August 5, 2013 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Rochelle C. Bavol, Acting Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-13-0061 – PROPOSED RULE: 

WASTE CONFIDENCE – CONTINUED STORAGE OF SPENT 

NUCLEAR FUEL (RIN 3150-AJ20) 

The Commission has approved publication of the proposed rule and the draft Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) in the Federal Register subject to the comments and 

changes noted below and in the attachments. 

The staff should develop, and insert into the draft Federal Register notice, high-level questions 

and answers addressing the following topics: 

a. The impacts on waste confidence and/or the safe storage of fuel resulting from the 

potentially LARGE impact on cultural resources.

b. In general, the key assumptions made in the DGEIS.

c. How significant changes in these assumptions would be addressed under the NRC’s 

regulatory framework (for example, the periodicity of repackaging).

d. What did the Commission assume regarding the continuation of institutional controls 

and why.

e. Why the NRC can proceed with this rulemaking while research on the extended 

storage of spent fuel is ongoing.

f. How does this rulemaking relate to the certification of spent fuel storage casks and 

use of the general storage license at operating or decommissioned reactor facilities 

that are licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 by NRC? 

g. How can a future site-specific reactor EIS or supplement, that references the GEIS, 

be used to understand the environmental impacts of the no-action alternative (i.e of 

not approving nuclear power operations) for a proposed site? 

The staff should develop, and insert into the draft Federal Register notice questions, soliciting 

public comments on: 

a. Whether it would improve clarity for NRC to streamline the statements of 

consideration and rule by removing the content that is merely repeated from the 

DGEIS. 
- 2 - 

b. Whether specific policy statements regarding the timeline for repository availability 

should be removed from the rule text. 

c. Whether specific policy statements regarding the safety of continued spent fuel 

storage should be made in the rule text given the expansive and detailed information 

in DGEIS. 

d. Whether the title of the rule should be changed in light of a GEIS being issued 

instead of a separate Waste Confidence Decision. 

Prior to publishing, the staff should make appropriate conforming changes to the draft FRN and 

DGEIS consistent with the direction provided by the Commission in this SRM, as well as any 

necessary minor corrections. 

The Office of the Secretary should provide the modified rulemaking package to the Commission 

for review three business days prior to its transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. 

Given the number of plants in the Midwest and the South t h e staff should consider adding 

an additional meeting location, perhaps in Chicago, St. Louis, Orlando, or another area 

conducive to broad public participation. 

As the staff finalizes its plans for public meetings, the staff should be cognizant of the fact 

that, because a separate meeting cannot feasibly be held at each reactor or ISFSI site, 

many individuals will have to travel great distances to attend these public meetings. The 

staff, therefore, should choose meeting locations that are convenient to major airports, other 

means of transportation, and lodging facilities to the extent possible

Attachments: 1) Changes to the Draft Federal Register Notice in SECY-13-0061 

 2) Changes to the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

cc: Chairman Macfarlane 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Apostolakis 

 Commissioner Magwood 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR 
- 1 - 

Attachment 1 

Changes to the Draft Federal Register Notice in SECY-13-0061 

(Changes to be incorporated based on majority agreement) 

[7590-01-P] 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

[NRC-2012-0246] 

RIN: 3150-AJ20 

Waste Confidence – Continued 

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes revising its generic 

determination on the environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel 

beyond a reactor’s licensed life for operation and prior to ultimate disposal. The NRC has 

prepared a draft generic environmental impact statement to support this proposed rule. The 

Commission proposes to conclude that the analysis generically addresses the environmental 

impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a 

reactor ; and supports the determinations that it is feasible to safely store spent nuclear fuel 

beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor and to have a mined geologic repository within 

60 years following the licensed life for operation of a reactor. The proposed rule also would 

clarify that the generic determination applies to a license renewal for an independent spent fuel 
- 2 - 

storage installation (ISFSI). In addition, the proposed rule would make conforming amendments 

to the Commission’s 2013 findings on the environmental effects of renewing the operating 

license of a nuclear power plant to address issues related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel 

after a reactor’s licensed life for operation and the offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste disposal. 

DATES: Submit comments on the proposed rule by [INSERT DATE 75 DAYS FROM DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for 

comments received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to this proposed rule by any of the following 

methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket ID NRC-2012-0246. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; 

telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 

the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. 

• E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an 

automatic e-mail reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 

301-415-1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 
- 3 - 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677. 

For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see 

“Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merri Horn, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 

301-287-9167; e-mail: Merri.Horn@nrc.gov; or Timothy McCartin, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 

telephone: 301-287-9259; e-mail: Timothy.McCartin@nrc.gov; 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

 The purpose of this proposed rule is to improve the efficiency of the NRC’s licensing 

process by adopting into the NRC’s regulations an analysis of the generic environmental 

impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operations of 

a reactor (“continued storage”). The NRC has prepared a draft generic environmental impact 

statement of the environmental impacts of continued storage, which provides a regulatory basis 

for the rule. This proposed rule would codify the results of the analyses from the generic 

environmental impact statement in Section 51.23 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR), “Temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel after cessation of reactor operation-generic 

determination of no significant environmental impact.” The NRC’s licensing proceedings for 

nuclear reactors and ISFSIs have historically relied upon the generic determination in 10 CFR 

51.23 to satisfy the agency’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
- 4 - 

with respect to the narrow area of the environmental impacts of continued storage. If this 

proposed rule is adopted as a final rule, the NEPA analyses for future reactor and spent-fuelstorage facility licensing actions would not need to consider the environmental impacts of 

continued storage on a site specific basis. 

Summary of the Major Rule Changes 

 The major proposed changes to the rule are summarized as follows: 

• The title of 10 CFR 51.23 would be revised to “Environmental impacts of storage of 

spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor.” 

• Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.23 would be revised to provide the Commission’s generic 

determination on continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. The proposed amendments would 

state that the Commission has concluded that the analysis in NUREG-2157, “Waste Confidence 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (DGEIS) generically supports the environmental 

impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a 

reactor; and supports the Commission’s determinations that it is feasible to safely store spent 

nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor and to have a mined geologic 

repository within 60 years following the licensed life for operation of a reactor. 

• Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.23 would be revised to clarify that license renewals for an 

ISFSI are included in the scope of the generic determination. 

• Conforming changes would be made to 10 CFR 51.61, 51.80(b), and 51.97(a) to clarify 

that ISFSI license renewals are included in the scope of the generic determination. 
- 5 - 

• The “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal” 

issue would be reclassified as a Category 1 impact in Table B-1 of appendix B of 10 CFR part 

51, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” and 

the finding column entry would be revised to address continued storage. 

• The finding column entry for the “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” issue” in Table B1 appendix B of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 would be revised to include the period of continued 

storage beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments 

A. Accessing Information 

B. Submitting Comments 

II. Background 

III. Discussion 

A. General Information 

A1. What Action Is the NRC Taking? 

A2. What Is the Waste Confidence Proceeding? 

A3. Why Is the NRC Doing This Now? 

A4. Whom Would This Action Affect? 

A5. Why Is the NRC Generically Addressing the Environmental Impacts of Continued Storage? 
- 6 - 

A6. What Types of Waste Are Addressed by Waste Confidence? 

A7. What Activities Are Not Covered by the Waste Confidence DGEIS and Proposed Rule?

A8 How Is Spent Nuclear Fuel Stored? 

A9. How Can the NRC Conduct a Generic Review When Spent Nuclear Fuel Is Stored at 

Specific Sites? Why Has a Site-Specific Review Not Been Conducted? 

A10. Would the Waste Confidence Rulemaking Authorize the Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at 

the Operating Reactor Site Near Me? 

A11. What Environmental Reviews Would Be Precluded From a Site-Specific Licensing Action 

After the Waste Confidence Rulemaking Is Complete? 

A12. Why Is There Not a Separate Waste Confidence Decision Document? 

A13. How Can the NRC Complete the Environmental Impact Statement and Rulemaking in 

24 Months? 

A14. What Is the Status of the Extended Storage Effort? 

A15. Did the NRC Factor in Information from the Spent Fuel Pool Study in the DGEIS? 

A16. Did the NRC Address Accidents in the DGEIS? 

A17. Does the NRC Plan to Hold Public Meetings on the Waste Confidence DGEIS and 

Proposed Rule? 

A18. How Can I Stay Informed of Waste Confidence Activities? 

A19. How Frequently Does the NRC Plan to Revisit the Waste Confidence GEIS and Rule? 

A20. What Should I Consider as I Prepare to Submit My Comments to the NRC?
- 7 - 

B. Waste Confidence Rulemaking 

B1. What Is the Purpose of This Waste Confidence Rulemaking? 

B2. What Is Meant by the Phrase “Licensed Life for Operation of a Reactor?” 

B3. What Timeframes Are Being Considered in the DGEIS? 

B4. What Is the Significance of the Levels of Impact in the DGEIS (SMALL, 

MODERATE, LARGE)? 

B5. What Are the Environmental Impacts of At-Reactor Continued Storage? 

B6. What Are the Environmental Impacts of Away-from-Reactor Continued Storage? 

B7. How Will the Proposed Rule Address the Impacts from Continued Storage of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel? 

B8. What Is the Technical Basis for Concluding that Continued Storage Can Occur Safely? 

B9. If the NRC Is Considering Extending the Timeframe of Safe Storage, How Is That Not De 

Facto On Site Disposal? 

B10. Does the U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw its Yucca Mountain Application 

Affect NRC’s Conclusion That Geologic Disposal Is Technically Feasible? 

B11. What Changes Are Being Proposed for the Timing of a Geologic Repository?

B12. Why Did Does the NRC Think it is Feasible that a Repository Can Be Available in Choose

60 Years as the Appropriate Timeframe for a Repository? 

B13. How Does this Rulemaking Relate to the Licensing of Future Away-from-Reactor ISFSIs? 

B14. What Changes Are Being Proposed to Address Continued Storage for License Renewal? 
- 8 - 

C. Decision 

C1. Introduction 

C2. Geologic Repository - Technical Feasibility and Availability 

C3. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

C3.a. Regulatory Framework 

C3.b. Safe Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

C3.b.i. Technical Feasibility of Wet Storage 

C3.b.ii. Technical Feasibility of Dry Storage 

C.3.b.iii. Summary of Technical Feasibility of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage 

IV. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section 

V. Availability of Documents 

VI. Agreement State Compatibility 

VII. Plain Writing 

VIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

IX. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Availability 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

XI. Regulatory Analysis 

XII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments 

A. Accessing Information 
- 9 - 

 Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0246 when contacting the NRC about the 

availability of information for this proposed rule. You may access information related to this 

proposed rule, which the NRC possesses and is publicly-available, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket ID NRC-2012-0246. 

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): 

You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC Library at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public 

Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 

301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 

time that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS 

accession numbers are provided in a table in Section V, Availability of Documents, of 

this document. 

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the 

NRC’s PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

 Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0246 in the subject line of your comment 

submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission 

available to the public in this docket. 
- 10 - 

 The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not 

want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 

ADAMS and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or 

contact information. 

 If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the 

NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 

state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment 

into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

In the late 1970s, a number of environmental groups and States challenged the NRC 

regarding issues related to the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor’s 

licensed life for operation. In 1977, the Commission denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM), 

PRM-50-18, filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that asked the NRC to 

determine whether radioactive wastes generated in nuclear power reactors can be disposed of 

without undue risk to public health and safety and to refrain from granting pending or future 

requests for reactor operating licenses until the NRC made such a determination. The 

Commission stated in its denial that, as a matter of policy, it “... would not continue to license 

reactors if it did not have reasonable confidence that the wastes can and will in due course be 

disposed of safely” (42 FR 34391, 34393; July 5, 1977, pet. for rev. dismissed sub nom., NRDC 

v. NRC, 582 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1978)). 
- 11 - 

At about the same time, interested parties challenged license amendments that 

permitted expansion of the capacity of spent fuel pools at two nuclear power plants, Vermont 

Yankee and Prairie Island. In 1979, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit, in Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979), did not stay or vacate the license 

amendments, but did remand to the Commission the question of whether an offsite storage or 

disposal solution would be available for the spent nuclear fuel at the two facilities at the 

expiration of their licenses—at that time scheduled for in 2007 and 2009—and, if not, whether 

the spent nuclear fuel could be stored safely at those reactor sites until an offsite solution 

became available. 

In 1979, the NRC initiated a generic rulemaking proceeding that stemmed from these 

challenges and the Court’s remand in Minnesota v. NRC. The purpose of the Waste 

Confidence rulemaking was to generically assess whether the Commission could have 

reasonable assurance that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power plants “can be safely 

disposed of, to determine when such disposal or offsite storage will be available, and to 

determine whether radioactive wastes can be safely stored onsite past the expiration of existing 

facility licenses until offsite disposal or storage is available” (44 FR 61372, 61373; October 25, 

1979). On August 31, 1984, the Commission published the Waste Confidence Decision 

(Decision) (49 FR 34658) and a final rule (49 FR 34688), codified at 10 CFR 51.23. This 

Decision provided an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) to support the rule. In the 1984 Decision the Commission made five Findings: 

1. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe disposal of radioactive 

waste and spent nuclear fuel in a mined geologic repository is technically feasible; 

2. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that one or more mined geologic 

repositories for commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel will be available 
- 12 - 

by the years 2007 – 20091 and that sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 

years beyond the expiration of any reactor operating license to dispose of existing commercial 

high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel originating in such reactor and generated up 

to that time; 

3. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that high-level radioactive waste 

and spent nuclear fuel will be managed in a safe manner until sufficient repository capacity is 

available to assure the safe disposal of all high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel; 

4. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent nuclear 

fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts 

for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of that reactor’s operating license at that reactor’s 

spent fuel storage basin, or at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs; and 

5. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe independent onsite or 

offsite spent fuel storage will be made available if such storage capacity is needed. 

The rule, 10 CFR 51.23, codified the analysis in the Decision and found that for at least 

30 years beyond the expiration of a reactor operating license, no significant environmental 

impacts will result from the storage of spent nuclear fuel, and expressed the Commission’s 

reasonable assurance that a repository was likely to be available by 2007 – 2009. The rule also 

stated that, as a result of this generic determination, the agency did not need to assess the sitespecific impacts of continuing to store the spent nuclear fuel in either an onsite or offsite storage 

facility in new reactor licensing environmental impact statements (EIS) or EAs beyond the 

expiration dates of reactor licenses (10 CFR 51.23(b)). The rule also amended 10 CFR part 50, 

“Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities,” to require operating nuclear power 

 

1 Under the court remand that precipitated the initial waste confidence review, the NRC was required to consider 

whether there was reasonable assurance that an offsite storage solution would be available by the years 2007-2009 

and, if not, whether there was reasonable assurance that the spent fuel could be stored safely at those sites beyond 

those dates. See State of Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412, 418 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
- 13 - 

reactor licensees to submit their plans for managing spent nuclear fuel at their site until the fuel 

is transferred to the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) for disposal (see 10 CFR 50.54(bb)). 

The Commission conducted its first review of the Decision and rule in 1989 – 1990. This 

review resulted in the revision of the second and fourth Findings to reflect revised expectations 

for the date of availability of the first repository, and to clarify that the expiration of a reactor’s 

licensed life for operation referred to the full 40-year initial license for operation and any 

additional term of a revised or renewed license. On September 18, 1990, the Commission 

published the revised Decision (55 FR 38474) and the associated final rule (55 FR 38472). The 

revised Findings 2 and 4 in the 1990 revised Decision were: 

Finding 2: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that at least one mined 

geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and 

sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for 

operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of any reactor to 

dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel originating in 

such reactor and generated up until that time. 

Finding 4: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent 

nuclear fuel generated at any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental 

impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term 

of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin, or at either onsite 

or offsite ISFSIs. 

The Commission also amended 10 CFR 51.23(a) to reflect the revised timing of the 

availability of a geologic repository to the first quarter of the twenty-first century. The rule was 

also revised to reflect that the licensed life for operation may include the term of a revised or 

renewed license. 
- 14 - 

The Commission conducted its second review of the Decision and rule in 1999 and 

concluded that experience and developments after 1990 had confirmed the Findings and made 

a comprehensive reevaluation of the Decision and rule unnecessary (see 64 FR 68005; 

December 6, 1999). 

In 2008, the Commission decided to conduct its third review of the Decision and rule as 

part of an effort to enhance the efficiency of upcoming combined operating license application 

proceedings. The Commission determined that it would be more efficient to resolve certain 

combined-license-proceeding issues generically, including those related to Waste Confidence. 

This review resulted in a revision of the second and fourth Findings to reflect revised 

expectations for the date of availability of the first repository and that spent nuclear fuel can be 

stored safely for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation. 

 In December 2010, the Commission published its revised Decision (75 FR 81032; 

December 23, 2010) and associated final rule (75 FR 81037; December 23, 2010). The revised 

Findings 2 and 4 in the 2010 Decision were: 

Finding 2: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that sufficient mined geologic 

repository capacity will be available to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste 

and spent nuclear fuel generated by any reactor when necessary. 

Finding 4: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent 

nuclear fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental 

impacts for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term 

of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel 

storage basin and either onsite or offsite ISFSIs. 

Section 51.23(a) of 10 CFR was amended to reflect revised Findings 2 and 4. The 

changes reflected that spent nuclear fuel could be safely stored for at least 60 years beyond the 
- 15 - 

licensed life for operation of a reactor and that sufficient mined geologic repository capacity 

would be available when necessary. 

In response to the 2010 Decision and rule, the States of New York, New Jersey, 

Connecticut, and Vermont; several public interest groups; and the Prairie Island Indian 

Community filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that 

challenged the Commission’s compliance with NEPA. On June 8, 2012, the Court ruled that 

some aspects of the 2010 Decision did not satisfy the NRC’s NEPA obligations and vacated and 

remanded the Decision and rule (New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012)2

). The Court 

concluded that the Waste Confidence rulemaking is a major federal action necessitating either 

an EIS or an EA that results in a FONSI. In vacating the 2010 Decision and rule, the Court 

identified three specific deficiencies in the analysis: 

1. Related to the Commission’s conclusion that permanent disposal will be available 

“when necessary,” the Court held that the Commission needed to include an evaluation of the 

environmental effects of failing to secure permanent disposal since there was a degree of 

uncertainty regarding whether a repository would be built; 

2. Related to continued storage of spent nuclear fuel, the Court concluded that the 

Commission had not adequately examined the risk of spent fuel pool leaks in a forward-looking 

fashion; and 

3. Also related to the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel, the Court concluded that 

the Commission had not adequately examined the consequences of potential spent fuel 

pool fires. 

 2 The Court’s ruling is available at: 

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/57ACA94A8FFAD8AF85257A1700502AA4/$file/11-1045-1377720.pdf. 
- 16 - 

In response to the Court’s decision, on August 7, 2012, the Commission stated in 

Commission Order CLI-12-16 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12220A094) that it would not issue 

reactor or ISFSI licenses dependent upon the Waste Confidence Decision and rule until the 

Court’s remand is appropriately addressed. The Commission stated, however, that this 

determination extends only to final license issuance, and that all licensing reviews and 

proceedings should continue to move forward. 

In the September 6, 2012, Staff Requirements Memorandum, “Staff Requirements – 

COMSECY-12-0016 – Approach for Addressing Policy Issues Resulting from Court Decision to 

Vacate Waste Confidence Decision and Rule” (ADAMS Accession No. ML12250A032), the 

Commission directed the staff to develop a generic EIS to support an updated Waste 

Confidence Decision and rule. In response, the NRC formed the Waste Confidence Directorate 

in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) to oversee the development of 

the generic EIS and an update that would replace the previous Waste Confidence Decision and 

rule. The NRC began the environmental review process by publishing a Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (77 FR 65137; October 25, 2012). The NRC held one 

public meeting with a live Webcast and one Webcast-only meeting in November 2012, and two 

Webinars in December 2012 to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental review.3

 

The transcripts for each of these meetings are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML12331A347, ML12331A353, ML12355A174, and ML12355A187, respectively. The scoping 

period ended on January 2, 2013. Starting in January 2013, the NRC Waste Confidence 

 

 

3 A Webcast is an internet-based meeting that includes both audio and video feeds. A Webinar is an internet-based 

meeting that does not include video. 
- 17 - 

Directorate has held monthly public teleconferences to provide updates on the status of Waste 

Confidence activities. 

 The “Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process 

Summary Report,” which is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13060A128, provides 

a summary of the determinations and conclusions reached during the NRC’s environmental 

scoping process. The Summary Report also contains a summary of comments received during 

the public scoping period and the NRC’s responses. A separate document, “Scoping 

Comments on the Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement,” lists the 

scoping comments, organized by comment category (ADAMS Accession No. ML13060A130). 

The NRC is issuing this proposed rule and the draft NUREG-2157, “Waste Confidence Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement” (DGEIS) (ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXX) for public 

comment. 

III. Discussion 

 This discussion section has been divided into three subsections to better present 

information on the proposed rule and the Waste Confidence proceeding. Section A provides 

general information related to the Waste Confidence proceeding. Section B provides 

information related to the proposed rule changes. Sections A and B are in a question and 

answer format. Lastly, Section C ”Decision” provides a discussion of the issues and 

conclusions addressed in the DGEIS that had previously appeared in the Findings discussions 

of prior Waste Confidence decisions. 

A. General Information 

A1. What Action Is the NRC Taking? 

The NRC is proposing to issue a rule to codify its generic determination on the 

environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at, or away from, reactor sites 
- 18 - 

beyond a reactor’s licensed life for operation pending disposal at a repository. The analysis in 

the DGEIS provides a regulatory basis for the proposed rule. 

A2. What Is the Waste Confidence Proceeding? 

Historically, the Commission’s Waste Confidence proceeding represented the 

Commission’s generic determination and generic environmental analysis that spent nuclear fuel 

can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for a period of time past the 

licensed life for operation of a reactor. This generic environmental analysis was reflected in 10 

CFR 51.23, which addresses the NRC’s NEPA obligations with respect to the continued storage 

of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor, but before ultimate 

disposal. 

This proposed rule and the DGEIS represent a change in the format of the 

Commission’s Waste Confidence proceeding. As discussed in more detail in Question A.12, 

because the Commission is preparing a DGEIS, which provides a detailed analysis of the 

environmental impacts associated with continued storage, it is no longer necessary to make a 

“finding of no significant impact,” as that term is used in NEPA, associated with continued 

storage. This proposed rule then codifies the environmental impacts reflected in the DGEIS. 

A3. Why Is the NRC Doing This Now? 

On June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

the Commission’s 2010 Waste Confidence rulemaking, and remanded the rulemaking to the 

NRC to address deficiencies related to the NRC’s NEPA analysis. On September 6, 2012, the 

Commission instructed NRC staff to proceed with a generic EIS to analyze the environmental 

impacts of continued storage and address the issues raised in the Court’s decision, and to 
- 19 - 

update the Waste Confidence rule in accordance with the analysis in the EIS. The DGEIS and 

this proposed rule implement the Commission’s direction. 

A4. Whom Would This Action Affect? 

 This proposed rule would affect any nuclear power reactor applicant and licensee 

undergoing issuance or renewal of an operating license for a nuclear power reactor under 10 

CFR parts 50 or 54, “Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants;” 

issuance of a combined license for a nuclear power reactor under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, 

certifications, and approvals for nuclear power plants;” or some amendments of a license under 

10 CFR parts 50 or 52. This proposed rule would also affect the issuance of an initial, 

amended, or renewed license for storage of spent nuclear fuel at an ISFSI under 10 CFR part 

72, “Licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel, high-level 

radioactive waste, and reactor-related greater than Class C waste.” The proposed rule could 

also affect participants in any proceeding addressing these licensing actions. 

A5. Why Is the NRC Generically Addressing the Environmental Impacts of Continued Storage? 

Since 1984, the NRC has generically addressed the environmental impacts of continued 

storage though a generic NEPA analysis and rule. Without a generic environmental impact 

analysis, site-specific consideration of the environmental impacts of continued storage would be 

necessary. The NRC’s proposed reliance on a GEIS and rule to address environmental impacts 

of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel will enhance the NRC’s efficiency in individual 

licensing reviews by addressing a set of issues that are the same or largely similar or can be 

reasonably predicted based on a well understood range of operating experience at each power 

reactor or storage site and codifying them. The generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23 would 

satisfy the NRC’s NEPA obligations with respect to the environmental impacts of continued 

storage. 
- 20 - 

A6. What Types of Waste Are Addressed by Waste Confidence? 

The environmental analysis in the DGEIS and in this proposed rule covers low and high 

burn-up spent nuclear fuel generated in light-water nuclear power reactors. It also covers mixed 

oxide (MOX) fuel4

, since the MOX fuel would be substantially similar to existing light-water 

reactor fuel and is, in fact, being considered for use in existing light-water reactors in the United 

States. It also covers spent nuclear fuel from small modular reactors. Small modular light-water 

reactors being developed will use fuel very similar in form and materials to the existing operating 

reactors and will not, therefore, introduce new technical challenges to the disposal of spent 

nuclear fuel. Waste Confidence also covers the spent nuclear fuel from one high-temperature 

gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) built and commercially operated: Fort Saint Vrain. The spent 

nuclear fuel from Peach Bottom Unit 1 is not covered because its fuel has been removed from 

the site and transferred to the control of DOE, and the fuel is no longer regulated by the NRC 

(see Section 2.1.1.3 of the DGEIS). 

A7. What Activities Are Not Covered by the Waste Confidence DGEIS and Proposed Rule?

 Waste Confidence does not consider transportation of spent nuclear fuel during reactor 

operation, disposal of spent nuclear fuel, or storage of spent nuclear fuel during the licensed life 

for operation of the power reactor. Additionally, Waste Confidence does not address foreign 

spent nuclear fuel, non-power reactor spent fuel (e.g., fuel from research and test reactors), 

defense waste, Greater-than-Class C low-level waste, reprocessing of commercial spent 

nuclear fuel, and the need for nuclear power. 

 The NRC is participating in pre-application reviews of the DOE’s Next Generation 

Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP would use nuclear fuel comprised of Tristructural-Isotopiccoated fuel particles contained in either fuel pebbles or prismatic fuel assemblies. However, 

 

4 Mixed oxide fuel (often called MOX fuel) is a type of nuclear reactor fuel that contains plutonium oxide mixed with 

either natural or depleted uranium oxide in ceramic pellet form. 
- 21 - 

because this fuel type has not completed fuel qualification testing, continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel from the NGNP program is not within the scope of the DGEIS and this proposed 

rule. Additionally, the continued storage of future HTGR spent nuclear fuels is not within the 

scope of the DGEIS or this proposed rule. 

A8. How Is Spent Nuclear Fuel Stored?

 Spent nuclear fuel is stored in either spent fuel pools or in dry cask storage. Spent fuel 

pools are designed to store and cool the spent nuclear fuel following removal from the reactor. 

Spent fuel pools are massive, seismically-designed structures that are constructed from thick, 

reinforced concrete walls and slabs that vary between 0.7 and 3 meters (2 and 10 feet) thick. 

All spent fuel pools currently in operation are lined with stainless steel liners that vary in 

thickness between 6 and 13 millimeters (0.25 and 0.5 inches); spent fuel pools have either a 

leak detection system or administrative controls to monitor the spent fuel pool liner. Leak 

detection systems are usually made up of several channels that can be monitored individually, 

or are designed in such a way that leakage empties into drains that can be monitored. Leaked 

water is directed to a sump, liquid radioactive waste treatment system, or other cleanup or 

collection systems. Racks fitted in the spent fuel pools store the fuel assemblies in a controlled 

configuration (i.e., so that the fuel is both sub-critical and in a coolable geometry). Spent fuel 

pool systems also include redundant monitoring, cooling, and makeup-water systems. The 

spent nuclear fuel assemblies are positioned in racks at the bottom of the pool, and are typically 

covered by at least 6 meters (20 feet) of water. Spent fuel pools are essentially passive 

systems; the only active components are water circulation pumps. The water in the pools 

provides radiation shielding, spent nuclear fuel assembly cooling, and captures radionuclides in 

case of fuel rod leaks. Spent fuel pools are located at reactor sites, typically within the fuelhandling building (pressurized-water reactor (PWR)) or the reactor building (boiling-water 

reactor). A typical spent fuel pool at a light water reactor holds (with full core reserve 
- 22 - 

maintained) the equivalent of about 6 core loads, or about 700 metric tons uranium (MTU). 

There is one away-from-reactor spent fuel pool (General Electric-Hitachi (GEH)-Morris) licensed 

under 10 CFR part 72 as an ISFSI. Information on the spent fuel pools and the quantity of 

spent nuclear fuel that can be stored in spent fuel pools is available in Appendix G of the DGEIS 

(see also Chapter 2 of the DGEIS). 

 Spent nuclear fuel is also stored in dry casks at ISFSIs licensed by the NRC under either 

a general license or a specific license. Dry cask storage shields people and the environment 

from radiation and keeps the spent nuclear fuel inside dry and nonreactive. Dry cask storage 

allows spent fuel that has already been cooled in the spent fuel pool to be surrounded by inert 

gas inside a container called a cask. The casks are typically steel cylinders that are either 

welded or bolted closed. The steel cylinder provides a leak-tight confinement of the spent fuel. 

Each cylinder is surrounded by additional steel, concrete, or other material to provide radiation 

shielding to workers and members of the public. Dry cask storage systems are essentially 

passive systems that rely on natural air circulation for cooling during storage of spent fuel and 

are robust massive structures that are highly damage resistant. There are many different dry 

cask storage systems, but most fall into two main categories based on how they are loaded. 

The first is the bare fuel, or direct-load, casks in which spent nuclear fuel is loaded directly into a 

basket that is integrated into the cask. Bare fuel casks, which tend to be all metal construction, 

are generally bolted closed. The second is the canister-based system in which spent nuclear 

fuel is loaded into a basket inside a relatively thin-walled cylinder called a canister. The canister 

is usually loaded while inside a transfer cask, and then welded and transferred vertically into 

either a concrete or metal storage overpack or horizontally into a concrete storage module. As 

of the end of 2012, ISFSIs were storing spent nuclear fuel in over 1,700 loaded dry casks. 

Information on the types of casks used to store spent nuclear fuel at each ISFSI is available in 

Appendix G of the DGEIS (see also Chapter 2 of the DGEIS). 
- 23 - 

A9. How Can the NRC Conduct a Generic Review When Spent Nuclear Fuel Is Stored at 

Specific Sites? Why Has a Site-Specific Review Not Been Conducted? 

 Historically, the Commission has chosen to generically address continued storage, and 

this approach was validated for appropriate circumstances by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

in the same decision that vacated and remanded the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and 

rule. Although the environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel storage during the licensed life 

for operation may be site specific, the impacts of continued storage may be assessed 

generically because: 

 1) Continued storage will involve spent nuclear fuel storage facilities for which the 

environmental impacts of operation are sufficiently understood as a result of lessons learned 

and knowledge gained from operating experience. 

 2) Activities associated with continued storage are expected to be within this wellunderstood range of operating experience; thus, environmental impacts can be 

reasonably predicted. 

 3) Changes in the environment around spent nuclear fuel storage facilities are 

sufficiently gradual and predictable to be addressed generically. 

 In evaluating the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel, the 

NRC used existing environmental evaluations to help inform the impact determinations in the 

DGEIS, such as NUREG-0586, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning 

of Nuclear Facilities Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors 

Main Report,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML023500395) and NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” Revision 1 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13106A241 for main volume 1, ML13106A242 for volume 2, and 

ML13106A244 for volume 3). The NRC also reviewed site-specific EISs and EAs for new and 
- 24 - 

operating reactors, and ISFSIs, and subsequent renewals. The NRC staff also looked to other 

sources of information, such as technical reports. 

A10. Would the Waste Confidence Rulemaking Authorize the Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at 

the Operating Reactor Site Near Me? 

 No, the Waste Confidence rule does not authorize the storage of spent nuclear fuel at 

any site. The Waste Confidence rule is a generic determination regarding the potential 

environmental impacts from the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel after the end of a 

reactor’s licensed life for operation and before the spent nuclear fuel is placed in a repository. 

The rule reflects only the generic environmental analysis of theis one period of spent nuclear 

fuel storage: the timeframe beyond a reactor’s licensed life for operation and before disposal in 

a repository. This proceeding is not a substitute for licensing actions that typically include sitespecific NEPA analysis and site-specific safety analyses (see also question A11). 

 In addition, the NRC’s DGEIS and proposed rule do not pre-approve any particular 

waste storage or disposal site technology, nor do they require that a specific cask design be 

used for storage. Individual licensees and applicants, including any applicant for a high-level 

radioactive waste repository, will have to apply for and receive a site-specific license from the 

NRC before storing or disposing of any spent nuclear fuel. Separately, every Part 50 or Part 52 

nuclear power reactor licensee already holds a general license that authorizes storage of spent 

nuclear fuel in cask designs that are approved by the NRC. 

A11. What Environmental Reviews Would Be Precluded From a Site-Specific Licensing Action 

After the Waste Confidence Rulemaking Is Complete? 

 The Waste Confidence rule will satisfy the NRC’s NEPA obligations with respect to 

continued storage for initial, renewed, and amended licenses for reactors and ISFSIs. The 

environmental analysis that would accompany the initial license or license renewal of individual 
- 25 - 

nuclear power reactors or the initial license or license renewal of an ISFSI would consider the 

potential environmental impacts of storage of spent nuclear fuel during the term of the license. 

What would not be considered in those proceedings—due to the generic determination in 10 

CFR 51.23(a)—is the potential environmental impact of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel 

beyond the licensed life for operation of the reactor. The NRC’s regulations allow participants in 

the NRC’s licensing proceedings to obtain a waiver of a rule if they show special circumstances 

why the rule should not apply to the specific proceeding (see 10 CFR 2.335(b)). 

A12. Why Is There Not a Separate Waste Confidence Decision Document? 

Historically, the Waste Confidence Decision contained five “Findings” that addressed the 

technical feasibility of a mined geologic repository, the degree of assurance that disposal would 

be available by a certain time, and the degree of assurance that spent fuel and high-level waste 

could be managed safely without significant environmental impacts for a certain period beyond 

the expiration of plants’ operating licenses. Preparation of and reliance upon a GEIS is a 

fundamental departure from the approach used in past Waste Confidence proceedings. The 

DGEIS acknowledges the uncertainties inherent in a the Commission’s prediction of repository 

availability and provides an environmental analysis of reasonably foreseeable timeframes. To 

this end, the DGEIS considers a number of possible timeframes for repository availability, 

including the impacts from never having a repository. Because a GEIS is being issued, findings 

are no longer necessary. 

 Section C, “Decision,” provides a discussion of the issues and conclusions addressed in 

the DGEIS that had previously appeared in the findings discussions of prior Waste Confidence 

decisions. To support the analysis in the DGEIS and the proposed rule, the underlying 

assumptions in the DGEIS address the issues assessed in the previous “Five Findings” as 

conclusions regarding the technical feasibility and availability of a repository, and conclusions 
- 26 - 

regarding the technical feasibility of safely storing spent fuel in an at-reactor or away-fromreactor storage facility. The GEIS will fulfill NRC’s NEPA obligations for analyzing the 

environmental impacts of continued storage and the related uncertainties in repository 

availability. 

A13. How Can the NRC Complete the Environmental Impact Statement and Rulemaking in 24 

Months? 

The Waste Confidence proceeding is a high priority for the Commission. Following the 

remand by the Court of Appeals, the NRC formed a new organization, the Waste Confidence 

Directorate in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to develop the generic EIS 

and rule. In staffing the new Directorate, the NRC brought together a team consisting of many 

of the agency’s most experienced and knowledgeable NEPA and rulemaking practitioners. The 

Directorate is focused on Waste Confidence. These focused NRC staff resources have enabled 

the NRC to conduct the hard look required by NEPA and optimize public participation in the 

process. The resources and expertise being devoted to the waste confidence proceeding, and 

the schedule for public comment supports completion within 24 months. 

A14. What Is the Status of the Extended Storage Effort?

 The extended storage effort focuses on technical and regulatory considerations for 

continued effective regulation of spent nuclear fuel storage and subsequent transportation over 

extended periods (up to 300 years). Presently, the NRC believes that the current regulatory 

framework used to renew current licenses can be extended to regulate the management of 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for multiple renewal periods. The staff is 

examining technical areas associated with multiple renewals of fixed-term, dry storage licenses 

and certificates to address age-related degradation of dry cask storage systems, structures, and 

components. The NRC acknowledges that current licensing practices may evolve over time in 
- 27 - 

response to improved understanding, operational experience, and Commission policy 

direction. As technical, regulatory, and policy issues are resolved, the NRC will revise guidance 

and staff qualification and training accordingly. In the DGEIS, the NRC has concluded that 

sufficient information exists to perform an analysis of continued storage impacts well into the 

future. Nonetheless, the NRC continues to identify and resolve potential issues associated with 

the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel storage for periods beyond an ISFSI’s initial 

licensing and first renewal. Completion of the current effort is planned for the end of the 

decade. As with any rule, the NRC will evaluate any new information that is developed during 

this project to determine whether it’s necessary to update the Waste Confidence rule. 

A15. Did the NRC Factor in Information from the Spent Fuel Pool Study in the DGEIS? 

 The DGEIS does not specifically reference the draft “Consequence Study of a BeyondDesign-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor” 

(hereafter referred to as the Spent Fuel Pool Study or Study). If the NRC publishes a final 

Study before the final GEIS is published, then a reference to the Spent Fuel Pool Study will be 

added to the final GEIS. Although it did not specifically reference the draft Study in the DGEIS, 

the staff is aware of the conclusions in the draft Study and worked closely with the authors that

who developed the draft Study to prepare the relevant sections of the draft GEIS. The 

conclusions of the draft Study do not contradict the conclusions in the DGEIS and are consistent 

with the consequences reported in previous studies on spent fuel pool accidents. The draft 

Spent Fuel Pool Study was made public for review and comment on June 17 24 in advance of a 

July public Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards meeting on the draft Study. The draft 

Spent Fuel Pool Study is available to the public under ADAMS Accession No. 

MLXXXXXXX. (This information will be updated prior to publication.) 

A16. Did the NRC Address Accidents in the DGEIS? 
- 28 - 

 Yes, the DGEIS considered the risk and potential consequences of accidents and acts of 

sabotage during continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. This analysis assessed the 

environmental effects of man-made hazards and natural phenomena hazards, including flooding 

and earthquakes. As with all NEPA analyses, the DGEIS analyzed reasonably-foreseeable 

events, and did not consider worst-case scenarios impacts. Section 4.18 of the DGEIS 

discusses the environmental impacts of postulated accidents, both design-basis and severe 

accidents, during continued at-reactor storage and Section 5.18 discusses away-from-reactor 

postulated accidents. Appendix F of the DGEIS contains a more detailed analysis of spent fuel 

pool fires. Sections 4.19 and 5.19 of the DGEIS address impacts resulting from acts of 

terrorism. 

A17. Does the NRC Plan to Hold Public Meetings on the Waste Confidence DGEIS and 

Proposed Rule? 

 Yes, the NRC plans to hold eight regional public meetings and two nationally Webcast 

meetings at NRC headquarters on the DGEIS and proposed rule. The regional meetings will

are planned to be held in or near: Charlotte, North Carolina; Denver, Colorado; Toledo, Ohio; 

Boston (metro area), Massachusetts; New York City (metro area), New York; Minneapolis, 

Minnesota; San Clemente, California; and San Louis Obispo, California. These meetings will be 

held during the public comment period on the DGEIS and proposed rule. All meetings will be 

noticed on the NRC’s Public Meeting Schedule Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Information on the public meetings will also be made 

available through the Federal Register, press releases, blog posts, and e-mails. The NRC will 

also post meeting notices to the Federal rulemaking Web site at https://www.regulations.gov, 

under Docket ID NRC-2012-0246. 

A18. How Can I Stay Informed of Waste Confidence Activities? 
- 29 - 

There are several ways in which interested members of the public can stay informed and 

follow the NRC’s Waste Confidence activities. The NRC staff periodically sends out e-mail 

announcements of new material and upcoming events. Anyone may sign up to receive e-mails 

about the Waste Confidence activities by e-mailing WCOutreach@nrc.gov with a request to be 

added to the e-mail list. 

 The NRC staff will also periodically post updates to the Waste Confidence Web site. 

You can sign up for automatic e-mail alerts whenever the Waste Confidence Web site is 

updated using GovDelivery. Under Subscriber Preferences you can choose the Waste 

Confidence pages on which you would like to receive updates. 

 You can monitor the docket for the Waste Confidence rulemaking on the Federal 

rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching on Docket ID NRC-2012-0246. 

In addition, the Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or 

additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: 1) navigate to the docket folder NRC-2012-

0246; 2) click the “E-mail Alert” link; and 3) enter your e-mail address and select how frequently 

you would like to receive e-mails (daily, weekly, or monthly). 

A19. How Frequently Does the NRC Plan to Revisit the Waste Confidence GEIS and Rule? 

 The Commission has reviewed its Waste Confidence rule and supporting analysis three 

times since 1984; in 1990, 1999, and 2010. The NRC does not have a schedule for revisiting 

the Waste Confidence GEIS and rule after this current update. The Commission will review the 

Waste Confidence GEIS and rule for possible revision when warranted by significant events that 

would call into question the appropriateness of the rule. 

A20. What Should I Consider as I Prepare to Submit My Comments to the NRC?

 Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting your comments, remember to: 
- 30 - 

 i. Identify the rulemaking (RIN 3150-AJ20; NRC-2012-0246). 

 ii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

your requested changes. 

 iii. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that 

you used. 

 iv. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

 v. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 

 vi. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 

 vii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

viii. Section VII, Plain Writing, of this document contains a request for comments on the 

use of plain language; and Section IX, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Availability, of 

this document contains a request for comments on the draft environmental impact statement. 

B. Waste Confidence Rulemaking 

B1. What Is the Purpose of This Waste Confidence Rulemaking? 

The NRC’s use of a rule to generically satisfy its NEPA obligations with respect to 

continued storage will enhance efficiency in individual licensing reviews by analyzing the 

environmental impacts of continued storage, which are the same or largely similar at each 

nuclear power reactor or storage site, and codifying the results of that analysis. Part of the 

environmental analysis for a nuclear power reactor or storage facility license includes a review 

of the impacts caused by the spent nuclear fuel generated in the reactor. That analysis must 

assess the impacts of the spent nuclear fuel from generation through disposal. If the 
- 31 - 

Commission lacks reasonable assurance that a disposal solution will be available at the end of 

a reactor’s licensed life for operation, NEPA requires that the Commission assess the impacts of 

continued storage of the spent nuclear fuel pending disposal at a repository. The proposed rule 

would incorporate the results of the generic assessment of the environmental impacts of 

continued spent nuclear fuel storage beyond the end of a reactor’s licensed life for operation so 

that it is not necessary to repeat the identical or substantially similar analysis in individual 

licensing actions. Although the environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel storage during the 

licensed life for operation may be site specific, the impacts of continued storage can be 

generically assessed because the impacts during the reactor’s licensed life for operation have 

been analyzed, are well understood, and the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel does not 

involve any significant changes in how the fuel is stored. Therefore, the environmental impacts 

that result from continued storage will remain essentially the same. A generic environmental 

analysis, such as the one conducted in the DGEIS, would apply to the issuance of a license, 

amendment, or license renewal of any power reactor or of any ISFSI. The analysis in the GEIS 

constitutes a regulatory basis for the proposed rule at 10 CFR 51.23, which codifies the NRC’s 

conclusions in the GEIS on the environmental impacts of continued storage, including the 

Commission’s expectations on the availability of a geologic repository. 

B2. What Is Meant by the Phrase “Licensed Life for Operation of a Reactor”? 

 The phrase “licensed life for operation of a reactor” describes the period during which 

the NRC licensing requirements for reactor facility design, construction, and operation provide 

reasonable assurance that a reactor can be operated and spent fuel can be stored safely. It 

refers to the term of the license to operate a reactor, which in no case exceeds a 40-year initial 

license term. For those reactors for which license renewal has been granted, the DGEIS 
- 32 - 

assumes up to two 20-year license extensions5 could occur, for a total of up to 80 years. The 

phrase, “beyond licensed life for operation of a reactor,” refers to the period beyond the initial 

term to operate a reactor or, if the license is extended, beyond the renewed license term. The 

date of permanent cessation of operations does not mark the transition to “beyond licensed life 

for operation.” Even if a reactor is shut down years before the end of its initial or extended 

operating or combined license term, “licensed life for operation” continues to refer to the initial or 

renewed license term, and not the actual operational period of a reactor. Thus, continued 

storage begins at the end of the licensed life for operation of a reactor. The starting point for 

continued storage does not depend on whether the spent nuclear fuel is stored in a spent fuel 

pool, dry casks under a general license, or dry casks under a specific license. 

The following examples help illustrate the concept of beyond the licensed life for 

operation of a reactor. Reactor A received a 40-year license to operate in 1965, which means 

the license would have expired in 2005. Reactor A renewed its license for a 20-year term, 

which means the license now will expire in 2025. Reactor A shuts down in 2025. The licensed 

life for operation for Reactor A ends in 2025 and continued storage begins in 2025. 

Reactor B also received its initial license to operate in 1965, which means the license 

would have expired in 2005. Reactor B shut down early in 2000. The licensed life for operation 

of Reactor B ended in 2005, the original expiration date of the license. Continued storage of the 

spent nuclear fuel started in 2005. 

Reactor C received its initial license in 1965, which means the license would have 

expired in 2005. Reactor C received two 20-year renewals with expiration dates of 2025 and 

2045. Reactor C shut down in 2030. The licensed life for operation of Reactor C ends in 2045. 

 

5 The Commission’s regulations provide that renewed operating licenses may be subsequently renewed, although no 

licensee has yet submitted an application for such a subsequent renewal. has not determined as a matter of policy 

that a second renewal is a possibility. The DGEIS included two renewals as a conservative assumption in evaluating 

potential environmental impacts. 
- 33 - 

Continued storage of the spent nuclear fuel begins in 2045 for all of the spent nuclear fuel from 

Reactor C. 

In these examples, it is important to note that the environmental analysis supporting 

spent nuclear fuel storage during the licensed life for operation of each reactor covered the full 

period for which the license or license renewal was issued, even if operation of the reactor 

ended before the license expired. 

B3. What Timeframes Are Being Considered in the DGEIS? 

 The NRC has analyzed three timeframes in the DGEIS that represent various scenarios 

for the length of continued storage that may be needed before spent fuel is sent to a repository. 

The first timeframe is the short-term timeframe, which analyzes 60 years of continued storage 

after the end of a reactor’s licensed life for operation. The DGEIS also analyzed two additional 

timeframes: long-term and indefinite timeframes. The long-term timeframe considers the 

environmental impacts of continued storage for a total of 160 years after the end of a reactor’s 

licensed life for operation. Finally, the DGEIS includes an analysis of an indefinite timeframe, 

which assumes that a repository never becomes available. 

By the end of the short-term timeframe, some spent nuclear fuel could be up to 140 

years old. Short-term storage of spent nuclear fuel includes: 

• Continued storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools (at-reactor only) and ISFSIs, 

• Routine maintenance of spent fuel pools and ISFSIs (e.g., maintenance of concrete 

pads), and 

• Handling and transfer of spent fuel from spent fuel pools to ISFSIs (all spent nuclear 

fuel is assumed to be removed from the spent fuel pool by the end of the short-term period). 

Long-term storage is continued storage of spent nuclear fuel for an additional 100 years 

after the short-term period for a total of 160 years beyond the licensed life for operation of a 
- 34 - 

reactor. The DGEIS assumes that all spent fuel has been transferred from the spent fuel pool to 

an ISFSI by the end of the short-term period. The DGEIS also assumes that a repository would 

become available by the end of this 160-year period. By the end of the long-term period, some 

spent nuclear fuel could be up to 240 years old. Long-term storage activities include: 

• Continued storage of spent fuel in ISFSIs, including routine maintenance; 

• One time replacement of ISFSIs and spent fuel canisters and casks; and 

• Construction, operation, and one replacement of a dry transfer system facility (DTS). 

The third timeframe analyzed by the DGEIS is indefinite storage, which assumes that a 

repository does not become available. The Commission does not believe that this scenario is 

likely to occur, but its inclusion in the analysis helps the DGEIS to fully cover any likely 

environmental impacts associated with continued storage. The activities during the indefinite 

storage timeframe are the same as those that would occur for long-term storage; however, 

without a repository these activities would occur every 100 years. 

B4. What Is the Significance of the Levels of Impact in the DGEIS (SMALL, MODERATE, 

LARGE)? 

 The NRC describes the affected environment in terms of resource areas: land use, 

socioeconomics, environmental justice, air quality, climate change, geology and soils, surface 

water, groundwater, terrestrial resources, aquatic ecology, special status species and habitats, 

historic and cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, waste management, transportation, and public 

and occupational health. The DGEIS contains analysis of the environmental impacts associated 

with each resource area. Additionally, the DGEIS considers the impacts on resource areas 

caused by postulated acts of terrorism and accidents. The significance of the magnitude of the 

impact for most of the resource areas evaluated is expressed as SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE. The general definitions of significance levels are: 
- 35 - 

 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes 

of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that radiological impacts that 

do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission’s regulations are considered small. 

MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

The DGEIS discussion of each resource area includes an explanation of how the 

significance category was determined. For issues in which the significance determination is 

based on risk (i.e., the probability of occurrence as well as the potential consequences), the 

probability of occurrence as well as the potential consequences have been factored into the 

determination of significance. For some resource areas the impact determination language is 

specific to the authorizing regulation or statute. 

B5. What Are the Environmental Impacts of At-Reactor Continued Storage? 

 The environmental impacts of continued storage are analyzed in the DGEIS. The 

DGEIS contains a detailed analysis of the impacts for short-term storage, long-term storage, 

and indefinite storage. The analysis considers both at-reactor storage and away-from-reactor 

storage.6. Impacts attributable to at-reactor storage are addressed here and the impacts from 

away-from-reactor storage are addressed in question B6. 

 For at-reactor storage, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts for each 

resource area are SMALL for all timeframes with the exception of waste management impacts, 

 

6 For the purposes of the DGEIS impact analysis, the GEH-Morris facility and the DOE TMI-2 ISFSI at Idaho Falls, 

Idaho were considered under the at-reactor storage evaluation. 
- 36 - 

which are SMALL to MODERATE for the indefinite storage timeframe, and historic and cultural 

impacts, which are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE for the long-term and indefinite storage 

timeframes. These elevated impact conclusions are influenced, in part, by the uncertainties 

regarding the specific circumstances of continued storage over long timeframes, including sitespecific characteristics that could affect the intensity of potential environmental impacts, and the 

resulting analysis assumptions that have been made by the NRC as documented in detail in 

Chapter 4 of the DGEIS. The moderate waste-management impacts are associated with the 

volume of nonhazardous solid waste generated by assumed facility replacement activities for 

only the indefinite timeframe. The SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE historic and cultural 

impacts are based on a combination of the additional surface-disturbing activities from DTS 

construction and facility replacement activities during long-term and indefinite timeframes and a 

range of site-specific characteristics that are assumed for the purpose of evaluating a 

reasonable range of potential impacts. More specifically, these potential historic and cultural 

impacts vary depending on whether resources are present, the extent of proposed land 

disturbance, if the area has been previously surveyed to identify historic and cultural resources, 

and if the licensee has management plans and procedures that are protective of historic and 

cultural resources. For special status species, at-reactor ISFSI storage would not be likely to 

adversely affect special status species and habitats, whereas spent fuel pool continued storage 

impacts would be based on site-specific conditions and determined as part of an Endangered 

Species Act Section 7 consultation. The NRC environmental justice impact analysis concluded 

there would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

The following table provides a summary of the environmental impacts of continued atreactor storage. Detailed discussion for each resource area can be found in Chapter 4 of the 
- 37 - 

DGEIS. Cumulative impacts are addressed in Chapter 6 of the DGEIS. Chapter 8 of the 

DGEIS provides a summary of the impacts. 

Table 1 – Environmental Impacts of At-Reactor Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Resource Area Short-term Storage Long-term 

Storage 

Indefinite Storage 

Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Environmental 

Justice 

No disproportionately high and adverse impacts 

Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Climate Change SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Geology and Soils SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water 

Quality 

Use 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

Groundwater 

Quality 

Use 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

Terrestrial 

Resources 

SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic Ecology SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Special Status 

Species and 

Habitats 

Impacts from the spent 

fuel pool would be 

determined as part of 

Endangered Species 

Act Section 7 

consultation; ISFSI 

operations are not 

likely to adversely 

affect special status 

species and habitats 

Not likely to 

adversely affect 

Not likely to adversely 

affect 

Historic and 

Cultural Resources 

SMALL SMALL, 

MODERATE, or 

LARGE 

SMALL, MODERATE, 

or LARGE 

Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Waste 

Management 
- 38 - 

LLW 

Mixed Waste 

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL to MODERATE 

SMALL to MODERATE

Transportation 

Traffic 

Health impacts 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

Public and 

Occupational 

Health 

SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Accidents SMALL 

Terrorism 

Considerations 

SMALL 

B6. What Are the Environmental Impacts of Away-from-Reactor Continued Storage?

The away-from-reactor environmental impacts analyzed in the DGEIS include the 

impacts from constructing the ISFSI. Although an away-from-reactor ISFSI would be subject to 

a site-specific licensing review that includes an environmental impact statement that would 

assess the environmental impacts due to construction, the impacts due to construction are 

included in the DGEIS due to the potential for that construction to occur during the timeframes 

analyzed in the DGEIS. For away-from-reactor storage, the unavoidable adverse environmental 

impacts for each resource area would be SMALL except for air quality, terrestrial ecology, 

aesthetics, waste management, and transportation where the impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. Socioeconomics impacts would range from SMALL to beneficial and LARGE and 

historic and cultural impacts could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The potential 

MODERATE impacts on air, terrestrial wildlife, and transportation are based on constructionrelated potential fugitive dust emissions, terrestrial wildlife direct and indirect mortalities, and 

temporary construction traffic impacts. The potential MODERATE impacts on aesthetics and 

waste management are based on noticeable changes to the viewshed from constructing a new 

away-from-reactor ISFSI, and the volume of nonhazardous solid waste generated by assumed 
- 39 - 

ISFSI and DTS replacement activities for only the indefinite timeframe. The potential beneficial 

and LARGE impacts on socioeconomics would be due to local economic tax revenue increases 

from an away-from-reactor ISFSI. The potential LARGE impacts on historic and cultural and 

special status species apply to assumed site-specific circumstances at an away-from-reactor 

ISFSI involving the presence of these resources during construction activities and absence of 

effective protection measures. Specifically, these potential historic and cultural impacts vary 

depending on whether resources are present, the extent of proposed land disturbance, and 

whether the licensee has management plans and procedures that are protective of historic and 

cultural resources. For special status species, away-from-reactor ISFSI storage would not be 

likely to adversely affect special status species and habitats based on the assumption an ISFSI 

can be sited to avoid special status species and habitats. Impacts on special status species 

and habitats would be based on site-specific conditions and determined as part of an 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. The NRC environmental justice impact 

analysis for an away-from-reactor ISFSI concluded there would be no disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

The following table provides a summary of the environmental impacts from away-fromreactor continued storage: Detailed discussion for each resource area can be found in Chapter 

5 of the DGEIS. Cumulative impacts are addressed in Chapter 6 of the DGEIS. Chapter 8 of 

the DGEIS provides a summary of the impacts. 

Table 2 – Environmental Impacts of Away-from Reactor Continued Storage of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel 

Resource Area Short-term Storage Long-term Storage Indefinite Storage 

Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL (adverse) to 

LARGE (beneficial) 

SMALL (adverse) to 

LARGE (beneficial) 

SMALL (adverse) to 

LARGE (beneficial) 
- 40 - 

Environmental 

Justice 

No disproportionately high and adverse impacts 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

Climate Change SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Geology and Soils SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water 

Quality 

Use 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL SMALL 

Groundwater 

Quality 

Use 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL SMALL 

Terrestrial Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic Ecology SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Special Status 

Species and Habitats 

Impacts from the construction of the ISFSI would be determined as part of 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. Assuming the ISFSI can be sited 

to avoid special status species and habitats, operation and replacement of the 

ISFSI is not likely to adversely affect special status species and habitats. Impacts 

would be determined as part of Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation if 

continued storage would affect listed species or critical habitat. 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE 

SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE 

SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE 

Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aesthetics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE 

Waste Management 

LLW 

Mixed Waste 

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL to MODERATE 

Transportation 

Traffic 

Health 

SMALL to MODERATE 

SMALL 

SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE 

Public and 

Occupational Health 

SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Accidents SMALL 

Terrorism 

Considerations 

SMALL 

B7. How Will the Proposed Rule Address the Impacts from Continued Storage of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel? 
- 41 - 

The NRC is proposing revisions to 10 CFR 51.23(a) that reflect the analysis and 

conclusions of the DGEIS (NUREG-2157). Proposed 10 CFR 51.23(a) provides that: 1) the 

analysis generically addresses the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear 

fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor ; and 2) the analysis supports the 

determinations that it is feasible to safely store spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for 

operation of a reactor and to have a mined geologic repository within 60 years following the 

licensed life for operation of a reactor. 

Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.23 would be revised to clarify that ISFSI renewals are 

included in the scope of the generic determination. Additionally, conforming changes would be 

made to 10 CFR 51.61, 51.80(a), and 51.97(a) to clarify that ISFSI license renewals are 

included in the scope of waste confidence. 

B8. What Is the Technical Basis for Concluding that Continued Storage Can Occur Safely? 

 Technical understanding and experience continues to support the technical feasibility of 

safe storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools and in dry casks, based on their physical 

integrity over long periods of time (e.g., slow degradation of spent fuel during storage in spent 

fuel pools and dry casks; and engineered features of storage pools and dry casks to safely 

withstand accidents caused by either natural or human-made phenomena). Additionally, 

regulatory oversight has been shown to enhance safety designs and operations as concerns 

and information evolve over time (e.g., security and safety enhancements made after the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster; and 

corrective actions to address spent fuel pool leaks) (see Section B.3 of Appendix B of the 

DGEIS and Section III.C.3, Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at a Storage Facility, of this 

document for additional information). 
- 42 - 

 If necessary, there is no technical reason that storage of spent fuel in either spent fuel 

pools or dry casks cannot continue beyond 60 years after the end of the reactor’s licensed life 

for operation. Storage of spent fuel beyond this time would continue under an approved aging 

management program to ensure that monitoring and maintenance are adequately performed. 

The DGEIS assumes that, at an appropriate time, structures, systems, and components of the 

ISFSIs would be replaced as part of an approved aging management program. The DGEIS 

assumes that these replacement activities begin during the long-term timeframe; however, 

based on current information, there is no expectation or requirement for replacement to occur at 

any specific time in the future. Continued experience with storing spent fuel will guide and 

inform aging management plans. At present, replacement activities (i.e., large-scale 

replacement of dry cask storage systems) are expected to occur no earlier than 60 years after 

the end of the reactor’s licensed life for operation. 

B9. If the NRC Is Considering Extending the Timeframe of Safe Storage, How Is That Not De 

Facto On Site Disposal? 

 Nothing in this rulemaking or the DGEIS authorizes the continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel. Storage of spent nuclear fuel is authorized in site-specific licensing actions under 

parts 50, 52, or 72. The general license provision of part 72 also authorizes storage of spent 

nuclear fuel in dry cask storage systems. The DGEIS and this rulemaking are intended to 

generically resolve the NRC’s NEPA obligations with respect to the continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel. Neither the DGEIS nor this rulemaking authorize the storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

Further, the national policy of the United States continues to be disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 

a geologic repository. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future reaffirmed 

the need and feasibility of geologic disposal in its 2012 report (the “BRC Report”) (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML120970375). In January 2013, the DOE published its “Strategy for the 

Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste” (hereafter 
- 43 - 

referred to as the DOE Strategy Report) (ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A138). The DOE 

Strategy Report outlines the Administration’s plans to implement a program over the next 10 

years that, with the appropriate authorizations from Congress:

• Sites, designs and licenses, constructs, and begins operation of a pilot interim 

storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting spent nuclear fuel from shut-down 

nuclear power reactor sites;

• Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be 

available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management 

system and allows for acceptance of enough spent nuclear fuel to reduce expected government 

liabilities; and

• Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to 

facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048. 

 Although the timeframe for storage of spent nuclear fuel is longer than originally 

planned, the national policy embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 

remains unchanged: disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. Given the 

uncertainties in achieving a national consensus for the site of a repository that could affect the 

time it becomes available, the NRC has analyzed different timeframes for continued storage. 

Conducting this analysis enables NRC to comply with its NEPA obligations to analyze all 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of its licensing actions, even if the short-term storage scenario 

is more likely than long-term or indefinite storage. This analysis does not constitute an 

endorsement of an extended timeframe for storage of spent nuclear fuel. Additionally, the NRC 

does not create national policy for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. That responsibility lies 

exclusively with Congress and the President and, as noted, is presently expressed by the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987. Rather, the NRC must implement national 

policy set by Congress and the President by evaluating, in the context of its licensing and 
- 44 - 

regulatory actions, how that policy will affect continued storage of spent fuel after the licensed 

life of a reactor’s operation. 

B10. Does the U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw its Yucca Mountain Application 

Affect NRC’s Conclusion That Geologic Disposal Is Technically Feasible? 

 No. The Waste Confidence proceeding has historically addressed the technical 

feasibility of a repository without regard to a specific site, such as Yucca Mountain. As stated by 

Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1987, the national program for 

permanent spent nuclear fuel disposal remains premised on a deep geologic repository. The 

BRC Report reaffirmed the need and feasibility for deep geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel. 

Further, deep geologic disposal is internationally recognized as the best solution. (Nuclear 

Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Moving Forward 

with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” 2008, http://www.oecdnea.org/rwm/reports/2008/nea6433-statement.pdf.) Other countries are also pursuing geologic 

repositories for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The 

Commission’s exhaustive reviews supporting its earlier Waste Confidence decision have not 

identified any challenge to the technical feasibility of deep geologic disposal, and the 

Commission has therefore repeatedly affirmed its previous Waste Confidence Decision updates 

that a repository is technically feasible. 

 The DOE Strategy Report presents the Administration’s response to the BRC Report 

and provides a framework for moving toward a “sustainable program to deploy an integrated 

system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste.” A deep geologic repository remains part of the cornerstone of that program 

(see also Appendix B of the DGEIS and Section III.C2., Geologic Repository – Technical 

Feasibility and Availability, of this document). 
- 45 - 

B11. What Changes Are Being Proposed for the Timing of a Geologic Repository?

 The NRC is proposing a change to 10 CFR 51.23(a) that would reflect the most likely 

timeframe for repository availability. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of 10 CFR 51.23 states that it is 

feasible to have a mined geologic repository within 60 years following the licensed life of 

operation for a reactor. 

B12. Why Did Does the NRC Think it is Feasible that a Repository Can Be Available in Choose

60 Years as the Appropriate Timeframe for a Repository? 

As discussed in the DGEIS, the NRC has analyzed three timeframes that represent 

various scenarios for the length of continued storage that will be needed before spent fuel is 

sent to a repository. The first, most likely, timeframe is the short-term timeframe, which 

analyzes 60 years of continued storage after the end of a reactor’s licensed life for operation. 

As discussed in the DGEIS, the NRC has concluded this is the most a likely timeframe, in part, 

because the DOE has expressed its intention to provide repository capacity by 2048, which is 

well before the 60 years after licensed life for operation for all currently operating plants, and 

about 10 years before the end of this timeframe for the oldest spent fuel within the scope of this 

analysis. Further, international and domestic experience with deep geologic repository 

programs supports a timeline of 25-35 years to provide repository capacity for the disposal of 

spent fuel. The DOE’s prediction of 2048 is in line with this expectation. The NRC 

acknowledges, however, that the short-term timeframe, although the most likely, is not certain. 

[Add a brief discussion addressing the uncertainty] Accordingly, the DGEIS also analyzed 

two additional timeframes. The long-term timeframe considers the environmental impacts of 

continued storage for a total of 160 years after the end of a reactor’s licensed life for operation. 

Finally, although the NRC considers it highly unlikely, the DGEIS includes an analysis of an 

indefinite timeframe, which assumes that a repository does not become available. 
- 46 - 

 In picking a timeframe by which the Commission believes that a geologic repository is 

likely to become available, the Commission in no way means to imply that it that spent fuel will 

need to be stored indefinitely. Nor does it imply that a repository is only feasible at the end of 

the 60-year timeframe or that any particular repository site is precluded under the analysis. 

The Commission United States law supports the objective of timely disposal of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a geologic repository, and the DOE is currently the 

agency responsible for carrying out the national policy to site and build a repository. However, 

spent nuclear fuel will may need to be stored for several decades at either reactor sites or 

away-from-reactor sites before ultimate disposal is available in a geologic repository. Having 

considered all available information, the Commission believes that the most likely timeframe for 

repository availability is 60 years beyond a reactor’s licensed life for operation (see also the 

discussion in Appendix B of the DGEIS and Section III.C.2, Geologic Repository – Technical 

Feasibility and Availability of this document). 

B13. How Does this Rulemaking Relate to the Licensing of Future Away-from-Reactor ISFSIs? 

 Future away-from-reactor ISFSI applicants must conduct a site-specific environmental 

analysis to support their licensing. An away-from-reactor ISFSI applicant or licensee cannot use 

the Waste Confidence rule and GEIS or the Part 72 Subpart K general license as the basis for 

constructing an away-from-reactor ISFSI. If necessary, the site-specific NEPA analysis for an 

away-from-reactor ISFSI could only rely on the analysis in the DGEIS and rule to a limited 

extent to satisfy its NEPA obligations with respect to the storage of spent nuclear fuel after the 

expiration of the away-from-reactor ISFSI license. 

B14. What Changes Are Being Proposed to Address Continued Storage for License Renewal? 

Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” addresses the environmental impacts of license renewal activities by resource 
- 47 - 

area. Table B-1 is located in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Effect 

of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant.” When the Commission issued 

the final rule on the environmental effects of license renewal, it was not able to rely on the 

Waste Confidence rule for two of the issues (78 FR XXXX: Month DD, 2013). The Commission 

noted that upon issuance of the GEIS and revised Waste Confidence rule, the NRC would make 

any necessary conforming changes to the license renewal rule. The proposed rule would revise 

two finding column entries to address continued storage. The “Offsite radiological impacts of 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal” issue would be reclassified as a Category 1 

impact and the finding column entry revised to address continued storage. For the “Onsite 

storage of spent nuclear fuel” issue, the finding column entry would be revised to include the 

period of continued storage. 

C. Decision 

C1. Introduction 

Historically, the Waste Confidence Decision contained five “Findings” that addressed the 

technical feasibility of a mined geologic repository, the degree of assurance that disposal would 

be available by a certain time, and the degree of assurance that spent fuel and high-level waste 

could be managed safely without significant environmental impacts for a certain period beyond 

the expiration of plants’ operating licenses. Preparation of and reliance upon a GEIS is a 

fundamental departure from the approach used in past Waste Confidence proceedings. What 

had been “Findings” in past Decisions are now conclusions based on the information that is 

provided in the DGEIS on environmental impacts from continued storage and the associated 

assessment of spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal practices nationally and internationally. 

The DGEIS acknowledges the uncertainties inherent in any the Commission’s prediction of 

repository availability and provides an environmental analysis of any reasonably foreseeable 
- 48 - 

timeframes. To this end, the DGEIS considers a number of possible timeframes for repository 

availability, including the impacts from never having a repository. 

This section provides a discussion of the issues and conclusions addressed in the 

DGEIS that had previously appeared in the findings discussions of prior Waste Confidence 

decisions. Based on the NRC’s analysis in the DGEIS, the discussion in this section addresses 

the issues assessed in the “Five Findings” as conclusions, regarding the agency’s prediction as 

to the availability of a repository (see Section III.C2., Geologic Repository – Technical Feasibility 

and Availability, of this document) and conclusions regarding the technical feasibility of safely 

storing spent fuel in an at-reactor or away-from-reactor storage facility (see Section III.C3., 

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at a Storage Facility, of this document). The DGEIS now fulfills 

NRC’s NEPA obligations for analyzing the environmental impacts of continued storage and the 

related uncertainties in repository availability. Specific sections of the DGEIS are referenced, as 

appropriate, throughout Section III.C., Decision, of this document. The following paragraphs 

frame the issues considered in developing these conclusions in terms of the technical feasibility 

and availability of a repository and the safe management of continued storage of spent nuclear 

fuel. 

C2. Geologic Repository - Technical Feasibility and Availability 

 The issue of the technical feasibility of a geologic repository was historically addressed 

in Finding 1 of the Waste Confidence Decision and the availability of a repository was 

addressed in Finding 2. “Technical feasibility” simply means whether construction and 

operation of a geologic repository is technically possible using existing technology without any 

fundamental breakthroughs in science and technology. If technically feasible, then the question 

becomes what is a reasonable timeframe for the siting, licensing, construction, and opening of a 

geologic repository. 
- 49 - 

 In past Waste Confidence proceedings in 1984, 1990, and 2010, the NRC reviewed the 

technical feasibility of deep geologic disposal and each time concluded that this method of 

disposal is technically feasible. As discussed in more detail in this section, the NRC has not 

found any new information that would challenge this determination. In fact, new information that 

has been developed since 2010 provides further support for the Commission’s conclusion that 

deep geologic disposal is technically feasible. 

The DOE’s selection of a suitable site is governed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

(NWPA) (96 Stat. 2201 (1983) (current version at 42 U.S.C. 10132 (2006)). The DOE explored 

potential repository sites before the NWPA was enacted, but the NWPA set in place a formal 

process and schedule for the development of two geologic repositories. The following brief 

summary of key provisions of the NWPA may assist readers in understanding the DOE’s 

process for locating a suitable site. 

As initially enacted, Section 112 of the NWPA directed DOE to issue guidelines for the 

recommendation of sites; and then to nominate at least five sites as suitable for site 

characterization for selection as the first repository site,; and, not later than January 1, 1985, to 

recommend three of those sites to the President for characterization as candidate sites. Not 

later than July 1, 1989, DOE was to again nominate five sites and recommend three of them to 

the President for characterization as candidate sites for the second repository. Section 113 of 

the NWPA directed DOE to carry out site characterization activities for the approved sites. 

Following site characterization, Section 114 directed DOE to recommend sites to the President 

as suitable for development as repositories and the President was to recommend one site to the 

Congress by March 31, 1987, and another site by March 31, 1989, for development as the first 

two repositories. States and affected Indian tribes were given the opportunity to object, but if 

the recommendations were approved by Congress, DOE was to submit applications for a 

construction authorization to the NRC. The NRC was given until January 1, 1989, to reach a 
- 50 - 

decision on the first application, and until January 1, 1992, on the second. The Commission 

was directed to prohibit the emplacement of more than 70,000 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) 

in the first repository until a second repository was in operation. In 1987, Congress amended 

the NWPA to restrict site characterization solely to a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and 

terminated the program for a second repository. The amended NWPA provided that if at any 

time the DOE determines Yucca Mountain to be unsuitable for development as a repository, the 

DOE must report to Congress its recommendations for further action to ensure the safe, 

permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including the need 

for new legislation. 

 Support for the feasibility of geologic disposal can be drawn from experience gained 

from the review of the DOE’s Yucca Mountain license application. The DOE made its suitability 

determination for the Yucca Mountain site in 2002. On June 3, 2008, the DOE submitted an 

application for a construction authorization to the NRC, and on September 8, 2008, the NRC 

staff notified the DOE that it found the application acceptable for docketing (73 FR 53284; 

September 15, 2008) and began its review. Although the DOE subsequently filed a motion with 

the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board seeking permission to withdraw the license 

application for a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML100621397), the NRC’s review continued until September 2011. The NRC’s review did not 

identify any issues that would challenge the feasibility of geological disposal. This conclusion is 

reflected in two technical review documents: NUREG-2108, "Technical Evaluation Report on 

the Content of the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Repository License Application - 

Preclosure Volume: Repository Safety Before Permanent Closure" (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML11250A093), and NUREG-2107, "Technical Evaluation Report on the Content of the U.S. 

Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Repository License Application – Postclosure Volume: 

Repository Safety After Permanent Closure" (ADAMS Accession No. ML11223A273). These 
- 51 - 

documents contained the NRC staff’s technical reviews of the DOE’s license application for 

Yucca Mountain in the areas of safety before permanent closure and after permanent closure. 

 Additionally, the DOE has sited and constructed, and is operating, a deep geologic 

repository for defense-related transuranic radioactive wastes near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), in operation since 1999, is located in the Chihuahauan 

Desert of southeastern New Mexico, approximately 26 miles east of Carlsbad. At this site, the 

DOE has successfully disposed of transuranic waste from nuclear weapons research and 

testing operations. The WIPP project provides additional evidence that a geologic repository is 

technically feasible. During its 14 years of operation, no issues have been identified that would 

challenge the feasibility of geologic disposal. 

 Today, the consensus within the scientific and technical community engaged in spent 

nuclear fuel management activities at both a national and international level continues to be that 

safe geologic disposal is achievable with currently available technology (see, e.g., BRC Report 

(Section 4.3)). When Congress amended the NWPA in 1987 to focus exclusively on the Yucca 

Mountain site, it did so for budgetary reasons and not because the other sites DOE was 

considering were technically unacceptable. Ongoing research in the United States and other 

countries supports the conclusion that geologic disposal remains viable and that acceptable 

sites can be identified. Despite decades of research into various geologic media, no 

insurmountable technical or scientific problem has emerged to disturb the confidence that safe 

disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste can be achieved in a mined 

geologic repository. There has been significant progress in the scientific understanding and 

technological development needed for geologic disposal over the past two decades. There is 

now a much better understanding of the processes that affect the ability of repositories to isolate 

waste over long periods (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “Scientific and Technical 

Basis for the Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Technical Reports Series No. 413” 

2003). The ability to characterize and quantitatively assess the capabilities of geologic and 
- 52 - 

engineered barriers has been repeatedly demonstrated (Organisation for Economic Cooperation 

and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, “Lessons Learnt from Ten Performance 

Assessment Studies,” 1997). Specific sites have been investigated and extensive experience 

has been gained in underground engineering (IAEA, “Radioactive Waste Management Studies 

and Trends, IAEA/WMDB/ST/4,” 2005; IAEA, “The Use of Scientific and Technical Results from 

Underground Research Laboratory Investigations for the Geologic Disposal of Radioactive 

Waste, IAEA-TECDOC-1243,” 2001). These advances and others throughout the world 

continue to confirm the soundness of the basic concept of deep geologic disposal (IAEA, “Joint 

Convention on Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on Safety of Radioactive Waste 

Management, INFCIRC/546,” 1997). (Note that copies of all IAEA documents are available on 

the IAEA Web site at http://www.IAEA.org.) 

 In the United States, the technical approach for safe high-level radioactive waste 

disposal has remained unchanged for several decades, i.e., a deep geologic repository 

containing natural barriers to hold canisters of high-level radioactive waste with additional 

engineered barriers to further retard radionuclide release. Although some elements of this 

technical approach have changed in response to new knowledge, safe disposal is still feasible 

with current technology. 

 The BRC Report recommended “prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic 

disposal facilities” (p vii). The BRC Report did not identify any obstacles to the technical 

feasibility of siting, constructing, and operating a repository. In the DOE Strategy Report, the 

DOE responded to the BRC Report by presenting a framework for “moving toward a sustainable 

program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used 

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from civilian nuclear power generation....” The 

new DOE strategy includes a nuclear waste management system consisting of a pilot interim 

storage facility, a larger full-scale interim storage facility, and a geologic repository. The DOE’s 

stated objectives are consistent with the continuing United States policy under the Nuclear 
- 53 - 

Waste Policy Act that it is a federal responsibility to site, construct, and operate a geologic 

repository as the appropriate long-term solution for disposition of spent nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste. Further, nNo new information has emerged that would cause the 

Commission to revisit its conclusions from previous Waste Confidence rulemakings that deep 

geologic disposal is technically feasible. The Commission therefore concludes that deep 

geologic disposal continues to be technically feasible. 

 Given that geologic repositories continue to be technically feasible, the question then 

becomes how long it is it likely to take to successfully site, license, construct, and open a 

repository. In answering this question, the Commission has, among other things, historically 

drawn upon international experience to inform its conclusion of how long it will likely take to 

successfully site, license, construct, and open a repository. Of the 24 countries (other than the 

United States) considering disposal of spent or reprocessed nuclear fuel in deep geologic 

repositories, 10 have established target dates for the availability of a repository. Most of the 14 

countries that have not established target dates rely on centralized interim storage, which may 

include a protracted period of onsite storage before shipment to a centralized facility.7

 In 1997, the United Kingdom (UK) rejected an application for the construction of a rock 

characterization facility at Sellafield, leaving the country without a path forward for long-term 

management or disposal of either intermediate-level waste or spent nuclear fuel. In 1998, an 

inquiry by the UK House of Lords endorsed geologic disposal, but specified that public 

acceptance was required. As a result, the UK Government embraced a repository plan based 

on the principles of voluntarism and partnership between communities and implementers. This 

led to the initiation of a national public consultation, and major structural reorganization within 

the UK program. The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority envisions availability of a 

 

7 The three countries with target dates that plan direct disposal of spent fuel are: Czech Republic (2050), Finland 

(2020), and Sweden (2025). The seven countries with target dates for disposal of reprocessed spent fuel and highlevel radioactive waste are: Belgium (2035), China (2050), France (2025), Germany (2025), Japan (2030s), 

Netherlands (2103), and Switzerland (2042). 
- 54 - 

geologic disposal facility for intermediate-level waste in 2040 and a geologic facility for spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in 2075; however, there have been changes in 

societal acceptance in the UK for the siting of a geological disposal facility. In 2007, the 

Scottish Government officially rejected any further consultation with the UK Government on 

deep geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. This action by 

the Scottish Government effectively ended more than 7 years of consultations with stakeholders 

near Scottish nuclear installations. In 2013, the Cumbria County Council voted to withdraw from 

the UK process to find a host community for an underground radioactive waste disposal facility 

and to ending the site selection process in west Cumbria. 

 In Germany, a large salt dome at Gorleben had been under study since 1977 as a 

potential spent nuclear fuel repository. After decades of intense discussions and protests, the 

utilities and the government reached an agreement in 2000 to suspend exploration of Gorleben 

for at least 3, and at most 10 years. In 2003, the Federal Ministry for the Environment set up an 

interdisciplinary expert group to identify, with public participation, criteria for selecting new 

candidate sites. In October 2010, Germany resumed exploration of Gorleben as a potential 

spent nuclear fuel repository. In March 2013, Germany announced plans to form a 24-member 

commission to develop siting criteria. The Commission will hold public meetings through 2015 

on the issue of a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste. 

 Initial efforts in France, during the 1980s, also failed to identify potential repository sites, 

using solely technical criteria. Failure of these attempts led to the passage of nuclear waste 

legislation that prescribed a period of 15 years of research. Reports on generic disposal options 

in clay and granite media were prepared and reviewed by the safety authorities in 2005. In 

2006, conclusions from the public debate on disposal options, held in 2005, were published. 

Later that year, the French Parliament passed new legislation designating a single site for deep 

geologic disposal of intermediate- and high-level radioactive waste. This facility, to be located in 
- 55 - 

the Bure region of northeastern France, is scheduled to open in 2025, about 34 years after 

passage of the original Nuclear Waste Law of 1991. 

 In Switzerland, after detailed site investigations in several locations, the Swiss National 

Cooperative for Radioactive Waste Disposal proposed, in 1993, a deep geologic repository for 

low- and intermediate-level waste at Wellenberg. Despite a 1998 finding by Swiss authorities 

that technical feasibility of the disposal concept was successfully demonstrated, a public 

cantonal referendum rejected the proposed repository in 2002. Even after more than 25 years 

of high quality field and laboratory research, Swiss authorities do not expect that a deep 

geologic repository will be available before 2040. 

 In 1998, an independent panel reported to the Governments of Canada and Ontario on 

its review of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s concept of geologic disposal (Canadian Nuclear 

Fuel Waste Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel, Report of the Nuclear Fuel 

Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel, February 1998). 

(Note that reports related to the Canadian program are available at www.nrcan.gc.ca.) The 

panel found that from a technical perspective, safety of the concept had been adequately 

demonstrated, but from a social perspective, it had not. The panel concluded that broad public 

support is necessary in Canada to ensure the acceptability of a concept for managing nuclear 

fuel wastes. The panel also found that technical safety is a key part, but only one part, of 

acceptability. To be considered acceptable in Canada, the panel found that a concept for 

managing nuclear fuel wastes must: 1) have broad public support; 2) be safe from both a 

technical and social perspective; 3) have been developed within a sound ethical and social 

assessment framework; 4) have the support of Aboriginal people; 5) be selected after 

comparison with the risks, costs, and benefits of other options; and 6) be advanced by a stable 

and trustworthy proponent and overseen by a trustworthy regulator. Resulting legislation 

mandated a nationwide consultation process and widespread organizational reform. 
- 56 - 

 In 2007, the Government of Canada announced its selection of the Adaptive Phased 

Management approach and directed the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to 

take at least 2 years to develop a “collaborative community-driven site-selection process.” The 

NWMO will use this process to open consultations with citizens, communities, Aboriginals, and 

other interested parties to find a suitable site in a willing host community. For financial planning 

and cost estimation purposes only, the NWMO assumes the availability of a deep geological 

repository in 2035, 27 years after initiating development of new site selection criteria, 30 years 

after embarking on a national public consultation, and 37 years after rejection of the original 

geologic disposal concept (NWMO, Annual Report 2007: Moving Forward Together, March 

2008). NWMO developed a site selection process with public input and launched the process in 

2010. At the end of 2012, 21 communities had expressed interest in learning more about the 

project (NWMO, Annual Report 2012: Learning More Together, March 2013). 

 Repository development programs in Finland and Sweden are further along than in other 

countries, but have taken time to build support from potential host communities. In Finland, 

preliminary site investigations started in 1986, and detailed characterizations of four locations 

were performed between 1993 and 2000. In 2001, the Finnish Parliament ratified the 

Government’s decision to proceed with a repository project at a chosen site only after the 1999 

approval by the municipal council of the host community. In December 2012, Posiva (the 

nuclear waste management company in Finland) submitted a construction license application 

for a final repository that will hold spent nuclear fuel from Finland’s nuclear reactors. Finland 

expects this facility to begin receipt of spent nuclear fuel for disposal in 2020, 34 years after the 

start of preliminary site investigations. 

 Between 1993 and 2000, Sweden conducted feasibility studies in eight municipalities. 

One site was found technically unsuitable, and two sites were eliminated by municipal 

referenda. Three of the remaining five sites were selected for detailed site investigations. 

Municipalities adjacent to two of these sites agreed to be potential hosts and one refused. 
- 57 - 

Since 2007, detailed site investigations were conducted at both Oesthammer and Oskarshamn, 

both of which already host nuclear power stations. On June 3, 2009, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel 

and Waste Management Company, SKB, selected the Forsmark Site located in the 

Oesthammer municipality for the Swedish spent nuclear fuel repository. The SKB submitted a 

license application in spring 2011. A government decision is expected in 2015. If Swedish 

authorities authorize construction, the repository could be available for disposal around 2025, 

about 30 years after feasibility studies began. 

 Based on international experience, 25-35 years is a reasonable estimate for the amount 

of time necessary to site, license, and open a geologic repository. The time DOE will need to 

develop a repository site will depend upon a variety of factors, including the passage of any 

required enabling legislation and budgeted funding. Broader institutional issues also bear on 

the time it takes to implement geologic disposal. International and domestic experience have 

made it clear that technical experience and confidence in geologic disposal, on their own, are 

not sufficient to bring about the broad social and political acceptance needed to construct a 

repository. Given the uncertainty, the DGEIS evaluates a range of scenarios for the timeframe 

of the development of a repository, including indefinite storage. 

 The DOE is currently the agency responsible for carrying out the national policy to site 

and build a repository, which includes designing, constructing, operating, and decommissioning 

the repository. The NRC, on the other hand, is the agency responsible for reviewing, licensing, 

and overseeing the construction and operation of the repository. The DOE Strategy Report 

states that it is the Administration’s goal to have a repository sited by 2026, licensing to be 

complete by 2042, and the repository constructed and open for operations by 2048. The total of 

35 years is consistent with international efforts and estimates of between 25 and 35 years to 

site, license, construct, and open a repository. 

 Before DOE can start the development of a new site, Congress will need to provide 

additional direction, beyond the current NWPA, for the long-term management and disposal of 
- 58 - 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Whatever approach Congress mandates, 

international and domestic experience since 1990 suggests that greater attention needs to be 

paid to developing societal and political acceptance in concert with essential technical, safety, 

and security assurances. While there is no technical basis for making precise estimates of the 

minimum time needed to accomplish these objectives, examination of the international 

examples cited previously would support a range of between 25 and 35 years. The 

Commission believes that societal and political acceptance must occur before a successful 

repository program can be completed, and that this is unlikely to occur until a Federal decision 

is made, whether for technical, environmental, political, legal, or societal reasons, that will allow 

the licensing and construction of a repository to proceed. The BRC Report recommended using 

a siting process that is consent-based. In response to the BRC report, the DOE Strategy Report 

includes a strategy that includes the establishment of a consent-based siting process. 

 As discussed in this section, geologic disposal continues to be the favored disposition 

path both nationally and internationally. Moreover, geologic disposal has moved significantly 

beyond a theoretical concept as demonstrated by: 1) submission of a license application for a 

potential repository at Yucca Mountain and the NRC conducting a technical review of that 

application; 2) submission on December 28, 2012, of a construction license application by 

Posiva for a final repository that will hold spent nuclear fuel from Finland’s nuclear reactors; and 

3) submission in spring 2011, of an application by SKB for permission to build a repository for 

spent nuclear fuel in Sweden. Additionally, a deep geologic repository for defense-related 

transuranic radioactive wastes in Carlsbad, New Mexico (WIPP) began disposal operations in 

March 1999. Based on all the information in this section and Appendix B of the DGEIS, the 

Commission concludes that a geologic repository is technically feasible. 

In picking a timeframe by which the Commission has confidence that a geologic 

repository can be available, the Commission is not concluding that it supports storage of spent 

nuclear fuel for an indefinitely long period. The Commission United States law supports the 
- 59 - 

objective of timely disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a geologic 

repository. However, spent nuclear fuel will need to be stored for several decades at either

reactor sites or at away-from-reactor sites beyond the licensed life for operations before ultimate 

disposal in a geologic repository. Having considered all the available information, the 

Commission believes that a reasonable timeframe for repository availability is within 60 years 

beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. Based on international experience, this 

timeframe should provide adequate is still a reasonable time for the United States to site, 

license, construct, and open a geologic repository and is longer than the predicted reasonable 

period of 25 to 35 years to site and develop a repository. Dresden 1 will be the first reactor to 

reach 60 years beyond licensed life for operations in 2059, which means that a repository would 

be needed by 2059 to support the assumption short-term continued storage scenario in the 

GEIS that sufficient repository capacity becomes available by 60 years after the end of a 

reactor’s licensed life for operation. The 2059 date is several years beyond the DOE’s estimate 

of 2048 to site, license, construct, and open a repository. For new reactors, 60 years beyond 

the licensed life of the reactor would mean that repository capacity would be available in 120 to 

140 years. Therefore, the Commission concludes that it is reasonable to assume the availability 

of that a mined geologic repository is feasible within 60 years beyond the licensed life for 

operating and planned new reactors. 

C3. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at-reactor or away-from-reactor sites will be 

necessary until a repository is available for permanent disposal. During the continued storage 

period, the storage of spent nuclear fuel at a storage facility is focused on safe spent nuclear 

fuel management. Safe spent nuclear fuel management involves a regulatory framework and 

the technical feasibility of safe storage. The regulatory framework applicable to both wet (spent 

fuel pool) and dry storage of spent nuclear fuel is discussed in Section C3.a., Regulatory 
- 60 - 

Framework, of this document. The technical feasibility of safe storage of spent nuclear fuel in 

spent fuel pools is discussed in Section C3.b.i., Technical Feasibility of Wet Storage, and in dry 

cask storage in Section C3.b.ii., Technical Feasibility of Dry Storage, of this document (see also 

Section B.3 of Appendix B of the DGEIS). 

C3.a. Regulatory Framework 

A strong regulatory framework that involves regulatory oversight, continuous 

improvement based on research and operating experience, and licensee compliance with 

regulatory requirements is important to the continued safe storage of spent nuclear fuel until 

repository capacity is available. The regulatory framework was previously addressed in 

Findings 3 and 5. Finding 3 analyzed whether high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear 

fuel would be safely managed until repository capacity is available. Finding 5 dealt with whether 

safe storage capacity would be made available if necessary. The key question of these 

Findings is whether a regulatory framework exists to ensure the continued safe management of 

spent nuclear fuel and whether licensees will do what is necessary to safely store their spent 

nuclear fuel until repository capacity for their spent nuclear fuel is available. 

After the end of a reactor’s licensed life for operation, the spent nuclear fuel is stored in 

either spent fuel pools or in dry cask storage. At-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent 

fuel pools is covered by a licensee’s 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 license. Monitoring of the structural 

integrity of the spent fuel pool is addressed through aging management programs. In particular, 

the aging management program focuses on the pool’s water chemistry as it relates to the 

integrity of the stainless steel liner, spent fuel storage racks, and spent-fuel-storage-racksneutron-absorbing sheets. Currently only one away-from-reactor ISFSI stores spent nuclear 

fuel in a spent fuel pool—the GEH-Morris facility. The DGEIS assumes that no new away-fromreactor spent fuel pool storage facilities are constructed. 
- 61 - 

Spent nuclear fuel can also be stored in dry casks in at-reactor ISFSIs licensed by the 

NRC under either a specific license or a general license or in an away-from-reactor ISFSI under 

a specific license. Currently there are 69 ISFSIs licensed to operate in 34 States under either 

specific (15) or general (54) 10 CFR part 72 licenses8

. 

A specific license for an ISFSI under 10 CFR part 72 can be granted by the NRC after a 

review of the safety, environmental, and physical security aspects of the proposed ISFSI and 

the financial aspects of the licensee. If the NRC concludes that the ISFSI can operate safely 

and prepares either an EA and FONSI or EIS, then a license can be issued. This license 

contains requirements on topics such as leak testing and monitoring and specifies the quantity 

and type of material the licensee is authorized to store at the site. Neither the initial nor renewal 

license terms for an ISFSI are to exceed 40 years from the date of issuance. Part 72 of 10 CFR 

also contains the regulatory framework for licensing a monitored retrievable storage facility 

should the need arise. 

 A general license under subpart K of 10 CFR part 72, “General License for Storage of 

Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites,” authorizes storage of spent fuel in casks previously 

approved by the NRC at a site already licensed to possess fuel to operate a nuclear power 

reactor. Under 10 CFR 72.210, “General license issued,” a general license for the storage of 

spent nuclear fuel in an ISFSI at power reactor sites is issued to those persons authorized to 

possess or operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52. The general license is 

limited to spent nuclear fuel that the general licensee is authorized to possess at the site under 

the 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 license for the site. The general license is further limited to storage 

of spent nuclear fuel in casks approved and fabricated under the provisions of subpart L of 10 

 

8 The Private Fuel Storage (PFS) facility was licensed, however, as a result of legal challenges not related to the 

NRC licensing proceeding, the proposed PFS ISFSI has not been constructed. On December 20, 2012, PFS 

submitted a request to the NRC to terminate its license (ADAMS Accession No. ML12356A063). As of publication, 

that request is pending before the agency. 
- 62 - 

CFR part 72, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks;” the approved cask designs are listed in 

10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” The NRC has approved 34 

designs. The NRC conducts a technical review of each cask design before approving the 

design and listing it in 10 CFR 72.214. After the NRC staff documents its review of the 

proposed cask design in a safety evaluation report, the NRC conducts a rulemaking, which 

includes an cask specific environmental review, to add the design to the list of approved cask 

designs. Licensees that use casks with the approved designs must follow the terms of the 

Certificate of Compliance and the technical specifications for the design. Licensees must 

demonstrate that it is safe to store spent fuel in dry casks at their site, including analysis of 

earthquake intensity and tornado missiles. Licensees also review their programs (such as 

security and emergency planning) and make any changes to those programs needed to 

accommodate an ISFSI at their site. 

 Parts 50, 52, and 72 of 10 CFR all have provisions for site specific license renewal. The 

current regulatory framework for storage of spent nuclear fuel allows for multiple license 

renewals subject to aging management analysis and planning. An applicant for storage license 

renewal must provide appropriate technical bases for identifying and addressing aging-related 

effects, and develop specific aging management plans to justify extended operations of ISFSIs 

under the renewed license term. The regulatory framework for storage is supported by welldeveloped regulatory guidance; voluntary domestic and international consensus standards; 

research and analytical studies; and processes for implementing licensing reviews, inspection 

programs, and enforcement oversight. 

 With respect to decommissioning, as required under 10 CFR 72.30(b), all ISFSI 

licensees must provide a decommissioning funding plan to demonstrate reasonable assurance 

that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. Further, the NRC’s regulations require 

that every nuclear power reactor operating license issued under 10 CFR part 50 and every 

combined license issued under 10 CFR part 52 must contain a condition requiring each licensee 
- 63 - 

to submit written notification to the Commission of the licensee’s plan for managing irradiated 

fuel after reactor shutdown. The submittal, required by 10 CFR 50.54(bb), must include 

information on how the licensee intends to provide funding for the management of its spent 

nuclear fuel. 

 In accordance with the license termination requirements for power reactors in 

10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) and 52.110(c), decommissioning is to be completed within 60 years of 

permanent cessation of operations. Completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years will be 

approved by the NRC only when necessary to protect public health and safety. Factors that will 

be considered by the Commission include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other 

site-specific factors, including the presence of other nuclear facilities at the site. Given this 

regulatory framework, it may be reasonably assumed that each nuclear power plant, including 

its onsite spent fuel pool, will be decommissioned within 60 years of permanent cessation of 

operations. This is the basis for assuming in the DGEIS that all of the spent nuclear fuel from 

the spent fuel pool is removed from the pool by the end of the short-term timeframe (see

Section 2.2.1.1 of the DGEIS for more information on decommissioning during the shortterm period). 

 As part of its oversight, the NRC can issue orders and new or amended regulations to 

address emerging issues that could affect the storage of spent nuclear fuel. For example, 

following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC undertook an extensive 

reexamination of spent nuclear fuel safety and security issues. In 2002, the NRC issued orders 

to licensees that required power reactors in decommissioning, wet ISFSIs, and dry storage 

ISFSIs to enhance security and improve their capabilities to respond to, and mitigate the 

consequences of, a terrorist attack. These orders required additional security measures, 

including increased patrols, augmented security forces and capabilities, and more restrictive site 

access controls to reduce the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack. In 2007, the NRC 
- 64 - 

issued a final rule revising the Design Basis Threat, which also increased the security 

requirements for power reactors and their spent fuel pools (72 FR 12705; March 19, 2007). 

More recently in March 2009, the NRC issued a final rule to improve security measures at 

nuclear power reactors, including spent fuel pools (74 FR 13926; March 27, 2009). The NRC 

also plans to codify enhanced security measures at ISFSIs in a future rulemaking (74 FR 66589; 

December 16, 2009). 

 Section 4.19 of the DGEIS describes the environmental impacts of potential acts of 

sabotage or terrorism involving the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. The section 

acknowledges that as the immediate hazard posed by the high radiation levels of spent nuclear 

fuel diminishes over time so does the deterrent to handling by unauthorized persons. The NRC 

will consider this type of information in evaluating whether additional security requirements are 

warranted in the future. The BRC report noted that “over long time periods (perhaps a century 

or more, depending on burnup and the level of radiation that is deemed to provide adequate 

self-protection), the fuel could become more susceptible to possible theft or diversion (although 

other safeguards would remain in place). This in turn could change the security requirements 

for older spent fuel. Extending storage to timeframes of more than a century could thus require 

increasingly demanding and expensive security protections at storage sites.” Therefore, 

additional security requirements may be necessary in the future, should spent nuclear fuel 

remain in storage for a substantial period of time. If necessary, the NRC will issue orders or 

enhance its regulatory requirements for ISFSI security, as appropriate, to ensure adequate 

protection of public health and safety and the common defense and security. 

 Other examples of the NRC’s oversight are the additional requirements that the NRC 

has imposed in response to the March 11, 2011, severe earthquake and subsequent tsunami 

that resulted in extensive damage to the six-unit Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in 

Japan. On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued multiple orders and a request for information to all 

of its nuclear power plant licensees. The orders addressed mitigating strategies for beyond-
- 65 - 

design basis external events and reliable spent fuel pool instrumentation. The request for 

information was designed to gather information to allow the NRC to reevaluate seismic and 

flooding hazards at operating reactor sites and to determine whether appropriate staffing and 

communication can be relied upon to coordinate event response during a prolonged station 

blackout event, as was experienced at Fukushima Dai-ichi. 

 Another aspect of the NRC’s regulatory program for continued storage, as for reactors 

and other licensed facilities generally, involves generic communications. Generic 

communications include, but are not limited to, generic letters, bulletins, information notices, 

safeguards advisories, and regulatory issue summaries. Generic letters request licensee 

actions and information to address issues regarding emergent or routine matters of safety, 

security, safeguards, or environmental significance. Bulletins request licensee actions and 

information to address significant issues regarding matters of safety, security, safeguards, or 

environmental significance that have great urgency. Both generic letters and bulletins require a 

written response from the licensee. Information notices are used to communicate operating or 

analytical experience to the nuclear industry. The industry is expected to review the information 

for applicability and consider appropriate actions to avoid similar problems. Regulatory issue 

summaries are used to communicate and clarify the NRC’s technical and policy positions on 

regulatory matters. Neither an information notice nor a regulatory issue summary requires 

written responses from licensees. 

 For example, Information Notice 2012-20, “Potential Chloride-Induced Stress Corrosion 

Cracking of Austenitic Stainless Steel and Maintenance of Dry Cask Storage System Canisters” 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A440), informed licensees about the potential for chlorideinduced stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steel and maintenance of dry cask 

storage system canisters. Although an immediate safety concern did not exist, the NRC alerted 

licensees and certificate holders that their monitoring programs need to address this concern as 
- 66 - 

part of an aging management program so that appropriate actions (e.g., maintenance) would be 

taken to avoid the potential problem. 

 As demonstrated by these examples, the NRC’s regulatory framework allows the 

Agency to respond to emerging events and take appropriate action to continue to protect the 

public health and safety and the environment. 

 To date, the NRC has renewed five specific 10 CFR part 72 ISFSI licenses. These 

renewals include the 10 CFR part 72 specific licenses for the General Electric Morris Operation 

(the only wet, or pool-type, ISFSI), as well as the Surry, H.B. Robinson, Oconee, and Fort St. 

Vrain ISFSIs. Specific licenses for all but one of the ISFSIs will expire by 2048. It is expected 

that license renewals will be requested by the licensees of these facilities, unless a permanent 

repository or some other interim storage option is made available. The NRC has received 

renewal applications for the Calvert Cliffs and Prairie Island ISFSIs. Similarly, renewals will be 

required for certificates of compliance for storage cask designs approved for use by general 

licensees in accordance with 10 CFR Part 72. 

 In addition, issuance of Materials License No. SNM-2513 for the Private Fuel Storage, 

LLC (PFS) facility has confirmed the feasibility of licensing an away-from-reactor ISFSI under 10 

CFR part 72. Aalthough there were several issues that prevented the PFS ISFSI from being 

built and operated, the extensive review of safety, security, and environmental issues 

associated with licensing the PFS facility provides additional confidence that spent nuclear fuel 

can be safely stored at an away from reactor ISFSI for long periods after storage at a reactor 

site. 

 The NRC will continue its regulatory control and oversight of spent nuclear fuel storage 

at both operating and decommissioned reactor sites for both specific and general 10 CFR part 

72 licenses and 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 licenses. Decades of operating experience and ongoing 

NRC inspections demonstrate that these reactor and ISFSI licensees continue to meet their 

obligation to safely store spent fuel in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR parts 50 and 
- 67 - 

72. If the NRC were to find noncompliance with these requirements or otherwise identify a 

concern with the safe storage of the spent fuel, the NRC would evaluate the issue and take 

action to protect the public health and safety and the environment. 

 As noted in the preceding paragraphs, licensees have continued to develop and 

successfully use onsite spent nuclear fuel storage capacity in the form of spent fuel pool and dry 

cask storage. Based on the preceding discussion, the Commission believes that licensees will

should have the necessary resources to meet obligations related to the storage of any spent 

nuclear fuel after reactor operations cease. The Commission concludes that the regulatory 

framework exists to support the conclusion that spent nuclear fuel can be managed in a safe 

manner until sufficient repository capacity is available. 

C3.b. Safe Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

 Finding 4 assessed the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel pending ultimate disposal at a 

repository. Issues related to storage focus on the technical feasibility of safe storage of spent 

nuclear fuel. To address the feasibility of long-term safe storage, the Commission needs to 

evaluate: 1) the technical feasibility of safe wet storage; and 2) the technical feasibility of safe 

dry storage. The Commission also needs to evaluate the potential risks of accidents and acts of 

sabotage at spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. Although the DGEIS does n’t not primarily 

explicitly evaluate safety, it does include evaluations of the environmental impacts attributable to 

accidents, public health, and safeguards for three different timeframes and contains a 

discussion on the technical feasibility of safe storage, which support the conclusion in the rule 

that fuel can be safely stored. The technical feasibility of safe storage beyond a reactor’s 

licensed life for operation is addressed in the following sections. 

C3.b.i. Technical Feasibility of Wet Storage 

 The technical feasibility of continued safe wet storage is supported by a number of 

technical considerations. First, the integrity of spent fuel and cladding under the controlled 
- 68 - 

water chemistry within the spent fuel pool is supported by operating experience as well as a 

number of scientific studies. Further, the spent fuel pool’s robust technical design protects 

against a range of natural and human-induced challenges. These considerations are discussed 

in the following paragraphs. 

 The Commission found in 1984 that research and experience in the United States and 

other countries confirmed that long-term storage could be safely undertaken (49 FR 34681-

34682; August 31, 1984). In 1990, the Commission determined that experience with water 

storage of spent nuclear fuel continued to confirm that pool storage is a benign environment for 

spent nuclear fuel that does not lead to significant degradation of spent nuclear fuel integrity and 

that the pools in which the assemblies are stored will remain safe for extended periods. Further, 

degradation mechanisms are well understood and allow time for appropriate remedial action (55 

FR 38509-38511; September 18, 1990). In sum, based on both experience and scientific 

studies, the Commission found wet storage to be a fully-developed technology with no 

associated major technical problems. 

 Almost 30 years of additional experience has been gained since the publication of the 

Waste Confidence rulemaking in 1984 during which time the technical basis for very slow 

degradation rates of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools has continued to grow. For example, 

several studies have supported the low degradation of cladding material (IAEA TECDOC-1012, 

Durability of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Facility Components in Wet Storage, 1988; IAEA 

TECDOC-1343, Spent Fuel Performance Assessment and Research: Final report of a 

Cordinated Research Project on Spent Fuel Performance Assessment and Research (SPAR) 

1997–2001, 2003; IAEA Technical Report Series No. 443, Understanding and Managing Ageing 

of Materials in Spent Fuel Storage Facilities, 2006). The IAEA TECDOC-1012 noted that “[t] he 

zirconium alloys represent a class of materials that is highly resistant to degradation in wet 

storage, including some experience in aggressive waters. The only adverse experience 

involves Zircaloy clad metallic uranium where mechanical damage to the cladding was a 
- 69 - 

prominent factor during reactor discharge, exposing the uranium metal fuel to aqueous 

corrosion. Otherwise, the database for the zirconium alloys supports a judgment of satisfactory 

wet storage in the time frame of 50 to 100 years or more” (p. 5). The IAEA TECDOC 1343, in 

discussing spent nuclear fuel storage experience, reported on a detailed review of the 

degradation mechanisms of spent nuclear fuel under wet storage and stated that “wet storage of 

spent fuel only appears to be limited by adverse pool chemistry conditions or the deterioration of 

the fuel storage pool structure.” 

 The IAEA Technical Report Series No. 443 stated that “[d]estructive and non-destructive 

examinations of fuel rods, visual evidence and coupon studies [11, 13, 54–58] all support 

resistance to aqueous corrosion. There have been no reports of fission gas evolution, indicative 

of cladding failure in wet storage. Rod consolidation campaigns have been conducted without 

any indication of storage induced degradation. There is a sufficient database to indicate that 

wet storage of fuel with zirconium alloy cladding can be extended for at least several decades.” 

 Based on available information and operating experience, degradation of the fuel 

cladding occurs slowly over time in the spent fuel pool environment. Degradation of the spent 

nuclear fuel should be minimal, particularly over the short-term storage period. Therefore, the 

NRC expects that only routine maintenance will be needed over the short-term storage period. 

The DGEIS assumes that the spent fuel pool will be decommissioned before the end of the 

short-term storage period. However, the NRC is not aware of any information that would call 

into question the technical feasibility of continued safe storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools 

beyond the short-term storage period (see Section B.3.1 of Appendix B of the DGEIS). 

 In its initial Waste Confidence Decision, the Commission found that the risks of major 

accidents at spent fuel pools resulting in offsite consequences were remote because of the 

secure and stable character of the spent nuclear fuel in the storage pool environment and the 

absence of reactive phenomena that might result in dispersal of radioactive material. The 

Commission noted that storage pools and ISFSIs are designed to safely withstand accidents 
- 70 - 

caused by either natural or man-made phenomena (49 FR 34658; pp. 34684-34685; August 31, 

1984). By 1990, the NRC staff had spent several years studying the potential for a catastrophic 

loss of reactor spent fuel pool water, which could lead to a fuel fire. The NRC concluded that, 

because of the large inherent safety margins in the design and construction of a spent fuel pool, 

no action was needed to further reduce the risk (55 FR 38472; p. 38511; September 18, 1990). 

 The NRC has continued its examination of spent fuel pool storage to ensure that 

adequate safety is maintained and that there are no adverse environmental effects from the 

storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools. In 1997, the safety and environmental effects 

of spent fuel pool storage were addressed in conjunction with regulatory assessments of 

permanently shutdown nuclear plants and decommissioning nuclear power plants in 

NUREG/CR-6451, “A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR and PWR 

Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants” (ADAMS Accession No. ML082260098). The 

study provided reasonably bounding estimates of fuel coolability and offsite consequences for 

the most severe accidents, which would involve draining of the spent fuel pool. 

 In 2001, the NRC issued NUREG-1738, “Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident 

Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants” (ADAMS Accession No. ML010430066), which 

examined spent fuel pool accident risk at decommissioning nuclear power plants and provides a 

newer and more robust analysis of the safety and environmental effects of spent fuel pool 

storage. This study provided the results of the NRC staff’s latest evaluation of the accident risk 

in a spent fuel pool at decommissioning plants. The NUREG-1738 found that a postulated 

accident causing a zirconium cladding fire could result in unacceptable offsite doses; however, 

the likelihood for such an accident to occur was estimated to be less than three chances in one 

million (p. 3-29). The NUREG-1738 states: “[T]he risk at decommissioning plants is low and 

well within the Commission's safety goals. The risk is low because of the very low likelihood of 

a zirconium fire even though the consequences from a zirconium fire could be serious.” (p. 5-3). 

In arriving at this conclusion, NUREG-1738 considered a wide range of initiating events (pp. 3-2, 
- 71 - 

3-3), including, but not limited to, events that might lead to rapid loss of pool water, such as 

seismic events, cask drop, aircraft impact, and missiles generated by tornados. The low 

probability for these varied events to initiate a rapid loss of water from the pool is a direct result 

of the robustness of the structural design of the spent fuel pool. The results of NUREG-1738, 

as well as other studies, are discussed in more detail in Appendix F of the DGEIS. Appendix F 

also contains information on actions that the NRC has required licensees to take in response to 

significant events including the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the March 11, 2011, 

Fukushima Dai-ichi event in Japan. 

 Given the physical robustness of the pools, the physical security measures, and the 

spent fuel pool mitigation measures, and based upon the NRC’s site evaluations of every spent 

fuel pool in the United States, the NRC has determined that the risk of a spent fuel pool 

zirconium fire, whether caused by an accident or a terrorist attack, is very low. In addition, the 

NRC has approved license amendments and issued safety evaluations to incorporate mitigation 

measures into the plant licensing bases of all operating nuclear power plants in the United 

States (see 73 FR 46207-46208; August 8, 2008; and Sections 4.18, 4.19, 5.18, 5.19, and 

Appendix F of the DGEIS). 

 Monitoring of the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool is addressed through aging 

management programs. All nuclear power plants and GEH-Morris have specific aging 

management programs to inspect, monitor, detect, and trend the aging of the spent fuel pool 

structure concrete, liner plate, and structural steel that support different commodities. The aging 

management program also focuses on the pool’s water chemistry as it relates to the integrity of 

the stainless steel liner, spent fuel storage racks, and spent-fuel-storage-racks-neutronabsorbing sheets. 

Another issue related to storage of spent nuclear fuel in a spent fuel pool is possible 

leakage of water from the pool into the environment. The spent fuel pool liner and the leakage 

collection system normally prevent spent fuel pool water from leaking into the environment. 
- 72 - 

However, leaks can occur. Available data indicate that spent fuel pool leakage has occurred at 

several nuclear power plant sites. The DGEIS provides a detailed description and evaluation of 

the historical data on spent fuel leakage and the offsite environmental impacts that may occur 

during the period of continued storage. In particular, Appendix E determined the impact to 

public health from spent fuel pool leakage would be SMALL (see Appendix E of the DGEIS for 

information on spent fuel pool leaks). 

In summary, spent fuel pools are massive, seismically-designed structures that are 

constructed from thick, reinforced concrete walls and slabs designed to be seismically robust. 

Thus, the likelihood of major accidents at spent fuel pools resulting in offsite consequences is 

remote. The NRC is not aware of any additional studies that would question the low probability 

of spent fuel pool accidents and thereby also question the technical feasibility of continued safe 

storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools for the 60 years after licensed life for operation 

considered in the DGEIS. Further, as described in Appendix E of the DGEIS, the public health 

Impacts from potential spent fuel pool leaks is SMALL. 

C3.b.ii. Technical Feasibility of Dry Storage 

 The feasibility of safe dry cask storage is supported by years of experience as well as 

technical studies and the NRC’s reviews that have examined and confirmed the integrity of 

spent nuclear fuel and cladding under the controlled and relatively benign environment within 

dry cask storage systems and the robustness of the structural design of the dry cask storage 

system against a variety of challenges both natural and human-induced. Those features are 

addressed in the following paragraphs and in Section B.3.2 of Appendix B of the DGEIS. 

 In 1984, the Commission based its findings regarding the safety of dry storage on an 

understanding of the material degradation processes, derived largely from technical studies, 

together with the recognition that dry storage systems are simple and easy to maintain (49 FR 

34683-34684; August 31, 1984). By 1990, the NRC and ISFSI licensees had considerable 
- 73 - 

experience with dry storage. The NRC staff’s safety reviews of topical reports on storage 

system designs, the licensing and inspection of dry storage at two nuclear power plant sites 

under 10 CFR part 72, and the NRC’s promulgation of an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that 

incorporated a monitored retrievable storage installation (a dry storage facility) into the 

regulations confirmed the 1984 conclusions on the safety of dry storage (55 FR 38509-38513; 

September 18, 1990). 

 Spent fuel has been safely stored in dry casks for more than 25 years. As with wet 

storage, the overall experience with dry cask storage of similar fuel types, including the 

cladding, has been similar—slow degradation. Spent nuclear fuel is allowed to cool in a spent 

fuel pool before being transferred into dry cask storage, which reduces the potential for 

significant degradation. Recent studies have confirmed the reliability of dry cask storage. For 

example, a dry cask storage characterization project examined and tested a dry cask storage 

system. The 2003 Argonne National Laboratories report prepared for the NRC, 

NUREG/CR-6831, “Examination of Spent PWR Fuel Rods after 15 Years in Dry Storage” 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML032731021), suggested that the viability of spent fuel cladding could 

viably to remain as a barrier to fission product release during extended storage up to 100 years 

in a dry cask environment (p. xi). These results were for spent fuel with a burnup limit of 35 

gigawatt days per metric ton Uranium (GWd/MTU). The IAEA Technical Report Series No. 443 

stated that “[p]ower reactor fuel with zirconium alloy cladding has been placed into dry storage 

in approximately a dozen countries. The technical basis for satisfactory dry storage of fuel clad 

with zirconium alloys includes hot cell tests on single rods, whole assembly tests, 

demonstrations using casks loaded with irradiated fuel assemblies and theoretical analysis.” 

 Although the current record for dry cask storage supports the technical feasibility of 

continued safe storage, the NRC constantly works to investigate and monitor the behavior of the 

spent fuel storage systems to identify any unexpected and deleterious safety conditions before 

a problem develops. The NRC is aware of concerns regarding the potential detrimental effects 
- 74 - 

of hydride reorientation on cladding behavior, such as reduced ductility. Reduced ductility, 

making the cladding more brittle, increases the difficulty of keeping spent nuclear fuel 

assemblies intact during handling operations and transportation. Research performed in Japan 

and the United States indicated that: 1) hydrides could reorient at a significantly lower stress 

than previously believed; and 2) high burn-up fuel could exhibit a higher ductile-to-brittle 

transition temperature due to the presence of radial hydrides (Billone, M.C., T.A. Burtseva, and 

R.E. Einziger.2013 “Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Temperature for High-Burnup Cladding Alloys 

Exposed to Simulated Drying-Storage Conditions.” Journal of Nuclear Materials 433(1–3): 

431–448 (available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311512005181)). 

This phenomenon could influence the approach used for re-packaging spent nuclear fuel, but 

the NRC is not aware of information that would require the NRC to conclude that high burn-up 

fuel would need to be repackaged during the short-term time period in the DGEIS. Should 

spent fuel cladding be more brittle, greater care could be required during handling operations, 

regardless of when repackaging would occur, to limit the potential for damage to spent nuclear 

fuel assemblies that could affect easy retrievability of the spent nuclear fuel and complicate 

repackaging operations. 

 Based on available information and operating experience, degradation of the spent 

nuclear fuel should be minimal over the short-term storage period, if the conditions inside the 

canister are appropriately maintained (i.e., consistent with the technical specifications for 

storage). Thus, as discussed in more detail in the DGEIS, it is expected that only routine 

maintenance will be needed over the short-term storage period and no re-packaging is 

anticipated during that timeframe (i.e., no large-scale repackaging of dry cask storage systems). 

The DGEIS assumes that the repackaging of spent nuclear fuel would occur every 100 years if 

storage continues beyond the short-term storage period, which may include different 

approaches for repackaging at times significantly beyond the short-term storage period (e.g., 

placement of damaged spent nuclear fuel in smaller canisters). The NRC is not aware of any 
- 75 - 

additional studies that would question the technical feasibility of continued safe storage of spent 

nuclear fuel in dry casks for the time periods considered in the DGEIS. 

 In 2007, the NRC published a pilot probabilistic risk assessment methodology that 

assessed the risk to the public and identified the dominant contributors to risk associated with a 

welded canister dry spent fuel storage system at a specific boiling water reactor site (NUREG1864, “A Pilot Probabilistic Risk Assessment of a Dry Cask Storage System at a Nuclear Power 

Plant” March 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071340012)). The NRC study developed and 

assessed a comprehensive list of initiating events, including dropping the cask during handling 

and external events during onsite storage (such as earthquakes, floods, high winds, lightning 

strikes, accidental aircraft crashes, and pipeline explosions) and reported that the analyses 

indicate that the risk is solely from latent cancer fatalities and that the overall risk of dry cask 

storage was found to be extremely low. (The NRC determined that the estimated aggregate risk 

is an individual probability of a latent cancer fatality of 1.8x10-12 during the period encompassing 

the initial cask loading and first year of service, and 3.2x10-14 per year during subsequent years 

of storage (p. 9-2).) 

 Several characteristics of dry cask storage contribute to the low risk associated with dry 

cask storage. First, these systems are passive. Second, they rely on natural air circulation for 

cooling during storage of the spent nuclear fuel. Third, they are inherently robust, massive 

concrete and steel structures that are highly damage resistant. The robustness of these dry 

cask storage systems has been tested by significant challenges, such as the 2011 Mineral, 

Virginia earthquake that affected North Anna Nuclear Plant, and the 2011 earthquake and 

tsunami that damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. Neither event resulted in 

significant damage to or the release of radionuclides from the dry cask storage containers. The 

NRC and licensee experience to date with ISFSIs and with certification of casks indicates that 

interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites can be safely and effectively conducted 

using passive dry storage technology. Although routine inspections have identified several 
- 76 - 

performance issues for individual dry storage components (such as problems with cask seals 

and concrete cracking), prompt mitigation of these issues has prevented any safety problems 

from occurring. If problems were to occur, the NRC would take appropriate action to address 

the problem and verify that licensees take corrective actions to prevent recurrence. 

 Therefore, technical studies and practical operating experience to date confirm the 

physical integrity of dry cask storage structures and thereby demonstrate the technical feasibility 

of continued safe storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage systems for the time periods 

considered in the DGEIS. The DGEIS conservatively assumes that the dry casks would need to 

be replaced if storage continues beyond the short-term time period. The DGEIS considers 

replacement of dry casks after 100 years of service life, even though studies and experience to 

date do not preclude a longer service life. The NRC continues to perform technical studies, 

evaluate aging management programs and monitor provide oversight of dry cask storage 

operations. The NRC will be able to so that it can update its generic 100-year service life 

conclusions as necessary and consider any circumstances that might require repackaging of 

spent fuel earlier than anticipated. 

C.3.b.iii Summary of Technical Feasibility of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage 

 In summary, storage of spent nuclear fuel will be necessary until a repository is available 

for permanent disposal. The storage of spent nuclear fuel in any combination of storage in 

spent fuel pools or dry casks will continue as a licensed activity under regulatory controls and 

oversight. Licensees continue to develop and successfully use onsite spent nuclear fuel 

storage capacity in the form of spent fuel pools and dry cask storage in a safe and 

environmentally sound fashion. Technical understanding and experience continues to support 

the technical feasibility of safe storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools and in dry casks, 

based on their physical integrity over long periods of time (e.g., slow degradation of spent fuel 

during storage in spent fuel pools and dry casks; and engineered features of storage pools and 

dry casks to safely withstand accidents caused by either natural or man-made phenomena). 
- 77 - 

Additionally, regulatory oversight has been shown to enhance safety designs and operations as 

concerns and information evolve over time (e.g., security and safety enhancements made after 

the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the March 2012 Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster; and 

corrective actions to address spent fuel pool leaks are discussed in Appendix E of the DGEIS). 

 Based on the technical information and the national and international experience with 

wet and dry storage of spent fuel, the NRC believes that it is technically feasible to safely and 

securely store spent fuel in either wet or dry storage for at least 60 years beyond a reactor’s 

licensed life for operation with only routine maintenance (i.e., no large-scale replacement of 

spent fuel pools or dry cask storage systems). This time period represents a potential service 

life for the spent fuel pools and dry cask storage systems on the order of 100 to 140 years when 

considering any storage that occurs during reactor operations. The Commission concludes that 

spent fuel can continue to be safely managed in spent fuel pools and dry casks, and that 

regulatory oversight exists to ensure the aging management programs continue to be updated 

to address the monitoring and maintenance of structures, systems, and components that are 

important to safety. Based on all of the information set forth in Appendix B of the DGEIS and 

Section III.C3., Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, of this document, the Commission concludes 

that spent nuclear fuel can be safely managed in spent fuel pools in the short-term timeframe 

and dry casks during the short-term, long-term, and indefinite timeframes evaluated in the 

DGEIS. 

IV. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section 

§ 51.23 Environmental impacts of storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life 

for operation of a reactor.

 The title of the section would be revised to reflect that the section is no longer based on 

an EA and FONSI, but on an EIS and that environmental effects of continued storage are 

included in the section. 
- 78 - 

Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.23 would be revised to provide the Commission’s generic 

determination on the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. The proposed amendments 

would state that the Commission has developed a generic environmental impact statement 

(NUREG-2157). The proposed rule would further indicate that the Commission has concluded 

that the analysis generically addresses the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor ; and supports the determinations 

that it is feasible to safely store spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a 

reactor and to have a mined geologic repository within 60 years following the licensed life for 

operation of a reactor. 

Paragraph (b)(1) of 10 CFR 51.23 would be revised to clarify that ISFSI license renewals 

are included in the scope of the generic determination. 

§ 51.61 Environmental report--independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or 

monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS) license. 

 Section 51.61 of 10 CFR would be revised to clarify that ISFSI renewals are included in 

the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23. 

§ 51.80 Draft environmental impact statement--materials license. 

Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.80 would be revised to clarify that ISFSI renewals are 

included in the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23. 

§ 51.97 Final environmental impact statement--materials license. 

 Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.97 would be revised to clarify that ISFSI renewals are 

included in the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23. 
- 79 - 

Table B-1—Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants. 

Table B-1 addresses the environmental impacts of license renewal activities by resource 

area. When the Commission issued the final rule on the environmental effects of license 

renewal (XX FR XXXX; Month, Day, 2013), it was not able to rely on the Waste Confidence rule 

for two of the issues. The Commission noted that upon issuance of the GEIS and rule, the NRC 

would make any necessary conforming changes to the license renewal rule. This proposed rule 

would revise these two Table B-1 finding column entries to address Waste Confidence. The 

“Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal” issue would be 

reclassified as a Category 1 impact and the finding column entry would be revised to address 

Waste Confidence. For the “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” issue, the finding column 

entry would be revised to include the period of continued storage beyond the licensed life for 

operation of a reactor. Additionally footnote 7 of Table B-1 would be removed. While footnotes 

1, 2, and 3 are laid out in the regulatory text, they are not being amended, but are included to 

meet an Office of the Federal Register publication requirement. 

V. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents identified in the following table available to interested 

persons through one or more of the methods provided in Section I.A., Accessing Information, of 

this document, as indicated. 

References are also available through the Waste Confidence Decision Website at 

www.nrc.gov. References are organized by the document in which the reference appears 

(DGEIS chapter and appendix and the proposed rule Federal Register notice), as well as 

alphabetical order by author with links to electronically available documents. 
- 80 - 

Document PDR

Web 

(www.regulations.gov

unless otherwise 

indicated)

ADAMS 

Waste Confidence Related Documents 

Federal Register notice - Notice of Intent 

Consideration of Environmental Impacts 

of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel 

After Cessation of Reactor Operation (77 

FR 65137; October 25, 2012) 

X X ML12305A035 

Draft NUREG-2157, “Waste Confidence 

Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement” 

X X MLxxxxxx

“Waste Confidence Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Scoping Process Summary Report” 

X X ML13060A128 

“Scoping Comments on the Waste 

Confidence Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement” 

X X ML13060A130 

Transcript of November 14, 2012, Waste 

Confidence Scoping Meeting - Afternoon 

Session 

X X ML12331A347 

Transcript of November 14, 2012, Waste 

Confidence Scoping Meeting - Evening 

Session 9pm-12am 

X X ML12331A353 

Transcript of Scoping Meeting for the 

Waste Confidence Environmental Impact 

Statement: Webinar December 5, 2012 

X X ML12355A174 

December 6, 2012 Waste Confidence 

Scoping Webinar Transcript X X ML12355A187 

Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. 

Cir. 1979) 

(New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012) 

http://www.cadc.uscourt

s.gov/internet/opinions.

nsf/57ACA94A8FFAD8

AF85257A1700502AA4

/$file/11-1045-
- 81 - 

1377720.pdf

Federal Register notice announcing 

generic proceeding on Waste 

Confidence (44 FR 61372, 61373; 

October 25, 1979) 

X 

Federal Register notice - 1984 Waste 

Confidence Final Rule (49 FR 34688; 

August 31, 1984) 

X ML033000242 

Federal Register notice - 1984 Final 

Waste Confidence Decision (49 FR 

34658; August 31, 1984) 

X ML033000242 

Federal Register notice - 1990 Waste 

Confidence Final Rule (55 FR 38472; 

September 18, 1990) 

X ML031700063 

Federal Register notice - 1990 Waste 

Confidence Decision (55 FR 38474; 

September 18, 1990) 

X ML031700063 

Federal Register notice - 1999 Waste 

Confidence Decision Review (64 FR 

68005; December 6, 1999) 

X ML003676331 

Federal Register notice - 2010 Waste 

Confidence Final Rule (75 FR 81037; 

December 23, 2010) 

X ML103350175 

Federal Register notice - 2010 Waste 

Confidence Decision Update (75 FR 

81032; December 23, 2010) 

X ML120970147 

Commission Order CLI-12-16 X ML12220A094 

SRM-COMSECY-12-0016 - Approach 

for Addressing Policy Issues Resulting 

from Court Decision to Vacate Waste 

Confidence Decision and Rule 

X ML12250A032 

Waste Confidence References – NRC Documents 

Federal Register notice announcing the 

1977 Denial of PRM-50-18 (42 FR 

34391; July 5, 1977) 

X 

Federal Register notice - Final Rule to 

Amend 10 CFR 73.1: Design Basis 

X ML070520692 
- 82 - 

Threat (72 FR 12705; March 19, 2007) 

Federal Register notice - Power Reactor 

Security Requirements Final Rule (74 

FR 13926; March 27, 2009) 

X ML083380546 

Federal Register notice - Denial of 

Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM-51-10 

and PRM-51-12) (73 FR 46204: August 

8, 2008) 

X ML081890124 

Federal Register notice - “Draft 

Technical Basis for Rulemaking Revising 

Security Requirements for Facilities 

Storing SNF and HLW; Notice of 

Availability and Solicitation of Public 

Comments” (74 FR 66589; December 

16, 2009) 

X ML093340103 

Federal Register notice - 

Decommissioning Planning Rule (76 FR 

35512; June 17, 2011) 

X ML103510117 

Federal Register notice - License 

Renewal GEIS Final Rule (78 FR XXX: 

Month, Day, 2013) 

X MLXXXXXX

Department of Energy; Notice of 

Acceptance for Docketing of a License 

Application for Authority to Construct a 

Geologic Repository at a Geologic 

Repository Operations Area at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada (73 FR 53284; 

September 15, 2008) 

X ML082490757 

NUREG-0586,”Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement on Decommissioning 

of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: 

Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors,” Volume 1 

Main report. November 2002 

X ML023500395 

NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants” 2013 

 

ML13106A241 for 

main volume 1, 

ML13106A242 for 

volume 2, and 

ML13106A244 for 

volume 3 
- 83 - 

NUREG-1738, "Technical Study of 

Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at 

Decommissioning Nuclear Power 

Plants" 

X ML010430066 

NUREG-1864, "A Pilot Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment of a Dry Cask Storage 

System at a Nuclear Power Plant" 

X ML071340012 

NUREG-2107, "Technical Evaluation 

Report on the Content of the U.S. 

Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain 

Repository License Application – 

Postclosure Volume: Repository Safety 

After Permanent Closure" 

X ML11223A273 

NUREG-2108, "Technical Evaluation 

Report on the Content of the U.S. 

Department of Energy Yucca Mountain 

Repository License Application - 

Preclosure Volume: Repository Safety 

Before Permanent Closure" 

X ML11250A093 

NUREG/CR-6451, "A Safety and 

Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR 

and PWR Permanently Shutdown 

Nuclear Power Plants" 

http://www.osti.gov/brid

ge/servlets/purl/510336-

qmwPBP/webviewable/

510336.pdf

NUREG/CR-6831, “Examination of 

Spent PWR Fuel Rods after 15 Years in 

Dry Storage” 

 ML032731021 

Regulatory Guide 4.22, 

Decommissioning Planning During 

Operations 

X ML12158A361 

NRC Information Notice IN 2012-20, 

“Potential Chloride-Induced Stress 

Corrosion Cracking of Austenitic 

Stainless Steel and Maintenance of Dry 

Cask Storage System Canisters” 

X ML12319A440 

NRC Order Number EA-12-049, 

Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses 

With Regard to Requirements for 

Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-DesignBasis External Events 

 ML12054A735 
- 84 - 

NRC Order EA-12-051, Issuance of 

Order to Modify Licenses With Regard to 

Reliable Spent Fuel Pool 

Instrumentation 

 ML12054A679 

Waste Confidence References – Non-NRC Documents 

NRDC v. NRC, 582 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 

1978) [Provide a reference for this 

case since it appears that the DGEIS 

assumes all references are available 

publicly.]

 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act 96 Stat. 2201 

(1983) (current version at 42 U.S.C. 

10132 (2006)) 

http://www.epw.senate.

gov/nwpa82.pdf 

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s 

Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary 

of Energy 

X ML120970375 

DOE, Strategy for the Management and 

Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste X ML13011A138 

Letter from J M Maddox, Eddy-Lea 

Energy Alliance, LLC, to C Haney, 

NMSS, re Notice of Intent to Submit a 

License Application for Consolidated 

Used Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility, 

February 26, 2013 

X ML13067A278 

DOE Motion to Withdraw Application for 

Yucca Mountain X ML100621397 

Request for Termination of NRC License 

No. SNM-2513 for Private Fuel Storage 

LLC 

X ML12356A063 

Billone, M.C., T.A. Burtseva, and R.E. 

Einziger.2013 “Ductile-to-Brittle 

Transition Temperature for High-Burnup 

Cladding Alloys Exposed to Simulated 

Drying-Storage Conditions.” Journal of 

Nuclear Materials 433(1–3): 431–448 

http://www.sciencedirec

t.com/science/article/pii/

S0022311512005181

IAEA, “Scientific and Technical Basis for 

the Geologic Disposal of Radioactive 

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/Pu
- 85 - 

Wastes, Technical Reports Series No. 

413” 

blications/PDF/TRS413

_web.pdf 

IAEA Technical Report Series No. 443, 

“Understanding and Managing Ageing of 

Materials in Spent Fuel Storage 

Facilities” 

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/pub

lications/PDF/TRS443_

web.pdf 

IAEA, “Radioactive Waste Management 

Studies and Trends, IAEA/WMDB/ST/4” 

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/Pu

blications/PDF/WMDBST-4.pdf 

IAEA TECDOC-1012, “Durability of 

Spent Nuclear Fuels and Facility 

Components in Wet Storage” 

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/pub

lications/PDF/te_1012_

prn.pdf 

IAEA, “The Use of Scientific and 

Technical Results from Underground 

Research Laboratory Investigations for 

the Geologic Disposal of Radioactive 

Waste, IAEA-TECDOC-1243” 

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/Pu

blications/PDF/te_1243

_prn.pdf 

IAEA TECDOC1343, “Spent Fuel 

Performance Assessment and 

Research: Final Report of a Cordinated 

Research Project on Spent Fuel 

Performance Assessment and Research 

(SPAR) 

1997–2001” 

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/pub

lications/PDF/te_1343_

web.pdf 

IAEA, “Joint Convention on Safety of 

Spent Fuel Management and on Safety 

of Radioactive Waste Management, 

INFCIRC/546” 

http://www.iaea.org/Pub

lications/Documents/Inf

circs/1997/infcirc546.pd

f 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation 

and Development, Nuclear Energy 

Agency, “Lessons Learnt from Ten 

Performance Assessment Studies,” 

1997 

http://www.oecdnea.org/rwm/reports/19

97/ipag.pdf 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation 

and Development, Nuclear Energy 

Agency, “Moving Forward with 

Geological Disposal of Radioactive 

http://www.oecdnea.org/rwm/reports/20

08/nea6433-
- 86 - 

Waste,” 2008 statement.pdf 

Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal 

Concept Environmental Assessment 

Panel, Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste 

Management and Disposal Concept 

Environmental Assessment Panel

http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/d

efault.asp?lang=En&n=

0B83BD43-

1&xml=0B83BD43-

93AA-4652-9929-

3DD8DA4DE486&toc=s

how 

NWMO, Annual Report 2007: Moving 

Forward Together

http://www.nwmo.ca/upl

oads_managed/MediaFi

les/327_NWMO_2007_

Annual_Report_E.pdf 

NWMO, Learning More Together – 

Annual Report for 2012

http://nwmo.ca/uploads

_managed/MediaFiles/2

089_ar2012_english_w

eb.pdf 

VI. Agreement State Compatibility 

 Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal 

Register (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this proposed rule would be classified as 

Compatibility Category “NRC.” The NRC program elements in this category are those that 

relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, or the provisions of Title 10 of the CFR. These program elements are not adopted by 

Agreement States. 

VII. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write 

documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document 

to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain 
- 87 - 

Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests 

comment on the proposed rule with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the 

language used. 

VIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

 The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) 

requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC would modify its generic 

determination on the consideration of environmental impacts of continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for reactor operations. The NRC is not aware of any 

voluntary consensus standards that address the proposed subject matter of this proposed 

rule. The NRC will consider using a voluntary consensus standard if an appropriate standard is 

identified. If a voluntary consensus standard is identified for consideration, the submittal should 

explain why the standard should be used. 

IX. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Availability 

 As required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the 

NRC’s regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has prepared a Draft Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-2157) to support this proposed rule. An interested 

person may access this environmental impact statement as indicated under Section V of this 

document, “Availability of Documents.” 

 The NRC requests public comment on the DGEIS. The NRC has sent a copy of the 

DGEIS and this proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and requested their comments on 

the draft statement. 
- 88 - 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This proposed rule does not contain new or amended information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval 

number 3150-0021. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. 

XI. Regulatory Analysis 

 A draft regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this proposed regulation because 

this regulation does not establish any requirements that would place a burden on licensees. A 

cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives considered in the DGEIS was prepared as part of the 

DGEIS (Chapter 7). If continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for 

operations must be assessed in site-specific licensing actions, the primary costs accrue to the 

NRC and to licensees and license applicants. Licensees and license applicants ultimately 

shoulder the majority of costs incurred to the NRC in the course of licensing actions through the 

NRC’s license-fee program. Costs also accrue through the NRC’s adjudicatory activities, which 

affect the NRC, licensees, license applicants, and petitioners or intervenors. The DGEIS 

contains an estimate that it could cost over $24 million to address continued storage in sitespecific proceedings. 

XII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 
- 89 - 

 In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 

Commission certifies that this rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would modify the generic 

determination on the consideration of environmental impacts of continued storage of spent 

nuclear fuel beyond the end of the licensed life for reactor operations. This generic 

determination provides that no discussion of any environmental impact of spent nuclear fuel 

storage in reactor facility storage pools or ISFSIs for the period following the term of the reactor 

operating license or amendment or initial ISFSI license or amendment for which application is 

made is required in any environmental report, environmental impact statement, environmental 

assessment, or other analysis prepared in connection with certain actions. The proposed rule 

would affect only the licensing of nuclear power plants or ISFSIs. Entities seeking or holding 

NRC licenses for these facilities do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” 

set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC at 

10 CFR 2.810. 

XIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

 The NRC has determined that the backfit rules (§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) and 

the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 do not apply to this proposed rule because this 

amendment does not involve any provisions that will either impose backfits as defined in 10 

CFR chapter I, or represent non-compliance with the issue finality of provisions in 10 CFR part 

52. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, and the NRC did not 

prepare a backfit analysis for this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51 

 Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact statement, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
- 90 - 

 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 

553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 51. 

Part 51 -- Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions 

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: 

AUTHORITY: Atomic Energy Act sec. 161, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); Energy 

Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5851); Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A also issued under National 

Environmental Policy Act secs. 102, 104, 105 (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); Pub. L. 95-604, 

Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; Atomic Energy Act sec. 193 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 51.20, 

51.30, 51.60, 51.80. and 51.97 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135, 141, 148 

(42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 274 

(42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections 

51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) (42 U.S.C. 

10134(f)). 

2. In § 51.23, the title of the section is revised and paragraphs (a) and (b) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.23 Environmental impacts of storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life 

for operation of a reactor. 
- 91 - 

 (a) The Commission has developed a generic environmental impact statement 

(NUREG-2157) analyzing the environmental impacts of storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the 

licensed life for operation of a reactor. The Commission has concluded the following: 

 (1) The analysis in NUREG-2157 generically addresses the environmental impacts of 

storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor; and 

 (2) The analysis in NUREG-2157 supports the Commission’s determinations that it is 

feasible to: (i) safely store spent nuclear fuel following the licensed life for operation of a reactor 

and to (ii) have a mined geologic repository within 60 years following the licensed life for 

operation of a reactor. 

 (b) As provided in §§ 51.30(b), 51.53, 51.61, 51.80(b), 51.95, and 51.97(a), and within 

the scope of the generic determinations in paragraph (a) of this section, no discussion of 

environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel storage in reactor facility storage pool or an 

independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI) for the period following the term of the 

reactor operating license or amendment, reactor combined license or amendment, or ISFSI 

license, renewal, or amendment for which application is made, is required in any environmental 

report, environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or other analysis prepared 

in connection with the issuance or amendment of an operating license for a nuclear power 

reactor under parts 50 and 54 of this chapter, or issuance or amendment of a combined license 

for a nuclear power reactor under parts 52 and 54 of this chapter, or the issuance of a license 

for storage of spent nuclear fuel at an ISFSI, or any amendment thereto. 

 * * * * * 

3. Section 51.61 is revised to read as follows: 
- 92 - 

§ 51.61 Environmental report--independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or 

monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS) license. 

Each applicant for issuance of a license for storage of spent fuel in an independent 

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or for the storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS) pursuant to part 72 of this chapter 

shall submit with its application to: ATTN: Document Control Desk, Director, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, a separate document entitled, “Applicant's Environmental 

Report--ISFSI License;” or “Applicant’s Environmental Report—MRS License,” as appropriate. 

If the applicant is the U.S. Department of Energy, the environmental report may be in the form of 

either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment, as appropriate. 

The environmental report shall contain the information specified in § 51.45 and shall address 

the siting evaluation factors contained in subpart E of part 72 of this chapter. Unless otherwise 

required by the Commission, in accordance with the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and the 

provisions in § 51.23(b), no discussion of the environmental impact of the storage of spent fuel 

at an ISFSI beyond the term of the license or amendment applied for is required in an 

environmental report submitted by an applicant for an initial license for storage of spent fuel in 

an ISFSI, or any amendment or renewal thereto. 

 4. In § 51.80, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.80 Draft environmental impact statement--materials license. 

* * * * * 

 (b)(1) Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). Unless otherwise determined 

by the Commission and in accordance with the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and the 

provisions of § 51.23(b), a draft environmental impact statement on the issuance of an initial 

license for storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI or any amendment thereto, will address 
- 93 - 

environmental impacts of spent fuel only for the term of the license, amendment, or renewal 

applied for. 

 * * * * * 

 5. In § 51.97, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: 

§ 51.97 Final environmental impact statement--materials license. 

(a) Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). Unless otherwise determined by 

the Commission, and in accordance with the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and the 

provisions of § 51.23(b), a final environmental impact statement on the issuance of an initial 

license for the storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI or any amendment or renewal thereto, will 

address environmental impacts of spent fuel storage only for the term of the license or 

amendment applied for. 

 * * * * * 

6. In appendix B to subpart A of part 51, footnote 7 is being removed from the table 

and the “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” issue and “Offsite radiological impacts of spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal” issue under the “Waste Management” section of 

Table B-1 are revised to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart A—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Table B-1—Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power 

Plants1 

Issue Category2 Finding3

* * * 
- 94 - 

Waste Management 

Onsite storage of 

spent nuclear fuel 1 

SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent 

fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be 

safely accommodated onsite with small environmental 

effects through dry or pool storage at all plants, if a 

permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is 

not available. 

Offsite radiological 

impacts of spent 

nuclear fuel and 

high-level waste 

disposal 

1 

For the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal 

component of the fuel cycle, the EPA established a dose 

limit of 15 millirem (0.15 mSv) per year for the first 

10,000 years and 100 millirem (1.0 mSv) per year 

between 10,000 years and 1 million years for offsite 

releases of radionuclides at the proposed repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not 

be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for 

any plant, that the option of extended operation under 

10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while 

the Commission has not assigned a single level of 

significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level 

waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1. 

* * * 

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either 

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other 

specified plant or site characteristic;

(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts 

(except for Offsite radiological impacts – collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent 

fuel and high-level waste l); and

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, 

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 

sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.

Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

has shown that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional 

plant-specific review is required.
- 95 - 

3. The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. 

Unless the significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of 

"small," may be negligible. The definitions of significance follow:

SMALL—For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes 

of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not 

exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is 

used in this table.

MODERATE—For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE—For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability 

was a factor in determining significance.

 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of , 2013. 

 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

 Secretary of the Commission. 
- 1 - 

Attachment 2 

Changes to the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

(Changes to be incorporated based on majority agreement) 

1. On page lvii, delete the sentence in lines 1-3. 

2. On page lvii, revise lines 25-26 to read ‘ ... assess the impacts of spent ....’ 

3. On page 1-1, revise lines 2-5 to read ‘ ... inception of commercial nuclear power, the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (including its predecessor, the Atomic 

Energy Commission) United States has worked to ... 1970s, the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) reexamined ....’ 

4. On page 1-2, revise line 4 to read ‘ ... their licenses—at that time scheduled for in 2007 

and ....’ 

5. On page 1-2, in lines 14 and 16, the words “Decision” and “Rule” have not been defined 

yet. 

6. On page 1-3, revise lines 29-30 to read ‘ ... of the reactor or ISFSI license ....’ 

7. On page 1-6, revise line 18 to read ‘ ... to adopt this these draft GEIS ....’ 

8. On page 1-13, revise lines 20-22 to read ‘ ... timeframe, at-reactor and away-fromreactor ISFSIs would continue to store spent fuel in dry casks indefinitely. storage would 

continue to be stored onsite in spent fuel pools until the end of the short-term storage 

timeframe and in at-reactor and away from reactor ISFSIs indefinitely.’ 

9. On page 1-14, line 22, provide additional information to this bullet about how other 

federal agencies address institutional controls. 

10. On page 1-15, revise line 16 to read ‘ ... disturbed land is are already known and is are 

suitable ....’ 

11. On page 1-15, replace the bullet in lines 23-32 with the following: Under NRC 

regulations, a nuclear power plant that operates for the term specified in its license is 

required to complete decommissioning within 60 years after the licensed life for 

operations in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82 or 52.110. Under these regulations, a plant 

that terminates its license early is required to complete decommissioning within 60 years 

after the permanent cessation of operation. Consistent with this requirement, the NRC 

assumes that by the end of the short-term storage timeframe, a licensee will either 

terminate its Part 50 or 52 license and receive a specific Part 72 ISFSI license (see 10 

CFR Part 72, Subpart C) or apply to receive Commission approval under 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(3) or 52.110(c) to continue decommissioning under its Part 50 or 52 license. 

Accordingly, the NRC would conduct any appropriate site-specific NEPA analysis for 

either issuance of a Part 72 ISFSI license upon termination of the licensee’s Part 50 

license or approval to continue decommissioning beyond 60 years after ceasing 

operations in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) or 52.110(c). Further, the NRC 
- 2 - 

assumes that replacing an ISFSI and licensing a DTS are licensing actions that would be 

subject to separate site-specific NEPA reviews. The ISFSI and DTS would be 

decommissioned separately. 

12. On page 1-16, revise line 20-21 to read ‘ ... fuel generated will be constructed during the 

licensed life of operation will be constructed.’ 

13. On page 1-16, revise footnote 2 to read ‘ ... Commission’s regulations provide that 

renewed operating licenses may be subsequently renewed, although no licensee has yet 

submitted an application for such a subsequent renewal has not determined as a matter 

of policy that a second renewal is a possibility. This draft ....’ 

14. On page 2-14, revise lines 31-32 to read ‘ ... for a term of up to 40 years and may be 

renewed in accordance with all applicable requirements without limit for an additional 40 

years.’ 

15. On page 2-21, revise line 26 to read ‘ ... drawn from to the ....’ 

16. On page 2-32, revise line 15 to read ‘ ... 2012-21032013.’ 

17. On page 3-2, revise the map to indicate that Palo Verde has 3 units, not 2. 

18. On page 3-14, revise bullet 1 in the text box to read ‘NonaAttainment:’ Revise bullet 2 to 

read ‘NonaAttainment’ 

19. On page 3-14, revise bullet 2 to read ‘ ... area (other than an area identified in clause (i))

that meets ....’ 

20. On page 4-11, revise line 32-34 to read ‘Consequently, employment opportunities for

socioeconomic impacts due to continued storage would remain unaffected be 

unchanged in comparison to the period of reactor operations for minority ....’ 

21. On page 4-12, delete the sentence in lines 10-11 (Upon detection, ... groundwater.) 

22. On page 4-13, revise line 9 to read ‘ ... reduced from for reactor ....’ 

23. On page 4-16, revise line 8 to read ‘ ... systems to do not have ....’ 

24. On page 4-18, revise line 16 to read ‘ ... period includes activities ....’ 

25. On page 4-25, revise line 29 to read ‘ ... in the very unlikely event ....’ 

26. On page 4-25, delete the sentence in lines 33-35 (As a result, ... MODERATE.) 

27. On page 4-26, revise line 1 to read ‘ But tThe impacts ....’ Revise lines 5-6 to read ‘ ... 

rates. Further, aAs discussed in Appendix E, however, spent fuel ....’ 

28. On page 4-26, revise lines 15-16 to read, “... onsite. A recent revision to the NRC’s 

regulations that explicitly requires monitoring of subsurface areas will further ensure that 

leaks are detected. Besides these measures...” 
- 3 - 

29. On page 4-30, revise line 6 to read ‘ ... review and, if necessary, update the NPDES 

permit, if necessary, every 5 ....’ 

30. On page 4-48, revise line 1 to read ‘ ... any reactor site.’ 

31. On page 4-48, revise lines 35-36 to read ‘ ... ISFSI and DTS would be ....’ 

32. On page 4-67, delete the blank line between lines 31 and 32. 

33. On page 4-68, revise line 37 to read ‘ ... one occurs, would could be ....’ 

34. On page 4-81, revise line 15 to read ‘As discussed in Appendix F, numerous NRC 

studies have concluded that sSpent fuel pool ....’ 

35. On page 4-86, revise line 4 to read ‘ ... and capabilities, added additional security posts, 

added additional physical barriers, and required vehicle checks ....’ 

36. On page 5-6, revise line 1 to read ‘ ... disturbed soils would be implemented to reduce ...’ 

37. On page 5-6, revise line 14 to read ‘ ... county) so that ....’ 

38. On page 5-21, revise line 29 to read ‘ ... of the ISFSI, and continued ....’ 

39. On page 5-25, revise line 29 to read ‘ ... of the facility, because it they involves similar 

activities ....’ 

40. On page 5-28, revise lines 10-11 to read ‘ ... noise, light, or release of contaminants, or 

require ....’ 

41. On page 6-15, revise lines 31-36 to clarify the meaning of the two sentences. 

42. On page 6-16, revise lines 18-19 to read ‘ ... impacts, on the natural ... appreciably 

exceeds the ....’ 

43. On page 6-17, revise line 17 to read ‘ ... ISFSIs and constructing and operating the 

DTS.’ 

44. On page 6-20, revise line 19 to read ‘ ... decommissioning is are expected ....’ 

45. On page 6-24, revise line 9 to read ‘ ... to noticeably disturb soil disturbance near the ....’ 

46. On page 6-32, revise lines 2-4 to read ‘ ... Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). As 

described in ... FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) may require ....’ 

47. On page 6-35, revise lines 21-22 to read ‘ ... in-water structures, or the active dredging,

or filling of....’ 

48. On page 6-37, revise line 34 to read ‘ ... power facilities); or potential ....’ 

49. On page 6-40, revise line 24 to read ‘ ... receptor, which can be ....’ 

50. On page 6-44, revise line 7 to read ‘ ... change, and is are generally ....’ 
- 4 - 

51. On page 6-52, revise line 4-9 to read ‘ ... For example, the NRC made a generic impact 

determination in Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 that the environmental impacts of incidentfree transportation of fuel and waste to and from a light water reactor would be SMALL if 

the conditions in 10 C.F.R. 51.52 and the supporting analysis (AEC 1972) that the 

environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from a 1,000 to 1,500 

MW light water reactor would be SMALL under both incident-free and accident 

conditions. Additional ....’ 

a. Make conforming revisions to page 4-62, lines 24-29 and page 5-47,line 18-21. 

52. On page 8-12, revise lines 12-14 to read ‘ ... proposed action—revising 10 CFR 51.23—

as the preferred alternative of adopting a rule that assumes the short-term storage 

alternative is the most likely scenario for handling spent fuel after reactor operations.’ 

53. On page 9-2, to maintain consistency, a university should be listed for Emily Larson. 

54. On page 9-3, to maintain consistency, a university should be listed for Jeffrey Rikhoff. 

55. On page B-20, revise line 9 to read ‘ ... program is necessary to ....’ 

56. On page C-6, enter correspondence issued from May 8, 2013 through June 13, 2013. 

(Awaiting ADAMS accession number for State Attorney Generals’ petition to review 

scoping summary report; will continue to update Appendix C with correspondence up to 

point of document finalization for official publication.) 

57. On page E-16, revise line 18 to read ‘ ... the very unlikely event ....’ 

58. On page E-16, delete the sentence in lines 20-23 (As a result ... MODERATE.) Revise 

line 23 to read ‘But, because of the ....’ 

59. On page E-20, Table E-4, footnote (a), revise line 3 to read ‘ ... occurred from 1986 to 

1989 ....’ 

60. On page E-21, Table E-5, put these results in context as far as regulatory limits and 

health risks. Also, clarify whether any of these events result in contamination of drinking 

water. 

61. On page F-3, lines 29-30, explain what a person-Sv is and put that into a health context. 

62. On page F-4, Table F-1, in plain English, explain the frequencies.