WASTE MANAGEMENT | A PATH FORWARD
A path forward for nuclear waste
Progress toward the development of one or more deep geologic repositories for nuclear waste in the US has stalled, but now a bipartisan committee believes it has found a solution to the nuclear waste problem
WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY IN the US positioned to make a comeback, the need to find a permanent solution for the spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants is becoming more important. While the US has stored spent nuclear fuel at 76 reactor sites for decades, such storage is a temporary solution and it must be moved to one or more deep geologic repositories for final disposal. A new bipartisan report authored by Lake Barrett, Allison Macfarlane, Kara Colton, Fred Dilger, Rod Mccullum, Timothy E. Smith, Jack Spencer, Mary Anne Sullivan, Thomas Webler, Heather Westra, and Greg R. White sets out a structure that could emerge to solve this seemingly intractable issue and manage high level radioactive waste materials in the US. The report: ‘The path forward for nuclear waste in the
Below: A tunnel under Yucca Mountain was excavated as part of explorations of its suitability for high level nuclear waste storage. Source: US Department of Energy
US’ notes that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 identified Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the potential location for a deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level nuclear waste (HLW). However, such a facility never received a license and was never constructed. Congress has not appropriated funds for Yucca Mountain
since 2010, and it has treated the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was paid by electricity customers, as taxpayer money, severely restricting the ability to use it for its intended purpose.
Elsewhere, important progress has been made in
addressing the nuclear waste issue, showing that it is possible to find a permanent solution. However, the past decade and a half has seen no substantive progress toward the development of one or more deep geologic repositories for nuclear waste in the US. The authors note that the absence of a viable programme for US nuclear waste management and disposal not only represents a hindrance to the expansion of nuclear energy, but it is also a detriment to America’s ability to compete with nations like Russia. First and foremost, the report concludes, the US needs an entity that can successfully implement a solution: an organisation that is responsible for finding a suitable site for a geologic repository, characterising the site, applying for and obtaining a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), constructing the facility, transporting the waste, operating and ultimately decommissioning the facility, all while engaging successfully with the affected state and communities that may be impacted. That entity would be responsible for all safety, environmental protection, and financial accountability functions. Subject to the necessary oversight, it could subcontract particular functions to private entities as it deems appropriate. In addition, this organisation would have authority to develop a consolidated storage facility (CSF) for spent nuclear fuel as a bridge to a repository.
The cost of not managing waste Under the NWPA, the designated implementer for management of SNF and HLW is the US Department of Energy (DOE). However, the authors note that using a government agency, severely constrained by ever-changing leadership and uncertain funding, is challenging. They believe the new model they propose will have a much higher chance of success. The authors also argue that the other major reform
required to make progress toward a solution is to fix the financing. The Nuclear Waste Fund established by the NWPA and now totals more than $50bn but has been used for decades by Congress to offset the national debt. This dedicated fund, which was mostly paid by electricity customers at a rate of $0.001/kWh, is inaccessible to any entity that needs to use it to develop a nuclear waste disposal solution because Congress subjects it to the same appropriations rules that apply to taxes the Internal Revenue Service collects. As a result, use of the Nuclear Waste Fund requires Congressional consent and is subject to both competing priorities and shifting political dynamics. Reactor owners (and therefore electricity customers)
are also no longer contributing to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Nonetheless, the lack of progress on nuclear waste disposal has had a very costly impact on taxpayers. Since 1998, the
32 | February 2026 |
www.neimagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
