The success of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) is critical to U.S. ability to manage and dispose of
nuclear waste safely--and to the reestablishment of confidence in the nuclear energy
option in the United States. The program must conform with all applicable standards
and, in fact, set the example for a national policy on the safe disposal of radioactive
waste.
The Secretary of Energy has recently completed an extensive review of the

Over the decade since NWPA, the disposal
program's strategy, based on its interpretation of the
legislative mandate and regulatory requirements, has
sought:
• in a single large step and under a tight
schedule, to achieve the first-of-a-kind licensing
of a first-of-a-kind repository for isolating
wastes from the human environment for many
thousands of years.
• in a single large step and as rapidly as possible,
to build a full-scale repository and begin
disposing of the bulk of the nation's inventory

On the historic evidence, but also for the distinctive qualities of the challenge, nuclear waste siting conflicts are assuredly among the most refractory in the large variety of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) facility siting disputes. Since the president brought the Yucca Mountain process to a halt in 2010 (or, more accurately, issued its death certificate), the search for a permanent waste fuel repository is at the starting line again.

Since a 1985 decision by President Reagan that a separate permanent repository for disposal of
defense high level waste was not required1, DOE has planned for disposal of all high-level waste
and spent fuel from national defense activities and DOE’s own research activities in a repository
for commercial waste developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). The Commission
has heard recommendations from some commenters2 that this decision be revisited, or even

This analysis is prepared by the Mined Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) Waste Package Development Department (WPDD) in response to a request received via a QAP-3-12 Design Input Data Request (Reference 5.1) from Waste Acceptance, Storage, & Transportation (WAST) Design (formerly MRSMPC Design). This design analysis is an answer to the Design Input Data Request to provide: Specific requirements for long-term criticality control.

This report presents a comprehensive description of the post-closure radiological safety assess- ment of a repository for spent fuel (SF), vitrified high-level waste (HLW) from the reprocessing of spent fuel and long-lived intermediate-level waste (ILW), sited in the Opalinus Clay of the Zürcher Weinland in northern Switzerland. This assessment has been carried out as part of the technical basis for Project Entsorgungsnachweis1, which also includes a synthesis of informa- tion from geological investigations of the Opalinus Clay and a report on engineering feasibility.

Confidence in the long-term safety of deep geological disposal, and the ways in which this
confidence can be obtained and communicated, are topics of great importance to the radioactive waste
management community.1
The technical aspects of confidence have been the subject of considerable debate, especially
the concept of model validation. It has, for example, been pointed out that it is impossible to describe
fully the evolution of an open system, such as a repository and its environment, that cannot be

How to dispose of highly radioactive wastes from commercial nuclear power plants is a question that has remained unresolved in the face rapidly changing technological, economic, and political requirements. In the three decades following WWII, two federal agencies -- the Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration -- tried unsuccessfully to develop a satisfactory plan for managing high level wastes.

DOE decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program because, according to DOE officials, it is not a workable option and there are better solutions that can achieve a broader national consensus. DOE did not cite technical or safety issues. DOE also did not identify alternatives, but it did create a Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate and recommend alternatives.

This report is in response to the directive of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water
Development that the Department of Energy (DOE) update a 1984 report of alternative means of financing and
managing (AMFM) the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the DOE. The
President’s FY 2002 budget also stated: “DOE will submit to Congress an updated report regarding alternative
approaches to finance and manage the program by June 30, 2001[.] DOE will identify in this report models of