An engineer installs measuring sensors before covering the gallery surface, at a depth of 490 meters in the Meuse/Haute Marne Underground Research Laboratory of the nuclear waste burial site known as Cigeo (Centre Industriel de stockage Geologique – Industrial Centre for Geological Disposal), operated by the French National agency for the management of radioactive waste, Andra, in Bure, eastern France, on August 8, 2024. (Photo by Jean-Christophe VERHAEGEN / AFP) Nuclear waste is a contentious but vital issue often inviting local resistance and bottlenecking national energy policy.
AFP via Getty Images
The United States has struggled with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel for decades. As AI data centers are popping up like mushrooms after a summer shower, the country’s electricity supply faces a massive projected shortage, and scaling up nuclear power production is a must. The lack of a nationwide system for reprocessing or disposing of spent nuclear fuel is a burden that slows the industry and hinders U.S. industrial development. It is a drag on America’s GDP growth.
Just over one year after President Trump’s executive orders aimed at revitalizing the national nuclear energy industry were issued on May 23, 2025, the federal government is still scrambling for a solution to the waste problem.
In January 2026, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a Request for Information on Establishment of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, and around half of the states responded by the April 1 deadline.
While the DOE offered an enticing package of advanced manufacturing, power generation, data centers, and long-term employment, the catch is that states must agree to address the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including spent nuclear fuel disposal. As a result, half of the states opted out despite the prospect of generous federal job-creation assistance, due to fear of America’s byzantine permitting system and an array of entrenched interests commonly referred to as Not In My Backyard (NIMBY).
Why has the U.S. Struggled to Find a Permanent Nuclear Waste Solution?
Currently, around 95,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel are stored across the country, suspended in cooling pools and in dry-cask storage at temporary on-site facilities. Since the abandonment of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada in 2010 over local opposition, the federal government has yet to assume the responsibility required by the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act “…to provide for the development of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, to establish a program of research, development, and demonstration regarding the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, and for other purposes.”.
Without a permanent site, the DOE has incurred liabilities of $37.6 to $44.5 billion, according to a 2024 financial audit, increasing the cost of nuclear energy for consumers. Although dispersed interim storage sites require less upfront capital to establish, they are less safe and secure than well-planned underground geological disposal sites and have higher long-term operating costs and ongoing security and surveillance requirements.
Meanwhile, France, which gets around 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, is moving forward with its Cigéo (Center Industriel de Stockage Géologique) deep geological repository site, designed to hold 80,000 cubic meters of waste. Supported by three legislative acts (1991, 2006, and 2016) that established the framework for deep geological disposal and defined principles of public governance, the project has undergone successive national public debates (2005, 2013, and 2019). Through regional development investments, including 30 million euros to local public interest groups, and a comprehensive safety case built on over 30 years of research, the project secured 65 percent local approval in 2016 and was recognized as a project of public utility in 2022, opening the way for obtaining a construction license in the next few years.
With the U.S. requirement to add 300 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2050, the waste issue is compounding rapidly. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has clarified that Yucca Mountain is no longer the solution, and experts argue that recycling is hindered by the lack of commercial reprocessing facilities in the country, the high costs involved, and the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation by extracting plutonium from spent fuel.
Chinese nuclear power plant construction continues at rapid rates while American construction stalls.
Future Publishing via Getty Images
Interim Storage Projects Blocked at the State Level
Despite federal momentum behind nuclear energy, state and local opposition can still effectively stall projects, and commonly do so over waste concerns. The Interim Storage Partners (ISP) venture received its away-from-reactor storage license from the NRC in 2021, but Texas enacted a ban on high-level radioactive waste storage the same year and sought judicial review. Texas and Fasken Land challenged the NRC’s licensing decision, but the Supreme Court ruled they lacked standing to bring the case in 2025. Although ISP prevailed, the company pledged not to proceed without the Lone Star State’s consent. The ruling addressed only standing, not the NRC’s underlying authority to issue the license, leaving multiple legal avenues for future challenges.
In New Mexico, Holtec International canceled its interim storage project in October 2025 due to intense opposition from Progressive Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the passage of Senate Bill 53 in 2023, which blocked high-level nuclear waste disposal permitting, mandated state consent for storage, and strengthened state oversight of proposed facilities. The decision also followed a nearly $16 million fine issued by the state environmental department to the DOE for allegedly contaminating groundwater by failing to manage legacy radioactive waste.
Opposition to nuclear fuel storage has stalled nuclear projects even in pro-energy conservative states, as demonstrated by Radiant Industries’ failed attempt to build a microreactor manufacturing facility in Wyoming. The company could not secure an exception to the state’s prohibition of the storage of high-level radioactive waste from out of state. The Freedom Caucus’s push for further restrictions, backing a measure to ban spent-fuel storage without case-by-case public referenda, signaled regulatory tightening rather than accommodation. Community opposition to temporary waste storage, which risks becoming permanent without a federal waste repository, further undermined the project. Unable to resolve these regulatory and political barriers, Radiant opted to pursue building its factory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Moving Forward
Until a permanent federal waste solution materializes, state-level roadblocks will continue to delay projects, inflate construction costs, and threaten the viability of the U.S. nuclear renaissance. Sometimes these roadblocks are sincere, and the environmental review process works as intended. Often, however, they are manifestations of administrative capture, in which existing interests that benefit from high energy prices can drown projects in paperwork. Our generally Byzantine permitting process only makes everything worse.
Although the DOE’s Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus concept recognizes that securing state and community support is essential, it may not be sufficient to overcome prejudice and aversion to hosting nuclear waste.
If the US cannot align federal ambition with state-level acceptance through a combination of local economic growth incentives and stronger federal preemption, the much-touted nuclear renaissance will remain bogged down by the age-old problems of ideologically driven environmental extremism, bureaucratic sclerosis, NIMBYism, and a weak federal executive branch incapable of advancing a vital national priority.