A methodology for performing and applying nuclear criticality safety calculations, for PWR spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packages with actinide-only burnup credit, is described. The changes in the U-234, U-235, U-236, U-238, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241, Pu-242, and Am-241 concentration with burnup are used in burnup credit criticality analyses. No credit for fission product neutron absorbers is taken. The methodology consists of five major steps. (1) Validate a computer code system to calculate isotopic concentrations of SNF created during burnup in the reactor core and subsequent decay.

A conservative methodology is presented that would allow taking credit for burnup in the criticality safety analysis of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packages. The method is based on the assumption that the isotopic concentration in the SNF and cross sections of each isotope for which credit is taken must be supported by validation experiments. The method allows credit for the changes in the 234U, 235U, 236U, 238U, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu, 242Pu, and 241Am concentration with burnup. No credit for fission product neutron absorbers is taken. The methodology consists of five major steps:

A flat, uniform axial burnup assumption, preferred for its computational simplicity, does not always conservatively estimate the pressurized water reactor spent-fuel-cask multiplication factors. Rather, the reactivity effect of the significantly underburned fuel ends, usually referred to as the "end effect," can be properly treated by explicit modeling of the axial burnup distribution based on limiting axial burnup profiles.

The calculation of isotopic concentrations in spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies and the subcritical multiplication factor of SNF packages are two of the essential requirements of the actinide-only burnup credit methodology. To justify the accuracy of the computed values, the code systems used to perform the calculations must be validated. Here, the techniques used for actinide-only burnup credit isotopic and criticality validation are presented and demonstrated.

This research examines the practice of equating the reactivity of spent fuel to that of fresh fuel for the purpose of performing burnup credit criticality safety analyses for PWR spent fuel pool (SFP) storage conditions. The investigation consists of comparing kf estimates based on reactivity "equivalent" fresh fuel enrichment (REFFE) to kl estimates using the actual spent fuel isotopics.

The NRC contracted with LLNL to compile this supplement to NUREG-1617 to incorporate additional
information specific to mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. This supplement provides details
on package review guidance resulting from significant differences between spent nuclear fuel from
irradiated LEU fuel and that from irradiated MOX fuel. The information presented is not to be
construed as having the force and effect of NRC regulations (except where regulations are cited), or as

Until now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) approval of criticality safety evaluations for spent fuel in transport and storage casks has been based on analyzing the fuel as though it were fresh and without burnable poisons. The well-known nuclide composition of fresh fuel has provided a straightforward and bounding approach for showing that spent fuel systems will remain subcritical under normal and accident conditions. Burnup credit refers to the approval of criticality safety evaluations that consider the decrease in fuel reactivity caused by. irradiation in the reactor.

One of the significant issues yet to be resolved for using
burnup credit ~BUC! for spent nuclear fuel ~SNF! is establishing
a set of depletion parameters that produce an adequately conservative
representation of the fuel’s isotopic inventory. Depletion
parameters ~such as local power, fuel temperature, moderator temperature,
burnable poison rod history, and soluble boron concentration!
affect the isotopic inventory of fuel that is depleted in a
pressurized water reactor ~PWR!. However, obtaining the detailed

Criticality safety analysis devoted to spent-fuel storage and transportation has to be conservative in order to be sure no accident will ever happen. In the spent-fuel storage field, the assumption of freshness has been used to achieve the conservative aspect of criticality safety procedures. Nevertheless, after being irradiated in a reactor core, the fuel elements have obviously lost part of their original reactivity. The concept of taking into account this reactivity loss in criticality safety analysis is known as burnup credit.

The effect of fixed absorbers on the reactivity of pressurized water reactor (PWR) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in support of burnup-credit criticality safety analyses is examined. A fuel assembly burned in conjunction with fixed absorbers may have a higher reactivity for a given burnup than an assembly that has not used fixed absorbers. As a result, guidance on burnup credit, issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Spent Fuel Project Office, recommends restricting the use of burnup credit to assemblies that have not used burnable absorbers.

The issue of interim storage of used (spent)1 fuel is dependent on a number of key factors, some
of which are not known at this time but are the subject of this study. The first is whether or not
the Yucca Mountain Project continues or is cancelled such that it may be able to receive spent
fuel from existing and decommissioned nuclear power stations. The second is whether the United
States will pursue a policy of reprocessing and recycling nuclear fuel. The reprocessing and

Preliminary system-level analyses of the interfaces between at-reactor used fuel management, consolidated storage facilities, and disposal facilities, along with the development of supporting logistics simulation tools, have been initiated to provide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other stakeholders with information regarding the various alternatives for managing used nuclear fuel (UNF) generated by the current fleet of light water reactors operating in the United States.

A technical assessment of the current inventory [~70,150 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) as of
2011] of U.S.-discharged used nuclear fuel (UNF) has been performed to support decisions regarding fuel
cycle strategies and research, development and demonstration (RD&D) needs. The assessment considered
discharged UNF from commercial nuclear electricity generation and defense and research programs and
determined that the current UNF inventory can be divided into the following three categories:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for issuing regulations for the
packaging of spent fuel (and other large quantities of radioactive material) for transport that
provide for public health and safety during transport (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) Part 71, “Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Waste,” dated
January 26, 2004). In September 1977, the NRC published NUREG-0170, “Final Environmental
Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes,” which

In June 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the construction of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The license application was accepted for formal NRC review in September 2008. Throughout the more than 20-year history of the Yucca Mountain project, EPRI has performed independent assessments of key technical and scientific issues to facilitate an understanding of overall repository performance.

This report presents a best-estimate probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) to quantify the frequency of criticality accidents during railroad transportation of spent nuclear fuel casks. The assessment is of sufficient detail to enable full scrutiny of the model logic and the basis for each quantitative parameter contributing to criticality accident scenario frequencies. The report takes into account the results of a 2007 peer review of the initial version of this probabilistic risk assessment, which was published as EPRI Technical Report 1013449 in December 2006.