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.

Although there are many reactor system benchmarks in the literature, they mostly
concentrate on the reactor system in isolation with only a few considering the fuel cycle.
However, there is currently increased emphasis on the performance of reactor systems
linked to their associated fuel cycle (Generation-IV for example). The published
international benchmark studies which relate to burn-up depletion calculations are
restricted to specific aspects of the fuel cycle:

EPRI has discovered several aspects of the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) proposed design and operation of the Yucca Mountain repository that—if implemented as described in the license application (LA)—could result in unnecessary occupational health and safety risk to workers involved with repository-related activities. This report identifies key DOE conservatisms and focuses on the occupational risk consequences of the DOE's approach to the repository design, performance assessment, and operation.

The purpose of this report is to provide an estimate of potential waste inventory and waste form
characteristics for the DOE UNF and HLW and a variety of commercial fuel cycle alternatives in order to
support subsequent system-level evaluations of disposal system performance. This report is envisioned as
a “living document” which will be revised as specific alternative fuel cycles are developed

"This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts, by the year 2050. Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario.

"In 2003 MIT published the interdisciplinary study The Future of Nuclear Power. The underlying motivation was that nuclear energy, which today provides about 70% of the “zero”-carbon electricity in the U.S., is an important option for the market place in a low-carbon world. Since that report, major changes in the U.S. and the world have taken place as described in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about climate change have risen: many countries have adopted restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and the U.S.

"Nuclear power has long been controversial; consequently, the debate about its reemergence requires a fresh assessment of the facts about the technology, its economics and regulatory oversight, and the risks and benefits of its expansion. In the past year, the Keystone Center assembled a group of 27 individuals (see the Endorsement page for a list of Participants) with extensive experience and unique perspectives to develop a joint understanding of the “facts” and for an objective interpretation of the most credible information in areas where uncertainty persists.