The U.S. Department of Energy is betting $40 million that scientists can shrink the danger window of spent nuclear fuel from tens of thousands of years to roughly 300, a timeline short enough for engineered barriers to manage without a deep geological repository lasting into geologic time. The program, called NEWTON, funds research into transmutation, a process that converts long-lived radioactive isotopes in used fuel into shorter-lived or stable elements. If it works at scale, the approach could reshape the economics and politics of nuclear power at a moment when electricity demand is surging and new reactor designs are moving toward deployment.
What NEWTON Actually Funds
On January 17, 2025, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) announced approximately $40 million for the NEWTON program, selecting teams to develop technologies that transmute used nuclear fuel (UNF) into less radioactive substances. The program’s stated goal is to reduce the mass, volume, radioactivity, and effective half-life of the commercial UNF stockpile, with an explicit focus on minor actinides, the isotopes most responsible for long-term radiotoxicity.
“Nuclear technology is essential to meeting our nation’s rapidly growing power needs, but UNF is a complicated and expensive part” of the equation, the ARPA-E announcement stated. That framing matters because it ties waste management directly to the viability of new nuclear construction. If spent fuel remains hazardous for 100,000 years, disposal requires a repository engineered to outlast human civilization. If the hazard period drops to 300 years, the engineering challenge shrinks by orders of magnitude, and so does the political difficulty of siting a disposal facility.
By February 2025, the University of Michigan’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences joined the ARPA-E NEWTON project, confirming that research teams are actively assembling. ARPA-E aims to develop new transmutation technologies that significantly shorten the timescales for nuclear waste disposal, according to the university’s announcement.
The 300-Year Threshold and Why It Matters
The 300-year figure is not arbitrary. A 2003 Government Accountability Office review of cleanup programs described how radioactivity in certain high-level waste streams diminishes over centuries, including projections of conditions after 300 years. That independent federal analysis established a baseline for understanding how radiological hazards evolve over time. The concept is straightforward: if the most dangerous long-lived isotopes can be transmuted or separated, the remaining material decays to background levels within a few centuries rather than millennia.
For ordinary people, this distinction is practical. A 300-year containment period falls within the range of structures humans already build and maintain. Cathedrals, dams, and government buildings routinely last centuries. A 100,000-year containment period, by contrast, exceeds the entire span of recorded history. No institution has ever demonstrated the ability to maintain anything for that long, which is precisely why siting a permanent geological repository has stalled for decades in the United States.
How DOE Currently Handles Nuclear Waste
NEWTON represents a sharp departure from the methods DOE uses today. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s final surplus plutonium disposition statement details a dilute-and-dispose approach for surplus weapons-grade plutonium. Under that strategy, plutonium is blended with inert material and shipped as contact-handled transuranic waste (CH-TRU) to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. The process is managed under the National Environmental Policy Act and relies on deep salt formations to isolate material for thousands of years.
Dilute-and-dispose works for specific defense-origin plutonium streams, but it does not address the roughly 90,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel sitting in pools and dry casks at reactor sites across the country. That stockpile contains the minor actinides, including neptunium, americium, and curium, that drive long-term radiotoxicity. NEWTON targets exactly those isotopes, which is what separates it from existing disposal pathways.
ONWARDS and the Broader DOE Investment Pattern
NEWTON did not emerge in isolation. DOE has been building a funding pipeline for advanced nuclear waste technologies over several years. According to the agency, it awarded $36 million through the ONWARDS program to reduce waste from advanced nuclear reactors. The International Energy Agency separately reported that DOE announced $40 million in funding for ONWARDS in April 2022, a discrepancy that likely reflects different accounting of total versus initial awards. ONWARDS focused on the next generation of advanced reactors, aiming to improve safety and shrink waste footprints so that future nuclear plants generate less material requiring deep isolation.
These efforts sit alongside other DOE initiatives that emphasize data, modeling, and infrastructure for complex energy systems. For example, the department’s GENESIS platform is being developed to support integrated energy system planning, while the Office of Scientific and Technical Information maintains a vast archive of nuclear-related research through the OSTI database. On the infrastructure side, DOE has created an online exchange portal to coordinate funding opportunities and project applications under recent federal infrastructure laws. Together, these tools form the institutional backdrop for programs like NEWTON: a mix of targeted R&D, open technical information, and mechanisms to move successful concepts into real-world projects.
What Transmutation Could Change
The technical core of NEWTON is transmutation of minor actinides and other long-lived isotopes. In broad terms, transmutation exposes these nuclei to neutron fluxes or other particle fields that change their composition, turning them into isotopes that either decay quickly or are stable. Historically, such concepts have been associated with fast reactors and accelerator-driven systems, but NEWTON is technology-neutral, inviting proposals ranging from novel reactor fuels and target designs to advanced separation methods that isolate the right isotopes for treatment.
If even part of this vision works, the implications for waste policy are significant. A smaller, less radiotoxic inventory of long-lived material would reduce the required capacity and performance of any future geological repository. It could also enable more regional or interim facilities designed around a 300-year hazard window, rather than a once-and-for-all site expected to remain secure for geological epochs. That, in turn, could lower lifecycle costs for nuclear power and reduce one of the main objections raised by communities and state governments when new reactors are proposed.
However, transmutation is not a magic eraser. Any system capable of altering actinides at scale must itself be carefully safeguarded, and it will still produce secondary wastes that require management. The energy and infrastructure needed to process existing spent fuel inventories are also nontrivial. NEWTON’s relatively modest budget underscores that this is early-stage research, not a deployment program. The agency’s role is to test whether new ideas can clear fundamental scientific and engineering hurdles, not to build industrial plants.
From Research Programs to Political Decisions
NEWTON and ONWARDS fit a pattern: DOE is trying to make nuclear energy more compatible with climate goals and public tolerance by tackling the back end of the fuel cycle. That strategy assumes that technical progress on waste can eventually unlock political compromises on siting both reactors and repositories. Yet the history of U.S. nuclear waste policy suggests that even strong technical cases do not automatically translate into public acceptance.
The 300-year target illustrates that tension. It is long enough that no current institution will be around to see the end of the hazard period, but short enough that people can plausibly imagine maintaining records, monitoring systems, and physical barriers across the interval. Whether that psychological shift is enough to move entrenched opposition remains an open question. Still, by reframing the problem from “forever” to “a few centuries,” NEWTON gives policymakers a different narrative to work with.
For now, the program’s impact will be measured in papers, prototypes, and experimental data rather than in fewer dry casks on reactor sites. The real test will come later, if NEWTON-supported concepts mature into technologies that utilities and regulators can evaluate alongside more familiar options like long-term storage and geological disposal. At that point, the groundwork being laid in DOE’s research portfolios, data platforms, and infrastructure exchanges could determine whether transmutation becomes a niche scientific curiosity or a central pillar of how the United States manages nuclear waste in the twenty-first century.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
