associations, and industry. Focusing solely on states and Tribes would, it was thought, help the NTSF steer clear of the FACA-related concerns that ultimately led to the TEC/WG’s demise (see Public Information and Outreach in the original archive). CHARTER Like the TEC/WG, the goals and objectives of the NTSF were codified in a charter. This charter was developed jointly by representatives of the SRGs, the Tribal Caucus, and DOE. It departed from the TEC/WG model in making the three organizing groups — DOE, states, and Tribes — responsible for managing and overseeing the forum instead of putting that responsibility solely in DOE’s hands. The Office of Packaging and Transportation within the Office of Environmental Management has been the lead DOE office for the NTSF since its inception. The NTSF charter emphasized action and accountability for all parties. Leading the organization’s work is the NTSF Planning Committee, which is composed of representatives of all SRGs, TRMTC, DOE offices, and other federal agencies. The collaborative management structure was the most significant change from the TEC/WG format because it gave the states and Tribes a sense of ownership in the NTSF — even though the organization remained very much a DOE activity and the chair of the Planning Committee always was a DOE representative (in practice, the director of the Office of Packaging and Transportation). The original NTSF Charter identified three goals of the organization: 1. Inform states and tribes about ongoing, upcoming, or tentatively planned DOE shipments or shipping campaigns that may have an impact on their jurisdictions. 2. Obtain input from states and tribes about concerns, needs, or logistics that is relevant to shipment planning and execution. 3. Identify emerging issues for DOE and its transportation stakeholders that may affect shipment planning, preparedness, and execution, including intergovernmental consultation and cooperation (NTSF 2011, p. 2). The charter has been revised twice since it was first adopted in February 2010. In 2011, the Planning Committee opted to review the charter “to make clear the desire for the NTSF to be an open meeting (to include industry and others), and to address the roles of various organizations” (NTSF PC 2011, p. 2). The revised charter expanded the mission statement to define the forum as an outreach mechanism not just for DOE to engage with states and Tribes but also with “federal agencies and other interested stakeholders” (ibid., p. 1). For reasons related to FACA, the 2011 revision also clarified that the membership of ad hoc working groups and the Planning Committee is “open only to state, tribal, and federal officials” although “other stakeholder organizations” may be engaged “for the purpose of receiving information from such stakeholders or when those stakeholders are presenting their individual advice and recommendations to DOE” (ibid., p. 2). A representative of DOE-GC participated in the group that proposed the revised language and signed off on the new wording.
Waste” (TRMTC 2015). The working group members even developed a rubric to evaluate the collective success of the parties in achieving their shared goals. First proposed by the Midwest while developing the “States’ Expectations,” the rubric defined“the benchmark for interaction among and between all three parties” and was intended “to help all of the parties to assess and improve their efforts, not to levy judgment” (STTCWG 2015, Appendix 1). Despite the enormous value of the work completed — and despite the intense need for a common understanding of the terms of engagement — the paper became yet another victim of the bureaucratic pitfalls that have caused the waste management program to struggle from its very beginnings. DOE’s Office of General Counsel (DOE-GC) alleged that the membership of the group may have violated Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and, for this reason, would not let the original paper go forward. The STTCWG membership was changed to exclude the single non-government author, with the remaining members revising the paper to the extent needed to satisfy the FACA concerns identified by DOE-GC. One of the changes was to the paper’s title: “Consultation and Cooperation: The U.S. Department of Energy Working with States and Tribes on Spent Nuclear Fuel and High- Level Radioactive Waste Transportation Planning” (STTCWG 2016). The intent was for the revised paper to be reviewed and released to the public. However, the November 2017 redirection prevented that from happening. As a result, the paper remains a draft and, in the opinion of CSG Midwest, is not likely ever to be released for publication. Even in draft form, the paper has lasting value as a comprehensive resource for anyone wishing to learn about the history of stakeholder engagement in the federal radioactive waste management program. It also presents a blueprint for future work to articulate a shared vision of consultation and cooperation among the states, Tribes, and DOE or another entity responsible for shipping SNF in the future.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDERS FORUM BACKGROUND
In 2010, during the brief hiatus in DOE activities related to the former Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the department held the first meeting of the NTSF. The NTSF organized in August 2009 as a truly cooperative activity involving states, Tribes, and the Office of Packaging and Transportation within the DOE Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM). The successor to the disbanded TEC/WG, the NTSF improved upon the earlier national group in important ways. First, the founders established the NTSF as “the mechanism through which DOE communicates at a national level with states and Tribes about the Department’s shipments of radioactive waste and materials, as well as occasional high visibility shipments that are nonradioactive” (NTSF 2010, p. 1). This emphasis on states and Tribes was in distinct contrast to the TEC/WG, whose membership went beyond these key partners to include local governments, professional and trade
23
Made with FlippingBook Annual report