Experts tell committee dry cask storage is proven but permanent disposal and recycling remain unresolved policy choices
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
NEI and industry consultants told the committee dry cask storage has been used safely for decades, but permanent disposal options (geologic repositories or boreholes) and recycling choices require state‑level deliberation and clear governance; DOE's RFI and the nuclear waste fund were discussed as potential levers and constraints.
Committee members received a detailed briefing on spent nuclear fuel, dry cask storage and disposal pathways from Rod McCollum of the Nuclear Energy Institute and follow‑up comments from industry consultants.
"Dry storage is very successful technology, transportable," Rod McCollum told legislators, describing dry casks as "boring" but robust canisters that have been used since the mid‑1980s and highlighting inspection and transportability innovations. He said the U.S. currently holds roughly 97,000 metric tons of used fuel stored in pools and casks and that much of the commercial inventory could fit in a single large warehouse footprint.
McCollum reviewed five management options in practice—storage in reactor pools, dry cask storage, centralized storage, recycling/reprocessing and deep geologic disposal—explaining tradeoffs for each. He flagged the Department of Energy's recent request for information (RFI) to states on proposals for storage and disposal and warned states to avoid chasing short‑term incentives without committing to durable disposal solutions and governance structures.
McCollum noted that the fee formerly charged to ratepayers for the federal Nuclear Waste Fund was suspended after the federal government failed to start collection and repository actions on schedule, leading to litigation and a federal judgment fund covering settlements. He said new reactors will face different contracts for waste acceptance—citing examples where the government is not required to take fuel for 10–20 years after plant shutdown—which means project proponents must account for on‑site storage costs in their business models.
Both McCollum and Nucleon reiterated that recycling and advanced fuel cycles are being pursued but are not a panacea: recycling can reduce some waste volumes and produce useful radionuclides but leaves residual waste requiring disposal and may require specific reactor types to consume recycled fuel. McCollum urged committee members to engage with constituents and tribal partners in any siting discussions and to require clear business plans for how proposed reactors would manage their used fuel.
On next steps, speakers recommended states carefully evaluate DOE RFI options, guard the Nuclear Waste Fund for ratepayer purposes, and insist on robust governance when considering proposals that include storage, recycling or disposal activities.