Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
SDA Vol. 6 No. 1
| 1982: | The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is enacted. A western site for HLW disposal is to be selected from those DOE was already studying. An eastern site is to be chose also. |
| 1982-1986: | DOE narrows the search for a western site to three places: Hanford, WA; Yucca Mountain, NV; Deaf Smith County, TX. The government controls the land in WA and NV. Critics charge a flawed site ranking process. |
| 1983: | A panel of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Scences (NRC-NAS), called the Waste Isolation Systems Panel, issues a comprehensive report, funded by DOE. The report indicates that radiation dose to a maximally-exposed individual from a Yucca Mountain repository could be very high, and that Hanford faces serious geological difficulties due to high rock stresses that cause the rock to fracture. It criticizes proposed EPA standards. DOE and EPA essentially ignore these findings. |
| 1986: | DOE publishes its "Draft Area Recommendation Report" specifying dozens of sites for investigation in politically influential eastern and midwestern states. DOE does not list the type of eastern site especially recommended by the 1983 NRC-NAS report. A storm of protest breaks out. DOE suspends its eastern repository effort. |
| 1987: | Congress mandates that DOE restrict its site characterization program to one site: Yucca Mountain, NV. Congress and DOE ignore important findings regarding dose in the 1983 NRC-NAS report. The claim of the Western Shoshones to the land is not given consideration. |
| 1989: | DOE announces that a repository will not open until the year 2010, a twelve-year postponement of the original goal. |
| 1989-1994: | Concern grows that emissions of carbon-14 from a Yucca Mountain repository could exceed EPA regulations for HLW repositories. The EPA Science Advisory Board finds (by 1994) that Yucca Mountain may not meet the standard. The consequences of carbon-14 emissions for individuals would be minute increases in radiation dose, but the global population dose over thousands of years could be very high. |
| 1992: | Congress passes the Energy Policy Act, which mandates that EPA standards generally applicable to HLW disposal not be applied to Yucca Mountain. The law requests that NAS form a committee to advise the EPA on the technical bases for setting standards for HLW disposal at Yucca Mountain. |
| 1993-1994: | DOE contractors calculate that doses from a Yucca Mountain repository to a future subsistence farmer would greatly exceed prevailing EPA standards, qualitatively echoing findings in the 1983 NRC-NAS report. |
| 1995: | The NRC-NAS committee issues its report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, but it is not unanimous. The majority recommends a new, untried method for dose calculations that could have the effect of reducing calculated dose. The lone dissenting panel member, Thomas H. Pigford, claims the committee majority created "non-scientific policy fixes" to reduce calculated doses, and chose a method for calculating doses that was not mathematically valid and would result in an intolerable loosening of generally-accepted radiation protection standards.(See editorial and SDA Vol. 4 No. 4 |
| 1996: | US Circuit Court of Appeals finds DOE liable to take charge of commercial spent fuel in 1998. |
| 1995 and 1996: | Congress considers several nuclear waste bills. One has provisions that include appointing a presidential commission on nuclear waste. The main one proposes relaxing radiation exposure standards, mandating the disposal of waste in a Yucca Mountain repository, forcing DOE to take possession of the waste beginning in 1998, and moving it to a centralized interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain. The bill is vetoed by President Clinton on environmental grounds. |
| 1997: | Congress again considers nuclear waste legislation with provisions similar to the ones in the 1996 bill vetoed by President Clinton. |
| NOTES: DOE: Department of Energy EPA: Environmental Protection Agency HLW: high-level waste |
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA
October, 1997