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.

Confidence in the long-term safety of deep geological disposal, and the ways in which this
confidence can be obtained and communicated, are topics of great importance to the radioactive waste
management community.1
The technical aspects of confidence have been the subject of considerable debate, especially
the concept of model validation. It has, for example, been pointed out that it is impossible to describe
fully the evolution of an open system, such as a repository and its environment, that cannot be

This report evaluates the potential for directly disposing of licensed commercial Dual Purpose
Canisters (DPCs) inside waste package overpacks without reopening. The evaluation considers
the principal features of the DPC designs that have been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) as these relate to thedesigns of waste packages and as they relate to
disposability in a repository in unsaturated volcanic tuff. Where DPC features appear to compromise future disposability in an unsaturated tuff (e.g., Yucca Mountain) repository

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?”

How to dispose of highly radioactive wastes from commercial nuclear power plants is a question that has remained unresolved in the face rapidly changing technological, economic, and political requirements. In the three decades following WWII, two federal agencies -- the Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration -- tried unsuccessfully to develop a satisfactory plan for managing high level wastes.

On the historic evidence, but also for the distinctive qualities of the challenge, nuclear waste siting conflicts are assuredly among the most refractory in the large variety of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) facility siting disputes. Since the president brought the Yucca Mountain process to a halt in 2010 (or, more accurately, issued its death certificate), the search for a permanent waste fuel repository is at the starting line again.

This document is the main report from the safety assessment project SR-Can. The SR-Can project is a preparatory stage for the SR-Site assessment, the report that will be used in support of SKB’s application for a final repository. The purposes of the safety assessment SR-Can are the following:
1. To make a first assessment of the safety of potential KBS-3 repositories at Forsmark and Laxemar to dispose of canisters as specified in the application for the encapsulation plant.