The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee was formed to respond to the charge—set forth in the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission—to evaluate existing fuel cycle technologies and R&D programs in terms of multiple criteria.

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.

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

A methodology for performing and applying nuclear criticality safety calculations, for PWR spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packages with actinide-only burnup credit, is described. The changes in the U-234, U-235, U-236, U-238, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241, Pu-242, and Am-241 concentration with burnup are used in burnup credit criticality analyses. No credit for fission product neutron absorbers is taken. The methodology consists of five major steps. (1) Validate a computer code system to calculate isotopic concentrations of SNF created during burnup in the reactor core and subsequent decay.

A methodology for performing and applying nuclear criticality safety calculations, for PWR spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packages with actinide-only burnup credit, is described. The changes in the U-234, U-235, U-236, U-238, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241, Pu-242, and Am-241 concentration with burnup are used in burnup credit criticality analyses. No credit for fission product neutron absorbers is taken. The methodology consists of five major steps. (1) Validate a computer code system to calculate isotopic concentrations of SNF created during burnup in the reactor core and subsequent decay.

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.

At the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Academies assessed the safety and
security of spent nuclear fuel stored in pools and dry casks at commercial nuclear power
plants in the United States. The public report can be viewed on the National Academies
Press website at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11263.html.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) asked us to study whether
occupational safety and health conditions in today's U.S. nuclear industry are reasonably safe,
and if those conditions have improved since the Three Mile Island event in 1979. The BRC also
asked us to look to the future, to try to anticipate worker safety and health risks that should be
addressed by the industry, its government regulators and private watchdogs.
Over the eight weeks allotted, we performed a limited review of the literature and spoke with

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.

The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee was formed to respond to the charge—set forth in the charter of the BRC—to evaluate existing fuel cycle technologies and R&D programs in terms of multiple criteria.

This report presents a comprehensive description of the post-closure radiological safety assess- ment of a repository for spent fuel (SF), vitrified high-level waste (HLW) from the reprocessing of spent fuel and long-lived intermediate-level waste (ILW), sited in the Opalinus Clay of the Zürcher Weinland in northern Switzerland. This assessment has been carried out as part of the technical basis for Project Entsorgungsnachweis1, which also includes a synthesis of informa- tion from geological investigations of the Opalinus Clay and a report on engineering feasibility.

The Centralized Interim Storage Facility (CISF) is designed as a temporary, above-ground away-from-reactor spent fuel storage installation for up to 40,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). The design is non-site-specific but incorporates conservative environmental and design factors (e.g., 360 mph tornado and 0.75 g seismic loading) intended to be capable of bounding subsequent site-specific factors. Spent fuel is received in dual-purpose canister systems and/or casks already approved for transportation and storage by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

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

Fuel rod buckling analyses under bottom end drop conditions have traditionally been performed
to demonstrate integrity of the fuel following a cask drop accident. The methodology described
by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to analyze the buckling of irradiated spent
fuel assembly under a bottom end drop in their report UCID-21246 is a simplified approach. It
assumed that buckling occurred when the fuel rod segment between the bottom two spacer
grids reached the Euler buckling limit. The weight of fuel pellets was neglected in the analysis;