Designing a Consent-Based Siting Process: Summary of Public Input, Final Report

The successful siting of nuclear waste management facilities, through a consent-based process, is predicated on a robust and transparent dialogue between the Department and its stakeholders. From December 23, 2015 through July 31, 2016, DOE solicited and received public comments and heard input from a wide range of individuals, communities, states, Tribes, and stakeholders through the multiple avenues described above. Over this period, DOE received approximately 450 unique pieces of correspondence and over 10,000 form letters providing a wide range of input, thoughts, and perspectives on consent-based siting, waste management, and nuclear energy. An additional 56 unique pieces of correspondence and 45 form letters were received on the draft version of this report, during the public comment period between September 16, 2016, and October 30, 2016.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the major themes that emerged from the regional public meetings, other interactions with stakeholders at meetings and conferences, responses to the Invitation for Public Comment, and comments on an earlier draft of this report. The report also attempts to reflect the breadth and diversity of views expressed and topics identified to date by meeting participants and commenters. Given the volume of input gathered, this report could not and does not attempt to reflect every comment or opinion the Department received or heard during this initial phase of its public engagement effort. Furthermore, this report does not provide background information about nuclear waste, nor does it attempt to review the history of nuclear waste management efforts in the United States or worldwide. 

Rather, the sole objective of this report is to offer an overview of what DOE has heard to date concerning consent-based siting. To that end it includes a selection of direct quotations, from written comments and meeting transcripts, that are intended to reflect the different perspectives and often strongly held views of a large and diverse group of participants. This report does not attempt to respond to or assess the validity of the comments DOE received nor does it propose a framework or model for conducting a consent-based siting process