Name: Bill Anoatubby

Organization: The Chickasaw Nation

Subject: 180c Review Comment

Pursuant to the request of DOE, the Chickasaw Nation, as an interested party, offers the following comments and/or answers to the six questions posed in the Federal Register notice regarding Section 180(c) of NWPA.

Question 1
a) $200,000 is an appropriate amount for the assessment and planning grant to conduct an initial needs assessment.

b) The amounts for each eligible State and Tribe should not be the same; there should be a $200,000 cap for funding, regardless of a grantee s status as a State or Tribe.

c) An update of the initial needs assessment should take place every three to five years, at a minimum. These updates should include environmental impact statements and should be funded in the amount of $50,000.


Question 2
a) $100,000 is an appropriate amount for an annual training grant, provided that grant recipients have employees who are being trained to become trainers so that training costs decrease each year.

b) Yes, the amounts may be reduced as expertise increase, however this reduction should be gradual.

c) The allocation method for the variable amount of the annual training grants (as described on page 40142 of the Federal Register, in the left-hand column) places Tribes at a disadvantage, as population is a key factor in the equation. Many tribes along the proposed routes are not populous tribes, which results in less funds being allocated to the Tribes for training. Because their numbers are so few, certain tribes are in danger of extinction and in the event that a nuclear or radioactive accident occurs near their tribal lands, the accident could potentially eradicate the entire tribe. While the use of population density along a route is a fair practice in theory, adjustments should be made to the formula to consider less populated tribes.

d) The entire training grant should not vary based on the funding allocation formula described herein. Each grant should have a minimum floor and maximum ceiling of available funding. A funding formula with preset maximums and minimums will help prevent the issues discussed in item c) above.

Question 3
a) The amount of funding for training should remain the same regardless of borders between States and Tribes. However it would be ideal for a State and Tribe to apply as joint applicants for the grant in shared border situations.

b) Tribes and States with mutual aid agreements should not be eligible for the grants solely on the basis of the mutual aid agreement. The grant recipient should include the mutual aid partner in the trainings that are provided with the grant monies.

Question 4
a) Assessment and planning grants need to be taken two years prior to an initial scheduled shipment through a State or Tribe s jurisdiction; a four year time period is too large of a time frame, as roads, routes, and the environment may change drastically within that time.

b) Training grants should begin one year prior to a scheduled shipment through a jurisdiction.

c) Training grants should be provided the year before the scheduled shipment. If necessary, recipients may be placed on a rotation of receipt of grant funds for training to correlate to the shipment schedules.

Question 5
a) The grants should not be adjusted for State or Tribe fees, as these fees should not influence grant receipts or amounts.

b) DOE should request information regarding fees in advance from State and Tribal leaders.

c) This language is neither sufficient, nor clear and further explanation is necessary.

Question 6
a),b), & c) The grant application should include a section requiring grant applicants to disclose any other grants that they receive or have applied for, the amount received, and the time period of the grant. The application should also include a provision that requires the grant recipient notify DOE of any similarly related grants that the recipient receives during its tenure as a 180(c) grant recipient.