The WIPP journey to waste receipt

Abstract

In the early 1970s the federal government selected an area in southeastern New Mexico containing large underground salt beds as potentially suitable for radioactive waste disposal. An extensive site characterization program was initiated by the federal government. This site became the "Waste Isolation Pilot Plant," better known as WIPP. It is now 1997, over two decades after the initial selection of the New Mexico site as a potential radioactive waste repository. Numerous scientific studies, construction activities, and environmental compliance documents have been completed. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has addressed all relevant issues regarding the safety of WIPP and its ability to isolate radioactive waste from the accessible environment. Throughout the last two decades up to the present time, DOE has negotiated through a political, regulatory, and legal maze with regard to WIPP. New regulations have been issued, litigation initiated, and public involvement brought to the forefront of the DOE decision-making process. All of these factors combined to bring WIPP to its present status at the final stages of working through the licensing requirements for receipt of transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal. Throughout its history, the DOE has stayed true to Congress' mandates regarding WIPP. Steps taken have been necessary to demonstrate to Congress, the State of New Mexico, and the public in general, that the nation's first radioactive waste repository will be safe and environmentally sound. DOE's compliance demonstrations are presently under consideration by the cognizant regulatory agencies and DOE is closer than ever to waste receipt. This paper explores the DOE's journey towards implementing a permanent disposal solution for defense-related TRU waste, including major Congressional mandates and other factors that contributed to program changes regarding the WIPP project. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or mponsiiility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disdased, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commeMal product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not neCesSarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This document has been reproduced directly from the best possible copy.

Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility

“…( 43,44 ) The general opposition to nuclear energy appeared to spill over to WIPP, apparently leading to broad public opposition to the repository in the late 1970s and 1980s. ( 9‐11 ) What is interesting for this analysis is the manner in which steps in the subsequent process of policy adoption and implementation of the WIPP may have incrementally moderated the initially low approval for the facility. Over the course of the decade before WIPP opened, several highly publicized legal and regulatory hurdles were cleared, and these events may have influenced both perceptions of risk and acceptance of WIPP among residents of New Mexico.…”

“…Initially, New Mexico state‐level officials were largely supportive of WIPP; however, that support eroded in the late 1970s following the nuclear power plant accident at Three Mile Island and efforts in the U.S. Congress to include highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors in the waste that would be shipped to WIPP. ( 10,11 ) While state officials objected to emplacement of high‐level waste at WIPP, they were more receptive to receipt of defense‐related waste largely because the defense wastes were perceived to be less dangerous than the high‐level commercial waste 2 10,11 ) As a result of procedural concerns and in an effort to resist being forced to accept high‐level commercial waste, the state of New Mexico filed suit against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1981.…”

“…( 10,11 ) While state officials objected to emplacement of high‐level waste at WIPP, they were more receptive to receipt of defense‐related waste largely because the defense wastes were perceived to be less dangerous than the high‐level commercial waste 2 10,11 ) As a result of procedural concerns and in an effort to resist being forced to accept high‐level commercial waste, the state of New Mexico filed suit against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1981. ( 9 ) As part of a “consultation and cooperation” agreement signed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and the Governor of New Mexico shortly before the case was scheduled to reach court, the state of New Mexico received assurance of a formal role in the siting process 3…”