Consent-Based Siting Public Meeting in Minneapolis
Meeting Summary
On July 21, 2016, the Department of Energy’s consent-based siting initiative hosted its eighth public meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota at the Minneapolis Hilton Hotel. 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 45 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. John Tuma, Commissioner of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. In his remarks on nuclear waste management, Mr. Tuma used the theme of “rivers” to illustrate his points. First, with respect to the need for action, Mr. Tuma recalled Ohio’s Cuyahoga River Fire of 1969. Mr. Tuma noted that the river, heavily contaminated with petroleum byproducts, had caught fire previously but that the 1969 event received national attention and was responsible, in part, for the public and political will that drove the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To that end, regarding nuclear waste, Mr. Tuma suggested that “the river is burning” and that it is time to find the public and political will to find a solution to this problem. In carrying out this action, Mr. Tuma referenced his canoeing and camping experience in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters, with a focus on “leaving no trace” and preparing the campsite for the next occupants. Accordingly, a solution to the nuclear waste problem should follow suit by initiating and employing the highest standards of stewardship in order to protect the health and the environment for future generations.
Mr. Tuma’s remarks were followed by a presentation by 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:
- Shelley Buck, President, Prairie Island Indian Community Tribal Council
- Rod McCullum, Senior Director, Used Fuel and Decommissioning, Nuclear Energy Institute
- Doug Scott, Vice President, Strategic Initiatives, Great Plains Institute
- Kathryn Shaver, Vice President, Adaptive Phased Management Engagement and Site Selection, from Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization
Ms. Buck’s remarks focused on the experience of the Prairie Island Indian Community tribal members in relation to the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant. The Tribe is located approximately 600 yards from the power plant and the plant’s stored spent nuclear fuel. According to Ms. Buck, the Tribe was not asked to be a host community to this nuclear material and has never consented to act as an indefinite storage site. Given the risks associated with living near such a plant, the Tribe has purchased in excess of 100 acres of property elsewhere in the state to allow for the relocation of tribal members in the event that living adjacent to the nuclear plant becomes untenable. Ms. Buck urged the Department to act swiftly to move the spent nuclear fuel from tribal lands, as well as from other similar host communities across the country. Ms. Buck also discussed Prairie Island Indian Community’s efforts to stay involved in all aspects of the work on radioactive materials, including transportation planning. She noted the importance of the government-to-government relationship between the Department of Energy and Tribal Nations. She urged the Department to uphold and honor this relationship.
Following Ms. Buck’s remarks, Mr. McCullum offered his insights as a representative of the Nuclear Energy Institute. With respect to nuclear power and climate change, Mr. McCullum supported nuclear power as well as wind and solar energy as a combined suite of low-carbon sources of energy. Mr. McCullum then discussed the topic of “earned consent” and how the nuclear industry works to secure the ongoing support of its host communities for the continued operation of its plants. Mr. McCullum stressed the attention paid to the safety culture that permeates nuclear plant operation and suggested that this would be an important theme in the design, construction, and operation of a waste management facility. He stated his belief that the consent-based siting process should be extended to the case of Yucca Mountain and encouraged the continuation of this licensing process.
Mr. Scott then offered his thoughts on the nuclear waste management problem from his varied professional experiences, including as former Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a local and state elected official. Mr. Scott’s remarks focused primarily on the public dialogue aspects of the siting challenge and he offered recommendations on what he believed were key elements in a consent-based siting process. Paramount among these is the need to provide resources for stakeholders, communities, and Tribes to seek their own independent sources of information. These resources, according to Mr. Scott, are necessary to support an effort that is transparent, adaptable, and informed. With respect to decision-making, Mr. Scott cautioned that local governments do not always reflect or uphold the majority of interests in a community. Accordingly, care and attention needs to be made to ensure decisions related to nuclear waste management are sufficiently representative of communities and stakeholders.
The final panel member to address the meeting was Ms. Kathryn Shaver from Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) who shared her perspective on Canada’s siting experience. In 2002, NWMO engaged in a nationwide consultative process that focused primarily on values and principles to guide action, the result of which was the adoption of Canada’s Adaptive Phased Management approach in 2007. After further engagement with the Canadian public, in 2010, NWMO issued a solicitation to communities to voluntarily express interest in learning more about siting possibilities. A total of 21 communities initially expressed interest and over time, this number has been reduced to 9 communities through a measured and patient siting process. Ms. Shaver also described NWMO’s approach of not committing to preconceived deadlines and emphasized their operational principles of transparency and collaboration. To that end, NWMO places significant emphasis on treating all interested communities and native populations as equal partners in the siting exploration process.
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: why the Department had not held a public meeting in New Mexico or Texas (states in which self-financed volunteers are seeking to develop private interim storage facilities); how a community could ever find its way to “consent” to host nuclear waste; the availability of, and access to, technical information to help communities make their own decisions; and the role of “consent” in the transportation of nuclear waste. Additional questions focused on the role of youth in Canada’s nuclear waste management program and the difficulty of asking host communities to consent while additional wastes are being created.
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 four 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:
- Non-consent – The need for the Department to understand and recognize that if a community chooses not to consent to act as a host, the Department must disengage.
- Need to Solve the Problem – The problem, as defined by the Department, is not well defined and the relative efficacy of the proposed solution was not clear. This discontinuity makes it difficult for members of the public to endorse any particular solution.
- Trust – That the level of trust in the Department of Energy is low and that this deficiency is a significant hurdle to progress. To that end, the Department must invest and commit to trust-building actions if it hopes to restore public confidence. Following on this trust theme, additional comments included the call for a new entity, separate from political influence, to manage the consent-based siting effort.
- Capacity and Local Decision Making – The recognition that communities make decisions at their own pace and guided by their own norms. To that end, the Department needs to recognize the unique information, process, and participation needs of each community, and support the communities in their decision-making through the provision of sufficient resources.
A summary of these small group discussions is included at the bottom of the 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 but were not limited to: the opinion that production of nuclear waste and nuclear weapons should stop before any discussion on nuclear waste management may be held; resistance to the concept of consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel; the need to engage all members of a potential host community and not just elected officials; and the need for transparency and inclusiveness in the current engagement process.
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, recognized the importance and magnitude of the nuclear waste management problem, and reinforced the Department’s commitment to stakeholder engagement and transparency in decision-making as it moves forward with the consent-based siting process.
Thank you for your participation!
