After more than 20 years of commercial nuclear power, the Federal Government has yet to develop a broadly supported policy for fulfilling its legal responsibility for the final isolation of high-level radioactive waste. OTA's study concludes that until such a policy is adopted in law, there is a substantial risk that the false starts, shifts of policy, and fluctuating support that have plagued the final isolation program in the past will continue.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is evaluating the safety and security of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) stored in dry casks for extended time periods before transportation to a location where the SNF is further processed or permanently disposed.

America’s nuclear waste management program is at an impasse. The Obama Administration’s decision
to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is but the latest indicator of a policy that has
been troubled for decades and has now all but completely broken down. The approach laid out under
the 1987 Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)—which tied the entire U.S. high-level
waste management program to the fate of the Yucca Mountain site—has not worked to produce a

Several hundred distinct types of DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel (DSNF) may potentially be disposed in the Yucca Mountain repository. These fuel types represent many more types than can be viably individually examined for their effect on the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application (TSPA-LA). Additionally, for most of these fuel types, there is no known direct experimental test data for the degradation and dissolution of the waste form in repository groundwaters.

This paper, prepared to aid the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in its
deliberations, includes a discussion of the issues that would be faced in the siting, permitting and
licensing of storage and disposal facilities for the “back end” of the commercial nuclear fuel
cycle and for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) high–level radioactive waste. It discusses the
authority that could be employed by non–federal levels of government in supporting or opposing