The Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Restriction Act of 2025 would bar the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from issuing licenses to store spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste at consolidated interim storage facilities that are private or non-federal. Licenses may only cover storage at a facility with an operating civilian nuclear power reactor from which the waste came, or at a federally owned interim storage facility.
The bill also prohibits long-term storage or disposal at non-federal sites and nullifies any licenses that are already in effect upon enactment. It frames Congress’s authority to constrain agency actions and anchors definitions to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
At a Glance
What It Does
Starting on enactment, the NRC may not issue a license to store SNF or HLW at a facility other than a reactor-site facility or a federally owned interim storage facility. It also bars long-term storage or disposal at non-federal sites and nullifies current licenses.
Who It Affects
NRC personnel and commissioners, private entities seeking to operate consolidated interim storage, and nuclear power utilities with spent fuel awaiting storage.
Why It Matters
It shifts storage policy away from privately operated consolidated interim facilities toward reactor-site or federal storage, with broader implications for long-term disposal planning and regulatory authority.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill targets how the United States stores spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It would prohibit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing licenses for interim storage at consolidated facilities that are privately owned or non-federal.
The only permissible interim storage locations would be at reactor sites or at federally owned interim storage facilities. The measure also prohibits the long-term storage or disposal of this material at non-federal sites and would void any licenses already in effect when the bill becomes law.
The text relies on definitions from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and asserts Congress’s constitutional authority to restrict agency actions related to nuclear waste storage.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits NRC licensing for interim storage at non-reactor, non-federal sites.
Only reactor-site or federally owned interim storage facilities may host licensed storage.
Licenses in effect at enactment are nullified.
Definitions for key terms come from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
There is a stated sense of Congress that NRC lacks express authority to issue these licenses.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 designates the act as the Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Restriction Act of 2025. The provision creates the formal nomenclature used for subsequent references and clarifies its applicability as federal law.
Prohibition on NRC licenses for certain storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
Section 2 lays out the core prohibition. Subsection (a) lists findings about the regulatory framework for nuclear waste and notes ongoing litigation and jurisdictional splits between circuits. Subsection (b) expresses a Sense of Congress that the NRC lacks express authority to issue the specified licenses. Subsection (c) imposes the core prohibition: beginning on enactment, the NRC may not issue licenses to store SNF or HLW at private or non-federal consolidated interim storage facilities, nor for long-term storage or disposal at non-federal sites. Subsection (d) nullifies any licenses in effect as of enactment. Subsection (e) provides definitions aligned with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to anchor terms like “spent nuclear fuel,” “repository,” and “storage.”
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local communities near proposed consolidated interim storage facilities, because bans on licensing reduce perceived health and safety risks and burdens associated with siting decisions.
- Environmental and public health advocacy groups, which often press for restricting interim storage and accelerating federal waste management oversight.
- States that host or oppose interim storage projects and seek to preserve local control over siting decisions.
- Congress and federal oversight bodies that favor asserting clear statutory control over nuclear waste licensing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nuclear power utilities with spent fuel awaiting storage that would otherwise use consolidated interim storage as a licensing pathway.
- Private developers and operators of proposed consolidated interim storage facilities, which lose a licensing avenue and related market opportunity.
- Local governments and communities that would incur regulatory and oversight costs related to siting opposition and potential litigation.
- The broader nuclear industry and potential bidders for interim storage who face a pivot to reactor-site storage or federal facilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between Congress’s desire to curb a licensing pathway for consolidated interim storage due to safety and siting concerns, and the practical need for a long-term, workable waste management solution that may require or rely on licensed interim storage outside reactor sites during the transition to a federal repository.
The bill creates a high-stakes policy alternative: it bans a licensing pathway for private or non-federal interim storage and reinforces federal control over nuclear waste storage decisions. While it foregrounds safety concerns and local siting considerations, it also raises questions about the availability and timing of an eventual federal repository and the practical implications for utilities already pursuing CISF licenses.
The targeted approach may prompt litigation, prompt reconsideration of long-standing waste management plans, and shift costs to reactor-site storage or federally owned facilities. It also relies on a few unsettled legal questions about Congress’s power to constrain NRC licensing beyond the Atomic Energy Act framework.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.