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

There are more than 250 forms of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)­owned spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Due to the variety of the spent nuclear fuel, the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program (NSNFP) has designated nine representative fuel groups for disposal criticality analyses based on fuel matrix, primary fissile isotope, and enrichment. For each fuel group, a fuel type that represents the characteristics of all fuels in that group has been selected for detailed analysis.

The objective of this analysis is to characterize a codisposal canister containing MIT or ORR fuel in the Five-Pack defense high level waste (DHLW) waste package (WP) to demonstrate concept viability related to use in the Mined Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) environment for the postclosure time frame. The purpose of this analysis is to investigate the disposal criticality and shielding issues for the DHLW WP and establish DHLW WP and codisposal canister compatibility with the MGDS, and to provide criticality and shielding evaluations for the preliminary DHLW WP design.

Dear Tim:
As we work to complete our final recommendations to the Secretary by January 29, 2012,
we have determined that our efforts would be aided by the formation of an ad hoc
subcommittee to investigate the issue of co‐mingling of defense and commercial wastes.
Specifically, the ad hoc subcommittee would review and make a recommendation to the
Commission on the issue of whether the 1985 Presidential decision to co‐mingle defense
and commercial wastes for disposal should be revisited in light of changes that have

At the request of the staff to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (“BRC”), we have reviewed the following questions:
1. Is there legal authority for DOE or any other entity to undertake to site a repository for “co-mingled” nuclear materials (i.e., civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW)) at any site other than Yucca Mountain?

The objective of this analysis is to characterize the criticality safety aspects of a degraded Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel (DOESNF) canister containing Masachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or Oak Ridge Research (ORR) fuel in the Five Pack defense high level waste (DHLW) waste package to demonstrate concept viability related to use in the Minded Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) environment for the postclosure time frame.

Gentlemen,
In accordance with the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and as the Secretary's designee, I approve your request to establish an ad hoc subcommittee to review and make a recommendation to the Commission regarding the co-mingling of defense and commercial waste.
This letter also serves to appoint Dr. Allison Macfarlane as the chair of the subcommittee and the membership of the subcommittee as identified in your letter to me dated October 31, 2011.

Thep purpose of this calculation is to perform degraded mode criticality evaluations of plutonium disposed in a ceramic waste form and emplaced in a Monitored geologic Repository (MGR). A 5 Defense High-Level Waste (DHLW) Canister Waste Package (WP) design, incorporating the can-in-canister concept for plutonium immobilization is considered in this calculation. Each HLW glass pour canister contains 7 tubes. Each tube contains 4 cans, with 20 ceramic disks (immobilized plutonium) in each.

Radioactive waste management is embedded in broader societal issues such as the
environment, risk management, energy, health policy and sustainability. In all
these fields, there is an increasing demand for public involvement, participation
and engagement. Involvement may take different forms at different phases and
can include sharing information, consulting, dialoguing or deliberating on
decisions with relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement should be seen as a