Nuclear Waste Policy Act

Problem Identification and Agenda Setting

Before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) enactment, there were no
solidified regulations on how and where to dispose of nuclear waste. Nuclear power plants and
nuclear weapons production result in large amounts of hazardous byproduct and waste with long
chemical half-lives. Facilities that created nuclear weaponry had millions of gallons of
contaminated waste kept in tanks made from steel in a couple of states across America (EPA).
The plants that produced nuclear power stored contaminated zirconium fuel rods in concrete
pools of water lined with steel and then moved to barrels made of the same materials at the
nuclear power facility (Office of Nuclear Energy). The structure and concept of the NWPA is
similar to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA), which gave
responsibility to states to dispose of their waste inside the state. It was later amended in 1985 to
influence the use of common storage sites to consolidate waste in each state.
Policy Formulation and Policy Adoption
The NWPA originated from congressional action to place more focus on finding
repository locations, expanding research, and implementing specialized waste programs. Both
the Senate and House of Representatives passed the plan for the NWPA because of the possible
environmental and health risks associated with the original method of nuclear waste storage.
Nevada’s Yucca Mountain was under investigation for a couple of decades to be the nation’s
only nuclear waste repository and eventually was selected by the Department of Energy as the
best candidate for the storage site. The Nevada government made a disapproval notice to use
Yucca Mountain; however, Congressional votes overturned the disapproval, and President
George W. Bush signed the action for the repository site (Energy & Commerce). The initial
adoption process for the NWPA went well because there was already a policy in action for
radioactive waste, so it wasn’t like a new idea for lawmakers to push onto developers with
nuclear waste. Most lawmakers were not opposed to supporting the act because its goal was to
increase conservation and reduce the health risks of nuclear waste. During the Obama
Administration in the 2010s, there were more debates about Yucca Mountain and whether it was
suitable to be a repository. Several disagreements occurred between the various political groups
involved with the project, and scientific evidence found Yucca Mountain seismically and
geologically dangerous to hold nuclear waste (Energy & Commerce). There was also a lot of
disapproval from Native Americans because the area of Yucca Mountain is part of the Western
Shoshone Nation and is an important landmark in their culture (Sacred Land). The Department
of Energy halted the Yucca Mountain project and distributed the waste that was supposed to
occupy the repository to existing storage facilities.
Policy Implementation
The NWPA focuses on responsible management strategies for nuclear waste, specifically
with repositories. The act gave the Department of Energy full responsibility to investigate a site
suitable for national nuclear waste and design and operate the repository site. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) received responsibility for granting the license for the final
repository site, which needs to follow guidelines drafted by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The first amendment to the NWPA focused on Yucca Mountain being the best
candidate for the Department of Energy to choose as the official repository site. The following
amendments enforced that the Department of Energy is allowed to create only one repository
site. Congress would have to cast another vote if the Department of Energy wanted to research or
build a second repository; the Secretary of Energy would need to provide a report supporting the
need for another site before the start of 2010 (EPA). The NWPA affects the companies that
produce nuclear waste and the state governments that may need to revise their management
methods to follow the EPA storage standards. The NWPA can also positively affect human and
environmental health by providing safer hazardous waste handling and storage options. As
mentioned before, the NWPA – specifically the section on the Yucca Mountain repository –
would affect the livelihoods of the Native Americans and the public who live near the site if it
was completed and functioning.
Policy Evaluation
The NWPA has experienced a few amendments mentioned previously. The amendments
focused on the repository and how to direct the process of determining and licensing the site.
Originally there were a handful of sites under investigation for the repository, but the first
amendment of the NWPA stated Yucca Mountain was the only location considered for the
project. There was controversy from the state of Nevada and the Western Shoshone tribe after
Yucca Mountain became the final candidate for the repository explained in the Policy
Formulation and Policy Adoption section. In 2009, the Secretary of Energy presented to the
Senate that Yucca Mountain was unsuited for the repository site and said the Department of
Energy should remove the licensing application. The Obama Administration also stopped excess
funding from going to the project, everything except the minimum required by the NRC. These
two events resulted in the official termination and abandonment of the Yucca Mountain
repository project.
References and Further Information
https://www.congress.gov/bill/97th-congress/house-bill/3809
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-nuclear-waste-policy-act
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
https://www.energy.gov/articles/nuclear-waste-policy-act
https://www.gao.gov/products/rced-85-100
https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/yucca-mountain
https://sacredland.org/yucca-mountain-united-states/
Policy Conclusion
The NWPA effectively changed how nuclear waste was handled and stored by facilities
across the country. The regulations for responsible storage methods created a safer system for the
environment and the public. The storage of nuclear waste can be controversial due to the inherent
risks involved with human errors or natural disasters; the concept of one repository for the entire
nation’s nuclear waste supply relied too heavily on idealism. Continuing to store the nuclear
waste as we are, in pools of water and then placed in dry barrels underground, seems like the
most realistic pathway and is also used in many countries. However, I think the NWPA could
add an amendment on starting nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel) recycling like a few other
countries since it uses potential resources that would otherwise go to waste.