Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: What Congress, Federal Agencies and Communities Need to Know

The document argues that the U.S. is unprepared for an accelerating wave of nuclear plant shutdowns. It highlights critical risks including deteriorating spent fuel pools, inadequate dry cask storage, and the potential for long-term environmental contamination. The briefing emphasizes the lack of state and local oversight, the insufficiency of decommissioning funds—estimated by some to be $40 billion short—and the dangers of transporting radioactive waste to consolidated interim storage (CIS) sites. It uses case studies from Zion, Illinois; Rowe, Massachusetts; and San Clemente, California, to illustrate the devastating economic impacts and public health risks associated with decommissioning failures.

• The U.S. faces an accelerating wave of nuclear plant closures driven by economic competition from renewables and gas-fired plants, yet is 'dangerously unprepared' for the resulting decommissioning process. Exelon suggests that 'about half of America’s reactors' could close in the next two decades.
• Decommissioning presents severe radiological risks, including aging and leaking spent fuel pools where fuel rods could 'go critical', and the potential for radioactive materials to become airborne during the dismantling of irradiated components.
• Current waste storage methods are criticized as unreliable; dry casks are described as 'thin-walled' and susceptible to 'corrosion cracking from ocean salt and moisture', while the NRC is accused of lowering safety standards by doubling heat limits.
• There is a significant financial gap in decommissioning; while the GAO generally finds funding sufficient, independent estimates indicate funds are 'falling $40 billion short of projected costs'.
• Local communities often lack authority and oversight in the decommissioning process, as the NRC has 'ceded its licensing authority' and does not require licensees to disclose detailed decommissioning plans post-shutdown.
• Case studies demonstrate severe local impacts: Zion, Illinois, lost 75% of its tax base; Rowe, Massachusetts, saw decommissioning costs rise from an initial $250 million estimate to over $700 million; and San Onofre in California faces risks from its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and seismic faults.
• Proposed legislative solutions like the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017 (H.R.3053) and the Interim Consolidated Storage Act (H.R. 474) are controversial because they promote consolidated interim storage (CIS), which critics argue exposes transport routes and low-income communities to radioactive risks.

APA

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (2018). Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: What Congress, Federal Agencies and Communities Need to Know. https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Plant_Decommissioning-Backgrounder.pdf

Chicago

Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: What Congress, Federal Agencies and Communities Need to Know. 2018. https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Plant_Decommissioning-Backgrounder.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Environmental and Energy Study Institute |title=Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: What Congress, Federal Agencies and Communities Need to Know |date=16 July 2018 |url=https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Plant_Decommissioning-Backgrounder.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{environmentalandenergystudyinstitute2018decommissioning, author = {{Environmental and Energy Study Institute}}, title = {{Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: What Congress, Federal Agencies and Communities Need to Know}}, institution = {Environmental and Energy Study Institute}, year = {2018}, month = jul, url = {https://www.eesi.org/files/Nuclear_Plant_Decommissioning-Backgrounder.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }