Understanding the changing nuclear and mechanical characteristics of used nuclear fuel (UNF) over time and how these changing characteristics affect storage, transportation, and disposal options can require many tools and types of data. To streamline analysis capabilities for the waste management system, a comprehensive, integrated data and analysis tool has been assembled—UNF-Storage, Transportation & Disposal Analysis Resource and Data System (UNF-ST&DARDS).

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.

This analysis provides information necessary for total system performance assessment (TSPA) for the license application (LA) to include the excess U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plutonium in the form of mixed oxide (MOX) spent nuclear fuel and lanthanide borosilicate (LaBS) glass. This information includes the additional radionuclide inventory due to MOX spent nuclear fuel and LaBS glass and the analysis that shows that the TSPA models for commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF) and high-level waste (HLW) degradation are appropriate for MOX spent nuclear fuel and LaBS glass, respectively.

The purpose of this calculation is to develop an estimate of the isotopic content as a function of time for mixed oxide (MOX) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies in a Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR). These data will be used as source data for criticality, thermal, and radiation shielding evaluations of waste package (WP) designs for MOX assemblies in the Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR).

In response to the remand of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (1979)), and as a continuation of previous proceedings conducted in this area by NRC (44 Fed. Reg. 61,372), the Commission initiated a generic rulemaking proceeding on October 25, 1979.

Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013

As part of the plutonium waste form development and down-select process, repository analyses have been conducted to evaluate the long-term performance of these forms for repository acceptance. Intact and degraded mode criticality analysis of the mixed oxide (MOX) spent fuel is presented in Volume I, while Volume II presents the evaluations of the waste form containing plutonium immobilized in a ceramic matrix.

The success of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) is critical to U.S. ability to manage and dispose of
nuclear waste safely--and to the reestablishment of confidence in the nuclear energy
option in the United States. The program must conform with all applicable standards
and, in fact, set the example for a national policy on the safe disposal of radioactive
waste.
The Secretary of Energy has recently completed an extensive review of the

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 permanent disposal facilities are established.
To answer this question and to develop specific recommendations and options for consideration by the
full Commission, the Subcommittee held multiple meetings and deliberative sessions, visited several

The Disposal Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) addressed a wide-ranging set of issues, all bearing directly on the central question: “How can the United States go about establishing one or more disposal sites for high-level nuclear wastes in a manner and within a timeframe that is technically, socially, economically, and politically acceptable?”

NRC/NEI, January 24, 2014 Public Meeting Presentations

Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013

Since a 1985 decision by President Reagan that a separate permanent repository for disposal of
defense high level waste was not required1, DOE has planned for disposal of all high-level waste
and spent fuel from national defense activities and DOE’s own research activities in a repository
for commercial waste developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). The Commission
has heard recommendations from some commenters2 that this decision be revisited, or even

Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013

An Account of the Programs of Federal Agencies and Events That Have Led to the Selection of a Potential Site for a Geologic Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste

How to dispose of highly radioactive wastes from commercial nuclear power plants is a question that has remained unresolved in the face rapidly changing technological, economic, and political requirements. In the three decades following WWII, two federal agencies -- the Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration -- tried unsuccessfully to develop a satisfactory plan for managing high level wastes.

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

Taking into account of the loss of reactivity of fuels at the end of their irradiation is known under the
term burnup credit (BUC). It is a question of dimensioning in a less penalizing way the devices of transport,
storage or of processing with respect to the risk of criticality. In the context of nuclear criticality safety a better
realism cannot be obtained at the price of conservatism. As a result the regulator requires measurements make it
possible to validate the adequacy between real fuels and the design assumptions. The sophistication of the

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