Consider the trustworthiness of the process and federal and state agencies

The short answer is that we do not know. released a. Request for Information on Establishment of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses released by the Department of Energy in January 2026 asks states to propose “nuclear campuses” and that “waste disposition” must be part of any state’s plan. “Waste disposition” can include storage of wastes (consolidated storage sites) and disposal in a deep geologic repository, but it can also mean other processes such as reprocessing/recycling of spent nuclear fuel.

At this time it is not clear what sort of community engagement or decision process the DOE is requiring or expecting, but it appears that DOE might be expecting the state to run the community engagement process. The Request for Information released by the Department of Energy in January 2026,  “Request for Information on Establishment of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses” identifies public participation as a key to success and requires a “stakeholder engagement plan” to be part of any response to the Request for Information, however, it does not specify any performance goals or requirements that the plan must meet.

Communities, states, or Tribes interested in considering the opportunity to host waste facilities as part of DOE’s new program should make themselves familiar with the DOE’s RFI as well as earlier proposed consent-based siting process. Some high-level questions to consider are:

• Will the DOE or the state require specific features or activities for a process with communities?

• Will the DOE let state’s determine processes for engaging communities about hosting facilities?

• Will the community have the right to say “yes” or “no” to hosting a facility and have that decision respected by the federal and state governments?

• What is the timetable for the community engagement process?

• Who determines who gets to participate and how, including whether affected communities or Tribes have a role in the process?

• Will the federal government or the state distribute funds to support community involvement?

• What role might a community, Tribe, or state play in designing or monitoring a facility?

The question of whether the DOE can be a trusted partner is a central concern that communities working with DOE have wrestled with for decades. The history of nuclear waste management in the United States demonstrates why. The federal government has not followed through on its commitments. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act set out a process for selecting and siting deep geologic repositories and a system for managing SNF and HLW. The Act was based on four commitments:

• To plan for two deep geologic repositories, with likely locations in the eastern and western United States, to address concerns about geographical equity;

• The selection of sites and their assessment would be technically driven;

• The federal government would begin, in 1998, to dispose of SNF from commercial power reactors (because it was assumed that a repository would be operating by then) in exchange for fees paid by utilities;

• States being considered for deep geologic repositories would have a meaningful role in the siting process.

All of these “bargains” have been violated by Congress. By 1987 Congress passed amendments that pre-emptively selected the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada without due consideration of other options. Today, the nation is without a facility to store the SNF and HLW and the federal government is in violation of the obligation to begin disposing of wastes from utilities by 1998.

Now, the policy and regulatory environment is evolving again. The DOE under the current Administration has shifted its approach to siting from a consent-based to a collaboration-based siting, broadened consideration of waste management to include reprocessing, and appears to be giving states a leading role in determining where waste management facilities will be located. The role of Tribes in the new process is also unclear.

The history has led many inside and outside of DOE to acknowledge that the agency suffers from a lack of public trust. While DOE has made mistakes in some of its community engagement, it is also important not to condemn DOE for violating promises without recognizing the limitations placed on DOE by the Congress or the Administration. A community needs to be aware that the President or Congress may change policies and plans abruptly; it is not always the DOE that is at fault for shifts in the direction of nuclear waste management policy.

A good question for the community to consider is how to proceed in a context of distrust?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was established by Congress in the 1970s. It is responsible for permitting and regulating all radiological aspects of nuclear power plants, including the fuel manufacturing and the waste streams. Prior to the establishment of the NRC, the Atomic Energy Commission was charged with promoting and regulating nuclear power. In the late 1970s, Congress determined it would be better to separate these two activities. It established the NRC as an independent (non-political) regulatory body. Its independence was intended to earn public trust – as a competent, unbiased, regulator. The DOE was established at the same time and given the job of promoting nuclear power. The DOE is also responsible for building and maintaining the effectiveness of nuclear weapons and cleaning-up sites that were contaminated during the development, manufacture, and testing of nuclear weapons.

The Environmental Protection Agency is generally responsible for setting environmental standards, as instructed by federal laws. For a deep geological repository, EPA is responsible for setting the environmental standards and NRC uses those standards when it conducts its license approval process. The DOE is then charged with operating the facility. DOE is not a regulatory agency, although it does set regulations for its experimental reactor program at DOE Lab sites.

When it comes to consolidated storage of SNF and HLW, EPA would have a smaller role and NRC would be the primary regulator, ensuring that EPA’s radiation protection standards are met.

Communities hosting nuclear waste storage facilities should be concerned with the competence and trustworthiness of these regulatory agencies. They should understand that DOE’s job is to promote nuclear power, not to regulate. Safety standards, inspections, fines, and corrective actions would be determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They should consider whether the regulatory agencies are acting on the basis of the best available science.

In 2025 President Trump signed an Executive Order instructing the NRC to overhaul its regulations and regulatory processes and more rapidly approve new nuclear technologies and power plants. Importantly, the Executive Order also instructed the NRC to re-examine the long-held assumptions about the danger of low doses of radiation that have guided safety regulations for decades.

Certainly, the President and Congress are entitled to change policies, laws, regulations, and programs. Regulations should also keep up to date with changing technology and scientific discoveries. It is possible that a new law may be passed that creates a new organization and regulatory framework to plan, design, license, construct, and manage the nuclear waste system. Communities need to be up to date with these changes and reach their own conclusions about whether they feel these agencies are sufficiently protecting public health while also allowing a nuclear industry to prosper.

An agreement between the host community and DOE should be required before any nuclear waste facility is sited, built, and put into operation. Such agreements are intended to protect both parties, however, if DOE were to violate the agreement, perhaps because of a change in federal policy or law, would the community have the resources to sue the federal government? If the answer is “no” then communities should think about securing the cooperation of the state to ensure the DOE meets its contractual obligations.

Mission creep is when a stated mission gradually changes until the mission itself has evolved into something new. For instance, an interim storage facility might evolve into a permanent disposal facility or a waste reprocessing facility. Mission-related changes ought to be clearly noted and discussed. Communities may want to specify community engagement and decision-making processes that will be required before any changes to the contract or agreement can be made final.