But several administrations sought to change the nuclear policy framework—leading to political and other headwinds over issues including the government’s lack of a centralized site for temporary waste storage. Yucca Mountain remains abandoned, with strong opposition continuing from numerous stakeholder groups. 

Nevada’s Democratic senators, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez-Masto, introduced legislation in August to permanently block any future consideration of Yucca Mountain as the U.S nuclear waste repository.

More recently, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on Sept. 23 to tap experts on how to address nuclear waste management, including who should manage and dispose of material and how and where it is stored.

“First and foremost, history has shown that nuclear waste management is a multi-generational infrastructure project,” committee Chair Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.VA.), said at the hearing. “A successful policy must be built for the long term and durable, with strong bipartisan buy-in from Congress.”
 

Fuel Production-Waste Management 'Campuses'

Looking for quick answers on construction and engineering topics?
Try Ask ENR, our new smart AI search tool. Ask ENR →

The hearing comes as the Energy Dept. proposes a voluntary federal-state initiative to modify the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle ecosystem by co-locating functions. Launched this year, the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses program would establish sites that focus on fuel fabrication, enrichment, used nuclear material reprocessing or recycling, advanced separations and waste stream management, with a cost estimated at $50 billion.

Following an agency request for information, 28 states applied to the program and six were chosen to be considered—Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia—which have signed non-binding memorandums of understanding with DOE. The program is designed to safely manage the nation's 95,000+ metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, but with the Yucca Mountain having a statutory cap of 77,000 metric tons, Congress must eventually pass legislation to formally repeal its repository designation, as the Trump administration pursues the new multi-state storage plan.

DOE said it hopes to see the campuses deployed quickly with initial facilities online in 2027. Private partners, state and local entities would manage construction of facility-specific infrastructure and related costs for each campus, with federal support limited to specific, authorized assistance mechanisms, according to the RFI.

Several lawmakers and witnesses at the hearing endorsed the program, noting that reprocessing can recover about 90% of energy still contained in spent nuclear fuel and can reduce the amount and radioactivity of remaining waste, although it cannot eliminate the need for waste disposal. They also agreed that Congress should provide adequate resources for DOE to carry out its statutory disposal mission.

“Prolonged federal inaction has resulted in a de facto national nuclear waste policy of indefinitely stranding spent nuclear fuel at sites in 35 states, with negative impacts on host communities to those sites, electric utility customers in 42 states who have paid for a disposal program to no avail, and to U.S. taxpayers,” said Katrina McMurrian, executive director of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, a bipartisan advocacy group.

While it is encouraged by the DOE initiative “after enduring years of federal failure,” the coalition urges Congress to reestablish a national integrated waste disposal program and form an independent waste management organization to lead it, she said. Congress should also provide sustainable access to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for the program, McMurran noted.

The program should include “essential permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel now stranded at numerous operating and shutdown commercial reactor sites and communities,” she noted, adding that while waste is safely stored at those sites, “taxpayers are being charged millions each day beyond the Jan. 31, 1998 checkout date established in federal law.”

While the program has its state champions, notably Republican governors, not all party politicians are on board. Tennessee Republican Rep. Ed Butler sent a letter Aug. 10 to Gov. Bill Lee (R), opposing that state's proposed campus believed to be planned in the Oak Ridge area, claiming waste safety risks outweigh economic benefits. “We are a state of innovation and advanced technology, not a dump site," he said. Counties that could host satellite storage sites are also opposed, with concern growing in Idaho and Oklahoma as well.

Slow Progress

Luke Barrett, chair of the American Nuclear Society’s Nuclear Waste PolicyTask Force, said that spent fuel and reprocessing waste can be stored, transported and immobilized safely but requires isolation for thousands of years through geologic disposal. While other countries are making good progress toward siting and building repositories, the U.S. has accomplished little during the last 16 years, he said.

His group supports the DOE initiative but urges Congress to authorize investigation of permanent disposal sites beyond Yucca Mountain and to advance the regulatory framework needed to support such sites.

“We have learned a lot from the Yucca Mountain and international experiences, and this knowledge can improve our regulatory framework for new potential geologic disposal sites moving forward,” he said. Congress should enable DOE to begin accepting and removing nuclear fuel, especially spent fuel that is stranded at permanently shutdown reactors; it should also continue support for recycling research and development as well as early commercial deployment of these technologies as markets mature, he said. 

“The most resilient approach will be through a consent-based process involving affected communities, states and Tribal Nations,” said Kathryn Huff, professor and chair of the University of Wisconsin-Madison nuclear engineering and engineering physics department.

Centralized temporary storage could reduce taxpayer liabilities, remove fuel from shutdown reactor sites and other storage locations, and establish transportation capability, she added. But to work, the operating storage term, capacity, renewal conditions, benefits, monitoring requirements and connection to permanent disposal must be established.

Congressional authorization would also be needed before DOE could build and operate the interim storage facility, she said. Citing the latest agency financial reports, Huff said the Nuclear Waste Fund balance is over $51 billion–but is inaccessible. 

Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass,) echoed Huff on need for community buy-in before moving forward and noted Nevada’s lack of public consent. He criticized the Energy Dept. for gathering the state MOUs without clarifying how its vision will be developed in tandem with affected communities. 

“For all intents and purposes, these are going to be permanent interim storage [sites]. Once they're there, those sites are never going anywhere. So the community has to understand that,” he said. 

Markey also said DOE seeks trust from communities in storing nuclear waste and other functions that have major safety and national security implications amid political concerns.

 He specifically criticized the administration’s firing last year of Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board members and of Christopher Hanson, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission member and former chair, who now is an advisor to the New York Power Authority in its program to build up to 5 GW of nuclear power by 2040. 

Markey took issue with deregulation that limits agency ability “to ensure the safety and security of our reactor fleet.”