to the WIPP site in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Observing that “early coordination and effective communications with state, tribal, and local governments is essential to the ultimate success of any nuclear waste transportation safety program,” the WIEB Report Card urged OCRWM to “look to the WIPP program as a model” in several areas, including “transportation planning similar to the WIPP Program Implementation Guide” (WIEB, pp. 2-3). WIEB gave the OCRWM program an “F” for its failure to model the Yucca Mountain transportation program after WIPP and for terminating funding for the regional cooperative agreement groups (ibid., p. 2). The Midwestern states followed the West’s lead in the late 1990s when the region identified regional planning as a “key issue.” By that time, the Midwest had more experience working with the FRR Spent Fuel Acceptance Program, which began conducting cross-country shipments of FRR spent nuclear fuel from the Savannah River Site to Idaho National Laboratory in 1999. This experience prompted the Midwest to recommend that OCRWM follow the regional planning process established by both the WIPP and FRR programs (MRMTC 2008a, p. 4). 11 In 1998, in the first “letter of consensus” co-signed by the regional groups, the four regions stated their shared opinion that the regional groups were a “valuable resource” that OCRWM should tap “to do the work they are uniquely qualified to do” (Niles et al. 1998, p. 3). The signatories further stated that the states had not only a “willingness but a deep commitment to working together to achieve the shared goal of safe radioactive materials transportation” (ibid.). In general, OCRWM has demonstrated a commitment to conducting its transportation planning activities in coordination with the states. In 2003, after a lengthy hiatus in transportation- related activities, OCRWM published its Transportation Strategic Plan in which the program committed to “conduct a thorough, open, and collaborative planning process with interested parties,” including the states (DOE 2003, p. 2). The program acknowledged the success of the WIPP, FRR, and other programs, and pledged to use “a collaborative process that incorporates the successful elements from transportation systems developed for other DOE programs” (ibid.). The Transportation Strategic Plan even went so far as to declare that the “state regional groups will anchor our collaborative process with the states” (ibid., p. 4). The 2007 pre-decisional draft of the transportation plan maintained a commitment to work “with interested parties through a collaborative planning process seeking input for developing specific policies and procedures and key program decisions” (DOE 2007a, p. 32). Like the Transportation Strategic Plan , the draft plan stated that the regional groups would “anchor the collaborative process with the states” (ibid.). 12 The commitment to a “collaborative planning process”was perhaps inspired by the findings of OCRWM’s “Benchmarking” report in 2007. Based on feedback from various programs that had successfully shipped
spent fuel or other radioactive waste, the report recommended that OCRWM“make cooperative shipment planning the rule, not the exception” (DOE 2007c, p. 33). The report cited an observation from DOE’s FRR program that one result of stakeholder involvement is “greatly increased confidence that any reasonably predictable contingency has been prepared for” (ibid., p. 34). The same official reportedly added that “lack of involvement, and the resulting consequences, can be extremely expensive” (ibid.). OCRWM repeated its commitment to “work cooperatively”with stakeholders in the 2009 version of the transportation plan. In commenting on the 2009 plan, three of the regional groups co- signed a letter to OCRWM that offered the opinion that “federal- state consultation is central to SNF/HLW transportation, and how DOE plans to promote cooperation with states should be evident in all aspects of the [National Transportation Plan]” (DOE 2009, p. 1). The regions further expressed concern that OCRWM understood “’consultation and cooperation’ to consist largely of a review-and- comment function involving the states, through the regional groups, and other stakeholders”— a view that was “not consistent with the states’ vision of what consultation and cooperation mean” (Niles et al. 2009, p. 1). WIEB’s JimWilliams elaborated on these ideas in his 2009 paper on federal-state consultation, asserting that, “for states, federal-state consultation (or ‘constructive engagement’) in all aspects of SNF transport has become a first concern — the basis for an acceptable process of assessment, consideration and decision on all other issues” (Williams 2009a, p. 2). According toWilliams, the “states have said, ‘With full consultation, large-scale cross-country transport of SNF is possible; without full
11 The Midwest incorporated this key issue into its Planning Guide for Shipments of Radioactive Materials through the Midwestern States , advocating that “Coordination and consultation with the affected states should take place through the regularly scheduled meetings of the Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee” (MRMTC 2008b, p. 7). 12 The plan also indicated that OCRWM was “developing an internal institutional plan that guides its outreach efforts and outlines the issues being addressed and the resolution mechanisms” (DOE 2007a, p. 32). OCRWM never made this plan available to the public.
76
Made with FlippingBook Annual report