Name: Josue Garcia

Organization: Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, Office of Emergency Management

Subject: 180c Review Comment

The following are comments and answers to questions in the Federal Register Notice on funding through Section 180(c) of the NWPA of 1982.
Policy Statement
4th Paragraph: "Any deficiency in basic emergency response capability may be addressed through consultation and technical assistance."
Comment: Policy assumes eligible grant recipients, especially tribes, have existing basic emergency response capabilities. Will grantees be able to use 180(c) funding to build capability if it is non-existent?


Funding Mechanism
1st Paragraph: "The grant application process will require States and Tribes to describe and justify their proposed work in the format of a five-year project with a more detailed two-year work plan."
Comment: Policy is not clear on how funding will be awarded; on a year-to-year basis or based on the two-year work plan or the Five-year Project Plan?

Basis for Cost Estimate/Grant Funding
Allocation to States
1st Paragraph: "Specifically, DOE expects to make two grants available to States:"
Comment: Even though it might be justified to exclude the word "Tribes" in this section, starting with Section 180 (c) of the NWPA down to sections of the policy such as the one above, there is never any definite wording stating that Tribes will receive the two grants: An assessment and planning grant and an annual training grant.
5th Paragraph, Step 1: "Collect raw data with respect to the factors of population along routes, route miles,”
Comment: Policy should state somewhere that States should not include tribal populations or land miles within State boundaries to calculate their own populations and land miles for use in the five-step formula as this would be an infringement of Tribal Sovereignty.


Allowable Activities
2nd Paragraph: "DOE recognizes that, depending on the State or Tribe, the role of local public safety officials in responding to incidents involving radioactive materials varies from a minimal role of crowd and traffic control to the primary role of incident command."
Comment: This statement along with some of the potential activities mentioned in the following paragraph support the idea that States or Tribes that are within a reasonably established zone in close proximity to proposed routes should also be eligible for 180 (c) funding, even if it would be less funding than that of States or Tribes with shipments going through their jurisdiction.

Merit Review Criteria
2nd Paragraph: "The merit review process consists of a board of technically qualified reviewers who evaluate each grant application on pre-established criteria."
Comment: The Merit Review Board should include at least one Tribal Representative and others should be added proportionate to the amount of Tribal applicants. For example, out of 100 applicants, if 20 are Tribal, then 2 out of 10 board members should be Tribal.

Request for Comments
Question 1
(a)This amount seems adequate.
(b)The amount should be the same for each eligible State and Tribe because even though most Tribes are responsible for a smaller area and population than most States, their infrastructure and capabilities aren’t as developed.
(c)Updating initial needs assessment should be part of the grant reporting requirements in order to drive goals and objectives of subsequent training grants. For example, DOE might require that at the end of year one of the Training Grant the initial assessment be updated to reflect activities undertaken throughout that year.

Question 2

(a)This amount seems adequate.
(b)Not automatically; instead States and Tribes should be given the opportunity to demonstrate continued need through their grant reporting and receive the maximum amount ($100,000), if justified.
(c)All base grants should be funded, whatever the amount, before variable portions are.
(d)No

Question 3
(a)Yes, 50%/50%
(b)Yes
(c)Proportionate to their mutual aid roles and responsibilities but not taking into account whether or not the State or Tribe would otherwise be eligible for a grant.
(d)Yes

Question 4
(a)Yes
(b)Yes
(c)Yes

Question 5
(a)Fees levied by States or Tribes on the transportation of SNP and HLW through their jurisdiction are a matter of commerce and trade and should be kept separate. It should not affect grant funds of any kind, in any way, awarded to States or Tribes.
(b)See previous answer.
(c)No

Question 6
(a)Section 180 (c) grants should not be adjusted since the application process captures this information through the instructions given.
(b)Only funding, if any exists, from the TEPP should be taken into account but not the technical assistance. DOE should strongly encourage States and Tribes to take full advantage of all resources the TEPP has to offer but should allow them the flexibility to opt for training outside of TEPP that might be better suited for them.
(c)It is necessary to the full extent as other funding such as WIPP is campaign-specific.


Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Josh Garcia