WASTE MANAGEMENT | A PATH FORWARD says NuCorp should follow best practices that have led to
success elsewhere. These practices include the following: ● States/local governments/Tribes have the ability to opt out at any time up to the point of license application submission and determine how best to reach their mutually agreed upon hosting agreement.
● The implementer provides reasonable funding for states and local communities to hire their own independent experts and do their own analyses of the issues.
● The implementer commits to being adaptive and flexible over the full course of the process.
● The implementer provides appropriate benefits to the host community.
● The implementer and regulator must commit to transparency and openness, hearing public concerns and considering changes based on public input.
Above: Dry storage casks and in-ground storage vaults at Idaho National Laboratory have been housing spent nuclear fuel for decades but a permanent solution is needed. Source: US Department of Energy
The Nuclear Waste Fund would, the report says, continue
to be used solely for the purpose of disposal and preparation for disposal of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in a deep geologic repository.
Implementation NuCorp’s first task would be to develop a mission plan: an initial road map to the ultimate permanent disposal of the radioactive waste products in spent nuclear fuel and HLW. Initially, this should be focused on a geologic repository site or sites and a CSF as a bridging pathway towards disposal and reduction of taxpayer liability costs. Though focused primarily on disposal, NuCorp may elect
to develop a CSF for spent nuclear fuel. There may be several advantages to having such a facility in operation. Given that development of an operational geologic repository is expected to take significantly longer than a CSF, moving some of the spent fuel to an integrated CSF is the quickest way to begin discharging the government’s contractual obligations related to spent nuclear fuel. This would begin to mitigate the annual damages paid by the government for failing to remove spent fuel from reactor sites. The CSF would remove fuel from shutdown nuclear power plant sites first, thereby also freeing up the land for reuse. The CSF would also help establish the spent fuel transportation infrastructure that will be required to support a geologic repository. However, a CSF will cost money to design, license,
construct, and operate, and resources in the Nuclear Waste Fund are not infinite. The report states that NuCorp will need to weigh the costs of establishing a CSF against the benefits. The authors recommend limiting the capacity of a CSF by law until a repository site is selected to preserve the impetus for developing a geologic repository. Responsibility for commercial spent fuel would remain with the generating utility until it leaves the site for either a storage facility or deep geologic repository, at which point it becomes NuCorp’s responsibility. The DOE would remain responsible for DOE-owned waste unless and until it signs a contract with NuCorp to dispose of those materials. NuCorp would also be required to follow all the relevant
national and international safety and security nuclear transportation regulations. NuCorp should employ best practices, reflecting the extensive experience base with safe and secure transportation in the US and abroad.
Building on best practice To achieve success in managing and disposing of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste, the report
34 | February 2026 |
www.neimagazine.com
● The implementer may grant a regulatory/oversight role to a Tribe, state, or local government if it believes that it is appropriate to do so.
Achieving the disposal goal The authors strongly urge amending the existing nuclear waste legislation in the US to make real progress on final disposition of spent nuclear fuel that continues to linger at current and former nuclear power plants around the country.
This legislation should include the following elements: ● Establishment of a NuCorp, a nuclear reactor owner- led corporation formed to manage and dispose of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and HLW. If a mutually acceptable agreement is made by NuCorp and the DOE NuCorp will have both: - A Board of Directors made up mainly of nuclear reactor owners, and; - An independent Advisory Committee that includes affected state government, affected local government and affected Tribal representatives, if any, as well as technical and social science experts to provide oversight of NuCorp’s activities.
● Appropriate legislation should also include amendments to the existing financial arrangements in the NWPA, including: - Timely transfer of the assets of the Nuclear Waste Fund to NuCorp, to be held in escrow until needed;
- Use of all monies derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund to site, construct, operate, and decommission one or more deep geologic repositories for SNF; and HLW, if NuCorp reaches a mutually acceptable agreement with DOE
- Authorisation to develop an integrated CSF facility with priority for shutdown plants, if appropriate, as;
- long as there is demonstrable progress on the siting of a geologic disposal repository, and adequate funding.
The report concludes that it is incumbent upon the US
to ensure that a repository for spent nuclear fuel and high- level waste is established. As the authors observe, the US has benefited from the electricity and security that created this waste and it is a national imperative to responsibly dispose of it. Moreover, demonstrating success in dealing with nuclear waste is necessary for enabling sustainable public confidence in nuclear energy, which is a key element of America’s clean and reliable energy future. As other countries are already actively demonstrating, the US can do it too. ■
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
