The main question before the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee was whether the United States should change its approach to storing and transporting spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) while one or more disposal facilities are established.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from point of origin to destination at a federal storage or disposal facility. Section 180(c), written into the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987, requires OCRWM to prepare public safety officials along the routes for these shipments.

The comparison of different nuclear fuel cycle options has become an integral element to any analysis of the future prospects for nuclear energy, in the United States and around the world. Concerns for supply security and price volatility of fossil fuels, combined with growing resolve to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, have caused a general shift in attitudes towards nuclear energy. However, there are lingering sustainability concerns for nuclear energy – long term uranium supply and environmental impact – as well as concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

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

In February, 2011 the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future requested the Department of Energy
(DOE) to provide a white paper summarizing the quantities and characteristics of potential waste generated by various
nuclear fuel cycles. The BRC request expressed interest in two classes of radioactive wastes:
 Existing waste that are or might be destined for a civilian deep geologic repository or equivalent.
 Potential future waste, generated by alternative nuclear fuel cycles (e.g. wastes from reprocessing, mixed-oxide

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.

At the request of the staff to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (“BRC”), we have reviewed whether certain recommendations in the BRC’s July 29, 2011 Draft Report respecting near-term actions by the Department of Energy (“DOE”) or other officers or agencies in the Executive Branch can be implemented under existing law. These recommendations relate to:
(1) Initial steps to site, license and construct consolidated interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel (“spent fuel”);

The almost limitless energy of the atom was first harnessed in the United States, as scientists proved the basic physics of nuclear fission in a rudimentary reactor built in the floor of a squash court at the University of Chicago in 1942, and then harnessed that proven energy source in the form of atomic weapons used to end World War II. Scientists who accomplished this feat moved quickly after World War II to harness that power for peaceful uses, focusing primarily on electricity generation for industry, commerce, and household use.

This report presents the findings and conclusions of OTA's analysis of Federal policy
for the management of commercial high-level radioactive waste. It represents a major update
and expansion of the analysis presented to Congress in our summary report, Managing
Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste, published in April of 1982 during the
debate leading to passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). This new
report is intended to contribute to the implementation of NWPA, and in particular to

Indian tribes have voiced their tribal issues in the United States‘ nuclear effort since its
inception, with the siting of what would become Los Alamos National Laboratory adjacent to the
San Ildefonso Pueblo Reservation and the Hanford plutonium production works along waterways
shared with the Yakama Nation and other Indian tribes. The siting of a proposed repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada along with other activities conducted on the Nevada National Security
Site (NNSS) (formerly the Nevada Test Site), increased the need for the United States