Decommissioned Nuclear Plants Jump to Front of Waste Removal Line Under New Bill

The "Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2025" changes how the government handles nuclear waste, and it could mean big changes for communities near old power plants. Basically, this bill tells the Department of Energy to prioritize picking up spent nuclear fuel from reactors that are already shut down or in the process of shutting down.

Fast-Tracking Waste Removal

The core of the bill amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Instead of a first-come, first-served approach, the government must prioritize waste removal based on a few key factors:

• Shutdown Status: Reactors that are no longer operating jump to the front of the line.
• Population Density: The more people living near a reactor, the higher the priority for waste removal. So, a plant near a big city would likely get attention sooner than one in a sparsely populated area.
• Earthquake Risk: If a reactor is in an area with a high risk of earthquakes (based on U.S. Geological Survey maps), it gets bumped up the priority list. Think California versus Kansas.
• National Security: The bill also considers any "national security risks" related to keeping the waste where it is. This is a bit vague, but it essentially means if there's a security threat, that waste gets moved faster.

Real-World Impacts: Who Gets Moved Up, Who Waits Longer?

Imagine two nuclear plants: one in a densely populated area near a major fault line (Plant A) and another in a remote, geologically stable location (Plant B). Even if Plant B's waste was ready for pickup first, Plant A would now jump ahead in line because of the higher risk factors. This could mean quicker cleanup for communities near Plant A, but potentially longer waits for those near Plant B. For example, a family living near a decommissioned plant in a high-population, high-earthquake-risk zone might see waste removed years sooner than under the old system. Conversely, a rancher living near an operating plant in a low-risk area might see their wait time increase.

Potential Sticking Points

While the bill aims to make the process safer and more logical, there are a few things to consider:

• The "national security" clause (SEC. 2) is pretty broad. It will be important to understand how the Secretary of Energy interprets this.
• This bill doesn't create a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste. It just shuffles the order in which waste gets moved from temporary storage at reactor sites. The bigger problem of where it ultimately goes remains unsolved.
• Prioritizing some sites could mean delays for others. This could lead to pushback from communities that get bumped down the list.
• This Act does not specify funding, which will be critical for its success.