Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Changes from September 14, 2020 to September 17, 2021

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
September September ~~14, 2020~~17, 2021
Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for Congress since the Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for Congress since the
beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Federal policy is based on the premise that beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Federal policy is based on the premise that
Mark Holt
nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but proposed storage and disposal facilities have nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but proposed storage and disposal facilities have
Specialist in Energy Policy Specialist in Energy Policy
frequently been challenged on safety, health, and environmental grounds. Although civilian frequently been challenged on safety, health, and environmental grounds. Although civilian

radioactive waste encompasses a wide range of materials, most of the current debate focuses on radioactive waste encompasses a wide range of materials, most of the current debate focuses on
highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The United States currently has no highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The United States currently has no

permanent disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel or other highly radioactive waste. permanent disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel or other highly radioactive waste.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. NWPA The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. NWPA
requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository, which would be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository, which would be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). Amendments to NWPA in 1987 restricted DOE’s repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Commission (NRC). Amendments to NWPA in 1987 restricted DOE’s repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
DOE submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to NRC on June 3, 2008. The State of DOE submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to NRC on June 3, 2008. The State of
Nevada strongly opposes the Yucca Mountain project, citing excessive water infiltration, earthquakes, volcanoes, human Nevada strongly opposes the Yucca Mountain project, citing excessive water infiltration, earthquakes, volcanoes, human
intrusion, and other technical issues. intrusion, and other technical issues.
Licensing and design work for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository was halted under the Obama Administration, which Licensing and design work for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository was halted under the Obama Administration, which
cited continued opposition from Nevada. To develop an alternative nuclear waste policy, the Obama Administration cited continued opposition from Nevada. To develop an alternative nuclear waste policy, the Obama Administration
established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which in 2012 recommended a “consent based” established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which in 2012 recommended a “consent based”
process for siting nuclear waste storage and disposal facilitiesprocess for siting nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities . .
The Trump Administration included funds to restart Yucca Mountain licensing in its FY2018, FY2019, The Trump Administration included funds to restart Yucca Mountain licensing in its FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget and FY2020 budget
submissions to Congress. None of those Yucca Mountain funding requests were enacted. For FY2021, the submissions to Congress. None of those Yucca Mountain funding requests were enacted. For FY2021, the ~~Administration~~
Trump Administration requested no funding for Yucca Mountain licensing and development, and none has been sought by the Biden Administration for FY2022. With no spent fuel disposal or storage facilities currently under development by DOE, two private-sector storage facilities in New Mexico and Texas have been proposed. The Texas facility received an NRC license on September 13, 2021, and NRC plans to issue a decision on the New Mexico facility in January 2022. These near-surface Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities are intended to hold spent fuel from nuclear power plants around the country until a permanent underground repository is available. However, they are facing strong opposition from the two proposed host states. NWPA required DOE to begin removing spent fuel from reactor sites by January 31, 1998. Because that deadline was missed, nuclear utilities have sued DOE to recover the additional storage costs they have incurred, with damage payments so far totaling $8.6 billion. Several nuclear waste bills have been introduced in the 117th Congress. These include proposals to make further expenditures on Yucca Mountain subject to state and local consent (H.R. 1524, S. 541), authorize DOE to develop consent-based nuclear waste storage facilities and contract for nonfederal storage (H.R. 2097), and provide federal assistance to communities for waste stored at closed reactors (S. 1290, H.R. 3731). The Senate Appropriations Committee included an authorization for a DOE spent nuclear fuel storage pilot program, subject to state, local, and tribal consent, in its FY2022 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill (S. 2605). In the 116th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27, 2019, on a bill to creat e a Nuclear Waste Administration to implement a consent-based siting process for newly proposed nuclear waste facilities (S. 1234). The bill would not have affected the existing Yucca Mountain licensing process. A bill to provide the necessary land controls for the planned Yucca Mountain repository (H.R. 2699) was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee November 20, 2019. The bill also would have authorized DOE to store commercial waste from nuclear power plants at a nonfederal interim storage facility and eased the capacity limit on the Yucca Mountain repository from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons. It was similar to a bill passed by the House in the 115th Congress (H.R. 3053, H.Rept. 115-355) and to a bill (S. 2917) introduced and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee November 20, 2019. Congressional Research Service link to page 5 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 32 link to page 33 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 39 link to page 42 link to page 44 link to page 45 link to page 45 link to page 46 link to page 46 link to page 47 link to page 48 link to page 49~~requested no funding for Yucca Mountain licensing and development, although it did propose spending $27.5 million for~~
~~interim storage planning. The House approved that amount in an FY2021 consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 7617,~~
~~H.Rept. 116-449).~~
~~Several nuclear waste bills have been introduced in the 116th Congress. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee~~
~~held a hearing June 27, 2019, on a bill to create a Nuclear Waste Administration to implement a consent-based siting process~~
~~for newly proposed nuclear waste facilities (S. 1234). The bill would not affect the existing Yucca Mountain licensing~~
~~process.~~
~~A bill to provide the necessary land controls for the planned Yucca Mountain repository (H.R. 2699) was approved by the~~
~~House Energy and Commerce Committee November 20, 2019. The bill also would authorize DOE to store commercial waste~~
~~from nuclear power plants at a nonfederal interim storage facility and ease the capacity limit on the Yucca Mountain~~
~~repository from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons. It is similar to a bill passed by the House in the 115th Congress (H.R. 3053,~~
~~H.Rept. 115-355) and to a bill (S. 2917) introduced and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee~~
~~November 20, 2019.~~
~~Other nuclear waste proposals in the 116th Congress include bills that would prohibit expenditures on the Yucca Mountain~~
~~repository without state and local consent (H.R. 1544, S. 649), establish priorities for nuclear waste disposal (H.R. 2995),~~
~~authorize grants to communities to compensate for continued waste storage at closed reactors (S. 1985), and require spent~~
~~fuel at nuclear power plants to be moved from pools to dry casks (S. 2854).~~
~~Nonfederal interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel are being proposed in New Mexico and Texas. Interim storage~~
~~proponents contend that DOE could fulfill its disposal obligations under NWPA by taking title to spent fuel at nuclear plant~~
~~sites and storing it at private facilities until a permanent underground repository could be opened.~~
~~NWPA required DOE to begin removing spent fuel from reactor sites by January 31, 1998. Because that deadline was~~
~~missed, nuclear utilities have sued DOE to recover the additional storage costs they have incurred, with damage payments so~~
~~far totaling $8 billion.~~

~~Congressional Research Service~~

link to page link to page 5051 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Contacts
Author Information .......................................................................................................~~................. 19~~ 47

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Most Recent Developments
After Congress did not approve the Trump Administration’s funding proposals for FY2018, After Congress did not approve the Trump Administration’s funding proposals for FY2018,
FY2019, and FY2020 to resume development of the long-planned nuclear waste repository at FY2019, and FY2020 to resume development of the long-planned nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain, NV, the Yucca Mountain, NV, the Trump Administration did not seek further funding for the project for Administration did not seek further funding for the project for ~~FY2021.~~
FY2021; neither has the Biden Administration for FY2022. Licensing and development of the permanent underground repository has been suspended since Licensing and development of the permanent underground repository has been suspended since
~~FY2010, under the Obama Administration. For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested~~
~~funding for nuclear waste interim storage planning, which was included in a “minibus”~~
~~appropriations bill (H.R. 7617) passed by the House on July 31, 2020~~FY2010, under the Obama Administration. .
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), the Yucca Mountain site has Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), the Yucca Mountain site has
been the only location under consideration by the Department of Energy (DOE) for construction been the only location under consideration by the Department of Energy (DOE) for construction
of a permanent underground national repository for high-level radioactive waste. DOE had of a permanent underground national repository for high-level radioactive waste. DOE had
submitted a license application for the Yucca Mountain repository to the Nuclear Regulatory submitted a license application for the Yucca Mountain repository to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on June 3, 2008, as required by NWPA. However, the Obama Administration Commission (NRC) on June 3, 2008, as required by NWPA. However, the Obama Administration
announced it would request no further funding for the project and moved to withdraw the announced it would request no further funding for the project and moved to withdraw the
application on March 3, 2010. Although Congress has not provided new Yucca Mountain funding application on March 3, 2010. Although Congress has not provided new Yucca Mountain funding
since FY2010, it has not amended NWPA, which since FY2010, it has not amended NWPA, which ~~still~~ stil names Yucca Mountain as the sole names Yucca Mountain as the sole
repository candidate site. repository candidate site.
After deciding to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama Administration After deciding to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama Administration
established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop a new established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop a new
nuclear waste policy. The commission issued its final report on January 26, 2012, recommending nuclear waste policy. The commission issued its final report on January 26, 2012, recommending
that a new, “single-purpose organization” be given the authority and resources to promptly begin that a new, “single-purpose organization” be given the authority and resources to promptly begin
developing one or more nuclear waste repositories and consolidated storage facilities. The developing one or more nuclear waste repositories and consolidated storage facilities. The
recommendations recommendations ~~called~~cal ed for a “consent based” process in which the roles of various levels of for a “consent based” process in which the roles of various levels of
government in siting and regulating nuclear waste facilities would be established through government in siting and regulating nuclear waste facilities would be established through
negotiations. The commission also recommended that long-term research, development, and negotiations. The commission also recommended that long-term research, development, and
demonstration be conducted on technologies that could provide waste disposal benefits.1 demonstration be conducted on technologies that could provide waste disposal benefits.1
~~In response to the BRC report, and to provide an outline for a new nuclear waste program, DOE~~
~~issued a Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste~~
~~in January 2013. The DOE strategy called for a new nuclear waste management entity to develop~~
~~consent-based storage and disposal sites, similar to the BRC recommendation. Under the DOE~~
~~strategy, a pilot interim spent fuel storage facility was to open by 2021 and a larger-scale storage~~
~~facility, which could be an expansion of the pilot facility, by 2025. A geologic disposal facility~~
~~would open by 2048—50 years after the initially planned opening date for the Yucca Mountain~~
~~repository. After holding public meetings around the country during 2016, DOE issued a draft~~
~~consent-based siting process on January 12, 2017, shortly before the start of the Trump~~
~~Administration.2~~
~~Yucca Mountain Licensing~~
~~The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill on November 20, 2019 (H.R.~~
DOE issued a draft consent-based siting process on January 12, 2017, shortly before the start of the Trump Administration.2 The Biden Administration, in requesting no funding for Yucca Mountain in FY2022, promised to “support a consent-based siting approach working with potential host communities.”3 Yucca Mountain Licensing No Yucca Mountain licensing bil s have been introduced to date in the 117th Congress. In the 116th Congress, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bil (H.R. 2699) to withdraw the Yucca Mountain site from other uses under the public lands laws2699) to withdraw the Yucca Mountain site from other uses under the public lands laws, but it was not enacted. It was ~~. It is~~
similar to a similar to a ~~bill~~ bil passed by the House in the 115th Congress (H.R. 3053, H.Rept. 115-355) but passed by the House in the 115th Congress (H.R. 3053, H.Rept. 115-355) but also not not
enacted. The land withdrawal would enacted. The land withdrawal would ~~satisfy~~have satisfied one of the remaining one of the remaining licensing conditions identified licensing conditions identified

~~1 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear~~ by the NRC staff in its Yucca Mountain repository Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the final two volumes of which were issued on January 29, 2015. 1 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012, , January 2012,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (BRC Final Report). https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (BRC Final Report).
2 DOE, “Consent-Based Siting,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/consent-based-siting. 2 DOE, “Consent-Based Siting,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/consent-based-siting.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

1

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~by the NRC staff in its Yucca Mountain repository Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the final two~~
~~volumes of which were issued on January 29, 2015.~~
3 DOE, FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification, DOE/CF-0174, vol. 3, part 2, p. 58, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/doe-fy2022-budget-volume-3.2-v3.pdf. Congressional Research Service 1 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal NRC completed the SER in response to a court order that the Yucca Mountain repository NRC completed the SER in response to a court order that the Yucca Mountain repository
licensing process continue as long as previously appropriated funding was available. The SER licensing process continue as long as previously appropriated funding was available. The SER
contains the NRC staff’s determination of whether the repository would meet contains the NRC staff’s determination of whether the repository would meet ~~all~~ al applicable applicable
standards. Volume 3 of the SER, issued in October 2014, concluded that DOE’s Yucca Mountain standards. Volume 3 of the SER, issued in October 2014, concluded that DOE’s Yucca Mountain
repository design would comply with safety and environmental standards after being permanently repository design would comply with safety and environmental standards after being permanently
sealed.sealed.34
However, the staff said upon completing the SER that NRC should not authorize construction of However, the staff said upon completing the SER that NRC should not authorize construction of
the repository until the repository until ~~all~~ al land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s
environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed.environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed.45 NRC completed the supplemental EIS in NRC completed the supplemental EIS in
May May ~~20165~~20166 and made its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available, and made its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available,
using using ~~all~~ al the remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.the remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.67
Then-NRC Chairman Stephen Burns testified March 4, 2015, that his agency would need $330 Then-NRC Chairman Stephen Burns testified March 4, 2015, that his agency would need $330
~~million~~ mil ion in additionalin additional appropriations to complete the licensing process, including adjudicatory appropriations to complete the licensing process, including adjudicatory
hearings on as many as 300 issues that have been raised by the State of Nevada and others.hearings on as many as 300 issues that have been raised by the State of Nevada and others.78 As As
noted above, the noted above, the ~~Trump~~Biden Administration Administration ~~is not requesting FY2021~~ did not request FY2022 appropriations for NRC or appropriations for NRC or
DOE DOE Yucca Mountain licensing activities. Yucca Mountain licensing activities.
Consent-Based Siting Legislation
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27, 2019, on a The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27, 2019, on a ~~bill~~ bil to to
create a Nuclear Waste Administration to implement a consent-based siting process for nuclear create a Nuclear Waste Administration to implement a consent-based siting process for nuclear
waste facilities (S. 1234)waste facilities (S. 1234), which had no further action in the 116th Congress. Siting of new waste storage and disposal facilities would . Siting of new waste storage and disposal facilities would ~~require~~
have required consent by host states and affected local consent by host states and affected local governments and Indian tribes. The governments and Indian tribes. The ~~bill~~ bil would not would not ~~affect~~
have affected the existing Yucca Mountain the existing Yucca Mountain licensing process. Similar legislation has not been introduced to date in the 117th Congress. ~~licensing process.~~
Provisions to authorize DOE to develop consent-based pilot interim storage facilities for spent Provisions to authorize DOE to develop consent-based pilot interim storage facilities for spent
nuclear fuel were included in the nuclear fuel were included in the ~~FY2020~~FY2022 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Energy and Water Development Appropriations ~~bill~~
bil approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on ~~September 12, 2019 (S. 2470~~August 4, 2021 (S. 2605, S.Rept. 117-36). ~~, S.Rept. 116-~~
~~102), but they were not included in the enacted FY2020 funding measure (P.L. 116-94).~~ Under Under
Section Section ~~306~~308 of the of the ~~bill,~~ bil , DOE would DOE would ~~have been~~be authorized to develop one or more federal sites for authorized to develop one or more federal sites for
interim storage of spent nuclear fuel from closed nuclear power plants. DOE could not select a interim storage of spent nuclear fuel from closed nuclear power plants. DOE could not select a
site for a pilot storage facility without the consent of the governor of the host state, site for a pilot storage facility without the consent of the governor of the host state, ~~all localities~~
al loc alities with jurisdiction over the site, and any affected Indian tribeswith jurisdiction over the site, and any affected Indian tribes. The committee included similar language in its FY2020 Energy and Water funding measure (S. 2470, S.Rept. 116-102), but it was not included in the enacted FY2020 funding measure (P.L. 116-94). Similar provisions had been . Similar provisions had been
included, but ultimately not enacted, in previous Energy and Water Development appropriations included, but ultimately not enacted, in previous Energy and Water Development appropriations
~~bills~~ bil s reported by the Senate panel. reported by the Senate panel.

~~3 NRC,~~ 4 NRC, “NRC Staff Issues“NRC Staff Issues ~~Volume~~ Volume 3 of Yucca3 of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation ReportMountain Safety Evaluation Report ,” news release 14-069, October 16, ,” news release 14-069, October 16,
2014, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v3/. 2014, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v3/.
45 NRC, NRC, “NRC Publishes Final “NRC Publishes Final ~~Two Volumes~~ T wo Volumes of Yuccaof Yucca Mountain Safety EvaluationMountain Safety Evaluation ,” news release 15-005, January 29. ,” news release 15-005, January 29.
2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/. 2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/.
56 NRC, NRC, Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for
the Disposal of Spent Nuclearthe Disposal of Spent Nuclear ~~Fuel~~ Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,
NUREG-2184, Final ReportNUREG-2184, Final Report , May 2016, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2184/. , May 2016, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2184/.
67 NRC, NRC, “ “NRC Makes YuccaNRC Makes Yucca Mountain Hearing Documents Publicly Available,” newsMountain Hearing Documents Publicly Available,” news release, Augustrelease, August 19, 2016, 19, 2016,
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1623/ML16232A429.pdf. http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1623/ML16232A429.pdf.
78 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish YuccaStaff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12Supplemental EIS in 12 -15 Months,” -15 Months,”
NuclearFuel,NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015. March 16, 2015.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2 2

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

In the 115th Congress, consent-based siting provisions for a monitored retrievable storage (interim In the 115th Congress, consent-based siting provisions for a monitored retrievable storage (interim
storage) facility were included in a nuclear waste storage) facility were included in a nuclear waste ~~bill~~ bil (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May
10, 2018, but were not enacted. The 10, 2018, but were not enacted. The ~~bill~~ bil would have authorized DOE to store spent nuclear fuel at would have authorized DOE to store spent nuclear fuel at
interim storage facilities owned by nonfederal entities, if consent were provided by the governor interim storage facilities owned by nonfederal entities, if consent were provided by the governor
of the host state, units of local government with jurisdiction over the site, and affected Indian of the host state, units of local government with jurisdiction over the site, and affected Indian
tribes. A similar tribes. A similar ~~bill~~ bil was introduced in the 116th Congress (H.R. 2699) on May 14, 2019, and was introduced in the 116th Congress (H.R. 2699) on May 14, 2019, and
ordered reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee November 20, 2019ordered reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee November 20, 2019, but it was not enacted. .
Private-Sector Waste Storage Sites
~~An NRC license application for a spent fuel storage facility in New Mexico~~ With no spent fuel disposal or storage facilities currently under development by DOE, two private-sector storage facilities in New Mexico and Texas have been proposed. The Texas facility received an NRC license on September 13, 2021, and NRC plans to issue a decision on the New Mexico facility in January 2022.9 These near-surface Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities are intended to hold spent fuel from nuclear power plants around the country until a permanent underground repository is available. The storage facilities are facing strong opposition from the two proposed host states. New Mexico filed a lawsuit against NRC on March 29, 2021, and the Texas governor signed a law banning new spent fuel storage facilities in the state on August 9, 2021.10 The NRC license application for the New Mexico storage facility was filed March 30, was filed March 30,
2017, by Holtec International, a manufacturer of spent fuel storage systems.2017, by Holtec International, a manufacturer of spent fuel storage systems.~~8 The facility would~~
11 The Texas facility would be built at a site owned by the waste management company Waste Control Specialists (WCS), which has other waste operations at the same location. To develop the spent fuel facility, WCS formed a joint venture with Orano USA cal ed Interim Storage Partners (ISP), which submitted an application to NRC on June 11, 2018.12 The NRC license issued to ISP in September 2021 authorizes the first phase of the project, which would store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent fuel out of a possible total of 40,000 metric tons in subsequent phases. Before issuing the license, NRC issued its final EIS for the proposed Texas facility on July 29, 2021, finding no environmental impacts that would preclude licensing. The proposed Holtec facility would be located on a 1,000-acre site provided by a local ~~be located on a 1,000-acre site provided by a local~~ government consortium near the Waste government consortium near the Waste
~~Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA). Total storage~~
~~capacity is to be about 120,000 metric tons.9~~
~~The waste management company Waste Control Specialists (WCS) filed an application on April~~
~~28, 2016, for an NRC license to develop an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in~~
~~Texas. WCS asked NRC to suspend consideration of the license application April 18, 2017, but~~
~~subsequently formed a joint venture with Orano USA called Waste Control Partners, which~~
~~submitted a renewed application for the Texas facility on June 11, 2018.10~~
~~The proposed WCS~~Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Eddy-Lea 9 NRC, “NRC Issues License to Interim Storage Partners for Consolidated Spent Nuclear Fuel Interim Storage Facility in T exas,” news release 21-036, September 13, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-036.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Mn0i8pChxfYNiF14v6ILsSkLbCxu8Ai7XPc97P3QjHmQoSFvqBMm -Xos. 10 New Mexico Attorney General, “Attorney General Balderas Announces Lawsuit to Halt Holtec Nuclear Storage Facility,” news release, March 29, 2021, https://www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/Attorney_General_Balderas_Announces_Lawsuit_to_Halt_Holtec_Nuclear_Storage_Facility.pdf ; T exas Governor Greg Abbott, “ Interim Storage Partners (ISP) Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project, Docket ID NRC-2016-0231,” November 3, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2030/ML20309B061.pdf; T exas Legislature Online, Actions, HB7, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB7. 11 NRC, “Holtec International—HI-ST ORE CISF,” April 5, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/holtec-international.html. 12 Orano USA, “Interim Storage Partners Submits Renewed NRC License Application for Used Nuclear Fuel Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in West T exas,” press release, June 11, 2018, http://us.areva.com/EN/home-4216/orano-orano-usa—interim-storage-partners-submits-renewed-nrc-license-application-for-used-nuclear-fuel-consolidated-interim-storage-facility-in-west-texas.html. Congressional Research Service 3 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal Energy Al iance (ELEA). Total storage capacity is to be about 120,000 metric tons.13 The proposed ISP spent fuel storage facility would be built at a 14,000-acre site near Andrews, spent fuel storage facility would be built at a 14,000-acre site near Andrews,
TX, TX, where WCS~~where the company~~ currently operates two low-level radioactive waste storage facilities with currently operates two low-level radioactive waste storage facilities with
local support. Under the WCS proposal, DOE would take title to spent fuel at nuclear plant sites, local support. Under the WCS proposal, DOE would take title to spent fuel at nuclear plant sites,
ship it to the Texas site, and pay WCS for storage for as long as 40 years with possible extensions, ship it to the Texas site, and pay WCS for storage for as long as 40 years with possible extensions,
according to the company. DOE’s costs would be covered through appropriations from the according to the company. DOE’s costs would be covered through appropriations from the
Nuclear Waste Fund, as were most costs for the Yucca Mountain project.Nuclear Waste Fund, as were most costs for the Yucca Mountain project. ~~WCS contends~~ WCS contended that a that a
privately developed spent fuel storage facility would not be bound by privately developed spent fuel storage facility would not be bound by NWPA restrictions that NWPA restrictions that
prohibit DOE from building a storage facility without making progress on Yucca Mountain.prohibit DOE from building a storage facility without making progress on Yucca Mountain.11
~~Provisions~~ 14 However, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a 2019 letter that current law prohibits DOE from contracting for spent nuclear fuel storage at a private facility.15 A bil to explicitly authorize DOE to enter into contracts with nonfederal interim storage to explicitly authorize DOE to enter into contracts with nonfederal interim storage
facilities facilities for spent fuel (H.R. 2097) was introduced March 19, 2021. Nonfederal interim storage provisions ~~for spent fuel~~ were included in legislationwere included in legislation (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May 10, (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May 10,
2018. As noted above, 2018. As noted above, the bil ~~the bill~~ was not enacted by the 115th Congress, and a similar was not enacted by the 115th Congress, and a similar ~~bill was~~
~~introduced~~ bil in the 116th Congress (H.R. in the 116th Congress (H.R. ~~2699)~~ 2699) was not enacted. .
Waste Program Appropriations
The Biden~~The Trump Administration’s FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests would have~~
~~provided the first new Yucca Mountain funding since FY2010, although the requests were not~~

~~8 NRC, “Holtec International—HI-STORE CISF,” April 5, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/~~
~~holtec-international.html.~~
~~9 Holtec International, “Holtec’s Proposed Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in Southeastern New Mexico,” 2018,~~
~~https://holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/hi-store-cis/.~~
~~10 Orano USA, “Interim Storage Partners Submits Renewed NRC License Application for Used Nuclear Fuel~~
~~Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in West Texas,” press release, June 11, 2018, http://us.areva.com/EN/home-~~
~~4216/orano-orano-usa—interim-storage-partners-submits-renewed-nrc-license-application-for-used-nuclear-fuel-~~
~~consolidated-interim-storage-facility-in-west-texas.html.~~
~~11 Beattie, Jeff, “Waste Control Specialists Sets 2020 Date to Open Spent Fuel Storage Facility,”~~ ~~IHS The Energy~~
~~Daily, February 10, 2015, p. 1; Hiruo, Elaine, “Texas Company Seeks License for Spent Fuel Storage,”~~ ~~Nucleonics~~
~~Week, February 12, 2015, p. 1.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

3

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~approved by Congress. For FY2021, the Administration did not request funds for the Yucca~~
~~Mountain project. Instead, the Administration sought $27.5 million to develop nuclear waste~~
~~central interim storage capacity. “Funding is primarily dedicated to performing activities that~~
~~would lay the groundwork necessary to ensure near-term deployment of interim storage to ensure~~
~~safe and effective consolidation and temporary storage of nuclear waste,” according to DOE’s~~
~~budget justification. Funding for the program would come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which~~
~~holds fees and interest paid by the nuclear power industry for waste management.12 The House~~
~~approved the Administration’s funding total but specified that only $7.5 million come from the~~
~~Nuclear Waste Fund (H.R. 7617).~~
~~Nuclear Waste Fee Collections~~
~~DOE stopped collecting nuclear waste fees from nuclear power generators on May 16, 2014,~~
~~pursuant to a court ruling.13 Citing uncertainty about the future of the nuclear waste program, the~~
~~U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ordered DOE on November 19,~~
~~2013, to stop collecting fees on nuclear power that are supposed to pay for waste disposal. The~~
~~fees, authorized by NWPA, had been paid by nuclear power generators at the rate of a tenth of a~~
~~cent per kilowatt-hour (one mill) and totaled about $750 million per year. NWPA requires the~~
~~Secretary of Energy to adjust the fees as necessary to cover the waste program’s anticipated costs,~~
~~but the court ruled that DOE’s current waste plans are too vague to allow a reasonable estimate to~~
~~be calculated. The court noted that DOE’s most recent cost estimate for the program had an~~
~~uncertainty range of nearly $7 trillion, a range “so large as to be absolutely useless” for~~
~~determining the waste fee.14~~
~~Policy Background~~
~~Nuclear waste has sometimes been called the Achilles~~ Administration’s first budget request, for FY2022, does not include funding for the Yucca Mountain project. However, it would provide $7.5 mil ion for maintaining security at the Yucca Mountain site and other administrative activities, as wel as $38 mil ion “to lay the groundwork for effective implementation of consolidated interim storage.”16 The House passed an FY2022 funding bil (H.R. 4502, H.Rept. 117-98) on July 29, 2021, that includes $27.5 mil ion for nuclear waste disposal, including $7.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The House Appropriations Committee report said, “The Department is directed to move forward under existing authority to identify a site for a federal interim storage facility. The Department is further directed to use a consent-based approach when undertaking these activities.” The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY2022 Energy and Water Development funding bil with the same nuclear waste disposal amounts as the House bil on August 4, 2021 (S. 2605, S.Rept. 117-36). As noted above, the Senate committee bil also would authorize a pilot nuclear waste storage facility with the consent of the host state, units of local government, and affected Indian tribes (Section 308). The Trump Administration’s FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests would have provided the first new Yucca Mountain funding since FY2010, although the requests were not approved by Congress. For FY2021, the Trump Administration did not request funds for the Yucca Mountain project, and none were appropriated. Instead, Congress provided $20 mil ion for 13 Holtec International, “ Holtec’s Proposed Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in Southeastern New Mexico ,” 2018, https://holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/hi-store-cis/. 14 Jeff Beattie, “Waste Control Specialists Sets 2020 Date to Open Spent Fuel Storage Facility,” IHS The Energy Daily, February 10, 2015, p. 1; and Elaine Hiruo, “T exas Company Seeks License for Spent Fuel Storage,” Nucleonics Week, February 12, 2015, p. 1. 15 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Letter to the Honorable Deb Haaland, U.S. House of Representatives, O ctober 23, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1931/ML19311C801.pdf. T he letter cites an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order, In the Matter of Holtec International, May 7, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1912/ML19127A026.pdf. 16 DOE, FY 2022 Conressional Budget Justification, May 2021, vol. 3, part 2, p. 35, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/doe-fy2022-budget-volume-3.2-v3.pdf. Congressional Research Service 4 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal interim storage and $7.5 mil ion (from the Nuclear Waste Fund) for Nuclear Waste Fund oversight activities (P.L. 116-260). Policy Background Nuclear waste has sometimes been cal ed the Achil es’ heel of the nuclear power industry. Much ’ heel of the nuclear power industry. Much
of the controversy over nuclear power centers on the lack of a disposal system for the highly of the controversy over nuclear power centers on the lack of a disposal system for the highly
radioactive spent fuel that must be regularly removed from operating reactors.radioactive spent fuel that must be regularly removed from operating reactors.1517 Low-level Low-level
radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, industry, hospitals, and other activities is radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, industry, hospitals, and other activities is
also a long-standing issue. also a long-standing issue.
Spent Nuclear Fuel Program
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (P.L. 97-425), as amended in 1987, requires DOE to focus on The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (P.L. 97-425), as amended in 1987, requires DOE to focus on
Yucca Mountain, NV, as the site of a deep underground repository for spent nuclear fuel and other Yucca Mountain, NV, as the site of a deep underground repository for spent nuclear fuel and other
highly radioactive waste. The State of Nevada has strongly opposed the planned Yucca Mountain highly radioactive waste. The State of Nevada has strongly opposed the planned Yucca Mountain
repository on the grounds that the site is unsafe, pointing to potential volcanic activity, repository on the grounds that the site is unsafe, pointing to potential volcanic activity,

~~12 DOE, Budget in Brief, February 2020, p. 38, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f72/doe-fy2021-~~
~~budget-in-brief_0.pdf.~~
~~13 Hiruo, Elaine, “DOE Implements Court-Ordered Suspension of Nuclear Waste Fee,” NuclearFuel, May 26, 2014.~~
~~14 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility~~
~~Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy, No. 11-1066, November 19, 2013,~~
~~https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2708C01ECFE3109F85257C280053406E/$file/11-1066-~~
~~1466796.pdf.~~
~~15 The term “spent nuclear fuel” is defined by NWPA as “fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following~~
~~irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing.” The nuclear industry refers to~~
~~this material as “used fuel,” because it contains potentially reusable uranium and plutonium after reprocessing.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

4

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~earthquakes, water infiltration, underground flooding, nuclear chain reactions, and fossil fuel and~~
earthquakes, water infiltration, underground flooding, nuclear chain reactions, and fossil fuel and mineral deposits that might encourage future human intrusion. mineral deposits that might encourage future human intrusion.
Under the George W. Bush Administration, DOE determined that Yucca Mountain was suitable Under the George W. Bush Administration, DOE determined that Yucca Mountain was suitable
for a repository and that licensing of the site should proceed, as specified by NWPA. DOE for a repository and that licensing of the site should proceed, as specified by NWPA. DOE
submitted a license application for the repository to NRC on June 3, 2008, and projected that the submitted a license application for the repository to NRC on June 3, 2008, and projected that the
repository could begin receiving waste in 2020, about 22 years later than the 1998 goal repository could begin receiving waste in 2020, about 22 years later than the 1998 goal
established by NWPA. established by NWPA.
However, the Obama Administration However, the Obama Administration made a policy decision that the Yucca Mountain repository made a policy decision that the Yucca Mountain repository
should not be opened, largely because of Nevada’s continuing opposition, although it requested should not be opened, largely because of Nevada’s continuing opposition, although it requested
FY2010 funding to continue the NRC licensing process. But the Obama Administration’s FY2011 FY2010 funding to continue the NRC licensing process. But the Obama Administration’s FY2011
budget request reversed the previous year’s plan to continue licensing the repository and budget request reversed the previous year’s plan to continue licensing the repository and ~~called~~cal ed
for a complete halt in funding and closure of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste for a complete halt in funding and closure of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management (OCRWM), which had run the program. In line with the request, the FY2011 Management (OCRWM), which had run the program. In line with the request, the FY2011
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) provided no DOE funding for the program. DOE Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) provided no DOE funding for the program. DOE
shut down the Yucca Mountain project at the end of FY2010 and transferred OCRWM’s shut down the Yucca Mountain project at the end of FY2010 and transferred OCRWM’s
remaining functions to the Office of Nuclear Energy. remaining functions to the Office of Nuclear Energy.
President Trump proposed to restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process, requesting funds for President Trump proposed to restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process, requesting funds for
FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 that were not approved by Congress. The Trump Administration FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 that were not approved by Congress. The Trump Administration
did not request appropriations for the Yucca Mountain project for FY2021did not request appropriations for the Yucca Mountain project for FY2021, nor did the incoming Biden Administration for FY2022. .
Under the Obama Administration, Under the Obama Administration, DOE had filed a motion with NRC on March 3, 2010, to DOE had filed a motion with NRC on March 3, 2010, to
withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice,” meaning the application could withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice,” meaning the application could
not be resubmitted in the future.not be resubmitted in the future.1618 DOE’s motion to withdraw the license application, filed with DOE’s motion to withdraw the license application, filed with
NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), received strong support from the State of NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), received strong support from the State of
17 T he term “spent nuclear fuel” is defined by NWPA as “fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor f ollowing irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing.” T he nuclear industry refers to this material as “used fuel,” because it contains potentially reusable uranium and plutonium after reprocessing. 18 U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw, NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63 -001, March 3, 2010, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100621397.pdf. Congressional Research Service 5 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal Nevada but drew opposition from states with defense-related and civilian radioactive waste that Nevada but drew opposition from states with defense-related and civilian radioactive waste that
had been expected to go to Yucca Mountain. State utilityhad been expected to go to Yucca Mountain. State utility regulators also filed a motion to regulators also filed a motion to
intervene on March 15, 2010, contending that “dismissal of the Yucca Mountain application intervene on March 15, 2010, contending that “dismissal of the Yucca Mountain application ~~will~~
wil significantly undermine the government’s ability to significantly undermine the government’s ability to ~~fulfill~~ fulfil its outstanding obligation to take its outstanding obligation to take
possession and dispose of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high levelpossession and dispose of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high level nuclear waste.”nuclear waste.”1719
The ASLB The ASLB denied DOE’s license withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, ruling that the NWPA denied DOE’s license withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, ruling that the NWPA
prohibits DOE from withdrawing the license application until NRC determines whether the prohibits DOE from withdrawing the license application until NRC determines whether the
repository is acceptable.repository is acceptable.1820 The NRC commissioners sustained the ASLB decision on a tie vote The NRC commissioners sustained the ASLB decision on a tie vote
September 9, 2011. However, NRC halted further consideration of the license application because September 9, 2011. However, NRC halted further consideration of the license application because
of “budgetary limitations.”of “budgetary limitations.”1921 Lawsuits to overturn the Yucca Mountain license withdrawal on Lawsuits to overturn the Yucca Mountain license withdrawal on
statutory grounds were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, statutory grounds were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
which ruled on August 13, 2013, that NRC must continue work on the Yucca Mountain license which ruled on August 13, 2013, that NRC must continue work on the Yucca Mountain license

~~16 U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw, NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63-001,~~
~~March 3, 2010, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100621397.pdf.~~
~~17 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, “NARUC Seeks Party Status at NRC, Says Yucca~~
~~Review Must Continue,” press release, March 16, 2010, http://www.naruc.org/News/default.cfm?pr=191&pdf=.~~
~~18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, Memorandum~~
~~and Order, June 29, 2010.~~
~~19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository),”~~
~~CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/2011-~~
~~07cli.pdf.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

5

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

application as long as funding was available. The court determined that NRC had at least $11.1 application as long as funding was available. The court determined that NRC had at least $11.1
~~million~~ mil ion in previously appropriated funds for that purpose.in previously appropriated funds for that purpose.20
22 NRC responded November 18, 2013, by directing the agency’s staff to complete the Yucca NRC responded November 18, 2013, by directing the agency’s staff to complete the Yucca
Mountain safety evaluation report (SER), a key document that would provide the staff’s Mountain safety evaluation report (SER), a key document that would provide the staff’s
conclusions about whether the proposed repository could be licensed.conclusions about whether the proposed repository could be licensed.2123 NRC issued Volume 3 of NRC issued Volume 3 of
the SER on October 16, 2014, concluding that DOE’s Yucca Mountain repository design would the SER on October 16, 2014, concluding that DOE’s Yucca Mountain repository design would
comply with safety and environmental standards for 1 comply with safety and environmental standards for 1 ~~million~~mil ion years after being permanently years after being permanently
sealed.sealed.2224 NRC issued the final two volumes of the Yucca Mountain SER on January 29, 2015. NRC issued the final two volumes of the Yucca Mountain SER on January 29, 2015.2325
Upon completing the SER, the staff said that NRC should not authorize construction of the Upon completing the SER, the staff said that NRC should not authorize construction of the
repository until repository until ~~all~~ al land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s
~~environmental impact statement (EIS)~~ EIS was completed. NRC completed the supplemental EIS in was completed. NRC completed the supplemental EIS in
May 2016 and made its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available, May 2016 and made its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available,
using using ~~all~~ al the remaining previously the remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.appropriated licensing funds.2426 NRC Chairman Stephen Burns NRC Chairman Stephen Burns
testified March 4, 2015, that NRC would need $330 testified March 4, 2015, that NRC would need $330 ~~million~~ mil ion in additionalin additional appropriations to appropriations to
complete the licensing process, including adjudicatory hearings on as many as 300 issues that complete the licensing process, including adjudicatory hearings on as many as 300 issues that
~~have been raised by the State of Nevada and others.25~~
~~After halting the Yucca Mountain project in 2010, the Obama Administration established the Blue~~
~~Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop alternative waste disposal~~
~~strategies. The BRC issued its final report on January 26, 2012, recommending that a new,~~
~~“single-purpose organization” be given the authority and resources to promptly begin developing~~
~~one or more nuclear waste repositories and consolidated storage facilities. The new organization~~
~~would use a “consent based” process to select waste facility sites.26 The BRC had commissioned~~
~~a series of reports on various aspects of nuclear waste policy to assist in its deliberations.27~~
~~In response to the BRC report, and to provide an outline for a new nuclear waste program, DOE~~
issued its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste
~~in January 2013. The DOE strategy called for a new nuclear waste management entity to develop~~
~~consent-based storage and disposal sites, similar to the BRC recommendation. Under the DOE~~
~~strategy, a pilot interim spent fuel storage facility was to be opened by 2021 and a larger-scale~~
~~storage facility, which could be an expansion of the pilot facility, by 2025. A geologic disposal~~

~~20 U.S.~~ have been raised by the State of Nevada and others.27 19 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, “NARUC Seeks Party Status at NRC, Says Yucca Review Must Continue,” press release, March 16, 2010, http://www.naruc.org/News/default.cfm?pr=191&pdf=. 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63 -001-HLW, Memorandum and Order, June 29, 2010. 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository),” CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/2011-07cli.pdf. 22 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11-1271, writ of ., No. 11-1271, writ of
mandamus, Augustmandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf. BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
2123 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC Directs Staff to Complete Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report,” news Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC Directs Staff to Complete Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report,” news
release No. 13-097, November 18, 2013, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1332/ML13322B228.pdf. release No. 13-097, November 18, 2013, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1332/ML13322B228.pdf.
2224 NRC, NRC, “ “NRC Staff IssuesNRC Staff Issues ~~Volume~~ Volume 3 of Yucca3 of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation ReportMountain Safety Evaluation Report ,” news release 14-069, October 16, ,” news release 14-069, October 16,
2014, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v3/. 2014, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v3/.
2325 NRC, NRC, “NRC Publishes Final “NRC Publishes Final ~~Two Volumes~~ T wo Volumes of Yuccaof Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation,” news release 15Mountain Safety Evaluation,” news release 15 -005, January 29. -005, January 29.
2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/. 2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/.
2426 NRC, NRC, Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., and NRC, “NRC , op. cit., and NRC, “NRC
Makes Yucca Mountain Hearing Documents Publicly Available,”Makes Yucca Mountain Hearing Documents Publicly Available,” op. cit. op. cit.
2527 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish YuccaStaff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12-15 Months,” Supplemental EIS in 12-15 Months,”
~~NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015.~~
~~26 Blue~~ Congressional Research Service 6 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal After halting the Yucca Mountain project in 2010, the Obama Administration established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop alternative waste disposal strategies. The BRC issued its final report on January 26, 2012, recommending that a new, “single-purpose organization” be given the authority and resources to promptly begin developing one or more nuclear waste repositories and consolidated storage facilities. The new organization would use a “consent based” process to select waste facility sites.28 The BRC had commissioned a series of reports on various aspects of nuclear waste policy to assist in its deliberations.29 In response to the BRC report, and to provide an outline for a new nuclear waste program, DOE issued its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste in January 2013. The DOE strategy cal ed for a new nuclear waste management entity to develop consent-based storage and disposal sites, similar to the BRC recommendation. Under the DOE strategy, a pilot interim spent fuel storage facility was to be opened by 2021 and a larger-scale storage facility, which could be an expansion of the pilot facility, by 2025. A geologic disposal facility was to open by 2048—50 years after the initially planned opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository.30~~Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012,~~
~~https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (BRC Final Report).~~
~~27 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Commissioned Papers, http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/~~
~~archive/brc/20120620214809/http://brc.gov/index.php?q=library/documents/commissioned-papers.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

6

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~facility was to open by 2048—50 years after the initially planned opening date for the Yucca~~
~~Mountain repository.28~~
To help develop a consent-based siting process, DOE in December 2015 invited public comment To help develop a consent-based siting process, DOE in December 2015 invited public comment
on the concept and announced a series of public meetings through mid-2016. Suggested issues to on the concept and announced a series of public meetings through mid-2016. Suggested issues to
be addressed be addressed ~~include~~included fairness of the siting process, possible site-selection models, appropriate fairness of the siting process, possible site-selection models, appropriate
participants and their roles in the process, information requirements for adequate public participants and their roles in the process, information requirements for adequate public
participation, and any other relevant concerns.participation, and any other relevant concerns.2931 Following the public meetings, DOE issued a Following the public meetings, DOE issued a
draft consent-based siting process on January 12, 2017, that included five phases (with estimated draft consent-based siting process on January 12, 2017, that included five phases (with estimated
time for completion): time for completion):
 Phase 1: siting process initiation and community outreach, 1-3 years. Legislation  Phase 1: siting process initiation and community outreach, 1-3 years. Legislation
would authorize and fund a waste management agency to conduct a consent- would authorize and fund a waste management agency to conduct a consent-
based siting process based siting process ~~agency~~ and provide grants to interested communities to and provide grants to interested communities to
determine whether to request a preliminary site assessment. determine whether to request a preliminary site assessment.
 Phase 2: preliminary site assessment, 1-2 years for interim storage and 2-4 years  Phase 2: preliminary site assessment, 1-2 years for interim storage and 2-4 years
for a permanent repository. After a preliminary site assessment, an interested for a permanent repository. After a preliminary site assessment, an interested
community could request a detailed site assessment. community could request a detailed site assessment.
 Phase 3: detailed site assessment, 2-4 years for interim storage, 5-10 years for  Phase 3: detailed site assessment, 2-4 years for interim storage, 5-10 years for
repository. After assessment, communities with sites found suitable would decide repository. After assessment, communities with sites found suitable would decide
on their on their ~~willingness~~wil ingness to host storage or disposal facilities. to host storage or disposal facilities.
 Phase 4: agreement, 1-2 years for interim storage, 2-5 years for repository. The  Phase 4: agreement, 1-2 years for interim storage, 2-5 years for repository. The
potential host community and the waste management agency would negotiate a potential host community and the waste management agency would negotiate a
siting agreement, which would be approved by “siting agreement, which would be approved by “~~all~~ al required parties,” presumably including the host state government. NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015. 28 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (BRC Final Report). 29 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Commissioned Papers, http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620214809/http://brc.gov/index.php?q=library/documents/commissioned-papers. 30 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High -Level Waste, op. cit. 31 DOE, “Invitation for Public Comment to Inform the Design of a Consent -Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities,” Federal Register, December 23, 2015, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/23/2015-32346/invitation-for-public-comment-to-inform-the-design-of-a-consent-based-siting-process-for-nuclear. Congressional Research Service 7 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal ~~required parties,” presumably~~
~~including the host state government.~~
 Phase 5: licensing, construction, operation, and closure. Licensing and  Phase 5: licensing, construction, operation, and closure. Licensing and
construction were estimated to take up to 5 years for an interim storage facility construction were estimated to take up to 5 years for an interim storage facility
and 15 years for a repository. An interim storage facility would operate for up to and 15 years for a repository. An interim storage facility would operate for up to
100 years and a repository for up to 150 years before closure.100 years and a repository for up to 150 years before closure.3032
The nuclear power industry has supported completion of NRC’s licensing review of Yucca The nuclear power industry has supported completion of NRC’s licensing review of Yucca
Mountain along with the pursuit of alternative storage and disposal facilities. “The target date for Mountain along with the pursuit of alternative storage and disposal facilities. “The target date for
opening of Yucca Mountain or an alternative repository site should be no more than 20 years after opening of Yucca Mountain or an alternative repository site should be no more than 20 years after
a consolidated storage site is opened,” according to an industry policy statement.a consolidated storage site is opened,” according to an industry policy statement.3133
The safety of geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste (HLW), as planned in The safety of geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste (HLW), as planned in
the United States, depends largely on the characteristics of the rock formations from which a the United States, depends largely on the characteristics of the rock formations from which a
repository would be excavated. Because many geologic formations are believed to have remained repository would be excavated. Because many geologic formations are believed to have remained
undisturbed for undisturbed for ~~millions~~mil ions of years, it appeared of years, it appeared ~~technically~~technical y feasible to isolate radioactive materials feasible to isolate radioactive materials
from the environment until they decayed to safe levels. “There is strong worldwide consensus from the environment until they decayed to safe levels. “There is strong worldwide consensus

~~28 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste, op. cit.~~
~~29 DOE, “Invitation for Public Comment to Inform the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste~~
~~Storage and Disposal Facilities,” Federal Register, December 23, 2015, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/~~
~~12/23/2015-32346/invitation-for-public-comment-to-inform-the-design-of-a-consent-based-siting-process-for-nuclear.~~
~~30 DOE, Draft Consent-Based Siting Process for Consolidated Storage and Disposal Facilities for Spent Nuclear Fuel~~
~~and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January 12, 2017, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/~~
~~Draft%20Consent-Based%20Siting%20Process%20and%20Siting%20Considerations.pdf.~~
~~31 Nuclear Energy Institute, “Nuclear Waste Management: Disposal,” October 28, 2014, http://www.nei.org/Issues-~~
~~Policy/Nuclear-Waste-Management/Disposal.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

7

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~that the best, safest long-term option for dealing with HLW is geologic isolation,” according to~~
that the best, safest long-term option for dealing with HLW is geologic isolation,” according to the National Research Council.the National Research Council.3234
However, as the Yucca Mountain controversy indicates, scientific confidence about the concept of However, as the Yucca Mountain controversy indicates, scientific confidence about the concept of
deep geologic disposal has turned out to be difficult to apply to specific sites. Every high-level deep geologic disposal has turned out to be difficult to apply to specific sites. Every high-level
waste site that has been proposed by DOE and its predecessor agencies has faced waste site that has been proposed by DOE and its predecessor agencies has faced ~~allegations~~al egations or or
discovery of unacceptable flaws, such as water intrusion or earthquake vulnerability, that could discovery of unacceptable flaws, such as water intrusion or earthquake vulnerability, that could
release unacceptable levels of radioactivity into the environment. Much of the problem results release unacceptable levels of radioactivity into the environment. Much of the problem results
from the inherent uncertainty involved in predicting waste site performance for the 1 from the inherent uncertainty involved in predicting waste site performance for the 1 ~~million~~mil ion
years that nuclear waste is to be isolated under current regulations. Widespread public years that nuclear waste is to be isolated under current regulations. Widespread public
controversy has also arisen over potential waste transportation routes to the sites under controversy has also arisen over potential waste transportation routes to the sites under
consideration. consideration.
President Obama’s budgets for FY2017 and previous years included long-term research on a wide President Obama’s budgets for FY2017 and previous years included long-term research on a wide
variety of technologies that could reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste. The Bush variety of technologies that could reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste. The Bush
Administration had proposed to demonstrate large-scale facilities to reprocess and recycle spent Administration had proposed to demonstrate large-scale facilities to reprocess and recycle spent
nuclear fuel by separating long-lived elements, such as plutonium, that could be made into new nuclear fuel by separating long-lived elements, such as plutonium, that could be made into new
fuel and “transmuted” into shorter-lived radioactive isotopes. Spent fuel reprocessing, however, fuel and “transmuted” into shorter-lived radioactive isotopes. Spent fuel reprocessing, however,
has long been controversial because of cost concerns and the potential weapons use of separated has long been controversial because of cost concerns and the potential weapons use of separated
plutonium. The Obama Administrationplutonium. The Obama Administration had refocused DOE’s nuclear waste research toward had refocused DOE’s nuclear waste research toward
fundamental science and away from the near-term design and development of reprocessing fundamental science and away from the near-term design and development of reprocessing
facilities. facilities.
President Bush had recommended the Yucca Mountain site to Congress on February 15, 2002, President Bush had recommended the Yucca Mountain site to Congress on February 15, 2002,
and Nevada Governor Guinn submitted a notice of disapproval, or “state veto,” April 8, 2002, as and Nevada Governor Guinn submitted a notice of disapproval, or “state veto,” April 8, 2002, as
~~allowed~~ al owed by NWPA. The state veto would have blocked further repository development at Yucca by NWPA. The state veto would have blocked further repository development at Yucca
Mountain if a resolution approving the site had not been passed by Congress and signed into law Mountain if a resolution approving the site had not been passed by Congress and signed into law
32 DOE, Draft Consent-Based Siting Process for Consolidated Storage and Disposal Facilities for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January 12, 2017, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Draft%20Consent -Based%20Siting%20Process%20and%20Siting%20Considerations.pdf . 33 Nuclear Energy Institute, “Nuclear Waste Management: Disposal,” October 28, 2014, http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Nuclear-Waste-Management/Disposal. 34 National Research Council, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: A Position Statem ent of the Board on Radioactive Waste Managem ent (1990), p. 2. Congressional Research Service 8 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal within 90 days of continuous session. An approval resolution was signed by President Bush July within 90 days of continuous session. An approval resolution was signed by President Bush July
23, 2002 (P.L. 107-200).23, 2002 (P.L. 107-200).3335
Other Programs
Other types of civilian radioactive waste have also generated public controversy, particularly lowOther types of civilian radioactive waste have also generated public controversy, particularly low --
level waste, which is produced by nuclear power plants, medical institutions, industrial level waste, which is produced by nuclear power plants, medical institutions, industrial
operations, and research activities. Civilian low-level waste currently is disposed of in large operations, and research activities. Civilian low-level waste currently is disposed of in large
trenches at sites in the states of South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. However, the Washington trenches at sites in the states of South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. However, the Washington
facility does not accept waste from outside its region, and the South Carolina site has been facility does not accept waste from outside its region, and the South Carolina site has been
availableavailable only to the three members of the Atlantic disposal compact (Connecticut, New Jersey, only to the three members of the Atlantic disposal compact (Connecticut, New Jersey,
and South Carolina) since June 30, 2008. The lowest-concentration class of low-level radioactive and South Carolina) since June 30, 2008. The lowest-concentration class of low-level radioactive
waste (class A) is accepted by a Utah commercial disposal facility from anywhere in the United waste (class A) is accepted by a Utah commercial disposal facility from anywhere in the United
States. ~~States.~~

~~32 National Research Council, Board on Radioactive Waste Management,~~ ~~Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste~~
~~Disposal: A Position Statement of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management~~ ~~(1990), p. 2.~~
~~33 Senator Bingaman introduced the approval resolution in the Senate April 9, 2002 (S.J.Res. 34), and Representative~~
~~Barton introduced it in the House April 11, 2002 (H.J.Res. 87). The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the~~
~~House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved H.J.Res. 87 on April 23 by a 24-2 vote, and the full committee~~
~~approved the measure two days later, 41-6 (H.Rept. 107-425). The resolution was passed by the House May 8, 2002, by~~
~~a vote of 306-117. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved S.J.Res. 34 by a 13-10 vote June~~
~~5, 2002 (S.Rept. 107-159). Following a 60-39 vote to consider S.J.Res. 34, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 87 by voice vote~~
~~July 9, 2002.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

8

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

Threats by states to close their disposal facilities led to congressional authorization of regional Threats by states to close their disposal facilities led to congressional authorization of regional
compacts for low-level waste disposal in 1985. The first, and so far only, new disposal site under compacts for low-level waste disposal in 1985. The first, and so far only, new disposal site under
the regional compact system opened on November 10, 2011, near Andrews, TX.the regional compact system opened on November 10, 2011, near Andrews, TX.3436 The Texas The Texas
Legislature approved legislationLegislature approved legislation in May 2011 to in May 2011 to ~~allow~~al ow up to 30% of the facility’s capacity to be up to 30% of the facility’s capacity to be
used by states outside the Texas Compact, which consists of Texas and Vermont.used by states outside the Texas Compact, which consists of Texas and Vermont.3537
Nuclear Waste Litigation
NWPA Section 302 authorized DOE to enter into contracts with U.S. generators of spent nuclear NWPA Section 302 authorized DOE to enter into contracts with U.S. generators of spent nuclear
fuel and other highly radioactive waste; under the contracts, DOE was to dispose of the waste in fuel and other highly radioactive waste; under the contracts, DOE was to dispose of the waste in
return for a fee on nuclear power generation. The act prohibited nuclear reactors from being return for a fee on nuclear power generation. The act prohibited nuclear reactors from being
licensed to operate without a nuclear waste disposal contract with DOE, and licensed to operate without a nuclear waste disposal contract with DOE, and ~~all~~ al reactor operators reactor operators
subsequently signed them. As required by NWPA, the “standard contract” specified that DOE subsequently signed them. As required by NWPA, the “standard contract” specified that DOE
would begin disposing of nuclear waste no later than January 31, 1998.would begin disposing of nuclear waste no later than January 31, 1998.3638
After DOE missed the contractual deadline, nuclear utilities After DOE missed the contractual deadline, nuclear utilities began filing lawsuits to recover their began filing lawsuits to recover their
additional storage costs—costs they would not have incurred had DOE begun accepting waste in additional storage costs—costs they would not have incurred had DOE begun accepting waste in
1998 as scheduled. DOE reached its first settlement with a nuclear utility, PECO Energy 1998 as scheduled. DOE reached its first settlement with a nuclear utility, PECO Energy
Company (now part of Exelon), on July 19, 2000. The agreement Company (now part of Exelon), on July 19, 2000. The agreement ~~allowed~~al owed PECO to keep up to PECO to keep up to
$80 $80 ~~million~~ mil ion in nuclear waste fee revenues during the subsequent 10 years. However, other utilities in nuclear waste fee revenues during the subsequent 10 years. However, other utilities
sued DOE to block the settlement, contending that nuclear waste fees may be used only for the sued DOE to block the settlement, contending that nuclear waste fees may be used only for the
~~DOE waste program and not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court~~
~~of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed, ruling September 24, 2002, that any compensation would~~
~~have to come from general revenues or other sources than the waste fund. Subsequent nuclear~~
~~waste compensation to utilities has come from the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund, a permanent~~
~~account that is used to cover damage claims against the U.S. government. Payments from the~~
~~Judgment Fund do not require appropriations.37~~
~~Through FY2019, nuclear waste payments from the Judgment Fund included $5.7 billion~~
~~resulting from settlements and $2.3 billion from final court judgments, for a total of about $8.0~~
~~billion, according to DOE. By the end of FY2019, 40 lawsuits had been settled, representing~~
~~utilities that own 81% of nuclear reactors subject to litigation. In addition, 61 cases had received~~
~~final court judgments.38 Under the settlements, utilities submit annual reimbursement claims to~~
~~DOE for any delay-related nuclear waste storage costs they incurred during that year. Any~~
~~disagreements over reimbursable claims between DOE and a utility would go to arbitration.~~

~~34 Waste Control Specialists LLC, “Historic Texas Compact Disposal Facility Ready for Business,”~~
~~http://www.wcstexas.com.~~
35 35 Senator Bingaman introduced the approval resolution in the Senate April 9, 2002 (S.J.Res. 34), and Representative Barton introduced it in the House April 11, 2002 (H.J.Res. 87). T he Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved H.J.Res. 87 on April 23 by a 24-2 vote, and the full committee approved the measure two days later, 41-6 (H.Rept. 107-425). T he resolution was passed by the House May 8, 2002, by a vote of 306-117. T he Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved S.J.Res. 34 by a 13-10 vote June 5, 2002 (S.Rept. 107-159). Following a 60-39 vote to consider S.J.Res. 34, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 87 by voice vote July 9, 2002. 36 Waste Control Specialists LLC, “Historic T exas Compact Disposal Facility Ready for Business,” http://www.wcstexas.com. 37 Waste Control Specialists LLC, “Waste Control Specialists Commends Passage of Legislation,” press release, May Waste Control Specialists LLC, “Waste Control Specialists Commends Passage of Legislation,” press release, May
31, 2011, http://www.wcstexas.com/pdfs/press/31, 2011, http://www.wcstexas.com/pdfs/press/
WCS%20Press%20Release%20Announcing%20Legislation.final.5.31.11.pdfWCS%20Press%20Release%20Announcing%20Legislation.final.5.31.11.pdf . 38 T he.
~~36 The~~ Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste can be found at 10 Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste can be found at 10
C.F.R.C.F.R. ~~961.11.~~
~~37 The Judgment Fund has a permanent, indefinite appropriation for the payment of final judgments and settlements.~~
~~See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, “About the Judgment Fund,” March 22, 2018,~~
~~https://fiscal.treasury.gov/judgment-fund/about.html.~~
~~38 DOE, Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2019, DOE/CF-0160, p. 81, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/~~
~~2019/11/f68/fy-2019-doe-agency-financial-report.pdf.~~

~~Congressional Research Service~~

9

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~Utilities~~ 961.11. Congressional Research Service 9 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal DOE waste program and not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed, ruling September 24, 2002, that any compensation would have to come from general revenues or other sources than the waste fund. Subsequent nuclear waste compensation to utilities has come from the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund, a permanent account that is used to cover damage claims against the U.S. government. Payments from the Judgment Fund do not require appropriations.39 Through FY2020, nuclear waste payments from the Judgment Fund included $6.3 bil ion resulting from settlements and $2.3 bil ion from final court judgments, for a total of about $8. 6 bil ion, according to DOE. By the end of FY2020, 41 lawsuits had been settled, representing utilities that own 80% of nuclear reactors subject to litigation. In addition, 63 cases had received final court judgments.40 Under the settlements, utilities submit annual reimbursement claims to DOE for any delay-related nuclear waste storage costs they incurred during that year. Any disagreements over reimbursable claims between DOE and a utility would go to arbitration. Utilities that have not settled with the Department of Justice have continued seeking damage that have not settled with the Department of Justice have continued seeking damage
compensation through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Unlike the settlements, which cover compensation through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Unlike the settlements, which cover ~~all~~
al past and future damages resulting from DOE’s nuclear waste delays, awards by the Court of past and future damages resulting from DOE’s nuclear waste delays, awards by the Court of
Claims can cover only damages that have already been incurred; therefore, utilities must continue Claims can cover only damages that have already been incurred; therefore, utilities must continue
filing claims as they accrue additional delay-related costs. filing claims as they accrue additional delay-related costs.
DOE estimates that its potential liabilities DOE estimates that its potential liabilities for waste program delays could total as much as $for waste program delays could total as much as $~~36.5~~
~~billion,~~ 39.2 bil ion, including the $8.including the $8.~~0 billion~~ 6 bil ion already paid in settlements and final judgments.already paid in settlements and final judgments.3941
Delays in the federal waste disposal program could also lead to future environmental enforcement Delays in the federal waste disposal program could also lead to future environmental enforcement
action over DOE’s own high-level waste and spent fuel, mostly resulting from defense and action over DOE’s own high-level waste and spent fuel, mostly resulting from defense and
research activities. Some of the DOE-owned waste is currently being stored in noncompliance research activities. Some of the DOE-owned waste is currently being stored in noncompliance
with state and federal environmental laws, making DOE with state and federal environmental laws, making DOE ~~potentially~~potential y subject to fines and penalties subject to fines and penalties
if the waste is not removed according to previously negotiated compliance schedules.if the waste is not removed according to previously negotiated compliance schedules.
Nuclear Waste Fee Collections
Under the nuclear waste disposal contracts required by NWPA, DOE must charge a fee on nuclear Under the nuclear waste disposal contracts required by NWPA, DOE must charge a fee on nuclear
power generation to pay for the nuclear waste program. But after DOE halted the Yucca Mountain power generation to pay for the nuclear waste program. But after DOE halted the Yucca Mountain
project, the nuclear industry and state utility regulators sued to stop further collection of the project, the nuclear industry and state utility regulators sued to stop further collection of the
nuclear waste fees. A federal court ultimately agreed with the waste-fee opponents, and DOE nuclear waste fees. A federal court ultimately agreed with the waste-fee opponents, and DOE
suspended fee collections in May 2014. suspended fee collections in May 2014.
Petitions to end the nuclear waste fee were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals by the National Petitions to end the nuclear waste fee were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals by the National
Association of Regulatory UtilityAssociation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), representing state utility regulators, Commissioners (NARUC), representing state utility regulators,
and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), representing the nuclear industry, on April 2 and Apriland the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), representing the nuclear industry, on April 2 and April 5, 5,
2010, respectively. The suits argued that the fees, totaling about $750 2010, respectively. The suits argued that the fees, totaling about $750 ~~million~~mil ion per year, should not per year, should not
be collected while the federal government’s nuclear waste disposal program has been halted.be collected while the federal government’s nuclear waste disposal program has been halted.40
~~DOE responded that the federal government still~~ 42 39 T he Judgment Fund has a permanent, indefinite appropriation for the payment of final judgments and settlements. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, “About the Judgment Fund,” March 22, 2018, https://fiscal.treasury.gov/judgment -fund/about.html. 40 DOE, Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2020, DOE/CF-0160, p. 88, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/11/f80/fy-2020-doe-agency-financial-report.pdf. 41 DOE, Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2020, op. cit. 42 NARUC, “State Regulators Go to Court with DOE over Nuclear Waste Fees, news release, April 2, 2010, http://www.naruc.org/News/default.cfm?pr=193; Nuclear Energy Institute et al. v. U.S. DOE, Joint Petition for Congressional Research Service 10 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal DOE responded that the federal government stil intended to dispose of the nation’s nuclear waste intended to dispose of the nation’s nuclear waste
and that the fees must continue to be collected to cover future disposal costs.and that the fees must continue to be collected to cover future disposal costs.4143 Energy Secretary Energy Secretary
Steven Chu issued a formal determination on November 1, 2010, that there was “no reasonable Steven Chu issued a formal determination on November 1, 2010, that there was “no reasonable
basis at this time” to conclude that excess funds were being collected for future nuclear waste basis at this time” to conclude that excess funds were being collected for future nuclear waste
disposal activities.disposal activities.4244
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled June 1, 2012, that Secretary The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled June 1, 2012, that Secretary
Chu’s determination that the nuclear waste fee should continue unchanged was not “a valid Chu’s determination that the nuclear waste fee should continue unchanged was not “a valid
evaluation” and ordered him to conduct a more thorough study of the fee within six months. The evaluation” and ordered him to conduct a more thorough study of the fee within six months. The
court noted that the Secretary’s finding relied primarily on costs that had been projected for the court noted that the Secretary’s finding relied primarily on costs that had been projected for the
Yucca Mountain site, which the Obama Administration had terminated as “unworkable.” The Yucca Mountain site, which the Obama Administration had terminated as “unworkable.” The
court concluded that the Secretary must evaluate the likely costs of reasonable alternatives and court concluded that the Secretary must evaluate the likely costs of reasonable alternatives and
the timing of those costs, the timing of those costs, ~~all~~ al of which would affect the level of nuclear waste fees required.45~~of which would affect the level of nuclear waste fees required.43~~

~~39 DOE, Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2019, op. cit.~~
~~40 NARUC, “State Regulators Go to Court with DOE over Nuclear Waste Fees, news release, April 2, 2010,~~
~~http://www.naruc.org/News/default.cfm?pr=193; Nuclear Energy Institute et al. v. U.S. DOE, Joint Petition for~~
~~Review, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, April 5, 2010.~~
~~41 Jeff Beattie, “NARUC, Utilities Sue DOE Over Nuke Waste Fee,” Energy Daily, April 6, 2010, p. 1.~~
~~42 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, “Secretarial Determination of the Adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee,”~~
~~November 1, 2010, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Secretarial_Determination_WasteFee.pdf.~~
~~43 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility~~
~~Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy, No. 11-1066, decided June 1, 2012,~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

10

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

DOE responded with a new fee adequacy assessment in January 2013 that evaluated the total DOE responded with a new fee adequacy assessment in January 2013 that evaluated the total
costs of a variety of waste management scenarios. The costs of some scenarios exceeded costs of a variety of waste management scenarios. The costs of some scenarios exceeded
projected revenues from the existing waste fee by as much as $2 projected revenues from the existing waste fee by as much as $2 ~~trillion~~tril ion, but other scenarios , but other scenarios
resulted in a surplus of up to $5 resulted in a surplus of up to $5 ~~trillion~~tril ion. Because of the widely varying results, DOE concluded . Because of the widely varying results, DOE concluded
that there was no clear evidence that the fee should be immediatelythat there was no clear evidence that the fee should be immediately raised or lowered.raised or lowered.44
46 After NEI and NARUC After NEI and NARUC asked for a review of DOE’s latest fee adequacy assessment, the Circuit asked for a review of DOE’s latest fee adequacy assessment, the Circuit
Court ordered DOE on November 19, 2013, to stop collecting the nuclear waste fees altogether. Court ordered DOE on November 19, 2013, to stop collecting the nuclear waste fees altogether.
The court ruled that DOE’s current waste plans were too vague to The court ruled that DOE’s current waste plans were too vague to ~~allow~~al ow a reasonable estimate to a reasonable estimate to
be calculated. The court noted that DOE’s $7 be calculated. The court noted that DOE’s $7 ~~trillion~~tril ion uncertainty range for the program’s cost was uncertainty range for the program’s cost was
“so large as to be absolutely useless” for determining the waste fee.“so large as to be absolutely useless” for determining the waste fee.4547 Pursuant to the court ruling, Pursuant to the court ruling,
DOE stopped collecting nuclear waste fees from nuclear power generators on May 16, 2014.DOE stopped collecting nuclear waste fees from nuclear power generators on May 16, 2014.4648
In planning to restart the Yucca Mountain program, the Trump Administration said in its FY2020 In planning to restart the Yucca Mountain program, the Trump Administration said in its FY2020
budget request (and in the FY2018 and FY2019 requests) that DOE would conduct a new fee budget request (and in the FY2018 and FY2019 requests) that DOE would conduct a new fee
adequacy assessment based on previous cost estimates for Yucca Mountain “until new adequacy assessment based on previous cost estimates for Yucca Mountain “until new
information is available.”information is available.”47 49 However, the However, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request, as noted, did Administration’s FY2021 request, as noted, did not not
~~include funding to restart the Yucca Mountain project.~~
~~License Application Withdrawal~~
~~DOE’s motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice,” meaning~~
~~that it could not be resubmitted in the future, was filed with NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing~~
~~Board (ASLB) on March 3, 2010. DOE’s motion argued that the licensing process should be~~
~~terminated because “the Secretary of Energy has decided that a geologic repository at Yucca~~
~~Mountain is not a workable option” for long-term nuclear waste disposal. Subsequent DOE~~
~~statements reiterated that the license withdrawal motion was not based on scientific or technical~~
~~findings. Instead, the Obama Administration’s policy change was prompted by the perceived~~
~~difficulty in overcoming continued opposition from the State of Nevada and a desire to find a~~
~~waste solution with greater public acceptance, according to DOE.48 DOE contended that the~~
~~license application should be withdrawn “with prejudice” because of the need to “provide finality~~
~~in ending the Yucca Mountain project.”49~~
~~The ASLB denied DOE’s license withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, ruling that NWPA prohibits~~
~~DOE from withdrawing the license application until NRC determines whether the repository is~~
~~acceptable. According to the board, “Surely Congress did not contemplate that, by withdrawing~~

include funding to restart the Yucca Mountain project, nor did the Biden Administration’s FY2022 request. Review, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, April 5, 2010. 43 Jeff Beattie, “NARUC, Utilities Sue DOE Over Nuke Waste Fee,” Energy Daily, April 6, 2010, p. 1. 44 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, “Secretarial Determination of the Adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee,” November 1, 2010, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Secretarial_Determination_WasteFee.pdf. 45 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy , No. 11-1066, decided June 1, 2012, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4B11622F4FF75FEC85257A100050A681/$file/11-1066-http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4B11622F4FF75FEC85257A100050A681/$file/11-1066-
1376508.pdf. 1376508.pdf.
4446 DOE, “Nuclear Waste Fund DOE, “Nuclear Waste Fund Fee AdequacyFee Adequacy Report,” January 2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Report,” January 2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
January%2016%202013%20Secretarial%January%2016%202013%20Secretarial%~~20Determination~~20Determinatio n%20of%20the%20Adequacy%20of%20the%20Nuclear%20%20of%20the%20Adequacy%20of%20the%20Nuclear%20
Waste%20Fund%20Fee_0.pdf. Waste%20Fund%20Fee_0.pdf.
4547 U.S. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy, No. 11Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy, No. 11 -1066, November 19, 2013, -1066, November 19, 2013,
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2708C01ECFE3109F85257C280053406E/$file/11-1066-https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2708C01ECFE3109F85257C280053406E/$file/11-1066-
1466796.pdf. 1466796.pdf.
4648 Hiruo, Elaine, “ Hiruo, Elaine, “ DOE Implements CourtDOE Implements Court -Ordered Suspension-Ordered Suspension of Nuclearof Nuclear Waste Fee,” Waste Fee,” NuclearFuel, May 26, 2014. , May 26, 2014.
4749 DOE, DOE, FY2020 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 2, p. 404, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/, vol. 3, part 2, p. 404, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2019/04/f61/doe-fy2020-budget-volume-3-Part-2.pdf. 2019/04/f61/doe-fy2020-budget-volume-3-Part-2.pdf.
~~48 Statement of Peter B. Lyons, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, before the~~
~~Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, June 1, 2011.~~
~~49 DOE Motion to Withdraw, op. cit.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

11

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~the Application, DOE might unilaterally terminate the Yucca Mountain review process in favor of~~
~~DOE’s independent policy determination that ‘alternatives will better serve the public interest.’”50~~
~~In appealing the ASLB decision to the NRC commissioners, DOE argued in a July 9, 2010, brief~~
Congressional Research Service 11 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal License Application Withdrawal DOE’s motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice,” meaning that it could not be resubmitted in the future, was filed with NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on March 3, 2010. DOE’s motion argued that the licensing process should be terminated because “the Secretary of Energy has decided that a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain is not a workable option” for long-term nuclear waste disposal. Subsequent DOE statements reiterated that the license withdrawal motion was not based on scientific or tec hnical findings. Instead, the Obama Administration’s policy change was prompted by the perceived difficulty in overcoming continued opposition from the State of Nevada and a desire to find a waste solution with greater public acceptance, according to DOE.50 DOE contended that the license application should be withdrawn “with prejudice” because of the need to “provide finality in ending the Yucca Mountain project.”51 The ASLB denied DOE’s license withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, ruling that NWPA prohibits DOE from withdrawing the license application until NRC determines whether the repository is acceptable. According to the board, “Surely Congress did not contemplate that, by withdrawing the Application, DOE might unilateral y terminate the Yucca Mountain review process in favor of DOE’s independent policy determination that ‘alternatives wil better serve the public interest.’”52 In appealing the ASLB decision to the NRC commissioners, DOE argued in a July 9, 2010, brief that the Secretary of Energy has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act and Department of that the Secretary of Energy has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act and Department of
Energy Organization Act “to make policy decisions regarding disposal of nuclear waste and spent Energy Organization Act “to make policy decisions regarding disposal of nuclear waste and spent
nuclear fuel.” DOE contended that such authority includes “the authority to discontinue the Yucca nuclear fuel.” DOE contended that such authority includes “the authority to discontinue the Yucca
Mountain project” and that NRC rules provide “that applicants in NRC licensing proceedings Mountain project” and that NRC rules provide “that applicants in NRC licensing proceedings
may withdraw their applications.”may withdraw their applications.”5153 After more than a year of deliberation, the NRC After more than a year of deliberation, the NRC
commissioners sustained the licensing board’s denial of the license withdrawal on a tie vote commissioners sustained the licensing board’s denial of the license withdrawal on a tie vote
September 9, 2011. However, NRC halted further consideration of the license application because September 9, 2011. However, NRC halted further consideration of the license application because
of “budgetary limitations.”of “budgetary limitations.”5254
After NRC rejected the license withdrawal motion, the plaintiffs in that case, including Nye After NRC rejected the license withdrawal motion, the plaintiffs in that case, including Nye
County, NV, where Yucca Mountain is located, petitioned the court to order NRC to continue the County, NV, where Yucca Mountain is located, petitioned the court to order NRC to continue the
licensing proceedings.licensing proceedings.5355 The Court of Appeals ruled on August 13, 2013, that NRC must continue The Court of Appeals ruled on August 13, 2013, that NRC must continue
work on the Yucca Mountain license application as long as funding was available. The court work on the Yucca Mountain license application as long as funding was available. The court
determined that NRC had at least $11.1 determined that NRC had at least $11.1 ~~million~~ mil ion in previously appropriated funds for that in previously appropriated funds for that
purpose.purpose.5456 As noted above, NRC completed its Safety Evaluation Report for Yucca Mountain in 50 Statement of Peter B. Lyons, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, June 1, 2011. 51 DOE Motion to Withdraw, op. cit. 52 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, Memorandum and Order, June 29, 2010. 53 U.S. Department of Energy’s Brief in Support of Review and Reversal of the Board’s Ruling on the Motion to Withdraw, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, July 9, 2010. 54 ~~As noted above, NRC completed its Safety Evaluation Report for Yucca Mountain in~~
~~January 2015 and used the remaining funds to complete a supplemental EIS and make the~~
~~licensing database available to the public. Beyond those actions, additional funding of about $330~~
~~million would be required for NRC to complete the Yucca Mountain licensing review, including~~
~~adjudicatory proceedings before the ASLB, according to NRC.55 In addition, DOE has estimated~~
~~that its costs as the license applicant would total about $1.9 billion.56~~
~~In its first three congressional budget requests, the Trump Administration proposed resuming~~
~~consideration of the NRC license, which remains pending before the ASLB. None of those~~
~~requests were approved by Congress. DOE’s FY2018 congressional budget request included $110~~
~~million for a Yucca Mountain program office, legal and technical support for the license~~
~~application, and the management of supporting documents. An additional $30 million was~~
~~requested by NRC to restart the ASLB adjudicatory proceeding. The Administration sought $110~~
~~million for DOE and $47.7 million for NRC for Yucca Mountain licensing for FY2019. The~~
~~Administration’s FY2020 budget request included $86.5 million for DOE and $38.5 million for~~
~~NRC for Yucca Mountain. For FY2021, the Administration sought $27.5 million from the~~

~~50 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, Memorandum~~
~~and Order, June 29, 2010.~~
51 ~~U.S. Department of Energy’s Brief in Support of Review and Reversal of the Board’s Ruling on the Motion to~~
~~Withdraw, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, July 9, 2010.~~
52 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memorandum and Order, CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/ Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memorandum and Order, CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/2011-07cli.pdf. reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/2011-07cli.pdf.
5355 U.S. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, USCACircuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, USCA ~~Case~~ Case #11-1271, Yucca Mountain Reply #11-1271, Yucca Mountain Reply
Brief of Petitioners Mandamus Action, February 13, 2012, http://www.naruc.org/policy.cfm?c=filings. Brief of Petitioners Mandamus Action, February 13, 2012, http://www.naruc.org/policy.cfm?c=filings.
5456 U.S. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11 -1271, writ of -1271, writ of
mandamus, Augustmandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf. BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
~~55 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12-15 Months,”~~
~~NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015.~~
~~56 DOE,~~ ~~Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Fiscal~~
~~Year 2007, DOE/RW-0591, July 2008, p. 17, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0927/ML092710177.pdf. Estimate of~~
~~future licensing costs adjusted to 2017 dollars using GDP chain-type price index, Economic Report of the President,~~
~~February 2018, p. 536, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ERP_2018_Final-FINAL.pdf.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

12

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

Congressional Research Service 12 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal January 2015 and used the remaining funds to complete a supplemental EIS and make the licensing database available to the public. Beyond those actions, additional funding of about $330 mil ion would be required for NRC to complete the Yucca Mountain licensing review, including adjudicatory proceedings before the ASLB, according to NRC.57 In addition, DOE has estimated that its costs as the license applicant would total about $1.9 bil ion.58 In its first three congressional budget requests, the Trump Administration proposed resuming consideration of the NRC license, which remains pending before the ASLB. None of those requests were approved by Congress. DOE’s FY2018 congressional budget request included $110 mil ion for a Yucca Mountain program office, legal and technical support for the license application, and the management of supporting documents. An additional $30 mil ion was requested by NRC to restart the ASLB adjudicatory proceeding. The Trump Administration sought $110 mil ion for DOE and $47.7 mil ion for NRC for Yucca Mountain licensing for FY2019. The Trump Administration’s FY2020 budget request included $86.5 mil ion for DOE and $38.5 mil ion for NRC for Yucca Mountain. For FY2021, the Trump Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Mountain project but sought $27.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste Fund to develop nuclear waste central interim storage capacity. Nuclear Waste Fund to develop nuclear waste central interim storage capacity. ~~The House~~
Congress approved the approved the Trump Administration’s funding total but specified that only $7.5 Administration’s funding total but specified that only $7.5 ~~million~~mil ion would come from the come from the
~~Nuclear Waste Fund (H.R. 7617)~~Nuclear Waste Fund (P.L. 116-260). The Biden Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Mountain repository for FY2022 but sought $7.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste Fund for security at the Yucca Mountain site and other administrative activities. FY2022 Energy and Water Development appropriations bil s passed by the House (H.R. 4502) and the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 2605) included the requested $7.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste Fund, plus $20 mil ion for central interim storage preparations. .
Waste Confidence Decision and Continued Storage Rule
Before issuing licenses to nuclear reactors and waste storage facilities, NRC is required by a 1979 Before issuing licenses to nuclear reactors and waste storage facilities, NRC is required by a 1979
court decision to determine that waste from those facilities can be safely disposed of.court decision to determine that waste from those facilities can be safely disposed of.5759 To meet To meet
that requirement, NRC issued a Waste Confidence Decision in 1984 that found that nuclear waste that requirement, NRC issued a Waste Confidence Decision in 1984 that found that nuclear waste
could be safely stored at reactor sites for at least 30 years after plant closure and that a permanent could be safely stored at reactor sites for at least 30 years after plant closure and that a permanent
repository would be available by 2007-2009.repository would be available by 2007-2009.5860 At that time, DOE At that time, DOE ~~officially~~official y planned to meet the planned to meet the
NWPA repository deadline of 1998. NWPA repository deadline of 1998.
After DOE’s schedule for opening a nuclear waste repository began to slip, NRC updated the After DOE’s schedule for opening a nuclear waste repository began to slip, NRC updated the
Waste Confidence Decision in 1990 to find that a repository would be availableWaste Confidence Decision in 1990 to find that a repository would be available by the first by the first
quarter of the 21st century.quarter of the 21st century.5961 When the Yucca Mountain repository was delayed further and then When the Yucca Mountain repository was delayed further and then
suspended by the Obama Administration, NRC issued another waste confidence rule in 2010 that suspended by the Obama Administration, NRC issued another waste confidence rule in 2010 that
57 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12 -15 Months,” NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015. 58 DOE, Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Fiscal Year 2007, DOE/RW-0591, July 2008, p. 17, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0927/ML092710177.pdf. Estimate of future licensing costs adjusted to 2017 dollars using GDP chain -type price index, Econom ic Report of the President, February 2018, p. 536, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ERP_2018_Final-FINAL.pdf. 59 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 60 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision,” 49 Federal Register 34,658, August 31, 1984. 61 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision Review,” 55 Federal Register 38,474, September 18, 1990. Congressional Research Service 13 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal found that a repository would be available ~~found that a repository would be available~~ “when necessary” and that waste could be safely “when necessary” and that waste could be safely
stored at reactor sites for at least 60 years after shutdown.stored at reactor sites for at least 60 years after shutdown.6062
The State of New York, environmental groups, and others filed lawsuits to overturn the 2010 The State of New York, environmental groups, and others filed lawsuits to overturn the 2010
waste confidence rule on the grounds that NRC had not adequately considered the environmental waste confidence rule on the grounds that NRC had not adequately considered the environmental
risks of long-term waste storage at reactor sites. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of risks of long-term waste storage at reactor sites. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit largely agreed, ruling on June 8, 2012, that NRC would have to conduct an Columbia Circuit largely agreed, ruling on June 8, 2012, that NRC would have to conduct an
environmental review of the Waste Confidence Decision under the National Environmental environmental review of the Waste Confidence Decision under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The court found two major flaws in NRC’s rulemaking process: Policy Act (NEPA). The court found two major flaws in NRC’s rulemaking process:
First, in concluding First, in concluding ~~that permanent storage~~ that permanent storage will be availablewill be available “when“when necessary,” the necessary,” the
CommissionCommission ~~did not calculate the environmental effects of failing to secure~~ did not calculate the environmental effects of failing to secure permanent permanent
storage—a possibility that cannot be ignored. Second, in determiningstorage—a possibility that cannot be ignored. Second, in determining that spent fuel can that spent fuel can
safely be stored on site at nuclear plants for sixty years after the expiration of a plant’s safely be stored on site at nuclear plants for sixty years after the expiration of a plant’s
license, the Commission failed to properly examine future dangers and key consequences.license, the Commission failed to properly examine future dangers and key consequences.6163
Final licensing of new facilities that would produce nuclear waste was halted for more than two Final licensing of new facilities that would produce nuclear waste was halted for more than two
years while NRC worked on its response to the court ruling. NRC approved a final rule August years while NRC worked on its response to the court ruling. NRC approved a final rule August
26, 2014, on continued storage of spent nuclear fuel to replace the waste confidence rule that had 26, 2014, on continued storage of spent nuclear fuel to replace the waste confidence rule that had
been struck down.been struck down.6264 Rather than make specific findings about the future availability of waste Rather than make specific findings about the future availability of waste
disposal facilities, the new continued storage rule describes environmental effects that may result disposal facilities, the new continued storage rule describes environmental effects that may result
from various periods of waste storage, based on the findings of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS). The GEIS, issued along with the continued storage rule, responded to the court ~~from various periods of waste storage, based on the findings of a generic environmental impact~~

~~57 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.~~
~~1979).~~
~~58 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision,” 49 Federal Register 34,658, August 31, 1984.~~
~~59 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision Review,” 55 Federal Register 38,474, September 18, 1990.~~
~~60 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision Update,” 75 Federal Register 81,037, December 23, 2010.~~
~~61 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of New York, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory~~
~~Commission, No. 11-1045, decided June 8, 2012, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/~~
~~57ACA94A8FFAD8AF85257A1700502AA4/$file/11-1045-1377720.pdf.~~
~~62 NRC, “NRC Approves Final Rule on Spent Fuel Storage and Ends Suspension of Final Licensing Actions for~~
~~Nuclear Plants and Renewals,” news release, August 26, 2014, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1423/~~
~~ML14238A326.pdf.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~statement (GEIS). The GEIS, issued along with the continued storage rule, responded to the court~~
requirement for NEPA review. requirement for NEPA review.
The GEIS analyzed the environmental effects of three potential time periods of storage before a The GEIS analyzed the environmental effects of three potential time periods of storage before a
permanent repository would become available:permanent repository would become available: “short-term timeframe,” continued storage for up “short-term timeframe,” continued storage for up
to 60 years after a reactor ceases operation; “long-term timeframe,” for up to 160 years after to 60 years after a reactor ceases operation; “long-term timeframe,” for up to 160 years after
reactor shutdown; and an “indefinite timeframe,” in which a repository may never become reactor shutdown; and an “indefinite timeframe,” in which a repository may never become
available. The GEIS assumed that active management and oversight of the stored spent fuel available. The GEIS assumed that active management and oversight of the stored spent fuel
would never end, and that “spent fuel canisters and casks would be replaced approximately once would never end, and that “spent fuel canisters and casks would be replaced approximately once
every 100 years.” The environmental impact of every 100 years.” The environmental impact of ~~all~~ al three time frames was judged to be minimal in three time frames was judged to be minimal in
almost almost ~~all~~ al categories.categories.6365 A consolidated lawsuit by several states and environmental groups to A consolidated lawsuit by several states and environmental groups to
overturn NRC’s continued storage rule was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. overturn NRC’s continued storage rule was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit on June 3, 2016.Circuit on June 3, 2016.6466
Congressional Action
The termination of work on the Yucca Mountain repository by the Obama Administration The termination of work on the Yucca Mountain repository by the Obama Administration
generated extensive congressional controversy. Through the 114th Congress, the House repeatedly generated extensive congressional controversy. Through the 114th Congress, the House repeatedly
62 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision Update,” 75 Federal Register 81,037, December 23, 2010. 63 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of New York, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 11-1045, decided June 8, 2012, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/57ACA94A8FFAD8AF85257A1700502AA4/$file/11-1045-1377720.pdf. 64 NRC, “ NRC Approves Final Rule on Spent Fuel Storage and Ends Suspension of Final Licensing Actions for Nuclear Plants and Renewals,” news release, August 26, 2014, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1423/ML14238A326.pdf. 65 NRC, “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” 79 Federal Register 56238, September 19, 2014. Available at NRC, “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/wcd/documents.html. 66 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of New York, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 14-1210, op. cit. Congressional Research Service 14 link to page 23 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal voted to continue or restore Yucca Mountain funding, while the Senate zeroed it out, with ~~voted to continue or restore Yucca Mountain funding, while the Senate zeroed it out, with~~
President Obama’s support. President Obama’s support.
In the 115th Congress, President Trump’s proposal to restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process In the 115th Congress, President Trump’s proposal to restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process
changed the dynamics of the congressional debate on nuclear waste, along with the retirement of changed the dynamics of the congressional debate on nuclear waste, along with the retirement of
Senator Reid of Nevada, who had strongly opposed Yucca Mountain as the Democratic leader. Senator Reid of Nevada, who had strongly opposed Yucca Mountain as the Democratic leader.
However, although the House supported the President’s funding requests for Yucca Mountain in However, although the House supported the President’s funding requests for Yucca Mountain in
FY2018 and FY2019, the Senate did not, and the funds were not appropriated. The transfer of the FY2018 and FY2019, the Senate did not, and the funds were not appropriated. The transfer of the
House to a Democratic majority in the 116th Congress further changed the nuclear waste political House to a Democratic majority in the 116th Congress further changed the nuclear waste political
environment. In marking up the FY2020 Energy and Water Development appropriations environment. In marking up the FY2020 Energy and Water Development appropriations ~~bill~~
bil (H.R. 2960, subsequently passed by the House as part of H.R. 2740), the House Appropriations (H.R. 2960, subsequently passed by the House as part of H.R. 2740), the House Appropriations
Committee voted against an amendment to provide Yucca Mountain funding. The issue was not Committee voted against an amendment to provide Yucca Mountain funding. The issue was not
considered when the considered when the ~~bill~~ bil went to the House floor, and the funding ultimately was not enacted. The went to the House floor, and the funding ultimately was not enacted. The
Trump Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Mountain project for FY2021Trump Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Mountain project for FY2021, nor did the Biden Administration for FY2022. .
Several nuclear waste Several nuclear waste ~~bills~~bil s have been introduced in the have been introduced in the ~~116th~~117th Congress, representing a range of policy approaches. Nevada lawmakers reintroduced bil s from previous Congresses to make further expenditures on Yucca Mountain, subject to state and local consent (H.R. 1524, S. 541). The Storage and Transportation Of Residual and Excess (STORE) Nuclear Fuel Act of 2021 (H.R. 2097) would authorize DOE to develop nuclear waste storage facilities and enter into a contract to store waste at a nonfederal facility with state, local, and tribal consent. Nuclear power plant retirements have created growing concern about “stranded” spent nuclear fuel at closed reactor sites, leading to the reintroduction of legislation to provide federal grants and other assistance to surrounding communities (S. 1290, H.R. 3731). As it has in previous years, the Senate Appropriations Committee included an authorization for a DOE spent nuclear fuel storage pilot program, subject to state, local, and tribal consent, in its FY2022 Energy and Water Development appropriations bil (S. 2605). In the 116th Congress, several major nuclear waste bil s were considered but not enacted, as discussed below ~~Congress, representing a range of~~
~~policy approaches~~. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27, . The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27,
2019, on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act (S. 1234), which would 2019, on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act (S. 1234), which would ~~establish~~have established an independent an independent
agency to conduct a consent-based siting process for new nuclear waste storage and agency to conduct a consent-based siting process for new nuclear waste storage and disposal disposal
facilities. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing May 1, 2019, on facilities. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing May 1, 2019, on
a draft a draft ~~bill~~bil , the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019, which would , the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019, which would ~~withdraw~~have withdrawn the Yucca the Yucca
Mountain site from public lands jurisdiction and Mountain site from public lands jurisdiction and ~~place~~placed it under DOE control for repository it under DOE control for repository
development.development.6567 The draft The draft ~~bill~~bil , subsequently introduced as S. 2917, , subsequently introduced as S. 2917, is was similar to H.R. 2699, similar to H.R. 2699,
introduced May 14, 2019, and H.R. 3053, which passed the House in the introduced May 14, 2019, and H.R. 3053, which passed the House in the 115th Congress. The ~~115th Congress. The~~

~~63 NRC, “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” 79 Federal Register 56238, September 19, 2014. Available at~~
~~NRC, “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/wcd/documents.html.~~
~~64 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of New York, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory~~
~~Commission, No. 14-1210, op. cit.~~
~~65 Senator John Barraso, “Barrasso Releases Discussion Draft Legislation to Address Nuclear Waste,” press release,~~
~~April 24, 2019, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/4/barrasso-releases-discussion-draft-legislation-to-~~
~~address-nuclear-waste.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

14

~~link to page 23~~ ~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 2699 on November 20, 2019. (See~~House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 2699 on November 20, 2019. (See
Table 1 for a summary of for a summary of ~~recent bills~~bil s.) .)
Yucca Mountain Land Withdrawal and Interim Storage Legislation
The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 (H.R. 2699) The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 (H.R. 2699) ~~would~~was intended to satisfy a major condition satisfy a major condition
for licensing the Yucca Mountain repository by withdrawing the repository site from use under for licensing the Yucca Mountain repository by withdrawing the repository site from use under
public lands laws and placing it solely under DOE’s control. It would also public lands laws and placing it solely under DOE’s control. It would also ~~authorize~~have authorized DOE to store DOE to store
spent fuel at an NRC-licensed interim storage facility owned by a spent fuel at an NRC-licensed interim storage facility owned by a 67 Senator John Barraso, “ Barrasso Releases Discussion Draft Legislation to Address Nuclear Waste,” press release, April 24, 2019, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/4/barrasso-releases-discussion-draft -legislation-to-address-nuclear-waste. Congressional Research Service 15 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal nonfederal entity. Another nonfederal entity. Another
major provision would major provision would ~~increase~~have increased the capacity limit on the Yucca Mountain repository from 70,000 the capacity limit on the Yucca Mountain repository from 70,000
to 110,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, in comparison with the to 110,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, in comparison with the 8088,000 metric tons ,000 metric tons estimated to be stored at stored at
U.S. nuclear plants U.S. nuclear plants ~~at the end of 2017.66 The bill’s~~ in 2021.68 The bil ’s provisions are similar to those of H.R. 3053 as provisions are similar to those of H.R. 3053 as
passed by the House in the 115th Congress and a passed by the House in the 115th Congress and a ~~bill~~ bil introduced November 20, 2019 (S. 2917) by introduced November 20, 2019 (S. 2917) by
Senator Barrasso. Major provisions of the Senator Barrasso. Major provisions of the ~~bill~~ bil as approved by the House Energy and Commerce as approved by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee Committee ~~are~~ (but ultimately not enacted) are described below. described below.
Monitored Retrievable Storage
Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facilities would be used for interim storage of spent Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facilities would be used for interim storage of spent
nuclear fuel before disposal in a permanent repository. H.R. 2699 nuclear fuel before disposal in a permanent repository. H.R. 2699 ~~specifies~~specified that DOE’s that DOE’s
acceptance of spent nuclear fuel at commercial reactor sites for storage at an MRS facility would acceptance of spent nuclear fuel at commercial reactor sites for storage at an MRS facility would
constitute the transfer of ownership of the spent fuel to the Secretary of Energy. DOE would constitute the transfer of ownership of the spent fuel to the Secretary of Energy. DOE would be
have been authorized to site, construct, and operate one or more MRS facilities. Alternatively, rather than authorized to site, construct, and operate one or more MRS facilities. Alternatively, rather than
building a federal MRS facility, DOE could building a federal MRS facility, DOE could ~~store~~have stored spent fuel from commercial reactors at MRS spent fuel from commercial reactors at MRS
facilities developed by nonfederal entities with which DOE had reached an MRS agreement. facilities developed by nonfederal entities with which DOE had reached an MRS agreement.
The bil provided that DOE could not enter into an MRS agreement with a nonfederal DOE could not enter into an MRS agreement with a nonfederal entity before a license for the entity before a license for the
proposed facility had been issued by NRCproposed facility had been issued by NRC~~. In addition, DOE could not enter into an MRS~~
~~agreement unless the nonfederal entity had received waste storage approval from~~ and without consent by the governor of the governor of
the state in which the MRS facility was to be located, any unit of local the state in which the MRS facility was to be located, any unit of local government with government with
jurisdiction over the site, and any affected Indian tribe. jurisdiction over the site, and any affected Indian tribe.
DOE DOE ~~could~~would have been al owed to enter into one MRS agreement before NRC issued a final decision on the Yucca enter into one MRS agreement before NRC issued a final decision on the Yucca
Mountain construction authorization. Priority Mountain construction authorization. Priority ~~would~~was to be given to a nonfederal MRS facility unless be given to a nonfederal MRS facility unless
the Secretary of Energy determined that a federal MRS could be built more quickly and less the Secretary of Energy determined that a federal MRS could be built more quickly and less
expensively. Spent fuel currently stored at closed reactors in areas of high seismicity and near expensively. Spent fuel currently stored at closed reactors in areas of high seismicity and near
major bodies of water major bodies of water ~~would~~were to have priority for shipment to an MRS, to have priority for shipment to an MRS, to the extent the extent ~~allowable~~al owable under under
DOE’s standard waste disposal contract with nuclear plant operators. DOE’s standard waste disposal contract with nuclear plant operators.
~~Waste~~Under the bil , waste could not be stored at the initial could not be stored at the initial MRS facility until NRC had made a final decision to MRS facility until NRC had made a final decision to
approve or disapprove a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository, approve or disapprove a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository, or until the or until the
Secretary of Energy determined that such an NRC decision was “imminent.” MRS construction Secretary of Energy determined that such an NRC decision was “imminent.” MRS construction
would have to cease if the repository license were revoked. Under current law, construction of an would have to cease if the repository license were revoked. Under current law, construction of an
MRS facility could begin only after the Yucca Mountain construction authorization MRS facility could begin only after the Yucca Mountain construction authorization ~~were~~was issued issued
and would have to stop if the repository construction ceased or the and would have to stop if the repository construction ceased or the license were revoked. Repository Land Withdrawal and Regulation Under NWPA as amended, the~~license were revoked.~~

~~66 Vinson, Dennis, and Kathryn Metzger, Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Inventory Report,~~
~~prepared for DOE, FCRD-NFST-2013-000263, Rev. 5, August 2018, p. 1. Estimate excludes about 2,500 metric tons~~
~~of government-managed spent nuclear fuel, as well as 4,440 canisters of high-level waste and untreated high-level~~
~~waste.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

15

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~Repository Land Withdrawal and Regulation~~
~~The~~ proposed Yucca Mountain repository would be located on 147,000 acres of federal land proposed Yucca Mountain repository would be located on 147,000 acres of federal land
encompassing parts of DOE’s Nevada Test Site and the encompassing parts of DOE’s Nevada Test Site and the ~~Nellis~~Nel is Air Force Range, along with public Air Force Range, along with public
land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. H.R. 2699 would land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. H.R. 2699 would have permanently permanently ~~withdraw~~withdrawn the the
site from uses authorized under federal public land laws, such as site from uses authorized under federal public land laws, such as mineral leasing, and mineral leasing, and ~~transfer~~
transferred jurisdiction to the Secretary of Energy for activities related to development of a permanent jurisdiction to the Secretary of Energy for activities related to development of a permanent
underground repository for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. underground repository for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. Withdrawal of the site is a Withdrawal of the site is a
requirement for DOE to obtain a repository license from NRC. requirement for DOE to obtain a repository license from NRC.
~~Nuclear~~ 68 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Centralized Used Fuel Resource for Information Exchange (CURIE), interactive map, https://curie.ornl.gov/map. See also, Vinson, Dennis, and Kathryn Metzger, Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Inventory Report, prepared for DOE, FCRD-NFST -2013-000263, Rev. 5, August 2018, p. 1. Congressional Research Service 16 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal The bil provided that nuclear waste at, or being transported to, the repository would not be subject to Section 6001(a) waste at, or being transported to, the repository would not be subject to Section 6001(a)
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6961(a)), which requires of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6961(a)), which requires federal waste facilities to federal waste facilities to
comply with comply with ~~all~~ al state, local, and federal hazardous waste requirements. state, local, and federal hazardous waste requirements.
NRC’s final decision on issuing a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository NRC’s final decision on issuing a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository
would would behave been required within 30 months after enactment. Before the decision on the construction required within 30 months after enactment. Before the decision on the construction
authorization, DOE authorization, DOE ~~could~~would have been al owed to conduct “infrastructure activities” at the Yucca Mountain site, such as conduct “infrastructure activities” at the Yucca Mountain site, such as
site preparation and the construction of a rail line. The limit on the amount of spent nuclear fuel site preparation and the construction of a rail line. The limit on the amount of spent nuclear fuel
that could be disposed of at Yucca Mountain would that could be disposed of at Yucca Mountain would be have been raised from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons. raised from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons.
DOE would DOE would behave been prohibited from planning or developing a separate repository for defense-related prohibited from planning or developing a separate repository for defense-related
high level waste and spent fuel until NRC high level waste and spent fuel until NRC ~~reaches~~reached a final decision on issuing a a final decision on issuing a construction construction
authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository. authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository.
Waste Program Funding
The The bil specified that the Secretary of Energy could not resume collection of nuclear waste fees until NRC issued a Secretary of Energy could not resume collection of nuclear waste fees until NRC issued a
final decision to approve or disapprove a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain final decision to approve or disapprove a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain
repository. After that date, total collections of the nuclear waste fees repository. After that date, total collections of the nuclear waste fees ~~would~~w ere to be be limited to 90% of limited to 90% of
each fiscal year’s appropriations for the DOE nuclear waste management program. Any fees that each fiscal year’s appropriations for the DOE nuclear waste management program. Any fees that
were not collected because of those limitations could were not collected because of those limitations could behave been required required to be paid “when determined to be paid “when determined
necessary by the Secretary.” necessary by the Secretary.”
Nuclear waste fees collected after the date of enactment would Nuclear waste fees collected after the date of enactment would have offset appropriations to the offset appropriations to the
nuclear waste program. Annual appropriations up to the amount of available fees would therefore nuclear waste program. Annual appropriations up to the amount of available fees would therefore
net to zero during the appropriations process, net to zero during the appropriations process, under the bil , so that such appropriations would not count against so that such appropriations would not count against
the annual discretionary the annual discretionary ~~funding allocations for the~~ al ocations for Energy and Water Development Energy and Water Development
appropriationsappropriations ~~bill~~. The existing balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund . The existing balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund ~~would~~was to remain available for remain available for
appropriation as in current law, without offsets. The appropriation as in current law, without offsets. The ~~bill specifies~~bil specified that net direct spending for that net direct spending for
budget purposes budget purposes ~~would~~was not not to be affected by these provisions, and that requirements for mandatory be affected by these provisions, and that requirements for mandatory
spending offsets under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-139) would not be spending offsets under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-139) would not be
triggered.triggered.6769
Repository and MRS Benefits Agreements
The The ~~Secretary of Energy would be authorized~~bil would have authorized the Secretary of Energy to enter into a benefits agreement with the State of to enter into a benefits agreement with the State of
Nevada, in consultation with affected units of local government, to provide annual payments of Nevada, in consultation with affected units of local government, to provide annual payments of
~~$15 million~~$15 mil ion before spent fuel before spent fuel iswas received at Yucca Mountain (up from $10 received at Yucca Mountain (up from $10 ~~million~~ mil ion under current under current
law). Nevada law). Nevada ~~would~~was to receive $400 receive $400 ~~million~~mil ion upon the first spent fuel receipt (up from upon the first spent fuel receipt (up from $20 mil ion) ~~$20 million)~~
and annual payments thereafter of $40 and annual payments thereafter of $40 ~~million~~mil ion until repository closure (up from $20 mil ion). A benefits agreement with the host state of an MRS facility would have provided $5 mil ion ~~until repository closure (up from $20 million). A~~

~~67 For more information on nuclear waste budgetary issues, see CRS Testimony TE10002,~~ ~~Nuclear Waste Fund:~~
~~Budgetary, Funding, and Scoring Issues, by David M. Bearden.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

16

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~benefits agreement with the host state of an MRS would provide $5 million~~ per year before the per year before the
first fuel shipment, $10 first fuel shipment, $10 ~~million~~ mil ion upon the first fuel receipt, and $10 upon the first fuel receipt, and $10 ~~million~~ mil ion per year after the first per year after the first
receipt until the facility receipt until the facility ~~closes~~closed. .
In addition, DOE In addition, DOE ~~could~~would have been authorized to reach benefits agreements with units of local government in Nevada or reach benefits agreements with units of local government in Nevada or
other affected local governments. The acceptance of a benefits agreement by Nevada or a local other affected local governments. The acceptance of a benefits agreement by Nevada or a local
government government ~~would~~was not not to be considered consent to host the be considered consent to host the ~~repository. All~~ 69 For more information on nuclear waste budgetary issues, see CRS T estimony T E10002, Nuclear Waste Fund: Budgetary, Funding, and Scoring Issues, by David M. Bearden. Congressional Research Service 17 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal repository. Al payments under such payments under such
benefits agreements would benefits agreements would behave been subject to subject to congressional appropriation from the Nuclear Waste congressional appropriation from the Nuclear Waste
Fund. Fund.
Waste Program Management
The Office of Civilian The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management would Radioactive Waste Management would behave been renamed the Office of Spent renamed the Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel. The Director of the Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Nuclear Fuel. The Director of the Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel ~~would~~was to be responsible for be responsible for carrying carrying
out the functions of the Secretary of Energy that had been established by NWPA and would out the functions of the Secretary of Energy that had been established by NWPA and would ~~report~~
have reported directly to the Secretary. The directly to the Secretary. The bil specified that the Director could be removed by the President only for “inefficiency, Director could be removed by the President only for “inefficiency,
neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” rather than serving at the pleasure of the President. neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” rather than serving at the pleasure of the President.
Nuclear waste management functions that currently may be assigned to a DOE Assistant Nuclear waste management functions that currently may be assigned to a DOE Assistant
Secretary under the Department of Energy Organization Act Secretary under the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91) would (P.L. 95-91) would behave been transferred to transferred to
the Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel. the Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel.
Independent Nuclear Waste Agency and Consent-Based Siting
Legislation
The Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019 (S. 1234), introduced by Senator Murkowski on The Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019 (S. 1234), introduced by Senator Murkowski on
April 30, 2019, April 30, 2019, isbut not enacted, was similar to similar to ~~bills~~bil s introduced in the 114th Congress (S. 854) and 113th Congress (S. introduced in the 114th Congress (S. 854) and 113th Congress (S.
1240). S. 1234 would 1240). S. 1234 would ~~establish~~have established an independent Nuclear Waste an independent Nuclear Waste Administration (NWA), which Administration (NWA), which
would would behave been authorized to develop nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities with the consent of authorized to develop nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities with the consent of
the affected state, local, and tribal governments. In addition to receiving consent-based siting the affected state, local, and tribal governments. In addition to receiving consent-based siting
authority, NWA authority, NWA ~~would~~was to take over DOE’s authority under NWPA to construct and operate a take over DOE’s authority under NWPA to construct and operate a
repository at Yucca Mountain and DOE’s waste disposal contractual obligations. The repository at Yucca Mountain and DOE’s waste disposal contractual obligations. The ~~bill~~
~~specifically provides~~bil specifical y provided that it would not affect the ongoing Yucca Mountain that it would not affect the ongoing Yucca Mountain licensing process. licensing process.
NWA would NWA would behave been required to prepare a mission plan to open a pilot storage facility by the end of required to prepare a mission plan to open a pilot storage facility by the end of
2025 for nuclear waste from shutdown reactors and other emergency deliveries (2025 for nuclear waste from shutdown reactors and other emergency deliveries (~~called~~ cal ed “priority “priority
waste”). A storage facility for waste from operating reactors or other “nonpriority waste” waste”). A storage facility for waste from operating reactors or other “nonpriority waste” ~~would~~
was to open by the end of 2029, and a permanent repository by the end of 2052. open by the end of 2029, and a permanent repository by the end of 2052.
NWA would NWA would behave been authorized to issue requests for proposals or select sites for storage authorized to issue requests for proposals or select sites for storage facilities for facilities for
nonpriority waste only if, during the first 10 years after enactment, the agency had obligated nonpriority waste only if, during the first 10 years after enactment, the agency had obligated
funds for developing a permanent waste repository. After 10 years, NWA could not request funds for developing a permanent waste repository. After 10 years, NWA could not request
proposals for nonpriority waste or select sites unless a candidate site for a repository had been proposals for nonpriority waste or select sites unless a candidate site for a repository had been
selected. NWA would selected. NWA would behave been authorized to offer financial compensation and other incentives for authorized to offer financial compensation and other incentives for
hosting nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities. Sites that would include hosting nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities. Sites that would include storage facilities storage facilities
along with a repository along with a repository ~~would~~were to receive preference. receive preference.
~~Highly~~The bil provided that highly radioactive defense waste, which had been planned for commingling with commercial radioactive defense waste, which had been planned for commingling with commercial
nuclear waste since the 1980s, could be placed in defense-only storage and nuclear waste since the 1980s, could be placed in defense-only storage and disposal facilities if disposal facilities if
the Secretary of Energy the Secretary of Energy ~~determines~~determined such facilities to be necessary for efficiency, subject to such facilities to be necessary for efficiency, subject to
concurrence of the President. President Obama had authorized DOE to concurrence of the President. President Obama had authorized DOE to pursue a defense-only pursue a defense-only
repository on March 24, 2015. repository on March 24, 2015.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

17

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

Nuclear waste fees collected after enactment of the Nuclear waste fees collected after enactment of the ~~bill would~~bil were to be held in a newly established be held in a newly established
Working Capital Fund. NWA could Working Capital Fund. NWA could have immediately immediately ~~draw~~drawn from that fund any amounts needed to from that fund any amounts needed to
carry out the carry out the ~~bill~~bil , unless limited by annual appropriations or authorizations. The current disposal , unless limited by annual appropriations or authorizations. The current disposal
limit of 70,000 metric tons for the first repository under NWPA would limit of 70,000 metric tons for the first repository under NWPA would ~~be repealed.~~
~~Other Waste Bills in the 116th Congress~~
~~Senator Cortez Masto and Representative Titus introduced companion versions of the~~ have been repealed. Congressional Research Service 18 Table 1. Selected Nuclear Waste Bills Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action 117th Congress H.R. Titus/Cortez Nuclear Nuclear
Waste Informed Waste Informed ~~Consent Act (S. 649, H.R. 1544) on March 5, 2019. The bills would “require the~~
~~Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent of affected State~~ Requires DOE to obtain the consent of March 2, 2021 House Energy and 1524/S. Masto Consent Act affected state and local governments Commerce 541 ~~and local governments~~ before making before making
an expenditure from the an expenditure from the Senate Environment Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste ~~repository.” They are similar to~~
~~bills introduced in the 115th Congress (S. 95, H.R. 456) and 114th Congress (S. 691, H.R. 1364).~~
~~The Jobs, Not Waste Act of 2019 (H.R. 1619, S. 721), introduced on March 7, 2019, in the House~~
~~and Senate by Representative Susie Lee and Senator Rosen, respectively, would prohibit DOE~~
~~from taking any action toward developing the Yucca Mountain repository unless the Office of~~
~~Management and Budget submits to Congress a study of the alternative economic uses of the~~
~~Yucca Mountain site and congressional hearings are held on the subject.~~
~~The Storage and Transportation Of Residual and Excess (STORE) Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019~~
~~(H.R. 3136), introduced by Representative Matsui on June 5, 2019, would authorize DOE to~~
~~develop nuclear waste storage facilities and enter into a contract to store waste at a nonfederal~~
~~facility. The bill would require DOE to obtain state, local, and tribal consent for storage facilities~~
~~and would authorize financial and technical assistance~~ and Public Works repository. H.R. 2097 Matsui Storage and Transportation Authorizes DOE to develop nuclear March 19, 2021 House Energy and Of Residual and Excess waste storage facilities and enter into a Commerce (STORE) Nuclear Fuel Act contract to store waste at a nonfederal of 2021 facility. DOE must obtain state, local, and tribal consent for storage facilities. Financial and technical assistance authorized to states, local governments, and tribes. to states, local governments, and tribes.
~~DOE would be required~~ DOE required to give storage priority to waste from closed reactors and to waste to give storage priority to waste from closed reactors and to waste
shipments shipments ~~required~~necessary to address emergencies. to address emergencies.
~~The Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2019 (H.R. 2995), introduced May 23, 2019, by~~
~~Representative Mike Levin, would require DOE to give storage and disposal priority to spent fuel~~
~~from reactors that have been permanently closed, are located in the largest population areas, and~~
~~are located in an area with the highest earthquake hazard.~~
~~Legislation to provide assistance to communities with stored spent fuel at closed reactor sites was~~
~~introduced June 26, 2019, by Senator Duckworth (S. 1985). The bill would provide communities~~
~~with impact assistance of $15 for each kilogram of stored nuclear waste,~~ S. 1290/ Duckworth Sensible, Timely Relief for For communities with closed nuclear Senate bil : April Senate Environment H.R. 3731 America’s Nuclear power plants that are storing “stranded” 21, 2021 and Public Works Districts’ Economic spent nuclear fuel, authorizes annual House bil : June House Development Act of 2021 grants of $15 for each kilogram of nuclear 7, 2021 Transportation and or the STRANDED Act of waste. Authorizes DOE to establish a Infrastructure; 2021 prize competition for alternative activities Financial Services; at closed reactor sites and to develop a Ways and Means pilot project for each proposal awarded a prize. Requires DOE to establish a task establish a task force to conduct a study on resources and options for communities hosting stranded spent fuel. S. 2605 Feinstein Energy and Water Includes authorization of DOE pilot August 3, 2021 Senate Reported to Development and Related facility for spent nuclear fuel storage, with Appropriations Senate August 4, Agencies Appropriations consent from the host state, units of local 2021 (S.Rept. 117- Act, 2022 government, and affected Indian tribes 36) (Section 308). CRS-19 ~~force to~~
~~identify resources available for communities with stranded nuclear waste and develop economic~~
~~adjustment plans, and authorize a competition to develop alternatives to closed nuclear facilities.~~
~~Senator Markey introduced the Dry Cask Storage Act of 2019 (S. 2854) on November 13, 2019,~~
~~requiring spent fuel to be transferred from storage pools to dry casks after sufficient cooling. It is~~
~~similar to bills introduced in the 115th and 114th Congresses.~~

~~Congressional Research Service~~

18

~~Table 1. Selected Nuclear Waste Bills~~
Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
116th Congress
H.R. H.R.
Titus/Cortez Titus/Cortez
Nuclear Waste Informed Nuclear Waste Informed
Requires DOE to obtain the consent of Requires DOE to obtain the consent of
March 5, 2019 March 5, 2019
House Energy and House Energy and

1544/S. 1544/S.
Masto Masto
Consent Act Consent Act
affected state and local governments affected state and local governments

Commerce Commerce
649 649
before making an expenditure from the before making an expenditure from the
Senate Environment Senate Environment
Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste
and Public Works and Public Works
repository. repository.
H.R. H.R.
Susie Lee/ Susie Lee/
Jobs, Not Waste Jobs, Not Waste Act of Act of
Prohibits DOE from Prohibits DOE from taking action towardtaking action toward March 7, 2019 March 7, 2019
House Energy and House Energy and

1619/S. 1619/S.
Rosen Rosen
2019 2019
developing the Yucca Mountain developing the Yucca Mountain
Commerce Commerce
721 721
repository repository until the Office of until the Office of
Senate Environment Senate Environment
Management and Budget issues a report Management and Budget issues a report
and Public Works and Public Works
on job-creating alternative uses of the on job-creating alternative uses of the
site and Congresssite and Congress holds a hearing on holds a hearing on
alternative uses. alternative uses.
~~CRS-19~~

~~Number~~
~~Sponsor~~
~~Title~~
~~Description~~
~~Introduced~~
~~Committee~~
~~Action~~
S. 1234 S. 1234
Murkowski Murkowski
Nuclear Waste Nuclear Waste
Establishes an independent Nuclear Establishes an independent Nuclear
April April 30, 2019 30, 2019
Energy and Natural Energy and Natural
Hearing held June Hearing held June
Administration Administration Act of 2019 Act of 2019
Waste Administration Waste Administration (NWA) to (NWA) to
Resources Resources
27, 2019 27, 2019
develop new nuclear waste storage and develop new nuclear waste storage and
disposal facilities.disposal facilities. Siting of such facilities Siting of such facilities
would requirewould require the consent of the the consent of the
affected state, local,affected state, local, and tribal and tribal
governments.governments. Existing authority to Existing authority to
construct and operate Yucca Mountain construct and operate Yucca Mountain
repositoryrepository would transfer to NWA. would transfer to NWA.
Existing Yucca Mountain licensing Existing Yucca Mountain licensing
process would not be affected. The process would not be affected. The
current disposal limitcurrent disposal limit of 70,000 metric of 70,000 metric
tons for the nation’s first permanent tons for the nation’s first permanent
repositoryrepository would be repealed.would be repealed. Nuclear Nuclear
waste feeswaste fees col ected after enactment of col ected after enactment of
the bil would be held in a newly the bil would be held in a newly
established Workingestablished Working Capital Fund. The Capital Fund. The
Nuclear Waste AdministrationNuclear Waste Administration could could
immediatelyimmediately draw from that fund any draw from that fund any
amounts needed to carry out S. 1234, amounts needed to carry out S. 1234,
unless limitedunless limited by annual appropriations by annual appropriations
or authorizations. or authorizations.
CRS-20 Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action H.R. H.R.
McNerney/ McNerney/
Nuclear Waste Policy Nuclear Waste Policy
Provides land-use controls for Provides land-use controls for
House: May 14, House: May 14,
House: Energy and House: Energy and
House E&C: House E&C:
2699/S. 2699/S.
Barrasso Barrasso
Amendments Amendments Act of 2019 Act of 2019
development of Yucca Mountain development of Yucca Mountain
2019 2019
Commerce; Commerce; Natural Natural
Ordered Ordered reported reported
2917 2917
repository, repository, authorizes DOE contracts to authorizes DOE contracts to
Senate: Senate:
Resources; Armed Resources; Armed
November November 20, 20,
store spent fuel at privately owned store spent fuel at privately owned
November November 20, 20,
Services; Services; Budget; Budget;
2019 2019
interim interim storage facilities,storage facilities, ~~modifies~~ modifies funding funding
2019 2019
Rules Rules
Senate EPW: Senate EPW:
mechanism mechanism for DOE nuclear waste for DOE nuclear waste
Senate: Environment Senate: Environment
Hearing held on Hearing held on
program, program, and authorizes financial benefits and authorizes financial benefits
and Public Works and Public Works
draft bil May 1, draft bil May 1,
for communities for communities hosting waste facilities. hosting waste facilities.
2019 2019
H.R. 2995 H.R. 2995 Mike Levin Mike Levin
Spent Fuel Prioritization Spent Fuel Prioritization
Requires DOE to give the highest Requires DOE to give the highest
May 23, 2019 May 23, 2019
Energy and Energy and

Act of 2019 Act of 2019
priority for storage or disposal of spent priority for storage or disposal of spent
Commerce Commerce
nuclear fuel to reactors that have nuclear fuel to reactors that have
permanently shut down, have the highest permanently shut down, have the highest
surrounding population, and have the surrounding population, and have the
highest earthquake hazard. highest earthquake hazard.
~~CRS-20~~

~~Number~~
~~Sponsor~~
~~Title~~
~~Description~~
~~Introduced~~
~~Committee~~
~~Action~~
~~H.R. 3136~~ H.R. 3136 Matsui Matsui
Storage and Transportation Storage and Transportation
Authorizes DOE to develop interim Authorizes DOE to develop interim
June 5, 2019 June 5, 2019
Energy and Energy and

Of Residual and Excess Of Residual and Excess
nuclear waste storage facilities nuclear waste storage facilities or or
Commerce Commerce
Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019 Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019
contract with privately developed contract with privately developed
facilities,facilities, which would require the which would require the
consent of host states and affected local consent of host states and affected local
governments and Indian tribes. DOE governments and Indian tribes. DOE
could expedite the acceptance of waste could expedite the acceptance of waste
from permanently closed reactors.from permanently closed reactors. DOE DOE
could not col ect waste fees on nuclear could not col ect waste fees on nuclear
power production until NRC approved power production until NRC approved
or disapproved a construction permitor disapproved a construction permit for for
the Yucca Mountain repository. the Yucca Mountain repository.
S. 1985 S. 1985
Duckworth Duckworth
Sensible, Sensible, ~~Timely~~ Timely Relief for Relief for
Authorizes DOE to issue grants to Authorizes DOE to issue grants to
June 26, 2019 June 26, 2019
Environment and Environment and

America’s America’s Nuclear Districts’Nuclear Districts’ ~~communities~~ communities with closed nuclear power with closed nuclear power
Public Works Public Works
Economic Development Economic Development
plants that are storing spent nuclear fuel. plants that are storing spent nuclear fuel.
(STRANDED) Act (STRANDED) Act
Each eligible Each eligible community could receive community could receive
one grant per year equal to $15 for each one grant per year equal to $15 for each
kilogramkilogram of stored nuclear waste. of stored nuclear waste.
Authorizes DOE to establish a prize Authorizes DOE to establish a prize
competition for alternative activities at competition for alternative activities at
closed reactor sites. closed reactor sites.
CRS-21 Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action S. 2854 ~~S. 2854~~
Markey Markey
Dry Cask Storage Act of Dry Cask Storage Act of
Requires spent fuel at nuclear power Requires spent fuel at nuclear power
November November 13, 13,
Environment and Environment and

2019 2019
plants to be moved from spent fuel pools plants to be moved from spent fuel pools
2019 2019
Public Works Public Works
to dry casks after it has sufficiently to dry casks after it has sufficiently
cooled,cooled, pursuant to NRC-approved pursuant to NRC-approved
transfer plans. Emergency planning zones transfer plans. Emergency planning zones
would have to be expanded fromwould have to be expanded from 10 to 10 to
50 miles50 miles in radius around any reactor in radius around any reactor
determineddetermined by NRC to be out of by NRC to be out of
compliance with its spent fuel transfer compliance with its spent fuel transfer
plan. NRC would be authorized to use plan. NRC would be authorized to use
interest earned by the Nuclear Waste interest earned by the Nuclear Waste
Fund to provide grants to nuclear power Fund to provide grants to nuclear power
plants to transfer spent fuel to dry plants to transfer spent fuel to dry
storage. storage.

~~CRS-21~~

~~Number~~
~~Sponsor~~
~~Title~~
~~Description~~
~~Introduced~~
~~Committee~~
~~Action~~
115th Congress

H.R. 433 H.R. 433
J. Wilson J. Wilson
Sensible Sensible Nuclear Waste Nuclear Waste
Prohibits DOE from Prohibits DOE from developing a developing a
January 11, 2017 January 11, 2017
Energy and Energy and

Disposition Disposition Act Act
repository repository for only defense nuclear for only defense nuclear
Commerce Commerce
waste until NRC has issued a final waste until NRC has issued a final
decision on a construction permitdecision on a construction permit for the for the
Yucca Mountain repository. Yucca Mountain repository.
H.R. 456/ H.R. 456/
Titus/ Titus/~~Heller~~Hel er
Nuclear Waste Informed Nuclear Waste Informed
Requires the Secretary of Energy to Requires the Secretary of Energy to
House: January House: January
House: Energy and House: Energy and

S. 95 S. 95
Consent Act Consent Act
obtain the consent of affected state and obtain the consent of affected state and
11, 2017 11, 2017
Commerce Commerce
local governments before making an local governments before making an
Senate: January Senate: January
Senate: Environment Senate: Environment
expenditure from the Nuclear Waste expenditure from the Nuclear Waste
11, 2017 11, 2017
and Public Works and Public Works
Fund for a nuclear waste repository Fund for a nuclear waste repository. CRS-22 Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action
H.R. 474 H.R. 474
Issa Issa
Interim Consolidated Interim Consolidated
Authorizes DOE to enter into contracts Authorizes DOE to enter into contracts
January 12, 2017 January 12, 2017
Energy and Energy and

Storage Act of 2017 Storage Act of 2017
with privately owned spent fuel storage with privately owned spent fuel storage
Commerce Commerce
facilities. facilities. DOE would take title to DOE would take title to ~~all~~
al spent nuclear fuel from commercial spent nuclear fuel from commercial
reactors deliveredreactors delivered to the private storage to the private storage
facility. Annual interest earned by the facility. Annual interest earned by the
Nuclear Waste Fund could be used by Nuclear Waste Fund could be used by
DOE without further congressional DOE without further congressional
appropriation to pay for private interim appropriation to pay for private interim
storage. storage.
H.R. 3053 H.R. 3053 Shimkus Shimkus
Nuclear Waste Policy Nuclear Waste Policy
Provides land-use controls for Provides land-use controls for
June 26, 2017 June 26, 2017
Energy and Energy and
Energy and Energy and
Amendments Amendments Act of 2017 Act of 2017
development of Yucca Mountain development of Yucca Mountain
Commerce; Commerce; Natural Natural
Commerce: Commerce:
repository, repository, authorizes DOE contracts to authorizes DOE contracts to
Resources; Armed Resources; Armed
Ordered Ordered reported reported
store spent fuel at privately owned store spent fuel at privately owned
Services Services
June 28, 2017, by June 28, 2017, by
interim interim storage facilities,storage facilities, ~~modifies~~ modifies funding funding
vote of 49-4, vote of 49-4,
mechanism mechanism for DOE nuclear waste for DOE nuclear waste
H.Rept. 115-355; H.Rept. 115-355;
program, program, and authorizes financial benefits and authorizes financial benefits
passed House May passed House May
for communities for communities hosting waste facilities. hosting waste facilities.
10, 2018, by vote 10, 2018, by vote
of 340-72 of 340-72
~~CRS-22~~

~~Number~~
~~Sponsor~~
~~Title~~
~~Description~~
~~Introduced~~
~~Committee~~
~~Action~~
S. 1903/ S. 1903/
Duckworth/ Duckworth/
Sensible, Sensible, ~~Timely~~ Timely Relief for Relief for
For communities For communities with closedwith closed nuclear nuclear
Senate: October Senate: October
Senate: Finance Senate: Finance
H.R. 3970 H.R. 3970
Schneider Schneider
America’s America’s Nuclear Districts’Nuclear Districts’ power plants that are storing spent power plants that are storing spent
2, 2017 2, 2017
House: Energy and House: Energy and
Economic Development Economic Development
nuclear fuel, authorizes $15 for each nuclear fuel, authorizes $15 for each
House: October House: October
Commerce Commerce
(STRANDED) Act (STRANDED) Act
kilogram kilogram of nuclear waste, revivesof nuclear waste, revives an an
5, 2017 5, 2017

expired tax credit for first-time expired tax credit for first-time
homebuyers,homebuyers, and adds eligibilityand adds eligibility for the for the
existing New Markets tax credit. existing New Markets tax credit.
H.R. 4442 H.R. 4442 Lowey Lowey
Removing Nuclear Waste Removing Nuclear Waste
Authorizes DOE to take title to spent Authorizes DOE to take title to spent
November November 16, 16,
Energy and Energy and
from our Communities from our Communities Act Act
fuel at nuclear plant sites for storage at a fuel at nuclear plant sites for storage at a
2017 2017
Commerce Commerce
of 2017 of 2017
licensed interim licensed interim consolidated storage consolidated storage
facility. Costs of such storage would be facility. Costs of such storage would be
paid from the Nuclear Wastepaid from the Nuclear Waste Fund Fund
without further appropriation. Priority without further appropriation. Priority

for interim for interim storage would be given to storage would be given to
sites without an operating reactor and sites without an operating reactor and
that have a population of more than 15 that have a population of more than 15
mil ionmil ion people within a 50-mile radius. people within a 50-mile radius.
CRS-23 Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action S. 1265/ S. 1265/
Markey/Engel Markey/Engel
Dry Cask Storage Act of Dry Cask Storage Act of
Requires nuclear power plants to Requires nuclear power plants to
Senate: May 25, Senate: May 25,
Senate: Environment Senate: Environment
H.R. 4891 H.R. 4891
2017/2018 2017/2018
develop NRC-approved plans for develop NRC-approved plans for
2017 2017
and Public Works and Public Works
removing removing spent fuel from storage pools. spent fuel from storage pools.
House: January House: January
House: Energy and House: Energy and
Within seven years after such plans had Within seven years after such plans had
29, 2018 29, 2018
Commerce Commerce
been submitted, spent fuel would have to been submitted, spent fuel would have to
be transferred to dry storage facilitiesbe transferred to dry storage facilities if if
it has been in a storage pool for at least it has been in a storage pool for at least
seven years. Emergency planning zones seven years. Emergency planning zones

would have to be expanded fromwould have to be expanded from 10 to 10 to
50 miles50 miles in radius around any reactor in radius around any reactor
determineddetermined by NRC to be out of by NRC to be out of
compliance with its spent fuel transfer compliance with its spent fuel transfer
plan. Authorizes NRC to use interest plan. Authorizes NRC to use interest
earned by the Nuclear Waste Fund to earned by the Nuclear Waste Fund to
provide grants to nuclear power plants provide grants to nuclear power plants
to transfer spent fuel to dry storage.to transfer spent fuel to dry storage.
~~CRS-23~~

~~Number~~
~~Sponsor~~
~~Title~~
~~Description~~
~~Introduced~~
~~Committee~~
~~Action~~
H.R. 5643 H.R. 5643 Rosen Rosen
Jobs, Not Waste Jobs, Not Waste Act Act
DOE cannot take action toward DOE cannot take action toward
April April 26, 2018 26, 2018
Energy and Energy and
developing the Yucca Mountain developing the Yucca Mountain
Commerce Commerce
repository repository until the Office of until the Office of
Management and Budget issues a report Management and Budget issues a report

on job-creating alternative uses of the on job-creating alternative uses of the
site and Congresssite and Congress holds a hearing on holds a hearing on
alternative uses. alternative uses.

114th Congress
H.R. H.R.
Titus/Reid Titus/Reid
Nuclear Waste Informed Nuclear Waste Informed
Prohibits NRC from Prohibits NRC from authorizing authorizing
House: March 13, House: March 13,
House: Energy and House: Energy and

1364/ S. 1364/ S.
Consent Act Consent Act
construction of a nuclear waste construction of a nuclear waste
2015 2015
Commerce Commerce
691 691
repository repository unless the Secretary of Energyunless the Secretary of Energy Senate: March 10,Senate: March 10, Senate: Environment Senate: Environment
has reached an agreement with the host has reached an agreement with the host
2015 2015
and Public Works and Public Works
state and affected units of local state and affected units of local
government and Indian tribes. government and Indian tribes.
CRS-24 Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action H.R. 3643 ~~H.R. 3643~~
Conaway Conaway
Interim Consolidated Interim Consolidated
Authorizes DOE to enter into contracts Authorizes DOE to enter into contracts
September September 29, 29,
Energy and Energy and

Storage Act of 2015 Storage Act of 2015
with privately owned spent fuel storage with privately owned spent fuel storage
2015 2015
Commerce Commerce
facilities. facilities. DOE would take title to DOE would take title to ~~all~~
al spent nuclear fuel from commercial spent nuclear fuel from commercial
reactors deliveredreactors delivered to the private storage to the private storage
facility. Annual interest earned by the facility. Annual interest earned by the
Nuclear Waste Fund could be used by Nuclear Waste Fund could be used by
DOE without further congressional DOE without further congressional
appropriation to pay for private interim appropriation to pay for private interim
storage. storage.
H.R. 4745 H.R. 4745
Mulvaney Mulvaney
Interim Consolidated Interim Consolidated
Authorizes DOE to enter into contracts Authorizes DOE to enter into contracts
March 18, 2016 March 18, 2016
Energy and Energy and

Storage Act of 2016 Storage Act of 2016
with privately owned spent fuel storage with privately owned spent fuel storage
Commerce Commerce
facilities. facilities. DOE would take title to DOE would take title to ~~all~~
al spent nuclear fuel from commercial spent nuclear fuel from commercial
reactors deliveredreactors delivered to the private storage to the private storage
facility. Annual interest earned by the facility. Annual interest earned by the
Nuclear Waste Fund could be used by Nuclear Waste Fund could be used by
DOE without further congressional DOE without further congressional
appropriation to pay for private interim appropriation to pay for private interim
storage. storage.
~~CRS-24~~

~~Number~~
~~Sponsor~~
~~Title~~
~~Description~~
~~Introduced~~
~~Committee~~
~~Action~~
~~H.R. 5632~~
H.R. 5632 Dold Dold
Stranded Nuclear Waste Stranded Nuclear Waste
Directs Directs the Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of Energy to
July 6, 2016 July 6, 2016
Energy and Energy and

Accountability Act of 2016 Accountability Act of 2016
provide payments to communities provide payments to communities with with
Commerce Commerce
closed nuclear power plants that store closed nuclear power plants that store
spent nuclear fuel onsite. spent nuclear fuel onsite.
CRS-25 Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action S. 854 S. 854
Alexander Alexander
Nuclear Waste Nuclear Waste
Establishes an independent Nuclear Establishes an independent Nuclear
March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015
Energy and Natural Energy and Natural

Administration Administration Act of 2015 Act of 2015
Waste Administration Waste Administration (NWA) to (NWA) to
Resources Resources
develop nuclear waste storage and develop nuclear waste storage and
disposal facilities.disposal facilities. Siting of such facilities Siting of such facilities
would requirewould require the consent of the the consent of the
affected state, local,affected state, local, and tribal and tribal
governments.governments. NWA would be required NWA would be required
to prepare a missionto prepare a mission plan to open a pilot plan to open a pilot
storage facility by the end of 2021 for storage facility by the end of 2021 for
nuclear waste from shutdown reactors nuclear waste from shutdown reactors
and other emergencyand other emergency ~~deliveries (called~~ deliveries (cal ed
“priority waste”). A storage facility for “priority waste”). A storage facility for
waste fromwaste from operating reactors or other operating reactors or other
“nonpriority waste” would open by the “nonpriority waste” would open by the
end of 2025, and a permanent repository end of 2025, and a permanent repository
by the end of 2048. Existing authority to by the end of 2048. Existing authority to
construct and operate Yucca Mountain construct and operate Yucca Mountain
repositoryrepository would transfer to NWA.would transfer to NWA. The The
existing Yucca Mountain licensing existing Yucca Mountain licensing
process would not be affected. The process would not be affected. The
current disposal limitcurrent disposal limit of 70,000 metric of 70,000 metric
tons for the nation’s first permanent tons for the nation’s first permanent
repositoryrepository would be repealed.would be repealed. Nuclear Nuclear
waste feeswaste fees col ected after enactment of col ected after enactment of
the bil would be held in a newly the bil would be held in a newly
established Workingestablished Working Capital Fund. The Capital Fund. The
Nuclear Waste AdministrationNuclear Waste Administration could could
immediatelyimmediately draw from that fund any draw from that fund any
amounts needed to carry out S. 854, amounts needed to carry out S. 854,
unless limitedunless limited by annual appropriations by annual appropriations
or authorizations. or authorizations.
~~CRS-25~~

~~Number~~
~~Sponsor~~
~~Title~~
~~Description~~
~~Introduced~~
~~Committee~~
~~Action~~
S. 944 S. 944
Boxer Boxer
Safe and Secure Safe and Secure
Requires NRC to maintain ful safety and Requires NRC to maintain ful safety and
April April 15, 2015 15, 2015
Environment and Environment and

Decommissioning Decommissioning Act of Act of
security requirements security requirements at permanently at permanently
Public Works Public Works
2015 2015
closed reactors closed reactors until until ~~all~~ al their spent fuel their spent fuel
was moved to dry storage. was moved to dry storage.
CRS-26 Number Sponsor Title Description Introduced Committee Action S. S.
Markey/Engel Markey/Engel
Dry Cask Storage Act of Dry Cask Storage Act of
Requires nuclear power plants to Requires nuclear power plants to
Senate: April 15, Senate: April 15,
Senate: Environment Senate: Environment

945/H.R. 945/H.R.
2015 2015
develop NRC-approved plans for develop NRC-approved plans for
2015 2015
and Public Works and Public Works
3587 3587
removing removing spent fuel from storage pools. spent fuel from storage pools.
House: September House: September House: Energy and House: Energy and
Within seven years after such plans had Within seven years after such plans had
22, 2015 22, 2015
Commerce Commerce
been submitted, spent fuel would have to been submitted, spent fuel would have to
be transferred to dry storage facilities. be transferred to dry storage facilities.
After the seven-year period, additional After the seven-year period, additional
spent fuel would have to be transferred spent fuel would have to be transferred
to dry casks within a year after it had to dry casks within a year after it had
been determinedbeen determined to be sufficiently cool. to be sufficiently cool.
Emergency planning zones would have to Emergency planning zones would have to
be expanded from 10 to 50 milesbe expanded from 10 to 50 miles in in
radius around any reactor determined by radius around any reactor determined by
NRC to be out of compliance with its NRC to be out of compliance with its
spent fuel transfer plan. NRC would be spent fuel transfer plan. NRC would be
authorized to use interestauthorized to use interest earned by the earned by the
Nuclear Waste Fund to provide grants to Nuclear Waste Fund to provide grants to
nuclear power plants to transfer spent nuclear power plants to transfer spent
fuel to dry storage. Under the Senate bil , fuel to dry storage. Under the Senate bil ,
the emergencythe emergency zone for a zone for a
decommissioneddecommissioned reactor could not be reactor could not be
reduced below a 10-mile radius until reduced below a 10-mile radius until ~~all~~
al its spent fuel had been placed in dry its spent fuel had been placed in dry
storage. storage.
S. 1825 S. 1825
Reid Reid
Nuclear Waste Informed Nuclear Waste Informed
Prohibits the Secretary of Energy from Prohibits the Secretary of Energy from
July 22, 2015 July 22, 2015
Energy and Natural Energy and Natural

Consent Act Consent Act
making any expenditure from the making any expenditure from the
Resources Resources
Nuclear Waste Fund for developing Nuclear Waste Fund for developing
nuclear waste storage and disposal nuclear waste storage and disposal
facilitiesfacilities and conducting waste and conducting waste
transportation activities unless transportation activities unless
agreementsagreements have been reached with have been reached with
affected states, local governments, and affected states, local governments, and
Indian tribes. Indian tribes.
~~CRS-26~~

Source: Congress.gov. Congress.gov.

CRS-27 CRS-27

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Characteristics and Handling of Nuclear Waste
Radioactive waste is a term that encompasses a broad range of material with widely varying Radioactive waste is a term that encompasses a broad range of material with widely varying
characteristics. Some waste has relatively slight radioactivity and is safe to handle in unshielded characteristics. Some waste has relatively slight radioactivity and is safe to handle in unshielded
containers, while other types are intensely hot in both temperature and radioactivity. Some decays containers, while other types are intensely hot in both temperature and radioactivity. Some decays
to safe levels of radioactivity in a matter of days or weeks, while other types to safe levels of radioactivity in a matter of days or weeks, while other types ~~will~~ wil remain remain
dangerous for thousands of years. Major types of radioactive waste are described below:dangerous for thousands of years. Major types of radioactive waste are described below:6870
Spent nuclear fuel. Fuel rods that have been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor after irradiation, . Fuel rods that have been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor after irradiation,
~~usually~~usual y because they can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction. (The term “spent because they can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction. (The term “spent
nuclear fuel” is defined in NWPA. The nuclear industry nuclear fuel” is defined in NWPA. The nuclear industry ~~typically~~typical y refers to spent fuel as “used refers to spent fuel as “used
nuclear fuel,” because it contains uranium and plutonium that could be extracted through nuclear fuel,” because it contains uranium and plutonium that could be extracted through
reprocessing to make new fuel.) By far the most radioactive type of civilian nuclear waste, spent reprocessing to make new fuel.) By far the most radioactive type of civilian nuclear waste, spent
fuel contains extremely hot but relatively short-lived fission products (fragments of the nuclei of fuel contains extremely hot but relatively short-lived fission products (fragments of the nuclei of
uranium and other fissile elements) as uranium and other fissile elements) as ~~well~~ wel as long-lived radionuclides (radioactive atoms) such as long-lived radionuclides (radioactive atoms) such
as plutonium, which remains dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years or more. as plutonium, which remains dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years or more.
High-level waste. Highly radioactive residue created by spent fuel reprocessing (almost entirely . Highly radioactive residue created by spent fuel reprocessing (almost entirely
for defense purposes in the United States). High-level waste contains most of the radioactive for defense purposes in the United States). High-level waste contains most of the radioactive
fission products of spent fuel, but most of the uranium and plutonium fission products of spent fuel, but most of the uranium and plutonium ~~usually~~usual y has been removed has been removed
for reuse. Enough long-lived radioactive elements for reuse. Enough long-lived radioactive elements ~~typically~~typical y remain, however, to require isolation remain, however, to require isolation
for 10,000 years or more. for 10,000 years or more.
Transuranic (TRU) waste. Relatively low-activity waste that contains more than a certain level of . Relatively low-activity waste that contains more than a certain level of
long-lived elements heavier than uranium (primarily plutonium). Radiation shielding may be long-lived elements heavier than uranium (primarily plutonium). Radiation shielding may be
required for the handling of some types of TRU waste. In the United States, transuranic waste is required for the handling of some types of TRU waste. In the United States, transuranic waste is
generated almost entirely by nuclear weapons production processes. Because of the plutonium, generated almost entirely by nuclear weapons production processes. Because of the plutonium,
long-term isolation is required. The nation’s only permanent repository for TRU waste, the Waste long-term isolation is required. The nation’s only permanent repository for TRU waste, the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), near Carlsbad, NM, resumed underground waste emplacement Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), near Carlsbad, NM, resumed underground waste emplacement
January 4, 2017, after being suspended for nearly three years after a radioactive release. Waste January 4, 2017, after being suspended for nearly three years after a radioactive release. Waste
awaiting disposal had been stored above-ground at the WIPP site during the suspension; awaiting disposal had been stored above-ground at the WIPP site during the suspension;
shipments of additional waste to the site resumed April 10, 2017.shipments of additional waste to the site resumed April 10, 2017.6971
Low-level waste. Radioactive waste not classified as spent fuel, high-level waste, TRU waste, or . Radioactive waste not classified as spent fuel, high-level waste, TRU waste, or
byproduct material such as uranium byproduct material such as uranium ~~mill~~ mil tailings (below). Four classes of low-level waste have tailings (below). Four classes of low-level waste have
been established by NRCbeen established by NRC regulations, ranging from least radioactive and shortest-lived to the longest-lived , ranging from least radioactive and shortest-lived to the longest-lived
and most radioactive. Although some types of low-level waste can be more radioactive than some and most radioactive. Although some types of low-level waste can be more radioactive than some
types of high-level waste, in general low-level waste contains relatively low concentrations of types of high-level waste, in general low-level waste contains relatively low concentrations of
radioactivity that decays relatively quickly. Low-level waste disposal radioactivity that decays relatively quickly. Low-level waste disposal facilities cannot accept facilities cannot accept
material that exceeds NRC concentration limits. material that exceeds NRC concentration limits.
Uranium mill tailings. Sand-like residues remaining from the processing of uranium ore. Such . Sand-like residues remaining from the processing of uranium ore. Such
tailings have very low concentrations of radioactivity but extremely large volumes that can pose a tailings have very low concentrations of radioactivity but extremely large volumes that can pose a
hazard, particularly from radon emissions or groundwater contamination. (For more information, hazard, particularly from radon emissions or groundwater contamination. (For more information,

68 70 Statutory definitions for “spent nuclear fuel,” “high-level radioactive waste,” and “low-level radioactive waste” can Statutory definitions for “spent nuclear fuel,” “high-level radioactive waste,” and “low-level radioactive waste” can
be found in §2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101). “be found in §2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101). “~~Transuranic~~ T ransuranic waste” is defined waste” is defined in §11ee. of in §11ee. of
the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2014); §11e.(2) of the actthe Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2014); §11e.(2) of the act includes uranium mill tailings in the definition of includes uranium mill tailings in the definition of
“byproduct material.” “Mixed waste” consists of chemically hazardous“byproduct material.” “Mixed waste” consists of chemically hazardous waste as definedwaste as defined by EPA regulations (40 C.F.R. by EPA regulations (40 C.F.R.
Part 261, Subparts C and D) that contains radioactive materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act. Part 261, Subparts C and D) that contains radioactive materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act.
6971 DOE, “ DOE, “ Secretary, N.M. Delegation Recognize WIPP Reopening,” January 9, 2017; “WIPP Receives First Shipment Secretary, N.M. Delegation Recognize WIPP Reopening,” January 9, 2017; “WIPP Receives First Shipment
SinceSince Reopening,” April 10, 2017, http://www.wipp.energy.gov/wipprecovery/recovery.html. Reopening,” April 10, 2017, http://www.wipp.energy.gov/wipprecovery/recovery.html.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

128

link to page 34 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

see CRS Report R45880, see CRS Report R45880, Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Lance N. Larson.), by Lance N. Larson.)
Mixed waste. . ~~Chemically~~Chemical y hazardous waste that includes radioactive material. High-level, low- hazardous waste that includes radioactive material. High-level, low-
level, and TRU waste, and radioactive byproduct material, often level, and TRU waste, and radioactive byproduct material, often ~~falls~~fal s under the designation of under the designation of
mixed waste. Such waste poses complicated institutional problems, because the radioactive mixed waste. Such waste poses complicated institutional problems, because the radioactive
portion is regulated by DOE or NRC under the Atomic Energy Act, while the Environmental portion is regulated by DOE or NRC under the Atomic Energy Act, while the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and states regulate the nonradioactive elements under the Resource Protection Agency (EPA) and states regulate the nonradioactive elements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Spent Nuclear Fuel
When spent nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor, When spent nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor, ~~usually~~usual y after several years of power after several years of power
production, it is production, it is ~~thermally~~thermal y hot and highly radioactive. The spent fuel is in the form of fuel hot and highly radioactive. The spent fuel is in the form of fuel
assemblies, which consist of arrays of metal-clad fuel rods 12-15 feet longassemblies, which consist of arrays of metal-clad fuel rods 12-15 feet long (see Figure 1). .
A fresh fuel rod, which emits relatively little A fresh fuel rod, which emits relatively little radioactivity, contains radioactivity, contains ~~pellets~~pel ets made of uranium that made of uranium that
has been enriched in the isotope U-235 (has been enriched in the isotope U-235 (~~usually~~usual y to 3%-5% from its natural level of 0.7%). But to 3%-5% from its natural level of 0.7%). But
after nuclear fission has taken place in the reactor, most of the U-235 nuclei in the fuel rods have after nuclear fission has taken place in the reactor, most of the U-235 nuclei in the fuel rods have
been split into a variety of highly radioactive fission products. Some of the nuclei of the dominant been split into a variety of highly radioactive fission products. Some of the nuclei of the dominant
isotope U-238 have absorbed neutrons and then decayed to become radioactive plutonium, some isotope U-238 have absorbed neutrons and then decayed to become radioactive plutonium, some
of which has also split into fission products (and some of which are gases). Newly withdrawn of which has also split into fission products (and some of which are gases). Newly withdrawn
spent fuel assemblies are stored in deep pools of water adjacent to the reactors to keep them from spent fuel assemblies are stored in deep pools of water adjacent to the reactors to keep them from
overheating and to protect workers from radiation. To prevent the pools from overheating and to protect workers from radiation. To prevent the pools from ~~filling~~fil ing up, older, up, older,
cooler spent fuel often is sealed in dry canisters and transferred to radiation-shielded storage cooler spent fuel often is sealed in dry canisters and transferred to radiation-shielded storage
facilities elsewhere at reactor sites. NRC currently requires spent fuel to cool for at least 7-10 facilities elsewhere at reactor sites. NRC currently requires spent fuel to cool for at least 7-10
years before being transferred to dry storage.years before being transferred to dry storage.70

7072 72 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendations for Japan Lessons-Learned Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendations for Japan Lessons-Learned ~~Tier~~T ier 3 Issue 3 Issue
on Expedited on Expedited ~~Transfer~~T ransfer of Spent Fuel,” of Spent Fuel,” ~~op. cit.~~ December 18, 2013, Enclosure 1, p. 77, Enclosure 1, p. 77, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1334/ML13346A739.pdf. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

229

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Figure 1. Example of a Nuclear Fuel Assembly

Source: Department of Energy. Department of Energy.
Spent fuel discharged from U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is currently stored at Spent fuel discharged from U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is currently stored at 5754 operating operating
nuclear plant sites, nuclear plant sites, 1720 shutdown plant sites, and the Idaho National Laboratory. shutdown plant sites, and the Idaho National Laboratory.7173 A typical large A typical large
commercial nuclear reactor discharges an average of 20-30 metric tons of spent fuel per year—an commercial nuclear reactor discharges an average of 20-30 metric tons of spent fuel per year—an
average of about 2,200 metric tons average of about 2,200 metric tons ~~annually~~annual y for the entire U.S. nuclear power industry during the for the entire U.S. nuclear power industry during the
past two decades. An Oak Ridge National Laboratory interactive database estimates that about past two decades. An Oak Ridge National Laboratory interactive database estimates that about
~~83,800~~88,300 metric tons of spent fuel was stored at U.S. nuclear plants in metric tons of spent fuel was stored at U.S. nuclear plants in ~~2019~~2021, including 7,300 metric , including 7,300 metric
tons at closed plant sites.tons at closed plant sites.7274 A recent study for DOE estimated that about 30,000 metric tons of A recent study for DOE estimated that about 30,000 metric tons of
spent fuel was stored in dry casks at the end of 2017.spent fuel was stored in dry casks at the end of 2017.7375 The total amount of existing waste would The total amount of existing waste would
exceed NWPA’s 70,000-metric-ton limit for Yucca Mountain, even without counting 7,000 metric exceed NWPA’s 70,000-metric-ton limit for Yucca Mountain, even without counting 7,000 metric
tons of DOE spent fuel and high-level waste that had also been planned for disposal at the tons of DOE spent fuel and high-level waste that had also been planned for disposal at the
repository. repository.
As long as nuclear power continues to be generated, the amount of spent fuel stored at plant sites As long as nuclear power continues to be generated, the amount of spent fuel stored at plant sites
~~will~~ wil continue to grow until an interim storage facility or a permanent repository can be opened—continue to grow until an interim storage facility or a permanent repository can be opened—
or until alternative treatment and disposal technology is developed. DOE’s most recent estimates or until alternative treatment and disposal technology is developed. DOE’s most recent estimates
of the total amount of spent fuel from existing U.S. reactors that may of the total amount of spent fuel from existing U.S. reactors that may ~~eventually~~eventual y require disposal require disposal
range from 105,000 metric range from 105,000 metric ~~tons74~~tons76 to 130,000 metric tons. to 130,000 metric tons.75

~~71 Gutherman Technical~~77 73 Gutherman T echnical Services, Services, 2012 Used Fuel Data, January 30, 2013. Adjusted for , January 30, 2013. Adjusted for ~~seven~~10 sites closed sites closed since 2012. since 2012.
~~Includes General~~ Shutdown sites include General Electric’s spent fuel storage facility at Morris, IL, located adjacent to the Dresden nuclear plant. Also, Electric’s spent fuel storage facility at Morris, IL, located adjacent to the Dresden nuclear plant. Also,
the Hope Creek and Salemthe Hope Creek and Salem nuclear plants in Newnuclear plants in New Jersey are counted asJersey are counted as a singlea single site.site.
72 74 Oak Ridge Oak Ridge National Laboratory, CURIE interactive map, “Total Mass (National Laboratory, CURIE interactive map, “Total Mass (~~MTU~~MT U) in Storage in ) in Storage in ~~2019~~2021,” viewed ,” viewed
September September ~~14, 2020~~8, 2021, https://curie.ornl.gov/map. Spent fuel mass typically refers to the metric tons of uranium (, https://curie.ornl.gov/map. Spent fuel mass typically refers to the metric tons of uranium (~~MTU)~~
MT U) in the original fuel. in the original fuel.
7375 Vinson, op. cit. Vinson, op. cit.
7476 DOE Office of Civilian DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Radioactive Waste Management, OCRWM Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2002, ,
DOE/RW-0560, October 2003, Appendix C. DOE/RW-0560, October 2003, Appendix C.
7577 DOE Office of Civilian DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Radioactive Waste Management, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High -Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

330

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

New storage capacity at operating nuclear plant sites or other locations New storage capacity at operating nuclear plant sites or other locations ~~will~~ wil be required if DOE is be required if DOE is
unable to begin accepting waste into its disposal system for an indefinite period. Most utilitiesunable to begin accepting waste into its disposal system for an indefinite period. Most utilities are are
expected to construct new dry storage capacity at reactor sites. expected to construct new dry storage capacity at reactor sites. ~~Seventy-five~~Ninety licensed dry storage licensed dry storage
~~facilities~~ facilities were operating at U.S. nuclear plant and DOE sites as of were operating at U.S. nuclear plant and DOE sites as of ~~July 2019.76~~
April 2021.78 The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened concerns about the vulnerability of stored The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened concerns about the vulnerability of stored
spent fuel. Concerns have been raised that an aircraft crash into a reactor’s pool area or acts of spent fuel. Concerns have been raised that an aircraft crash into a reactor’s pool area or acts of
sabotage could drain the pool and cause the spent fuel inside to overheat. A report released by sabotage could drain the pool and cause the spent fuel inside to overheat. A report released by
NRC January 17, 2001, found that overheating could cause the zirconium NRC January 17, 2001, found that overheating could cause the zirconium ~~alloy~~al oy cladding of spent cladding of spent
fuel to catch fire and release hazardous amounts of radioactivity, although it characterized the fuel to catch fire and release hazardous amounts of radioactivity, although it characterized the
probability of such a fire as low. probability of such a fire as low.
In a report released April In a report released April 6, 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that 6, 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that
“successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible.” To reduce the “successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible.” To reduce the
likelihoodlikelihood of spent fuel cladding fires, the NAS study recommended that hotter and cooler spent of spent fuel cladding fires, the NAS study recommended that hotter and cooler spent
fuel assemblies be interspersed throughout spent fuel pools, that spray systems be fuel assemblies be interspersed throughout spent fuel pools, that spray systems be ~~installed~~instal ed above above
the pools, and that more fuel be transferred from pools to dry cask storage.the pools, and that more fuel be transferred from pools to dry cask storage.7779 The nuclear industry The nuclear industry
contends that the several hours required for uncovered spent fuel to heat up enough to catch fire contends that the several hours required for uncovered spent fuel to heat up enough to catch fire
would would ~~allow~~al ow ample time for alternative measures to cool the fuel. NRC’s report on this issue in ample time for alternative measures to cool the fuel. NRC’s report on this issue in
2013 found only minor safety benefits in expedited transfers of spent fuel from pools to dry 2013 found only minor safety benefits in expedited transfers of spent fuel from pools to dry
casks.casks.7880
The safety of spent fuel pools is one of the areas examined by an NRC task force that identified The safety of spent fuel pools is one of the areas examined by an NRC task force that identified
near-term lessons that the Fukushima accident may hold for U.S. nuclear power plant regulation. near-term lessons that the Fukushima accident may hold for U.S. nuclear power plant regulation.
The task force recommended that assured sources of electrical power as The task force recommended that assured sources of electrical power as ~~well~~ wel as water spray as water spray
systems be available for spent fuel pools.systems be available for spent fuel pools.7981 NRC approved an order March 9, 2012, requiring U.S. NRC approved an order March 9, 2012, requiring U.S.
reactors to reactors to ~~install~~ instal improved water-level monitoring equipment at their spent fuel pools.improved water-level monitoring equipment at their spent fuel pools.8082 Contending that spent fuel storage risks continue to be unacceptably high, a 2018 Greenpeace report cal ed for “an end of the high-density pool storage of used nuclear fuel and the placement of most spent nuclear fuel in dry, hardened storage containers.”83
For more background, see CRS Report R42513, For more background, see CRS Report R42513, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, by James D. , by James D.
Werner, and CRS In Focus IF11201, Werner, and CRS In Focus IF11201, Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in the United States, by Lance , by Lance
N. Larson. Nye County, Nevada, Summary, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D, October 2007, p. S-47. 78 NRC, “ U.S. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI),” April 22, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2111/ML21116A041.pdf. T he total includes the GE independent pool storage facility near Morris, IL. 79 National Academy of Sciences, ~~N. Larson.~~
~~Commercial Low-Level Waste~~
~~About 4.2 million cubic feet of commercial low-level waste with 134,769 curies of radioactivity~~
~~was shipped to disposal sites in 2019, according to DOE.81 Volumes and radioactivity can vary~~
~~widely from year to year, based on the status of nuclear decommissioning projects and cleanup~~

Nye County, Nevada, Summary, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D, October 2007, p. S-47.
~~76 NRC, Information Digest 2019-2020, Appendix O, July 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1924/~~
~~ML19242D326.pdf. In addition, GE operates an independent pool storage facility near Morris, IL.~~
~~77 National Academy of Sciences,~~ Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report, ,
releasedreleased April 6, 2005, p. 2. April 6, 2005, p. 2.
7880 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendations for Japan Lessons-Learned Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendations for Japan Lessons-Learned ~~Tier~~T ier 3 Issue 3 Issue
on on ~~Expedited Transfer~~Expedit ed T ransfer of Spent Fuel,” of Spent Fuel,” op. cit. op. cit.
7981 U.S. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Near-Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Near-~~Term Task~~T erm T ask Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident, Accident, ~~Recommendations~~Recom m endations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the ~~21st~~21 st Century, p. 46, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/, p. 46, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/
ML1118/ML111861807.pdf. ML1118/ML111861807.pdf.
8082 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC to Issue Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC to Issue Orders, Information Request as Part of Implementing FukushimaOrders, Information Request as Part of Implementing Fukushima --
Related Recommendations,” press release, March 9, 2012, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1206/ML120690627.pdf. Related Recommendations,” press release, March 9, 2012, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1206/ML120690627.pdf.
~~81 U.S. Department of Energy, Management Information Manifest System, http://mims.doe.gov/GeneratorData.aspx.~~
~~Most recent year reported. A curie is a unit of radioactivity equal to 3.7x1010 nuclear transformations per second~~83 Greenpeace, The Global Crisis of Nuclear Waste, November 2018, p. 97, https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-belgium-stateless/2019/03/f7da075b-18.11.gp-report-global-crisis-of-nuclear-waste.pdf. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

431

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

~~activities that can generate especially large quantities. For example, the total number of curies~~
~~reported for 2017 was 57,179, and the volume reported for 2016 was 1.7 million cubic feet~~Commercial Low-Level Waste About 1 mil ion cubic feet of commercial low-level waste with 40,323 curies of radioactivity was shipped to disposal sites for shal ow land burial in 2020, according to DOE.84 Volumes and radioactivity can vary widely from year to year, based on the status of nuclear decommissioning projects and cleanup work that can generate especial y large quantities. For example, in 2018, the total volume was 5.1 mil ion cubic feet with total radioactivity of 224,341 curies. The . The
radioactivity of low-level waste is only a tiny fraction of the amount in annual discharges of spent radioactivity of low-level waste is only a tiny fraction of the amount in annual discharges of spent
fuel. fuel.
Low-level radioactive waste is divided into three major categories for handling and disposal: Low-level radioactive waste is divided into three major categories for handling and disposal:
class A, B, and C. Class A waste constitutes most of the annual volume of low-level waste, while class A, B, and C. Class A waste constitutes most of the annual volume of low-level waste, while
classes B and C classes B and C ~~generally~~general y contain most of the radioactivity. Low-level waste that has higher contain most of the radioactivity. Low-level waste that has higher
radioactivity and longevity than those categories is classified by NRC as Greater-Than-Class C radioactivity and longevity than those categories is classified by NRC as Greater-Than-Class C
(GTCC). NRC (GTCC). NRC ~~generally~~general y considers GTCC waste unsuitable for considers GTCC waste unsuitable for ~~shallow~~shal ow land burial with the other land burial with the other
classes of low-level waste and requires that it be disposed of in a geologic repository or classes of low-level waste and requires that it be disposed of in a geologic repository or
alternative facility approved by NRC.alternative facility approved by NRC.8285
Current Policy and Regulation
Disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste is a federal responsibility, while states are authorized Disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste is a federal responsibility, while states are authorized
to develop disposal facilities for commercial low-level waste. The Obama Administration halted to develop disposal facilities for commercial low-level waste. The Obama Administration halted
development of the Yucca Mountain repository after FY2010, although Yucca Mountain remains development of the Yucca Mountain repository after FY2010, although Yucca Mountain remains
the sole candidate site for civilianthe sole candidate site for civilian highly radioactive waste disposal under current law. The Trump highly radioactive waste disposal under current law. The Trump
Administration requested appropriations to revive the program in FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020, Administration requested appropriations to revive the program in FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020,
but no funding was enacted. The but no funding was enacted. The Trump Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Mountain Mountain
project for FY2021project for FY2021, and the Biden Administration requested none for FY2022. .
Under the Obama Administration, DOE issued an alternative waste management strategy in Under the Obama Administration, DOE issued an alternative waste management strategy in
January 2013 that January 2013 that ~~called~~cal ed for a pilot facility for spent fuel storage to open at a voluntary site by for a pilot facility for spent fuel storage to open at a voluntary site by
2021 and a new repository at a volunteer location by 2048. New legislation would have been 2021 and a new repository at a volunteer location by 2048. New legislation would have been
required to carry out the Obama strategy. required to carry out the Obama strategy.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Current Program and Proposed Policy Changes
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a system for selecting a geologic repository for The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a system for selecting a geologic repository for
the permanent disposal of up to 70,000 metric tons (77,000 tons) of spent nuclear fuel and high-the permanent disposal of up to 70,000 metric tons (77,000 tons) of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste. DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) was created to level waste. DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) was created to
carry out the program. The Nuclear Waste Fund, holding receipts from a fee on commercial carry out the program. The Nuclear Waste Fund, holding receipts from a fee on commercial
nuclear power and federal contributions for emplacement of high-level defense waste, was nuclear power and federal contributions for emplacement of high-level defense waste, was
established to pay for the program. The fee, set at a tenth of a cent (one established to pay for the program. The fee, set at a tenth of a cent (one ~~mill~~mil ) per kilowatt-hour, ) per kilowatt-hour,
can be adjusted by the Secretary of Energy based on projected total program costs after a can be adjusted by the Secretary of Energy based on projected total program costs after a
84 U.S. Department of Energy, Management Information Manifest System, http://mims.doe.gov/GeneratorData.aspx. Most recent year reported. A curie is a unit of radioactivity equal to 3.7x1010 nuclear transformations per second. 85 NRC, “ Greater-T han-Class C and T ransuranic Waste,” October 9, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/gtcc-transuranic-waste-disposal.html. Congressional Research Service 32 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal congressional review period. DOE was required to select three candidate sites for the first congressional review period. DOE was required to select three candidate sites for the first
national high-level waste repository. national high-level waste repository.
After much controversy over DOE’s implementation of NWPA, the act was After much controversy over DOE’s implementation of NWPA, the act was ~~substantially~~
substantial y modified by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (Title IV, Subtitle A of P.L. 100-modified by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (Title IV, Subtitle A of P.L. 100-
203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987). Under the amendments, the only candidate 203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987). Under the amendments, the only candidate
site DOE may consider for a permanent high-level waste repository is at Yucca Mountain, NV. If site DOE may consider for a permanent high-level waste repository is at Yucca Mountain, NV. If
that site cannot be licensed, DOE must return to Congress for further instructions. that site cannot be licensed, DOE must return to Congress for further instructions.

~~82 NRC, “Greater-Than-Class C and Transuranic Waste,” October 9, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-~~
~~pa/gtcc-transuranic-waste-disposal.html.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

5

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

The 1987 amendments also authorized construction of a monitored retrievable storage facility to The 1987 amendments also authorized construction of a monitored retrievable storage facility to
store spent fuel and prepare it for delivery to the repository. Because of fears that the MRS would store spent fuel and prepare it for delivery to the repository. Because of fears that the MRS would
reduce the need to open the permanent repository and become a de facto repository itself, the law reduce the need to open the permanent repository and become a de facto repository itself, the law
forbids DOE from selecting an MRS site until recommending to the President that a permanent forbids DOE from selecting an MRS site until recommending to the President that a permanent
repository be constructed, and construction of an MRS cannot begin until Yucca Mountain repository be constructed, and construction of an MRS cannot begin until Yucca Mountain
receives a construction permit. The repository recommendation was made in February 2002, but receives a construction permit. The repository recommendation was made in February 2002, but
DOE has not announced any plans for siting an MRS. DOE has not announced any plans for siting an MRS.
Along with halting Along with halting ~~all~~ al funding for the Yucca Mountain project, the Obama Administration funding for the Yucca Mountain project, the Obama Administration
terminated OCRWM at the end of FY2010 and transferred its remaining functions to DOE’s terminated OCRWM at the end of FY2010 and transferred its remaining functions to DOE’s
Office of Nuclear Energy. The Office of Nuclear Energy. The Obama Administration established the Blue Ribbon Commission on Administration established the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop a new waste management strategy, and the BRC America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop a new waste management strategy, and the BRC
issued its final report on January 26, 2012.issued its final report on January 26, 2012.8386
As required by its charter, the BRC did not evaluate specific sites for new nuclear waste facilities, As required by its charter, the BRC did not evaluate specific sites for new nuclear waste facilities,
including Yucca Mountain. However, the commission concluded that the existing nuclear waste including Yucca Mountain. However, the commission concluded that the existing nuclear waste
policy, with Yucca Mountain identified by law as the sole candidate site, “has now policy, with Yucca Mountain identified by law as the sole candidate site, “has now ~~all~~ al but but
completely broken down” and “seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and completely broken down” and “seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and
protracted delay.” The BRC recommended instead that Congress establish “a new, consent-based protracted delay.” The BRC recommended instead that Congress establish “a new, consent-based
approach to siting.” Under that approach, potential sites would be the subject of extensive approach to siting.” Under that approach, potential sites would be the subject of extensive
negotiations with affected states, tribes, and local governments. Such negotiations would result in negotiations with affected states, tribes, and local governments. Such negotiations would result in
~~legally~~ legal y binding agreements on the roles of the affected parties, including local oversight, and binding agreements on the roles of the affected parties, including local oversight, and
other project parameters. other project parameters.
The BRC noted that previous U.S. efforts to find voluntary waste sites had failed, but it The BRC noted that previous U.S. efforts to find voluntary waste sites had failed, but it
nevertheless expressed confidence that such a process could nevertheless expressed confidence that such a process could ~~eventually~~eventual y succeed. In particular, the succeed. In particular, the
commission highlighted the U.S. experience with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New commission highlighted the U.S. experience with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico, which, after many years of controversy, began receiving transuranic defense waste in Mexico, which, after many years of controversy, began receiving transuranic defense waste in
1999 with state and local government approval (although WIPP disposal was suspended for 1999 with state and local government approval (although WIPP disposal was suspended for
nearly three years after a release of radioactivity in February 2014, resuming in January 2017). nearly three years after a release of radioactivity in February 2014, resuming in January 2017).
To carry out the new waste management program, the BRC recommended that a To carry out the new waste management program, the BRC recommended that a ~~congressionally~~congressional y
chartered federal corporation be established. Such a corporation would be independent from chartered federal corporation be established. Such a corporation would be independent from
Administration control and have “assured access to funds” but be subject to congressional Administration control and have “assured access to funds” but be subject to congressional
oversight and to regulation by NRC. Pending establishment of the corporation, the BRC oversight and to regulation by NRC. Pending establishment of the corporation, the BRC
recommended that administrative and legislativerecommended that administrative and legislative changes be implemented in the Nuclear Waste changes be implemented in the Nuclear Waste
Fund to Fund to ~~allow~~al ow funds to be used for the waste management program without having to compete funds to be used for the waste management program without having to compete
with other appropriations priorities. with other appropriations priorities.
The BRC The BRC ~~called~~cal ed for “prompt efforts” to develop a permanent underground nuclear waste for “prompt efforts” to develop a permanent underground nuclear waste
repository and to develop one or more interim central storage facilities. Interim storage facilities repository and to develop one or more interim central storage facilities. Interim storage facilities
are are ~~especially~~especial y needed so that waste can be removed from shutdown reactor sites, the commission needed so that waste can be removed from shutdown reactor sites, the commission
said. Development of a permanent disposal site would have to be undertaken along with the said. Development of a permanent disposal site would have to be undertaken along with the
86 BRC Final Report, op. cit. Congressional Research Service 33 link to page 18 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal interim storage effort to assure that interim sites would not become “de facto” permanent interim storage effort to assure that interim sites would not become “de facto” permanent
repositories, according to the commission. repositories, according to the commission.
In response to the BRC report, and to provide an outline for a new nuclear waste program, DOE In response to the BRC report, and to provide an outline for a new nuclear waste program, DOE
issued its issued its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste
in January 2013.in January 2013.8487 Under the DOE strategy, a pilot interim spent fuel storage facility would be Under the DOE strategy, a pilot interim spent fuel storage facility would be
opened by 2021, focusing primarily on spent fuel from decommissioned nuclear plants. A larger-opened by 2021, focusing primarily on spent fuel from decommissioned nuclear plants. A larger-

~~83 BRC Final Report, op. cit.~~
~~84 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste, op. cit.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

6

~~link to page 18~~ ~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

scale interim storage facility, which could be an expansion of the pilot facility, would open by scale interim storage facility, which could be an expansion of the pilot facility, would open by
2025 with a capacity of 20,000 metric tons or more. 2025 with a capacity of 20,000 metric tons or more.
The DOE strategy under the Obama Administration The DOE strategy under the Obama Administration ~~called~~cal ed for the interim storage facility to be for the interim storage facility to be
linked to development of a permanent repository so that the storage facility would not become a linked to development of a permanent repository so that the storage facility would not become a
de facto repository. However, the strategy noted that the existing NWPA restrictions on the MRS repository. However, the strategy noted that the existing NWPA restrictions on the MRS
are so rigid that the MRS cannot currently be built. Without describing specific provisions, the are so rigid that the MRS cannot currently be built. Without describing specific provisions, the
DOE strategy recommended that “this linkage should not be such that it overly restricts forward DOE strategy recommended that “this linkage should not be such that it overly restricts forward
movement on a pilot or larger storage facility that could make progress against the waste movement on a pilot or larger storage facility that could make progress against the waste
management mission.” management mission.”
Under the 2013 DOE strategy, a geologic disposal facility Under the 2013 DOE strategy, a geologic disposal facility ~~would~~was to open by 2048—50 years after open by 2048—50 years after
the the ~~initially~~ initial y planned opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository. Sites for the proposed planned opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository. Sites for the proposed
storage and disposal facilitiesstorage and disposal facilities ~~would~~ were to be selected through a “consent based” process, as be selected through a “consent based” process, as
recommended by the BRC. However, the DOE strategy included few details on how such a recommended by the BRC. However, the DOE strategy included few details on how such a
process would be implemented. Instead, the strategy said the Obama Administration would process would be implemented. Instead, the strategy said the Obama Administration would
consult with Congress and interest groups on “defining consent, deciding how that consent is consult with Congress and interest groups on “defining consent, deciding how that consent is
codified, and determining whether or how it is ratified by Congress.” As discussed above, DOE codified, and determining whether or how it is ratified by Congress.” As discussed above, DOE
issued its “Draft Consent-Based Siting Process” on January 12, 2017. issued its “Draft Consent-Based Siting Process” on January 12, 2017.
The Obama Administration’s proposed waste program was to be implemented by a new nuclear The Obama Administration’s proposed waste program was to be implemented by a new nuclear
waste management entity, as recommended by the BRC, but the nature of the new organization waste management entity, as recommended by the BRC, but the nature of the new organization
was not specified by the DOE strategy. A was not specified by the DOE strategy. A ~~bill~~ bil introduced in the 116th Congress by Senator introduced in the 116th Congress by Senator
Murkowski (S. 1234), discussed underMurkowski (S. 1234), discussed under “Congressional Action,” would have established” ~~would establish an~~ an independent independent
Nuclear Waste Administration and Nuclear Waste Administration and ~~establish~~ a consent-based process for new waste sites, although a consent-based process for new waste sites, although
the existing Yucca Mountain authorization would the existing Yucca Mountain authorization would behave been left intact. Other proposals left intact. Other proposals ~~have called~~ have cal ed for for
privatization of waste management services.privatization of waste management services.8588
DOE issued a report in October 2014 that recommended testing the consent-based approach by DOE issued a report in October 2014 that recommended testing the consent-based approach by
siting and developing a repository solely for defense and research waste. According to the report, siting and developing a repository solely for defense and research waste. According to the report,
a separate repository for such waste would not be subject to the Yucca Mountain siting a separate repository for such waste would not be subject to the Yucca Mountain siting
requirement that applies to a civilianrequirement that applies to a civilian nuclear waste repository under NWPA. The idea would nuclear waste repository under NWPA. The idea would
reverse long-standing federal policy, established by the Reagan Administration, that a single reverse long-standing federal policy, established by the Reagan Administration, that a single
repository would hold both civilian and defense high-level waste and spent fuel. DOE’s 2014 repository would hold both civilian and defense high-level waste and spent fuel. DOE’s 2014
report concluded that a separate repository for the nation’s relatively report concluded that a separate repository for the nation’s relatively ~~small~~ smal volumes of defense volumes of defense
and research waste (compared to civilian waste) could be developed more quickly, “within and research waste (compared to civilian waste) could be developed more quickly, “within
existing legislativeexisting legislative authority,” than a repository for authority,” than a repository for ~~all~~ al highly radioactive waste. The report also 87 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High -Level Waste, op. cit. 88 Spencer, Jack, “ ~~highly radioactive waste. The report also~~
~~recommended that disposal in deep boreholes be considered for the most compact types of~~
~~defense and research waste.86~~
~~President Obama authorized DOE on March 24, 2015, to begin planning a separate underground~~
~~repository for high-level radioactive waste generated by nuclear defense activities. However, as~~
~~noted above, GAO criticized DOE’s analysis of the defense-only repository in January 2017, and~~
~~bills were introduced to delay the plan.~~

~~85 Spencer, Jack, “~~Nuclear Waste Management: Minimum Requirements for Reforms and Legislation,” Heritage Nuclear Waste Management: Minimum Requirements for Reforms and Legislation,” Heritage
Foundation, March 28, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/nuclear-waste-management-minimum-Foundation, March 28, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/nuclear-waste-management-minimum-
requirements-for-reforms-and-legislation. requirements-for-reforms-and-legislation.
~~86 DOE, Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel,~~
~~October 2014, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/assessment-disposal-options-doe-managed-high-level-radioactive-~~
~~waste-and-spent-nuclear.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

7

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~
Congressional Research Service 34 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal recommended that disposal in deep boreholes be considered for the most compact types of defense and research waste.89 President Obama authorized DOE on March 24, 2015, to begin planning a separate underground repository for high-level radioactive waste generated by nuclear defense activities. However, as noted above, GAO criticized DOE’s analysis of the defense-only repository in January 2017, and bil s were introduced to delay the plan.
President Obama blocked DOE’s previously preferred rail route to Yucca Mountain on July 10, President Obama blocked DOE’s previously preferred rail route to Yucca Mountain on July 10,
2015, by establishing the Basin and Range National Monument in southeastern Nevada. 2015, by establishing the Basin and Range National Monument in southeastern Nevada.
However, an Obama Administration fact sheet said that other potential rail routes would However, an Obama Administration fact sheet said that other potential rail routes would ~~still be~~
stil be available.available.8790
Private Interim Storage
The waste management company Waste Control Specialists (WCS) filed an application on April The waste management company Waste Control Specialists (WCS) filed an application on April
28, 2016, for an NRC license to develop a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent 28, 2016, for an NRC license to develop a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent
nuclear fuel in Texas. WCSnuclear fuel in Texas. WCS ~~asked NRC to suspend consideration of the license application until~~
~~April 18, 2017, citing estimated licensing costs that were “significantly higher than we originally~~
~~estimated.”88 However, WCS~~ subsequently formed a joint venture with Orano USA subsequently formed a joint venture with Orano USA ~~called Waste~~
~~Control Partners~~cal ed Interim Storage Partners (ISP), which submitted a renewed application for the Texas facility on June 11, , which submitted a renewed application for the Texas facility on June 11, 2018.2018.8991
The proposed The proposed ~~WCS~~ISP spent fuel storage facility would be built at a 14,000-acre WCS site near spent fuel storage facility would be built at a 14,000-acre WCS site near
Andrews, TX, where the company currently operates two low-level radioactive waste storage Andrews, TX, where the company currently operates two low-level radioactive waste storage
facilities with local support. The facility would consist of dry casks on concrete pads. facilities with local support. The facility would consist of dry casks on concrete pads.
Construction would take place in eight phases, with each phase capable of holding 5,000 metric Construction would take place in eight phases, with each phase capable of holding 5,000 metric
tons of spent fuel, for a total capacity of 40,000 metric tons.tons of spent fuel, for a total capacity of 40,000 metric tons.90
~~Under the WCS proposal, DOE would take title to spent fuel at nuclear plant sites, ship it to~~92 NRC issued a license to ISP for the first phase of the the
~~Texas site, and pay WCS for storage for up to 40 years with possible extensions, according to the~~
~~company. DOE’s costs would be covered through appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund, as~~
~~were most costs for the Yucca Mountain project. WCS contends that a privately developed spent~~
~~fuel storage facility would not be bound by NWPA restrictions that prohibit DOE from building a~~
~~storage facility without making progress on Yucca Mountain.91~~
~~An NRC license application for a spent fuel storage facility in New Mexico was filed March 30,~~
~~2017, by Holtec International, a manufacturer of spent fuel storage systems.92 The facility would~~
~~be located on 1,045 acres of land provided by a local government consortium near the Waste~~
~~Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA). The proposed~~
~~facility, called the Holtec International Storage Module (HI-STORM) Consolidated Interim~~

~~87 Bureau of Land Management, “Basin and Range~~ Texas facility—holding up to 5,000 metric tons of spent fuel—on September 13, 2021.93 NRC issued its final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the facility on July 29, 2021, finding no environmental impacts that would preclude licensing.94 89 DOE, Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, October 2014, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/assessment -disposal-options-doe-managed-high-level-radioactive-waste-and-spent -nuclear. 90 Bureau of Land Management, “Basin and Range National Monument Q&A,” undated fact sheet, National Monument Q&A,” undated fact sheet,
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/special_areas/basin_and_range_monument.Par.77668.File.dat/http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/special_areas/basin_and_range_monument.Par.77668.File.dat/
Basin%20and%20Range%20National%20Monument%20Q&Basin%20and%20Range%20National%20Monument%20Q& A.pdf. 91 Orano USA, “Interim Storage Partners Submits Renewed NRC License Application for Used Nuclear ~~A.pdf.~~
~~88 NRC, “Joint Request to Withdraw the Federal Register Notice Providing an Opportunity to Submit Hearing~~
~~Requests” (including WCS letter of April 18, 2017), April 19, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1710/~~
~~ML17109A480.pdf.~~
~~89 Orano USA, “Interim Storage Partners Submits Renewed NRC License Application for Used Nuclear~~ Fuel Fuel
Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in West Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in West ~~Texas~~T exas,” press release, June,” press release, June 11, 2018, http://us.areva.com/EN/home-11, 2018, http://us.areva.com/EN/home-
4216/orano-orano-usa—interim-storage-partners-submits-renewed-nrc-license-application-for-used-nuclear-fuel-4216/orano-orano-usa—interim-storage-partners-submits-renewed-nrc-license-application-for-used-nuclear-fuel-
consolidated-interim-storage-facility-in-west-texas.html. consolidated-interim-storage-facility-in-west-texas.html.
9092 Waste Control Specialists, “WCS Files Waste Control Specialists, “WCS Files License Application with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to Operate License Application with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to Operate
a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF)a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) for Usedfor Used ~~Nuclear~~ Nuclear Fuel,” April 28, 2016, news release, Fuel,” April 28, 2016, news release,
http://www.wcstexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4_28_16.WCS_Release.pdf; Valhi, Inc., “http://www.wcstexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4_28_16.WCS_Release.pdf; Valhi, Inc., “ Valhi’s Waste Valhi’s Waste
Control Specialists SubsidiaryControl Specialists Subsidiary to Apply for License to Store Usedto Apply for License to Store Used ~~Nuclear~~ Nuclear Fuel,” FebruaryFuel,” February 7, 2015, 7, 2015,
http://www.wcstexas.com/press-release/;http://www.wcstexas.com/press-release/; Waste Control Specialists LLC, Waste Control Specialists LLC, License Application, Docket 72-1050, , Docket 72-1050,
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1613/ML16133A100.pdf. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1613/ML16133A100.pdf.
~~91 Beattie, Jeff, “Waste Control Specialists Sets 2020 Date to Open Spent Fuel Storage Facility,”~~ ~~IHS The Energy~~
~~Daily, February 10, 2015, p. 1; Hiruo, Elaine, “Texas Company Seeks License for Spent Fuel Storage,”~~ ~~Nucleonics~~
~~Week, February 12, 2015, p. 1.~~
~~92 Letter from Holtec International to NRC, March 30, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1711/ML17115A418.pdf.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

8

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~Storage Facility, would hold up to 173,600 metric tons of spent fuel in 10,000 canisters. The~~
~~facility would be developed in 20 modules holding 500 canisters each, using about 288 acres of~~
~~the site.93 Each canister would be stored vertically in an underground~~ 93 NRC, “NRC Issues License to Interim Storage Partners for Consolidated Spent Nuclear Fuel Interim Storage Facility in T exas,” news release 21-036, September 13, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-036.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Mn0i8pChxfYNiF14v6ILsSkLbCxu8Ai7XPc97P3QjHmQoSFvqBMm -Xos. 94 NRC, “NRC Issues Final Environmental Study for Proposed Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility in Andrews, T exas,” news release, July 29, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-029.pdf. Congressional Research Service 35 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal Under the original WCS proposal, DOE was to take title to spent fuel at nuclear plant sites, ship it to the Texas site, and pay WCS for storage for up to 40 years with possible extensions, according to the company. DOE’s costs were to be covered through appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund, as were most costs for the Yucca Mountain project. WCS contended that a privately developed spent fuel storage facility would not be bound by NWPA restrictions that prohibit DOE from building a storage facility without making progress on Yucca Mountain.95 However, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a 2019 letter that current law prohibits DOE from contracting for spent nuclear fuel storage at a private facility.96 An NRC license application for a spent fuel storage facility in New Mexico was filed March 30, 2017, by Holtec International, a manufacturer of spent fuel storage systems.97 The facility would be located on 1,045 acres of land provided by a local government consortium near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Eddy-Lea Energy Al iance (ELEA). The proposed facility, cal ed the Holtec International Storage Module (HI-STORM) Consolidated Interim Storage Facility, would hold up to 173,600 metric tons of spent fuel in 10,000 canisters. The facility would be developed in 20 modules holding 500 canisters each, using about 288 acres of the site.98 Each canister would be stored vertical y in an underground cylindrical cavity covered by a cavity covered by a
radiation-shielding lid.radiation-shielding lid.9499 NRC plans to publish the final EIS for the proposed New Mexico facility in November 2021 and issue the safety evaluation report and licensing decision in January 2022.100
Holtec recently purchased two retired nuclear plants, Oyster Creek and Pilgrim, planning to use Holtec recently purchased two retired nuclear plants, Oyster Creek and Pilgrim, planning to use
the plants’ decommissioning funds to dismantle the plants. The proposed storage facility in New the plants’ decommissioning funds to dismantle the plants. The proposed storage facility in New
Mexico could Mexico could ~~allow~~al ow the company to remove the company to remove ~~all~~ al the spent fuel from its decommissioned nuclear the spent fuel from its decommissioned nuclear
plants without necessarily having to transfer plants without necessarily having to transfer ~~title to~~ownership of the fuel to DOE beforehand. “Holtec hopes to the fuel to DOE beforehand. “Holtec hopes to
ship the multi-purpose canisters (MPCs) containing the used fuel to the Company’s proposed ship the multi-purpose canisters (MPCs) containing the used fuel to the Company’s proposed
consolidated interim storage facility ...” according to a company news release. The news release consolidated interim storage facility ...” according to a company news release. The news release
also said Holtec’s reactor decommissioning business “also said Holtec’s reactor decommissioning business “~~will~~ wil welcome several more nuclear plants welcome several more nuclear plants
in the next two years.”in the next two years.”95101 The news release did not specify whether the costs of The news release did not specify whether the costs of spent fuel spent fuel
shipment and storage at the New Mexico facility would be paid from reactor decommissioning shipment and storage at the New Mexico facility would be paid from reactor decommissioning
funds, the Nuclear Waste Fund, the Judgment Fund, or other sources. Local officials near the funds, the Nuclear Waste Fund, the Judgment Fund, or other sources. Local officials near the
WIPP facility have long supported the development of additional waste facilities WIPP facility have long supported the development of additional waste facilities at that site, at that site,
which was which was ~~originally~~original y planned to hold high-level waste before the state objected. 95 Jeff Beattie, “Waste Control Specialists Sets 2020 Date to Open Spent Fuel Storage Facility,” IHS The Energy Daily, February 10, 2015, p. 1; and Elaine Hiruo, “T exas Company Seeks License for Spent Fuel Storage,” Nucleonics Week, February 12, 2015, p. 1. 96 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Letter to the Honorable Deb Haaland, U.S. House of Representatives, October 23, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1931/ML19311C801.pdf. T he letter cites an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order, In the Matter of Holtec International, May 7, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1912/ML19127A026.pdf. 97 Letter from Holtec International to NRC, March 30, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1711/ML17115A418.pdf. 98 Holtec International, Safety Evaluation Report Revision 0H, March 30, 2019, p. 2 8, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1916/ML19163A062.pdf. 99 Ibid., p. 36. 100 NRC, Letter to Holtec International on revised review schedule, July 2, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2118/ML21181A389.pdf. 101 Holtec International, “ Holtec Completes Acquisition of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,” August 26, 2018, https://holtecinternational.com/2019/08/26/holtec-completes-acquisition-of-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station/#more-19392. Congressional Research Service 36 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal ~~planned to hold high-level waste before the state objected.~~
New Mexico Governor New Mexico Governor ~~Michelle~~Michel e Lujan Grisham wrote a letter to President Trump July 28, 2020, Lujan Grisham wrote a letter to President Trump July 28, 2020,
strongly opposing the CISF proposals in both her state and Texas (noting that the Texas site is strongly opposing the CISF proposals in both her state and Texas (noting that the Texas site is
immediately across the New Mexico border). Grisham said the waste facilities would disrupt the immediately across the New Mexico border). Grisham said the waste facilities would disrupt the
region’s agricultural and oil and gas industries, that waste transportation to the sites would be too region’s agricultural and oil and gas industries, that waste transportation to the sites would be too
dangerous, and that earthquakes and groundwater contamination could occur. Her letter dangerous, and that earthquakes and groundwater contamination could occur. Her letter
concluded, “Given that a permanent repository for high-level waste does not exist in the United concluded, “Given that a permanent repository for high-level waste does not exist in the United
States and there is no existing plan to build one, any ‘interim’ storage facility States and there is no existing plan to build one, any ‘interim’ storage facility ~~will~~ wil be an indefinite be an indefinite
storage facility, and the risks for New Mexicans, our natural resources and our economy are too storage facility, and the risks for New Mexicans, our natural resources and our economy are too
high.”high.”96102 New Mexico filed a lawsuit to block NRC licensing of the facility on March 29, 2021.103 Texas Governor Greg Abbott on September 9, 2021, signed a state law banning new storage sites for high-level radioactive waste.104
Interest in hosting nuclear waste sites has Interest in hosting nuclear waste sites has ~~also~~ been expressed been expressed previously by groups in Mississippi and by groups in Mississippi and
Loving County, Texas, although whether they would be developed by the private sector or the Loving County, Texas, although whether they would be developed by the private sector or the
government has not been specified.government has not been specified.97105 The Mississippi Public Service Commission unanimously The Mississippi Public Service Commission unanimously
passed a resolution in 2014 to oppose national nuclear waste sites in the state.passed a resolution in 2014 to oppose national nuclear waste sites in the state.98106 The Loving The Loving
County proposal also has faced public opposition.County proposal also has faced public opposition.99107 A committee of the Wyoming legislature in A committee of the Wyoming legislature in

~~93 Holtec International, Safety Evaluation Report Revision 0H, March 30, 2019, p. 28, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/~~
~~ML1916/ML19163A062.pdf.~~
~~94 Ibid., p. 36.~~
~~95 Holtec International, “Holtec Completes Acquisition of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,” August 26, 2018,~~
~~https://holtecinternational.com/2019/08/26/holtec-completes-acquisition-of-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station/#more-~~
~~19392.~~
~~96 Letter from New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to President Trump~~July 2019 considered authorizing a study of storing spent fuel in the state but subsequently dropped the idea, according to media reports.108 As noted above, legislation that would explicitly authorize DOE to enter into contracts with privately owned spent fuel storage facilities (H.R. 2699, H.R. 3136) was introduced in the 116th Congress but not enacted. Similar provisions were included in bil s introduced but not enacted in the 115th Congress (H.R. 474) and (H.R. 3053), and the 114th Congress (H.R. 3643). An earlier effort to develop a private spent fuel storage facility was undertaken after it became apparent that DOE would miss the 1998 deadline for taking nuclear waste from reactor sites. A utility consortium signed an agreement with the Skull Val ey Band of the Goshute Indians in Utah on December 27, 1996, to develop a storage facility on tribal land. The Private Fuel Storage (PFS) consortium submitted a license application to NRC on June 25, 1997, and a 20-year license 102 Letter from New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to President T rump, July 28, 2020, , July 28, 2020,
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/santafenewmexican.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/13/https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/santafenewmexican.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/13/
c130d8a2-d11b-11ea-be5e-1b25fff8a207/5f209cdf1eef8.pdf.pdf. c130d8a2-d11b-11ea-be5e-1b25fff8a207/5f209cdf1eef8.pdf.pdf.
~~97 Housley Carr and Elaine Hiruo, “Group Urges Mississippi to Become Home to Spent Fuel Facilities,” NuclearFuel,~~
~~September 2, 2013.~~
~~98 “PSC Passes Anti-Nuclear Waste Storage Resolution,”~~ ~~Mississippi~~ 103 New Mexico Attorney General, “Attorney General Balderas An nounces Lawsuit to Halt Holtec Nuclear Storage Facility,” news release, March 29, 2021, https://www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/Attorney_General_Balderas_Announces_Lawsuit_to_Halt_Holtec_Nuclear_Storage_Facility.pdf . 104 T exas Legislature Online, Actions, HB7, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB7. 105 Housley Carr and Elaine Hiruo, “Group Urges Mississippi to Become Home to Spent Fuel Facilities,” NuclearFuel, September 2, 2013. 106 “PSC Passes Anti-Nuclear Waste Storage Resolution,” Mississippi Business Journal, June 4, 2014, , June 4, 2014,
https://msbusiness.com/2014/06/psc-passes-anti-nuclear-waste-storage-resolution. https://msbusiness.com/2014/06/psc-passes-anti-nuclear-waste-storage-resolution.
99107 Diaz, Kevin, “ Diaz, Kevin, “~~Texas~~ T exas, New Mexico Could, New Mexico Could Be NuclearBe Nuclear Repository Sites, JebRepository Sites, Jeb ~~Bush~~ Bush Suggests,”Suggests,” San Antonio Express-
News,, October 22, 2015, https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/October 22, 2015, https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/~~Texas~~T exas-New-Mexico-could-be-nuclear-repository-6585594.php. 108 T huermer, Angus M. Jr., “Lawmakers Quietly Explore Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel,” WyoFile, July 12, 2019, https://www.wyofile.com/lawmakers-quietly-explore-storing-spent -nuclear-fuel/; “ Wyoming Lawmakers Decide Not to Pursue Nuke Waste Proposal,” Associated Press, November 6, 2019, https://apnews.com/bc690baa7da740658083d836194e0364 . Congressional Research Service 37 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal for storing up to 44,000 tons of spent fuel in dry casks was issued on February 21, 2006. ~~-New-Mexico-could-~~
~~be-nuclear-repository-6585594.php.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

9

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~July 2019 considered authorizing a study of storing spent fuel in the state but subsequently~~
~~dropped the idea, according to media reports.100~~
~~As noted above, legislation that would explicitly authorize DOE to enter into contracts with~~
~~privately owned spent fuel storage facilities (H.R. 2699, H.R. 3136) has been introduced in the~~
~~116th Congress. Similar provisions were included in bills introduced but not enacted in the 115th~~
~~Congress (H.R. 474) and (H.R. 3053), and the 114th Congress (H.R. 3643).~~
~~An earlier effort to develop a private spent fuel storage facility was undertaken after it became~~
~~apparent that DOE would miss the 1998 deadline for taking nuclear waste from reactor sites. A~~
~~utility consortium signed an agreement with the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians in Utah~~
~~on December 27, 1996, to develop a storage facility on tribal land. The Private Fuel Storage~~
~~(PFS) consortium submitted a license application to NRC on June 25, 1997, and a 20-year license~~
~~for storing up to 44,000 tons of spent fuel in dry casks was issued on February 21, 2006.~~
However, NRC noted that Interior Department approval would also be required. However, NRC noted that Interior Department approval would also be required.
On September 7, 2006, the Department of the Interior issued two decisions against the PFS On September 7, 2006, the Department of the Interior issued two decisions against the PFS
project. The Bureau of Indian Affairs disapproved a proposed lease of tribal trust lands to PFS, project. The Bureau of Indian Affairs disapproved a proposed lease of tribal trust lands to PFS,
concluding there was too much risk that the waste could remain at the site indefinitely.concluding there was too much risk that the waste could remain at the site indefinitely.~~101~~109 The The
Bureau of Land Management rejected the necessary rights-of-way to transport waste to the Bureau of Land Management rejected the necessary rights-of-way to transport waste to the
facility, concluding that a proposed rail line would be incompatible with the Cedar Mountain facility, concluding that a proposed rail line would be incompatible with the Cedar Mountain
Wilderness Area and that existing roads would be inadequate.Wilderness Area and that existing roads would be inadequate.~~102~~110
The Skull The Skull ~~Valley~~ Val ey Band of Goshutes and PFS filed a federal lawsuit July 17, 2007, to overturn the Band of Goshutes and PFS filed a federal lawsuit July 17, 2007, to overturn the
Interior decisions on the grounds that they were politically motivated.Interior decisions on the grounds that they were politically motivated.~~103~~111 A federal district court A federal district court
judge on July 26, 2010, ordered the Department of the Interior to reconsider its decisions on the judge on July 26, 2010, ordered the Department of the Interior to reconsider its decisions on the
PFS permits.PFS permits.~~104~~112 However, PFS asked NRC to terminate its license on December 20, 2012. However, PFS asked NRC to terminate its license on December 20, 2012.~~105~~113
Regulatory Requirements for Yucca Mountain
Although the Obama Administration tried to redirect the high-level nuclear waste program, and Although the Obama Administration tried to redirect the high-level nuclear waste program, and
the Trump Administration did not request repository funding for FY2021, NWPA the Trump Administration did not request repository funding for FY2021, NWPA ~~still~~ stil focuses on focuses on
Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal of civilian waste. The law requires that high-level waste Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal of civilian waste. The law requires that high-level waste
repositories be licensed by NRC in accordance with general standards issued by EPA. Under the repositories be licensed by NRC in accordance with general standards issued by EPA. Under the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486), EPA was required to write new repository standards Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486), EPA was required to write new repository standards
~~specifically~~specifical y for Yucca Mountain. NWPA also requires the repository to meet general siting for Yucca Mountain. NWPA also requires the repository to meet general siting
guidelines prepared by DOE and approved by NRC. Transportation of waste to storage and guidelines prepared by DOE and approved by NRC. Transportation of waste to storage and

~~100 Thuermer, Angus M. Jr., “Lawmakers Quietly Explore Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel,” WyoFile, July 12, 2019,~~
~~https://www.wyofile.com/lawmakers-quietly-explore-storing-spent-nuclear-fuel/; “Wyoming Lawmakers Decide Not~~
~~to Pursue Nuke Waste Proposal,” Associated Press, November 6, 2019, https://apnews.com/~~
~~bc690baa7da740658083d836194e0364.~~
~~101 Bureau~~ disposal sites is regulated by NRC and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Under NWPA, DOE shipments to Yucca Mountain and an MRS facility would have to use NRC-certified casks and comply with NRC requirements for notifying state and local governments. Shipments would also have to follow DOT regulations on routing, placarding, and safety. NRC’s licensing requirements for Yucca Mountain, at 10 C.F.R. 63, require compliance with EPA’s standards (described below) and establish procedures that DOE must follow in seeking a repository license. For example, DOE must receive a construction authorization to build the Yucca Mountain repository before being issued a license to bring nuclear waste to the site and emplace it underground. Among NRC substantive regulatory requirements is a mandatory DOE repository performance confirmation program that would indicate whether natural and man-made systems were functioning as intended and assure that other assumptions about repository conditions were accurate. 109 Bureau of Indian Affairs, of Indian Affairs, Record of Decision for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation (ISFSI) on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians (Band) in Tooele County,
Utah, September 7, 2006. , September 7, 2006.
~~102~~110 Bureau Bureau of Land Management, of Land Management, Record of Decision Addressing Right-of-Way Applications U 76985 and U 76986 to
Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel to the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, September 7, 2006. , September 7, 2006.
~~103~~111 Winslow, Ben, “Goshutes, PFS Winslow, Ben, “Goshutes, PFS ~~Sue~~ Sue Interior,” Interior,” Deseret Morning News,, July 18, 2007. July 18, 2007.
~~104~~112 U.S. U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Skull ValleyDistrict Court for the District of Utah, Skull Valley Band of GoshuteBand of Goshute Indians and Private Fuel Storage v. Indians and Private Fuel Storage v.
United States Department of the Interior, Civil Action No. 07-cv-0526-DME-DON, July 26, 2010, http://64.38.12.138/United States Department of the Interior, Civil Action No. 07-cv-0526-DME-DON, July 26, 2010, http://64.38.12.138/
docs/court/goshute/order072610.pdf. docs/court/goshute/order072610.pdf.
~~105~~113 Palmberg, Robert M., Chairman of the Board, Private Fuel Storage LLC, letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Palmberg, Robert M., Chairman of the Board, Private Fuel Storage LLC, letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
December 20, 2012, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1235/ML12356A063.pdf. December 20, 2012, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1235/ML12356A063.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1038 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~disposal sites is regulated by NRC and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Under NWPA,~~
~~DOE shipments to Yucca Mountain and an MRS facility would have to use NRC-certified casks~~
~~and comply with NRC requirements for notifying state and local governments. Shipments would~~
~~also have to follow DOT regulations on routing, placarding, and safety.~~
~~NRC’s licensing requirements for Yucca Mountain, at 10 C.F.R. 63, require compliance with~~
~~EPA’s standards (described below) and establish procedures that DOE must follow in seeking a~~
~~repository license. For example, DOE must receive a construction authorization to build the~~
~~Yucca Mountain repository before being issued a license to bring nuclear waste to the site and~~
~~emplace it underground. Among NRC substantive regulatory requirements is a mandatory DOE~~
~~repository performance confirmation program that would indicate whether natural and man-made~~
~~systems were functioning as intended and assure that other assumptions about repository~~
~~conditions were accurate.~~
Specific standards for Yucca Mountain were required because of concerns that some of EPA’s Specific standards for Yucca Mountain were required because of concerns that some of EPA’s
general standards might be impossible or impractical to meet at Yucca Mountain.general standards might be impossible or impractical to meet at Yucca Mountain.~~106~~114 The Yucca The Yucca
Mountain standards, which limit the radiation dose that the repository could impose on individual Mountain standards, which limit the radiation dose that the repository could impose on individual
members of the public, were required to be consistent with the findings of a study by the National members of the public, were required to be consistent with the findings of a study by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), which was issued August 1, 1995.Academy of Sciences (NAS), which was issued August 1, 1995.~~107~~115 The NAS study recommended The NAS study recommended
that the Yucca Mountain environmental standards establish a limit on risk to individuals near the that the Yucca Mountain environmental standards establish a limit on risk to individuals near the
repository, rather than setting specific limits repository, rather than setting specific limits ~~for~~on radioactive doses or the releases of radioactive the releases of radioactive material~~material or on~~
~~radioactive doses~~, as under previous EPA standards. The NAS study also examined the potential , as under previous EPA standards. The NAS study also examined the potential
for human intrusion into the repository and found no scientific basis for predicting human for human intrusion into the repository and found no scientific basis for predicting human
behavior behavior thousands of years into the future. thousands of years into the future.
Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPA published its proposed Yucca Mountain radiation Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPA published its proposed Yucca Mountain radiation
protection standards on August 27, 1999. The proposal would have limited annual radiation doses protection standards on August 27, 1999. The proposal would have limited annual radiation doses
to 15 to 15 ~~millirems~~mil irems for the “reasonably for the “reasonably ~~maximally~~ maximal y exposed individual,” and to 4 exposed individual,” and to 4 ~~millirems~~ mil irems from from
groundwater exposure, for the first 10,000 years of repository operation. EPA calculated that its groundwater exposure, for the first 10,000 years of repository operation. EPA calculated that its
standard would result in an annual risk of fatal cancer for the standard would result in an annual risk of fatal cancer for the ~~maximally~~maximal y exposed individual of 7 exposed individual of 7
chances in 1 chances in 1 ~~million~~mil ion. The nuclear industry criticized the EPA proposal as being unnecessarily . The nuclear industry criticized the EPA proposal as being unnecessarily
stringent, particularly the groundwater standard. On the other hand, environmental groups stringent, particularly the groundwater standard. On the other hand, environmental groups
contended that the 10,000-year standard proposed by EPA was too short, because DOE had contended that the 10,000-year standard proposed by EPA was too short, because DOE had
projected that radioactive releases from the repository would peak after about 400,000 years. projected that radioactive releases from the repository would peak after about 400,000 years.
EPA issued its final Yucca Mountain standards on June 6, 2001. The final standards included most EPA issued its final Yucca Mountain standards on June 6, 2001. The final standards included most
of the major provisions of the proposed version, including the 15 of the major provisions of the proposed version, including the 15 ~~millirem overall~~ mil irem overal exposure limit exposure limit
and the 4 and the 4 ~~millirem~~ mil irem groundwater limit. Despite the department’s opposition to the EPA standards, groundwater limit. Despite the department’s opposition to the EPA standards,
DOE’s site suitabilityDOE’s site suitability evaluation determined that the Yucca Mountain site would be able to meet evaluation determined that the Yucca Mountain site would be able to meet
them. NRC revised its repository regulations September 7, 2001, to conform to the EPA them. NRC revised its repository regulations September 7, 2001, to conform to the EPA
standards. standards.
A three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 9, 2004, struck down the 10,000-year A three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 9, 2004, struck down the 10,000-year
regulatory compliance period in the EPA and NRC Yucca Mountain standards.regulatory compliance period in the EPA and NRC Yucca Mountain standards.~~108~~116 The court ruled The court ruled
that the 10,000-year period was inconsistent with the NAS study on which the Energy Policy Act that the 10,000-year period was inconsistent with the NAS study on which the Energy Policy Act
required the Yucca Mountain regulations to be based. In fact, the court found, the NAS study had required the Yucca Mountain regulations to be based. In fact, the court found, the NAS study had
~~specifically~~specifical y rejected a 10,000-year compliance period because of analysis that showed peak rejected a 10,000-year compliance period because of analysis that showed peak

~~106 See, for example: NRC, “Analysis of Energy Policy Act of 1992 Issues Related to High-Level Waste Disposal~~
~~Standards, SECY-93-013, January 25, 1993, attachment p. 4.~~
~~107 National Research Council, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, National Academy Press, 1995.~~
~~108 Nuclear Energy Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia~~
~~Circuit, No. 01-1258, July 9, 2004.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

11

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

radioactive exposures from the repository would take place several hundred thousand years in the radioactive exposures from the repository would take place several hundred thousand years in the
future. future.
In response to the court decision, EPA proposed a new version of the Yucca Mountain standards In response to the court decision, EPA proposed a new version of the Yucca Mountain standards
on August 9, 2005. The proposal would have retained the dose limits of the previous standard for on August 9, 2005. The proposal would have retained the dose limits of the previous standard for
the first 10,000 years but the first 10,000 years but ~~allowed~~al owed a higher annual dose of 350 a higher annual dose of 350 ~~millirems~~mil irems for the period of 10,000 for the period of 10,000
years through 1 years through 1 ~~million~~mil ion years. EPA also proposed to base the post-10,000-year Yucca Mountain years. EPA also proposed to base the post-10,000-year Yucca Mountain
standard on the median dose, rather than the mean, standard on the median dose, rather than the mean, ~~potentially~~potential y making it easier to meet. making it easier to meet.~~109 Nevada~~
~~state officials called EPA’s proposed standard far too lenient and charged that it was “unlawful~~
~~and arbitrary.”110~~117 Nevada 114 See, for example: NRC, “Analysis of Energy Policy Act of 1992 Issues Related to High -Level Waste Disposal Standards, SECY-93-013, January 25, 1993, attachment p. 4. 115 National Research Council, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, National Academy Press, 1995. 116 Nuclear Energy Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency , U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 01-1258, July 9, 2004. 117 Especially high doses at the upper end of the exposure range would raise the mean, or average, more than the median, or the halfway point in the data set. Congressional Research Service 39 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal state officials cal ed EPA’s proposed standard far too lenient and charged that it was “unlawful and arbitrary.”118
EPA issued its final rule to amend the Yucca Mountain standards on September 30, 2008. The EPA issued its final rule to amend the Yucca Mountain standards on September 30, 2008. The
final rule reduced the annual dose limit during the period of 10,000 through 1 final rule reduced the annual dose limit during the period of 10,000 through 1 ~~million~~mil ion years from years from
the proposed 350 the proposed 350 ~~millirems~~mil irems to 100 to 100 ~~millirems~~mil irems, which the agency contended was consistent with , which the agency contended was consistent with
international standards. Under the final rule, compliance with the post-10,000-year standard international standards. Under the final rule, compliance with the post-10,000-year standard ~~will~~
wil be based on the arithmetic mean of projected doses, rather than the median as proposed. The 4 be based on the arithmetic mean of projected doses, rather than the median as proposed. The 4
~~millirem~~ mil irem groundwater standard groundwater standard ~~will~~ wil continue to apply only to the first 10,000 years.continue to apply only to the first 10,000 years.~~111~~119 NRC NRC
revised its repository licensing regulations to conform to the new EPA standards on April 13, revised its repository licensing regulations to conform to the new EPA standards on April 13,
2009.2009.~~112~~120 DOE estimated in its June 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement DOE estimated in its June 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(FSEIS) for the Yucca Mountain repository that the maximum mean annual individual(FSEIS) for the Yucca Mountain repository that the maximum mean annual individual dose after dose after
10,000 years would be 2 10,000 years would be 2 ~~millirems~~mil irems. That is . That is ~~substantially~~substantial y below the level estimated by the 2002 below the level estimated by the 2002
Final Environmental Impact Statement, which calculated that the peak doses—occurring after Final Environmental Impact Statement, which calculated that the peak doses—occurring after
400,000 years—would be about 150 400,000 years—would be about 150 ~~millirems~~mil irems (Volume 1, Chapter 5). The FSEIS attributed the (Volume 1, Chapter 5). The FSEIS attributed the
reduction to changes in DOE’s computer model and in the assumptions used, noting that “various reduction to changes in DOE’s computer model and in the assumptions used, noting that “various
elements of DOE’s modeling approach may be elements of DOE’s modeling approach may be ~~challenged~~chal enged as part of the NRC licensing as part of the NRC licensing
process.”process.”~~113~~121
Alternative Technologies
DOE’s Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program focuses on “advanced fuel cycle DOE’s Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program focuses on “advanced fuel cycle
technologies that have the potential to accelerate progress on managing and disposing of the technologies that have the potential to accelerate progress on managing and disposing of the
nation’s spent fuel and high-level waste, improve resource utilization and energy generation, nation’s spent fuel and high-level waste, improve resource utilization and energy generation,
reduce waste generation, and limit proliferation risk,” according to DOE’s reduce waste generation, and limit proliferation risk,” according to DOE’s ~~FY2021~~FY2022 budget budget
justification.justification.~~114~~122
A major component of the Fuel Cycle R&D program is technology related to the reprocessing or A major component of the Fuel Cycle R&D program is technology related to the reprocessing or
“recycling” of spent fuel. As discussed earlier, current U.S. policy envisions direct disposal of “recycling” of spent fuel. As discussed earlier, current U.S. policy envisions direct disposal of
spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository, spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository, ~~specifically~~specifical y at Yucca Mountain, a process often at Yucca Mountain, a process often
referred to as a “once through” fuel cycle or “open” fuel cycle. Proponents of alternative nuclear referred to as a “once through” fuel cycle or “open” fuel cycle. Proponents of alternative nuclear
waste policies note that more than 95% of spent fuel by mass consists of unfissioned uranium and waste policies note that more than 95% of spent fuel by mass consists of unfissioned uranium and

~~109 Especially high doses at the upper end of the exposure range would raise the mean, or average, more than the~~
~~median, or the halfway point in the data set.~~
~~110~~plutonium, which could be separated through reprocessing to be used in new fuel. Fission products, the highly radioactive fragments of uranium and plutonium that have undergone fission in a reactor, would be separated for immobilization and disposal. DOE is supporting development of a variety of unconventional “advanced” reactor technologies that could indefinitely recycle uranium, plutonium, and other long-lived radioisotopes in spent fuel, leaving only short-lived fission products for disposal. Such indefinite recycling is often cal ed the “closed” fuel cycle. (For more information, see CRS Report R45706, Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview and Current Issues.) 118 Office of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Comments by the State of Nevada on EPA’s Proposed New
Radiation Protection Rule for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository ~~Repository~~, November 2005. , November 2005.
~~111~~119 Posted on the EPA website at Posted on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/public-health-and-environmental-radiation-protection-https://www.epa.gov/radiation/public-health-and-environmental-radiation-protection-
standards-yucca-mountain-nevada-40. standards-yucca-mountain-nevada-40.
~~112~~120 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Implementation of a Dose Standard After 10,000 Years,” 74 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Implementation of a Dose Standard After 10,000 Years,” 74 Federal Register
10811, March 13, 2009. 10811, March 13, 2009.
~~113~~121 FSEIS, FSEIS, p. S-42. Posted on the NRC websitep. S-42. Posted on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0817/ML081750191.html. at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0817/ML081750191.html.
~~114~~122 DOE, DOE, FY ~~2021~~2022 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 2, , vol. 3, part 2, ~~February 2020, p. 41~~May 2021, p. 36, https://www.energy.gov/, https://www.energy.gov/
sites/sites/~~prod/files/2020/04/f73/doe-fy2021~~default/files/2021-06/doe-fy2022-budget-volume-3-budget-volume-3~~-part-2~~.2-v3.pdf. .pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1240 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~plutonium, which could be separated through reprocessing to be used in new fuel. Fission~~
~~products, the highly radioactive fragments of uranium and plutonium that have undergone fission~~
~~in a reactor, would be separated for immobilization and disposal. DOE is supporting development~~
~~of a variety of unconventional “advanced” reactor technologies that could indefinitely recycle~~
~~uranium, plutonium, and other long-lived radioisotopes in spent fuel, leaving only short-lived~~
~~fission products for disposal. Such indefinite recycling is often called the “closed” fuel cycle. (For~~
~~more information, see CRS Report R45706,~~ ~~Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview~~
~~and Current Issues~~.)
DOE is also studying alternative disposal options, including various geologic formations that DOE is also studying alternative disposal options, including various geologic formations that
could be used for deep underground repositories, such as clay and granite. Alternative could be used for deep underground repositories, such as clay and granite. Alternative
technologies to mined repositories, such as deep boreholes that could dispose of waste canisters technologies to mined repositories, such as deep boreholes that could dispose of waste canisters
several miles below ground, also have been studied.several miles below ground, also have been studied.~~115~~123
Program Costs
Nuclear utilities Nuclear utilities had paid fees to the Nuclear Waste Fund to cover the disposal costs of civilian had paid fees to the Nuclear Waste Fund to cover the disposal costs of civilian
nuclear spent fuel (until the fees were halted by a court order in May 2014), but DOE cannot nuclear spent fuel (until the fees were halted by a court order in May 2014), but DOE cannot
spend the money in the fund until it is appropriated by Congress. At the beginning of spend the money in the fund until it is appropriated by Congress. At the beginning of ~~FY2020~~FY2021, the , the
Waste Fund balance stood at $Waste Fund balance stood at $~~40.4 billion~~42.2 bil ion, according to the , according to the ~~FY2021~~FY2022 Administration budget Administration budget
request.request.~~116~~124 Before the Obama Administration halted the Yucca Mountain project after FY2010, Before the Obama Administration halted the Yucca Mountain project after FY2010,
$7.41 $7.41 ~~billion~~ bil ion had been disbursed from the Waste Fund, according to DOE’s program summary had been disbursed from the Waste Fund, according to DOE’s program summary
report.report.~~117~~125 DOE’s most recent update of its DOE’s most recent update of its Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program was released on August 5, 2008. was released on August 5, 2008.~~118~~126 According According
to that estimate, the Yucca Mountain program as then planned would to that estimate, the Yucca Mountain program as then planned would have cost $96.2 cost $96.2 ~~billion~~bil ion in in 2007 2007
dollars from the beginning of the program in 1983 to repository closure in 2133. dollars from the beginning of the program in 1983 to repository closure in 2133.
Separate Disposal Facility for Defense Waste
The Obama Administration issued a draft plan on December 16, 2016, for a separate underground The Obama Administration issued a draft plan on December 16, 2016, for a separate underground
repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel generated by nuclear defense activities. repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel generated by nuclear defense activities.
The effort to develop a defense waste repository would reverse a 1985 decision by the Reagan The effort to develop a defense waste repository would reverse a 1985 decision by the Reagan
Administration to dispose of defense and civilian nuclear waste together. Then-Energy Secretary Administration to dispose of defense and civilian nuclear waste together. Then-Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz described the proposed defense-only repository as Ernest Moniz described the proposed defense-only repository as ~~potentially~~potential y easier to site, license, easier to site, license,
and construct than a combined defense-civilian repository, because defense waste constitutes a and construct than a combined defense-civilian repository, because defense waste constitutes a
relatively relatively ~~small~~ smal portion of total high-level waste volumes and radioactivity, and some defense portion of total high-level waste volumes and radioactivity, and some defense
waste is in forms that might be optimized for certain types of disposal, such as deep boreholes.waste is in forms that might be optimized for certain types of disposal, such as deep boreholes.~~119~~

~~115 DOE, “Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines, Borehole Seals Design, and~~
~~RD&D Needs,” undated website,~~ 127 In a report issued in October 2014, DOE concluded that a defense-only nuclear waste repository “could be sited and developed outside the framework of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.” Under this reasoning, NWPA would not have to be amended to al ow a defense-only repository to proceed. However, according to the DOE report, “Any such repository would be subject to licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would have to comply with other NWPA requirements related to state and local participation in the siting process.”128 DOE’s draft 123 DOE, “ Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines, Borehole Seals Design, and RD&D Needs,” undated website, https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/deep-borehole-disposal-research-https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/deep-borehole-disposal-research-
demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals. demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals.
~~116~~124 Office of Management and Budget, Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year ~~2021~~2022 Budget Appendix, p. , p. ~~409~~410, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/content/uploads/~~2020/02/appendix_fy21~~2021/05/doe_fy22.pdf. .pdf.
~~117~~125 DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Program Management, DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Program Management, Monthly Summary of
Program Financial and Budget ~~Information~~Inform ation , as of January 31, 2010, available at http://www.thenwsc.org/ym/, as of January 31, 2010, available at http://www.thenwsc.org/ym/
DOE%20Financial%20&%20Budget%20Summary%20013110.pdf. DOE%20Financial%20&%20Budget%20Summary%20013110.pdf. ~~The~~T he report notes that some figures may not add report notes that some figures may not add
duedue to independent rounding. to independent rounding.
~~118~~126 Available on the DOE website Available on the DOE website at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/
~~FY_2007_TotalSystemLifeCycleCost_Pub2008.pdf.~~
~~119~~FY_2007_T otalSystemLifeCycleCost_Pub2008.pdf. 127 DOE Office of Nuclear DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines, Energy, “Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines,
Borehole SealsBorehole Seals Design, and RD&D Needs,”Design, and RD&D Needs,” ~~undated web~~ undated web page, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/deep-borehole-disposal-research-demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals. 128 DOE, Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, Congressional Research Service 41 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal ~~page, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/deep-borehole-~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~In a report issued in October 2014, DOE concluded that a defense-only nuclear waste repository~~
~~“could be sited and developed outside the framework of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.” Under~~
~~this reasoning, NWPA would not have to be amended to allow a defense-only repository to~~
~~proceed. However, according to the DOE report, “Any such repository would be subject to~~
~~licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would have to comply with other~~
~~NWPA requirements related to state and local participation in the siting process.”120 DOE’s draft~~
plan estimated that disposal of defense waste could begin about 22 years after a consent-based plan estimated that disposal of defense waste could begin about 22 years after a consent-based
siting process siting process ~~were~~was started. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a started. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a
report in January 2017 that assessed DOE’s analysis of the defense-only repository as excluding report in January 2017 that assessed DOE’s analysis of the defense-only repository as excluding
major costs “that could add tens of major costs “that could add tens of ~~billions~~bil ions of dollars” and including a schedule that “appears of dollars” and including a schedule that “appears
optimistic,” in light of “past repository siting experiences.”optimistic,” in light of “past repository siting experiences.”~~121~~129
Republican leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a statement on Republican leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a statement on
March 24, 2015, criticizing DOE’s plan for a defense-only nuclear waste repository as a way to March 24, 2015, criticizing DOE’s plan for a defense-only nuclear waste repository as a way to
deflect efforts to resume progress on Yucca Mountain.deflect efforts to resume progress on Yucca Mountain.~~122~~130 A provision to block development of a A provision to block development of a
defense-only repository before NRC has issued a licensing decision on the Yucca Mountain defense-only repository before NRC has issued a licensing decision on the Yucca Mountain
repository was included in nuclear waste legislation (H.R. 3053) passed by the House May 10, repository was included in nuclear waste legislation (H.R. 3053) passed by the House May 10,
2018. The measure was not enacted by the 115th Congress 2018. The measure was not enacted by the 115th Congress ~~but has been reintroduced in the 116th~~
~~Congress (H.R. 2699)~~or a subsequent version (H.R. 2699) in the 116th Congress. .
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Current Policy
Selecting disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste, which Selecting disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste, which ~~generally~~general y consists of low consists of low
concentrations of relatively short-lived radionuclides, is authorized to be conducted by states concentrations of relatively short-lived radionuclides, is authorized to be conducted by states
under the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and 1985 amendments. Most states have under the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and 1985 amendments. Most states have
joined joined ~~congressionally~~congressional y approved interstate compacts to handle low-level waste disposal. Under approved interstate compacts to handle low-level waste disposal. Under
the 1985 amendments, the nation’s three (at that time) operating commercial low-level waste the 1985 amendments, the nation’s three (at that time) operating commercial low-level waste
disposal facilities could start refusing to accept waste from outside their regional interstate disposal facilities could start refusing to accept waste from outside their regional interstate
compacts after the end of 1992. One of the three sites, near Beatty, NV, closed. The remaining compacts after the end of 1992. One of the three sites, near Beatty, NV, closed. The remaining
two—at two—at ~~Barnwell~~Barnwel , SC, and Hanford, WA—are using their , SC, and Hanford, WA—are using their ~~congressionally~~congressional y granted authority to granted authority to
prohibit waste from outside their regional compacts. Another site, in Utah, has since become prohibit waste from outside their regional compacts. Another site, in Utah, has since become
~~available~~ available nationwide for most class A low-level waste, but not class B and C waste. nationwide for most class A low-level waste, but not class B and C waste.
The startup of a new disposal facility for class A, B, and C low The startup of a new disposal facility for class A, B, and C low -level waste near Andrews, TX, in -level waste near Andrews, TX, in
2012 may have 2012 may have ~~alleviated~~ al eviated the class B and C disposal problem. Although the facility is intended to the class B and C disposal problem. Although the facility is intended to
serve primarily Texas and Vermont, up to 30% of its 2.3 serve primarily Texas and Vermont, up to 30% of its 2.3 ~~million~~mil ion cubic feet of disposal capacity cubic feet of disposal capacity
may be may be ~~allocated~~al ocated to waste from other states. to waste from other states.~~123~~131 The Texas site received its first shipment of waste, The Texas site received its first shipment of waste,

~~disposal-research-demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals.~~
~~120 DOE, Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel,~~
~~October 2014, p. iii.~~
~~121 GAO,~~ ~~Nuclear Waste: Benefits and Costs Should Be Better~~ from a company in Vermont, on April 27, 2012.132 The Texas Compact Commission had 55 agreements for importing low-level waste, including classes B and C, from noncompact states during 2020.133 October 2014, p. iii. 129 GAO, Nuclear Waste: Benefits and Costs Should Be Better Understood Before DOE Commits to a Separate
Repository for Defense Waste,, January 2017, GAO-17-174, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682385.pdf. January 2017, GAO-17-174, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682385.pdf.
~~122~~130 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Committee Leaders Respond to DOE’s Nuclear Waste Delay,” House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Committee Leaders Respond to DOE’s Nuclear Waste Delay,”
March 24, 2015, http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/committee-leaders-respond-doe%E2%80%99s-March 24, 2015, http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/committee-leaders-respond-doe%E2%80%99s-
nuclear-waste-delay. nuclear-waste-delay.
~~123~~131 Waste Control Specialists, “Our Facilities: Compact Waste Facility,” http://www.wcstexas.com/facilities/compact- Waste Control Specialists, “Our Facilities: Compact Waste Facility,” http://www.wcstexas.com/facilities/compact-
waste-facility/. waste-facility/.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

14

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~from a company in Vermont, on April 27, 2012.124 The Texas Compact Commission has 55~~
~~agreements for importing low-level waste, including classes B and C, from non-compact states~~
~~during 2020.125~~132 Bionomics, Inc., “Bionomics Makes First Shipment to T exas Low Level Waste Site,” press release, April 27, 2012, http://www.bionomics-inc.com/documents/Newsletter/First%20Shipment%20to%20Texas.pdf. 133 T exas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission, “2020 Agreements,” http://www.tllrwdcc.org/2020-agreements. Congressional Research Service 42 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
Legislation providing congressional consent to the Texas compact, which Legislation providing congressional consent to the Texas compact, which ~~originally~~original y also included also included
Maine as Maine as ~~well~~ wel as Vermont, was signed by President Clinton September 20, 1998 (P.L. 105-236). as Vermont, was signed by President Clinton September 20, 1998 (P.L. 105-236).
However, on October 22, 1998, a proposed disposal site near Sierra Blanca, TX, was rejected by However, on October 22, 1998, a proposed disposal site near Sierra Blanca, TX, was rejected by
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and Maine subsequently withdrew. Texas the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and Maine subsequently withdrew. Texas
Governor Rick Perry signed legislation June 20, 2003, authorizing the Texas Commission on Governor Rick Perry signed legislation June 20, 2003, authorizing the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to license adjoining disposal facilities for commercial and Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to license adjoining disposal facilities for commercial and
~~federally~~ federal y generated low-level waste. Pursuant to that statute, an application to build the Andrews generated low-level waste. Pursuant to that statute, an application to build the Andrews
County disposal facility was filed August 2, 2004, by Waste Control Specialists LLC. TCEQ County disposal facility was filed August 2, 2004, by Waste Control Specialists LLC. TCEQ
voted January 14, 2009, to issue the license after the necessary land and mineral rights had been voted January 14, 2009, to issue the license after the necessary land and mineral rights had been
acquired and approved construction of the facility January 7, 2011.acquired and approved construction of the facility January 7, 2011.~~126~~134
The disposal facility at The disposal facility at ~~Barnwell~~Barnwel , SC, is currently accepting , SC, is currently accepting ~~all~~ al class A, B, and C low-level waste class A, B, and C low-level waste
from the Atlantic Compact (formerly the Northeast Compact), in which South Carolina joined from the Atlantic Compact (formerly the Northeast Compact), in which South Carolina joined
original members Connecticut and New Jersey on July 1, 2000. Under the compact, South original members Connecticut and New Jersey on July 1, 2000. Under the compact, South
Carolina can limit the use of the Carolina can limit the use of the ~~Barnwell~~ Barnwel facility to the three compact members, and a state law facility to the three compact members, and a state law
enacted in June 2000 phased out acceptance of noncompact waste through June 30, 2008. The enacted in June 2000 phased out acceptance of noncompact waste through June 30, 2008. The
~~Barnwell~~ Barnwel facility previously had stopped accepting waste from outside the Southeast Compact at facility previously had stopped accepting waste from outside the Southeast Compact at
the end of June 1994. The Southeast Compact Commission in May 1995 twice rejected a South the end of June 1994. The Southeast Compact Commission in May 1995 twice rejected a South
Carolina proposal to open the Carolina proposal to open the ~~Barnwell~~ Barnwel site to waste generators outside the Southeast and to bar site to waste generators outside the Southeast and to bar
access to North Carolina until that state opened a new regional disposal facility, as required by the access to North Carolina until that state opened a new regional disposal facility, as required by the
compact. The rejection of those proposals led the South Carolina General Assembly to vote in compact. The rejection of those proposals led the South Carolina General Assembly to vote in
1995 to withdraw from the Southeast Compact and begin accepting waste at 1995 to withdraw from the Southeast Compact and begin accepting waste at ~~Barnwell from all~~
Barnwel from al states but North Carolina. North Carolina withdrew from the Southeast Compact July 26, 1999. states but North Carolina. North Carolina withdrew from the Southeast Compact July 26, 1999.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 1, 2010, that the withdrawal did not subject North The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 1, 2010, that the withdrawal did not subject North
Carolina to sanctions under the compact.Carolina to sanctions under the compact.~~127~~135
The only other existing disposal facility for The only other existing disposal facility for ~~all~~ al three major classes of lowthree major classes of low -level waste is at -level waste is at
Hanford, WA. Controlled by the Northwest Compact, the Hanford site Hanford, WA. Controlled by the Northwest Compact, the Hanford site ~~will~~ wil continue taking waste continue taking waste
from the neighboring Rocky Mountain Compact under a contract. from the neighboring Rocky Mountain Compact under a contract.
Regulatory Requirements
Licensing of commercial low-level waste facilities is carried out under the Atomic Energy Act by Licensing of commercial low-level waste facilities is carried out under the Atomic Energy Act by
NRC or by “agreement states” with regulatory programs approved by NRC. NRC regulations NRC or by “agreement states” with regulatory programs approved by NRC. NRC regulations
governing low-level waste governing low-level waste ~~licenses128~~licenses136 must conform to general environmental protection must conform to general environmental protection
standards and radiation protection guidelines issued by EPA. Transportation of lowstandards and radiation protection guidelines issued by EPA. Transportation of low -level waste is -level waste is
jointly regulated by NRC and the Department of Transportation. jointly regulated by NRC and the Department of Transportation.

~~124 Bionomics, Inc., “Bionomics Makes First Shipment to Texas Low Level Waste Site,” press release, April 27, 2012,~~
~~http://www.bionomics-inc.com/documents/Newsletter/First%20Shipment%20to%20Texas.pdf.~~
~~125 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission, “2020 Agreements,” http://www.tllrwdcc.org/~~
~~2020-agreements.~~
~~126 See the TCEQ website,~~ NRC proposed a significant modification of its low-level waste disposal regulations on March 26, 2015.137 The NRC staff submitted a final version of the regulations for commission approval on September 15, 2016.138 The commission issued further revisions on September 8, 2017, which would have to be incorporated before the package could be published as a supplemental proposed rule. As drafted by the NRC staff, the regulations would for the first time establish time periods for technical analyses of low-level waste sites to ensure protection of the general population. 134 See the T CEQ website, http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/radmat/licensing/wcs_license_app.html#wcs_status. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/radmat/licensing/wcs_license_app.html#wcs_status.
~~127~~135 Alabama et al. v. North Carolina, S. Ct. (2010), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/132Orig.pdf. Alabama et al. v. North Carolina, S. Ct. (2010), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/132Orig.pdf.
~~128~~136 10 C.F.R. Part 61, Licensing Requirements 10 C.F.R. Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

15

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~NRC proposed a significant modification of its low-level waste disposal regulations on~~ 137 NRC, “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal; Proposed Rule,” 80 Federal Register 16082, March 26, March 26,
~~2015.129 The NRC staff submitted a final version of the regulations for commission approval on~~
~~September 15, 2016.130 The commission issued further revisions on September 8, 2017, which~~
~~would have to be incorporated before the package could be published as a supplemental proposed~~
~~rule. As drafted by the NRC staff, the regulations would for the first time establish time periods~~
~~for technical analyses of low-level waste sites to ensure protection of the general population.~~
2015. 138 NRC, “Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” SECY-16-0106, September 15, 2016, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1618/ML16188A290.html. For more details, see NRC, “ Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Rulemaking,” September 25, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams.html. Congressional Research Service 43 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal Technical analysis would have to be conducted for a 1,000-year compliance period if no Technical analysis would have to be conducted for a 1,000-year compliance period if no
significant quantities of long-lived radioactive material are present at a disposal site, and for a significant quantities of long-lived radioactive material are present at a disposal site, and for a
10,000-year compliance period if significant quantities are present. A post-10,000-year analysis 10,000-year compliance period if significant quantities are present. A post-10,000-year analysis
would be required in certain cases, and a new technical analysis would be required to protect would be required in certain cases, and a new technical analysis would be required to protect
inadvertent intruders at a low-level waste site. NRC’s current low-level waste regulations were inadvertent intruders at a low-level waste site. NRC’s current low-level waste regulations were
adopted in 1982. adopted in 1982.
NRC is also considering whether agreement states could license disposal facilities for Greater- NRC is also considering whether agreement states could license disposal facilities for Greater-
Than-Class C low-level waste. In particular, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Than-Class C low-level waste. In particular, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
submitted questions to NRC in January 2015 about whether the state could permit GTCC disposal submitted questions to NRC in January 2015 about whether the state could permit GTCC disposal
at the Andrews County disposal facilities. NRC issued a draft regulatory basis for action on at the Andrews County disposal facilities. NRC issued a draft regulatory basis for action on
GTCC waste disposal on July 22, 2019.GTCC waste disposal on July 22, 2019.~~131~~139
Concluding Discussion
Disposal of radioactive waste Disposal of radioactive waste ~~will~~ wil be a key issue in the continuing nuclear power debate. Without be a key issue in the continuing nuclear power debate. Without
central disposalcentral disposal, storage, or reprocessing ~~or storage~~ facilities, spent fuel from nuclear power plants must be facilities, spent fuel from nuclear power plants must be stored on-site stored on-site
indefinitely. This situation has raised growing public concern near permanently closed nuclear indefinitely. This situation has raised growing public concern near permanently closed nuclear
plants, which cannot be fully decommissioned until their spent fuel is shipped off-site. Concern plants, which cannot be fully decommissioned until their spent fuel is shipped off-site. Concern
about spent fuel storage safety was heightened by the March 2011 disaster at about spent fuel storage safety was heightened by the March 2011 disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Japan’s Fukushima
~~Daiichi~~Dai chi nuclear plant. nuclear plant.
Under current law, the federal government’s nuclear waste disposal policy is focused on the Under current law, the federal government’s nuclear waste disposal policy is focused on the
Yucca Mountain site. However, President Obama’s actions to terminate the Yucca Mountain Yucca Mountain site. However, President Obama’s actions to terminate the Yucca Mountain
project and develop a new waste strategy through the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s project and develop a new waste strategy through the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future brought most activities in the DOE waste program to a halt. Congress is Nuclear Future brought most activities in the DOE waste program to a halt. Congress is
continuing to debate the project’s future, particularly through the appropriations process. After continuing to debate the project’s future, particularly through the appropriations process. After
Congress did not approve President Trump’s FY2018-FY2020 funding requests to restart the Congress did not approve President Trump’s FY2018-FY2020 funding requests to restart the
Yucca Mountain licensing process, the Yucca Mountain licensing process, the Trump Administration did not seek funding for FY2021Administration did not seek funding for FY2021, nor did the Biden Administration for FY2022. The . The
NRC staff’s finding in October 2014 that the Yucca Mountain site would meet NRC standards NRC staff’s finding in October 2014 that the Yucca Mountain site would meet NRC standards
after the repository was after the repository was ~~filled~~fil ed and sealed has and sealed has been cited as evidence of the project’s continued been cited as evidence of the project’s continued
technical viability if funding were restarted.technical viability if funding were restarted.~~132~~140
Because of their waste-disposal contracts with DOE, owners of existing reactors are likely to Because of their waste-disposal contracts with DOE, owners of existing reactors are likely to
continue seeking damages from the federal government if disposal delays continue. For example, continue seeking damages from the federal government if disposal delays continue. For example,
DOE’s 2004 settlement with the nation’s largest nuclear operator, Exelon, could require payments DOE’s 2004 settlement with the nation’s largest nuclear operator, Exelon, could require payments

~~129 NRC, “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal; Proposed Rule,” 80 Federal Register 16082, March 26, 2015.~~
~~130 NRC, “Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” SECY-16-0106, September 15, 2016,~~
~~https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1618/ML16188A290.html. For more details, see NRC, “Low-Level Radioactive Waste~~
~~Disposal Rulemaking,” September 25, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams.html.~~
~~131 NRC, “Greater-Than-Class C and Transuranic Waste,” October 9, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/~~
~~llw-pa/gtcc-transuranic-waste-disposal.html.~~
~~132 Northey, Hannah, “Yucca Mountain: Boosters Hope NRC Report Ends Safety Debate, Draws Supporters,”~~ ~~E&E~~
~~Daily, Friday, January 30, 2015, https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2015/01/30/stories/1060012593.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

16

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

~~of up to $600 million~~ of up to $600 mil ion from the federal judgment fund. DOE estimates that its potential liabilities from the federal judgment fund. DOE estimates that its potential liabilities
for waste program delays could total as much as $for waste program delays could total as much as $~~36.5 billion~~39.2 bil ion, including the $8., including the $8.~~0 billion~~ 6 bil ion already already
paid to Exelon and other utilitiespaid to Exelon and other utilities in settlements and final judgments. The nuclear industry has in settlements and final judgments. The nuclear industry has
predicted that future damages could rise by tens of predicted that future damages could rise by tens of ~~billions~~bil ions of dollars more if the federal disposal of dollars more if the federal disposal
program fails altogether.program fails altogether.
Lack of a nuclear waste disposal system could also affect the licensing of proposed new nuclear Lack of a nuclear waste disposal system could also affect the licensing of proposed new nuclear
plants, both because of NRC licensing guidelines and various state laws.plants, both because of NRC licensing guidelines and various state laws.~~133~~141 In addition, further In addition, further
repository delays could force DOE to miss compliance deadlines for defense waste disposal. repository delays could force DOE to miss compliance deadlines for defense waste disposal.
139 NRC, “ Greater-T han-Class C and T ransuranic Waste,” October 9, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/gtcc-transuranic-waste-disposal.html. 140 Northey, Hannah, “Yucca Mountain: Boosters Hope NRC Report Ends Safety Debate, Draws Supporters,” E&E Daily, Friday, January 30, 2015, https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2015/01/30/stories/1060012593. 141 Lovell, David L., Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, State Statutes Limiting the Construction of Nuclear Power Plants, October 5, 2006. Congressional Research Service 44 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal Problems being created by nuclear waste disposal delays were addressed by the Blue Ribbon Problems being created by nuclear waste disposal delays were addressed by the Blue Ribbon
Commission in its final report, issued in January 2012. Major options include centralized interim Commission in its final report, issued in January 2012. Major options include centralized interim
storage, continued storage at existing nuclear sites, reprocessing and waste treatment technology, storage, continued storage at existing nuclear sites, reprocessing and waste treatment technology,
development of alternative repository sites, or a combination. The commission recommended that development of alternative repository sites, or a combination. The commission recommended that
a a ~~congressionally~~congressional y chartered corporation be established to undertake a negotiated process for siting chartered corporation be established to undertake a negotiated process for siting
new waste storage and disposal facilities. new waste storage and disposal facilities.
The “consent based” nuclear waste siting process recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission, The “consent based” nuclear waste siting process recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission,
and which would and which would behave been authorized by several authorized by several ~~bills in Congress, has~~bil s in subsequent Congresses, attracted ~~attracted~~ serious interest from serious interest from
localities in New Mexico and Texas. However, previous voluntary siting efforts, such as those by localities in New Mexico and Texas. However, previous voluntary siting efforts, such as those by
the U.S. Nuclear Waste Negotiator established by the 1987 NWPA amendments, also attracted the U.S. Nuclear Waste Negotiator established by the 1987 NWPA amendments, also attracted
serious local interest but were ultimately blocked by the governments of the potential host states. serious local interest but were ultimately blocked by the governments of the potential host states.
Therefore, the cooperation of states is likely to be crucial to the Therefore, the cooperation of states is likely to be crucial to the success of any renewed “consent success of any renewed “consent
based” siting effort. based” siting effort.
For Additional Reading
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear FutureBlue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.
Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/, January 2012, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf. 2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf.
Commissioned Papers., 2010-2011 2010-2011., Reports on current nuclear waste issues Reports on current nuclear waste issues.,
http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620214809/http://brc.gov/index.php?q=http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620214809/http://brc.gov/index.php?q=
library/documents/commissioned-papers. library/documents/commissioned-papers.
Government Accountability Office, “Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste,” Government Accountability Office, “Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste,”
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary. https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary.
Harvard University Harvard University., John F. Kennedy School of Government John F. Kennedy School of Government., Belfer Center for Science and Belfer Center for Science and
International AffairsInternational Affairs., The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel.
, DE-FG26-99FT4028DE-FG26-99FT4028., December 2003. December 2003.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review BoardNuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel. Revision 1A. September 2018. https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/
Six Overarching Recommendations for How to Move the Nation’s Nuclear Waste Management Program Forward, April 2021, https://www.nwtrb.gov/our-work/reports/six-overarching-recommendations-for-how-to-move-the-nation-s-nuclear-waste-management- program-forward-(april-2020). Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, Revision 1A, September 2018, https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/ default-source/facts-sheets/commercial-snf-rev-1a.pdf?sfvrsn=16. default-source/facts-sheets/commercial-snf-rev-1a.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
Evaluation of Technical Issues Associated with the Development of a Separate Repository for
U.S. Department of Energy-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel.

~~133 Lovell, David L., Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff,~~ ~~State Statutes Limiting the Construction of Nuclear Power~~
~~Plants, October 5, 2006.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

17

~~Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal~~

, June 2015June 2015., https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/disposal_options.pdf?sfvrsn= https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/disposal_options.pdf?sfvrsn=
7. 7.
Experience Gained from Programs to Manage High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent
Nuclear Fuel in the United States and Other Countries., April 2011 April 2011., https://www.nwtrb.gov/ https://www.nwtrb.gov/
docs/default-source/reports/experience-gained.pdf?sfvrsn=8. docs/default-source/reports/experience-gained.pdf?sfvrsn=8.
Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear
Fuel., October 2009 October 2009., https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb-sept-09.pdf? https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb-sept-09.pdf?
sfvrsn=7. Congressional Research Service 45 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal ~~sfvrsn=7.~~
RAND CorporationRAND Corporation., Managing Spent Nuclear Fuel: Strategy Alternatives and Policy
Implications., 2010 2010., 71 pp. 71 pp., http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/ http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/
RAND_MG970.pdf. RAND_MG970.pdf.
Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation and George Washington Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation and George Washington
University University ~~Elliott~~ El iott School of International AffairsSchool of International Affairs., Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste
Management: Strategy and Policy., October 15, 2018 October 15, 2018., 126 pp. 126 pp., https://fsi-live.s3.us-west- https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-
1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/reset_report_2018_final.pdf. 1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/reset_report_2018_final.pdf.
~~University of Illinois.~~Stimson Center, Bringing the Back-End to the Forefront: Spent Fuel Management and Safeguards Considerations for Emerging Reactors, February 10, 2021, https://www.stimson.org/2021/ bringing-the-back-end-to-the-forefront. University of Il inois, Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security., ‘Plan
D’ for Spent Nuclear Fuel., 2009 2009., http://acdis. http://acdis.~~illinois~~il inois.edu/publications/207/publication-.edu/publications/207/publication-
PlanDforSpentNuclearFuel.html. PlanDforSpentNuclearFuel.html.
U.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of Energy.
Draft Consent-Based Siting Process for Consolidated Storage and Disposal Facilities for
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste, January 12, 2017, https://www.energy.gov/sites/, January 12, 2017, https://www.energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/2017/01/f34/Draft%20Consent-prod/files/2017/01/f34/Draft%20Consent-
Based%20Siting%20Process%20and%20Siting%20Considerations.pdf. Based%20Siting%20Process%20and%20Siting%20Considerations.pdf.
Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent
Nuclear Fuel, October 2014, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/assessment-disposal-, October 2014, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/assessment-disposal-
options-doe-managed-high-level-radioactive-waste-and-spent-nuclear. options-doe-managed-high-level-radioactive-waste-and-spent-nuclear.
Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste, January 2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/, January 2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
Strategy%20for%20the%20Management%20and%20Disposal%20of%20Used%20Nuclear%Strategy%20for%20the%20Management%20and%20Disposal%20of%20Used%20Nuclear%
20Fuel%20and%20High%20Level%20Radioactive%20Waste.pdf. 20Fuel%20and%20High%20Level%20Radioactive%20Waste.pdf.
Used Fuel Disposition Campaign: Disposal Research and Development Roadmap, March , March
2011, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/UFD_Disposal_R%26D_Roadmap_Rev_0.1.pdf. 2011, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/UFD_Disposal_R%26D_Roadmap_Rev_0.1.pdf.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, website, updated , website, updated ~~September 1, 2020~~May 3, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/
spent-fuel-storage.html. spent-fuel-storage.html.
Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Volume 3: Repository Safety After Permanent Closure,
NUREG-1949, V3, ML14288A121, October 16, 2014NUREG-1949, V3, ML14288A121, October 16, 2014., 781 pp 781 pp.
~~Voegele,~~ Michael D. Michael D. Voegele and Donald L. Vieth, and Donald L. Vieth, Waste of a Mountain: How Yucca Mountain Was
Selected, Studied, and Dumped., Nye County Press, 2016 Nye County Press, 2016., 920 pp. (2 vol.) 920 pp. (2 vol.). Samuel J. Walker,
~~Walker, J. Samuel.~~ The Road to Yucca Mountain: The Development of Radioactive Waste Policy
in in the United States., University of California Press University of California Press., 2009 2009., 228 pp. 228 pp.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1846

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Author Information

Mark Holt Mark Holt

Specialist in Energy Policy Specialist in Energy Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should ~~not~~n ot be relied upon for purposes other be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
RL33461 RL33461 · VERSION 5659 · UPDATED
1947