Since a 1985 decision by President Reagan that a separate permanent repository for disposal of
defense high level waste was not required1, DOE has planned for disposal of all high-level waste
and spent fuel from national defense activities and DOE’s own research activities in a repository
for commercial waste developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). The Commission
has heard recommendations from some commenters2 that this decision be revisited, or even

There are more than 250 forms of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)­owned spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Due to the variety of the spent nuclear fuel, the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program (NSNFP) has designated nine representative fuel groups for disposal criticality analyses based on fuel matrix, primary fissile isotope, and enrichment. For each fuel group, a fuel type that represents the characteristics of all fuels in that group has been selected for detailed analysis.

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:

The objective of this analysis is to characterize a codisposal canister containing MIT or ORR fuel in the Five-Pack defense high level waste (DHLW) waste package (WP) to demonstrate concept viability related to use in the Mined Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) environment for the postclosure time frame. The purpose of this analysis is to investigate the disposal criticality and shielding issues for the DHLW WP and establish DHLW WP and codisposal canister compatibility with the MGDS, and to provide criticality and shielding evaluations for the preliminary DHLW WP design.

Dear Tim:
As we work to complete our final recommendations to the Secretary by January 29, 2012,
we have determined that our efforts would be aided by the formation of an ad hoc
subcommittee to investigate the issue of co‐mingling of defense and commercial wastes.
Specifically, the ad hoc subcommittee would review and make a recommendation to the
Commission on the issue of whether the 1985 Presidential decision to co‐mingle defense
and commercial wastes for disposal should be revisited in light of changes that have

At the request of the staff to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (“BRC”), we have reviewed the following questions:
1. Is there legal authority for DOE or any other entity to undertake to site a repository for “co-mingled” nuclear materials (i.e., civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW)) at any site other than Yucca Mountain?

The objective of this analysis is to characterize the criticality safety aspects of a degraded Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel (DOESNF) canister containing Masachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or Oak Ridge Research (ORR) fuel in the Five Pack defense high level waste (DHLW) waste package to demonstrate concept viability related to use in the Minded Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) environment for the postclosure time frame.

Gentlemen,
In accordance with the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and as the Secretary's designee, I approve your request to establish an ad hoc subcommittee to review and make a recommendation to the Commission regarding the co-mingling of defense and commercial waste.
This letter also serves to appoint Dr. Allison Macfarlane as the chair of the subcommittee and the membership of the subcommittee as identified in your letter to me dated October 31, 2011.

Thep purpose of this calculation is to perform degraded mode criticality evaluations of plutonium disposed in a ceramic waste form and emplaced in a Monitored geologic Repository (MGR). A 5 Defense High-Level Waste (DHLW) Canister Waste Package (WP) design, incorporating the can-in-canister concept for plutonium immobilization is considered in this calculation. Each HLW glass pour canister contains 7 tubes. Each tube contains 4 cans, with 20 ceramic disks (immobilized plutonium) in each.

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

"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…;