with Tribes (MRMTC RTE Work Group 2020a). The group also agreed to recommend to the MRMTC and to the NTSF that tribal lands be honored and acknowledged at the start of committee meetings (MRMTC RTE Work Group 2020b, pp. 2-3). The Midwestern states and the Tribes that actively follow the committee’s work have benefited from the project to increase tribal engagement. It will be important, however, to expand the number of engaged Tribes. The success of this activity will depend upon the extent to which committee members seek out tribal contacts. It will also depend upon there being a reasonable chance of shipments taking place in the near term in order to give Tribes a reason to want to get involved. The effort by private entities to site CISF facilities may provide the near-term context for elevating transportation planning and preparedness as a priority for Tribes. Principal among the issues that the states and Tribes have in common with such private shipments is the absence of funding and technical assistance in connection with SNF shipments that do not fall under the NWPA. Route Selection Transportation of SNF and HLWmay well be the most visible aspect of DOE’s nuclear waste management activities. As such, route identification is an area of key interest to the states, who have long advocated for a consultative process for selecting routes. While DOE has engaged with the states through several venues, the route selection has yet to be finalized. Early identification of routes will allow state and tribal jurisdictions to respond to public concerns about DOE shipments. The factors to be considered in route selection are spelled out in the rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) (49 CFR 172.820), but there is no prioritization, weighting, or hierarchy through which they must be applied (Runyon 2015). The regulations require consultation with states and Tribes but do not prescribe a process for consultation; FRA, which oversees routing, would likely be the body enforcing the consultation aspect of the PHMSA hazmat rail routing rule. Moving forward, the states and Tribes would like to know what authority they will have regarding routing, particularly since railroads are private companies operating on private land and rights-of-way in contrast to highway shipments conducted on public roads. Route selection work between DOE and the states was suspended while the Obama Administration reexamined the nation’s strategy for management and disposal of SNF and HLW. As noted previously, the 2012 report of the BRC contained eight major recommendations, including “prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of SNF and HLW to interim storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available” (BRC 2012, p. vii). Early discussion and identification of shipping routes are consistent with other successful transportation
campaigns such as those under the Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel andWaste Isolation Pilot Plant (DOE-NE 2013a). DOE released its “Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level RadioactiveWaste” in January 2013. While the DOE “Strategy” confirmed, in broad terms, that engagement with state and tribal governments was important in planning the transportation system, it did not mention specific routing principles or describe a process for route selection (DOE 2013). Through a letter dated January 4, 2013, the State Regional Groups communicated the “States’ Expectations for Consultation and Cooperation in Developing and Operating a Transportation System to Move Spent Fuel and High-Level RadioactiveWaste” to DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy. The states expressed the expectation that DOE engage in a consultative process around transportation planning for SNF and HLW, including route selection (CSG Midwest et al. 2013). The model process laid out in the “States’ Expectations” includes meaningful consultation in route selection with substantive input by regional representatives. Adherence to the model process for successful shipping campaigns proposed by the states would involve frequent interactions between DOE and the states as well as a commitment from DOE staff and the states to stay on track. After the TEC/WG was disbanded in 2009, DOE engaged with transportation stakeholders through the NTSF and the Transportation Core Group. Those groups renewed the focus on routing discussions in 2014. In a presentation to the Transportation Core Group at a 2014 meeting in Denver, DOE-NE made the case for moving ahead with the development of a standardized routing process even though a final destination had not been identified. Such a process would identify decision points, highlight opportunities for states and Tribes to have input regarding routing decisions, and ensure regulatory compliance. DOE noted that developing a process for selecting routes without a destination in mind may help keep the work objective; initial routing work would focus on transporting waste from shutdown reactor sites to a Class 1 railroad (Runyon 2014). This focus on routing coincided with DOE’s analysis of near-site transportation infrastructure at the reactor sites that were expected to be shut down by 2021, some of which do not have direct rail access. Route identification continued to be a key area of interest for states and Tribes, leading the Transportation Core Group to convene the R/R AHWG in 2015. The AHWG held its first meeting in May of that year at the NTSF meeting in Albuquerque. Route selection was identified as one of two priorities on which the AHWG members wanted to focus, along with developing a reciprocal rail inspection protocol (R/R AHWG 2015a). Later in 2015, DOE released a draft paper entitled“A Possible Stan- dardized Process for Route Selection for Shipments of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel” to the R/R AHWG. The draft DOE paper proposed a consistent and replicable route identification process for future SNF and HLW shipments to a consolidated interim storage facility or permanent disposal facility. DOE-NE’s proposed route selection process included opportunity for state and Tribal entities to engage with the department on selection of primary and secondary routing criteria and provided an avenue for review and input on routes.
31
Made with FlippingBook Annual report