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?”

This guidance manual provides the NRC staff methodology for calculating parameters for limiting conditions of operation required in the radiological effluent Technical Specifications for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. it provides guidance in using the model specifications reported in NUREG-0472 (Revision 1)*, and NUREG-0473 (Revision 1)*, applicable to operating PWR and BWR licensees, and users of the Standard Technical Specifications packages available for various vendor designs.

As nuclear power plants began to run out of storage capacity in spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage pools, many nuclear operating companies added higher density pool storage racks to increase pool capacity. Most nuclear power plant storage pools have been re-racked one or more times. As many spent fuel storage pools were re-racked to the maximum extent possible, nuclear operating companies began to employ interim dry storage technologies to store SNF in certified casks and canister-based systems outside of the storage pool in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs).

Independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) are currently licensed for 20 years. However, delays in developing permanent spent fuel disposal capability require continued ISFSI storage beyond the 20-year term. This report provides a technical basis for demonstrating the feasibility of extended spent fuel storage in ISFSIs.

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

The purpose of this document is to provide the requirements rationale for the current version of the Preliminary Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance Specification; WMO-TADCS-000001.

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

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

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

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

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

Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation - Court of Federal Claims decision in Maine Yankee II, Conn Yankee II and Yankee Atomic II

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

The Nuclear Energy Institute, on behalf of the nuclear energy industry, is pleased to provide comments on the discussion draft of the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 and the associated documents that were released on April 25.

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.