comments received on the two prior notices. The public was again
invited to submit comments on the Proposed Policy and Procedures. In
response to these comments, and based on further research conducted by
OCRWM staff, OCRWM decided to publish a Notice of Revised Proposed
Policy and Procedures on July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38272). The public was
again invited to submit comments.
After considering the comments received on the prior notices, input
from stakeholders in various forums, and conducting extensive research,
the Department is publishing another Notice of Revised Proposed Policy
and Procedures. This notice details the policy and procedures by which
the Department currently intends to implement Section 180(c) of the
NWPA. These policy and procedures will remain in draft form until
program progress or legislation provides definitive guidance as to when
shipments will commence. At that time, OCRWM may finalize these policy
and procedures or will consider promulgating regulations on Section
180(c) implementation.
In addition to the draft notice discussed above, OCRWM's work to
date on Section 180(c) policy and implementation procedures has been
discussed extensively in Transportation Coordination Group meetings,
the Transportation External Coordination (TEC) Working Group meetings,
and the cooperative agreement group meetings. The TEC Working Group
comprises
[[Page 23754]]
organizations representing state, tribal, local, professional,
technical, and industry associations that meet semiannually to identify
and discuss issues related to the transport of radioactive materials.
In addition, OCRWM has nine cooperative agreements with national and
regional organizations representing various constituencies to exchange
information and solicit input regarding the planned transportation
activities of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program,
including Section 180(c) issues. The cooperative agreement groups are
the Southern States Energy Board, the Western Interstate Energy Board,
the Council of State Governments Midwestern Office and Eastern Regional
Conference, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the Conference of
Radiation Control Program Directors, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the National Congress of American Indians, and the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
OCRWM also has released two documents that discuss Section 180(c)
policy and implementation. These two documents are the Strategy for
OCRWM to Provide Training Assistance to State, Tribal, and Local
Governments (November 1992, DOE/RW-0374P) (the Strategy document), and
the Preliminary Draft Options for Providing Technical Assistance and
Funding Under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, As
Amended (November 1992) (the Options paper). These documents are
available by requesting the information packet from the OCRWM National
Information Center.
III. Policy and Procedures
Note: For definitions of terms used in the notice of final
policy and procedures, see the appendix at the end of this document.
Policy Statement
It is OCRWM's policy that, for NWPA shipments, each responsible
jurisdiction will have the training necessary for safe routine
transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste and to respond
to NWPA transportation incidents or accidents. OCRWM will provide
funding and technical assistance, subject to annual appropriations, to
assist states and tribes to obtain access to the increment of training
necessary to prepare for NWPA shipments. This increment of training
will include procedures for emergency response and safe routine
transportation. The Department will take into consideration the states'
and tribes' determinations of their needs when preparing its budget for
the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. If Congress does not
fully appropriate the funds requested, the funding to eligible
jurisdictions will be decreased proportionately.
Safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste will be accomplished through strict compliance with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) regulations and applicable state, tribal, and local laws and
regulations. These include safety and enforcement inspections of NWPA
highway shipments, rail measures that complement DOT's Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) inspection procedures, and continuous satellite
tracking of all shipments. DOT regulations include requirements for
highway routing; hazardous materials placarding, marking, and
documentation; and rail inspections. The NRC has established
regulations for radioactive materials shipments for protection of
public health and safety. These regulations include requirements for
package certification, loading, materials control and accountability,
safeguards and security, state notification of shipments, quality
assurance, and tracking. The NRC regulations for radioactive materials
package certification require maintenance of criticality control and
radioactive materials containment under credible accident scenarios.
OCRWM recognizes that tribes are not included in NRC's notification
regulations and has notified NRC that it intends to provide tribal
notification of shipments in addition to the state notifications, and
state and tribal access to satellite tracking information.
For safe routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste, it is OCRWM's policy to provide each eligible state and
tribe the funding and technical assistance to prepare for safety and
enforcement inspections of NWPA highway shipments, for rail measures
that complement FRA inspection procedures, and for access to satellite
tracking equipment and training on that equipment in cases where the
capability does not already exist. Access to satellite tracking
equipment and training will be subject to the NRC's verification that
this use of satellite tracking technology does not violate NRC's
safeguards and security regulations.
For dealing with emergency response situations, it is OCRWM's view
that with implementation of the provisions for safe routine
transportation, as stated in the previous paragraph, the risk of an
accident is very low. Further, if an accident were to occur, the risk
of any significant materials release or harmful increase in radiation
levels in excess of NRC regulatory standards is extremely low. If an
accident should occur, with or without a release, state and tribal
governments have primary responsibility to respond and to protect the
public health and safety in their jurisdiction. The Federal Government
and, in particular, the Department have radiological emergency response
resources available to assist when requested. Federal Government
assistance is regionally based and can be mobilized and on scene in a
few hours, although it may take up to forty-eight hours to be fully
functional. The first responder is typically a local police or fire
official. This official must be capable of identifying the shipment as
a radiological materials shipment and notifying the appropriate
radiological emergency response authorities. It is desirable, but not
required, for some of the state and tribal responders to have received
higher levels of hazardous materials training.
Therefore, for training for dealing with emergency response
situations, it is OCRWM's policy to provide funds and technical
assistance to states and tribes to obtain and maintain awareness-level
training for all local response jurisdictions in the increment specific
to NWPA shipments. In addition, to the extent funds are available, the
assistance may be used to obtain an enhanced level of emergency
response capability. This enhanced level may include operations level
training, technician level training, and operations level and
technician level refresher training in an increment specific to NWPA
shipments.
Objectives
It is OCRWM's objective to provide a one-time only planning grant
to every eligible state and tribe to aid in their determination of
needs for technical assistance and funds to train public safety
officials in procedures required for safe routine transportation and
emergency response situations.
It is OCRWM's objective to provide a base grant to every eligible
state and tribe to aid in planning and coordination activities for
training in a timely manner. The base grant will be available every
year of eligibility once the grant application has been approved. Any
amount left after completion of the planning and coordination
activities may be used for other allowable costs under the Section
180(c) program, at the discretion of the applicant.
It is OCRWM's objective to provide a two-part variable amount of
funding and
[[Page 23755]]
technical assistance depending on the amount of assistance each
applicant needs to obtain the incremental training requirements
resulting from the planned NWPA shipments. The first part of the
variable funding and technical assistance may be used only to provide
training for safety and enforcement inspection training for NWPA truck
shipments; rail measures that complement FRA inspection procedures;
awareness level training, awareness level refresher training, and
awareness level train-the-trainer training for emergency responders.
The second part of the variable funding, depending on available
funds, will support an enhanced level of emergency response capability.
As discussed in the Policy Statement section, OCRWM believes that the
combination of the Federal radiological emergency response capability
and a Section 180(c) program that provides inspection and awareness
level training will provide the nation with an adequate basis to
respond to any potential transportation emergency that may result from
NWPA shipments. Nevertheless, to the extent that funds appropriated for
Section 180(c) are sufficient, OCRWM will fund an enhanced level of
training. This enhanced level could include operations and/or
technician level training, and refresher training.
It is OCRWM's objective to provide funding and technical assistance
for training for safety and enforcement inspections specific to NWPA
truck shipments such as those described in the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance's (CVSA) Enhanced North American Standards.
It is OCRWM's objective to provide funding and technical assistance
for states and tribes to obtain an increment of the training needed to
conduct rail inspections under the FRA's State Participation Program.
Since the FRA covers the training cost to state employees in the State
Participation Program, there is no direct role for Section 180(c) to
fund training. Instead, OCRWM will consider applicants' requests to
fund, in the increment necessary for OCRWM shipments, safe rail
transportation measures that complement DOT's FRA inspection
procedures. Since currently there is no mechanism for tribes to
participate in the State Participation Program, OCRWM will work with
tribal governments to identify where funding and technical assistance
may best assist a tribe in addressing procedures for rail safe routine
transportation.
DOE intends to offer a variety of training delivery options such as
a train-the-trainer program, a curriculum to insert into a
jurisdiction's existing awareness level training programs, and a video
that states and tribes may distribute to emergency response officials
along the shipment routes. OCRWM plans to provide funds for the cost of
the trainers' travel within the jurisdiction. Grant applicants may
choose the combination of these resources that best matches their
current training programs. This training should be at least consistent
with Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations at
29 CFR 1910.120(q) or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
hazardous material training standards.
It is OCRWM's objective that any assistance provided supplements
the applicant's existing safe routine and emergency response structure
by providing an additional increment of preparedness.
In addition, OCRWM will adopt, to the extent practicable and
consistent with the NWPA, any future Department-wide policies adopted
to standardize assistance to states and tribes for the Department's
radioactive materials shipments. This could include standardization of
funding mechanisms, training standards, allowable equipment purchases,
and the definitions of technical assistance and safe routine
transportation.
Funding Mechanism
The Department will implement Section 180(c) through an OCRWM
grants program. Funding will be provided every year (subject to
Congressional appropriations) beginning approximately four years prior
to the first shipment through state or tribal reservation boundaries.
The grants will be specific to OCRWM's Section 180(c) program and, at
this time, will not be combined with any other Department-sponsored
transportation preparedness or training programs, although coordination
by jurisdictions would be encouraged. The grants program may be
combined with a Department-wide grants program in the future if one is
developed, is practicable, and is consistent with existing law.
The grants program will be administered in accordance with the DOE
Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR part 600), which implement
applicable Office of Management and Budget circulars.
Basis for Cost Estimate/Funding Allocation
The total program cost and the allocation of funds among eligible
states and tribes will be based on a one-time only planning grant, a
predetermined base amount, and a variable amount determined through the
application process. The planning grant of $150,000 will cover costs
associated with conducting the determination of incremental needs
required to complete the application package. This amount is based on
an estimate of several states' past experience with planning for
shipments to the Department's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad,
New Mexico.
The base grant will cover costs associated with planning for NWPA
shipments, and is based on a salary estimate for planning such
shipments. In 1994, a Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors' (CRCPD) survey found the average salary of a state health
physicist was $35,000. The Department has doubled that figure and
adjusted for inflation since 1994 to reach the $75,500 base grant. The
figure was doubled on the assumption that states and tribes can, if
they so choose, pay the salary of one person each for safe routine
transportation and emergency response planning. The base amount will be
adjusted annually for inflation.
The variable grant amount will be based on two parts of the
application package process. The first part will ask the applicant to
determine the amount of financial assistance needed to obtain the
appropriate increment of awareness level training and to prepare for
safe routine transportation inspections of NWPA shipments. The second
part will ask the applicant to determine the amount of financial
assistance needed to obtain the appropriate increment of operations
and/or technician level training for emergency response for NWPA
shipments. This second part of the application will be used to
determine any enhanced level of training, depending on available funds.
Definition of Key Terms
The definition of safe routine transportation for the purposes of
determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section
180(c) program will be as follows:
Safe routine transportation means the shipment of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository or a
Monitored Retrievable Storage facility pursuant to the NWPA through
state, tribal, and local jurisdictions in a manner compliant with
applicable Federal, state, tribal, and local laws and regulations. Safe
routine highway transportation is characterized by adequate vehicle,
driver, and package inspection and enforcement of the Federal Motor
[[Page 23756]]
Carrier Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
Safe routine rail and barge transport is characterized by compliance
with rail and barge transportation regulations including Federal
Railroad Administration, Coast Guard regulations, and the Hazardous
Materials regulations.
The definition of technical assistance for the purposes of
determining eligibility or allowable activities under the Section
180(c) program will be as follows:
Technical assistance means assistance, other than
financial assistance, that the Secretary of Energy can provide that is
unique to the Department to aid training that will cover procedures for
the safe routine transportation and emergency response situations
during the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste to a repository or Monitored Retrievable Storage facility
pursuant to the NWPA, including, but not limited to, the provision of
training materials, the provision of public information materials, and
access to individuals involved in the shipments.
Technical assistance, as defined, will include access to the
Department's regional and headquarters representatives involved in the
planning and operation of NWPA transportation or emergency
preparedness, provision of information packets that include material
about the OCRWM program and shipments, and provision of information to
insert into curricula. Recognizing the Federal Government's government-
to-government relationship with and Trust responsibility toward tribal
nations, and in response to comments about the lack of hazardous
materials response capability on some tribal lands, the Department will
consider making additional technical assistance available to tribes
upon request.
Eligibility and Timing of the Grants Program
OCRWM will provide grants and technical assistance to those states
and tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary of Energy plans to
transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste pursuant
to the NWPA. States and tribes having cross-deputization or mutual aid
agreements with a jurisdiction that does have shipments, even though no
shipments may occur within the borders of the mutual aid state or
tribe, may receive funding from the jurisdiction that will receive
shipments. Additionally, in cases where a route constitutes the border
between two states, a state and a tribal government, or two tribal
governments, jurisdictions on both sides of the route will be eligible
for Section 180(c) assistance.
OCRWM intends that the application process for grants will begin
approximately four years prior to transportation through the
applicant's jurisdiction (about one year for the application process,
and about three years to implement the program). OCRWM plans to notify
the governor or tribal leader of the jurisdiction by letter, and
include an information packet and application package. The governor or
tribal leader would be requested to select one agency or representative
within the jurisdiction to apply for and administer the Section 180(c)
grant. The administering agency or representative would indicate in the
application how it intends to use the funds. If funding needs to be
provided to other agencies (for example, from the emergency services
agency to the highway patrol to pay for inspector training), the
transfer of funds would be the responsibility of the recipient state or
tribe. DOE plans to require that information be provided in the
application regarding the distribution of funds.
OCRWM plans to identify the preliminary routes that DOE anticipates
using within state and tribal jurisdictions when it notifies governors
and tribal leaders of their eligibility. The Regional Servicing
Contractor (RSC) 1 would propose routes in the three years
prior to shipment. If the selected routes are different than the
preliminary routes, either as a result of the RSC selection process for
the proposed routes or state designation of alternative routes, then
OCRWM would work with those states and tribes affected by any route
changes to facilitate revision of their grant applications and expedite
the application review. The Department plans to retain final approval
of all transportation routes and the RSC(s) would be responsible for
obtaining NRC approval of the routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSC is defined in the draft Acquisition of Waste Acceptance
and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management as the contractor responsible for all activities
and services originating in its Servicing Region(s), including the
provision of Transportation Cask Systems and Storage Systems as
required to provide the necessary waste acceptance and
transportation services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the Section 180(c), local governments will not
be eligible to apply for Section 180(c) grants directly. However,
states, and tribes, if they have subjurisdictions, would be required to
coordinate their planning with local jurisdictions, indicating in the
application that the needs of local public safety officials have been
considered and how the training assistance will be provided to local
jurisdictions and their appropriate public safety officials. Because of
the emergency response structure in most jurisdictions, OCRWM
anticipates that the awareness level training will be made available to
local public safety officials. OCRWM also anticipates that the
inspection and enforcement training will be provided to state-level and
tribal employees since they generally have inspection and enforcement
authority. The operations and technician level training, to the extent
they are funded, would be provided to the appropriate public safety
officials at the grantee's discretion.
OCRWM expects the application to include a five-year plan detailing
how the funds would be spent each year. Funding will be disbursed
annually based on the applicant's five-year plan. The applicant may
request an amendment to the application if conditions change
significantly within the five-year period.
For the purposes of this policy, the year shipments commence is
defined as ``Transportation Year'' or ``TY.'' During the fourth year
prior to shipments; i.e., in Transportation Year minus 4 or TY-4, the
eligible jurisdiction would be conducting its determination of needs
for the grant application. The $150,000 planning grant would be
available during TY-4 to conduct this work.
In the next year of eligibility to receive funding (TY-3), the base
grant would be available. The next year, two years prior to shipment,
or TY-2, the base grant and a variable amount of financial assistance
would be available.
A state or tribe would continue to be eligible for and receive the
base and variable amount of funding through TY-1 and TY, and in each
year of eligibility thereafter as long as NWPA shipments go through its
jurisdiction. Eligible states and tribes would need to reapply for the
grant program every five years.
If there is a lapse of NWPA shipments for three or more years, the
state or tribe would receive no funds during those years and would
regain eligibility three years prior to another NWPA shipment through
its jurisdiction. Three years prior to the resumption of shipments
through its borders, a state or tribe may again apply for TY-3 grants.
If the lapse is two years or less between shipments, the Transportation
Year grants would continue as if shipments had been traversing that
jurisdiction during the lapse.
The Section 180(c) program would include the following contingency
plan for schedule and route changes: in
[[Page 23757]]
general, eligible states and tribes may receive an additional amount of
financial assistance if asked to complete activities in shorter amounts
of time; i.e., a state or tribe may receive TY-1 and TY-2 funding in
the same year. If the route for a shipment is selected too close to the
start of the shipment to allow for Section 180(c) implementation or for
any reason the responsible jurisdictions along a selected route lack
adequate training, OCRWM may use escorts with more training and
equipment than those normally used for the purpose of security until a
reasonable time period for training has expired. The contingency plan
could be activated in case of emergencies, or fraudulent actions or
non-cooperation by a state or tribe along the route.
Allowable Activities for Funding
This section describes the types of activities that would be
allowed under this policy. This is not meant to be a comprehensive
list, but merely a guide to the types of activities an applicant
jurisdiction might consider to be eligible for Section 180(c) funding.
For the most part, it would be the grantee's decision in
consultation with local governments and first responders along the
routes to select who gets trained and the organization that administers
the training. Grantees would describe in their five-year plan their
incremental training needs, where the training would be obtained, any
drills and exercises they propose to conduct that are an integral part
of the training curricula, whether the training curricula needs any
input from OCRWM about NWPA shipments, what equipment and supplies they
propose to purchase, and what technical assistance from DOE they
anticipate requesting. The grantee would specify how this assistance
augments their current infrastructure for safe routine transportation
procedures and emergency response.
The initial planning grant may be used to pay for staff, travel,
and other costs associated with conducting an assessment of incremental
training needs. This may include a risk assessment, and other
assessment activities.
The base grant could be used to pay for staff, travel, and other
costs associated with preparing to train public safety officials, and
the planning and coordination activities associated with interacting
with local jurisdictions and neighboring jurisdictions. The base grant
could also be used for training, risk assessment, and other assessment
activities. The variable amount of funding could be used to pay for
travel and tuition costs for those receiving training, including drills
and exercises associated with training, and training on the satellite
tracking system used for NWPA shipments. Training on the satellite
tracking system could be contingent on the NRC's ruling as to whether
state and tribal access to satellite tracking for OCRWM shipments is
consistent with the safeguards and security regulations.
It would be the state's or tribe's choice, in consultation with the
local governments and first responders along the route and within their
annual budget, to determine who receives refresher training and with
what frequency. It also would be the state's or tribe's choice, in
consultation with the local governments and first responders along the
route and within their annual budget, to determine which new personnel
receive training and the location of that training. The training could
apply to state or tribal inspectors, and state, local, or tribal
emergency response personnel including medical emergency responders.
Regarding equipment, a grantee would be able to budget, for TY-2
and TY-1, 25 percent of each year's total Section 180(c) funds to
purchase appropriate (i.e., training-related) equipment and supplies.
Such equipment could also be used for inspections and for responding to
emergencies. After TY-1, the applicant would be able to budget up to 10
percent of each year's Section 180(c) funds to purchase appropriate
equipment and supplies. The equipment and supplies to be purchased must
be identified in the application and the need for the equipment
justified. The purchase of equipment related to the satellite tracking
system for NWPA shipments would be included in these percentage caps,
assuming NRC allows state and tribal access to satellite tracking
information for OCRWM shipments. The title to equipment would be vested
in the grantee in accordance with the property provisions at 10 CFR
600.232.
A state or tribe would not be authorized to use Section 180(c)
funds for purposes not related to NWPA shipments such as development of
a broad-based non-NWPA emergency response program. In cases where basic
capabilities may be lacking, OCRWM recognizes the need to provide
additional technical assistance. This assistance is not meant to build
basic capabilities but to provide the jurisdiction with information
that may help them prepare for the shipments. For example, DOE could
provide information about what additional resources may be available to
state, local, and tribal jurisdictions, what safety measures are being
taken by the Department to ensure safe shipment despite a lack of local
capabilities, or what safety measures other jurisdictions may have
taken in a similar situation.
IV. Discussion of Comments Received on the Notice of Revised
Proposed Policy and Procedures
The Department received 19 sets of comments in response to the July
17, 1997, Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Comments
were received from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Council of
State Governments-Midwestern Office; International Association of Fire
Fighters; International Association of Fire Chiefs; Edlow International
Company; the Western Interstate Energy Board; Inyo County, California;
National Congress of American Indians; State of Idaho; State of Nevada;
Southern States Energy Board; Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition; State
of New Mexico; National Conference of State Legislatures; Prairie
Island Indian Community; Nuclear Energy Institute; and the Pueblo of
Acoma. Some commenters provided more than one set of comments.
The following section discusses general categories and summarizes
major points of the comments and the Department's response.
A. Section 180(c) Policy
Policy Statement and General Themes
Most commenters stated that the needs-based approach described in
the Revised Proposed Policy is an improvement over the formula-based
approach described in the May 1996 Proposed Policy. There were positive
comments on the equal treatment of states and tribes, the broadened
definition of eligibility, and the broadened scope of allowable
activities. The Nuclear Energy Institute and Edlow International
generally endorsed the current proposal. The Nuclear Energy Institute
applauded OCRWM's acknowledgment of current regulations within the body
of the proposed policy.
However, the large majority of commenters emphasized that they
believe that additional change is still needed in key areas, primarily
more cooperative route selection and a more cooperative transportation
planning process. The Western Interstate Energy Board ``continues to
find the Section 180(c) policy * * * unacceptable because it ignores
key policy decisions made by the Western Governors * * * and because it
fails to ensure that an
[[Page 23758]]
effective emergency response mechanism will be in place to handle NWPA
transportation accidents.'' The Southern States Energy Board, the
Western Interstate Energy Board, the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance, and Inyo County, California, all recommended the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPP) transportation planning process as a
good example of cooperative planning. The comment was also made that
OCRWM should take a leadership role within the Department in developing
methods to assist state, local, and tribal governments to prepare for
the shipments, as OCRWM will conduct the nation's single largest
radioactive materials transportation campaign. One commenter asked
whether basing the level of assistance on a determination of needs
means that a ``well-prepared'' state would not be eligible for
assistance beyond the base amount. Or, will ``relatively prepared''
states receive assistance based on the likelihood of a greater number
of shipments and, therefore, a significant increase in the demands on,
for example, state inspectors?
Several comments requested clarification or greater acknowledgment
of the roles and responsibilities of different governmental levels. The
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office requested better
definition of the roles of the Federal agencies involved in radioactive
materials transportation accidents and how Federal agencies will
interface with state and local emergency response officials. They also
requested that the phrase ``state and tribal governments have a
responsibility to * * * protect the public health and safety * * *'' be
changed to ``state and tribal governments have primary responsibility
to * * * protect public health and safety.'' They stated, ``We again
object to OCRWM's apparent intent to substitute Federal radiological
emergency response capability for state preparedness. The role of
Federal resources is to supplement state response capabilities when
necessary. OCRWM should correct any references in the notice that
misrepresent the roles of and relationship between state and federal
response capabilities.'' They emphasized their view that states will
not turn over the responsibility of protecting citizen health and
safety to DOE.
Communications was another frequently mentioned topic. Both the
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office and the Western
Interstate Energy Board encouraged OCRWM to place more emphasis on
early and substantive public outreach, asserting that effective
communications will help create the public trust necessary for a
successful transportation program. They are concerned that the field of
public information will be dominated by an already organized and active
opposition. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office included
a Newsday article (August 6, 1997) about the lack of emergency
preparedness for OCRWM shipments as an illustration of the success of
these groups. The Western Interstate Energy Board stated that
communications and interactions with states and tribes cannot
appropriately be placed in the hands of private contractors because the
contractors will be seen as acting in their own, profit-driven
interests. They stated it is DOE's responsibility to secure the
public's confidence by taking clear responsibility for interacting with
states and tribes.
With regard to regulatory compliance, Inyo County, California,
commented that public tolerance of a campaign of this magnitude will
not allow minimum safety measures. The International Association of
Fire Fighters (IAFF) felt that the Revised Proposed Policy and
Procedures ``mostly sidestepped'' their comments. The IAFF expressed
its view that strict compliance with regulations is a flaw that
exaggerates a lack of oversight and enforcement. They added that these
regulations are being weakened and pointed, as an example, to the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs
Administration approval of a change to 62 FR 46214. They stated that
this change ``removed Radiation Protection Program regulations and
related modal provisions that would have required the development and
maintenance of a written radiation protection program for persons who
offer, accept for transportation, or transport radioactive materials.''
The IAFF's point was that the lessening of such requirements means that
increased oversight above the regulatory minimum is necessary to
prevent the politicization of the distributed funds. In contrast, the
Nuclear Energy Institute stated that additional requirements should be
considered only if they provide a clear benefit commensurate with their
cost. The Nuclear Energy Institute stated that radioactive materials
transportation has been proven safe under the current regulatory
structure.
In other comments, the Council of State Governments-Midwestern
Office and Inyo County, California, commented that OCRWM should commit
to funding the Section 180(c) program regardless of congressional
appropriations. Inyo County stated that the wording in the proposal
``if Congress does not fully appropriate the funds'' suggests that the
funding may be congressionally controlled and invites Congress to
micromanage the program. The Western Interstate Energy Board reiterated
its position that the Nuclear Waste Fund should pay for all costs
associated with implementing Section 180(c) and transportation
preparation; if not, the program will be viewed as an unfunded mandate
in violation of Executive Orders 12866 and 12875. The Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that the wording requiring a
jurisdiction to coordinate with local jurisdictions to conduct the
needs assessment also include a reference to coordinate with ``national
safety organizations'' to ensure that safety inspections are efficient
and uniform along all the routes.
The Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition reiterated its previous
comments that DOE should update NUREG/CR-2225 (1981), An Unconstrained
Overview of the Critical Elements in a Model State System for Emergency
Response to Radiological Transportation Incidents. The International
Association of Fire Fighters requested that OCRWM address
indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act, particularly as it
relates to the potential financial impact that an incident involving
radioactive materials may have on local governments. Specifically, IAFF
asked whether DOE has an obligation to indemnify the contractor if its
negligence is the proximate cause of an accident; whether DOE will
reimburse local officials for the costs it might expend should such an
accident occur; who precisely is responsible for clean-up; and who will
pay clean-up costs.
Response. OCRWM has considered all the comments received in
response to the Section 180(c) policy development. OCRWM has chosen not
to incorporate comments when to do so would not increase shipment
safety or the effectiveness of the grants program, or for other reasons
is incompatible with OCRWM's mission to implement the Section 180(c)
program according to the NWPA.
OCRWM intends that states or tribes be eligible to receive the
variable amount of the grant regardless of their preparedness level.
However, a more well-prepared jurisdiction could expect to receive less
variable funding than a less well-prepared jurisdiction. The number of
shipments through a jurisdiction would not be a measure of funding
levels since once staff are trained, the training applies without
regard to the number of shipments.
[[Page 23759]]
OCRWM recognizes the primary role of states and tribes in
protecting the health and safety of their citizens. The language
regarding the Department's radiological emergency response assets is a
statement that the Federal capability exists to respond to a
radiological materials shipment accident even in those areas of the
country without basic emergency response capabilities. The roles and
responsibilities of different government levels in preparing for and
responding to a radiological emergency are defined in the Federal
Radiological Emergency Response Plan. These roles and responsibilities
will be further defined as OCRWM's transportation planning process
continues.
OCRWM recognizes the crucial role of communications and public
acceptance in developing a workable transportation program. To this
end, OCRWM will retain primary responsibility for interactions with
stakeholders. This will include providing public information to
jurisdictions along the routes and making Departmental representatives,
whether Federal or contract employees, available to communities as
budgets permit. The regional servicing contractors will be required to
have a Communications and Outreach Plan which will describe how they
will communicate and interact with stakeholders.
With regard to regulatory compliance, it is OCRWM's view that the
current regulatory structure is sufficient to provide for the safety of
the shipments. In addition to Federal regulations, OCRWM shipments will
be subject to applicable state, local, and tribal regulations. OCRWM
also views the current procurement regulations as sufficient to ensure
that the disbursement of funds will not become politicized within a
recipient jurisdiction.
OCRWM disagrees that the phrasing ``if Congress does not fully
appropriate the funds'' invites Congress to micromanage the grants
program. The ability of Congress to limit funding to a particular
program is simply a reality that OCRWM will have to work with to fund
the grant recipients. Funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund are only
available to the Department when appropriated to the Department by
Congress. It is OCRWM's position that the Section 180(c) program should
provide the increment of assistance needed to respond to an OCRWM
radiological materials shipment, and should not provide basic emergency
response capability to jurisdictions along the routes that have always
been the responsibility of the state, local, and tribal governments.
These governments are aided by other Federal agencies that have as part
of their mission the assistance of state, local, and tribal governments
in attaining more comprehensive emergency response and safe routine
transportation capabilities. OCRWM does not believe that preparations
for these shipments would constitute an unfunded mandate if not fully
funded by the Section 180(c) program because there is no requirement
under NWPA mandating states to take any particular action with regard
to these shipments. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's request to
add coordination with ``national safety organizations'' to the
requirement on coordination by the grant applicant has not been
incorporated because OCRWM believes the applicants should decide
whether or not to coordinate with non-governmental entities.
Regarding the request to update NUREG/CR-2225, this is a Nuclear
Regulatory Commission document that the Department does not have the
authority to update. In addition, the NUREG/CR-2225 document is useful
for planning in a model scenario, the text states that the study is an
unconstrained view of the critical elements in a state program for
radiological emergency response, presuming no bounds of manpower,
funding, development time, or other real-world constraints. In
addition, the model does not specify the type of radioactive material;
therefore, it does not take into account the packaging used for NWPA
shipments and the low risk of these shipments.
Liability for accidents that occur while the spent fuel and the
high-level radioactive waste is in transit from the nuclear power
plants to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, at a storage
facility, or at the repository would be determined in accordance with
applicable state tort law. In applying state tort law, a court normally
would attribute liability to the person responsible for causing damage.
If a DOE contractor is liable for nuclear damage or a precautionary
evacuation resulting from its contractual activities, the contractor
normally would be indemnified by DOE pursuant to the provisions of the
Price-Anderson Act.
DOE's tort liability would be determined in accordance with State
tort law and the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, under current plans,
DOE will use contractors to transport the spent fuel and high-level
waste and to construct and operate the repository and a storage
facility, if one is constructed. Therefore, Price-Anderson
indemnification would apply to liability claims arising from these
activities.
Although there are certain limitations to the compensation
available under the Price-Anderson system, it provides very broad
financial protection to compensate for damage and injury, including
loss of profits caused by a nuclear incident; costs of a precautionary
evacuation ordered by an authorized state or local official, if such
incident or evacuation arose in the course of transportation to a DOE
storage or disposal site, or while at a DOE storage or disposal
facility; and all reasonable additional costs incurred by a state or
political subdivision of a state in the course of responding to a
nuclear incident or a precautionary evacuation. Price-Anderson coverage
is available to compensate persons for such losses whether or not
negligence was the proximate cause of the nuclear incident or
precautionary evacuation.
Routing Issues
Many of the comments on routing were alike. Commenters were
concerned that the role of private contractors in route selection was
not fully defined. It was a common opinion that routing decisions
should not be delegated to the four potential regional servicing
contractors partly because confusion could result from contractors in
each region of the country selecting routes and modes that do not match
at state borders. They asked that the policy clearly define this role.
Another frequently expressed comment was that the critical nature
of routing decisions means that DOE should make routing decisions early
to allow plenty of time for planning, and that DOE should commit to a
cooperative effort to determine the routes. Commenters also encouraged
DOE to commit to adopting a DOE-standardized policy on early and
cooperative route selection, and suggested that the cooperative effort
is needed because strict reliance on regulations will result in too
many viable routes to focus scarce training and planning resources. The
Western Interstate Energy Board restated that OCRWM should commit to
meeting the demands of the Western Governors Association (WGA) for DOE
to develop responsible routing criteria; to develop a sound methodology
for evaluating optional mixes of routes and transportation modes; and
to fix the shipping origins and destination points as early as possible
[WGA resolution 93-003, Modified and Readopted June 24, 1996]. Other
commenters stated that the current discussion on routing is inadequate
to assure local governments that their concerns will be addressed in
the route selection process.
[[Page 23760]]
Timing and routing announcements were also an area of concern.
Several commenters said route identification must be done three to five
years prior to shipments to enable affected states and tribes to
designate alternative routes and assess their training and planning
needs. They felt two years was not sufficient time to prepare for a
shipping campaign of any magnitude. The Council of State Governments-
Midwestern Office commented that the requirement to consult local
governments in development of the application's three-year plan cannot
be met unless routes have been announced. They also asked how states
will assess state and local training needs in TY-3 if they don't know
what routes to train along until TY-2. The State of Nevada suggested
solving this dilemma by providing initial base grants for planning in
TY-3 and delaying the requirement for submission of a multi-year plan
until routes are known in TY-2.
Response. The draft Request for Proposal for the Acquisition of
Waste Acceptance and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management issued November 24, 1997, clarifies many
of the issues raised in comments regarding routing. The RSC(s) must
abide by DOT and NRC routing regulations. The RSCs are also required to
cooperate with other RSCs, as appropriate, in developing operating
protocols and other operating procedures that will aid in integrating
the operating environment throughout all four Servicing Regions. The
Western Governors Association resolution was considered but not
incorporated because OCRWM believes the current NRC and DOT routing
regulations are sufficient to ensure shipment safety.
The eligible governors and tribal chairmen will be notified of the
preliminary routes and modes in TY-4 so that they may conduct the
determination of needs and consult with jurisdictions along the routes.
The Department is currently considering the development and adoption of
Department-wide standardized route selection critera through the Senior
Executive Transportation Forum, established within DOE to coordinate
the efforts of Departmental elements involved in the transportation of
radioactive materials.
There are no regulations addressing the role of local governments
in the route selection process. The most appropriate place for local
concerns about routing is during states' selection of alternative
routes. The DOT Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for
Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Materials
indicate that States are required to coordinate and solicit input from
local governments and other jurisdictions likely to be impacted by a
routing decision.
Questions regarding timing of the route announcement have also been
addressed in this proposed policy and the Draft Acquisition of Waste
Acceptance and Transportation Services for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. The current schedule for route
announcements should provide grant recipients with sufficient time to
assess their needs and prepare for NWPA shipments. As stated in the
Eligibility and Timing section, if there are route changes after an
application has been submitted, OCRWM will work with those states and
tribes affected by any route changes to facilitate revision of their
grant applications and expedite the application review.
Allowable Use of Funds
The comments on allowable activities generally approved of the
expansion of allowable activities in the Revised Proposed Policy. There
were some specific comments and requests for clarification. Regarding
the use of funds to purchase equipment, three commenters said the ten
percent and twenty-five percent caps were arbitrary and unnecessary.
The amount of funding should be negotiated in the grant application,
allowing each eligible jurisdiction to determine its own equipment
needs. Another stated that the ten percent cap should be increased to
twenty percent while another stated that the twenty-five percent
maximum cap should apply to each grantee's annual budget since few
entities will have the foresight to accurately determine their full
equipment needs up front for a program that will operate for decades.
The National Congress of American Indians said the caps will not be
sufficient for tribes that lack even basic equipment and trained
personnel. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the State of
Nevada asked that the policy clarify that equipment for inspections is
allowable as well as equipment for emergency response situations. One
commenter asked whether the twenty-five percent cap would apply if, due
to a lapse in shipments, a state loses eligibility and then reapplies
for assistance. Another commenter asked whether the phrase ``train or
otherwise prepare for'' in the objectives section of the notice meant
that grant recipients could procure radiation detection/measurement
instrumentation for use by vehicle inspectors and health physicists.
Regarding drills and exercises, commenters were pleased that drills
and exercises will be an allowable expense. Two commenters asked DOE to
clarify that all costs associated with drills and exercises will be
covered--not just travel and tuition costs. There was also a question
as to whether the drills and exercises would be those planned and
conducted by the states, or whether DOE would plan and conduct the
drills and exercises. Another commenter requested that drills and
exercises be funded separately from the base grant as the commenter
viewed drills and exercises as the most crucial aspect of any emergency
response training.
Regarding risk assessment, the National Conference of State
Legislatures stated that allowing eligible states and tribes to include
risk assessment costs in their grant application adequately addressed
this issue. However, the International Association of Fire Fighters
felt the Revised Proposed Policy had not gone far enough and referred
to the congressional endorsement of risk assessment ``when it required
the Secretary of Transportation to conduct such an assessment during a
study of routes and modes that would enhance overall public safety (49
U.S.C. Section 5105).'' They stated that, at a minimum, DOE should
provide technical assistance for grant recipients to conduct risk
assessments. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office stated
any risk assessment must include alternative route analysis. They also
asked OCRWM to clarify its position on risk assessments since the
notice states in one place that route and risk assessments will be
allowed, but the definition of safe routine transportation states that
alternate route analysis will not be allowed.
Regarding safe routine transportation, a few commenters requested
that attendance at the Federal Railroad Administration-certified
railroad inspection classes be an allowable cost. These commenters
explained that the Federal Railroad Administration will not be prepared
to handle inspections for the number of shipments required under an
NWPA shipping campaign due to staff shortages.
There were a variety of other comments. Two commenters stated that
travel costs offset by the grants program should cover out-of-state
travel, not just travel within the jurisdiction as stated in the
Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Another commenter stated that
grant recipients should be able to use the base grant for training as
well as
[[Page 23761]]
for planning and coordination activities. The Council of State
Governments-Midwestern Office said that DOE must allow funding for the
enhanced training level in the overall needs assessment, and not just
as funds are appropriated. Several commenters continued to request that
funds be allowed to pay for infrastructure improvements, arguing that
certain improvements are necessary for safe routine transportation. The
Western Interstate Energy Board and the State of New Mexico both
reiterated their position that the grants program must cover costs
associated with equipment maintenance, record-keeping, and related
costs. Other comments said that completing the needs assessment of the
application package must be an allowable cost because its preparation
will be burdensome for some jurisdictions.
Response. The Department has chosen not to lift the percentage cap
on equipment in order to ensure that the majority of the funding is
used for training as directed by the NWPA. If there is a lapse in
shipments where a state or tribe loses eligibility and then regains
eligibility because shipments resume through their jurisdiction, the
same twenty-five percent and ten percent caps will apply to their
applications. Whether these caps are sufficient to cover grant
recipients' needs is related to the total amount of the grant awarded
and that amount has not been determined. It will be a grant recipient's
choice whether to allocate the money to equipment for training for
safety inspections or emergency response situations. Both types of
equipment will be considered an allowable expense. The Department
recognizes that some tribes lack basic capabilities and will work with
tribal governments on how best to address this issue.
Regarding drills and exercises, the Department intends for grant
applicants to propose in their applications any drills and/or
exercises, that are an integral part of the training curricula, and
that they would conduct as part of the variable grant. These drills and
exercises will be conducted by the states and tribes, not by DOE.
As indicated previously, risk assessment and alternative route
analysis is an allowable expense.
As stated in the Objectives section of the policy, Section 180(c)
funding may be used for rail safe routine transportation measures that
complement DOT's FRA inspection procedures. Applicants will be expected
to specify how these funds will be used in their five-year plan.
Regarding other comments, the base grant may be used to offset the
cost of out-of-state travel, or for training after TY-3, as the grant
recipient wishes. The base grant may also be used to offset the costs
of equipment maintenance and recordkeeping. Recognizing that
jurisdictions may wish to train beyond the awareness level, OCRWM
intends to fund the operations and technician level training as funds
allow. OCRWM reiterates its position that infrastructure improvements
such as rail and road improvements are beyond the scope of the Section
180(c) mandate.
Training Standards
Comments differed regarding the most appropriate training standards
for the Section 180(c) program. The most frequent comments encouraged
OCRWM to offer training courses similar to those offered by WIPP, such
as incident command training and emergency medical training. Many
commenters strongly stated that training to the awareness level is
insufficient and will leave local emergency responders unable to handle
a radioactive materials accident. Commenters were in general agreement
that local emergency responders must have at least the equivalent of
OSHA's operations level training. The International Association of Fire
Fighters said they believe that ``firefighters, at a minimum, must be
trained to the operations level'' because of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) standards which state that ``operational-
level competency is to be attained by those persons such as fire
fighters and rescue personnel whose duties and functions include
responding to hazardous materials incidents to mitigate the effects of
a release without actually trying to stop the release.'' The
International Association of Fire Chiefs said that OCRWM should provide
40 hours of training each for the technician and operations level
responders that are trained under the enhanced level training outlined
in the Revised Policy. They and other commenters stated that the OSHA
and NFPA-based training is too generalized for the specific information
needed for a radiological response since they encompass all hazardous
materials. The International Association of Fire Chiefs also stated its
belief that a 4-hour video-based course would be sufficient to train to
the awareness level. The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office
asked OCRWM to clarify that all emergency responders along a route must
be trained to the awareness level because references in the notice to
``the appropriate increment of awareness level training'' does not
sufficiently convey the sense of providing training to all affected
local officials.
Other comments focused more on the delivery of training. The
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office requested that OCRWM not
restrict states to a train-the-trainer approach. The Western Governors'
Association reiterated its request that OCRWM establish Regional
Training Advisory Teams and a National Training Advisory Committee for
radiological shipments to help coordinate training across
jurisdictions. Inyo County, California, stated that OCRWM should
restrict funds to local use only and not fund any state personnel
because of the wording in Section 180(c) that says ``technical
assistance and funds * * * for training public safety officials of
appropriate units of local governments. * * *'' Another commenter said
OCRWM should add program-specific instructions to existing training
programs, not create new programs to train already overburdened
emergency response officials. The State of Nevada and the International
Association of Fire Chiefs recommended that OCRWM develop a national
approach to training for responding to radiological incidents, in
essence a Federal floor of adequacy for emergency response to these
shipments. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested this policy
to state that safety and enforcement training must be given to the law
enforcement agency having the proper training and authority to conduct
safety inspections, including roadside inspections.
The International Association of Fire Fighters stated that it is
DOE's sole responsibility to have trained emergency response personnel
with each shipment if local jurisdictions choose not to prepare or
respond to a radiological accident because they have received
insufficient training. One commenter asked if the pilot test of a DOE
Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program module ``Radiation
Materials Emergency Response: Awareness Level'' is the correct title.
The National Congress of American Indians, the Pueblo of Acoma, and
the Prairie Island Indian Community all requested that OCRWM reinstate
funding to the National Congress of American Indians for the Tribal
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Workshops. They stated that funding
the workshops will help DOE meet its Trust responsibilities and assist
tribes in attaining the proper readiness for NWPA shipments.
[[Page 23762]]
Response. As previously stated, OCRWM does not believe the enhanced
level of training as defined in the policy is necessary for shipment
safety. However, recognizing that jurisdictions may wish to train
beyond the awareness level, OCRWM intends to fund the operations and
technician level training as appropriations allow. The type of training
provided would be left to the discretion of the grant recipient. OCRWM
would fund train-the-trainer training, will work with the Department's
existing training programs to include OCRWM-specific shipment
information in other training programs that states and tribes may
receive from the Department, and will provide shipment-specific
information that states, local governments, and tribes can include in
their training materials. All of this would be at the awareness level.
The issue of whether DOE is responsible to have trained emergency
responders to handle an accident if a local fire department chooses not
to respond because of lack of training is outside the scope of the
Section 180(c) program. Section 180(c) mandates the provision of
technical assistance and funds to states and tribes for training public
safety officials in procedures required for safe routine transportation
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and emergency
response situations.
The request that OCRWM specify that all emergency responders along
a route will be trained to the awareness level is better left to the
discretion of the state or tribe conducting the training. It will be
their choice as to how many staff are trained within each jurisdiction
along the route. With the high turnover rates among emergency
responders, it seems unlikely that every emergency responder can be
trained along every single route. However, OCRWM does anticipate that
every jurisdiction along a route would have people trained to the
awareness level for hazardous materials. OCRWM does not find it
necessary to fund the creation of Regional Training Advisory Teams or a
National Training Advisory Committee as requested. The eligible
jurisdictions may use their Section 180(c) funds to coordinate with
other jurisdictions. The policy does not incorporate CVSA's request
that funds be directed to law enforcement agencies having the authority
to conduct safety inspections, including roadside inspections, because
OCRWM believes the grantee should decide the best distribution of
funds.
The language of Section 180(c) does not prevent the program from
training state-level officials, if appropriate. The correct name of the
training video referred to in the July 17, 1997, notice is ``Radiation
Materials Emergency Response: Awareness Level.'' If grantees choose to
do so, they may use Section 180(c) funds to attend Tribal Emergency
Preparedness Workshops.
Basis for Cost Estimate
Most commenters view the needs-based approach to determining grant
awards as an improvement over the formula-based approach. Otherwise,
comments primarily dealt with how the money should be allocated to the
recipients or how the recipients should allocate the funds they
receive. One commenter said 75 percent of the funds should be spent on
emergency response personnel, limiting the money spent on
administrative and other activities. The Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance requested that funding be available for grant recipients to
hire two people--one for emergency response training activities and one
for safe routine transportation activities--since it would be difficult
in most state government structures for one person to administer both
types of training. The Western Interstate Energy Board stated its view
that 25 percent of all available funds should be allocated to all
corridor jurisdictions and the remaining 75 percent of combined grant
applications should be allocated according to projected shipment miles
in each jurisdiction as compared to the total number of shipment miles.
The Nuclear Energy Institute encouraged OCRWM to return to basing the
grant amount on route miles through each jurisdiction.
The States of Nevada and New Mexico, the Western Interstate Energy
Board, and the Southern States Energy Board all objected to the
methodology used to determine the base amount of funding and said the
funding level of about $75,000 is insufficient. The Western Interstate
Energy Board suggested that a $150,000 planning grant be used. The
Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office stated that the
structure of the base and two variable grants is too restrictive and
decreases flexibility in how grant recipients use their funds. They
also requested OCRWM to clarify what a typical grant award might be,
how often OCRWM intends to adjust the base amount for inflation, and
what the eligibility criteria would be for the variable funding levels.
Response. OCRWM has put few requirements on how a jurisdiction
allocates its funding other than that the determination of needs must
indicate cooperation with local governments, as stated in the
Eligibility and Timing section of the policy. OCRWM has not allocated
total funds according to shipment miles because once emergency
responders are trained, they are trained without regard to the number
of shipments. In addition, shipment miles as an allocation method will
skew funding towards those places with longer routes, but not
necessarily more population along the routes. This Section 180(c)
policy will allow the grant recipient to allocate funds to those parts
of its jurisdiction most in need.
OCRWM has decided to propose an initial planning grant of $150,000
to help offset the costs of the determination of needs. Otherwise, the
structure of the base and variable grants being proposed has remained
the same. The structure of the grant should not unduly restrict a
recipient's flexibility in using the funds. OCRWM also plans to work to
make the grant application as user-friendly as possible. A typical
grant award cannot be determined without a sample of grant applications
upon which to base an estimate. The base grant amount would be adjusted
annually for inflation. OCRWM would consider developing for the
application package a set of criteria by which to determine eligibility
for the variable funding level. All grant applicants would apply for
variable funding levels although the more a jurisdiction has already
met the policy's training objectives, the less their variable grant
award would be. This is in keeping with the policy to provide that
increment of training needed for NWPA transportation preparedness.
Safe Routine Transportation
The primary comments about the definition of safe routine
transportation and related policy statements were that they are too
restrictive. The State of New Mexico stated that ``common sense
dictates that safety precautions for NWPA shipments should at least be
on par with those being applied to the WIPP campaign.'' A majority of
the commenters encouraged OCRWM to use Section 180(c) funding to
develop protocols similar to those negotiated with WIPP, such as
carrier record-keeping audits, bad weather protocols, and
identification of safe parking areas. Another commenter said the
definition must include activities required for states to escort
shipments and to plan and prepare for inspections, including paying for
personnel, equipment, and planning.
Another frequently mentioned comment was that the policy statement
regarding rail inspections does not provide sufficient oversight. OCRWM
was encouraged to allow grant recipients to use funding to attend the
[[Page 23763]]
Federal Railroad Administration's State Participation Program for
training in rail inspections. This request was based on the fact that
the Federal Railroad Administration has stated (1) that it has neither
the budget nor the staff to handle the anticipated volume of NWPA
shipments and (2) that the State Participation Program could enable
states to pick up some of the slack if there was sufficient funding to
train inspectors. The State of Nevada asked how the Federal Railroad
Administration will interact with states to ensure that rail
inspections have been conducted and whether it should be assumed that
the Federal Railroad Administration will ensure that the roadbed for
the entire route of travel will be inspected and maintained.
The Council of State Governments-Midwestern Office cautioned OCRWM
against requiring states to abide by the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance enhanced inspection standards. They pointed out that Illinois
conducts its own inspections on every radiological materials shipment
through its jurisdiction, wherever the shipment originates. The Nuclear
Energy Institute cautioned OCRWM against adopting the enhanced North
American inspection standards since they have not yet been ratified by
the CVSA membership.
Other comments were provided on an array of subjects. The
International Association of Fire Chiefs urged OCRWM to use escorts
highly trained in emergency response procedures throughout the first
year of shipment. Another commenter requested that the policy statement
put equal emphasis on safe routine transportation and emergency
response procedures. The Nuclear Energy Institute and Edlow
International both wrote that the broad use of TRANSCOM is a security
concern. They are concerned that if states and tribes have wide access
to TRANSCOM tracking information, this will violate Nuclear Regulatory
Commission safeguards and security regulations. Another commenter
requested clarification on wording regarding TRANSCOM, asking whether
OCRWM intends to provide states with ``access to satellite tracking
information,'' or simply to help states ``to prepare'' for the access.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that three definitions
be added to the appendix in the proposed policy. They are: ``(1)
Responsible jurisdictions for safety and enforcement inspections means
a government entity at any level of government, whether state, tribal,
or any of their subjurisdictions that has the jurisdictional authority
to conduct safety inspections and initiate law enforcement using the
appropriate federal and or jurisdiction's laws and regulations; (2)
Awareness level training also means training for individuals or
jurisdictions who will accept and grant reciprocity to another
jurisdiction's inspections; (3) Train-the-trainer also means training
for certified instructors/individuals so that they may conduct
refresher inspection courses for their respective jurisdiction's safety
and enforcement inspectors.''
Response. OCRWM believes that the current definition of safe
routine transportation, in combination with the policy statement on
safe routine transportation, provides a sufficient measure of safety
for the shipments that will be, at least, on par with the WIPP
campaign. The requested additional activities would not appreciably
increase shipment safety. Regarding rail inspections, the Objectives
section has been changed to state that OCRWM intends to consider
applicants' requests to fund, in the increment necessary for OCRWM
shipments, rail safe transportation measures that complement DOT's FRA
inspection procedures. Since currently there is no mechanism for tribes
to participate in the State Participation Program, OCRWM plans to work
with tribal governments to identify where funding and technical
assistance may best assist a tribe in addressing rail inspections.
This policy does not require states to abide by the enhanced
inspection standards developed by the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance largely because the reciprocal inspection standards are
voluntary by the states who participate. Illinois is a member of the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and its Department of Nuclear Safety
staff received training in the enhanced standards during November 1997.
It is OCRWM's understanding that the radiation inspection conducted by
Illinois's Department of Nuclear Safety is separate from and is
conducted simultaneously with the Illinois State Police safety
inspection. The two types of inspections are not mutually exclusive. It
is worth noting that the full membership of the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance adopted the enhanced inspections standards on October
1, 1997.
The policy statement does not intend to put more emphasis on safe
routine transportation than on emergency response procedures. The
emphasis each receives will be at the grant recipient's discretion.
With regard to TRANSCOM, it is OCRWM's intent to allow grant recipients
to include the purchase of tracking equipment in their equipment
purchases. However, OCRWM recognizes the possible conflict with the
NRC's regulations and has requested that the NRC clarify its position
with regard to OCRWM's provision of a satellite tracking system to
states and tribes that may wish to use it and agree to safeguard the
information. If the NRC denies state and tribal access to satellite
tracking information about NWPA shipments, this provision of the safe
routine transportation procedures will have to be dropped.
The definitions requested by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
have been adopted into the appendix of this notice, although not in
their entirety. The reference to ``subjurisdictions'' was dropped from
the definition of ``responsible jurisdiction'' because highway safety
and enforcement inspections are always carried out under the authority
of the state government, not local governments.
Technical Assistance
There were few comments on the definition of technical assistance.
One commenter said that equipment should be included as part of the
definition and that it is within the Department's discretion to make
this change. Another commenter requested that OCRWM delete ``unique to
the Department'' from the definition so as not to restrict DOE from
either having under contract at some time in the future individuals
that could provide the type of assistance sought by states and tribes,
or establishing an agreement with another Federal agency to provide the
requested assistance. Another commenter asked what scope of technical
assistance will be available under the grants program.
Response. The phrase ``unique to the Department'' was not dropped
from the definition because, as the shipper of record of NWPA
shipments, DOE will provide technical assistance whether or not the
Department contracts with other individuals or Federal agencies to
provide services or technical assistance. Equipment is not included in
the definition of Technical Assistance because 10 CFR 600 defines
Financial Assistance to include the provision of equipment, thereby
precluding it from the definition of Technical Assistance.
Eligibility and Timing
The comments on eligibility were rather limited while comments on
timing were more extensive. OCRWM was commended for broadening the
eligibility requirements where mutual aid and bordering jurisdictions
are involved. However, two commenters
[[Page 23764]]
pointed out that OCRWM will not be able to notify eligible
jurisdictions four years in advance of shipments unless routes are
determined indicating when a route constitutes a border between two
jurisdictions. Other commenters said that the transfer of funds from an
eligible jurisdiction to a mutual aid jurisdiction is unlikely. The
International Association of Fire Fighters viewed OCRWM's position on
the pass-through of funds to mutual aid jurisdictions as ``patronizing
and . . . urge[d] DOE to revisit this issue.'' The Pueblo of Acoma
asked how DOE will ensure that the funds are transferred to mutual aid
jurisdictions if the recipient jurisdiction does not willingly transfer
the funds. The National Congress of American Indians stated its
position that assistance should be provided to states and tribes that
are near, but not on, transportation routes because their people and
lands would also be at risk in the event of an accident. This commenter
added that this is especially true for tribes that have culturally
significant lands along a route that are not part of tribal lands.
Regarding issues on timing, three commenters requested
clarification in the lapse in eligibility when shipments do not pass
through a jurisdiction for three years or more. The Council of State
Governments-Midwestern Office stated that two years of full funding
prior to shipments is not sufficient time to accomplish all that is
needed, such as considering alternative routes, officially designating
them, assessing training needs along the route, applying for funding,
and training the emergency responders along the route. They also asked
how far in advance of shipments OCRWM will plan to notify governors
about their individual state's eligibility. Similarly, the Southern
States Energy Board said that the states and tribes cannot determine
what training and equipment are necessary until OCRWM establishes more
specifics on transportation planning, particularly routing. The Western
Interstate Energy Board reiterated its position taken in prior comments
and in WGA resolution 97-015 that OCRWM should specify that no
shipments will occur unless funding has been provided three years prior
to shipments. According to WGA, the three years is necessary because of
the amount of time preparations for these shipments will take. The
State of New Mexico stated its belief that three years of full program
funding prior to shipments is probably sufficient for most
jurisdictions if they have already conducted their needs assessments
and are poised for program implementation.
The State of New Mexico continued to urge OCRWM to establish an
administratively simple and efficient grant application process, and to
develop a user-friendly ``format and content guide'' to assist
applicants. The state voiced its concern about lack of information on
the mechanics of the grants program, asking if a three-year budget will
be negotiated and then funded in one-year increments; what is DOE's
proposal with respect to re-application after the first three years;
and what criteria will be used in determining the variable amounts of
funding to be provided to states and tribes? A commenter asked if there
is a difference among TY-2, TY-1, and TY grants other than the grant
applicant's assessment of its needs.
Response. The wording of Section 180(c) of the NWPA does not allow
for the funding of jurisdictions that are near, but not on,
transportation routes. The extensive safety measures taken for these
shipments make them very low risk and even if an accident or incident
occurs, any impact on nearby jurisdictions is an even lower risk
considering the packaging and other precautions taken to ensure
shipment safety. If a nearby jurisdiction has the potential to respond
to an NWPA transportation accident under a mutual aid request, then the
state or tribe whose local jurisdiction may be requested to provide
mutual aid will be eligible for funding from the state or tribe through
whose jurisdiction the radioactive waste is transported. The state or
tribe that has the route through its jurisdiction and that could
request the mutual aid assistance would also be eligible for funding as
described in the Eligibility and Timing section.
With regard to the grant application, OCRWM will consider
developing a format and content guide to make the grant application as
user-friendly as possible. In addition, the grant application will be
written in as straightforward a manner as possible. The intent is that,
after the initial planning grant, a five-year budget request will be
established. OCRWM will consider developing qualifying criteria for the
variable grant requests at a later time. OCRWM intends to include the
application budget requests in its budget request to Congress and fund
the applications to the extent Congress makes funds available on an
annual basis. There are no differences among TY-2, TY-1, and TY grants
other than the grant applicant's determination of its needs.
OCRWM believes the current time frame is sufficient to prepare for
these shipments as outlined in the Policy and Objectives sections of
this notice. Regarding eligibility after a lapse of shipments, the
lapse would have to be three or more years for a jurisdiction to become
ineligible for funding. If the lapse is two years or less, the
jurisdiction would not lose eligibility. OCRWM plans to notify
governors in the fourth year prior to shipments through their
jurisdiction that they will regain eligibility for Section 180(c)
funding and will receive the base grant.
Contingency Plan
The Nuclear Energy Institute supports the contingency plan outlined
in the revised notice and requested that OCRWM add ``emergencies,
fraudulent actions, or non-cooperation'' as cases where contingency
shipment plans could be implemented. The Council of State Governments-
Midwestern Office agreed with OCRWM's statement that planning with
states and tribes along contingency routes should be handled on a case-
by-case basis. The Southern States Energy Board argued that the
contingency plan continues to address only emergency response
procedures and not safe routine transportation procedures. The State of
New Mexico stated that the ``current plan is skeletal and cursory in
nature at best'' and may not offer adequate protection to public health
and safety. The Western Interstate Energy Board again asked that OCRWM
offer assurances that no shipments will occur, even on a contingency
basis, unless funding has occurred at least three years in advance.
Response. The contingency plan has not changed significantly in
this notice except to include cases such as emergencies, fraudulent
actions, or non-cooperation as examples where contingency shipment
plans could be implemented. If contingency shipments are made, OCRWM
may use escorts with more training and equipment than those currently
used for the purpose of safety until a reasonable time period for
training has expired. These measures, combined with OCRWM's willingness
to work with states and tribes on a case-by-case basis to plan for any
contingency shipments, will ensure that the shipments are made as
uneventfully as possible. Regarding equal emphasis on safe routine and
emergency response procedures, OCRWM sees no reason why the current
contingency plan should focus more on one set of procedures than the
other. Arrangements for inspections and inspector training are expected
to be part of the discussion if contingency shipments are necessary.
[[Page 23765]]
Trust Responsibility
The National Congress of American Indians, the Prairie Island
Indian Community and the Pueblo of Acoma all stated their position that
DOE should cite the requirements of DOE's Trust responsibility in the
policy. They reiterated that the Trust responsibility stems from
tribes' treaties with the United States government, tribes' status as
sovereign nations, and the U.S. Constitution. The DOE's fiduciary
duties to tribal governments have been reinforced by President
Clinton's Memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, and the DOE's own
American Indian Policy. They reiterated their view that the language of
Section 180(c) does not limit tribal assistance and funding exclusively
to training as it does to state governments. It is their position that
nothing in Section 180(c) prevents DOE from funding basic emergency
response capabilities and that it is part of the DOE's Trust
responsibility to fund basic capabilities on those reservations which
lack them.
Comments were favorable regarding OCRWM's equal treatment of states
and tribes throughout the policy, with several commenters noting that
the policy does incorporate many interests of tribal governments.
Response. OCRWM recognizes that there is a lack of infrastructure
and trained personnel on many tribal lands. Typically, these areas may
rely more heavily on technical assistance than other grant recipients.
Since needs will be so varied and the determination of needs allows
consideration of an individual jurisdiction's current preparedness
level, OCRWM sees no purpose in defining further the specific
activities that may be taken with regard to tribal preparedness. OCRWM
is aware of its Trust responsibilities to tribes and will take it into
account in all of OCRWM's decisions that may affect Indian tribes.
B. Section 180(c) Procedures
Funding Mechanism
While two commenters supported the OCRWM grants approach, the State
of Idaho reiterated its position that OCRWM should coordinate its
funding and training program with a Department-wide funding and
training program. Idaho said that while it recognized the difficulties
in developing a unified program, it was worth the increased
effectiveness and efficiency of training emergency responders along a
route one time for all DOE shipments, rather than training repeatedly
every time a DOE program ships radioactive materials. The Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance requested that OCRWM allow the possible
combining of grants programs to train inspectors to allow for cross-
training of inspectors. Similar to Idaho's comment, this would allow
inspectors to become trained on the enhanced inspection standards once
rather than attend a separate class every time another DOE program
ships radioactive materials. The International Association of Fire
Fighters registered the strongest complaint against the funding
mechanism, saying the knowledge and expertise necessary to complete the
needs assessment of the application package will place a tremendous
administrative burden on the grant applicants.
Response. While this Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures does
not combine the grants program with any other Department training or
funding program, we plan for the grant application to state that OCRWM
encourages recipients to use their funds in conjunction with other
programs where the training aims to achieve the same or similar goals.
For example, if a state were training its inspectors to the enhanced
inspection standards, it could use the Section 180(c) funding in
conjunction with funding it may receive from another DOE program to
send additional inspectors to the same training. OCRWM has stated that
it may combine the grants program with a Department-wide grant program
in the future if one is developed and is practicable, and consistent
with existing law.
C. Applicability of Section 180(c) to Private Shipments
Many states and state organizations urged that Section 180(c)
assistance apply to all spent nuclear fuel or defense high-level
radioactive waste shipments ultimately destined for an NWPA facility,
whether or not those shipments are transported to and stored on an
interim basis at a private facility. Commenters stated that
transportation to a private facility would only be necessary if the
Department fails to site an interim or permanent storage facility
according to statutory obligations.
Response. The Department is currently authorized to implement the
Section 180(c) program of financial and technical assistance only for
shipments to a repository or Monitored Retrievable Storage facility
constructed under the NWPA. However, the many comments on this issue
have been noted.
D. Policy Development Process
A few commenters again questioned the Department's plans to issue a
Notice of Policy and Procedures rather than promulgate regulations.
They voiced concern that implementation of Section 180(c) through
regulations is necessary to ensure stability through changes of
leadership within the Department and that an interpretation of policy
and procedures is more easily changed.
Response. OCRWM is developing the Revised Policy and Procedures
after receipt and consideration of extensive public comments. At some
future date, OCRWM may decide to promulgate regulations. However, since
the program's current planning basis is to begin shipping in 2010, it
is premature to codify the policy in regulations this far in advance of
shipments. OCRWM will continue to monitor other Departmental
transportation programs and may consider updating this Revised Policy
as either a Final Policy or as regulations at a later date.
V. Conclusion
This notice has presented OCRWM's Revised Proposed Policy and
Procedures for the Section 180(c) program. It also has presented
OCRWM's summary of and response to comments received in the prior
Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures issued July 17, 1997.
These comments were given careful consideration in developing these
policy and procedures. The purpose of this notice has been to
communicate to stakeholders OCRWM's interim preliminary positions
regarding Section 180(c) policy issues and to respond to stakeholder
comments on the July notice. These policy and procedures will remain in
draft form until programmatic decisions or legislation provides
guidance as to when shipments will commence. At that time, OCRWM may
finalize these policy and procedures or will consider promulgating
regulations on Section 180(c) implementation.
OCRWM will accept comments from the public on this Notice of
Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 1998.
Lake Barrett,
Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Appendix--Definition of Terms Used in the Notice of Final Policy and
Procedures
1. Responsible jurisdiction, for emergency response procedures,
means a governmental entity at any level of government, whether
state or tribal, that has the authority to conduct part or all of an
emergency response
[[Page 23766]]
to a radiological materials transportation accident or incident.
Responsible jurisdiction for safety and enforcement inspections
means a governmental entity, whether state or tribal that has the
authority to conduct safety inspections and initiate law enforcement
using the appropriate federal and or jurisdiction's laws and
regulations.
2. First responders are generally those emergency response
personnel who (1) assess the risk level of the emergency, (2) take
defensive action to secure an accident scene, and (3) notify
additional authorities if needed.
3. Awareness level training means training for individuals who
are likely to witness or discover a hazardous materials substance
release and who have been trained to initiate an emergency response
sequence by notifying the authorities of the release. First
responder awareness level training shall provide sufficient training
to ensure that first responders objectively demonstrate competency
in the following areas:
(A) Understand what hazardous substances are, and the risks
associated with them in an incident.
(B) Understand the potential outcomes associated with an
emergency created when hazardous substances are present.
(C) Recognize the presence of hazardous substances in an
emergency.
(D) Identify the hazardous substance, if possible.
(E) Understand the role of the first responder awareness
individual in the employer's emergency response plan including site
security and control and the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Emergency Response Guidebook.
(F) Realize the need for additional resources, and make
appropriate notifications to the communications center.
(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(I)(A-F))
Awareness level training also means training for jurisdictions
or individuals who will accept and grant reciprocity to another
jurisdiction's inspections.
4. First responder operations level hazardous materials training
means training that provides for individuals who respond to releases
or potential releases of hazardous substances as part of the initial
response to the site for the purpose of protecting nearby persons,
property, or the environment from the effects of the release and to
be able to respond in a defensive fashion without actually trying to
stop the release. Their function is to contain the release from a
safe distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent exposures. First
responders at the operations level shall have received at least
eight hours of training and have had sufficient experience to
objectively demonstrate competency in the following areas in
addition to those listed for awareness level, and the employer shall
so certify:
(A) Know the basic hazard and risk assessment techniques.
(B) Know how to select and use proper personal protective
equipment provided to the first responder operational level.
(C) Understand basic hazardous materials terms.
(D) Know how to perform basic control, containment and/or
confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and
personal protective equipment available with their unit.
(E) Know how to implement basic decontamination procedures.
(F) Understand the relevant standard operating procedures and
termination procedures.
(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(ii)(A-F))
5. Hazardous materials technician level training is training for
individuals who respond to releases or potential releases for the
purpose of stopping the release. They assume a more aggressive role
than a first responder at the operations level in that they will
approach the point of release in order to plug, patch or otherwise
stop the release of a hazardous substance. Hazardous materials
technicians shall receive at least 24 hours of training equal to the
first responder operations level and in addition have competency in
the following areas, and the employer shall so certify:
(A) Know how to implement the employer's emergency response
plan.
(B) Know the classification, identification and verification of
known and unknown materials by using field survey instruments and
equipment.
(C) Be able to function within an assigned role in the Incident
Command System.
(D) Know how to select and use proper specialized chemical
personal protective equipment provided to the hazardous materials
technician.
(E) Understand hazard and risk assessment techniques.
(F) Be able to perform advance control, containment, and/or
confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and
personal protective equipment available with the unit.
(G) Understand and implement decontamination procedures.
(H) Understand termination procedures.
(I) Understand basic chemical and toxicological terminology and
behavior.
(29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(iii)(A-F))
6. Train-the-trainer training, for emergency response
procedures, means training for individuals so that they can teach
other emergency responders to respond to a particular level of
competency. Train-the-trainer training, for safe routine
transportation procedures, means training for certified instructors/
individuals so that they may conduct refresher inspection courses
for their respective jurisdiction's safety and enforcement
inspectors.
[FR Doc. 98-11520 Filed 4-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
