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.

Recognizing that Idaho has a major strategic and economic interest in maintaining INL’s leadership role and in helping
the nuclear energy industry successfully meet these broader challenges, Idaho governor C.L. “Butch” Otter established
the Leadership in Nuclear Energy or “LINE” Commission in February 2012.

The Governor recognized that recent national developments in the nuclear energy sector will cause the State of Idaho to
face important choices in the future and that he needed to understand the best options available.

The objective of this siting study work is to support DOE in evaluating integrated advanced nuclear plant and ISFSI deployment options in the future. This study looks at several nuclear power plant growth scenarios that consider the locations of existing and planned commercial nuclear power plants integrated with the establishment of consolidated interim spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs).

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

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 United States makes decisions regarding the domestic uses of nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle primarily based economic considerations, domestic political constraints, and environmental impact concerns. Such factors influence U.S. foreign policy decisions as well, but foreign policy decisions are often more strongly determined by national security considerations, including concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

To advance nuclear energy to meet future energy needs, ten countries—Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have agreed on a framework for international cooperation in research for a future generation of nuclear energy systems, known as Generation IV. The figure below gives an overview of the generations of nuclear energy systems. The first generation was advanced in the 1950s and 60s in the early prototype reactors.

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.

The purpose of this U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy Assessment
Report (Assessment) is to present an analysis of the adequacy of the fee being paid by nuclear
power utilities for the permanent disposal of their SNF and HLW by the United States
government.
This Assessment consists of six sections: Section 1 provides historical context and a comparison
to previous fee adequacy assessments; Section 2 describes the system, cost, income, 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.

This document summarizes DOE’s commercial nuclear energy RD&D program based on a R&D roadmap and on DOE/NE’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. The roadmap is written at a high level and is mostly qualitative in terms of activities, milestones and decisions to be made and does not contain budget information. The fiscal year 2011 budget request contains more specific and detailed information on activities, milestones, decisions, and budgets but only for fiscal year 2011 and the two preceding fiscal years.

There has been a substantial resurgence of interest in nuclear power in the United States
over the past few years. One consequence has been a rapid growth in the research
budget of DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE). In light of this growth, the Office of
Management and Budget included within the FY2006 budget request a study by the
National Academy of Sciences to review the NE research programs and recommend
priorities among those programs. The programs to be evaluated were: Nuclear Power

To achieve energy security and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction objectives, the United States must develop and deploy clean, affordable, domestic energy sources as quickly as possible. Nuclear power will continue to be a key component of a portfolio of technologies that meets our energy goals. This document provides a roadmap for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) research, development, and demonstration activities that will ensure nuclear energy remains viable energy option for the United States.

The objective of this siting study work is to support DOE in evaluating integrated advanced nuclear plant and ISFSI deployment options in the future. This study looks at several nuclear power plant growth scenarios that consider the locations of existing and planned commercial nuclear power plants integrated with the establishment of consolidated interim spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs).

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