o “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.” o Governors would be asked to select one agency or representative to apply for assistance and administer the award. o Applicants would provide a five-year plan, with funding awarded annually based on the plan. Applicants would have to reapply after five years. In mid-1998, OCRWM announced that it would stop its work on transportation, including Section 180(c) and support for the regional groups. All resources were diverted to completing the site characterization to support the Yucca Mountain construction license application. In 2003, after Congress selected Yucca Mountain for the repository site, OCRWM resumed its work with the regions and organized a new TEC/WG Topic Group to work on Section 180(c) implementation. The cooperation and collaboration between OCRWM and the states and tribes in Phase 2 was a marked improvement over Phase 1. States, tribes, and regional staff were all involved in writing the discussion papers and recommendations, rather than having their role limited to commenting on Federal Register notices. Over a period of less than two years, the topic group held at least 12 conference calls, met three times during semi-annual TEC/WG meetings, and held a stand-alone meeting in Washington, DC. While gathered in DC for the meeting, the states met to discuss their goals for Section 180(c) implementation. The result of that meeting was the “Principles of Agreement Among States on Expectations Regarding Preparations for OCRWM Shipments.” The topic group picked up the eight issues identified in Phase 1 and added three new ones: state fees, funding operations-related activities, and matching funds. In addition, the topic group added “public safety official” to the set of key terms that needed definition. In the end, the topic group reached consensus on eight of the 11 issues. DOE could not agree with the states and tribes on the issue of state fees and funding operations-related activities. The regions could not agree on the funding allocation. The recommendations that came from this phase are the ones that would later be reviewed by the states and tribes during Phase 3. In 2007-2008, OCRWM published two notices seeking comments on the revised proposed policy and procedures (Vol. 72, No. 140, 40139-40145, July 23, 2007; Vol. 73, No. 212, 64933-64939, October 31, 2008). The revisions incorporated many of the topic group’s recommendations, but not all. The 2008 notice contained the following elements: • Allowable activities: “DOE intends to allow a broad array of eligible planning and training activities, thus providing the recipients flexibility to direct funds toward their individual needs.” The notice included a list of possible activities as an illustration. No caps would be imposed on the amount of funding used for equipment. • Funding allocation: o Each applicant would be eligible for an assessment and planning grant “not expected to exceed” $200,000, adjusted annually for inflation. PHASE 2 (2000 S )
Page 3
January 23, 2014
File name: BackgroundandProgress.docx
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker