“Today’s Challenge, Tomorrow’s Promise”

June 12, 2025, 7:04AMNuclear NewsCraig Piercy

Craig Piercy
cpiercy@ans.org

The title for this year’s waste management issue of Nuclear News is, in my opinion, the perfect framing to consider spent fuel and waste management as we know it now and how we imagine it could look in the future. So, let’s break it down.

What really is “today’s challenge”? It’s certainly not safety. Since 1955, we have conducted more than 2,500 cask shipments without a single radiological release or incidence of harm to a member of the public. Despite what antinuclear evangelists (in dwindling numbers) might shriek, the industry’s record of storing and transporting used fuel is unassailable.

The lack of progress on a geologic repository isn’t necessarily a challenge to new nuclear development. We already have systems capable of storing used fuel assemblies for more than a century, proven technology with no moving parts.

Today’s challenge is a political one, but perhaps not in the way you think: The biggest barrier to progress is the challenge of getting elected officials to care about an issue that has no meaningful impact on their constituents and no short-term political payoff.

That’s where “tomorrow’s promise” comes into play.

There are states and localities around the country that today are studying the opportunities to participate in the advanced nuclear “boom.” Sure, much of the interest now is in the siting and construction of new reactors, but as communities become more familiar with nuclear technology and the kinds of jobs and economic benefits it provides, their comfort levels increase, allowing them to consider the associated economic opportunities that come with the back end of the fuel cycle.

Advanced reactor companies like Oklo are building recycling components into their long-range refueling plans. Why not take advantage of the economic upside as well as the direct payments—for schools, hospitals, and roads—that will surely come from hosting a federal storage or disposal facility?

As the successful approaches to site repositories in other countries have proven, these are conversations that must be conducted over years in a purely collaborative and consent--based environment and with strong state-level engagement. There can’t be even a whiff of pressure from Washington.

So let’s not feel the need to rush or set arbitrary deadlines or milestones. Instead, let’s do the things that enable communities to consider their options in a technically informed manner, like getting the Environmental Protection Agency to update its generic safety standards for geologic repositories so communities can understand how they will protect their residents before deciding to become a facility host.

An old friend once said to me, “If you have a problem and you fail three times trying to fix it, it is not a problem—it’s a condition.” Nuclear waste is not a problem. It’s a condition that, far from being hopeless, offers an opportunity for enterprising companies and communities to extract value from the U.S. stockpile of used fuel and byproduct material and also reap the federal rewards that will invariably come from hosting a storage facility. It’s time our policy conversations focused on clearly defining that promise.


Related Articles