This “Technical Evaluation Report on the Content of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain License Application; Postclosure Volume: Repository Safety After Permanent Closure” (TER Postclosure Volume) presents information on the NRC staff’s review of DOE’s Safety Analysis Report (SAR), provided on June 3, 2008, as updated by DOE on February 19, 2009. The NRC staff also reviewed information DOE provided in response to NRC staff’s requests for additional information and other information that DOE provided related to the SAR.

The effective termination of the Yucca Mountain program by the U.S. Administration in 2009
has further delayed the construction and operation of a permanent disposal facility for used fuel
and high level radioactive waste (HLW) in the United States. In concert with this decision, the
President directed the Energy Secretary to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future to review and provide recommendations on options for managing used fuel and

NRC Waste Confidence Rulemaking, Federal Register, 1984, 1990, 1999, and 2008

The effective termination of the Yucca Mountain program by the U.S. Administration in 2009 has further delayed the construction and operation of a permanent disposal facility for used fuel and high level radioactive waste (HLW) in the United States. In concert with this decision, the President directed the Energy Secretary to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to review and provide recommendations on options for managing used fuel and HLW.

In the existing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations governing the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the time period of compliance was set at 10,000 years. Recently, a Court ordered that EPA and NRC either revise the regulation on this topic to be "based upon and consistent with" recommendations made by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, who recommended a time period of compliance out to as long as one million years, or seek congressional relief.

The main objective of this report is to identify conditions which affect public concern (either
increase or decrease) and political acceptance for developing and implementing programmes
for geologic disposal of long-lived radioactive waste. It also looks how citizens and relevant
actors can be associated in the decision making process in such a way that their input is
enriching the outcome towards a more socially robust and sustainable solution. Finally, it
aims at learning from the interaction how to optimise risk management addressing needs and

This paper provides a brief description of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its regulatory process for the current nuclear fuel cycle for light water power reactors (LWRs). It focuses on the regulatory framework for the licensing of facilities in the fuel cycle. The first part of the paper provides an overview of the NRC and its regulatory program including a description of its organization, function, authority, and responsibilities.

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.

On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. The senators requested comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators posed eight questions on which they sought comments.

US policy for management of used nuclear fuel (UNF) and high level radioactive wastes (HLRW) is at a crossroads, and the success of new policy directions will depend in part on broad public acceptance and support. In this paper I provide an overview of the evidence concerning the beliefs and concerns of members of the American public regarding UNF and HLNW. I also characterize the evidence on American’s policy preferences for management of these materials.

The management of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and defense high level waste (HLW) is a complex sociotechnical
systems challenge. Coordinated, reliable, and safe performance will be required over very long
periods of time within evolving social and technical contexts. To accomplish these goals, a waste
management system will involve a host of facilities for interim storage and longterm disposal, a
transportation infrastructure, and research and development centers. The complexity of SNF and HLW

US policy for management of used nuclear fuel (UNF) and high level radioactive wastes (HLRW) is at a crossroads, and the success of new policy directions will depend in part on broad public acceptance and support. In this paper I provide an overview of the evidence concerning the beliefs and concerns of members of the American public regarding UNF and HLNW. I also characterize the evidence on American’s policy preferences for management of these materials.

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) acts as a centre for informed exchange of knowledge and experience regarding stakeholder interaction and public participation in radioactive waste management. It promotes an open discussion among members and stakeholders, across institutional boundaries, and between technical and non-technical actors, in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. As such, the FSC is, first and foremost, a learning organisation.

This Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) provides guidance to the staff for determining if
storage systems to be licensed under 10 CFR Part 72 allow ready retrieval of spent fuel.
This guidance is not a regulation or a requirement.

This Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) provides guidance to the staff on classifying spent nuclear
fuel as either (1) damaged, (2) undamaged, or (3) intact, before interim storage or
transportation. This is not a regulation or requirement and can be modified or superseded by
an applicant with supportable technical arguments.

Revision 2

Compliance with 10 CFR 72.122(l) has been interpreted to mean that a licensee, during any
point in the storage cycle, must have a means of retrieving and repackaging individual fuel
assemblies even after an accident. The staff has reevaluated this interpretation.

The closure weld for the outer cover plate for austenitic stainless steel designs may be
inspected using either volumetric or multiple pass dye penetrant techniques subject to the
following conditions:
• Dye penetrant (PT) examination may only be used in lieu of volumetric
examination only on austenitic stainless steels. PT examination should be done
in accordance with ASME Section V, Article 6, “Liquid Penetrant Examination.”
• For either ultrasonic examination (UT) or PT examination, the minimum

Several changes have occurred since the issuance of NUREG-1536, “Standard Review Plan
(SRP) for Dry Cask Storage Systems,” that affect the staff’s approach to confinement
evaluation. The attachment to this ISG integrates the current staff approach into a revision of
ISG-5. The highlights of the changes include:
• Reflects October 1998 revisions to 10 CFR 72.104 and 10 CFR 72.106.
• Expands and clarifies acceptance criteria associated with confinement analysis and
acceptance of “leak tight” testing instead of detailed confinement analysis.

The Standard Review Plan, NUREG-1536, Chapter 5, Section V, 2 recommends that “the
applicant calculate the source term on the basis of the fuel that will actually provide the
bounding source term,” and states that the applicant should, “either specify the minimum initial
enrichment or establish the specific source terms as operating controls and limits for cask use.”
A specified source term is difficult for most cask users to determine and for inspectors to verify.

Staff raised two major issues concerning the adverse effects of fission gases to the gas-mixture
thermal conductivity in a spent fuel canister in a post accident environment. The two major
concerns were: (1) the reduction of the thermal conductivity of the canister gas by the mixing of
fission gases expelled from failed fuel pins and (2) the resultant temperature and pressure rise
within the canister. Since the fission gas is typically of a lower conductivity than the cover gas,

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 71, Packaging and Transportation of
Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater
Than Class C Waste, require that spent nuclear fuel (SNF) remain subcritical in transportation
and storage, respectively. Unirradiated reactor fuel has a well-specified nuclide composition
that provides a straightforward and bounding approach to the criticality safety analysis of

The purpose of this ISG is to clarify the technical criteria for types of materials that will be |
considered associated with the storage of spent fuel assemblies. While control rods are |
mentioned in the Standard Review Plan as possible contents, specific information and guidance
is lacking.

Revision 1

There is no existing American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for the design
and fabrication of spent fuel dry storage casks. Therefore, ASME Code Section III, is
referenced by NUREG-1536, “Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems,” as an
acceptable standard for the design and fabrication of dry storage casks. However, since dry
storage casks are not pressure vessels, ASME Code Section III, cannot be implemented
without allowing some alternatives to its requirements.

Revision 1

The staff has broadened the technical basis for the storage of spent fuel including assemblies
with average burnups exceeding 45 GWd/MTU. This revision to Interim Staff Guidance No. 11
(ISG-11) addresses the technical review aspects of and specifies the acceptance criteria for
limiting spent fuel reconfiguration in storage casks. It modifies the previous revision of the ISG
in three ways: (1) by clarifying the meaning of some of the acceptance criteria contained in