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

Pressurized water reactor (PWR) burnup credit validation is
demonstrated using the benchmarks for quantifying fuel reactivity
decrements, published as Benchmarks for Quantifying Fuel Reactivity
Depletion Uncertainty, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
report 1022909. This demonstration uses the depletion module
TRITON (Transport Rigor Implemented with Time-Dependent
Operation for Neutronic Depletion) available in the SCALE 6.1
(Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluations) code

This paper provides insights into the neutronic similarities between a representative high-capacity rail-transport cask containing typical pressurized water reactor (PWR) spent nuclear fuel assemblies and critical reactor state-points, referred to as commercial reactor critical (CRC) state-points. Forty CRC state-points from five PWRs were analyzed, and the characteristics of CRC state-points that may be applicable for validation of burnup-credit criticality safety calculations for spent fuel transport/storage/disposal systems were identified.

In the 1980s a series of the Haut Taux de Combustion (HTC) critical experiments with fuel pins in a water-moderated lattice was conducted at the Apparatus B experimental facility in Valduc (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France) with the support of the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire and AREVA NC. Four series of experiments were designed to assess profit associated with actinide-only burnup credit in the criticality safety evaluation for fuel handling, pool storage, and spent-fuel cask conditions.

The purpose of this calculation report, Range of Applicability and Bias Determination for Postclosure
Criticality of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, is to validate the computational method used to perform
postclosure criticality calculations. The validation process applies the criticality analysis methodology
approach documented in Section 3.5 of the Disposal Criticality Analysis Methodology Topical Report.1
The application systems for this validation consist of waste packages containing transport, aging, and

In the 1980s, a series of critical experiments referred to as the Haut Taux de Combustion (HTC)
experiments was conducted by the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) at the
experimental criticality facility in Valduc, France. The plutonium-to- uranium ratio and the isotopic
compositions of both the uranium and plutonium used in the simulated fuel rods were designed to be
similar to what would be found in a typical pressurized-water reactor fuel assembly that initially had an

The purpose of this study is to provide insights into the neutronic similarities that may exist between a
generic cask containing typical spent nuclear fuel assemblies and commercial reactor critical (CRC) state-
points. Forty CRC state-points from five pressurized-water reactors were selected for the study and the
type of CRC state-points that may be applicable for validation of burnup credit criticality safety
calculations for spent fuel transport/storage/disposal systems are identified. The study employed cross-

Taking credit for the reduced reactivity of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in criticality analyses is referred to as burnup credit (BUC). Criticality safety evaluations require validation of the computational methods with critical experiments that are as similar as possible to the safety analysis models, and for which the keff values are known. This poses a challenge for validation of BUC criticality analyses, as critical experiments with actinide and fission product (FP)

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

Analytical methods, described in this report, are used to
systematically determine experimental fuel sub-batch
reactivities as a function of burnup. Fuel sub-batch reactivities
are inferred using more than 600 in-core pressurized water
reactor (PWR) flux maps taken during 44 cycles of operation
at the Catawba and McGuire nuclear power plants. The
analytical methods systematically search for fuel sub-batch
reactivities that minimize differences between measured and
computed reaction rates, using Studsvik Scandpower’s

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

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

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

<strong>This is a summary report. The full report is <a href="https://curie.ornl.gov/content/future-nuclear-fuel-cycle-interdisciplin…;