The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from point of origin to destination at a federal storage or disposal facility. Section 180(c), written into the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987, requires OCRWM to prepare public safety officials along the routes for these shipments.

This validation report supports the issuance of the Total System Model (TSM) Version 6.0 (Bechtel SAIC, LLC (BSC) 2007a) that is described in the TSM User Manual (UM) (BSC 2007b) and the TSM Pre-Processor (TSMPP) UM (BSC 2007c), and other supporting documentation in References BSC 2007d, BSC 2007e, 2007f, and 2007g. This report assumes the reader has detailed, working knowledge of the TSM functions and Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System (CRWMS) operations.

Spent Fuel Project Office, Interim Staff Guidance - 8, Revision 1

Disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production and power generation has
caused public outcry and political consternation. Nuclear Wastes presents a critical review
of some waste management and disposal alternatives to the current national policy of
direct disposal of light water reactor spent fuel. The book offers clearcut conclusions for
what the nation should do today and what solutions should be explored for tomorrow.
The committee examines the currently used "once-through" fuel cycle versus different

This report has been prepared by an ad-hoc Working Group (WG) formed by ANDRA (France), NUMO (Japan), NAGRA (Switzerland) and ENRESA (Spain) in May 2003, after the EDRAM meeting held in Valencia to study the situation in the different EDRAM member countries regarding the treatment of radioactive waste ownership and management of long-term liabilities.

In February, 2011 the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future requested the Department of Energy
(DOE) to provide a white paper summarizing the quantities and characteristics of potential waste generated by various
nuclear fuel cycles. The BRC request expressed interest in two classes of radioactive wastes:
 Existing waste that are or might be destined for a civilian deep geologic repository or equivalent.
 Potential future waste, generated by alternative nuclear fuel cycles (e.g. wastes from reprocessing, mixed-oxide

The purpose of this U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy Assessment
Report (Assessment) is to present an analysis of the adequacy of the fee being paid by nuclear
power utilities for the permanent disposal of their SNF and HLW by the United States
government.
This Assessment consists of six sections: Section 1 provides historical context and a comparison
to previous fee adequacy assessments; Section 2 describes the system, cost, income, and

Confidence in the long-term safety of deep geological disposal, and the ways in which this
confidence can be obtained and communicated, are topics of great importance to the radioactive waste
management community.1
The technical aspects of confidence have been the subject of considerable debate, especially
the concept of model validation. It has, for example, been pointed out that it is impossible to describe
fully the evolution of an open system, such as a repository and its environment, that cannot be

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

This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models.