Letter from the Congress of the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Our country faces a mounting challenge when it comes to nuclear energy: the safe, long-term disposal of spent fuel from commercial reactors and leftover waste from defense activity. It's a challenge with a decades-long history.

Dear Mr. Frazier:
At our request, the Commission staff is in the process of assembling information on the costs and financing of the US program to manage used fuel and high-level nuclear wastes. To assist in the completion of this effort, it would be most helpful if the Department could provide the information listed int the attachment.
...

At the request of the staff to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (“BRC”), we have reviewed the following questions:
1. Is there legal authority for DOE or any other entity to undertake to site a repository for “co-mingled” nuclear materials (i.e., civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW)) at any site other than Yucca Mountain?

This Memorandum analyzes issues related to the Standard Contract between the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) and the “utilities.” Beginning with a discussion of specific provisions of the Standard Contract, this Memorandum then analyzes the status of lawsuits involving the Standard Contract, reviews issues related to on-site storage of spent fuel and HLW, and assesses the prospects for modifying the current waste-disposal regime through Federal legislation or amendments to the Standard Contract.

The nuclear energy industry is committed to legislative reform to create a sustainable, integrated program for federal government management of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) high-level radioactive waste and commercial used nuclear fuel.

It is increasingly apparent that the United States will require a large expansion of nuclear power
generation capacity to meet its future baseload electricity needs while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As a result, Congress and the Administration must act to update U.S. nuclear fuel
cycle policy to address these realities. This will likely require a multifaceted approach involving
some combination of on-site/centralized dry cask interim storage, nuclear fuel recycling, and
emplacement of high-level wastes in long-term geological storage.