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

This briefing, compiled by a coalition of public interest groups and published by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, outlines the technical, economic, and regulatory challenges associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants in the United States. It highlights significant risks to public health and safety, the inadequacy of current waste storage and funding, and the lack of local government oversight during the decommissioning process.

• The United States is facing an accelerating wave of nuclear plant closures due to economic pressures from cheaper renewable energy and gas-fired plants, yet is 'dangerously unprepared' for the resulting decommissioning process. While 11 reactors have completed decommissioning and 16 are currently in the phase, many more are expected to close soon, potentially affecting over 80 reactor communities and thousands of communities along waste transport routes.
• Decommissioning presents severe radiological risks that differ from the operational phase. These include the potential for spent fuel pools to leak or 'go critical' as neutron absorbers degrade, risks of fuel handling accidents during transfer to dry casks, and the possibility of radiological releases from dry cask failure. Additionally, the process of dismantling irradiated components can make radioactive materials airborne, exposing plant workers.
• There are three primary decommissioning methods: 'DECON' (rapid dismantlement over 10-20 years), 'SAFSTOR' (mothballing for 50-60 years to allow radioactivity to dissipate), and 'Entombment' (encasing the site in cement). Currently, 14 of the 16 U.S. reactors undergoing decommissioning are using SAFSTOR. Each method has drawbacks, with DECON posing near-term shipping risks and SAFSTOR risking site degradation and the loss of institutional memory or funding.
• The management of spent nuclear fuel is a critical unresolved issue, as the U.S. lacks a permanent geological repository. Current dry cask storage is described as unreliable over long periods, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is criticized for lowering safety standards and not requiring the fastest possible transfer from fuel pools to dry storage. Advocates suggest 'hardened on-site storage (HOSS)' as a safer alternative, though it is more expensive.
• Decommissioning funds may be insufficient to cover the actual costs of remediation. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) generally finds funding sufficient, independent estimates suggest a shortfall of $40 billion. Furthermore, the NRC does not require publicly transparent audits of how these funds are spent or that contractors follow U.S. Standard Accounting Principles and Practices.
• Local and state governments currently have little to no power to intervene in decommissioning decisions, which are primarily controlled by plant owners. The NRC is noted for ceding its licensing authority and not approving or disapproving licensee decommissioning plans, leaving communities as 'de facto stewards of orphaned waste' without meaningful oversight or compensation.

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} }