Energy.gov

Consent-Based Siting Public Meeting in Tempe

Meeting Summary

On June 23, 2016, the Department of Energy’s consent-based siting initiative hosted its sixth public meeting in Tempe, Arizona at the Marriott Phoenix Tempe conference center.  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 was to begin with statements by Jeff Bingaman, former U.S. Senator (NM). Unfortunately, Senator Bingaman’s flight was cancelled so he was unable to attend the meeting in person. The Senator did, however, pass along his written statement, which is included at the bottom of the page. In summary, the Senator’s statement begins with a brief history of nuclear waste policy in the United States, followed by an overview of the key recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission, including that a new entity be established to manage the nation’s nuclear waste, facility siting be undertaken using a consent-based approach, and the search for a permanent repository take place in tandem with the development of interim storage facilities. The Senator’s comments then move to a review of federal legislative initiatives as well as a summary of federal court decisions regarding the costs associated with storing commercial spent nuclear fuel and the related collection of fees from ratepayers. Senator Bingaman concludes by describing a relative lack of urgency in solving this problem that he sees among two key stakeholder groups. First, the Senator suggests that the sense of urgency expressed by utilities has waned due to the fact that their costs associated with storing commercial spent nuclear fuel are being recovered through court settlements and paid by taxpayers through the federal Judgement Fund. Second, the Senator expresses the opinion that there is a parallel lack of urgency by federal legislators to seek a permanent repository as outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. In spite of these difficulties, the Senator urges the Department and stakeholders to continue the pursuit of a durable solution to a pressing national problem.            

The meeting began with a presentation from John Kotek, Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy.  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:

• Dr. James Conca, Senior Scientist, UFA Ventures
• George Gholson, Chairman, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe
• Michael O’Hare, Professor of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley
• Jennifer Richter, Assistant Professor of Justice and Sociotechnical Change, Arizona State University

Dr. Conca based his remarks on his professional experience working on nuclear waste management facilities both domestically and internationally. His comments centered on what he classified as the “scientific” and “social” dimensions to the challenge in siting nuclear waste facilities. From Dr. Conca’s perspective, the scientific or technical factors that need to be considered as part of a nuclear waste management facility have essentially been resolved. The preferred geologies have been identified, the transportation technology is in place, and the monitoring and performance systems are operational. On the other hand, the “social” or political dimensions of the siting problem are not sufficiently appreciated and lack the degree of robustness required to effectively site a waste management facility. Accordingly, Dr. Conca urged all stakeholders to focus on the social aspects of the siting challenge and to work to overcome obstacles as this is the area that is most in need of collective effort.

Following Dr. Conca’s remarks, Mr. Gholson offered his insights on the facility siting challenge from his perspective as Chairman of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. He began his remarks by emphasizing that tracts of Native American land are viewed as sacred and consent-based siting efforts must take into account a full understanding of how this land may be affected. Mr. Gholson focused on the need for the Tribes to be able to trust the Department to follow through in its commitments, and how some previous experiences of Tribes with the Department have not been positive in this regard. Going forward, Mr. Gholson stressed the fact that the Tribal community is not monolithic and that each Tribe has its individual culture, perspectives, and set of priorities. Accordingly, the Department’s tribal outreach needs to reflect the uniqueness of the tribal perspective and tailored to meet those needs. Mr. Gholson also stressed that in resolving the nuclear waste issue, it is important to engage in a collaborative dialogue that includes tribal representatives in addition to local, state, regional, and federal stakeholders. With respect to outreach to these entities, Mr. Gholson emphasized the need to make concerted efforts to reach out to those parties who may be reluctant to engage. 

Professor Michael O’Hare then offered his perspective as an academic in the public policy arena, as well as from his involvement in the 1970s and 1980s in the development and implementation of regulations for the state of Massachusetts regarding the siting of hazardous waste facilities. Professor O’Hare’s comments included the fact that the siting of nuclear waste management facilities is a highly complex and uncertain undertaking calling for new forms of management and leadership. In particular, Professor O’Hare cited the works of Ron Heifetz at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government who has written extensively on the topic of adaptive leadership. Professor O’Hare noted that this form of leadership may be a useful framework in nuclear waste facility siting. Professor O’Hare reinforced the importance of trust in this matter and, while he recognized that many stakeholders did not trust the Department to implement an effective siting program, he raised the question as to what other entity may be sufficiently trustworthy to carry out such an important and complex undertaking. He also offered his insight that citizens will consider assuming some level of risk if they believe it has a greater community or societal benefit and that this approach has realized a greater rate of success than simply providing compensation to host communities.

The final panel member to speak was Professor Jennifer Richter from Arizona State University who discussed environmental justice as a framework for incorporating different social and political values into a consent-based siting process. Broadly speaking, Professor Richter observed that environmental justice principles would call for a consent-based siting process that would fully address the risks and benefits of agreeing to become a community for the management of nuclear waste. It would also recognize the historical context of these communities in relation to nuclear projects and other hazardous sites, economic options (or a lack thereof), and how power and information should be shared equally and equitably throughout the siting effort. Finally, it would have a structure that encourages participation from voices rarely heard in nuclear waste debates and account for barriers to participation that may be prevalent within these communities. Professor Richter further elaborated on environmental justice from three perspectives: distributive justice, recognition justice, and participatory justice. Professor Richter used these themes to discuss the political and cultural patterns that result in inequitable burdens being placed on marginal and vulnerable populations. With respect to nuclear waste, Professor Richter described her research on New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and how the lessons from that experience may be applied to today’s challenges. 

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 decision-making process by which the Department chose the locations for these public meetings, the low levels of trust by stakeholders in the Department, and the status of WIPP and the effect the operation of this facility has on residents. Additional topics of dialogue included private initiatives for storage and their relationship to Department of Energy efforts; the methodologies the federal government uses to assess relative cancer risk; and the degree to which the Department’s consent-based siting effort comports to Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income & Minority Populations, 1994. 

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: