Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
September 17, 2021
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 Trump
Administration requested no funding for Yucca Mountain licensing and development, and none has been sought by the Biden
Administration for FY2022.
With no spent fuel disposal or storage facilities currently under development by DOE, two private-sector storage facilities in
New Mexico and Texas have been proposed. The Texas facility received an NRC license on September 13, 2021, and NRC
plans to issue a decision on the New Mexico facility in January 2022. These near-surface Consolidated Interim Storage
Facilities are intended to hold spent fuel from nuclear power plants around the country until a permanent underground
repository is available. However, they are facing strong opposition from the two proposed host states.
NWPA required DOE to begin removing spent fuel from reactor sites by January 31, 1998. Because that deadline was
missed, nuclear utilities have sued DOE to recover the additional storage costs they have incurred, with damage payments so
far totaling $8.6 billion.
Several nuclear waste bills have been introduced in the 117th Congress. These include proposals to make further expenditures
on Yucca Mountain subject to state and local consent (H.R. 1524, S. 541), authorize DOE to develop consent-based nuclear
waste storage facilities and contract for nonfederal storage (H.R. 2097), and provide federal assistance to communities for
waste stored at closed reactors (S. 1290, H.R. 3731). The Senate Appropriations Committee included an authorization for a
DOE spent nuclear fuel storage pilot program, subject to state, local, and tribal consent, in its FY2022 Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill (S. 2605).
In the 116th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27, 2019, on a bill to creat e a
Nuclear Waste Administration to implement a consent-based siting process for newly proposed nuclear waste facilities (S.
1234). The bill would not have affected the existing Yucca Mountain licensing process. A bill to provide the necessary land
controls for the planned Yucca Mountain repository (H.R. 2699) was approved by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee November 20, 2019. The bill also would have authorized DOE to store commercial waste from nuclear power
plants at a nonfederal interim storage facility and eased the capacity limit on the Yucca Mountain repository from 70,000 to
110,000 metric tons. It was similar to a bill passed by the House in the 115th Congress (H.R. 3053, H.Rept. 115-355) and to a
bill (S. 2917) introduced and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee November 20, 2019.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 51 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 47

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 Trump Administration did not seek further funding for the project for
FY2021; neither has the Biden Administration for FY2022. Licensing and development of the
permanent underground repository has been suspended since FY2010, under the Obama
Administration.
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 stil 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 cal ed 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
DOE issued a draft consent-based siting process on January 12, 2017, shortly before the start of
the Trump Administration.2 The Biden Administration, in requesting no funding for Yucca
Mountain in FY2022, promised to “support a consent-based siting approach working with
potential host communities.”3
Yucca Mountain Licensing
No Yucca Mountain licensing bil s have been introduced to date in the 117th Congress. In the
116th Congress, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bil (H.R. 2699) to
withdraw the Yucca Mountain site from other uses under the public lands laws, but it was not
enacted. It was similar to a bil passed by the House in the 115th Congress (H.R. 3053, H.Rept.
115-355) but also not enacted. The land withdrawal would have satisfied one of the remaining
licensing conditions identified by the NRC staff in its Yucca Mountain repository Safety
Evaluation Report (SER), the final two volumes of which were issued on January 29, 2015.

1 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, 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.
3 DOE, FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification, DOE/CF-0174, vol. 3, part 2, p. 58, https://www.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/2021-06/doe-fy2022-budget-volume-3.2-v3.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

NRC completed the SER in response to a court order that the Yucca Mountain repository
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 al 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.4
However, the staff said upon completing the SER that NRC should not authorize construction of
the repository until al land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s
environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed.5 NRC completed the supplemental EIS in
May 20166 and made its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available,
using al the remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.7
Then-NRC Chairman Stephen Burns testified March 4, 2015, that his agency would need $330
mil ion 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.8 As
noted above, the Biden Administration did not request FY2022 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 bil to
create a Nuclear Waste Administration to implement a consent-based siting process for nuclear
waste facilities (S. 1234), which had no further action in the 116th Congress. Siting of new waste
storage and disposal facilities would have required consent by host states and affected local
governments and Indian tribes. The bil would not have affected the existing Yucca Mountain
licensing process. Similar legislation has not been introduced to date in the 117th Congress.
Provisions to authorize DOE to develop consent-based pilot interim storage facilities for spent
nuclear fuel were included in the FY2022 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bil
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 4, 2021 (S. 2605, S.Rept. 117-36).
Under Section 308 of the bil , DOE would be 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, al loc alities
with jurisdiction over the site, and any affected Indian tribes. The committee included similar
language in its FY2020 Energy and Water funding measure (S. 2470, S.Rept. 116-102), but it was
not included in the enacted FY2020 funding measure (P.L. 116-94). Similar provisions had been
included, but ultimately not enacted, in previous Energy and Water Development appropriations
bil s reported by the Senate panel.

4 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/.
5 NRC, “NRC Publishes Final T wo Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation ,” news release 15-005, January 29.
2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/.
6 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/.
7 NRC, “ NRC Makes Yucca Mountain Hearing Documents Publicly Available,” news release, August 19, 2016,
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1623/ML16232A429.pdf.
8 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 bil (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May
10, 2018, but were not enacted. The bil 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 bil 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, but it was
not enacted.
Private-Sector Waste Storage Sites
With no spent fuel disposal or storage facilities currently under development by DOE, two
private-sector storage facilities in New Mexico and Texas have been proposed. The Texas facility
received an NRC license on September 13, 2021, and NRC plans to issue a decision on the New
Mexico facility in January 2022.9 These near-surface Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities are
intended to hold spent fuel from nuclear power plants around the country until a permanent
underground repository is available.
The storage facilities are facing strong opposition from the two proposed host states. New Mexico
filed a lawsuit against NRC on March 29, 2021, and the Texas governor signed a law banning
new spent fuel storage facilities in the state on August 9, 2021.10
The NRC license application for the New Mexico storage facility was filed March 30, 2017, by
Holtec International, a manufacturer of spent fuel storage systems.11 The Texas facility would be
built at a site owned by the waste management company Waste Control Specialists (WCS), which
has other waste operations at the same location. To develop the spent fuel facility, WCS formed a
joint venture with Orano USA cal ed Interim Storage Partners (ISP), which submitted an
application to NRC on June 11, 2018.12 The NRC license issued to ISP in September 2021
authorizes the first phase of the project, which would store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent fuel
out of a possible total of 40,000 metric tons in subsequent phases. Before issuing the license,
NRC issued its final EIS for the proposed Texas facility on July 29, 2021, finding no
environmental impacts that would preclude licensing.
The proposed Holtec facility would be located on a 1,000-acre site provided by a local
government consortium near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Eddy-Lea

9 NRC, “NRC Issues License to Interim Storage Partners for Consolidated Spent Nuclear Fuel Interim Storage Facility
in T exas,” news release 21-036, September 13, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-
036.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Mn0i8pChxfYNiF14v6ILsSkLbCxu8Ai7XPc97P3QjHmQoSFvqBMm -Xos.
10 New Mexico Attorney General, “Attorney General Balderas Announces Lawsuit to Halt Holtec Nuclear Storage
Facility,” news release, March 29, 2021, https://www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/
48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/
Attorney_General_Balderas_Announces_Lawsuit_to_Halt_Holtec_Nuclear_Storage_Facility.pdf ; T exas Governor
Greg Abbott, “ Interim Storage Partners (ISP) Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project, Docket ID NRC-2016-
0231,” November 3, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2030/ML20309B061.pdf; T exas Legislature Online, Actions,
HB7, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB7.
11 NRC, “Holtec International—HI-ST ORE CISF,” April 5, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/
holtec-international.html.
12 Orano USA, “Interim Storage Partners Submits Renewed NRC License Application for Used Nuclear Fuel
Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in West T exas,” press release, June 11, 2018, http://us.areva.com/EN/home-
4216/orano-orano-usa—interim-storage-partners-submits-renewed-nrc-license-application-for-used-nuclear-fuel-
consolidated-interim-storage-facility-in-west-texas.html.
Congressional Research Service

3

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Energy Al iance (ELEA). Total storage capacity is to be about 120,000 metric tons.13 The
proposed ISP spent fuel storage facility would be built at a 14,000-acre site near Andrews, TX,
where WCS 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 contended that a privately developed spent fuel storage facility would not be bound by
NWPA restrictions that prohibit DOE from building a storage facility without making progress on
Yucca Mountain.14 However, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a 2019 letter that current law
prohibits DOE from contracting for spent nuclear fuel storage at a private facility.15
A bil to explicitly authorize DOE to enter into contracts with nonfederal interim storage facilities
for spent fuel (H.R. 2097) was introduced March 19, 2021. Nonfederal interim storage provisions
were included in legislation (H.R. 3053) passed by the House on May 10, 2018. As noted above,
the bil was not enacted by the 115th Congress, and a similar bil in the 116th Congress (H.R.
2699) was not enacted.
Waste Program Appropriations
The Biden Administration’s first budget request, for FY2022, does not include funding for the
Yucca Mountain project. However, it would provide $7.5 mil ion for maintaining security at the
Yucca Mountain site and other administrative activities, as wel as $38 mil ion “to lay the
groundwork for effective implementation of consolidated interim storage.”16 The House passed an
FY2022 funding bil (H.R. 4502, H.Rept. 117-98) on July 29, 2021, that includes $27.5 mil ion
for nuclear waste disposal, including $7.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The House
Appropriations Committee report said, “The Department is directed to move forward under
existing authority to identify a site for a federal interim storage facility. The Department is further
directed to use a consent-based approach when undertaking these activities.” The Senate
Appropriations Committee approved its FY2022 Energy and Water Development funding bil
with the same nuclear waste disposal amounts as the House bil on August 4, 2021 (S. 2605,
S.Rept. 117-36). As noted above, the Senate committee bil also would authorize a pilot nuclear
waste storage facility with the consent of the host state, units of local government, and affected
Indian tribes (Section 308).
The Trump Administration’s FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests would have
provided the first new Yucca Mountain funding since FY2010, although the requests were not
approved by Congress. For FY2021, the Trump Administration did not request funds for the
Yucca Mountain project, and none were appropriated. Instead, Congress provided $20 mil ion for

13 Holtec International, “ Holtec’s Proposed Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in Southeastern New Mexico ,” 2018,
https://holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/hi-store-cis/.
14 Jeff Beattie, “Waste Control Specialists Sets 2020 Date to Open Spent Fuel Storage Facility,” IHS The Energy Daily,
February 10, 2015, p. 1; and Elaine Hiruo, “T exas Company Seeks License for Spent Fuel Storage,” Nucleonics Week,
February 12, 2015, p. 1.
15 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Letter to the Honorable Deb Haaland, U.S. House of Representatives, O ctober 23,
2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1931/ML19311C801.pdf. T he letter cites an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Memorandum and Order, In the Matter of Holtec International, May 7, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
ML1912/ML19127A026.pdf.
16 DOE, FY 2022 Conressional Budget Justification, May 2021, vol. 3, part 2, p. 35, https://www.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/2021-06/doe-fy2022-budget-volume-3.2-v3.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

interim storage and $7.5 mil ion (from the Nuclear Waste Fund) for Nuclear Waste Fund
oversight activities (P.L. 116-260).
Policy Background
Nuclear waste has sometimes been cal ed the Achil es’ heel of the nuclear power industry. Much
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.17 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,
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 cal ed
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, nor did the incoming
Biden Administration for FY2022.
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.18 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

17 T he term “spent nuclear fuel” is defined by NWPA as “fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor f ollowing
irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing.” T he nuclear industry refers to
this material as “used fuel,” because it contains potentially reusable uranium and plutonium after reprocessing.
18 U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw, NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63 -001,
March 3, 2010, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100621397.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Nevada but drew opposition from states with defense-related and civilian radioactive waste that
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 wil
significantly undermine the government’s ability to fulfil its outstanding obligation to take
possession and dispose of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high level nuclear waste.”19
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.20 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.”21 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
application as long as funding was available. The court determined that NRC had at least $11.1
mil ion in previously appropriated funds for that purpose.22
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.23 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 mil ion years after being permanently
sealed.24 NRC issued the final two volumes of the Yucca Mountain SER on January 29, 2015.25
Upon completing the SER, the staff said that NRC should not authorize construction of the
repository until al land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s EIS
was completed. NRC completed the supplemental EIS in May 2016 and made its database of
Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available, using al the remaining previously
appropriated licensing funds.26 NRC Chairman Stephen Burns testified March 4, 2015, that NRC
would need $330 mil ion 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.27

19 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, “NARUC Seeks Party Status at NRC, Says Yucca
Review Must Continue,” press release, March 16, 2010, http://www.naruc.org/News/default.cfm?pr=191&pdf=.
20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63 -001-HLW, Memorandum
and Order, June 29, 2010.
21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository),”
CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/2011-
07cli.pdf.
22 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 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.
23 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.
24 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/.
25 NRC, “NRC Publishes Final T wo Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation,” news release 15 -005, January 29.
2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/.
26 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.
27 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12-15 Months,”
Congressional Research Service

6

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

After halting the Yucca Mountain project in 2010, the Obama Administration established the Blue
Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to develop alternative waste disposal
strategies. The BRC issued its final report on January 26, 2012, recommending that a new,
“single-purpose organization” be given the authority and resources to promptly begin developing
one or more nuclear waste repositories and consolidated storage facilities. The new organization
would use a “consent based” process to select waste facility sites.28 The BRC had commissioned
a series of reports on various aspects of nuclear waste policy to assist in its deliberations.29
In response to the BRC report, and to provide an outline for a new nuclear waste program, DOE
issued its Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste
in January 2013. The DOE strategy cal ed for a new nuclear waste management entity to develop
consent-based storage and disposal sites, similar to the BRC recommendation. Under the DOE
strategy, a pilot interim spent fuel storage facility was to be opened by 2021 and a larger-scale
storage facility, which could be an expansion of the pilot facility, by 2025. A geologic disposal
facility was to open by 2048—50 years after the initially planned opening date for the Yucca
Mountain repository.30
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 included 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.31 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 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 wil ingness 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 “al required parties,” presumably
including the host state government.

NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015.
28 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (BRC Final Report).
29 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Commissioned Papers, http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/
archive/brc/20120620214809/http://brc.gov/index.php?q=library/documents/commissioned-papers.
30 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High -Level Waste, op. cit.
31 DOE, “Invitation for Public Comment to Inform the Design of a Consent -Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste
Storage and Disposal Facilities,” Federal Register, December 23, 2015, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/
12/23/2015-32346/invitation-for-public-comment-to-inform-the-design-of-a-consent-based-siting-process-for-nuclear.
Congressional Research Service

7

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

 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.32
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.33
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 mil ions of years, it appeared technical y feasible to isolate radioactive materials
from the environment until they decayed to safe levels. “There is strong worldwide consensus
that the best, safest long-term option for dealing with HLW is geologic isolation,” according to
the National Research Council.34
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 al egations 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 mil ion
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
al owed 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

32 DOE, Draft Consent-Based Siting Process for Consolidated Storage and Disposal Facilities for Spent Nuclear Fuel
and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January 12, 2017, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/
Draft%20Consent -Based%20Siting%20Process%20and%20Siting%20Considerations.pdf .
33 Nuclear Energy Institute, “Nuclear Waste Management: Disposal,” October 28, 2014, http://www.nei.org/Issues-
Policy/Nuclear-Waste-Management/Disposal.
34 National Research Council, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal: A Position Statem ent of the Board on Radioactive Waste Managem ent (1990), p. 2.
Congressional Research Service

8

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

within 90 days of continuous session. An approval resolution was signed by President Bush July
23, 2002 (P.L. 107-200).35
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.
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.36 The Texas
Legislature approved legislation in May 2011 to al ow up to 30% of the facility’s capacity to be
used by states outside the Texas Compact, which consists of Texas and Vermont.37
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 al 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, 1998.38
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 al owed PECO to keep up to
$80 mil ion 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

35 Senator Bingaman introduced the approval resolution in the Senate April 9, 2002 (S.J.Res. 34), and Representative
Barton introduced it in the House April 11, 2002 (H.J.Res. 87). T he Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved H.J.Res. 87 on April 23 by a 24-2 vote, and the full committee
approved the measure two days later, 41-6 (H.Rept. 107-425). T he resolution was passed by the House May 8, 2002, by
a vote of 306-117. T he Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved S.J.Res. 34 by a 13-10 vote June
5, 2002 (S.Rept. 107-159). Following a 60-39 vote to consider S.J.Res. 34, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 87 by voice vote
July 9, 2002.
36 Waste Control Specialists LLC, “Historic T exas Compact Disposal Facility Ready for Business,”
http://www.wcstexas.com.
37 Waste Control Specialists LLC, “Waste Control Specialists Commends Passage of Legislation,” press release, May
31, 2011, http://www.wcstexas.com/pdfs/press/
WCS%20Press%20Release%20Announcing%20Legislation.final.5.31.11.pdf .
38 T he Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste can be found at 10
C.F.R. 961.11.
Congressional Research Service

9

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

DOE waste program and not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed, ruling September 24, 2002, that any compensation would
have to come from general revenues or other sources than the waste fund. Subsequent nuclear
waste compensation to utilities has come from the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund, a permanent
account that is used to cover damage claims against the U.S. government. Payments from the
Judgment Fund do not require appropriations.39
Through FY2020, nuclear waste payments from the Judgment Fund included $6.3 bil ion
resulting from settlements and $2.3 bil ion from final court judgments, for a total of about $8. 6
bil ion, according to DOE. By the end of FY2020, 41 lawsuits had been settled, representing
utilities that own 80% of nuclear reactors subject to litigation. In addition, 63 cases had received
final court judgments.40 Under the settlements, utilities submit annual reimbursement claims to
DOE for any delay-related nuclear waste storage costs they incurred during that year. Any
disagreements over reimbursable claims between DOE and a utility would go to arbitration.
Utilities that have not settled with the Department of Justice have continued seeking damage
compensation through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Unlike the settlements, which cover al
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 $39.2
bil ion, including the $8.6 bil ion already paid in settlements and final judgments.41
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 potential y 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 mil ion per year, should not
be collected while the federal government’s nuclear waste disposal program has been halted.42

39 T he Judgment Fund has a permanent, indefinite appropriation for the payment of final judgments and settlements.
See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, “About the Judgment Fund,” March 22, 2018,
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/judgment -fund/about.html.
40 DOE, Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2020, DOE/CF-0160, p. 88, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
2020/11/f80/fy-2020-doe-agency-financial-report.pdf.
41 DOE, Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2020, op. cit.
42 NARUC, “State Regulators Go to Court with DOE over Nuclear Waste Fees, news release, April 2, 2010,
http://www.naruc.org/News/default.cfm?pr=193; Nuclear Energy Institute et al. v. U.S. DOE, Joint Petition for
Congressional Research Service

10

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

DOE responded that the federal government stil intended to dispose of the nation’s nuclear waste
and that the fees must continue to be collected to cover future disposal costs.43 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.44
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, al of which would affect the level of nuclear waste fees required.45
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 tril ion, but other scenarios
resulted in a surplus of up to $5 tril ion. Because of the widely varying results, DOE concluded
that there was no clear evidence that the fee should be immediately raised or lowered.46
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 al ow a reasonable estimate to
be calculated. The court noted that DOE’s $7 tril ion uncertainty range for the program’s cost was
“so large as to be absolutely useless” for determining the waste fee.47 Pursuant to the court ruling,
DOE stopped collecting nuclear waste fees from nuclear power generators on May 16, 2014.48
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.”49 However, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request, as noted, did
not include funding to restart the Yucca Mountain project, nor did the Biden Administration’s
FY2022 request.

Review, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, April 5, 2010.
43 Jeff Beattie, “NARUC, Utilities Sue DOE Over Nuke Waste Fee,” Energy Daily, April 6, 2010, p. 1.
44 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, “Secretarial Determination of the Adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee,”
November 1, 2010, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Secretarial_Determination_WasteFee.pdf.
45 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy , No. 11-1066, decided June 1, 2012,
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4B11622F4FF75FEC85257A100050A681/$file/11-1066-
1376508.pdf.
46 DOE, “Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy Report,” January 2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
January%2016%202013%20Secretarial%20Determinatio n%20of%20the%20Adequacy%20of%20the%20Nuclear%20
Waste%20Fund%20Fee_0.pdf.
47 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy, No. 11 -1066, November 19, 2013,
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2708C01ECFE3109F85257C280053406E/$file/11-1066-
1466796.pdf.
48 Hiruo, Elaine, “ DOE Implements Court -Ordered Suspension of Nuclear Waste Fee,” NuclearFuel, May 26, 2014.
49 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.
Congressional Research Service

11

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

License Application Withdrawal
DOE’s motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application “with prejudice,” meaning
that it could not be resubmitted in the future, was filed with NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board (ASLB) on March 3, 2010. DOE’s motion argued that the licensing process should be
terminated because “the Secretary of Energy has decided that a geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain is not a workable option” for long-term nuclear waste disposal. Subsequent DOE
statements reiterated that the license withdrawal motion was not based on scientific or tec hnical
findings. Instead, the Obama Administration’s policy change was prompted by the perceived
difficulty in overcoming continued opposition from the State of Nevada and a desire to find a
waste solution with greater public acceptance, according to DOE.50 DOE contended that the
license application should be withdrawn “with prejudice” because of the need to “provide finality
in ending the Yucca Mountain project.”51
The ASLB denied DOE’s license withdrawal motion June 29, 2010, ruling that NWPA prohibits
DOE from withdrawing the license application until NRC determines whether the repository is
acceptable. According to the board, “Surely Congress did not contemplate that, by withdrawing
the Application, DOE might unilateral y terminate the Yucca Mountain review process in favor of
DOE’s independent policy determination that ‘alternatives wil better serve the public interest.’”52
In appealing the ASLB decision to the NRC commissioners, DOE argued in a July 9, 2010, brief
that the Secretary of Energy has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act and Department of
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.”53 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.”54
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.55 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 mil ion in previously appropriated funds for that
purpose.56 As noted above, NRC completed its Safety Evaluation Report for Yucca Mountain in

50 Statement of Peter B. Lyons, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, before the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, June 1, 2011.
51 DOE Motion to Withdraw, op. cit.
52 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, Memorandum
and Order, June 29, 2010.
53 U.S. Department of Energy’s Brief in Support of Review and Reversal of the Board’s Ruling on the Motion to
Withdraw, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, July 9, 2010.
54 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.
55 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.
56 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.
Congressional Research Service

12

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

January 2015 and used the remaining funds to complete a supplemental EIS and make the
licensing database available to the public. Beyond those actions, additional funding of about $330
mil ion would be required for NRC to complete the Yucca Mountain licensing review, including
adjudicatory proceedings before the ASLB, according to NRC.57 In addition, DOE has estimated
that its costs as the license applicant would total about $1.9 bil ion.58
In its first three congressional budget requests, the Trump Administration proposed resuming
consideration of the NRC license, which remains pending before the ASLB. None of those
requests were approved by Congress. DOE’s FY2018 congressional budget request included $110
mil ion for a Yucca Mountain program office, legal and technical support for the license
application, and the management of supporting documents. An additional $30 mil ion was
requested by NRC to restart the ASLB adjudicatory proceeding. The Trump Administration
sought $110 mil ion for DOE and $47.7 mil ion for NRC for Yucca Mountain licensing for
FY2019. The Trump Administration’s FY2020 budget request included $86.5 mil ion for DOE
and $38.5 mil ion for NRC for Yucca Mountain. For FY2021, the Trump Administration did not
request funding for the Yucca Mountain project but sought $27.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste
Fund to develop nuclear waste central interim storage capacity. Congress approved the Trump
Administration’s funding total but specified that only $7.5 mil ion would come from the Nuclear
Waste Fund (P.L. 116-260).
The Biden Administration did not request funding for the Yucca Mountain repository for FY2022
but sought $7.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste Fund for security at the Yucca Mountain site and
other administrative activities. FY2022 Energy and Water Development appropriations bil s
passed by the House (H.R. 4502) and the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 2605) included
the requested $7.5 mil ion from the Nuclear Waste Fund, plus $20 mil ion for central interim
storage preparations.
Waste Confidence Decision and Continued Storage Rule
Before issuing licenses to nuclear reactors and waste storage facilities, NRC is required by a 1979
court decision to determine that waste from those facilities can be safely disposed of.59 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 2007-2009.60 At that time, DOE official y 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.61 When the Yucca Mountain repository was delayed further and then
suspended by the Obama Administration, NRC issued another waste confidence rule in 2010 that

57 Hiruo, Elaine, and Steven Dolley, “NRC Says Staff Can Finish Yucca Supplemental EIS in 12 -15 Months,”
NuclearFuel, March 16, 2015.
58 DOE, Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Fiscal
Year 2007, DOE/RW-0591, July 2008, p. 17, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0927/ML092710177.pdf. Estimate of
future licensing costs adjusted to 2017 dollars using GDP chain -type price index, Econom ic Report of the President,
February 2018, p. 536, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ERP_2018_Final-FINAL.pdf.
59 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.
1979).
60 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision,” 49 Federal Register 34,658, August 31, 1984.
61 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision Review,” 55 Federal Register 38,474, September 18, 1990.
Congressional Research Service

13

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

found that a repository would be available “when necessary” and that waste could be safely
stored at reactor sites for at least 60 years after shutdown.62
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.63
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.64 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
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 al three time frames was judged to be minimal in
almost al categories.65 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, 2016.66
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

62 NRC, “Waste Confidence Decision Update,” 75 Federal Register 81,037, December 23, 2010.
63 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of New York, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, No. 11-1045, decided June 8, 2012, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
57ACA94A8FFAD8AF85257A1700502AA4/$file/11-1045-1377720.pdf.
64 NRC, “ NRC Approves Final Rule on Spent Fuel Storage and Ends Suspension of Final Licensing Actions for
Nuclear Plants and Renewals,” news release, August 26, 2014, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1423/
ML14238A326.pdf.
65 NRC, “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” 79 Federal Register 56238, September 19, 2014. Available at
NRC, “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/wcd/documents.html.
66 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of New York, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, No. 14-1210, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 23 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

voted to continue or restore Yucca Mountain funding, while the Senate zeroed it out, with
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 bil
(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 bil 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, nor
did the Biden Administration for FY2022.
Several nuclear waste bil s have been introduced in the 117th Congress, representing a range of
policy approaches. Nevada lawmakers reintroduced bil s from previous Congresses to make
further expenditures on Yucca Mountain, subject to state and local consent (H.R. 1524, S. 541).
The Storage and Transportation Of Residual and Excess (STORE) Nuclear Fuel Act of 2021
(H.R. 2097) would authorize DOE to develop nuclear waste storage facilities and enter into a
contract to store waste at a nonfederal facility with state, local, and tribal consent. Nuclear power
plant retirements have created growing concern about “stranded” spent nuclear fuel at closed
reactor sites, leading to the reintroduction of legislation to provide federal grants and other
assistance to surrounding communities (S. 1290, H.R. 3731). As it has in previous years, the
Senate Appropriations Committee included an authorization for a DOE spent nuclear fuel storage
pilot program, subject to state, local, and tribal consent, in its FY2022 Energy and Water
Development appropriations bil (S. 2605).
In the 116th Congress, several major nuclear waste bil s were considered but not enacted, as
discussed below. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing June 27,
2019, on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act (S. 1234), which would have established 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 bil , the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019, which would have
withdrawn the Yucca Mountain site from public lands jurisdiction and placed it under DOE
control for repository development.67 The draft bil , subsequently introduced as S. 2917, was
similar to H.R. 2699, introduced May 14, 2019, and H.R. 3053, which passed the House in the
115th Congress. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 2699 on November
20, 2019. (See Table 1 for a summary of bil s.)
Yucca Mountain Land Withdrawal and Interim Storage Legislation
The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 (H.R. 2699) was intended to 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 have
authorized DOE to store spent fuel at an NRC-licensed interim storage facility owned by a

67 Senator John Barraso, “ Barrasso Releases Discussion Draft Legislation to Address Nuclear Waste,” press release,
April 24, 2019, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/4/barrasso-releases-discussion-draft -legislation-to-
address-nuclear-waste.
Congressional Research Service

15

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

nonfederal entity. Another major provision would have increased the capacity limit on the Yucca
Mountain repository from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, in comparison with
the 88,000 metric tons estimated to be stored at U.S. nuclear plants in 2021.68 The bil ’s
provisions are similar to those of H.R. 3053 as passed by the House in the 115th Congress and a
bil introduced November 20, 2019 (S. 2917) by Senator Barrasso. Major provisions of the bil as
approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (but ultimately not enacted) 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 specified 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 have
been authorized to site, construct, and operate one or more MRS facilities. Alternatively, rather
than building a federal MRS facility, DOE could have stored spent fuel from commercial reactors
at MRS facilities developed by nonfederal entities with which DOE had reached an MRS
agreement. The bil provided that DOE could not enter into an MRS agreement with a nonfederal
entity before a license for the proposed facility had been issued by NRC and without consent by
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 would have been al owed to enter into one MRS agreement before NRC issued a final
decision on the Yucca Mountain construction authorization. Priority was to 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 were to have priority for shipment to an MRS, to
the extent al owable under DOE’s standard waste disposal contract with nuclear plant operators.
Under the bil , 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 was issued and would have to stop if the repository construction ceased or the
license were revoked.
Repository Land Withdrawal and Regulation
Under NWPA as amended, the proposed Yucca Mountain repository would be located on 147,000
acres of federal land encompassing parts of DOE’s Nevada Test Site and the Nel is Air Force
Range, along with public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. H.R. 2699 would
have permanently withdrawn the site from uses authorized under federal public land laws, such as
mineral leasing, and transferred 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.

68 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Centralized Used Fuel Resource for Information Exchange (CURIE), interactive
map, https://curie.ornl.gov/map. See also, Vinson, Dennis, and Kathryn Metzger, Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste Inventory Report, prepared for DOE, FCRD-NFST -2013-000263, Rev. 5, August 2018, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service

16

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

The bil provided that nuclear waste at, or being transported to, the repository would not be
subject to Section 6001(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6961(a)), which requires
federal waste facilities to comply with al state, local, and federal hazardous waste requirements.
NRC’s final decision on issuing a construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository
would have been required within 30 months after enactment. Before the decision on the
construction authorization, DOE would have been al owed to 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 have been
raised from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons.
DOE would have been prohibited from planning or developing a separate repository for defense-
related high level waste and spent fuel until NRC reached a final decision on issuing a
construction authorization for the Yucca Mountain repository.
Waste Program Funding
The bil specified that 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 w ere to 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 have been required
to be paid “when determined necessary by the Secretary.”
Nuclear waste fees collected after the date of enactment would have 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, under the bil , so that such appropriations would not
count against the annual discretionary al ocations for Energy and Water Development
appropriations. The existing balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund was to remain available for
appropriation as in current law, without offsets. The bil specified that net direct spending for
budget purposes was not to 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.69
Repository and MRS Benefits Agreements
The bil would have authorized the Secretary of Energy 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 mil ion before spent fuel was received at Yucca Mountain (up from $10 mil ion
under current law). Nevada was to receive $400 mil ion upon the first spent fuel receipt (up from
$20 mil ion) and annual payments thereafter of $40 mil ion until repository closure (up from $20
mil ion). A benefits agreement with the host state of an MRS facility would have provided $5
mil ion per year before the first fuel shipment, $10 mil ion upon the first fuel receipt, and $10
mil ion per year after the first receipt until the facility closed.
In addition, DOE would have been authorized to 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 was not to be considered consent to host the

69 For more information on nuclear waste budgetary issues, see CRS T estimony T E10002, Nuclear Waste Fund:
Budgetary, Funding, and Scoring Issues, by David M. Bearden.
Congressional Research Service

17

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

repository. Al payments under such benefits agreements would have been subject to
congressional appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Waste Program Management
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management would have been renamed the Office of
Spent Nuclear Fuel. The Director of the Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel was to be responsible for
carrying out the functions of the Secretary of Energy that had been established by NWPA and
would have reported directly to the Secretary. The bil specified that 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 have been 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, but not enacted, was similar to bil s introduced in the 114th Congress (S. 854) and
113th Congress (S. 1240). S. 1234 would have established an independent Nuclear Waste
Administration (NWA), which would have been 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 was to take over DOE’s authority under NWPA
to construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain and DOE’s waste disposal contractual
obligations. The bil specifical y provided that it would not affect the ongoing Yucca Mountain
licensing process.
NWA would have been 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 (cal ed
“priority waste”). A storage facility for waste from operating reactors or other “nonpriority waste”
was to open by the end of 2029, and a permanent repository by the end of 2052.
NWA would have been 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 have been 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 were to receive preference.
The bil provided that 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 determined 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.
Nuclear waste fees collected after enactment of the bil were to be held in a newly established
Working Capital Fund. NWA could have immediately drawn from that fund any amounts needed
to carry out the bil , unless limited by annual appropriations or authorizations. The current
disposal limit of 70,000 metric tons for the first repository under NWPA would have been
repealed.

Congressional Research Service

18

Table 1. Selected Nuclear Waste Bills
Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
117th Congress
H.R.
Titus/Cortez
Nuclear Waste Informed
Requires DOE to obtain the consent of
March 2, 2021
House Energy and

1524/S.
Masto
Consent Act
affected state and local governments
Commerce
541
before making an expenditure from the
Senate Environment
Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste
and Public Works
repository.
H.R. 2097 Matsui
Storage and Transportation Authorizes DOE to develop nuclear
March 19, 2021
House Energy and

Of Residual and Excess
waste storage facilities and enter into a
Commerce
(STORE) Nuclear Fuel Act
contract to store waste at a nonfederal
of 2021
facility. DOE must obtain state, local, and
tribal consent for storage facilities.
Financial and technical assistance
authorized to states, local governments,
and tribes. DOE required to give storage
priority to waste from closed reactors
and to waste shipments necessary to
address emergencies.
S. 1290/
Duckworth
Sensible, Timely Relief for
For communities with closed nuclear
Senate bil : April
Senate Environment

H.R. 3731
America’s Nuclear
power plants that are storing “stranded”
21, 2021
and Public Works
Districts’ Economic
spent nuclear fuel, authorizes annual
House bil : June
House
Development Act of 2021
grants of $15 for each kilogram of nuclear
7, 2021
Transportation and
or the STRANDED Act of
waste. Authorizes DOE to establish a
Infrastructure;
2021
prize competition for alternative activities
Financial Services;
at closed reactor sites and to develop a
Ways and Means
pilot project for each proposal awarded a
prize. Requires DOE to establish a task
force to conduct a study on resources
and options for communities hosting
stranded spent fuel.
S. 2605
Feinstein
Energy and Water
Includes authorization of DOE pilot
August 3, 2021
Senate
Reported to
Development and Related
facility for spent nuclear fuel storage, with
Appropriations
Senate August 4,
Agencies Appropriations
consent from the host state, units of local
2021 (S.Rept. 117-
Act, 2022
government, and affected Indian tribes
36)
(Section 308).
CRS-19

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.
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.
CRS-20

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
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.
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.
CRS-21

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
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.

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/Hel er
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.
CRS-22

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
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 al
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
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.
CRS-23

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
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.
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.
CRS-24

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
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 al
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 al
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. 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.
CRS-25

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
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 (cal ed
“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.
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 al their spent fuel
was moved to dry storage.
CRS-26

Number
Sponsor
Title
Description
Introduced
Committee
Action
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 al
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.
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 wil remain
dangerous for thousands of years. Major types of radioactive waste are described below:70
Spent nuclear fuel. Fuel rods that have been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor after irradiation,
usual y because they can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction. (The term “spent
nuclear fuel” is defined in NWPA. The nuclear industry typical y 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 wel 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 usual y has been removed
for reuse. Enough long-lived radioactive elements typical y 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, 2017.71
Low-level waste. Radioactive waste not classified as spent fuel, high-level waste, TRU waste, or
byproduct material such as uranium mil tailings (below). Four classes of low-level waste have
been established by NRC regulations, 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,

70 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). “ T ransuranic 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.
71 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

28

link to page 34 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. Chemical y hazardous waste that includes radioactive material. High-level, low-
level, and TRU waste, and radioactive byproduct material, often fal s 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, usual y after several years of power
production, it is thermal y 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 (see Figure 1).
A fresh fuel rod, which emits relatively little radioactivity, contains pel ets made of uranium that
has been enriched in the isotope U-235 (usual y 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 fil ing 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.72

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

29

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 54 operating
nuclear plant sites, 20 shutdown plant sites, and the Idaho National Laboratory.73 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 annual y for the entire U.S. nuclear power industry during the
past two decades. An Oak Ridge National Laboratory interactive database estimates that about
88,300 metric tons of spent fuel was stored at U.S. nuclear plants in 2021, including 7,300 metric
tons at closed plant sites.74 A recent study for DOE estimated that about 30,000 metric tons of
spent fuel was stored in dry casks at the end of 2017.75 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
wil 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 eventual y require disposal
range from 105,000 metric tons76 to 130,000 metric tons.77

73 Gutherman T echnical Services, 2012 Used Fuel Data, January 30, 2013. Adjusted for 10 sites closed since 2012.
Shutdown sites include 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.
74 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, CURIE interactive map, “Total Mass (MT U) in Storage in 2021,” viewed
September 8, 2021, https://curie.ornl.gov/map. Spent fuel mass typically refers to the metric tons of uranium ( MT U) in
the original fuel.
75 Vinson, op. cit.
76 DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, OCRWM Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2002,
DOE/RW-0560, October 2003, Appendix C.
77 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

30

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

New storage capacity at operating nuclear plant sites or other locations wil 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. Ninety licensed dry storage
facilities were operating at U.S. nuclear plant and DOE sites as of April 2021.78
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 al oy 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 instal ed above
the pools, and that more fuel be transferred from pools to dry cask storage.79 The nuclear industry
contends that the several hours required for uncovered spent fuel to heat up enough to catch fire
would al ow 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.80
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 wel as water spray
systems be available for spent fuel pools.81 NRC approved an order March 9, 2012, requiring U.S.
reactors to instal improved water-level monitoring equipment at their spent fuel pools.82
Contending that spent fuel storage risks continue to be unacceptably high, a 2018 Greenpeace
report cal ed for “an end of the high-density pool storage of used nuclear fuel and the placement
of most spent nuclear fuel in dry, hardened storage containers.”83
For more background, see CRS Report R42513, 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.

Nye County, Nevada, Summary, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D, October 2007, p. S-47.
78 NRC, “ U.S. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI),” April 22, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
ML2111/ML21116A041.pdf. T he total includes the GE independent pool storage facility near Morris, IL.
79 National Academy of Sciences, Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report,
released April 6, 2005, p. 2.
80 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendations for Japan Lessons-Learned T ier 3 Issue
on Expedit ed T ransfer of Spent Fuel,” op. cit.
81 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Near-T erm T ask Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident, Recom m endations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21 st Century, p. 46, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/
ML1118/ML111861807.pdf.
82 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.
83 Greenpeace, The Global Crisis of Nuclear Waste, November 2018, p. 97, https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-
belgium-stateless/2019/03/f7da075b-18.11.gp-report-global-crisis-of-nuclear-waste.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

31

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Commercial Low-Level Waste
About 1 mil ion cubic feet of commercial low-level waste with 40,323 curies of radioactivity was
shipped to disposal sites for shal ow land burial in 2020, according to DOE.84 Volumes and
radioactivity can vary widely from year to year, based on the status of nuclear decommissioning
projects and cleanup work that can generate especial y large quantities. For example, in 2018, the
total volume was 5.1 mil ion cubic feet with total radioactivity of 224,341 curies. The
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 general y 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 general y considers GTCC waste unsuitable for shal ow 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.85
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 Trump Administration did not request funding for the Yucca
Mountain project for FY2021, and the Biden Administration requested none for FY2022.
Under the Obama Administration, DOE issued an alternative waste management strategy in
January 2013 that cal ed 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 mil ) per kilowatt-hour,
can be adjusted by the Secretary of Energy based on projected total program costs after a

84 U.S. Department of Energy, Management Information Manifest System, http://mims.doe.gov/GeneratorData.aspx.
Most recent year reported. A curie is a unit of radioactivity equal to 3.7x1010 nuclear transformations per second.
85 NRC, “ Greater-T han-Class C and T ransuranic Waste,” October 9, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-
pa/gtcc-transuranic-waste-disposal.html.
Congressional Research Service

32

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

congressional review period. DOE was required to select three candidate sites for the first
national high-level waste repository.
After much controversy over DOE’s implementation of NWPA, the act was substantial y
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.
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 al 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 Obama 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, 2012.86
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 al 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
legal y 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 eventual y 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 congressional y
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 al ow funds to be used for the waste management program without having to compete
with other appropriations priorities.
The BRC cal ed 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 especial y 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

86 BRC Final Report, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service

33

link to page 18 Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

interim storage effort to assure that interim sites would not become “de facto” permanent
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 2013.87 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-
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 cal ed 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 was to open by 2048—50 years after
the initial y planned opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository. Sites for the proposed
storage and disposal facilities were to 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 bil introduced in the 116th Congress by Senator
Murkowski (S. 1234), discussed under “Congressional Action,” would have established an
independent Nuclear Waste Administration and a consent-based process for new waste sites,
although the existing Yucca Mountain authorization would have been left intact. Other proposals
have cal ed for privatization of waste management services.88
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 smal volumes of defense
and research waste (compared to civilian waste) could be developed more quickly, “within
existing legislative authority,” than a repository for al highly radioactive waste. The report also

87 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High -Level Waste, op. cit.
88 Spencer, Jack, “ 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.
Congressional Research Service

34

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

recommended that disposal in deep boreholes be considered for the most compact types of
defense and research waste.89
President Obama authorized DOE on March 24, 2015, to begin planning a separate underground
repository for high-level radioactive waste generated by nuclear defense activities. However, as
noted above, GAO criticized DOE’s analysis of the defense-only repository in January 2017, and
bil s were introduced to delay the plan.
President Obama blocked DOE’s previously preferred rail route to Yucca Mountain on July 10,
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 stil be
available.90
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 subsequently formed a joint venture with Orano USA cal ed Interim
Storage Partners (ISP), which submitted a renewed application for the Texas facility on June 11,
2018.91
The proposed ISP 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.92
NRC issued a license to ISP for the first phase of the Texas facility—holding up to 5,000 metric
tons of spent fuel—on September 13, 2021.93 NRC issued its final environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the facility on July 29, 2021, finding no environmental impacts that would
preclude licensing.94

89 DOE, Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel,
October 2014, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/assessment -disposal-options-doe-managed-high-level-radioactive-
waste-and-spent -nuclear.
90 Bureau of Land Management, “Basin and Range National Monument Q&A,” undated fact sheet,
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.
91 Orano USA, “Interim Storage Partners Submits Renewed NRC License Application for Used Nuclear Fuel
Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in West T exas,” press release, June 11, 2018, http://us.areva.com/EN/home-
4216/orano-orano-usa—interim-storage-partners-submits-renewed-nrc-license-application-for-used-nuclear-fuel-
consolidated-interim-storage-facility-in-west-texas.html.
92 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.
93 NRC, “NRC Issues License to Interim Storage Partners for Consolidated Spent Nuclear Fuel Interim Storage Facility
in T exas,” news release 21-036, September 13, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-
036.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Mn0i8pChxfYNiF14v6ILsSkLbCxu8Ai7XPc97P3QjHmQoSFvqBMm -Xos.
94 NRC, “NRC Issues Final Environmental Study for Proposed Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility in Andrews,
T exas,” news release, July 29, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-029.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

35

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Under the original WCS proposal, DOE was to take title to spent fuel at nuclear plant sites, ship it
to the Texas site, and pay WCS for storage for up to 40 years with possible extensions, according
to the company. DOE’s costs were to be covered through appropriations from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, as were most costs for the Yucca Mountain project. WCS contended that a privately
developed spent fuel storage facility would not be bound by NWPA restrictions that prohibit DOE
from building a storage facility without making progress on Yucca Mountain.95 However, Energy
Secretary Rick Perry said in a 2019 letter that current law prohibits DOE from contracting for
spent nuclear fuel storage at a private facility.96
An NRC license application for a spent fuel storage facility in New Mexico was filed March 30,
2017, by Holtec International, a manufacturer of spent fuel storage systems.97 The facility would
be located on 1,045 acres of land provided by a local government consortium near the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Eddy-Lea Energy Al iance (ELEA). The proposed
facility, cal ed the Holtec International Storage Module (HI-STORM) Consolidated Interim
Storage Facility, would hold up to 173,600 metric tons of spent fuel in 10,000 canisters. The
facility would be developed in 20 modules holding 500 canisters each, using about 288 acres of
the site.98 Each canister would be stored vertical y in an underground cylindrical cavity covered
by a radiation-shielding lid.99 NRC plans to publish the final EIS for the proposed New Mexico
facility in November 2021 and issue the safety evaluation report and licensing decision in January
2022.100
Holtec recently purchased two retired nuclear plants, Oyster Creek and Pilgrim, planning to use
the plants’ decommissioning funds to dismantle the plants. The proposed storage facility in New
Mexico could al ow the company to remove al the spent fuel from its decommissioned nuclear
plants without necessarily having to transfer ownership of 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 “wil welcome several more
nuclear plants in the next two years.”101 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 original y planned to hold high-level waste before the state objected.

95 Jeff Beattie, “Waste Control Specialists Sets 2020 Date to Open Spent Fuel Storage Facility,” IHS The Energy Daily,
February 10, 2015, p. 1; and Elaine Hiruo, “T exas Company Seeks License for Spent Fuel Storage,” Nucleonics Week,
February 12, 2015, p. 1.
96 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Letter to the Honorable Deb Haaland, U.S. House of Representatives, October 23,
2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1931/ML19311C801.pdf. T he letter cites an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Memorandum and Order, In the Matter of Holtec International, May 7, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
ML1912/ML19127A026.pdf.
97 Letter from Holtec International to NRC, March 30, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1711/ML17115A418.pdf.
98 Holtec International, Safety Evaluation Report Revision 0H, March 30, 2019, p. 2 8, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
ML1916/ML19163A062.pdf.
99 Ibid., p. 36.
100 NRC, Letter to Holtec International on revised review schedule, July 2, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2118/
ML21181A389.pdf.
101 Holtec International, “ Holtec Completes Acquisition of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,” August 26, 2018,
https://holtecinternational.com/2019/08/26/holtec-completes-acquisition-of-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station/#more-
19392.
Congressional Research Service

36

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

New Mexico Governor Michel e 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 wil be an indefinite
storage facility, and the risks for New Mexicans, our natural resources and our economy are too
high.”102 New Mexico filed a lawsuit to block NRC licensing of the facility on March 29, 2021.103
Texas Governor Greg Abbott on September 9, 2021, signed a state law banning new storage sites
for high-level radioactive waste.104
Interest in hosting nuclear waste sites has been expressed previously 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.105 The Mississippi Public Service Commission unanimously
passed a resolution in 2014 to oppose national nuclear waste sites in the state.106 The Loving
County proposal also has faced public opposition.107 A committee of the Wyoming legislature in
July 2019 considered authorizing a study of storing spent fuel in the state but subsequently
dropped the idea, according to media reports.108
As noted above, legislation that would explicitly authorize DOE to enter into contracts with
privately owned spent fuel storage facilities (H.R. 2699, H.R. 3136) was introduced in the 116th
Congress but not enacted. Similar provisions were included in bil s introduced but not enacted in
the 115th Congress (H.R. 474) and (H.R. 3053), and the 114th Congress (H.R. 3643).
An earlier effort to develop a private spent fuel storage facility was undertaken after it became
apparent that DOE would miss the 1998 deadline for taking nuclear waste from reactor sites. A
utility consortium signed an agreement with the Skull Val ey Band of the Goshute Indians in Utah
on December 27, 1996, to develop a storage facility on tribal land. The Private Fuel Storage
(PFS) consortium submitted a license application to NRC on June 25, 1997, and a 20-year license

102 Letter from New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to President T rump, July 28, 2020,
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/santafenewmexican.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/13/
c130d8a2-d11b-11ea-be5e-1b25fff8a207/5f209cdf1eef8.pdf.pdf.
103 New Mexico Attorney General, “Attorney General Balderas An nounces Lawsuit to Halt Holtec Nuclear Storage
Facility,” news release, March 29, 2021, https://www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/
48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/
Attorney_General_Balderas_Announces_Lawsuit_to_Halt_Holtec_Nuclear_Storage_Facility.pdf .
104 T exas Legislature Online, Actions, HB7, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=
HB7.
105 Housley Carr and Elaine Hiruo, “Group Urges Mississippi to Become Home to Spent Fuel Facilities,” NuclearFuel,
September 2, 2013.
106 “PSC Passes Anti-Nuclear Waste Storage Resolution,” Mississippi Business Journal, June 4, 2014,
https://msbusiness.com/2014/06/psc-passes-anti-nuclear-waste-storage-resolution.
107 Diaz, Kevin, “ T exas, 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/T exas-New-Mexico-could-
be-nuclear-repository-6585594.php.
108 T huermer, Angus M. Jr., “Lawmakers Quietly Explore Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel,” WyoFile, July 12, 2019,
https://www.wyofile.com/lawmakers-quietly-explore-storing-spent -nuclear-fuel/; “ Wyoming Lawmakers Decide Not
to Pursue Nuke Waste Proposal,” Associated Press, November 6, 2019, https://apnews.com/
bc690baa7da740658083d836194e0364 .
Congressional Research Service

37

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

for storing up to 44,000 tons of spent fuel in dry casks was issued on February 21, 2006.
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.109 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.110
The Skull Val ey 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.111 A federal district court
judge on July 26, 2010, ordered the Department of the Interior to reconsider its decisions on the
PFS permits.112 However, PFS asked NRC to terminate its license on December 20, 2012.113
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 stil 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
specifical y 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
disposal sites is regulated by NRC and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Under NWPA,
DOE shipments to Yucca Mountain and an MRS facility would have to use NRC-certified casks
and comply with NRC requirements for notifying state and local governments. Shipments would
also have to follow DOT regulations on routing, placarding, and safety.
NRC’s licensing requirements for Yucca Mountain, at 10 C.F.R. 63, require compliance with
EPA’s standards (described below) and establish procedures that DOE must follow in seeking a
repository license. For example, DOE must receive a construction authorization to build the
Yucca Mountain repository before being issued a license to bring nuclear waste to the site and
emplace it underground. Among NRC substantive regulatory requirements is a mandatory DOE
repository performance confirmation program that would indicate whether natural and man-made
systems were functioning as intended and assure that other assumptions about repository
conditions were accurate.

109 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 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.
110 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.
111 Winslow, Ben, “Goshutes, PFS Sue Interior,” Deseret Morning News, July 18, 2007.
112 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.
113 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

38

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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.114 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, 1995.115 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 on radioactive doses or the releases of radioactive
material, 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 mil irems for the “reasonably maximal y exposed individual,” and to 4 mil irems 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 maximal y exposed individual of 7
chances in 1 mil ion. 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 mil irem overal exposure limit
and the 4 mil irem 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.116 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
specifical y rejected a 10,000-year compliance period because of analysis that showed peak
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 al owed a higher annual dose of 350 mil irems for the period of 10,000
years through 1 mil ion years. EPA also proposed to base the post-10,000-year Yucca Mountain
standard on the median dose, rather than the mean, potential y making it easier to meet.117 Nevada

114 See, for example: NRC, “Analysis of Energy Policy Act of 1992 Issues Related to High -Level Waste Disposal
Standards, SECY-93-013, January 25, 1993, attachment p. 4.
115 National Research Council, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, National Academy Press, 1995.
116 Nuclear Energy Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency , U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, No. 01-1258, July 9, 2004.
117 Especially high doses at the upper end of the exposure range would raise the mean, or average, more than the
median, or the halfway point in the data set.
Congressional Research Service

39

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

state officials cal ed EPA’s proposed standard far too lenient and charged that it was “unlawful
and arbitrary.”118
EPA issued its final rule to amend the Yucca Mountain standards on September 30, 2008. The
final rule reduced the annual dose limit during the period of 10,000 through 1 mil ion years from
the proposed 350 mil irems to 100 mil irems, which the agency contended was consistent with
international standards. Under the final rule, compliance with the post-10,000-year standard wil
be based on the arithmetic mean of projected doses, rather than the median as proposed. The 4
mil irem groundwater standard wil continue to apply only to the first 10,000 years.119 NRC
revised its repository licensing regulations to conform to the new EPA standards on April 13,
2009.120 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 mil irems. That is substantial y 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 mil irems (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 chal enged as part of the NRC licensing
process.”121
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 FY2022 budget
justification.122
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, specifical y 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
plutonium, which could be separated through reprocessing to be used in new fuel. Fission
products, the highly radioactive fragments of uranium and plutonium that have undergone fission
in a reactor, would be separated for immobilization and disposal. DOE is supporting development
of a variety of unconventional “advanced” reactor technologies that could indefinitely recycle
uranium, plutonium, and other long-lived radioisotopes in spent fuel, leaving only short-lived
fission products for disposal. Such indefinite recycling is often cal ed the “closed” fuel cycle. (For
more information, see CRS Report R45706, Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview
and Current Issues.)

118 Office of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Comments by the State of Nevada on EPA’s Proposed New
Radiation Protection Rule for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository , November 2005.
119 Posted on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/public-health-and-environmental-radiation-protection-
standards-yucca-mountain-nevada-40.
120 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Implementation of a Dose Standard After 10,000 Years,” 74 Federal Register
10811, March 13, 2009.
121 FSEIS, p. S-42. Posted on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0817/ML081750191.html.
122 DOE, FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification, vol. 3, part 2, May 2021, p. 36, https://www.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/2021-06/doe-fy2022-budget-volume-3.2-v3.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

40

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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.123
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 FY2021, the
Waste Fund balance stood at $42.2 bil ion, according to the FY2022 Administration budget
request.124 Before the Obama Administration halted the Yucca Mountain project after FY2010,
$7.41 bil ion had been disbursed from the Waste Fund, according to DOE’s program summary
report.125 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, 2008.126 According
to that estimate, the Yucca Mountain program as then planned would have cost $96.2 bil ion 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 potential y easier to site, license,
and construct than a combined defense-civilian repository, because defense waste constitutes a
relatively smal 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.127
In a report issued in October 2014, DOE concluded that a defense-only nuclear waste repository
“could be sited and developed outside the framework of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.” Under
this reasoning, NWPA would not have to be amended to al ow a defense-only repository to
proceed. However, according to the DOE report, “Any such repository would be subject to
licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would have to comply with other
NWPA requirements related to state and local participation in the siting process.”128 DOE’s draft

123 DOE, “ Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines, Borehole Seals Design, and
RD&D Needs,” undated website, https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/deep-borehole-disposal-research-
demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals.
124 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Appendix, p. 410, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/doe_fy22.pdf.
125 DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Program Management, Monthly Summary of
Program Financial and Budget Inform ation , as of January 31, 2010, available at http://www.thenwsc.org/ym/
DOE%20Financial%20&%20Budget%20Summary%20013110.pdf. T he report notes that some figures may not add
due to independent rounding.
126 Available on the DOE website at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/
FY_2007_T otalSystemLifeCycleCost_Pub2008.pdf.
127 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-
disposal-research-demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals.
128 DOE, Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel,
Congressional Research Service

41

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

plan estimated that disposal of defense waste could begin about 22 years after a consent-based
siting process was 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 bil ions of dollars” and including a schedule that “appears
optimistic,” in light of “past repository siting experiences.”129
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.130 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 or a subsequent version (H.R. 2699) in
the 116th Congress.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Current Policy
Selecting disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste, which general y 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 congressional y 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 Barnwel , SC, and Hanford, WA—are using their congressional y 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 al eviated 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 mil ion cubic feet of disposal capacity
may be al ocated to waste from other states.131 The Texas site received its first shipment of waste,
from a company in Vermont, on April 27, 2012.132 The Texas Compact Commission had 55
agreements for importing low-level waste, including classes B and C, from noncompact states
during 2020.133

October 2014, p. iii.
129 GAO, Nuclear Waste: Benefits and Costs Should Be Better Understood Before DOE Commits to a Separate
Repository for Defense Waste, January 2017, GAO-17-174, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682385.pdf.
130 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.
131 Waste Control Specialists, “Our Facilities: Compact Waste Facility,” http://www.wcstexas.com/facilities/compact-
waste-facility/.
132 Bionomics, Inc., “Bionomics Makes First Shipment to T exas Low Level Waste Site,” press release, April 27, 2012,
http://www.bionomics-inc.com/documents/Newsletter/First%20Shipment%20to%20Texas.pdf.
133 T exas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission, “2020 Agreements,” http://www.tllrwdcc.org/
2020-agreements.
Congressional Research Service

42

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Legislation providing congressional consent to the Texas compact, which original y also included
Maine as wel 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
federal y 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, 2011.134
The disposal facility at Barnwel , SC, is currently accepting al 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 Barnwel 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
Barnwel 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 Barnwel 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 Barnwel from al
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.135
The only other existing disposal facility for al three major classes of low -level waste is at
Hanford, WA. Controlled by the Northwest Compact, the Hanford site wil 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 licenses136 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.
NRC proposed a significant modification of its low-level waste disposal regulations on March 26,
2015.137 The NRC staff submitted a final version of the regulations for commission approval on
September 15, 2016.138 The commission issued further revisions on September 8, 2017, which
would have to be incorporated before the package could be published as a supplemental proposed
rule. As drafted by the NRC staff, the regulations would for the first time establish time periods
for technical analyses of low-level waste sites to ensure protection of the general population.

134 See the T CEQ website, http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/radmat/licensing/wcs_license_app.html#wcs_status.
135 Alabama et al. v. North Carolina, S. Ct. (2010), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/132Orig.pdf.
136 10 C.F.R. Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
137 NRC, “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal; Proposed Rule,” 80 Federal Register 16082, March 26, 2015.
138 NRC, “Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” SECY-16-0106, September 15, 2016,
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1618/ML16188A290.html. For more details, see NRC, “ Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Rulemaking,” September 25, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams.html.
Congressional Research Service

43

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Technical analysis would have to be conducted for a 1,000-year compliance period if no
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, 2019.139
Concluding Discussion
Disposal of radioactive waste wil be a key issue in the continuing nuclear power debate. Without
central disposal, storage, or reprocessing 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 Dai chi 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 Trump Administration did not seek funding for FY2021,
nor did the Biden Administration for FY2022. The NRC staff’s finding in October 2014 that the
Yucca Mountain site would meet NRC standards after the repository was fil ed and sealed has
been cited as evidence of the project’s continued technical viability if funding were restarted.140
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
of up to $600 mil ion from the federal judgment fund. DOE estimates that its potential liabilities
for waste program delays could total as much as $39.2 bil ion, including the $8.6 bil ion 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 bil ions 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.141 In addition, further
repository delays could force DOE to miss compliance deadlines for defense waste disposal.

139 NRC, “ Greater-T han-Class C and T ransuranic Waste,” October 9, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/
llw-pa/gtcc-transuranic-waste-disposal.html.
140 Northey, Hannah, “Yucca Mountain: Boosters Hope NRC Report Ends Safety Debate, Draws Supporters,” E&E
Daily, Friday, January 30, 2015, https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2015/01/30/stories/1060012593.
141 Lovell, David L., Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, State Statutes Limiting the Construction of Nuclear Power
Plants, October 5, 2006.
Congressional Research Service

44

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Problems being created by nuclear waste disposal delays were addressed by the Blue Ribbon
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 congressional y 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 have been authorized by several bil s in subsequent Congresses, 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
Six Overarching Recommendations for How to Move the Nation’s Nuclear Waste
Management Program Forward, April 2021, https://www.nwtrb.gov/our-work/reports/six-
overarching-recommendations-for-how-to-move-the-nation-s-nuclear-waste-management-
program-forward-(april-2020).
Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, Revision 1A, September 2018, https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/
default-source/facts-sheets/commercial-snf-rev-1a.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
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,
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.
Congressional Research Service

45

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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 El iott 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.
Stimson Center, Bringing the Back-End to the Forefront: Spent Fuel Management and Safeguards
Considerations for Emerging Reactors, February 10, 2021, https://www.stimson.org/2021/
bringing-the-back-end-to-the-forefront.
University of Il inois, Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security, ‘Plan
D’ for Spent Nuclear Fuel, 2009, http://acdis.il inois.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 May 3, 2021, 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.
Michael D. Voegele and Donald L. Vieth, Waste of a Mountain: How Yucca Mountain Was
Selected, Studied, and Dumped, Nye County Press, 2016, 920 pp. (2 vol.).
Samuel J. Walker, 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

46

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 n ot 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 59 · UPDATED
47