INTRODUCTION
This document compiles information on the transportation-related issues that The Council of State Governments Midwestern Office (CSG Midwest) and the Midwestern states have encountered during almost 30 years of working with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to plan future shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) as part of the Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management System. Covering the years from 2010-2020, this archive supplements our original archive, “Transportation Institutional Issues Involving the U.S. Department of Energy’s Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management Program,”published in 2010, which covered the years 1991–2009. The supplement contains a great deal of factual information that was checked, as needed (and required), by personnel within DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE). It is important to acknowledge that the document reflects the opinion of the authors — especially the commentary that makes up much of this introduction. Both the supplement and the original archive are included in this document. Because it is the most recent “snapshot” of where things stand with the federal radioactive waste management program, the supplemental content comes first, followed by the original. 1 This sequencing may seem unorthodox; however, it allows the reader to begin with the more recent material and dig deeper into the past if they so desire. The introduction to the 2010 edition observed that the Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management System“would benefit by returning to its roots” (Janairo and Bailey 2010, p. 5). The rationale for this advice was that, during its earliest years, the program (managed by the Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management, or OCRWM) produced a “Transportation Institutional Plan” that was based on a clear understanding of OCRWM’s charge and the challenges it faced: The Department of Energy recognizes that the success of its program to develop and implement a national system for nuclear waste management and disposal…depends not only on safety, but on broad-based public understanding of and confidence in program activities and objectives. While each program element has its particular sensitivity, the transportation of the waste to facilities developed under the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] may be the most visible element nationwide (DOE 1986, p. i). During the most recent decade, there was little evidence of the federal program embracing the concepts of transportation being “most visible” or the importance of “broad-based public understanding of and confidence in program activities and objectives” (ibid.). To be fair, since the turn of the century, DOE has moved gradually and steadily away from the path it started down
with such promise in 1986. It is almost as if success has proven to be so elusive that the program has given up on the “gold standard” of public understanding and acceptance and instead redefined “success” in different terms. Nevertheless, we continue to advocate for the federal program—whenever it operates and whoever is in charge — to commit to this early vision of success. When we published the original archive, we did so to make it “easier for new personnel to learn about what came before,”hoping that “armed with an understanding of what was done, what worked, what did not, and why, the people charged with carrying a new program forward may have a greater chance of success” (ibid., p. 6). This purpose is more important now than it was 10 years ago. As documented in the pages that follow, over the decades, a number of incredibly talented, insightful, smart people worked together and independently to create a sizable body of high-quality work. This work is at risk of being lost because the number of people who hold this institutional knowledge is dwindling. They’re retiring or taking new positions in other programs; sadly, more than a few have died. While a document cannot replace conversation with or direct input from knowledgeable people, the original archive and this supplement will nevertheless be useful to people who understand that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” A second lesson learned from the original archive was the “negative impact of shutting down and attempting to restart program activities” (ibid., p. 5). A program that is on again, off again cannot maintain momentum— it will lose ground. In 2010, we documented the impact of a temporary shutdown from 1998 to 2003, noting that, after work resumed in 2004, “few tangible accomplishments” resulted in the period from 2004-2009. In the most recent decade, there have been three periods during which DOE temporarily scaled back on its activities related to transportation—or, at least, scaled back on engaging states and Tribes in those activities. Once again, it is our opinion that these periods of hiatus set the program back. On the positive side, there have been some notable accomplishments over the decades, including these past 10 years, thanks to many skilled, knowledgeable people who gave this work their best (and, for many of us, their last ) shot. Collectively, with exceptional leadership from frontline DOE personnel and their contractors, and through the voluntary efforts of states and Tribes, real progress was made on the possible future implementation of grants to states and Tribes affected by shipments (see Section 180(c) Ad HocWorking Group, or AHWG ). CSG Midwest and the other state regional groups (SRGs) produced a trio of statements
8
Made with FlippingBook Annual report