Here is the text version of the webinar video, “Consent-Based Siting Consortia: Amplify & Elevate,” presented by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy in August 2024.
…..
Vincent Ialenti:
Presentation cover slide and first slide:
Hello, everyone. I'm Vincent Ialenti, a social scientist in the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Consent-Based Siting. I serve as federal manager for DOE's Consent-Based Siting Consortia effort.
Welcome to “Amplify & Elevate: Expanding the National Conversation on Spent Nuclear Fuel.” This is the fifth installment of our Consent-Based Siting Consortia webinar series. The recording of our previous webinar, which is called “Successes in Siting, a DOE Public Roundtable,” is available on our website, and you can visit our website at energy.gov/consent-based-siting. For today's webinar we're going to reflect on how to scale up, rethink and broaden the national conversation on spent nuclear fuel management. The format is a facilitated listening and discussion session with a very unique and very multitalented group of invitees and members of the Consent-Based Siting Consortia. Joining the discussion will be journalists, energy policy experts, social media influencers and science communicators, communications and advertising professionals, a documentary filmmaker, public engagement specialists and many others. We'll also be joined by leaders of communities that currently host spent nuclear fuel near where they live.
Some of the guests on today's webinar have extensive careers in nuclear fields. Others are new to engaging with the topic, and these are especially valuable. They give us an opportunity to see outside perspectives and help us steer the course forward as we try to make this issue reach new audiences and move center – closer to the center of societal discussion. The insights that emerge today will inform DOE's efforts to site one or more federal consolidated interim storage facilities for commercial spent fuel. However, before we open up this conversation I want to introduce the new acting director of DOE's newly established Office of Consent-Based Siting. Her name is Marla Morales, and we're really lucky over at DOE to benefit from her leadership over the past few months. She's been a fantastic director for our program in her new role. So today Marla will set the stage by providing you as attendees with some context around DOE's consent-based siting efforts. And we're really excited to have her provide some updates and insights into next steps in our program as we move towards a national call for expressions of interest in potentially hosting a federal consolidated interim storage facility. So without further ado, here's Marla Morales. Marla, over to you.
Marla Morales:
Hello, everyone. As mentioned, my name is Marla Morales. I'm the acting director for the Office of Consent-Based Siting, and my office is responsible for siting one or more federal consolidated interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process. The consent-based siting process is a community-led, community-driven process in which we're taking into account community perspectives, ideals, initiatives and information and incorporating them into the process of how you would site a facility. So what makes consent-based siting really special and what we're very excited to be here is, it gives communities a voice in the room. It gives communities a voice in what their situation would look like in their location as we go forward through this process for signing a consolidated interim storage facility. This is not an immediate process. This is not a one- or two-year process. This is a long-term process and a long-term initiative from DOE to really be transparent in what we're doing, to information share, and to incorporate as many perspectives as we can.
Now that's a lot said, and in fall of 2025 DOE will be releasing a national call for expressions of interest. There'll be an opportunity for communities to raise their hand, not to say they want to site the facility, but for them to say they're interested in learning a little bit more about that, a little bit more about what would go into a federal consolidated interim storage facility. Between now and fall 2025, we have a lot of things going on. In spring and summer of next year, we'll be releasing site screen criteria that'll give communities an opportunity to read some of the criteria that they should consider if they want to know a little bit more. We'll also be releasing a consent-based siting process document, which will provide input – or insight, excuse me, into what the process has entailed so far, a little bit of the history where we're at now and where we're going in the future.
There's gonna be a lot of things coming out, a lot of moving parts in the next few months. But I'm really excited, and the consortia has been part of this effort to go forward. They've been really investigating laying the groundwork for us as DOE to understand the landscape of the communities that might be interested. So I look forward to this conversation. Thank-you for joining us, and back to you, Vincent.
Vincent Ialenti:
Well, thank-you, Marla, very much for your remarks.
Next presentation slide:
And today we're going to be asking a group of invited guests a series of questions that we frequently receive at DOE. And we're specifically going to focus on questions about how we can amplify and elevate the national conversation on spent nuclear fuel. This is essential as we move towards the national call for expressions of interest that Marla just laid out for us. So we're thrilled to see so many participants sign up for this group discussion. We have 15 confirmed guests with us today, and we also have representatives from DOE's Consent-Based Siting Consortia on the line, from the 12 project teams that were funded about 2 million dollars each to raise awareness and build capacity and facilitate mutual learning about federal consolidated interim storage and consent-based siting over a two-year performance period. So I'd like to extend a really warm welcome from DOE to all the invited participants. Thank-you so much for joining the conversation today.
Next slide:
So how's this gonna work? Well, we're going to invite each of you to raise your hands in response to whatever questions that I ask as the facilitator or moderator that resonate the most with you as a panelist. To do this, you're going to use the Zoom.gov hand raise feature, and that can be found in the reactions bar at the bottom of the screen. And when you're called upon, you can unmute yourself from Zoom, but maybe give the Comms team a few seconds to put you up and spotlight you so we can all see you from the audience. We have a couple hundred people on the line today watching this. So give them a few seconds to spotlight you, so you can make your comment. We ask that everyone limits their responses to any given question to under three minutes. Roughly, three minutes, max. If you go a little over, it's not the end of the world. But given this really high turnout, we want to make sure that we leave as much time as possible to maximize opportunities for as many folks here to weigh in as we can. If you'd prefer not to weigh in, and this is a unique quirk of our webinar series, that's totally fine as well. In this webinar series, listening and speaking are valued in equal measure. This is a fantastic place to sit and listen and learn as well as speak and share perspectives.
So with that said, the online public audience is invited to listen in and learn alongside of us, and the audience members have a lot to add as well. So we invite audience members to share perspectives with us at DOE in the Consent-Based Siting Consortia program. And you can do that via email. We have a special inbox made just for this. And it's consent-based-siting@hq.doe.gov. That's consent-based-siting@hq.doe.gov.
Next slide:
So now I'd like to talk about some of the confirmed guests we have today. And I'd like to thank the following individuals for joining us on this call. We have Chris Brown, the mayor of Morris, Illinois, on the call today. We have Manuel Camargo, principal manager at Southern California Edison.
Next slide:
We have Mike Casey, a talented communication strategist, and the president of Tigercomm. We have Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task Force. We have Richard Fisher, a journalist who had an illustrious career at BBC and now is moving to Aeon Magazine. We have Kyle Hill, a top science communicator and very influential social media influencer. We have David Hoffman, a top conference producer who specializes in creatively bringing multifaceted groups together in business-to-business environments and other environments. We have Tom Jones, the senior director from PG&E, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, spent a lot of time working with Diablo Canyon. Chuck McCutcheon, a journalist from Axios, who has written books about nuclear topics, nuclear waste topics. We have Nancy Norton, the CEO of the Grundy Economic Development Council, and that's in Illinois. We have Robert Stone, the Oscar- and Emmy-nominated documentary filmmaker. A lot of the nuclear-oriented folks in the audience might know him from films like “Pandora's Promise” or “Radio Bikini.” I'm a huge PBS “American Experience” junkie, so I'm very excited especially to have him on the call today. We have Matthew Wald, the longtime nuclear journalist, currently affiliated with the Breakthrough Institute. Jon Walton from Reos Partners, a global social impact company focused on achieving systems change in innovative and creative ways through communications. Heather Westra representing the Prairie Island Indian Community. And last but not least, we have Emily Wilkins, the president of the National Press Club of the United States. So this is clearly a phenomenally talented, wide, ranging, and experienced group. We're grateful to have you here. We'll do the best we can to hear from as many of you as we can today. That said, I hope that this hour and a half we have together is really just the starting point for a much larger conversation, a conversation between the invited panelists, the Consent-Based Siting Consortia representatives, the U.S. Department of Energy, and all the folks that are tuning in that are have – that are invested in this issue and would like to work with us together to build capacity and facilitate mutual learning around federal consolidated interim storage. So that in mind, let's get started with a question.
Next slide:
And the first question today that I have for you is, given how multitalented this group is, I'm just gonna do a free-for-all question: So what are one or two of your top recommendations that you have for how to rethink or broaden the national conversation on spent nuclear fuel? So you might want to share a best practice and approach you use, or an anecdote from your many experiences. What are some recommendations you can give us for how we can expand the dialogue? And please raise your hand and we can beam you up to the room. And we have Matthew Wald, the journalist from the Breakthrough Institute, first up. Matt, what would you like to share today?
Matthew Wald, Breakthrough Institute:
Switching to view of speaker on camera:
I think you should be inviting people out to kick the tires. Getting into a nuclear plant is cumbersome, but showing people a spent cask, spent fuel cask, telling them it represents 2 to 3 million tons of carbon dioxide not omitted, it represents thousands of childhood asthma attacks that didn't happen. And it's pretty big, dumb, and quiet, will change their opinion. It's not a pot of green goo bubbling in the background that people hide from.
Vincent Ialenti:
Thank-you. We appreciate that. Heather Westra, could we get a perspective from the Prairie Island Indian Community from the Midwest?
Heather Westra, Prairie Island Indian Community:
Yep. Can you hear me?
Vincent Ialenti:
Hear you loud and clear, Heather.
Heather Westra, Prairie Island Indian Community:
Sorry.
Vincent Ialenti:
Welcome to amplify and elevate.
Heather Westra, Prairie Island Indian Community:
Yeah, thank-you. I think this is an important conversation to be having. And I'm Heather Westra. I work for the Prairie Island Indian Community. I've been working on spent fuel issues for most of my professional career here. I'm glad to see the framing, because I think it is a national conversation that needs to be happening. It's not just a local one. And I work for a tribe that's impacted by a commercial nuclear power plant that's right next door to them, that stores waste on site. And you know, for a long time we've been kind of the lone wolf out there working, trying to educate Congress and the legislature on these issues. So if we can broaden the discussion, have a national dialogue cause, I think it's important. And as what Matthew just mentioned with relative to carbon reduction, you know, we're seeing more and more calls for new nuclear to help reach our carbon reduction goals. You know, that – there's cost associated with that that we all need to think about. We're looking at in the future huge energy demands that's got to be met somehow, and nuclear is looking more and more likely. And you know, we all need to be part of – we all need to be aware; we all need to be part of the conversation.
Vincent Ialenti:
Thank-you. We really appreciate that. So we have we – now we can take a view from a Southern California around the San Onofre generating station and some of the decommissioning work that's been done there. There's a lot of conversation about spent nuclear fuel management and our program. So Manuel Camargo, could we hear from you? What perspective can you offer from your specific position and location and region in this national dialogue?
Manuel Camargo, Southern California Edison:
Yeah, thank-you for that. A couple of different things, I think, at a very high level, you know, my 2 cents on this, on how to scale up and rethink is to get organized and raise awareness for this issue. So we worked with – we teamed with local governments, the county level government, a couple of years back, 2021, and formed a coalition. And the coalition, and we are working toward a couple of key things, you know. Raising awareness is one. This is an issue that I think kind of suffers from a lack of attention across the country. In different communities, including the communities around Southern California and the San Onofre nuclear plant, there certainly are folks who have taken a high interest. You know, to Matthew's comment, we do provide public tours twice a twice a month, actually. So our staff volunteers, comes out on a Saturday, and folks can get a walking tour of the facility and get a view of the spent fuel storage facility that you see behind me in the photo here. But so getting organized is one. I think creating awareness is another. So the coalition has done a series of webinars talking about this issue. You know, some folks are skeptical about the concept of consent. So we talk about, you know, domestic examples of consent, like the waste isolation pilot plant, different form of radioactive waste, but still an example of consent. And you know, using technology webinars like this one. You know, we've been able to host the mayors of places in Finland and Sweden, representatives of the Canadian nuclear waste management organization to talk about it. You know, what is working there? What is – what's working in Finland? What's working in Sweden? You may know that Finland is on track to open the world's first permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel by the end of this year. So you know, all under the umbrella of raising awareness. You know, another tack that we've used with the coalition, is we – Heather mentioned the concept of working with the legislature, I think, meaning the state legislature, and we did just get passed a resolution calling for – that calls upon the federal government to perform. And that was passed by the two chambers here in the California Legislature just earlier this month. All really part of trying to raise awareness for this – raise awareness for this issue. So that coalition is called Spent Fuel Solutions. And you know, it's – the end purpose is raising awareness is important. But that the end goal is to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act so that we can augment the DOE's current work on consolidated interim storage facilities to provide a path for the exploration of sites for deep geologic repositories here in the U.S. for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
Vincent Ialenti:
And yeah, Manuel, thank-you so much for this. And thanks for flagging the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as well, because another reason we need to amplify and elevate this issue is that before we can start building this federal consolidated interim storage facility – we can search for sites. We can build capacity. We can raise awareness about the issue. We can drum up lots of support for it. But before we can actually put a shovel in the ground and start building, we legally need to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And by we I mean the country. We have to get this change, so we can push this forward. So thank-you for flagging that particular issue, because part of creating a national dialogue is also to push for things like legislative change, which is necessary for solving the nuclear waste stalemate that we've seen for many decades right now. So thank-you so much. So maybe we could hear from Chuck McCutcheon, who also has a very long, illustrious career writing about nuclear issues in all sorts of different formats. So Chuck, could you give us a view of what you've seen in your many travels, interviewing folks and working for various programs? Maybe you've worked down in WIPP. You wrote a phenomenal book about the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, geologic repository for transuranic nuclear waste – it's influenced a lot of people – that I have read twice. So that's a good review. Chuck, welcome to – welcome. And what would you like to share with the group?
Chuck McCutcheon, Axios:
Well, thank-you. I'm actually in New Mexico right now researching an updated and revised version of the book that I hope to have out sometime in 2025 or 2026. I would just speak in terms of the news media and our needs. You – obviously there is a tremendous task that you have ahead with establishing, building and establishing trust. And I know that previous seminars, people have talked about the fact that the DOE may not be the right entity to establish this trust because of its record, and that there should be a look at a new one. But in terms specifically of working with the news media, I do think that there needs to be early and active outreach. And I do think that you need to cast a wide net, not just with the national media, but you have to specifically look to local journalists, local reporters. Those that are left. Local television stations, radio stations. And I would even reach out to people who are – maybe who's covered these issues from a left-wing perspective or a right-wing perspective, whose views maybe, are not in the mainstream. I think they all need to be brought in, and at least made aware of what is being done. And the example I would like to cite, which I hope, could be adapted in some form is, you know, the DOE has a lot of had a lot of history of you know, stonewalling resisting information, things like that. Another agency that also had that problem was the FBI. And I covered homeland security after 911, and the FBI obviously was limited, very limited, in what it could discuss about its efforts and activities. But the folks at the press office at FBI headquarters in Washington, I thought, did a very shrewd thing. They would have journalists who covered them out once every couple of months for off-the-record sessions, happy hours, and whatnot. And they would be able to just learn who these people were establish relationships, because really, this is all about establishing relationships and building trust. And so I I would encourage you to look at those types of techniques. The other last thing I'll mention is, I was just last night and yesterday at a session in Santa Fe held by EPA on a WIPP permit change request, and EPA, I thought, did a very novel and smart thing. It was an informal session. They had not just EPA officials, but officials from DOE, EPA, the State of New Mexico Environment Department, and Sandia National Laboratories, and for several hours just basically answered, gave a presentation and then answered audience questions on a whole wide range of subjects. And, you know, obviously, given the complexity of this issue, there are a lot of questions, and they went beyond their allotted time, and I think they just showed that one of the hallmarks of this is that you have to be able to listen.
Vincent Ialenti:
Absolutely. And one thing that you said, Chuck, that really resonated with me as I worked on this program is, yeah, there's a lot of historical mistrust in DOE. I mean, there's no way around that. From the Manhattan project to present, there's been no shortage of situations in which DOE has acknowledged significant areas of improvement and lessons learned where things haven't gone the way we wanted. And that's part of why we're doing this consent-based consortia effort. You said the importance of listening as you closed out your – as you closed out your comment. We did have a listening session recently for these same reasons. And we're trying to build mechanisms in the Office of Consent-Based Siting to get as much public feedback, to hear those untold stories, to make sure people are heard and make sure DOE understands that this is a two-way street. We're not just here to disseminate information. We're not sort of dumping data on people only. We have just as much to learn from communities as communities have to learn from us. And that's kind of the heart of consent-based siting. So one thing we did, we hired three social scientists. One of them is me. I'm a cultural anthropologist. At the federal level, at the U.S. Department of Energy, but we also have teams at the national laboratories supporting us, hitting the road, doing interviews and listening to these perspectives, talking to people in communities that currently host spent nuclear fuel. Doing surveys, doing polls, doing sort of long form, unstructured interviews with people from everyone from emergency responders to mothers to local decision makers. So listening is essential to all of this. So I want to thank-you so much for bringing that up –
Chuck McCutcheon, Axios:
Sure. Yeah. And I would say, obviously given its history and the number of facilities in New Mexico, you should definitely, if it's not already on your agenda, I would put the state very high up on there.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah. Southwest is very important. One of our – one of our Consent-Based Siting Consortia project teams, I believe, partners with University of New Mexico as well. So we're trying to get there. And also Arizona. We have Arizona State University operating in that region, as well. So thank-you so much for flagging this, and it's great to see the consortia, too, doing this listening as well. I mean, we just had our quarterly meeting today, and we heard about engagements everywhere from the Kiwanis Club to rotary clubs to someone set up a summer camp to have kids talk about this issue. You know, high school kids flown in to talk about the issue, and going to art events, doing a futures hackathon with a sort of science fiction narratives about potential states of the future related to this issue. So we're trying to do what we can. And I think that you hit the nail on the head. And the larger question of is DOE the right entity for this? Well, we heard the new – we heard what we – the Blue Ribbon Commission said, and we're considering that heavily. So thank-you so much, Chuck, for joining today. We had a hand up previously from Jon Walton from Reos Partners. Jon, did you want to make a comment?
Jon Walton, Reos Partners:
Yeah, sure, I'm happy to jump in real quick here. I just think from our experience, because our work is largely around helping communities and people kind of use this process engagement to develop and work together on complex societal issues. And so for us, talking about the possibilities or the options that enable people to think about the tradeoffs, right, for themselves is really important to help advance these conversations, especially when you talk about national and maybe even at the local level, rather than trying to manipulate them or guide them in one particular direction. That these conversations, where you allow people to share stories and talk about the tradeoffs from their perspectives is really impactful in terms of people really grounding themselves on issues and then be able to engage in a dialogue that's actually productive and helpful for the community. So instead of these pre-formulated answers, we love to put people in a space where they can actually have the discussion for themselves as opposed to kind of being talked to. So that would be the one kind of hint that I would, would lean into for broadening the national conversation.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah, I really appreciate that. Could you give a few examples of that, by any chance, like some concrete kind of anecdotes about ways that you've pulled this off? Because Reos Partners excels at these sort of things, so.
Jon Walton, Reos Partners:
Yeah. So for us, it's all gathering, you know, stakeholders, people from community government, you know, almost just like the panel that you have here today, that have perspectives that are varied, right, but still on the same topic. And we'll usually bring them into a room or into a space over a number of days or hours, and invite people just to share these stories, right, and talk about the tradeoffs that they see within their communities, and then use that as a foundation. And you can either write a little report coming out of it, or just use that, right, as almost the launching point, to get further engagement from different segments of those populace that that people represent. So for us, it's about just finding – it's – the hard part is finding time for everyone to sit down and to be able to listen and engage intently. And for us that usually means carving off time and space that's separate from kind of my work, sitting at my desk and doing my day-to-day job because I get too distracted. But if I bring you in for a half a day, it seems the outputs are well worth the investment.
Vincent Ialenti:
Totally agree. And you know, so there, there's two issues there. There's not having time, being time poor, not having the time to attend something like this to discuss something like spent nuclear fuel. There's also the issue of just compensating people for the time. When I go to an event for DOE, that's – I'm on the clock, right? So that's my job. When people from communities come out, you know, they are kind of donating their time sometimes. So that's what's amazing about some of the work our Consent-Based Siting Consortia has been doing, compensating people for their time. So they'll do like micro-grants for folks to show up to a meeting to compensate them for the time they spend talking to us about this. So we're really just great happy to see that. So Tom Jones has had his hand up for a while, too, from Pacific Gas and Electric. We'd love to hear from you, Tom. What's the view from your world?
Tom Jones, PG&E:
Thanks, Vincent. So is – folks may know we actually operate two dry cask storage facilities in very different regions of California, and to build on what both Manual said and Chuck said, it's really about the experiences and the perception of the technology, as well. We find that when we bring people out, and we do unscripted things like we've included members of our engagement panel when we do physical inspections of the facility. And we take known folks of concern in our community, actually to the facility, and they've stood next to the dry casks on the pad. And so we have to really create experiences and demystify the technology. People don't understand how robust the structures are. And we also need to be very – I thought Jon just mentioned, we need to be very careful about the perceptions of risk. And it's very different. And why I appreciate the consent-based setting approach, voluntary risk versus involuntary risk has quite a different view. So the last thing we haven't talked about today, I want to be sure we get to at some point, is also that education through the media and communities on transportation routes. Once we start to have communities that volunteer, because at least the communities will see potential jobs. They understand the role they might be playing. It is going to be more of a voluntary risk and acceptance decision from those communities versus someone along the transportation route that thinks this is a hazardous activity, doesn't know the success that there has been, both internationally and nationally, on transporting nuclear fuel.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah. One thing you said there really resonated is that, you know, demystifying the technology, right? Sometimes just seeing it is a way of realizing that this, you know, and seeing the seriousness of the people working on a particular project. For instance, we just went to, during our last Consent-Based Siting Consortia quarterly meeting, we went to Charlotte, North Carolina, where we meet every 90 days with the consortium. We went over to the Catawba generating station from Duke Energy and got a tour. And it's just a way to see that, you know that this is – it looks different than people, often people have in their heads. “The Simpsons” has the green goo. It's a liquid comes out. It's at the nuclear power plant. But I mean, these are pellets. They're rods. They're stored in these big concrete casks. It looks a little different than people say, too, and I think that has an effect on people when they see it. It demystifies some of the media images around it.
Tom Jones, PG&E:
For sure.
Vincent Ialenti:
Thank-you for bringing that up – unless you have a follow-up on that? Nope. So yeah. So we also have Richard Fisher, who is a really interesting journalist. I mean, he's been running the ship over – a lot of the editing work at BBC for many years, and specifically focuses on long-term journalism and issues that might not fit neatly into the news cycle, of the sort of hype cycles of social media and the media sort of slower-moving scientific breakthrough. So we're super-grateful to have Richard on the line today. So, Richard, would you like to share some perspectives about how to scale up the national dialogue on spent nuclear fuel?
Richard Fisher, Aeon Magazine:
Sure. Yeah, just, I guess just a couple of quick thoughts. Because one of the things that's occupied me over the past few years has been, how do you encourage people to take a longer view? So I wrote a book about the long view, and that's how I first met Vincent, and that question of like, why we should care about future generations is something that you can engage people on a policy and a politics level. You can talk about discount rates, and you know, policy decisions, for example. But in in my experience, people often want to engage in that we're using different language. And what one particular project that I've been working on as part of a network in Europe over the past few years is a network of art projects that are seeking to encourage people to take a longer view, but like doing it through kind of art projects like building a pyramid in Germany that will take 1,200 years to finish, the future library in Oslo, which is a kind of project conceived by Katie Patterson, an artist who invites authors once a year to submit a manuscript that won't be published until the year 2114. And they'll be printed on trees that are growing outside of Oslo. And there's many of these projects. And this network has recently got together, and we're hoping to do an exhibition at the UN in New York, in the coming months. And that kind of – I guess the reason I raise it is, it's not directly about nuclear spent fuel. But my point is that the art culture is often a way in. It's, you know, it's a way – it's a way to communicate in a way that is, it's not technical. It's not policy. It's not political, but you can, you know, speak a different language, and you can attract a different cohort of people. So that's just one thought.
And then the other thought was just to put my European and British hat on, to look beyond the U.S. Borders. I came across an art, a photographic project recently that was a – it was a British photographer who actually went to France, where many people live alongside nuclear power stations. And he had grown up kind of skeptical about nuclear energy and reading about Chernobyl and everything. And he went to meet the people in in a little village called San Martin, on Campagna, which is near Dieppe. His name was Ed Alcock. And as part of this exhibition called “France Before Their Eyes,” he published this series of photos where he just went and met the people, profiled them, their stories. They live in a nuclear power station of Pant Pongli. And yeah, that they – many of them are quite – he was – to his surprise, they're quite nonplussed about the fact there was a nuclear power station next door, and you know, they told their stories. They, you know, they talked about the, you know, the fact that the government might hand out iodine in an emergency situation. But they also talked about the extra taxes that the nuclear power stations pay and the really nice swimming pool they have, and the ice rink in the town. And just, you know, it's just a way of communicating their particular stories. And I realize it's like they will have different concerns in France compared with in New Mexico. Every, you know, place has its own concerns. But, there are places around the world where there could be lessons to be drawn, connections to be made. So I just would just point out, there's a whole world out there beyond the U.S. borders where some of these questions are being considered, too.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah, and strongly agree. Thank-you, Richard, and extremely eloquently put. So one of the things that our social science program and water program does is look at exemplar studies, right? Exemplar studies of siting circumstances that have happened for various types of facility, nuclear, solar, hydro, etc. But some of the key studies are outside the U.S. borders for spent nuclear fuel issue especially, right? Like. So there's a Finland, it's mentioned, is quite far along on building the world's first deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. Sweden has made a lot of progress. Canada has made progress. So looking to these other countries as sources of learning as we move forward with the consent-based siting process has been really essential. Another thing you mentioned is just the use of art and culture, right? Like. So I mean, it's so much more than a dense or esoteric kind of arcane report that's sent out there, and it's dry. I mean, we've had folks from our Consent-Based Siting Consortia, like Clemson did an event called Artistphere for our consortia, engaged with artists and some paper folding, etc. These science fiction narratives made by Arizona State University. That may sound like some fun little exercise. But it's deeply serious work, as you mentioned, in something like taking the long view in your book. To imagine these worlds and then try to build these worlds, so you can be almost pro-topian about it. Imagine a better world you want to be at, and then try to work towards it. So I really appreciate your sort of global perspective on this. Thank-you so much, Richard. And so we've had a global perspective. Now, let's go to a regional perspective with local leader from – mayor of Morris, Illinois, and he is Chris Brown, and he is on the call today, and he has spent nuclear fuel in his community. What's the view from over there look like?
I think you're muted. … Oh. Yeah, he's muted. Yeah. So in the lower left hand.
Chris Brown, Mayor of Morris, Illinois:
That better?
Vincent Ialenti:
We can hear you. Yes, all right. I thought it was. It was kind of a cliffhanger. I was wondering what you were gonna say. So now, now ...
Chris Brown, Mayor of Morris, Illinois:
Oh, you can tell.
Vincent Ialenti:
Thanks so much. Let's hear you, Chris.
Chris Brown, Mayor of Morris, Illinois:
So thank-you. So we live in a community that we're very fortunate. We have three nuclear power plants within 20 miles of us. So the closest one to us is Dresden, which is about five miles from where the crow would fly here, with their spent nuclear fuel. And right next to them, as many people may or may not be aware, there's also a GE facility that has their spent nuclear fuel. It's still in the pool there. And I will tell you, we've had a lot of success of, you know, everybody says what to do and where to start. It's local, it's getting the support locally and building upward, I believe. We've had some success with actually saving the Dresden plant in that sort of capacity. But I think the biggest thing is, there's just such a mishap of information when it comes to these types of facilities. But when you do get on there and can educate, I think people really understand can see and touch these casks, what is actually happening. And you know, I've been fortunate to tour, I think, all of the nuclear plants here in Illinois, and the GE facility to see all these when they were either being built. I saw [inaudible] when the pad was getting poured, and then did a follow-up. And a lot of it is just communication, I think, and letting people see and touch, and building organizations that support it, to express the views, not only to other locals but your legislator as well. And you know, we obviously benefit a lot from what they provide locally. But one of the things I think that also helps is the employees that actually work in these facilities. And they are neighbors, residents of our areas that actually help push the messages out as well, and they're a huge part, I think, in what takes place, you know, with what happens in those plants. So obviously, tours, education, touching and feeling are big, but it's – the employees make a huge impact, as well.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah, thank-you so much. Extremely well-put. Maybe we can hear a perspective from Kyle Hill. You've reached millions of people with your perspectives on this. So what's the view from the world of YouTube and the social media science communication world?
Kyle Hill, Science Communicator:
Yeah. So thank-you all for having me. I'm always honored and humbled to be around such a accomplished group of professionals. And thank-you all for tuning in, of course. So I was just touring Dresden actually, last year, and my point working with the DOE directly, which was very cool for an organization to do for someone who works on the more social side of things. I specifically wanted to make a video about nuclear waste. And what I wanted to do was attack the pain points that people have about nuclear waste that many of my colleagues here have already mentioned. So I asked them to let me go and kiss one. And so I was literally putting my money where my mouth was. That video has been viewed over a million times, has 10,000 comments on it. And the reception has been overwhelmingly positive. Now, to that end, I want to point out that everything that we discussed so far has been kind of first order, as I would say, where it we do need more education, like I try to do. We do need more community involvement. And just actually touching these things and seeing these things and seeing how robust they are. But from my perspective, I think I'm the most viewed pro-nuclear person on YouTube. I get rapid feedback from tens of millions of people every month, and what I see is that young people, young people especially, are mostly on the same page here. It's no – we don't have the historical memory of Fukushima and Chernobyl and TMI. It seems like they're on board with nuclear.
And so, in addition to just broadening the educational effort, I think, from my perspective, the government, other entities, consortia, could go on the offensive. To be honest. By which I mean, you know, nuclear has what I call a plane crash problem, where there's almost no plane crashes. They almost – they kill almost nobody, ever. And by and large, airplanes are incredibly safe. But when an air, when a crash happens, it's very visceral, and it makes the news. Similarly, that's what happened with Fukushima and Chernobyl. But this obscures the car crash problem, which is, there are 40,000 people that die every year on our roads, and we accept this because it's the price of doing business. Now I liken – if plane crashes are the nuclear industry, then car crashes is the fossil fuel industry to me. I think we need to re-highlight the car crash problem in terms of fossil fuels versus nuclear energy, where we can say that this is no longer the cost of doing business. This is no longer tenable. To have millions of people a year die from fossil fuel-related pollutions. To have one person die from fossil fuel-related illness before I finish this sentence, about every six seconds or so, if you do the math. So, my on-the-ground, young-person-reaching perspective would be that I think it's time to re-highlight the actual stakes here. And as Matthew pointed out at the beginning of this call, you know, for everything nuclear that we do, we are removing something fossil fuel that we do, or mitigating something fossil fuel that we do. And I know I'm over time here. I'll just say one thing, at the Dresden nuclear video that I did, I said one thing off the top of my head, but it's – people have said that this is the best comparison they've ever heard about this sort of thing. Where I said – I walked up to one of these casks. I slapped it, and I said, “Where is all the nuclear waste here?” And then I touched it. And then I said, “Where is all the fossil fuel pollution?” And I did a big breath in. That is the difference here that we should be highlighting to communities. It's – there's a small amount of risk, minuscule, amount of risk for something like dry cask storage. But you are accepting this background amount of risk from fossil fuels. And we need to re-highlight that, I think, as an issue in comparison. Because, like, I said, I think the young people are – the tide is turning.
Vincent Ialenti:
Absolutely, and thank-you, Kyle, and that – and you know, hearing that next to Mayor Brown's comments from Morris Dresden area, really fantastic to hear. So you reach millions of people through your work. It's really impressive. We hope that you can move forward as a partner with us as we try to get the word out about this particular issue in our consent-based siting program. Another fellow on our call who's received a heck of a lot of success in reaching hundreds of thousands of people as well is Robert Stone. A very accomplished filmmaker who works for PBS and made “American Experience” documentaries, as I mentioned. And you know, he's been nominated for Emmys and has a really illustrious career. So we'd love to hear from you, Robert, about your work in raising awareness about this issue, and what brought you to this issue, also? I mean, how did you land making films about this?
Robert Stone, Documentary Filmmaker:
Oh, well, that that's a very long story. I don't know if we should really get into that. But I was – you know, I spent most of my life being sort of as a default position being against nuclear energy. Nuclear power, nuclear weapons was all, you know, the same thing to me. But I changed my mind about it then, and met a lot of other fellow environmentalists who had also changed their mind. And then decided to make a documentary about it. And then I spent a year and a half going on the road, showing the film all over the United States and all over the world, mostly showing it to, you know, audiences of environmentalist and anti-nuclear people. And the film was incredibly well-received. So I just – you know, what Kyle said really resonated with me. I totally agree. You, in order to – you can't really isolate spent fuel, the spent fuel issue from the larger, the larger issue here, which is the general public sort of lack of understanding about nuclear power, the role it plays, the role it can play, in our effort to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, have cleaner air. Disentangle ourselves from conflicts in the Middle East. I mean, there's all kinds of positive things that come with this. And first and foremost, climate change. But nobody's making that case, and that's really the problem. I mean, yeah, you know, we are – and we're all – I think everybody on this call, we're sort of scientifically oriented, logical, you know rational people. But most people are operating on a more emotional basis with a very low level of information about this.
And I think that until our political leaders step forward and start discussing this rather than, oh, it's kind of going on behind the scenes. Yeah, we're putting money into nuclear energy. That's a great thing; I'm happy about that, but nobody's talking about it. It's not spoken about at the Democratic Convention. It's not spoken about at the Republican Convention, except maybe a little, you know. “blah blah” to tweak Liberals, and you know, the right, or you know, but nobody, nobody's making the case. And I'll give you – so here's just a quick example of how important this is. When I was – I made the film 10 years ago. So President Obama was president. I was going around. And one of the biggest screenings I had was about a thousand hardcore environmental activists almost entirely antinuclear. But they came to see the movie because they wanted to see a show, and they wanted to see, you know – get into a fight with me. At the end of it, I asked them, “If President Obama got up tomorrow and said this country should make a major push for nuclear energy as a solution to climate change, and really made the case like I've just made in this film you just saw, how many of you would support this?” And almost every hand went up. And it was eye-opening. I was like, if somebody makes the case who shares your values in other areas, somebody who has your trust on shared values across a larger spectrum, which is a political case, nuclear is a very easy sell, as I think everybody on this call knows, for all the reasons we talked about. So that needs to happen. And then once people see spent fuel as part of the life cycle of a incredibly positive, powerful technology that the United States is on the cutting edge of, has made a commitment to, I think they'll be much more receptive to having conversations about it. But the moment the only time that anybody hears about it is when there's something negative to say. And so our leaders need to step up and put their money where their mouth is. And it's not the third rail. They will get support, especially from young people.
Vincent Ialenti:
And hey, that is a spot-on analysis. Thank-you so much, Robert. I mean, one of the central sort of planks of the Consent-Based Siting Consortia effort is precisely that. Right? Like, I mean, we don't want to just hear about nuclear issues when something goes wrong, when there's some accident, and you know, it enters the news cycle, or where there's some controversy coming up. I mean, this stuff goes on a daily basis. You know, 20% of our electricity in the United States is from nuclear power. Well, 20% of the electricity but half of our emissions-free energy is from nuclear power. That's the statistic I was trying to get out. And this goes on every day and gives positive returns to us, and it kind of goes under the radar. So that's what this consortia effort is about. Right? So we're trying to get voices to discuss these issues, have these conversations, fold all these ideas and perspectives that we've heard on this call today and others. And opposition, as Robert Stone just mentioned as well, bring them all into conversation, and let people talk and have a civil, constructive conversation in a time where there's lots of factualization. And it's been great. People have been civil; people have been responsible. People have been mature. So let's hear from the consortia on this. I'd love to hear some perspectives from the consortia on what you're seeing from the ground. Examples of stuff you've done. And how about we hear from Megan Harkema from Vanderbilt University Consortia?
Megan Harkema, Vanderbilt University Consortium:
Thanks, Vincent. I appreciate all the perspectives, and I really wanted to highlight just how important our last panelists’ perspective were, in that this visibility issue of nuclear is not limited to nuclear waste. It is the entire industry as a whole. When we're talking about advanced reactors, we are seeing estimates from places like the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute, saying that by 2050 we will need three to four times the existing nuclear workforce. And the nuclear industry is scrambling to gain this visibility and get people interested in nuclear and nuclear-related jobs. And one of the things that they've identified is the need to go in at lower levels of education. So in middle school and high school, and start teaching people about energy systems, including nuclear. And so I think we have an ability to piggyback on some of this, these existing evolutions to develop just a nuclear understanding in our students, and gear that toward nuclear waste, as well. And I think this is really valuable for this concept, as well, when you start thinking about the long-term perspectives of spent nuclear fuel, storage and disposal. We need this capacity and this visibility of nuclear waste conversations and the ability to critically think and discuss these topics in this generation and the next. So by getting in at low levels of education and starting to teach students about these facts, we have the ability to start to instill that capacity in the younger generations. … Vincent, I think you're muted.
Vincent Ialenti:
Oh, I think you're right. See? That's very helpful. So it's great to hear an educator's perspective there from a Vanderbilt University Consortium. Let's hear another one. We have Professor Usman, Shoaib Usman, from Missouri Institute of Science and Technology. Shoaib, what would you like to share from your perspective as a consortia awardee and what you've been seeing on the ground in relation to these issues? Shoaib? Yeah, OK, now, you're unmuted. I did it, too. So I failed to unmute you. Now here we go. Let's do it.
Shoaib Usman, MIST Consortium:
I'm from Missouri University of Science and Technology. So there's a little difference. There is no institute. The other thing that we have with nuclear is, we have a lot of baggage. It is started with something destructive. We all know it. It was the Manhattan Project making a bomb, and then left behind a lot of legacy waste. So that baggage, we have to somehow decouple nuclear power with that baggage. And that's the challenge that we are seeing at this time, that we have to somehow decouple that. And we have been able to do it to some extent with Ness, our other team partner from St. Louis University, working with communities, with legacy based. So that's a challenge that everyone who you talk to they will. They will start the conversation with this baggage. And the second thing that we need to do is to separate the issue of new nuclear power from existing nuclear power, to the used or spent nuclear fuel, because even you are for or against expansion of nuclear power. This is – spent fuel has to be somehow dealt with. There is no way we can run away from this problem. So if we can, again, separate the issue, that we are not talking about expanding, you may be against expansion of nuclear power. But as of now, we are talking about solution to the spent fuel, which is on the side.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yep.
Shoaib Usman, MIST Consortium:
So these are the challenges that we are faced with. And that's where I will stop.
Vincent Ialenti:
Thank-you so much. And views from the universities are essential here, too. Not just – we've heard from journalists, we've heard from people working on the ground, in communities, representatives; university perspectives are a crucial role to play, especially as Megan Harkema from Vanderbilt noted, when it comes to bringing this message to the next generation. Jim Olson, from RPI, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has done some work related to this, too. Set up a summer camp, I believe is, that is – is that right, Olson? … And I think you're muted, too.
Jim Olson, RPI Consortium:
OK, am I good?
Vincent Ialenti:
There we go, alright, we hear you loud and clear. We'd love to hear [inaudible] consortium’s work.
Jim Olson, RPI Consortium:
Yeah, absolutely. … Yeah, thanks for the nod, Vincent. As a career-long person inside the nuclear industry, a lot of the messages being said today resonate strongly about getting out into the communities and people that aren't engage necessarily with nuclear. And one of the struggles I've had personally is, how do you bridge the gap between this kind of mysterious concept to understanding at the high school level? So we at RPI have created a novel way to teach the fundamentals relevant to nuclear reactor operations, nuclear waste, without having to deal with the messy math and complex concepts. Just a bunch of hands-on magnets, PBs, rolling some dice games, etc. So yeah. In the July, early August this year, we invited 25 students from – well, we invited a lot. We selected 25 students from across the country; even one from Australia attended. And we went through this and had a nice discussion a couple of days. And at the end we had the students give like a mock presentation to the Department of Energy in simulating. They were asked if they were interested in hosting a community facility. And one of the interesting things we found is for the students that were from communities with no nuclear exposure, many of them felt like they might be missing out on an opportunity, simply because no one's having the discussions. So not even getting into the space of pro or nuclear problems, it’s just they're not even exposed to the opportunity. So that was very fascinating. We have a lot of data and insight. We plan on sharing that as much as we can in the coming meetings.
Vincent Ialenti:
Thank-you so much. Maybe one more educator, university perspective. Lindsay Shuller-Nickles is from our Clemson University consortium, working on the Consent-Based Siting Consortia. And you've done some fantastic work. You were involved, the artist here, and some of the art engagements that I mentioned previously. And here you are right now. So Lindsay, tell us about what you've been up to, and how that's contributes to this larger discussion.
Lindsay Shuller-Nickles, Clemson (NuWaDi):
Thanks for asking. So I had put my hand up earlier, but then the conversation shifted. But I did want to touch on some of the art and culture activities that we've been working on because we really go at it from two perspectives. One is it – and I wrote it down so I wouldn't forget. One is engaging with people in our community with a mutual purpose. And so we try to engage with people not to push an agenda or to sway someone's opinion, but really to just learn something about one another and leave that conversation having learned something. And we've found that engaging through art has really been able to help us in that. The other part of our focus on art and culture, nuclear art and culture, is in training our students and the future nuclear workforce to help teach and build empathy and critical consciousness. And so we want our scientists and engineers to leave being able to talk to people and have the ability to understand someone else's perspective. And so that – I think that's a really important part, of including the art and culture, along with some of the technical aspects, when you're sharing out with folks.
Vincent Ialenti:
Couldn't agree more. I mean, if you come out with sort of facts and statistics, and you know, a government document or a flyer, if you hand that to someone, they may or may not react much to it. But I mean, if you add empathy and relationship building and listening and careful, sensitive, empathetic conversation with that person. Hear where they're coming from, hear about their world, hear what brought them to this issue, or why they've been skeptical at the issue. And then start talking about some of the scientific findings about this. You'll find that people suddenly open up and might even make the, you know, the pivot that you know, Stone talked about earlier on the call, which is, which is, you know, in the environmentalist community, a lot of people have changed their minds. If you read things like the Eco-modernist Manifesto, and some of the stuff coming out of the Breakthrough Institute, etc., people change their minds.
Lindsay Shuller-Nickles, Clemson (NuWaDi):
I think you also – when engaging, we found that we need to be honest with ourselves and with the people we're engaging with about what our “agenda” might be.
Vincent Ialenti:
Amen to that. And part of this is making sure that it's not just our agenda. It's all sorts of different agendas enfolded into a larger conversation. One of the conversations is involving groups that might be historically underrepresented in this process. Or there's been environmental justice questions. We do have, actually, Wyatt Kohler on the call from the Tribal Consent-Based Coalition to talk a bit about the way that they've been working with N.C. State. Wyatt, would you like to share some perspectives on this conversation? Great to have you here.
Wyatt Kohler, Tribal Consent-Based Coalition:
Hi, thanks. Vincent. Yeah, everybody. My name is Wyatt Kohler. I'm the project coordinator for the Tribal Consent-Based Coalition. I'm a federally enrolled tribal member of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma. You know, when we came – when I came into this project, and with our founder and CEO Scott Lathrop, who's Northern Chumash, we were trying to figure out how do we talk to tribal people about this. Because Scott shares a unique perspective in that his tribal lands, kind of like the Prairie Island Indian community, are on a reactor site. Diablo Canyons reactor site. And he's somebody who leans a little bit more on the pro-nuclear side because he sees the environmental benefits. You know, because, as tribal people, one of our core tenants is like, let's get, you know, maximize with minimal, you know, leftover waste, right? Minimal footprint. And nuclear has a lot of these things that would really appeal to tribal people. But, as we all know here, there's this long and storied history with that. And so when we want to be positive or messengers, or we want to be perceived as good messengers for tribal people, we've decided that we want to tell the story as it is, you know, wholly. So we talk about our kind of – the flow of our short presentations that we do is we talk about extraction and generation. And then we talk about kind of the future with consent-based siting. And so we talk about the Southwest history with the Navajo, right? And we highlight kind of some of the failures of consent there. You know, we kind of treat it as an example of a failure of consent and a failure of waste management. And then in the present, we talk about how much nuclear energy kind of represents native values in terms of what we want from our environment. It's protected Scott's homelands and allowed for that land to be safe and cared for. And then, when we talk about the future, we talk about waste storage. That's where it gets tricky, because you've got a lot of young people like I've heard in the conversation who are pro-nuclear. And you've got a lot of politicians who are secretly, secretly, you know, pro-nuclear as well, even though they might not outwardly say it.
But I think Professor Usman had a really good point, and I wanted to highlight that, that there's this connection to the legacy, and it's comforting to hear that from a non-tribal perspective, as well. For tribal people, I think something that the whole public should get behind is, you know, supporting the waste cleanup on those tribal lands. Because we have this long legacy like, you know, Kyle Hill was saying, how you can kiss a cask. But when you have all this waste material that's left behind, and people are affected by the radiation exposure, it almost kind of cancels it out. So it's like, even though you are pro-nuclear, there's still this legacy there that affects the overall industry, you know. So we've been talking to all kinds of tribal people, and we've been trying to just say, you know, hey, you need to be in the conversation, whether or not you're pro-nuclear or not. And it's difficult as a tribal person, because I see a lot of the benefits that nuclear has to offer. But in many ways the federal government and various companies are making it easy when, you know, they're not protecting sovereignty or they're not, you know, owing up to the things that they need to do to restore, right? So there are some companies that are doing some really breakthrough technologies and land remediation. And I think in the future we're going to see those yield some really impressive results. And the reason why I bring that up is like, you know, that's another form of waste. Maybe it's not the waste we're talking about from the nuclear power plants, but to the general public they don't have such a great idea on how to differentiate those two. Right? So when we talk about waste management, they're also curious about the history. And that history is kind of a ghost for all of the United States for energy, for public, for federal, right? So what I've learned through talking to all these groups for nearly the past year, public and otherwise, and tribal, is that if we could do this waste cleanup thing and we could find support for it, that would benefit everybody, you know.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah. And one powerful thing you said there, I mean, sometimes you can't even have the conversation about spent nuclear fuel or consent-based siting until you address some of these historical issues. You might show up thinking, say, if you're DOE or someone part of a consortia, I think you're thinking you're about to have a conversation about spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. Well, for instance, I was in Colorado recently, and it was very hard to talk about that until you listen to people's stories about their grandfathers working at the Rocky Flats plutonium production plant for nuclear weapons, and you hear stories about beryllium exposures. You hear stories about sort of other things that have happened there historically. And then you have to listen to those stories because they're part of the story. I mean, they might be a different part of DOE.
Wyatt Kohler, Tribal Consent-Based Coalition:
Right. It's different than that.
Vincent Ialenti:
To the public, DOE is just one big entity. So super important that you flag that, and glad to have so many partners out there in the U.S. engaging from different perspectives, as well. Kara Colton from Energy Communities Alliance is one of the leads for one of our consortia, and she has a lot of experience dealing with communities that have DOE and energy-related facilities nearby. So, Kara, we'd love to hear your perspective as a consortia awardee engaging with these very issues. Yeah.
Kara Colton, Energy Communities Alliance Consortium:
Yeah, thank-you, Vincent. I'm also wanted to say, thank-you so much for the for the last comments about the legacy. The Energy Communities Alliance works with the local elected officials and community leaders in those communities that have hosted the Department of Energy's federal nuclear facilities. And so we have long been part of supporting the national mission, like those communities and those tribes, around Rocky Flats, and very much are concerned about ensuring that that cleanup is done. But I would also add that we're a great source. Folks that have been around these nuclear projects in the past are a great source for communities that may be considering new nuclear missions or potentially hosting a CISF to talk to these communities so that you can really understand, what is it like to have nuclear in your backyard? What's it like to be working with the federal government and have the federal government with a project in your backyard? And how do you maintain some level of agency in decisions that are being made? And then, more importantly, who else is going to be impacted by these kinds of decisions? Is there a shared vision for that community, that tribe, that region, that state? What does that vision look like? Is everybody on board? And what role does everybody have to play? Because everybody's perspective needs to be coming into this decision-making process in order for there to be a real support that is enduring over time. Because these projects, as have already been noted, are multigenerational. So build those partnerships and those relationships. They're key, not just for the development, but for the success all the way through the decommissioning of any sort of nuclear project.
Vincent Ialenti:
Absolutely, and intergenerational. I think that that's becoming a theme here. We had Megan Harkema talking about training the next generation and teaching the next generation. Earlier in the Consent-Based Siting Consortia, one of the folks engaging in Arkansas said, you know, their third generation, their grandfather, has stories about this. And Richard Fisher from BBC. And now moving to Aeon Magazine, brought up the long-term issue as well of passing information over the long term. So let's hear from another perspective from the consortia. Roy Payne has had his hand up for a while, so let's get to Roy. And then, after that, I'm gonna ask another question to kind of broaden the conversation, because we're going pretty deep into the nuclear world, and I want to make some space for some folks who are newer to this issue to contribute to the conversation, as well. So, Roy Payne, we'd love to hear about your work with the Consent-Based Siting Consortia. We've been super impressed, so welcome to the webinar.
Roy Payne, Keystone Policy Center Consortium:
Thanks a lot, Vinnie. It's been a fascinating discussion. And there's been so many issues that we've picked up. And I just want to put up a few of the thoughts. I've been working and talking with a lot of communities around the world over the past decade and trying to get the – we talked about sharing stories, about sharing experiences, voices, the emotional impacts of nuclear waste. I've always had the impression that we always look at it in terms of community. It's very geographic, very small, very atomic. And those communities often will feel the federal government or their national government arrives with all its agency and all its authority. And actually, there is a need potentially to think about this much more broadly and much more in a global context. This is not an issue just affecting the United States. Forty, 50 countries are building repositories, have a nuclear waste issue. And then maybe we should need to think about in terms of generational terms. The way in which climate change, the environment. And the issues don't necessarily need to be seen as local issues. You have to address them locally, but if they're part of a wider movement. I was quite picked up by Kara’s work and talking about the generational aspects of it, that maybe we need to start thinking, or is there value in thinking, if this is an issue alongside climate change, alongside environmental change. They weren't driven by political leadership. Political leaders followed what became a generational desire to bring about change. And I mean, Wyatt made a very important point here that, you know, and also did – that the waste is here. We need to clean it up. We have a responsibility. And therefore, no matter how we message it, I think there's an important view here of building networks of communities, thinking generationally. Because even if we start appealing to the young people now, these are intergenerational projects. We need their support for the next 50, 100, 150 years, and it needs to be embedded now in in our community, in our social way of thinking. And that's what our consortia is trying to look at, is how do we share that knowledge generationally and across borders.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yup, and I couldn't agree more. Again, this generational threat is coming up. When you deal with something like the radioactive half-life, you definitely start thinking about issues like this. Also, I like to find that some of our social scientists do research on intergenerational justice. And so that's a – that's become an important issue sort of internally, as we work through this issue as DOE to try to respond as sort of empathetically and responsibly, and justly as possible to this nuclear waste issue. So like, I said, we've gotten pretty zoomed in to the nuclear waste issue. But we do have plenty of folks on this call who just have broad media experience in all sorts of ways. So let's broaden this a little bit with a new question. Right? So I'm gonna ask what are some techniques, creative techniques or stories or innovative strategies that you've used in your worlds, panelists on this call, to make an issue capture hearts and minds on the national stage. Or put differently, what are ways to sort of do messaging in a way that allows it to resonate on a larger scale. What are some strategic ways to create a national conversation out of something. So we'd love to hear some examples. The answers don't that – don't have to be from nuclear specifically, but we totally welcome those from the nuclear realm. So let's open it up. And we actually have one. This is nuclear related. But it's actually different than consent-based siting. We have Miriam Juckett from Pacific Northwest National Lab on the call. Miriam, we'd love to hear about your creative approaches to amplifying and elevating this issue. Where do you think we should go with this? And what could say the Department do to push this forward? Just one of our great subject matter experts. They always advise us on neat ways to move forward, so.
Miriam Juckett, PNNL:
No, thanks for that. And this is super exciting to get to talk about, because I think this relates so much to what has already been talked about here in terms of the demystifying technology and seeing is believing and building the conversation on a national stage about spent nuclear fuel. And in this case, it's about spent nuclear fuel transportation. What we're working on is a project called the Package Performance Demonstration. And if you remember doing show-and-tell in school, this will be kind of like show-and-tell, plus science fair combined, but on a huge scale, and live- streamed for the whole world to see, hopefully. So to explain what a package performance demonstration is, it's physically subjecting a full-sized, spent nuclear fuel transportation container to the types of impacts that could occur in real-life accident scenarios. And Kyle mentioned in his comments earlier about comparing the car and the airplane problem. We hear from people all the time that they're really intimidated by and scared of spent nuclear fuel transportation. But it's kind of an apples-to-oranges thing than what they're used to seeing on TV with train derailments or those kinds of tragic events, because spent nuclear fuel is completely different. It's a different ball game in terms of just how it's moved and what's required. So the regulatory requirements for that require looking at – dropping it, stabbing it, burning it, drowning it, making sure that those containers are incredibly robust, and we want to show that to people upfront. So we're looking at doing either those kinds of demonstrations that are talked about in the regulatory requirements or even scenario demonstrations. Maybe we can run a train into a cask or do a deep-water retrieval. So we're really excited about this opportunity to build public trust and confidence by doing some of this. And I'm going to give a shameless plug. There's a QR code that our team has helpfully put up on the screen. This goes to our web page for this project. We actually have a request for information out right now, and if you're on this call we would love to hear from you. Tell us what to do with this cask that would make a difference. Do we drop it, stab it, burn it, drown it? Do we run a car into it? What do we do? And we want to hear. We know – I know it's a very technical document. When you look at the RFI, request for information. Sorry about the acronyms. The RFI, it looks like a technical document, just focus on those category “A” questions. And even if you just respond to one question, we would love to hear from you. And for all of our influencer friends on the calls, you know, reach out! Help us get the word out there about this thing. We want to hear from you guys. And we're so excited to bring this to the consortia and all the people on this call. So we can hopefully get a lot of great feedback, build a great project that'll help change this conversation and move the needle on public confidence. Thanks for letting me plug it. Appreciate your time.
Vincent Ialenti:
You got it. So yeah, no, it's a fascinating project and a package performance demonstration, I mean, it's a public spectacle that shows, you know, going to the trust issues. Going to the seeing-is-believing points that have been made, going to the show-don't-tell, right, like you don't have to tell you safe. Look at it, watch us.
Miriam Juckett, PNNL:
See it yourself.
Vincent Ialenti:
See it yourself. So thank-you so much for that. We do have some other folks on the line. Paris Ortiz-Wines works with the NC State consortium, and you have some perspectives on making these issues reach broader public audiences as well, and it's great to have you on the line. So hey there, Paris, we'd love to hear what you have to say today.
Paris Ortiz-Wines, NC State Consortium:
Yeah, hi, Vincent, I just wanted to add, you know, we've – I've been doing nuclear advocacy for the last five years, and one of the main things that I was struggling with was the waste. And so for us, I was like, hey, I want to get a tour of a nuclear plant. Luckily we were able to, and there was an industry, I got to take a picture. I was the first one that hugged a cask and got to put it on Twitter, and it went viral. And I think similar to what Kyle said, you know, people don't know what it is. Being able to go up and close to one of these cans is so important. I mean, once I saw it, it was like, oh, that's it? You know, like it just didn't seem like a huge, the monumental issue that it was made to be. And you know, I think there's an opportunity between the nuclear industry as well as us. This, like third party, right? Like science communicators and engagement coordinators is, you know, sometimes it's really hard to even get a tour at a nuclear plant. When you go to these facilities, and in my home state, you can't even go up near one. And so I think there's a way where we can be strategic on what we allow on these tours. But I'm telling you, if you are allowed to go up near these cans and maybe even touch it, maybe take a photo with it, I mean, this is – that itself, I mean, a picture says a thousand words. So we make sure whenever we go anywhere we show these pictures of them, you know, the many advocates that get to see these. So I think there's an opportunity between us, you know, friendly audiences as well as the public and the industry, to work together to open it up a bit more. I mean, if it's closed off, it gives the impression that there's something to hide, and I know that's not the case.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah, yeah. Couldn't have said it – I definitely couldn't have said it better myself. You're actually getting me thinking that, you know, just I – I went on a trip a few years ago to Sweden and toured the Espa Hard Rock Laboratory. You go down deep in the ground. You – just going down there to see the underground research laboratory showing the concept for deep geologic repository being tested and vetted, seeing is believing. And it – it's a powerful experience for someone. It changes you. Same with the Clab Interim Storage Facility in Sweden, seeing the spent fuel sitting there in interim storage condition. It can't be replaced by an image, by a description, by a reassuring expert. Seeing is often believing. So I'm glad to see that that's coming up. So let's broaden the conversation a little about national dialogue, like, how do you engage at a national level? We have Emily Wilkins on the line. Emily is the president of the National Press Club of the United States. And she has a really broad view. She's here representing that capacity. However, she also, I believe, is a CNBC journalist, or a reporter. So let's hear your perspective, Emily, from your many years of work in the world of press and media.
Emily Wilkins, National Press Club:
Thanks so much, Vincent, and apologize for all the background noise. I am on a shoot today in a location. So I'm in a Starbucks. So hopefully, the coffee ambiance does not get too loud. But no, I'm probably one of the least-educated folks on this call when it comes to nuclear and nuclear fuel. But I can definitely talk from the press perspective and the national media perspective. The National Press Club is a group of 2,500 journalists and communicators, including freelance, including newer media sources, including traditional media sources and legacy media. And I think, kind of what's key when you're thinking about engaging with journalists on stories like this is, number one, I think there is a lot of hunger for journalists to tell new, interesting, visual stories. I think it was Paris who kind of made the point that if you have that good visual, if you can show journalists something, if you can get them access, that's all good things, and to not be afraid to talk to reporters, too, you know. Make sure to talk with them about how you'll be quoted, how you'll be presented, what the angle of their story is. Ask us a ton of questions just like we asked you. And know, I think when you're pitching reporters, the one thing that will say in this industry a lot is, we want to know the “so what?” So you're – you know, there's a new tool for, you know, moving, transportating up some of the spent nuclear fuel. OK, so what? What does this mean for our readers? Our viewers, our listeners. What it? How can I actually translate this into someone's day-to-day life? And I think if you're able to include that in your conversations with journalists and other media professionals, you'll be able to get a lot more folks who are interested in what's going on. I will also say with CNBC, I cover Congress, and one of the stories that I actually covered, I think a month or so ago, was the passage of the Advance Act, which, of course, is paving the way for more nuclear fuel and nuclear energy here in the United States. And it was one of those things that it was so weird because it has been like a bill, and like the title of the bill, was like fire safety, or something like that. And then everyone like dug in. And we're like, wait a sec. There's a whole new bill in here. But which is just to say that it's been very interesting for me, during my time on Capitol Hill, to watch the evolution of how lawmakers think about and talk about energy, to kind of see Republicans recognize that there is a need to be environmentally conscious and climate conscious, even if not all of them are there yet, or will kind of use that language that some folks who are more environmentally friendly might be used to hearing. But I think it's really led them to embrace nuclear energy. And on the Democratic side, just kind of recognizing, I think, especially now, with AI, with EVs. With all this need for more energy, more energy, more energy. There's a question of where does it come from? And there is, I think, a renewed interest in looking at nuclear for those reasons. And I think that's kind of a good thing, because that gives a lot of different access points on AI, on EVs, on climate, as far as how to sort of access the story of nuclear energy. I, again, think it's a fascinating one for now, and hopefully these comments have been somewhat helpful. I know I'm learning a lot. So really appreciate being on this today. Thanks so much, guys.
Vincent Ialenti:
Thanks so much for coming, Emily, and taking the time. Yeah, I mean especially thanks for the nod to the bipartisan energy that's behind this issue in many ways or around the nuclear issue. Has been really enlivening and exciting to see so much support coming from people, from different walks of life and different political persuasions, and kind of goes back to what I was saying about the consortium, to begin with, the fact that we take a contentious issue, like spent nuclear fuel or consent-based siting, and then we're bringing people from all sorts of walks of life, from nonprofits in the consortia, from the private sector to academia. We're engaging with communities that are rural, that are urban, that are educated, that are uneducated. They’re – from people who have had loud voices in the conversation, historically marginalized in the conversation. And these conversations are happening. And they're civil. And they're productive. There's anti-nuclear advocates on there. There's pro-nuclear supporters on those conversations. And it's happening, in a time of polarization, a time of factionalization. The Consent-Based Siting Consortia is making this conversation happening. It's very, very impressive. And so there is someone on the call today who has a heck of a lot of experience, bringing all sorts of different people together. His name is Dave Hoffman from Forum Planner, and he does a lot of business-to-business work. So, Dave, we'd love to hear what you have to say about the challenge of producing events that kind of resonate with people, or bring people from different parts of society or industry together to scale up an issue. It doesn't have to be nuclear. I know you don't work on nuclear specifically always. But your big-picture expertise is super valuable to us. So thanks for coming.
Dave Hoffman, Forum Planner:
Sure. Thanks, Vincent. Thanks for opening the door for those of us who are not enmeshed in the nuclear industry. But you know, I produce business-to-business conferences. And I've been doing this a long time. Right now, my latest initiative is in the wealth management industry, and we create private dinners throughout the country, cities throughout the country. We’ll have about 30 wealth managers we invite to the dinner, and then we're paid by sponsors who generally have, you know – they have a message to promote. They'll be promoting their fund, really, sales pitch, really. I mean to be very simple about my business model is. But we have certain clients will go from city to city with us talking to this constituents. So that's how we get the message out there. It's very grassroots. It's very directed at people who they are trying to reach, and I will just comment on a few things I don't think I've heard very clearly in this particular conversation. And I don't know if it's because everyone knows the answers, or because maybe we're not thinking about these things. But number one, a lot of people are using the word “people” without telling me, who are you talking to? OK, because you don't talk to everyone the same way. Everyone doesn't need to know about this. Everyone doesn't care, believe it or not. But you do need to talk to the people who are decision-makers. So I'm sort of watching, and you don’t have to answer. But I'm just saying things to think about when you're planning, communicating. Are we talking about people in charge of zoning, in charge of economic development? I'm not sure. But assuming that that's a clear answer. I also don't think one person talked about the most important question, which is, what is in it for them? OK, you talked about it’s safe; you've talked about it's not a problem. That still doesn't tell me why they want it in their backyard. Right? You can – I'm fairly certain that a pool table is a safe thing, but I don't play pool, and I would not put it in my living room, right? Why would I do that? Well, maybe there are advantages. Maybe there's tax advantages to having the nuclear fuel there. Maybe it brings jobs to the location. Maybe it – you know, I don't believe there's a land swap, you know. Sometimes they can remediate other land from putting the things there. I'm just putting this stuff out there, not knowing. I'm always coming into a situation like this little cheat sheet to come up with a new conference idea. So those are the two things I would need to hear a lot clearer, because I could put together a dinner in cities around the country with this message going out there, if I understood why are they taking a few hours out of their time to come listen to this. Because you know the answer for what's for them. Final piece about this. And I, you know, won’t take any more time. But you know, I would like to hear a laundry list of what else are they concerned about. Because that's how you tie that into a conference. And it's not you're just trying to push your message up, or you're facilitating dialogue. Are we talking about ways to bring new jobs to this particular region? And one of them is we're going to open a nuclear plant there, you know, just for example. Well, then, suddenly it becomes – it's on the table at the state and stuff; you guys have already – you already have out there. Those questions are there. Once you have the conversation going, once you have the conversation going about what's in it for them, what problem you're solving for them, the safety stuff is almost like you're halfway to getting what you want. I hope that's helpful. Speaking from an outsider, but those are just some items.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah, thank-you. And you know, Dave, that's fantastic you brought that up. Who are you talking to? We keep saying “people.” We gotta specify people. There's no one big “we.” There's no one big “they.” There's all sorts of different stratified different types of groups and communities. And it's site specific. And as we start doing that national call for expressions of interest, it's going to become even more site specific. So trying to figure out that community “A” might want something and define consent totally differently than community “B,” or want economic benefit – this economic benefit, where the other one’s more interested in that one. One's concerned more about this, and others more concerned about that. One's excited about this. But there's political blocks over here. Those are the things that we're going to try to parse moving forward. The other thing is, that's kind of interesting, too. I mean, the whole idea of this is the amplify and elevate this issue as we move towards the expression of interest and make this. Because it is a national issue in many ways. We spend fuels at 70-plus places across the country in 30-plus states. And a lot of these sites just don't even have nuclear power plants operating at them anymore. They're shutdown sites. So it is a national issue, in my view, not – it's not always reflected that way in the media. So this discussion is valuable. But another view is maybe it doesn't need to be a national conversation. Maybe it's just local to where this issue exists, and maybe the conversations need to be had under the radar, and maybe the Blue Ribbon Commission amply amplified this issue to the extent it needed to be. So. That's a perspective we've actually heard here and there before. So I'm really grateful for you to flag that question.
Dave Hoffman, Forum Planner:
That would – I would just like to clarify. It's not just the location role of the person, like is there a job outside what is being built here, like that's the person who gets needs to be involved in that conversation. I know a lot of people – I don't want to contradict all the experts for the press and getting the message out there. But the person who said, if Barack Obama had said, “You know, we need to support fuel.” Just remember, before you do that, before you go, make it that, if a Presidential candidate says we should do something, you are just begging the opposition to create a reason why --
Vincent Ialenti:
To say the opposite.
Dave Hoffman, Forum Planner:
And then you won't even be able to answer it because they're not listening anymore. These private dinners I run, your people are sort of – they're on your side already, looking to do the same thing you're looking to do. They communicate. Like these people are change-makers.
Vincent Ialenti:
All right. So we've actually – thank-you so much. We've actually reached the end of our time together. But we do actually have a few more hands up. So I personally have a little more time. So I'm fine with this running over. So if anyone wants, who's on this webinar, who, you know, has somewhere to go, of course, you know, feel free to take off. We will post this online. So if you don't want to – if you catch the few minutes this goes over, if you want to still catch those, it'll be posted on our website at Energy.gov/consent-based-siting. And also the U.S. Department of Energy's YouTube page. It'll be posted there as well. So I'd like to field a few more of these questions, and like, we'll have this go over a little, because I mean, this is an important conversation. We're seeing a lot of momentum here. So let's do it. So my final question is, number one, is there anyone here who hasn't spoken up, who would like to speak up? Perhaps the conversation didn't go in the direction that aligned with your expertise. Or perhaps there's a question you wish we asked, but we never got to. Please feel free to speak up. That's the first thing, and the second thing is, if we invite you to just, if you have something to say, just raise your hand, say it, even if it has nothing to do with the question. So we have two hands up in relation to what I just said there. We'll start with Manuel Camargo. I saw your hand up for a while, so thank-you for your patience, Manuel. We'd love to hear what you have to say, yep.
Manuel Camargo, Southern California Edison:
Yeah, very good. You can hear me OK?
Vincent Ialenti:
I hear you.
Manuel Camargo, Southern California Edison:
Yeah, so it has been a fascinating conversation. I think at a high level, you know, this is – these are conversations that need to be had, whether it's a national conversation, as has been stated, maybe regional conversations. I just want to reiterate and go back to in part, something that you stated, Vince, earlier in the conversation here about, you know, the linkage between interim storage and permanent disposal. So I would be among the folks who is delighted to see the Department of Energy working on consent-based siting for consolidated – federal consolidated Interim storage facilities. That's terrific. We appreciate that. And consent-based siting, as I think we've kind of highlighted here throughout this discussion, is an international best practice for siting these types of facilities. But arguably, at least in my perspective, you know, for consolidated interim storage to be successful, we really as a country need to have a robust repository program working on a place to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. You know, isolate the spent fuel from the biosphere essentially forever. And doing that really does require changes to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. There are just a handful of key things that, you know, in our view, and the view of the coalition, we need to get done. And the linkage between interim storage and permanent disposal is one of them. You know, as you kind of alluded to earlier, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as it stands now, even if you have a – we identify willing and interested, well-informed communities for CIS in the near term, we'd have to put that on ice until we have my understanding construction authorization for the deep geologic repository before you can actually start, you know, put a shovel in the ground for the consolidated interim storage facility. So that's among the things that we would like to see get amended in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
And so the key point I would like to make is that we do need to continue to have these conversations. But amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is going to be a challenge. It likely will take more time than any of us would like. But we do need to act. And whether it's, you know, joining our coalition or others. You know, Kara is with a terrific organization that's working on the communities around the DOE sites as she mentioned earlier. That's a terrific organization. There's a nuclear waste strategy organization. But you know, I just encourage all of us to consider, you know, join one of these coalitions, ours, another. Form your own coalition. But, you know, get engaged and start working with Congressional leaders to push for the types of changes that we – that need to happen in order to make sure that, you know, we're successful with this renewed effort here in the U.S. to address the off-site storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. You know, legislative advocacy is important. I do think that, as has been stated here, there's bipartisan support. The chair of the community engagement panel [inaudible] participated in the Congressional hearing, and I think April of this year and, you know, there was terrific bipartisan support. Some 26 members of Congress waved into that hearing to lend their voice to doing exactly what we're talking about here, which is, you know, fixing the underlying legislative challenges, legislative reform in essence, so that we can have a robust program that gets us to offsite storage and disposal solutions for spent fuel. So just encourage the group here to, in addition to having the conversations that need to happen, that we also take action in pressing Congressional leaders to act and revise the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Thank-you, Vincent.
Vincent Ialenti:
Yeah, thank-you so much, for – I think that's a good way to cap all this off. Yes, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It – changes are essential to our continued mission to produce a integrated waste management system that includes federal consolidated interim storage, which we're working on here, and currently funded and directed by Congress to work on. Also the transportation system necessary for moving the spent nuclear fuel. And then, finally, the pathway to deep geologic response disposal, which is what was just alluded to as very important and connected to this all, both legally, technically, and in several other ways, politically, as well. So Heather Westra, maybe we'll take you as a final question. Cap this off. Heather Westra from the Prairie Island Indian Community. Your perspective is extremely valuable. We just set up a tribal – we call it the Tribal Collaboration Consortium, as a formal means to provide tribal input into consent-based siting and the consortium process as we move forward. And Heather from Prairie Island Indian Community has been essential to this effort. So we're really excited to have you here, so we'd love to hear what you have to say. Would you like the last comment of the day? You got it.
Heather Westra, Prairie Island Indian Community:
Thanks, and I'm speaking for Prairie Island, not for the consortia. So.
Vincent Ialenti:
Correct.
Heather Westra, Prairie Island Indian Community:
You know, just a couple of things, and I want to just echo what Manuel said. It's, you know, speaking from Prairie Island’s perspective, where you have an [inaudible] 700 yards from community members’ homes, and a nuclear power plant just a little bit further. You know, we have had difficulty getting national media attention on this issue. So you know, my hats off to anybody that is getting some national attention on this issue. It is a national problem. We spend a considerable amount of time and effort working with Congress, educating them, that it really is their responsibility, and to remove the waste and spent fuel. And that we do need a deep – you know, we do need to start looking for a repository also, because storage is just that, storage for temporary – for a finite period of time. And as well as the legislative reform to get us there. But speaking from, you know, a community that has not consented to hosting this facility, I really have to take issue with comments regarding kissing a cask and hugging a cask. I find that it minimizes the concerns that the tribe I work for have. Sure, you know, in the abstract it might be safe. But we don't want it here. We didn't – the tribe didn't ask for it to be here. And there are a number of communities across the country in the same boat, that didn't ask for it to be in their backyards. And Prairie Island has – it's the closest community to any spent fuel facility. So I just ask that, choose your words carefully when you're speaking in a national forum like this. That's my final word.
Vincent Ialenti:
Heather, that's extremely powerful feedback. And we really appreciate that, moving forward. One thing that kind of stands out when you say that, I mean, you know, we're talking about making this a more national issue. In many ways it is. I mean, people always ask me, well, would you live in a community that had spent nuclear fuel? And a lot of people do, and don't even realize it. I live right near – you know, I live in Northern California, actually working remote for DOE headquarters, and I have the Humboldt Bay shutdown site – no longer produces nuclear power – Humboldt Bay independent spent fuel storage installation over here. So I mean, it's a regional issue for us, too. There's community interest and voices we've heard for wanting it out of here, as well. So the “not my backyard” issue becomes sort of an issue of the 70-plus places that never really consented to host this in their backyards for the long term, in the first place, and making action on this. And I think that the conversation we had here today is a very, very strong step forward, bringing these coalitions together. Hearing all these different voices. We might not necessarily agree. We just heard, for instance, you know, one perspective about how to raise awareness, another perspective on this might not land right. Having these conversations in the same room together respectfully and civilly is the way forward, and that is the mandate of the Consent-Based Siting Consortia. And we're proud of them for it.
So we've reached our end of our time here together today. There's so much animated conversation in this room that it went over. So I'd just like to say, hey, thank-you so much for joining us. This is incredibly important to us, in the Office of Consent-Based Siting in the U.S. Department of Energy. But if you have additional perspectives to add that exceed the bounds of this conversation, reach out to us via email. The address is consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov. Should be up there on the screen. We will read those and digest those as we always do after these meetings. And we appreciate your interest in consent-based siting, and we look forward to more engagement with the future – in the future about this issue. And so thank-you all for attending. Thank-you from the U.S. Department of Energy.