Perspectives on Consent
Based-Siting
Michael Voegele
Strategy for the Management and Disposal
of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste. January 2013
• Followed the Blue Ribbon Commission
Recommendations
• With appropriate authorizations from
Congress, the Administration plans a:
– Pilot interim storage facility by 2021
– Larger interim storage facility by 2025
– Geologic repository by 2048.
• That Strategy formed the basis for the proposed
Senate legislation introduced in 2013 and 2015
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act -I
• The Nuclear Waste Policy Act remains the
applicable legislation governing high-level
radioactive waste disposal.
– The Secretary of Energy determined in February 2002
that the Yucca Mountain site was suitable for
development as a repository and recommended it to the
president, who approved it
– Nevada submitted a Notice of Disapproval, as allowed
by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The position of the
State of Nevada is that Yucca Mountain is scientifically
flawed and it fails to conform to numerous laws.
– Congress overrode the Notice of Disapproval and
passed H.J.R 87 approving Yucca Mountain for
development as a repository in July 2002.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act -II
• During nearly eight years of administration efforts
to delay and dismantle the Yucca Mountain
Project, not once has there been a meaningful
effort to rescind the Designation
• The effort to withdraw the License Application was
found to be inconsistent with the Act; nonetheless,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acted
unilaterally to stop the licensing review.
• Affected local governments and interested parties
filed the lawsuits that resulted in the mandamus
order that forced the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to complete the review
The Nuclear Waste Administration Act
of 2015: S. 854 - I
Chairman Alexander :
• ….. let me be clear: Yucca Mountain can and should be
part of the solution. Federal law designates Yucca
Mountain as the nation’s repository for used nuclear fuel.
• To continue to oppose Yucca Mountain because of
radiation concerns is to ignore science – as well as the
law.
• The next steps on Yucca Mountain … restarting the
hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
• Money is available for these activities, and I want to hear
why there is no request to use it.
The Nuclear Waste Administration Act
of 2015: S. 854 - II
• Chairman Shimkus:
• ….. open to interim but there always has to be a nexus
to Yucca, otherwise you’re not going to have interim
• ….. have an obligation to uphold the law to dispose of
commercial spent nuclear fuel, as well as honor the
commitment made to States who host sites to support
our nuclear defense activities….
• …the issue of the nation’s nuclear waste management
policy is not a partisan issue. The House of
Representatives has repeatedly supported Yucca
Mountain in an overwhelming and bipartisan manner.
• Last summer, efforts to abandon Yucca Mountain were defeated
on the House floor with the body voting four to one in favor of
Yucca Mountain. This includes nearly 2/3 of the Chamber’s
Democrats
Attempts at Consent-Based Siting
• In 1974, the Regional Surface Storage
Facility Environmental Statement was
withdrawn because of concerns waste
facilities could become permanent
• The National Waste Terminal Storage
program rollout resulted in unrelenting
pressure from the states on President Carter
to change its focus
• Proposition 15 in California in 1976 put
significant pressure on the federal
government to find a disposal solution
Attempts at Consent-Based Siting
• Carter’s Interagency Review Group
recommended that cooperative
agreements that did not force either
federal preemption or state veto should be
employed
President Carter’s Principles for
Radioactive Waste Management
• A new Executive Planning Council would have
primary responsibility for setting nuclear waste
policy with federal, state, and local institutions
working collaboratively.
• State consultation and concurrence would lead to
an acceptable solution of the waste disposal
problem only if the states participated as partners
in the program being put forward.
• The right of federal preemption if relations
between the federal government and the state
reached an impasse.
The NWPA‘s Who Gets to Make
the Decision Controversy -I
• The State Planning Council’s position on the
absolute veto:
– Did not support the political position that states
should have an absolute veto,
– The recommendation for the final siting decision
for a high-level radioactive waste repository was
for a statutorily defined conflict resolution
mechanism that called upon the president or the
Congress to make the final siting decision if the
parties reached an impasse.
The NWPA‘s Who Gets to Make
the Decision Controversy -II
• Advice provided by the Comptroller
General regarding federal preemption:
– We further concluded that if all state
concurrence efforts fail, the federal
government may have to act unilaterally to
override state and local opposition and select
the best repository site available. The waste
problem is already of such paramount
importance that a solution must be obtained,
even if one or more segments of the public
are dissatisfied.
The NWPA‘s Who Gets to Make
the Decision Controversy -III
• Senator McGovern’s attempt at the absolute
veto:
• Tabled by Senate
– … for years we have been trying to find a
permanent depository for the wastes we have
already created. As yet, we have not found a
state government that has been willing to accept
that depository. I think that it is a suggestion of
what lies in store for the country if we adopt this
amendment in its present form. The problem we
face would become unsolvable.
The NWPA‘s Who Gets to Make
the Decision Controversy -IV
• Senator Proxmire’s attempt at the absolute
veto:
• Placed hold / threatened to filibuster to kill the
bill:
– Two solutions offered; one house uphold notice of
disapproval or both houses vote to override
– In late December 1982, the last hurdle to the
passage to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was
overcome. At the end of a four-year effort, the bill
became law.
Promulgation of 10 CFR 960
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
February 7, 1983 - Department of Energy proposed 10 CFR Part 960
– Five public hearings, briefings, and Agency coordination
June 2, 1983 Department of Energy issued draft revised general guidelines
– Consultation
August 1, 1983 - Draft Final 10 CFR Part 960
– Two general consultation meetings
Department of Energy finalized 10 CFR 960
March 14, 1984 - Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued preliminary
concurrence
July 10, 1984 - Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued final concurrence
December 6, 1984 - Department of Energy issued final 10 CFR 960
July 22, 1985 – Nuclear Regulatory Commission amended 10 CFR 60 for
disposal in the unsaturated zone
– Neither the Environmental Protection Agency nor the Department of
Energy amended its rules to conform
Critz George’s Perspective
I was personally involved in developing the repository siting
guidelines, with all the consultation prescribed by the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act. In virtually every case, the comments
forthcoming from those consultations were blatant attempts to
doctor the guidelines so as to exclude their states or
communities by whatever means could be contrived. No severe
winter weather, no nearby surface water, no underground water,
no mountains, no states without nuclear power plants, no
tourism, no food industry or farming, no impact on protected
lands or scenic vistas, no affected population. The list went on.
There was little or no cooperation that could be construed as
helpful in finding the safest and most practicable sites.
Discussion Topics
• 10 CFR Part 72 exists (Licensing Requirements for the Independent
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level Radioactive Waste, and
Reactor-related Greater Than Class C Waste)
– Technical filter not social filter
• 10 CFR 960 has some social filter attributes
– Developed for repository site selection
– Nuclear Regulatory Commission on record that Part 60 is not correct
– Doesn’t address consent-based approach
• Should siting criteria be in place before interim storage sites are
identified?
– Does it make sense to select a site before criteria are established
– How can the process to develop needed social filters be done fairly
– How can consent based approaches be built into social filters