Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
September 14, 2020
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
Mark Holt
nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but proposed storage and disposal facilities have
Specialist in Energy Policy
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
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.
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
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
Nevada strongly opposes the Yucca Mountain project, citing excessive water infiltration, earthquakes, volcanoes, human
intrusion, and other technical issues.
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
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 facilities.
The Trump Administration included funds to restart Yucca Mountain licensing in its FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget
submissions to Congress. None of those Yucca Mountain funding requests were enacted. For FY2021, the Administration
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 50 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 19

Congressional Research Service

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Most Recent Developments
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
Yucca Mountain, NV, the Administration did not seek further funding for the project for FY2021.
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.
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
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
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
application on March 3, 2010. Although Congress has not provided new Yucca Mountain funding
since FY2010, it has not amended NWPA, which still names Yucca Mountain as the sole
repository candidate site.
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
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
developing one or more nuclear waste repositories and consolidated storage facilities. The
recommendations called 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
negotiations. The commission also recommended that long-term research, development, and
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.
2699) to withdraw the Yucca Mountain site from other uses under the public lands laws. It is
similar to a bill passed by the House in the 115th Congress (H.R. 3053, H.Rept. 115-355) but not
enacted. The land withdrawal would satisfy one of the remaining licensing conditions identified

1 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).
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.
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
contains the NRC staff’s determination of whether the repository would meet all applicable
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
sealed.3
However, the staff said upon completing the SER that NRC should not authorize construction of
the repository until all land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s
environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed.4 NRC completed the supplemental EIS in
May 20165 and made its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available,
using all the remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.6
Then-NRC Chairman Stephen Burns testified March 4, 2015, that his agency would need $330
million in additional 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.7 As
noted above, the Trump Administration is not requesting FY2021 appropriations for NRC or
DOE Yucca Mountain licensing activities.
Consent-Based Siting Legislation
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 nuclear
waste facilities (S. 1234). Siting of new waste storage and disposal facilities would require
consent by host states and affected local governments and Indian tribes. The bill would not affect
the existing Yucca Mountain licensing process.
Provisions to authorize DOE to develop consent-based pilot interim storage facilities for spent
nuclear fuel were included in the FY2020 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 12, 2019 (S. 2470, S.Rept. 116-
102), but they were not included in the enacted FY2020 funding measure (P.L. 116-94). Under
Section 306 of the bill, DOE would have been 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
site for a pilot storage facility without the consent of the governor of the host state, all localities
with jurisdiction over the site, and any affected Indian tribes. Similar provisions had been
included, but ultimately not enacted, in previous Energy and Water Development appropriations
bills reported by the Senate panel.

3 NRC, “NRC Staff Issues Volume 3 of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report,” news release 14-069, October 16,
2014, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v3/.
4 NRC, “NRC Publishes Final Two Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation,” news release 15-005, January 29.
2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/.
5 NRC, Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for
the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,
NUREG-2184, Final Report, May 2016, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2184/.
6 NRC, “NRC Makes Yucca Mountain Hearing Documents Publicly Available,” news release, August 19, 2016,
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1623/ML16232A429.pdf.
7 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12-15 Months,”
NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

2

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

In the 115th Congress, consent-based siting provisions for a monitored retrievable storage (interim
storage) facility were included in a nuclear waste bill (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May
10, 2018, but were not enacted. The bill would have authorized DOE to store spent nuclear fuel at
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
tribes. A similar bill 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, 2019.
Private-Sector Waste Storage Sites
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.8 The facility would
be located on a 1,000-acre site provided by a local 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 spent fuel storage facility would be built at a 14,000-acre site near Andrews,
TX, where the company 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,
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
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.11
Provisions to explicitly authorize DOE to enter into contracts with nonfederal interim storage
facilities for spent fuel were included in legislation (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May 10,
2018. As noted above, the bill was not enacted by the 115th Congress, and a similar bill was
introduced in the 116th Congress (H.R. 2699).
Waste Program Appropriations
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’ heel of the nuclear power industry. Much
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.15 Low-level
radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, industry, hospitals, and other activities is
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
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
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
mineral deposits that might encourage future human intrusion.
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
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
established by NWPA.
However, the Obama Administration made a policy decision that the Yucca Mountain repository
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
budget request reversed the previous year’s plan to continue licensing the repository and called
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
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
remaining functions to the Office of Nuclear Energy.
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
did not request appropriations for the Yucca Mountain project for FY2021.
Under the Obama Administration, DOE had filed a motion with NRC on March 3, 2010, to
withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice,” meaning the application could
not be resubmitted in the future.16 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
Nevada but drew opposition from states with defense-related and civilian radioactive waste that
had been expected to go to Yucca Mountain. State utility regulators also filed a motion to
intervene on March 15, 2010, contending that “dismissal of the Yucca Mountain application will
significantly undermine the government’s ability to fulfill its outstanding obligation to take
possession and dispose of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high level nuclear waste.”17
The ASLB 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
repository is acceptable.18 The NRC commissioners sustained the ASLB decision on a tie vote
September 9, 2011. However, NRC halted further consideration of the license application because
of “budgetary limitations.”19 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,
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
million in previously appropriated funds for that purpose.20
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
conclusions about whether the proposed repository could be licensed.21 NRC issued Volume 3 of
the SER on October 16, 2014, concluding that DOE’s Yucca Mountain repository design would
comply with safety and environmental standards for 1 million years after being permanently
sealed.22 NRC issued the final two volumes of the Yucca Mountain SER on January 29, 2015.23
Upon completing the SER, the staff said that NRC should not authorize construction of the
repository until all land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s
environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed. NRC completed the supplemental EIS in
May 2016 and made its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available,
using all the remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.24 NRC Chairman Stephen Burns
testified March 4, 2015, that NRC would need $330 million in additional 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.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. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11-1271, writ of
mandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
21 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.
22 NRC, “NRC Staff Issues Volume 3 of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report,” news release 14-069, October 16,
2014, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v3/.
23 NRC, “NRC Publishes Final Two Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation,” news release 15-005, January 29.
2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/.
24 NRC, Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., and NRC, “NRC
Makes Yucca Mountain Hearing Documents Publicly Available,” op. cit.
25 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12-15 Months,”
NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015.
26 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).
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
on the concept and announced a series of public meetings through mid-2016. Suggested issues to
be addressed include fairness of the siting process, possible site-selection models, appropriate
participants and their roles in the process, information requirements for adequate public
participation, and any other relevant concerns.29 Following the public meetings, DOE issued a
draft consent-based siting process on January 12, 2017, that included five phases (with estimated
time for completion):
 Phase 1: siting process initiation and community outreach, 1-3 years. Legislation
would authorize and fund a waste management agency to conduct a consent-
based siting process agency and provide grants to interested communities to
determine whether to request a preliminary site assessment.
 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
community could request a detailed site assessment.
 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
on their willingness to host storage or disposal facilities.
 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
siting agreement, which would be approved by “all required parties,” presumably
including the host state government.
 Phase 5: licensing, construction, operation, and closure. Licensing and
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
100 years and a repository for up to 150 years before closure.30
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
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.31
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
repository would be excavated. Because many geologic formations are believed to have remained
undisturbed for millions of years, it appeared technically feasible to isolate radioactive materials
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
the National Research Council.32
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
waste site that has been proposed by DOE and its predecessor agencies has faced allegations or
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
from the inherent uncertainty involved in predicting waste site performance for the 1 million
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
consideration.
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
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
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
plutonium. The Obama Administration had refocused DOE’s nuclear waste research toward
fundamental science and away from the near-term design and development of reprocessing
facilities.
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
allowed 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
within 90 days of continuous session. An approval resolution was signed by President Bush July
23, 2002 (P.L. 107-200).33
Other Programs
Other types of civilian radioactive waste have also generated public controversy, particularly low-
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
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
available 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
waste (class A) is accepted by a Utah commercial disposal facility from anywhere in the United
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
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.34 The Texas
Legislature approved legislation in May 2011 to allow up to 30% of the facility’s capacity to be
used by states outside the Texas Compact, which consists of Texas and Vermont.35
Nuclear Waste Litigation
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
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 all reactor operators
subsequently signed them. As required by NWPA, the “standard contract” specified that DOE
would begin disposing of nuclear waste no later than January 31, 1998.36
After DOE missed the contractual deadline, nuclear utilities began filing lawsuits to recover their
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
Company (now part of Exelon), on July 19, 2000. The agreement allowed PECO to keep up to
$80 million 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
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 Waste Control Specialists LLC, “Waste Control Specialists Commends Passage of Legislation,” press release, May
31, 2011, http://www.wcstexas.com/pdfs/press/
WCS%20Press%20Release%20Announcing%20Legislation.final.5.31.11.pdf.
36 The Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste can be found at 10
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 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 all
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
filing claims as they accrue additional delay-related costs.
DOE estimates that its potential liabilities for waste program delays could total as much as $36.5
billion, including the $8.0 billion already paid in settlements and final judgments.39
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
research activities. Some of the DOE-owned waste is currently being stored in noncompliance
with state and federal environmental laws, making DOE potentially subject to fines and penalties
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
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
nuclear waste fees. A federal court ultimately agreed with the waste-fee opponents, and DOE
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
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), representing state utility regulators,
and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), representing the nuclear industry, on April 2 and April 5,
2010, respectively. The suits argued that the fees, totaling about $750 million per year, should not
be collected while the federal government’s nuclear waste disposal program has been halted.40
DOE responded that the federal government still intended to dispose of the nation’s nuclear waste
and that the fees must continue to be collected to cover future disposal costs.41 Energy Secretary
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
disposal activities.42
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
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
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
the timing of those costs, all 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
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 trillion, but other scenarios
resulted in a surplus of up to $5 trillion. Because of the widely varying results, DOE concluded
that there was no clear evidence that the fee should be immediately raised or lowered.44
After NEI and NARUC 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.
The court ruled that DOE’s current waste plans were too vague to allow a reasonable estimate to
be calculated. The court noted that DOE’s $7 trillion uncertainty range for the program’s cost was
“so large as to be absolutely useless” for determining the waste fee.45 Pursuant to the court ruling,
DOE stopped collecting nuclear waste fees from nuclear power generators on May 16, 2014.46
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
adequacy assessment based on previous cost estimates for Yucca Mountain “until new
information is available.”47 However, the Administration’s FY2021 request, as noted, did 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

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4B11622F4FF75FEC85257A100050A681/$file/11-1066-
1376508.pdf.
44 DOE, “Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy Report,” January 2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
January%2016%202013%20Secretarial%20Determination%20of%20the%20Adequacy%20of%20the%20Nuclear%20
Waste%20Fund%20Fee_0.pdf.
45 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy, No. 11-1066, November 19, 2013,
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2708C01ECFE3109F85257C280053406E/$file/11-1066-
1466796.pdf.
46 Hiruo, Elaine, “DOE Implements Court-Ordered Suspension of Nuclear Waste Fee,” NuclearFuel, May 26, 2014.
47 DOE, FY2020 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 2, p. 404, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
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
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
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
may withdraw their applications.”51 After more than a year of deliberation, the NRC
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
of “budgetary limitations.”52
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
licensing proceedings.53 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
determined that NRC had at least $11.1 million in previously appropriated funds for that
purpose.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/
reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/2011-07cli.pdf.
53 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, USCA Case #11-1271, Yucca Mountain Reply
Brief of Petitioners Mandamus Action, February 13, 2012, http://www.naruc.org/policy.cfm?c=filings.
54 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11-1271, writ of
mandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
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

Nuclear Waste Fund to develop nuclear waste central interim storage capacity. The House
approved the Administration’s funding total but specified that only $7.5 million come from the
Nuclear Waste Fund (H.R. 7617).
Waste Confidence Decision and Continued Storage Rule
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.57 To meet
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
repository would be available by 2007-2009.58 At that time, DOE officially planned to meet the
NWPA repository deadline of 1998.
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 available by the first
quarter of the 21st century.59 When the Yucca Mountain repository was delayed further and then
suspended by the Obama Administration, NRC issued another waste confidence rule in 2010 that
found that a repository would be available “when necessary” and that waste could be safely
stored at reactor sites for at least 60 years after shutdown.60
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
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
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:
First, in concluding that permanent storage will be available “when necessary,” the
Commission did not calculate the environmental effects of failing to secure permanent
storage—a possibility that cannot be ignored. Second, in determining that spent fuel can
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.61
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
26, 2014, on continued storage of spent nuclear fuel to replace the waste confidence rule that had
been struck down.62 Rather than make specific findings about the future availability of waste
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

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.
The GEIS analyzed the environmental effects of three potential time periods of storage before a
permanent repository would become available: “short-term timeframe,” continued storage for up
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
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
every 100 years.” The environmental impact of all three time frames was judged to be minimal in
almost all categories.63 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.
Circuit on June 3, 2016.64
Congressional Action
The termination of work on the Yucca Mountain repository by the Obama Administration
generated extensive congressional controversy. Through the 114th Congress, the House repeatedly
voted to continue or restore Yucca Mountain funding, while the Senate zeroed it out, with
President Obama’s support.
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
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
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
environment. In marking up the FY2020 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill
(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
considered when the bill 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 FY2021.
Several nuclear waste bills have been introduced in the 116th Congress, representing a range of
policy approaches. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27,
2019, on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act (S. 1234), which would establish an independent
agency to conduct a consent-based siting process for new nuclear waste storage and disposal
facilities. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing May 1, 2019, on
a draft bill, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019, which would withdraw the Yucca
Mountain site from public lands jurisdiction and place it under DOE control for repository
development.65 The draft bill, subsequently introduced as S. 2917, is similar to H.R. 2699,
introduced May 14, 2019, and H.R. 3053, which passed the House in 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
Table 1 for a summary of recent bills.)
Yucca Mountain Land Withdrawal and Interim Storage Legislation
The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 (H.R. 2699) would satisfy a major condition
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 authorize DOE to store
spent fuel at an NRC-licensed interim storage facility owned by a nonfederal entity. Another
major provision would increase the capacity limit on the Yucca Mountain repository from 70,000
to 110,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, in comparison with the 80,000 metric tons stored at
U.S. nuclear plants at the end of 2017.66 The bill’s provisions are similar to those of H.R. 3053 as
passed by the House in the 115th Congress and a bill introduced November 20, 2019 (S. 2917) by
Senator Barrasso. Major provisions of the bill as approved by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee are described below.
Monitored Retrievable Storage
Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facilities would be used for interim storage of spent
nuclear fuel before disposal in a permanent repository. H.R. 2699 specifies that DOE’s
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 be
authorized to site, construct, and operate one or more MRS facilities. Alternatively, rather than
building a federal MRS facility, DOE could store spent fuel from commercial reactors at MRS
facilities developed by nonfederal entities with which DOE had reached an MRS agreement.
DOE could not enter into an MRS agreement with a nonfederal entity before a license for the
proposed 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 the governor of
the state in which the MRS facility was to be located, any unit of local government with
jurisdiction over the site, and any affected Indian tribe.
DOE could enter into one MRS agreement before NRC issued a final decision on the Yucca
Mountain construction authorization. Priority would be given to a nonfederal MRS facility unless
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
major bodies of water would have priority for shipment to an MRS, to the extent allowable under
DOE’s standard waste disposal contract with nuclear plant operators.
Waste could not be stored at the initial MRS facility until NRC had made a final decision to
approve or disapprove a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository, or until the
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
MRS facility could begin only after the Yucca Mountain construction authorization were issued
and would have to stop if the repository construction ceased or 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
encompassing parts of DOE’s Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Range, along with public
land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. H.R. 2699 would permanently withdraw the
site from uses authorized under federal public land laws, such as mineral leasing, and transfer
jurisdiction to the Secretary of Energy for activities related to development of a permanent
underground repository for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. Withdrawal of the site is a
requirement for DOE to obtain a repository license from NRC.
Nuclear 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 federal waste facilities to
comply with all state, local, and federal hazardous waste requirements.
NRC’s final decision on issuing a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository
would be required within 30 months after enactment. Before the decision on the construction
authorization, DOE could 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
that could be disposed of at Yucca Mountain would be raised from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons.
DOE would be prohibited from planning or developing a separate repository for defense-related
high level waste and spent fuel until NRC reaches a final decision on issuing a construction
authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository.
Waste Program Funding
The 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
repository. After that date, total collections of the nuclear waste fees would be limited to 90% of
each fiscal year’s appropriations for the DOE nuclear waste management program. Any fees that
were not collected because of those limitations could be required to be paid “when determined
necessary by the Secretary.”
Nuclear waste fees collected after the date of enactment would offset appropriations to the
nuclear waste program. Annual appropriations up to the amount of available fees would therefore
net to zero during the appropriations process, so that such appropriations would not count against
the annual discretionary funding allocations for the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill. The existing balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund would remain available for
appropriation as in current law, without offsets. The bill specifies that net direct spending for
budget purposes would not 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
triggered.67
Repository and MRS Benefits Agreements
The Secretary of Energy would be authorized to enter into a benefits agreement with the State of
Nevada, in consultation with affected units of local government, to provide annual payments of
$15 million before spent fuel is received at Yucca Mountain (up from $10 million under current
law). Nevada would receive $400 million upon the first spent fuel receipt (up from $20 million)
and annual payments thereafter of $40 million 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
first fuel shipment, $10 million upon the first fuel receipt, and $10 million per year after the first
receipt until the facility closes.
In addition, DOE could 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
government would not be considered consent to host the repository. All payments under such
benefits agreements would be subject to congressional appropriation from the Nuclear Waste
Fund.
Waste Program Management
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management would be renamed the Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel. The Director of the Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel would be responsible for carrying
out the functions of the Secretary of Energy that had been established by NWPA and would report
directly to the Secretary. The 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.
Nuclear waste management functions that currently may be assigned to a DOE Assistant
Secretary under the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91) would be transferred to
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
April 30, 2019, is similar to bills introduced in the 114th Congress (S. 854) and 113th Congress (S.
1240). S. 1234 would establish an independent Nuclear Waste Administration (NWA), which
would be 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
authority, NWA would take over DOE’s authority under NWPA to construct and operate a
repository at Yucca Mountain and DOE’s waste disposal contractual obligations. The bill
specifically provides that it would not affect the ongoing Yucca Mountain licensing process.
NWA would be 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 (called “priority
waste”). A storage facility for waste from operating reactors or other “nonpriority waste” would
open by the end of 2029, and a permanent repository by the end of 2052.
NWA would be authorized to issue requests for proposals or select sites for storage facilities for
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
proposals for nonpriority waste or select sites unless a candidate site for a repository had been
selected. NWA would be authorized to offer financial compensation and other incentives for
hosting nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities. Sites that would include storage facilities
along with a repository would receive preference.
Highly radioactive defense waste, which had been planned for commingling with commercial
nuclear waste since the 1980s, could be placed in defense-only storage and disposal facilities if
the Secretary of Energy determines such facilities to be necessary for efficiency, subject to
concurrence of the President. President Obama had authorized DOE to pursue a defense-only
repository on March 24, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

17

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Nuclear waste fees collected after enactment of the bill would be held in a newly established
Working Capital Fund. NWA could immediately draw from that fund any amounts needed to
carry out the bill, unless limited by annual appropriations or authorizations. The current disposal
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 Nuclear
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 and local governments before making
an expenditure from the 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 to states, local governments, and tribes.
DOE would be required to give storage priority to waste from closed reactors and to waste
shipments required 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, establish a task 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.
Titus/Cortez
Nuclear Waste Informed
Requires DOE to obtain the consent of
March 5, 2019
House Energy and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRS-21

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
115th Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability Act of 2016
provide payments to communities with
Commerce
closed nuclear power plants that store
spent nuclear fuel onsite.
S. 854
Alexander
Nuclear Waste
Establishes an independent Nuclear
March 24, 2015
Energy and Natural

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

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

Decommissioning Act of
security requirements at permanently
Public Works
2015
closed reactors until all their spent fuel
was moved to dry storage.
S.
Markey/Engel
Dry Cask Storage Act of
Requires nuclear power plants to
Senate: April 15,
Senate: Environment

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

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

Source: Congress.gov.

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
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
to safe levels of radioactivity in a matter of days or weeks, while other types will remain
dangerous for thousands of years. Major types of radioactive waste are described below:68
Spent nuclear fuel. Fuel rods that have been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor after irradiation,
usually because they can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction. (The term “spent
nuclear fuel” is defined in NWPA. The nuclear industry typically refers to spent fuel as “used
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
fuel contains extremely hot but relatively short-lived fission products (fragments of the nuclei of
uranium and other fissile elements) as well as long-lived radionuclides (radioactive atoms) such
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
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 usually has been removed
for reuse. Enough long-lived radioactive elements typically remain, however, to require isolation
for 10,000 years or more.
Transuranic (TRU) waste. Relatively low-activity waste that contains more than a certain level of
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
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
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
awaiting disposal had been stored above-ground at the WIPP site during the suspension;
shipments of additional waste to the site resumed April 10, 2017.69
Low-level waste. Radioactive waste not classified as spent fuel, high-level waste, TRU waste, or
byproduct material such as uranium mill tailings (below). Four classes of low-level waste have
been established by NRC, 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
types of high-level waste, in general low-level waste contains relatively low concentrations of
radioactivity that decays relatively quickly. Low-level waste disposal facilities cannot accept
material that exceeds NRC concentration limits.
Uranium mill tailings. 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
hazard, particularly from radon emissions or groundwater contamination. (For more information,

68 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). “Transuranic waste” is defined in §11ee. of
the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2014); §11e.(2) of the act includes uranium mill tailings in the definition of
“byproduct material.” “Mixed waste” consists of chemically hazardous waste as defined by EPA regulations (40 C.F.R.
Part 261, Subparts C and D) that contains radioactive materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act.
69 DOE, “Secretary, N.M. Delegation Recognize WIPP Reopening,” January 9, 2017; “WIPP Receives First Shipment
Since Reopening,” April 10, 2017, http://www.wipp.energy.gov/wipprecovery/recovery.html.
Congressional Research Service

1

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

see CRS Report R45880, Long-Term Federal Management of Uranium Mill Tailings:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Lance N. Larson.)
Mixed waste. Chemically hazardous waste that includes radioactive material. High-level, low-
level, and TRU waste, and radioactive byproduct material, often falls under the designation of
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
Protection Agency (EPA) and states regulate the nonradioactive elements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Spent Nuclear Fuel
When spent nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor, usually after several years of power
production, it is thermally 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 long.
A fresh fuel rod, which emits relatively little radioactivity, contains pellets made of uranium that
has been enriched in the isotope U-235 (usually 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
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
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
overheating and to protect workers from radiation. To prevent the pools from filling up, older,
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
years before being transferred to dry storage.70

70 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendations for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue
on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel,” op. cit., Enclosure 1, p. 77.
Congressional Research Service

2

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Figure 1. Example of a Nuclear Fuel Assembly

Source: Department of Energy.
Spent fuel discharged from U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is currently stored at 57 operating
nuclear plant sites, 17 shutdown plant sites, and the Idaho National Laboratory.71 A typical large
commercial nuclear reactor discharges an average of 20-30 metric tons of spent fuel per year—an
average of about 2,200 metric tons annually for the entire U.S. nuclear power industry during the
past two decades. An Oak Ridge National Laboratory interactive database estimates that about
83,800 metric tons of spent fuel was stored at U.S. nuclear plants in 2019, including 7,300 metric
tons at closed plant sites.72 A recent study for DOE estimated that about 30,000 metric tons of
spent fuel was stored in dry casks at the end of 2017.73 The total amount of existing waste would
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
repository.
As long as nuclear power continues to be generated, the amount of spent fuel stored at plant sites
will 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
of the total amount of spent fuel from existing U.S. reactors that may eventually require disposal
range from 105,000 metric tons74 to 130,000 metric tons.75

71 Gutherman Technical Services, 2012 Used Fuel Data, January 30, 2013. Adjusted for seven sites closed since 2012.
Includes General Electric’s spent fuel storage facility at Morris, IL, located adjacent to the Dresden nuclear plant. Also,
the Hope Creek and Salem nuclear plants in New Jersey are counted as a single site.
72 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, CURIE interactive map, “Total Mass (MTU) in Storage in 2019,” viewed
September 14, 2020, https://curie.ornl.gov/map. Spent fuel mass typically refers to the metric tons of uranium (MTU)
in the original fuel.
73 Vinson, op. cit.
74 DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, OCRWM Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2002,
DOE/RW-0560, October 2003, Appendix C.
75 DOE Office of Civilian 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

3

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

New storage capacity at operating nuclear plant sites or other locations will be required if DOE is
unable to begin accepting waste into its disposal system for an indefinite period. Most utilities are
expected to construct new dry storage capacity at reactor sites. Seventy-five licensed dry storage
facilities were operating at U.S. nuclear plant and DOE sites as of July 2019.76
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
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 alloy cladding of spent
fuel to catch fire and release hazardous amounts of radioactivity, although it characterized the
probability of such a fire as low.
In a report released April 6, 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that
“successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible.” To reduce the
likelihood 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 installed above
the pools, and that more fuel be transferred from pools to dry cask storage.77 The nuclear industry
contends that the several hours required for uncovered spent fuel to heat up enough to catch fire
would allow 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
casks.78
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.
The task force recommended that assured sources of electrical power as well as water spray
systems be available for spent fuel pools.79 NRC approved an order March 9, 2012, requiring U.S.
reactors to install improved water-level monitoring equipment at their spent fuel pools.80
For more background, see CRS Report R42513, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, by James D.
Werner, and CRS In Focus IF11201, Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in the United States, by Lance
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,
released April 6, 2005, p. 2.
78 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendations for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue
on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel,” op. cit.
79 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident, Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, p. 46, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/
ML1118/ML111861807.pdf.
80 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC to Issue Orders, Information Request as Part of Implementing Fukushima-
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.
Congressional Research Service

4

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. The
radioactivity of low-level waste is only a tiny fraction of the amount in annual discharges of spent
fuel.
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
classes B and C generally 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
(GTCC). NRC generally considers GTCC waste unsuitable for shallow land burial with the other
classes of low-level waste and requires that it be disposed of in a geologic repository or
alternative facility approved by NRC.82
Current Policy and Regulation
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
development of the Yucca Mountain repository after FY2010, although Yucca Mountain remains
the sole candidate site for civilian highly radioactive waste disposal under current law. The Trump
Administration requested appropriations to revive the program in FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020,
but no funding was enacted. The Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Mountain
project for FY2021.
Under the Obama Administration, DOE issued an alternative waste management strategy in
January 2013 that called 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
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 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
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
established to pay for the program. The fee, set at a tenth of a cent (one mill) per kilowatt-hour,
can be adjusted by the Secretary of Energy based on projected total program costs after a
congressional review period. DOE was required to select three candidate sites for the first
national high-level waste repository.
After much controversy over DOE’s implementation of NWPA, the act was substantially
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
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.

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
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
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
receives a construction permit. The repository recommendation was made in February 2002, but
DOE has not announced any plans for siting an MRS.
Along with halting all funding for the Yucca Mountain project, the Obama Administration
terminated OCRWM at the end of FY2010 and transferred its remaining functions to DOE’s
Office of Nuclear Energy. The Administration established the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop a new waste management strategy, and the BRC
issued its final report on January 26, 2012.83
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
policy, with Yucca Mountain identified by law as the sole candidate site, “has now all but
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
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
legally binding agreements on the roles of the affected parties, including local oversight, and
other project parameters.
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 eventually succeed. In particular, the
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
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).
To carry out the new waste management program, the BRC recommended that a congressionally
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
oversight and to regulation by NRC. Pending establishment of the corporation, the BRC
recommended that administrative and legislative changes be implemented in the Nuclear Waste
Fund to allow funds to be used for the waste management program without having to compete
with other appropriations priorities.
The BRC called for “prompt efforts” to develop a permanent underground nuclear waste
repository and to develop one or more interim central storage facilities. Interim storage facilities
are especially 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
interim storage effort to assure that interim sites would not become “de facto” permanent
repositories, according to the commission.
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 2013.84 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-

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
2025 with a capacity of 20,000 metric tons or more.
The DOE strategy under the Obama Administration called for the interim storage facility to be
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
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
movement on a pilot or larger storage facility that could make progress against the waste
management mission.”
Under the 2013 DOE strategy, a geologic disposal facility would open by 2048—50 years after
the initially planned opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository. Sites for the proposed
storage and disposal facilities would be selected through a “consent based” process, as
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
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
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
waste management entity, as recommended by the BRC, but the nature of the new organization
was not specified by the DOE strategy. A bill introduced in the 116th Congress by Senator
Murkowski (S. 1234), discussed under “Congressional Action,” would establish an independent
Nuclear Waste Administration and establish a consent-based process for new waste sites, although
the existing Yucca Mountain authorization would be left intact. Other proposals have called for
privatization of waste management services.85
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,
a separate repository for such waste would not be subject to the Yucca Mountain siting
requirement that applies to a civilian nuclear waste repository under NWPA. The idea would
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
report concluded that a separate repository for the nation’s relatively small volumes of defense
and research waste (compared to civilian waste) could be developed more quickly, “within
existing legislative authority,” than a repository for all 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
Foundation, March 28, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/nuclear-waste-management-minimum-
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

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.
However, an Obama Administration fact sheet said that other potential rail routes would still be
available.87
Private Interim Storage
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
nuclear 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 called Waste
Control Partners, which submitted a renewed application for the Texas facility on June 11, 2018.89
The proposed WCS 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
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
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 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 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/
Basin%20and%20Range%20National%20Monument%20Q&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
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.
90 Waste Control Specialists, “WCS Files License Application with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to Operate
a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) for Used Nuclear Fuel,” April 28, 2016, news release,
http://www.wcstexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4_28_16.WCS_Release.pdf; Valhi, Inc., “Valhi’s Waste
Control Specialists Subsidiary to Apply for License to Store Used Nuclear Fuel,” February 7, 2015,
http://www.wcstexas.com/press-release/; Waste Control Specialists LLC, License Application, Docket 72-1050,
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 cavity covered by a
radiation-shielding lid.94
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
Mexico could allow the company to remove all the spent fuel from its decommissioned nuclear
plants without necessarily having to transfer title to the fuel to DOE beforehand. “Holtec hopes to
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
also said Holtec’s reactor decommissioning business “will welcome several more nuclear plants
in the next two years.”95 The news release did not specify whether the costs of spent fuel
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
WIPP facility have long supported the development of additional waste facilities at that site,
which was originally planned to hold high-level waste before the state objected.
New Mexico Governor Michelle 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
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
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
States and there is no existing plan to build one, any ‘interim’ storage facility will be an indefinite
storage facility, and the risks for New Mexicans, our natural resources and our economy are too
high.”96
Interest in hosting nuclear waste sites has also been expressed by groups in Mississippi and
Loving County, Texas, although whether they would be developed by the private sector or the
government has not been specified.97 The Mississippi Public Service Commission unanimously
passed a resolution in 2014 to oppose national nuclear waste sites in the state.98 The Loving
County proposal also has faced public opposition.99 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 28, 2020,
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/santafenewmexican.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/13/
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 Business Journal, June 4, 2014,
https://msbusiness.com/2014/06/psc-passes-anti-nuclear-waste-storage-resolution.
99 Diaz, Kevin, “Texas, New Mexico Could Be Nuclear Repository Sites, Jeb Bush Suggests,” San Antonio Express-
News, October 22, 2015, https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/Texas-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.
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,
concluding there was too much risk that the waste could remain at the site indefinitely.101 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
Wilderness Area and that existing roads would be inadequate.102
The Skull Valley 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.103 A federal district court
judge on July 26, 2010, ordered the Department of the Interior to reconsider its decisions on the
PFS permits.104 However, PFS asked NRC to terminate its license on December 20, 2012.105
Regulatory Requirements for Yucca Mountain
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 still focuses on
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
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486), EPA was required to write new repository standards
specifically 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

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 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.
102 Bureau 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.
103 Winslow, Ben, “Goshutes, PFS Sue Interior,” Deseret Morning News, July 18, 2007.
104 U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Skull Valley Band of Goshute 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/
docs/court/goshute/order072610.pdf.
105 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.
Congressional Research Service

10

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
general standards might be impossible or impractical to meet at Yucca Mountain.106 The Yucca
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
Academy of Sciences (NAS), which was issued August 1, 1995.107 The NAS study recommended
that the Yucca Mountain environmental standards establish a limit on risk to individuals near the
repository, rather than setting specific limits for the releases of radioactive material or on
radioactive doses, 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
behavior thousands of years into the future.
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
to 15 millirems for the “reasonably maximally exposed individual,” and to 4 millirems from
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 maximally exposed individual of 7
chances in 1 million. The nuclear industry criticized the EPA proposal as being unnecessarily
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
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
of the major provisions of the proposed version, including the 15 millirem overall exposure limit
and the 4 millirem groundwater limit. Despite the department’s opposition to the EPA standards,
DOE’s site suitability 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
standards.
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.108 The court ruled
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
specifically 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
future.
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
the first 10,000 years but allowed a higher annual dose of 350 millirems for the period of 10,000
years through 1 million years. EPA also proposed to base the post-10,000-year Yucca Mountain
standard on the median dose, rather than the mean, potentially 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
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 million years from
the proposed 350 millirems to 100 millirems, which the agency contended was consistent with
international standards. Under the final rule, compliance with the post-10,000-year standard will
be based on the arithmetic mean of projected doses, rather than the median as proposed. The 4
millirem groundwater standard will continue to apply only to the first 10,000 years.111 NRC
revised its repository licensing regulations to conform to the new EPA standards on April 13,
2009.112 DOE estimated in its June 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(FSEIS) for the Yucca Mountain repository that the maximum mean annual individual dose after
10,000 years would be 2 millirems. That is substantially below the level estimated by the 2002
Final Environmental Impact Statement, which calculated that the peak doses—occurring after
400,000 years—would be about 150 millirems (Volume 1, Chapter 5). The FSEIS attributed the
reduction to changes in DOE’s computer model and in the assumptions used, noting that “various
elements of DOE’s modeling approach may be challenged as part of the NRC licensing
process.”113
Alternative Technologies
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
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 FY2021 budget
justification.114
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
spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository, specifically at Yucca Mountain, a process often
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

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 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, November 2005.
111 Posted on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/public-health-and-environmental-radiation-protection-
standards-yucca-mountain-nevada-40.
112 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Implementation of a Dose Standard After 10,000 Years,” 74 Federal Register
10811, March 13, 2009.
113 FSEIS, p. S-42. Posted on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0817/ML081750191.html.
114 DOE, FY 2021 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 2, February 2020, p. 41, https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2020/04/f73/doe-fy2021-budget-volume-3-part-2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

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
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
several miles below ground, also have been studied.115
Program Costs
Nuclear utilities 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
spend the money in the fund until it is appropriated by Congress. At the beginning of FY2020, the
Waste Fund balance stood at $40.4 billion, according to the FY2021 Administration budget
request.116 Before the Obama Administration halted the Yucca Mountain project after FY2010,
$7.41 billion had been disbursed from the Waste Fund, according to DOE’s program summary
report.117 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, 2008.118 According
to that estimate, the Yucca Mountain program as then planned would cost $96.2 billion in 2007
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
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
Administration to dispose of defense and civilian nuclear waste together. Then-Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz described the proposed defense-only repository as potentially easier to site, license,
and construct than a combined defense-civilian repository, because defense waste constitutes a
relatively small 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.119

115 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-
demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals.
116 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Appendix, p. 409, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/appendix_fy21.pdf.
117 DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Program Management, Monthly Summary of
Program Financial and Budget Information, as of January 31, 2010, available at http://www.thenwsc.org/ym/
DOE%20Financial%20&%20Budget%20Summary%20013110.pdf. The report notes that some figures may not add
due to independent rounding.
118 Available on the DOE website at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/
FY_2007_TotalSystemLifeCycleCost_Pub2008.pdf.
119 DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines,
Borehole Seals Design, and RD&D Needs,” undated web 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
siting process were 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
major costs “that could add tens of billions of dollars” and including a schedule that “appears
optimistic,” in light of “past repository siting experiences.”121
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
deflect efforts to resume progress on Yucca Mountain.122 A provision to block development of a
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,
2018. The measure was not enacted by the 115th Congress but has been reintroduced in the 116th
Congress (H.R. 2699).
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Current Policy
Selecting disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste, which generally consists of low
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
joined congressionally 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
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
two—at Barnwell, SC, and Hanford, WA—are using their congressionally granted authority to
prohibit waste from outside their regional compacts. Another site, in Utah, has since become
available 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-level waste near Andrews, TX, in
2012 may have alleviated 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 million cubic feet of disposal capacity
may be allocated to waste from other states.123 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 Understood Before DOE Commits to a Separate
Repository for Defense Waste, January 2017, GAO-17-174, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682385.pdf.
122 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-
nuclear-waste-delay.
123 Waste Control Specialists, “Our Facilities: Compact Waste Facility,” http://www.wcstexas.com/facilities/compact-
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
Legislation providing congressional consent to the Texas compact, which originally also included
Maine as well 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
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and Maine subsequently withdrew. Texas
Governor Rick Perry signed legislation June 20, 2003, authorizing the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to license adjoining disposal facilities for commercial and
federally 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
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, 2011.126
The disposal facility at Barnwell, SC, is currently accepting all class A, B, and C low-level waste
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
Carolina can limit the use of the Barnwell 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
Barnwell 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
Carolina proposal to open the Barnwell 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
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 Barnwell from all
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
Carolina to sanctions under the compact.127
The only other existing disposal facility for all three major classes of low-level waste is at
Hanford, WA. Controlled by the Northwest Compact, the Hanford site will continue taking waste
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
NRC or by “agreement states” with regulatory programs approved by NRC. NRC regulations
governing low-level waste licenses128 must conform to general environmental protection
standards and radiation protection guidelines issued by EPA. Transportation of low-level waste is
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, http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/radmat/licensing/wcs_license_app.html#wcs_status.
127 Alabama et al. v. North Carolina, S. Ct. (2010), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/132Orig.pdf.
128 10 C.F.R. Part 61, Licensing Requirements 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 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.
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
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
inadvertent intruders at a low-level waste site. NRC’s current low-level waste regulations were
adopted in 1982.
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
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
GTCC waste disposal on July 22, 2019.131
Concluding Discussion
Disposal of radioactive waste will be a key issue in the continuing nuclear power debate. Without
central disposal or storage facilities, spent fuel from nuclear power plants must be stored on-site
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
about spent fuel storage safety was heightened by the March 2011 disaster at Japan’s Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear plant.
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
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
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
Yucca Mountain licensing process, the Administration did not seek funding for FY2021. The
NRC staff’s finding in October 2014 that the Yucca Mountain site would meet NRC standards
after the repository was filled and sealed has been cited as evidence of the project’s continued
technical viability if funding were restarted.132
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,
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 from the federal judgment fund. DOE estimates that its potential liabilities
for waste program delays could total as much as $36.5 billion, including the $8.0 billion already
paid to Exelon and other utilities in settlements and final judgments. The nuclear industry has
predicted that future damages could rise by tens of billions of dollars more if the federal disposal
program fails altogether.
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.133 In addition, further
repository delays could force DOE to miss compliance deadlines for defense waste disposal.
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
storage, continued storage at existing nuclear sites, reprocessing and waste treatment technology,
development of alternative repository sites, or a combination. The commission recommended that
a congressionally chartered corporation be established to undertake a negotiated process for siting
new waste storage and disposal facilities.
The “consent based” nuclear waste siting process recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission,
and which would be authorized by several bills in Congress, has attracted serious interest from
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
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 success of any renewed “consent
based” siting effort.
For Additional Reading
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.
Commissioned Papers. 2010-2011. Reports on current nuclear waste issues.
http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620214809/http://brc.gov/index.php?q=
library/documents/commissioned-papers.
Government Accountability Office, “Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste,”
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary.
Harvard University. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs. The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel.
DE-FG26-99FT4028. December 2003.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel. Revision 1A. September 2018. https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/
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 2015. https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/disposal_options.pdf?sfvrsn=
7.
Experience Gained from Programs to Manage High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent
Nuclear Fuel in the United States and Other Countries. April 2011. https://www.nwtrb.gov/
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. https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb-sept-09.pdf?
sfvrsn=7.
RAND Corporation. Managing Spent Nuclear Fuel: Strategy Alternatives and Policy
Implications. 2010. 71 pp. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/
RAND_MG970.pdf.
Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation and George Washington
University Elliott School of International Affairs. Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste
Management: Strategy and Policy. October 15, 2018. 126 pp. https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-
1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/reset_report_2018_final.pdf.
University of Illinois. Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security. ‘Plan
D’ for Spent Nuclear Fuel. 2009. http://acdis.illinois.edu/publications/207/publication-
PlanDforSpentNuclearFuel.html.
U.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/
prod/files/2017/01/f34/Draft%20Consent-
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-
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/
Strategy%20for%20the%20Management%20and%20Disposal%20of%20Used%20Nuclear%
20Fuel%20and%20High%20Level%20Radioactive%20Waste.pdf.
Used Fuel Disposition Campaign: Disposal Research and Development Roadmap, March
2011, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/UFD_Disposal_R%26D_Roadmap_Rev_0.1.pdf.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, website, updated September 1, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/
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, 2014. 781 pp.
Voegele, Michael D. and Donald L. Vieth, Waste of a Mountain: How Yucca Mountain Was
Selected, Studied, and Dumped. Nye County Press, 2016. 920 pp. (2 vol.)
Walker, J. Samuel. The Road to Yucca Mountain: The Development of Radioactive Waste Policy
in the United States. University of California Press. 2009. 228 pp.
Congressional Research Service

18

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Author Information

Mark Holt

Specialist in Energy Policy

Disclaimer
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
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
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
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
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.

Congressional Research Service
RL33461 · VERSION 56 · UPDATED
19