Given the mess that the DOE has made at the nuclear weapons sites and its problems with managing its own irradiated fuel, this would be a grave step backward in nuclear waste management. The DOE made a commitment to take transuranic waste out of Idaho, where most containerized TRU waste is stored, to a repository by 1980. Missing that deadline has given rise to a series of political crises, such as a governor of Idaho threatening to close down its border to incoming waste. Among other things, spent fuel from naval nuclear reactors is sent to Idaho for storage. Storage of spent fuel and TRU waste on site for a few decades is feasible and can generally be done relatively safely, if the industry and regulatory authorities pay due attention to the safety issues involved.
Current practice leaves a good deal to be desired.
The design and licensing of casks should take account of the need for on-site storage for a period of several decades, possibly up to about 100 years. But on-site storage is not a sound strategy for the long term. It risks a host of problems, including the possibility of reprocessing, social instability, leaks and accidents, or destruction of waste storage containers by natural disasters or terrorism. There is also a high potential for neglect in economically difficult times. The problem of neglect may become more serious after the utility has shut down the reactor since the plant would not be generating any more income.