… What technical data are you referencing to make the claim or assumption geological repositories are technically feasible even for the short-term? I have done  extensive research and have found no such technical data. 

This myth of a “one and done” permanent storage solution was created by the nuclear industry to justify the economic costs of nuclear power.  The reality that there is no long-term solution and the “interim” nuclear waste storage costs will be never ending has not been addressed — even for the short-term.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) December 2017 report to Congress states spent nuclear fuel waste needs to be monitored and maintained in dry storage in a manner to prevent hydrogen gas explosions for both short-term and long-term storage.

Management And Disposal Of US Department Of Energy Spent Nuclear Fuel, NWTRB, December 2017

http://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb-mngmntanddisposal-dec2017-508a.pdf?sfvrsn=12

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) March 2018 report admitted no country has short-term storage and monitoring technology solutions needed to implement a safe permanent geological repository.  Webinar, slides and transcript at March 28, 2018 NWTRB Spring Meeting website.

http://www.nwtrb.gov/meetings/past-meetings/spring-2018-board-meeting—march-28-2018

In the NWTRB May 2018 report on Geologic  Repositories, the Board admitted “Long-term research, development, and demonstration of monitoring and sensor technologies are needed to address current technology limitations.”  

In other words, they have no clue how to ever make any geological repository work in the short-term or long term.  

Geologic Repositories: Performance Monitoring and Retrievability of Emplaced High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, NWTRB report to Congress, May 2018

http://www.nwtrb.gov/our-work/reports/geologic-repositories-performance-monitoring-and-retrievability-of-emp

HI All—

The decommissioning working group zoom call tomorrow Fri Sept 17th will focus on the proposal to have an entity other than DOE be tasked with finding one or more permanent repositories for nuclear waste.

The decades of frustration led to an “Anybody But DOE” call from all sides and this was reflected in the 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission report and subsequent legislation in the US Senate. The idea probably came from Sweden where an independent single mission organization was established to make a final repository and that was it…no more discussion of whether to have a permanent repository. The only public interest or critical intervention allowed was on the scientific technical merits or issues with the proposals. No societal, environmental justice or other aspects were allowed.

To prep for the conversation tomorrow on whether or not to support an independent entity to achieve a permanent repository for irradiated fuel and high level radioactive waste (and for Greater than Class C GTCC waste also), here are links to

(1)The Final Blue Ribbon Commission Report oft cited as the justification for an independent entity:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.energy.gov%2Fsites%2Fprod%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F04%2Ff0%2Fbrc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf&clen=5072249&chunk=true

(2) The text  of the Previously introduced Senate Bill (by Feinstein and Alexander, then Murkowski) S 1234. It has not introduced this Congressional session: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1234/text