therefore the department has not worked with the states and Tribes to develop an acceptable approach to funding transportation safety programs like those in place for WIPP shipments. In addition, because Section 180(c) applies only to shipments conducted under the NWPA, states and Tribes would not be eligible for assistance in connection with SNF shipments to private storage facilities. The BRC as a whole combined the reports of the Subcommittees on Transportation and Storage, Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology, and Disposal with information gathered from meetings and comments from groups like the MRMTC to release its draft report on July 29, 2011. This draft report laid out a strategy with seven key elements: 1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities. 2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. 3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. 4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities. 5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated interim storage facilities. 6. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development. 7. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and security concerns (BRC 2011b, p. iv). Since the release of the BRC draft report represented the largest development in SNF policy since 1987, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act was passed, it was imperative that state legislators and executive agency officials, nuclear utility representatives, citizen and tribal organizations, and the general public were well informed of the implications. For this reason, the MRMTC, the BRC, and the Midwestern Legislative Conference’s Energy Committee hosted a public meeting on October 28, 2011, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The meeting agenda featured presentations and panels in the morning and breakout sessions and public comments in the afternoon. Indiana State Sen. Beverly Gard was one of several state officials to speak at the meeting. She praised the BRC for its work and highlighted areas of major concern for Indiana and other Midwestern states, including route selection: “Route selection must give the state ample lead time to deal with highway or rail construction and maintenance projects and to assess the suitability of infrastructure along the route” (Gard 2011). MRMTC Co-Chair Paul Schmidt of Wisconsin also spoke at the meeting and asked the commission to more extensively capture the role for states in transportation. He specifically recommended that DOE work with states to finalize the NWPA Section 180(c) policy and procedures and create a reciprocal rail inspection program that mirrors the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Level VI inspection program.
The MRMTC submitted comments on the draft report on November 1, 2011. The committee requested that the final report “adopt the language of the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee draft report: ‘State, tribal, and local officials need to be extensively involved in transportation planning and be provided the resources necessary to conduct their vital function in this arena’” (Schmidt and Runyon 2011b, p. 2). These final comments also contained the previously stated requests for consent-based siting, reciprocal rail inspections, and for DOE to finalize its policy for implementing Section 180(c). Nearly three months later, on January 26, 2012, the BRC submitted its final report to then Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu. The final report contained the seven-point strategy from the original draft report but also added an eighth element, “Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high- level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available” (BRC 2012, p. vii). Thanks in large part to the efforts of the MRMTC, other regional entities, and state-level stakeholders, the BRC’s final recommendation included the prompt preparation for large-scale shipments. These testimonies, comments, and advocacy convinced the commission that transportation was not so far off in the future to warrant delaying these critical activities until storage and/or disposal sites were decided upon. Furthermore, another big priority of the states made it into the final report: “…DOE should (1) finalize procedures and regulations for providing technical assistance and funds for training to local governments and tribes pursuant to Section 180(c) of the NWPA and (2) begin to provide such funding, independent from progress on facility siting” (ibid., p. xiii). With its final report submitted, the BRC disbanded, and DOE and the Obama Administration were left with the task of implementing the commission’s recommendations. In January 2013, DOE outlined how it planned to implement the BRC’s recommendations in its “Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level RadioactiveWaste.”As outlined in the introduction, the “Strategy” aimed to accomplish three tasks: First, it serves as a statement of Administration policy regarding the importance of addressing the disposition of [spent] nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste…Second, it presents the Administration’s response to the final report and recommendations made by the [BRC]…Third, this strategy represents an initial basis for discussions among the Administration, Congress and other stakeholders on a sustainable path forward for disposal of nuclear waste (DOE 2013, p. 1). The “Strategy” elaborated on DOE’s planned actions to accomplish said tasks. According to the “Strategy,”DOE’s waste management system would include a pilot interim storage facility, a larger interim storage facility, and a DGR. The department would prioritize taking SNF from shut-down reactors first and site all facilities in a consent-based manner. DOE aimed to begin operations at the pilot interim facility by 2021, the larger interim facility by 2025, and the DGR by 2048 (ibid., p. 2). Perhaps most important to the MRMTC, “The Department … established cooperative agreements with state and regional groups and engaged tribal representatives to begin discussions on
11
Made with FlippingBook Annual report