WikiPolicyCONSENSUS-BUILDING THROUGH POLICY DESIGN

1

Wiki*

Open-source software designed to help people involved in a

common task to achieve goals

A web-based content management system that allows writing,

organizing and modifying content, provides procedures to manage

workflow in a collaborative environment

Allows structure to emerge according to the needs of the users and are generally initiated in the spirit of facilitative leadership, without a

defined owner

2

*Adapted from Wikipedia article [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki]

Left/Right & Interest Politics

State Innovation Exchange (SIX)

Provides an online database of liberal and progressive legislation for

politicians and activists to replicate and enact in state legislatures.

Nonprofit, founded in 2012 and formed from merger of American

Legislative and Issue Campaign (ALICE) and Progressive States Network

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

Works to advance through state legislation the fundamental principles

of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism

Nonprofit, founded in 1973, originally as the "Conservative Caucus of

State Legislators“

Advocates for individual, group, issue and corporate interest

3

WikiPolicy –

A Collaborative Middle-way

Wiki software used as platform for collaboration

Policy development access opened beyond the traditional elite

and vested interests

Is synergistic with – and does not supplant – executive and

legislative policy making

Process focused on being inclusive and results oriented;

participation is based on a shared commitment to achieving an

outcome

Consensus is the goal; but differences are accepted and captured

Process is moderated

4

WikiPolicy Pilot:

Nuclear WasteREBUILDING A CONSENSUS-FOCUSED SOLUTION FOR MANAGING AND

DISPOSING OF AMERICA’S NUCLEAR WASTE

5

Purpose

Designing changes to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act will be the pilot to demonstrate proof of concept and process viability

The goal is to recapture a 1982-like national consensus on the legislative path-forward for managing and disposing of America’s nuclear waste

The project purpose is to offer specific consensus provisions for amending the NWPA; or optional provisions when consensus cannot be reached

Consensus provisions will have demonstrated broad-based national, tribal, regional, local, corporate, public, and non-governmental support

6

Focus

Storage and disposal facilities regulated, sited, constructed, and

operated within a consent-based and sustainable partnership with

a host state, tribe, region, community and public across multiple-

generations

Single-purpose Management and Disposal Organization (MDO)

accountable for implementing a comprehensive and integrated

nuclear waste management system

Program funding made available at the required amount and at

the time needed

Cross-country and intrastate transportation corridor community real

and perceived safety, security and economic risks addressed explicitly

7

Assumptions

While positive momentum is building for legislative action, barriers

can threaten forward motion as potentially impacted host and

corridor states engage

The prospect for rebuilding a national consensus path forward is

stronger when stakeholders can help craft the solution

Transitioning from general ideas to specific statutory language offers

the best prospect for regaining a national consensus

Project effectiveness will require being conducted under the

auspices of a non-partisan, independent, and non-governmental

organization

“Sponsorship” by a bi-partisan/bi-cameral set of legislators would

offer the greatest chance of due consideration in Congress

Final action is more likely in the next session of Congress; therefore

project time period can be at least 18 months

8

Stakeholders

Anyone who can potentially approve, promote, impede, or block

the siting of a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility or potentially

impede transportation of waste to the sites

Stakeholder wants, fears, and expectations need to be understood

and considered in solution development

Candidate stakeholders are those potentially influential at national,

state, tribal, regional, transportation corridor, and/or community

levels

Transportation corridor “stakeholders” are as integral to a national

solution as potential host states and communities

9

Inputs Direction from Congress through authorization or appropriation language

Draft legislation and Congressional record promulgated by committees or

members of Congress

Conclusions from corporate and non-governmental sectors, including past

work of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council

Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission for America’s Nuclear Future

Technical papers solicited by the BRC

The documentation of public input to the BRC and its draft report

Administration Strategy in response to the BRC findings and recommendations

Extensive stakeholder input provided through other initiatives, such as

recently conducted by Bipartisan Policy Center

International lessons learned, such as Sweden, Finland, France and Canada

Any other relevant primary or secondary sources

10

Four-phased Process1. Process preparation; inputs collection from primary and secondary

sources

2. Multi-day stakeholder assembly

Open to interested plant operator, private sector, NGO, tribal, governmental, and public interest stakeholders

Identify common or differing positions and principles that could underpin prospective legislation

Public and stakeholder access enhanced by web live streaming and use of other advanced social media

WikiBill training for all participants

3. Policy leaders and policy/subject matter experts in an iterative design process, supported by expert and stakeholder task teams

4. Model legislation dissemination and advocacy with Congress

11

Steps 12

Phase I | X months Phase 2 | X months Phase 3 | X months Phase 4 | X months

Summary

The NWPA, as amended in 1987, must be substantially modified to

advance national nuclear waste management and disposal

Model legislation, using Wiki as the drafting platform, offers a

heretofore untapped mechanism around which a 1982-like national

consensus could be rebuilt

A Stakeholder Assembly, supporting task teams, Policy Group

meetings and Wikidrafting will devise the model legislation

The process is iterative, builds on related historical efforts and

analyses, and embraces previous attempts at legislative solutions

Draft model legislation will be available to engage the the 115th

Congress and 45th President (circa 2017)

13

Background

14

Status

The Government is responsible for disposing of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and

the beneficiaries of nuclear power are expected to pay the cost

The aspirations of the 1987 amendments to establish a repository or interim

storage facility have not yet been realized; the default is indefinite SNF

storage on-site at operating reactors or decommissioned sites

Rather than rate payers bearing the cost, $4 billion taxpayer-financed

payments have been made to utilities for government failure to begin

receiving SNF in 1998; liabilities are projected to be $23 billion over the next

50 years

Congress has not funded the program since FY2010; the Administration has

declared the Yucca Mountain project “unworkable;” DOE maintains only a

skeletal staff.

Yucca Mountain licensing is advancing in response to a Court mandate and

availability of surplus funds. NRC issued the Safety Evaluation Report and a

Supplemental EIS is in process

15

Status [continued] With an appropriation, NRC could adjudicate the nearly 300 legal and

technical contentions admitted by the licensing board.

Nevada continues to oppose Yucca Mountain becoming a repository and

would defend its contentions during licensing hearings

Even with funding, DOE unlikely to be an active defender of its license

application under this Administration

Absent federal initiative, storage sites in TX and NM have been proposed

DOE has “unmingled” defense HLW and commercial SNF for disposal in a

repository and will study the viability of deep boreholes

NRC’s Continued Storage Rule is under legal challenge and potentially

subject to remand; hearings are scheduled for Fall 2015; decision possible in

Spring 2016

Communities around newly decommissioning sites are challenging the

potential for indefinite onsite SNF storage

Industry warns that additional nuclear power plants may be shuttered

16