NUCLEAR WASTE CONSENT AND NON-CONSENT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

This briefing, presented at Stanford University on March 9, 2016, provides a historical analysis of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) attempts to site nuclear waste repositories and storage facilities. The author argues that the DOE has a history of failing to keep promises and ignoring 'non-consent,' leading to a pattern of litigation and failure in establishing long-term high-level waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) solutions.

• The author defines 'consent' as being 'Free and Voluntary; Prior, which is before decisions are made; Informed, including adequate and broad-based dissemination and understanding of the information; and there is Consent agreement.' Crucially, the author asserts that 'Non-Consent must be respected,' meaning a 'No' should terminate any further consideration of a site.
• The DOE has a history of failing to meet commitments regarding waste removal from Idaho. In 1970, AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg promised that wastes would leave Idaho within 10 years. This failure led to the 1995 Settlement Agreement, which mandated that transuranic (TRU) waste leave by April 30, 1999, all TRU waste be gone by December 31, 2018, and all spent nuclear fuel (SNF) be removed by January 1, 2035.
• The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico was established for transuranic (TRU) waste following significant legal conflict. A 1981 settlement and the subsequent WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) explicitly ban the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the site.
• The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 and its 1987 Amendments attempted to site repositories and Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS). While the 1987 Amendments designated Yucca Mountain as the repository site and revoked MRS siting, the author notes that Yucca Mountain will not operate due to 'non-consent from Nevada state government.'
• Efforts to find 'volunteer' sites for repositories or MRS through a Nuclear Waste Negotiator (1990-1995) were largely unsuccessful. While 21 applications were received from 16 tribes, four counties, and one corporation, no state volunteered. Attempts to develop sites with the Mescalero Apache Tribe and the Skull Valley Goshutes both failed due to internal opposition, state opposition, or federal agency denials.
• The author concludes that for 45 years, the DOE has failed to achieve operating HLW/SNF consolidated storage or repository sites. The author claims the DOE has been an unreliable party regarding the NWPA and WIPP agreements, and has a poor record of handling waste, specifically citing a 'terrible legacy' of contaminated wastes at Hanford.

APA

Hancock, D. (2016). NUCLEAR WASTE CONSENT AND NON-CONSENT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Waste_Consent_Brief_Historical_Perspective.pdf

Chicago

Hancock, Don. NUCLEAR WASTE CONSENT AND NON-CONSENT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2016. https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Waste_Consent_Brief_Historical_Perspective.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hancock |first1=Don |title=NUCLEAR WASTE CONSENT AND NON-CONSENT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE |publisher=Environmental and Energy Study Institute |date=9 March 2016 |url=https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Waste_Consent_Brief_Historical_Perspective.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hancock2016nuclear, author = {Hancock, Don}, title = {{NUCLEAR WASTE CONSENT AND NON-CONSENT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE}}, institution = {Environmental and Energy Study Institute}, year = {2016}, month = mar, url = {https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Waste_Consent_Brief_Historical_Perspective.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }