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 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 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 Disposal Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has
commenced to address a set of issues, all of which bear 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?”
To answer this question and to develop specific recommendations and options for consideration by the

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.

The comparison of different nuclear fuel cycle options has become an integral element to any analysis of the future prospects for nuclear energy, in the United States and around the world. Concerns for supply security and price volatility of fossil fuels, combined with growing resolve to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, have caused a general shift in attitudes towards nuclear energy. However, there are lingering sustainability concerns for nuclear energy – long term uranium supply and environmental impact – as well as concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

America’s nuclear waste management program is at an impasse. The Obama Administration’s decision
to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is but the latest indicator of a policy that has
been troubled for decades and has now all but completely broken down. The approach laid out under
the 1987 Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)—which tied the entire U.S. high-level
waste management program to the fate of the Yucca Mountain site—has not worked to produce a

The issue of interim storage of used (spent)1 fuel is dependent on a number of key factors, some
of which are not known at this time but are the subject of this study. The first is whether or not
the Yucca Mountain Project continues or is cancelled such that it may be able to receive spent
fuel from existing and decommissioned nuclear power stations. The second is whether the United
States will pursue a policy of reprocessing and recycling nuclear fuel. The reprocessing and

DOE decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program because, according to DOE officials, it is not a workable option and there are better solutions that can achieve a broader national consensus. DOE did not cite technical or safety issues. DOE also did not identify alternatives, but it did create a Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate and recommend alternatives.

he U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from commercial nuclear power plants. An increasing amount of the SNF in storage is in dry storage systems, mostly at current and decommissioned plants. As directed by the Commission (in SRM-COMSECY-10-0007; December 6, 2010), in expectation of continued use of dry storage for extended periods of time, the NRC staff is examining the technical needs and potential changes to the regulatory framework that may be needed to continue licensing of SNF storage over periods beyond 120 years.

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.

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