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

The briefing provides a historical analysis of nuclear waste siting in the United States, asserting that the Department of Energy (DOE) has consistently failed to secure long-term consent for high-level waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) repositories. The author highlights a pattern of broken promises, litigation, and the failure of both the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) and the 'volunteer' process managed by the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. Key examples include the legal battles over the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and the non-consent of the Nevada state government regarding Yucca Mountain. The document concludes that the DOE's lack of reliability makes it unlikely that future consent agreements for consolidated storage or repositories will be trusted or successful.

• 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,' and emphasizes that 'Non-Consent must be respected.'
• The Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), have a history of failing to keep promises regarding waste removal, specifically in Idaho. A 1970 promise to move waste out of Idaho within 10 years led to a 1995 Settlement Agreement requiring transuranic (TRU) waste to leave by December 31, 2018, and all spent nuclear fuel (SNF) by January 1, 2035.
• The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was established through a process of 'non-consent' and litigation, eventually resulting in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) which explicitly bans 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 failed to establish an operating repository due to strong state and local opposition. While Yucca Mountain was designated as the site, it remains non-operational due to 'non-consent from Nevada state government.'
• A 'volunteer' process managed by the Nuclear Waste Negotiator between 1990 and 1995 failed to secure any state volunteers for repositories or Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS), though 21 applications were received from tribes, counties, and a corporation.
• The author concludes that the DOE is an unreliable partner that has failed to comply with the NWPA and WIPP statutory requirements, making it difficult to have confidence in any future 'consent' agreements.

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} }