The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee was formed to respond to the charge—set forth in the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission—to evaluate existing fuel cycle technologies and R&D programs in terms of multiple criteria.

The purpose of this calculation is to apply the process described in the TDR-DS0-NU-000001 Rev. 02, Preclosure Criticality Analysis Process Report (Ref. 2.2.25) to aid in establishing design and operational criteria important to criticality safety and to identify potential control parameters and their limits important to the criticality safety of commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF) handling operations in the Wet Handling Facility (WHF)

Dear Mr. President:
At your direction, the Secretary of Energy established the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future to review policies for managing the back end of the nuclear
fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy. We are pleased to be serving as Co‐
Chairmen of the Commission, and we are writing to you to highlight an important action
we strongly believe should be reflected in your Fiscal Year 2013 baseline budget
projections.
In our draft report to the Secretary, issued in July of this year, the Commission

The purpose of this calculation is to perform waste-form specific nuclear criticality safety calculations to aid in establishing criticality safety design criteria, and to identify design and process parameters that are potentially important to the criticality safety of Department of Energy (DOE) standardized Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) canisters.

The purpose of this calculation is to apply the process described in the Preclosure Criticality Analysis Process Report (Ref. 2.2.12) to establish the bias for keff calculations performed for commercial nuclear fuels using the MCNP code system. This bias will be used in criticality safety analyses as part of the basis for establishing the upper subcritical limit (USL). This calculation also defines the range of applicability (ROA) for which the bias may be used directly without need to consider additional penalties on the USL.

The search for sites for radioactive waste management (RWM) facilities attracts attention from implementers, government bodies, local communities, and the public at large. Facility siting processes, in general, tend to be marred by conflicts, disagreements, and delays.

Following the proposals for nuclear fuel assurance of International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed El Baradei, former Russian President Vladimir V.
Putin, and U.S. President George W. Bush, joint committees of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (RAS) and the U.S. National Academies (NAS) were formed to address these and other
fuel assurance concepts and their links to nonproliferation goals. The joint committees also
addressed many technology issues relating to the fuel assurance concepts. This report provides

The means to prevent and control criticality must be addressed as part of the Preclosure Safety Analysis (PCSA) required for compliance with 10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 180319], where the preclosure period covers the time prior to permanent closure activities. This technical report presents the nuclear criticality safety evaluation that documents the achievement of this objective.

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

The effective termination of the Yucca Mountain program by the U.S. Administration in 2009
has further delayed the construction and operation of a permanent disposal facility for used fuel
and high level radioactive waste (HLW) in the United States. In concert with this decision, the
President directed the Energy Secretary to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future to review and provide recommendations on options for managing used fuel and

This report evaluates the relative economics of alternative fuel cycles compared to the current
U.S. once-through fuel cycle, including concepts under consideration by the U.S. Department of
Energy’s (DOE) Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). EPRI utilized a model developed
by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Steady-state analysis Model for Advanced Fuel Cycle
Schemes (SMAFS), to evaluate fuel cycle alternatives. The report also evaluates potential
financing options for a fuel recycling facility. Please note that this report contains preliminary

This report presents the results of a dynamic simulation analysis for deployment of advanced light water reactors (LWRs) and fast burner reactors, as proposed by the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program. Conditions for the analysis were selected for their potential to challenge the nuclear fuel simulation codes that were used, due to the large variations in nuclear fuel composition for the burner reactors before equilibrium conditions are approached. The analysis was performed in a U.S.

The so-called nuclear renaissance has increased worldwide interest in nuclear power.
This potential growth also has increased, in some quarters, concern that nonproliferation
considerations are not being given sufficient attention. In particular, since the introduction of
many new power reactors will lead to requiring an increase in uranium enrichment services to
provide the reactor fuel, the proliferation risk of adding enrichment facilities in countries that do

This report proposes and documents a computational benchmark for the estimation of the
additional reactivity margin available in spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from fission products and minor
actinides in a burnup-credit storage/transport environment, relative to SNF compositions
containing only the major actinides. The benchmark problem/configuration is a generic burnupcredit
cask designed to hold 68 boiling water reactor (BWR) spent nuclear fuel assemblies. The
purpose of this computational benchmark is to provide a reference configuration for the

This report has been prepared to support technical discussion of and planning for future
research supporting implementation of burnup credit for boiling-water reactor (BWR) spent fuel
storage in spent fuel pools and storage and transport cask applications. The review and
discussion in this report are based on knowledge and experience gained from work performed
in the United States and other countries, including experience with burnup credit for
pressurized-water reactor (PWR) spent fuel. Relevant physics and analysis phenomena are

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 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.

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.

There has been a resurgence of interest in the possibility of processing the US spent nuclear fuel, instead of burying it in a geologic repository. Accordingly, key topical findings from three relevant EPRI evaluations made in the 1990-1995 timeframe are recapped and updated to accommodate a few developments over the subsequent ten years. Views recently expressed by other US entities are discussed.