Consistent with the mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. United States Department of Energy, (Nos. 11-1066 and 11-1068; D.C. Cir. 2013), and notwithstanding the absence of the determination required to be made pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 10222(a)(4), I hereby propose, subject to any

Dear Mr. President:
At your direction, the Secretary of Energy established the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future to review policies for managing the back end of the nuclear
fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy. We are pleased to be serving as Co‐
Chairmen of the Commission, and we are writing to you to highlight an important action
we strongly believe should be reflected in your Fiscal Year 2013 baseline budget
projections.
In our draft report to the Secretary, issued in July of this year, the Commission

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.

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.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), established a
step-by-step process for the siting of the nation's first repository for
high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel. The Act gave the Department of
Energy (DOE) the primary responsibility for conducting this siting process.
The first step in the process laid out in the Act was the development by
the DOE, with the concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), of
general guidelines to be used by the Secretary of the DOE (the Secretary) in

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Dear Co-Chairs Hamilton and Scowcroft:
The Obama Administration believes that nuclear energy has an important role to playas America moves to a clean energy future. One of my goals as Secretary of Energy is to help restart America's nuclear industry, creating thousands of new jobs and new export opportunities for the United States while producing the carbon free energy we need to power America's economy.

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.

Dear Secretary Chu:
Thank you for your remarks to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future at our inaugural meeting on March 25, 2010. Your guidance was both enlightening and invaluable as we establish a plan to fulfill the Commission’s charter.

This report highlights the findings and conclusions of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) and presents recommendations for consideration by the Administration and Congress, as well as interested state, tribal and local governments, other stakeholders, and the public.