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 develop an estimate of the isotopic content as a function of time for mixed oxide (MOX) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies in a Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR). These data will be used as source data for criticality, thermal, and radiation shielding evaluations of waste package (WP) designs for MOX assemblies in the Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR).

The "Summary Report of SNF Isotopic Comparisons for the Disposal Criticality Analysis Methodology" contains a summary of the analyses that compare SNF measured isotopic concentrations (radiochemical assays) to calculated SNF isotop~c concentrations (SAS2H module ·orScale4.3). The results of these analyses are used to support the validation of the isotopic models for spent commercial light water reactor (LWR) fuel.

The Disposal Criticality Analysis Methodology Topical Report (YMP 2003) presents the methodology for evaluating potential criticality situations in the monitored geologic repository. As stated in the referenced Topical Report, the detailed methodology for performing the disposal criticality analyses will be documented in model reports. Many of the models developed in support of the Topical Report differ from the definition of models as given in the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management procedure AP-SIII.10Q, Models, in that they are procedural, rather than mathematical.

This analysis is prepared by the Mined Geologic Disposal System (MODS) Waste Package Development (WPD) department to provide an evaluation of the criticality potential within a waste package having some or all of its contents degraded by corrosion and removal of neutron absorbers. This analysis is also intended to provide an estimate of the consequences of any internal criticality, particularly in terms of any increase in radionuclide inventory. These consequence estimates will be used as part of the WPD input to the Total System Performance Assessment.

As part of the plutonium waste form development and down-select process, repository analyses have been conducted to evaluate the long-term performance of these forms for repository acceptance. Intact and degraded mode criticality analysis of the mixed oxide (MOX) spent fuel is presented in Volume I, while Volume II presents the evaluations of the waste form containing plutonium immobilized in a ceramic matrix.

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 objective of these calculations is to perform intact and degraded mode criticality evaluations of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Three Mile Island- Unit 2 (TMI-2) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in canisters. This analysis evaluates codisposal in a 5-Defense High-Level Waste (5-DHLW/DOE SNF) Long Waste Package (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor [CRWMS M&O] 2000b, Attachment V), which is to be placed in a potential monitored geologic repository (MGR).

The Monitored Geologic Repository Waste Package Operations of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor (CRWMS M&O) performed calculations to provide input for disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the Navy (Refs. 1 and , 2). The Navy SNF has been considered for disposal at the potential Yucca Mountain site. For some waste packages, the containment may breach (Ref. 3), allowing the influx of water. Water in the waste package may moderate neutrons, increasing the likelihood of a criticality event within the waste package.

This report evaluates the potential for directly disposing of licensed commercial Dual Purpose
Canisters (DPCs) inside waste package overpacks without reopening. The evaluation considers
the principal features of the DPC designs that have been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) as these relate to the current designs of waste packages and as they relate to
disposability in the repository. Where DPC features appear to compromise future disposability,
those changes that would improve prospective disposability are identified.

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

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.

In the past, criticality analysis of pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel stored in racks and casks has assumed that the fuel is fresh with the maximum allowable initial enrichment. If credit is allowed for fuel burnup in the design of casks that are used in the transport of spent light water reactor fuel to a repository, the increase in payload can lead to a significant reduction in the cost of transport and a potential reduction in the risk to the public. A portion of the work has been performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in support of the 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