Consent-based Siting in the United States Timothy A. Frazier June 9, 2016

Background and Timeline 1982: Congress Passes the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) 1986: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recommends 3 sites for further study 1987: Congress amends the NWPA and directs DOE to study only one site, Yucca Mountain : DOE studies Yucca Mountain extensively Feb 2002: DOE recommends Yucca Mountain to President Bush Apr 2002: Nevada Governor Guinn send formal notice of disapproval to Congress July 2002: President Bush signs joint congressional resolution approving Yucca Mountain as the repository site June 2008: DOE submits Yucca Mountain license application to the NRC 2009: Obama administration decides Yucca Mountain is not a “workable solution” and DOE suspends all activities SaRaM2

Blue Ribbon Commission On America’s Nuclear Future Jan 2010: President Obama directs DOE Secretary Chu to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission On America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) Jan 2012: BRC recommends DOE use a consent-based approach to siting consolidated storage and deep geological repository January 2013: DOE releases strategy based largely on BRC recommendations March 2015: Secretary Moniz announces the pursuit of a consent-based siting approach for storage and disposal of commercial and defense waste SaRaM3

Current Situation in the United States BRC recommendation have been broadly endorsed, including DOE Recognition that the “top-down” approach will not work Non-governmental groups and environmental groups support consent-based siting DOE’s development of consent-based siting process Office of Nuclear Energy Bipartisan Policy Center Nuclear Waste Initiative Private companies and volunteer sites Waste Control Specialist in west Texas Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance in southeast New Mexico SaRaM4

Office of Nuclear Energy Effort Published an “Invitation for Public Comment” on December 23, 2015 Questions from the invitation for public comment: How can the Department ensure that the process for selecting a site is fair? What models and experience should DOE use in designing the process? Who should be involved in the process for selecting a site, and what is their role? What information and resources do you think would facilitate your participation? What else should be considered? Kickoff meeting on of January 20, 2016 in Washington, DC SaRaM5

Office of Nuclear Energy Public Engagement Efforts Regional public meetings to: “…to hear from the public, communities, states, Tribal Nations, and all interested stakeholders on what matters to you as we move forward in developing a consent-based process.” Meeting locations: Chicago, Illinois on March 29 th Atlanta, Georgia on April 11 th Sacramento, California on April 26 th Denver, Colorado on May 24 th Boston, Massachusetts on June 2, 2016 Tempe, AZ on June 23, 2016 Boise, ID on July 14, 2016 Minneapolis, MN on July 21, 2016 SaRaM6

DOE Regional Meeting Format Open to all public Presentation by John Kotek, Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Panelists from the region selected for their diverse views and opinions Panel discussion, questions and answers Facilitated small group discussion Public Comment SaRaM7

Next Steps for DOE Continue to post summary reports for the regional meetings (and the facilitated small groups) Release later this year a draft report that documents comments submitted as part of the Invitation for Public Comment and the regional public meetings Plans to solicit comments on the draft report Additional information is available at SaRaM8

Bipartisan Policy Center Bipartisan think tank in Washington, DC Nuclear Waste Initiative began in January 2014 “America’s Nuclear Future: Taking Action to Address Nuclear Waste” project Reestablish the urgency felt after the BRC report was issued in January 2012 Established Nuclear Waste Council Now chaired by former Governor Sonny Perdue and former Congressman Norm Dicks Held a series of invitation only events to discuss nuclear waste and the potential paths forward Series of topical reports on storage, transportation, states’ rights, and Yucca Mountain Currently focused on developing and documenting recommendations for a consent-based siting process Discussed consent-based siting during a visit to New Mexico and Texas Released later this summer More information at SaRaM9

Waste Control Specialist, Andrews County, Texas Proposed consolidated storage ≤ 40,000 MT License application submitted to NRC, April 2016 Andrews County Commissioners have unanimously adopted a resolution of support for the WCS proposal Support from Texas congressional delegation State Support Industry partners: AREVA TN and NAC International SaRaM10

Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance Proposed consolidated storage Secured land Strong local government and public support Informed public and county Very familiar with nuclear waste disposal Home of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Governor of New Mexico sent letter to DOE Secretary Moniz in April 2015 supporting the proposal Congressional delegation is cautious Industry partner: Holtec SaRaM11

WCS and Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance Location SaRaM12

Consent-based Siting Themes in the United States Must flow from down-up vs. top-down Local, county, state participate in consent Regional consent? State needs some regulatory authority Negotiated Legislated “We don’t consent.” or “No is no.” Trust is vital Public does not trust DOE New federal corporation recommended by BRC could renew trust Transportation concerns Not subject to consent SaRaM13

Questions? Contact information: Tim Frazier SaRaM14