them in planning shipments to a temporary storage facility. As an interim measure, the states can also remain engaged in transportation planning for ongoing shipments conducted by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, with the goal of influencing the planning process and, ideally, setting a precedent for how shipments of commercial spent fuel will be conducted if federal interim storage becomes a reality. Finally, to implement any plan for centralized interim storage, OCRWM would first need to obtain authorization and funding from Congress. The states, therefore, may have an opportunity to use the political process to influence any interim storage enabling legislation so that their concerns related to transportation are adequately addressed.
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Through the NWPA, as amended, the responsibility for licensing and operating a geologic repository for the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste was assigned to OCRWM, including the responsibility for developing and utilizing a national transportation system by which to ship waste from commercial and DOE sites to a federal repository or storage site. OCRWM has received much criticism for its delays in developing and managing the repository program. Management challenges have been identified as one of the main causes for the delays in the repository program. Over the nearly three decades of OCRWM’s existence, several stakeholder groups, oversight bodies, and OCRWM itself have examined the management structure of OCRWM and presented suggestions for improving this structure. Reports by the NWTRB and the NAS have explored the internal and external management challenges that OCRWM has faced. Within an underfunded repository program, the transportation program did not fare well, being assigned a low priority within OCRWM, thereby making it difficult to enter into long-term contracts required to develop the transportation infrastructure. Changes to the structure of the transportation program to increase its autonomy and ensure adequate funding would greatly improve the chances for developing a successful transportation system by which to ship the nation’s spent fuel and high-level waste. The document that deals with OCRWM’s transportation management structure in the most detail is Going the Distance , the NAS report on the safe transport of spent fuel and high-level waste in the United States. In the report, the NAS found that under the current organizational structure, OCRWM’s transportation program will have a very difficult time carrying out a large, decentralized, long-lasting, and complex shipping campaign that involves numerous stakeholders from the public and private sectors. The NAS found that OCRWM’s transportation staff “are working within a difficult organizational structure and in a political environment that could make success close to impossible” (NAS 2006, p. 272). The NAS identified specific challenges facing the transportation program, including limited control over its budget and limited
states joined their counterparts in the West and the Northeast in cautioning the program about the need to prepare for accelerated institutional planning. The comments came in the context of the regions’ input on OCRWM’s draft “National Transportation Plan” issued in January 2009. Among the joint comments, the regions stated that, “Ideally, DOE’s transportation plan would be applicable to any large-scale campaign to move spent fuel, regardless of the origins and destination. Such a plan would make the work valuable not just for the limited case of a Yucca Mountain repository but also for whatever alternative plan or plans Congress and the current administration develop (e.g., alternatives that utilize public or private regional storage facilities)” (Niles et al. 2009, p. 2). Because of budget cuts related to the Obama Administration’s plan to cancel the Yucca Mountain repository, OCRWM did not respond to the comments it received on the “National Transportation Plan.” At the end of 2009, the GAO issued a report that examined three alternatives for long-term management of spent fuel, one of which was centralized interim storage. The report identified transportation as a “third challenge to centralized storage” because “nuclear waste would likely have to be transported twice” unless the storage facility were co-located with the repository (GAO 2009, p. 32). The NWPA forbids any such co-location. The GAO’s observation is consistent with the Midwestern states’ concern about spent fuel traveling much longer distances than necessary to reach a final disposal location. There is little that the states can do to resolve this issue other than to continue their vocal support for having transportation factor into the identification of a site or sites for interim storage. The states can also advocate for OCRWM or its successor to involve
113
Made with FlippingBook Annual report