Consent-Based Siting Public Meeting in Boise
Meeting Summary
On July 14, 2016, the Department of Energy’s consent-based siting initiative hosted its seventh public meeting in Boise, Idaho at the Boise Centre. The purpose of this meeting was to hear from the public and stakeholders on important elements in the design of a consent-based siting process. A consent-based siting process will support the development of facilities needed to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including consolidated interim storage facilities and permanent geologic repositories.
The agenda included a presentation from the Department of Energy’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, John Kotek. Mr. Kotek discussed the nuclear energy activities that have brought us to this point, as well as described the Department’s vision for an integrated waste management system and the need for a consent-based approach to siting. This presentation was followed by a panel session with several experts providing diverse perspectives on the primary issues that need to be resolved in the design and implementation of a consent-based process. Participants then had the opportunity to comment or ask questions to the Department and the panelists.
Following this session, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions on a variety of topics related to consent-based siting and integrated waste management. These small group discussions provided the opportunity for frank and open conversations on key topics that will inform the design of a consent-based process.
The agenda also included a public comment period and two open houses with poster sessions before and after the formal meeting. The open house sessions provided participants with the opportunity to engage in less formal discussions with the Department and other meeting attendees and to respond to any outstanding questions.
Approximately 65 members of the public attended the meeting in person and 15 participants viewed the meeting via webinar.
Keynote and Panel
The meeting began with a keynote address by Mr. David Leroy, the former U.S. Nuclear Waste Negotiator. Mr. Leroy began his discussion by encouraging the Department’s current efforts, while offering a cautionary story from his experience. In particular, Mr. Leroy recounted his role (from 1990 to 1993) in attempting to site monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facilities for spent nuclear fuel. Mr. Leroy noted that, in this role, he was guided by three principles: “First, nobody wants nuclear waste; second, nobody wants nuclear waste; and third, nobody wants nuclear waste.” Mr. Leroy then discussed the “not in my backyard (NIMBY)” challenge, but noted that NIMBY can be framed as an opportunity. He suggested the NIMBY phenomenon is a vehicle for people to become more interested in issues and to learn more, which the Department could take as an opportunity to increase learning, engagement, and potential acceptance. Mr. Leroy also observed that the Department of Energy acts within the authority vested in it by federally elected officials and that success requires strong, clear and consistent leadership from these representatives.
Mr. Leroy’s remarks were followed by a presentation from Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy John Kotek. Mr. Kotek’s presentation began with a brief video recording from Secretary of Energy Moniz who emphasized the importance of finding a lasting nuclear waste management solution and how such an effort must be grounded in a consent-based siting process. Mr. Kotek then described the Administration’s integrated waste management strategy as well as reviewed the Department’s approach to developing a consent-based siting process. A copy of Mr. Kotek’s presentation can be found at the bottom of this page.
Following Mr. Kotek’s remarks, the panelists provided their perspectives on consent-based siting and the issues the Department should consider as it moves forward. Panel members included:
- Beatrice Brailsford, Nuclear Program Director, Snake River Alliance
- Talia T. Martin, Tribal/DOE Program Director, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
- Gary Petersen, Vice President of TRIDEC, Federal Programs
- Jen Schneider, PhD, Associate Professor in the School of Public Service, Boise State University
Ms. Brailsford began her remarks by acknowledging the Department’s efforts to engage with the public on this issue. She then discussed the topic of consent and the 1995 Settlement Agreement between the Department and the State of Idaho regarding a lawsuit filed by the state to prevent shipment of spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National Lab for storage. Ms. Brailsford used this agreement as an example of “non-consent” and suggested that when a state, governing body, or community offers such “non-consent” that this statement be acknowledged and that no further discussion is warranted. While appreciating the long-term need for a permanent repository, Ms. Brailsford questioned the value of an interim storage facility and advocated that spent nuclear fuel remain at the sites where it was generated until such time that a permanent repository established.
Following Ms. Brailsford’s remarks, Ms. Martin offered her insights from the perspective of a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. In her remarks, Ms. Martin highlighted the existing burdens that Tribal Nations face (such as currently hosting hazardous facilities and the legacy of uranium mining). She observed that these localized hardships must first be acknowledged before any discussion on potentially hosting nuclear waste management facilities can take place. Furthermore, Ms. Martin spoke on the topic of tribal lands and noted that regardless of where a nuclear waste management facility may be ultimately located, that it would reside on what was once tribal lands. In this context, Ms. Martin encouraged the Department to undertake comprehensive and meaningful stakeholder consultation as a fundamental component of its consent-based siting efforts. She further urged the Department to more closely engage with Tribal Nations, exchange information, and include Tribes in the oversight and management of ancestral lands, thereby preserving this resource and legacy for future generations.
Mr. Gary Petersen then offered his perspective on the siting challenge given his 40+ years working in the nuclear industry, both domestically and abroad. Mr. Petersen began his remarks by first stating his opinion that the disposal facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada was a reasonable and prudent solution and should be pursued. In parallel, Mr. Peterson voiced support for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel as he felt that leaving this waste in its current locations (at existing or former commercial reactors) was sub-optimal. Mr. Peterson then discussed the challenges associated with siting nuclear waste management installations. Compounding these challenges, according to Mr. Petersen, is the rate of turnover for elected officials and political appointees within the Department and how this personnel flux hinders long-term strategic planning. Mr. Petersen concluded his remarks with the observation that the problem of nuclear waste management has moved from a technical challenge to one rooted more in the political science sphere.
The final panel member to address the meeting was Professor Jen Schneider from Boise State University. Dr. Schneider’s talk began with a discussion of the shift in public involvement that is inherent in the Department’s consent-based siting program. Dr. Schneider characterized the traditional or “normal” approach of siting as a reflection of the “decide, announce, and defend” policy as exemplified in the decision to dispose of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain facility. Dr. Schneider observed, however, that such an approach proves difficult in the midst of disagreements over values. She noted that the current nuclear waste challenge reflects the “post-normal” state. In this post-normal environment, Dr. Schneider characterized the facility siting efforts as a form of shared governance in the context of natural resource management decision-making. Dr. Schneider further described the unique characteristics of the nuclear waste management problem given the national significance, highly technical focus, and large scale. Dr. Schneider went on to note that the United States has little experience problem solving on such issues while committing to collaboration with a larger number of stakeholders. In closing, Dr. Schneider highlighted the fundamental challenges inherent in solving the nuclear waste management problem, characterized any proposed solution as one that will meet with overlapping successes and failures, and suggested that any solution will be one that emerges from a unique combination of pragmatism, perseverance, inclusiveness, and transparency.
Speaker and panelist biographies are included at the bottom of the page.
Facilitated Question and Answer Session
Following the panel presentation, meeting participants asked questions to the panel members who engaged with the participants on several issues. These included, but were not limited to: the lack of public trust and confidence in the Department given previous negative experiences (including issues pertaining to the 1995 settlement agreement); the importance of “veto authority” retained by the local host community; why the Department chose not to hold public meetings in Texas and New Mexico given that two self-funded volunteer initiatives are located in these states; issues pertaining to how the “host community” is defined and who may decide on their behalf; how to manage nuclear waste transportation and disposal given the eventuality of human error; and how nuclear materials are to be safely transported over what is viewed by some as the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
Facilitated Small Group Discussions
After a short break, meeting participants were invited to join in facilitated small group discussions to explore the issues involved in consent-based siting. These discussions were facilitated by independent third-party professional facilitators. Participants formed seven small groups, each consisting of five to eight members of the public. In addition, each group included a note taker and a Department representative. The groups met for approximately one hour and discussed a wide range of issues associated with developing a consent-based siting process. At the end of the one-hour discussion, the facilitator from each table highlighted his or her group’s discussion and reported key observations back to the larger meeting.
Key issues mentioned during these small group discussions include, but are not limited to:
- Transparency – The need for the Department and all stakeholders involved in the nuclear waste management siting effort to ensure that processes and decisions are undertaken with a commitment to transparency and inclusiveness.
- Interim Storage – The relative value of interim storage and the associated transportation risk compared to leaving nuclear waste at the sites in which it was generated and the local costs/risks this may entail.
- Consent – How “consent” or “non-consent” may be defined with respect to hosting a nuclear waste management facility. Additional discussions followed on whether or not consent (or non-consent) are transient declarations, how long such determinations may remain valid, and who decides on such determinations.
- Trust – Concerns about current lack of trust or confidence by stakeholders in the Department to responsibly carry out the mission of nuclear waste management.
A summary of these small group discussions is included at the bottom of this page.
Public Comment Period
Following the small group discussions, a public comment period took place to allow members of the public to make statements. These statements included: several calls to prevent nuclear waste from being transported to Idaho; the need to protect existing groundwater supplies given Idaho’s valuable agriculture; the local socioeconomic benefit associated with hosting a nuclear waste management facility; the need to find a locally equitable solution to a national problem; and the importance of local constituents having clear roles in decision-making.
Closing Remarks
Following the public comment period, Mr. Andrew Griffith, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle Technologies, offered closing remarks in which he thanked the audience for their active and thoughtful participation and reinforced the Department’s commitment to stakeholder engagement, transparency in decision-making and the need to work together collaboratively with stakeholders as it moves forward with the consent-based siting process.
Thank you for your participation!
