The Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost (TSLCC) of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program represents the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's most recent estimate of the costs to dispose of the Nations's spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). This TSLCC analysis projects all Program costs through 2119 for a surrogate, single potential repository. The design and emplacement concepts in this TSLCC analysis are the same as those presented in the Monitored Geologic Repository Project Description Document.

The amount of spent fuel stored on-site at commercial nuclear reactors will continue to accumulate—increasing by about 2,000 metric tons per year and likely more than doubling to about 140,000 metric tons—before it can be moved off-site, because storage or disposal facilities may take decades to develop. In examining centralized storage or permanent disposal options, GAO found that new facilities may take from 15 to 40 years before they are ready to begin accepting spent fuel. Once an off-site facility is available, it will take several more decades to ship spent fuel to that facility.

The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) is tasked by the amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to independently evaluate U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) technical activities for managing and disposing of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This report was prepared to inform DOE and Congress about the current state of the technical basis for extended dry storage1 of used fuel and its transportation following storage.

US policy for management of used nuclear fuel (UNF) and high level radioactive wastes (HLRW) is at a crossroads, and the success of new policy directions will depend in part on broad public acceptance and support. In this paper I provide an overview of the evidence concerning the beliefs and concerns of members of the American public regarding UNF and HLNW. I also characterize the evidence on American’s policy preferences for management of these materials.

The objective of this calculation is to characterize the nuclear criticality safety concerns
associated with the codisposal of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Enrico Fermi (EF) Spent
Nuclear Fuel (SNF) in a 5-Defense High-Level Waste (5-DHLW) Waste Package (WP) and
placed in a Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR). The scope of this calculation is limited to
the determination of the effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) for the degraded mode
internal configurations of the codisposal WP. The results of this calculation and those of Ref. 8

DOE decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program because, according to DOE officials, it is not a workable option and there are better solutions that can achieve a broader national consensus. DOE did not cite technical or safety issues. DOE also did not identify alternatives, but it did create a Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate and recommend alternatives.

The purpose of this design analysis is to determine the accuracy of the SAS2H module of SCALE 4.3 in predicting isotopic concentrations of spent fuel assemblies. The objective is to develop a methodology for modeling assemblies similar to those evaluated within this analysis and to establish the consistency of SAS2H predictions. The results of this analysis may then be applied to future depletion calculations using SAS2H in which no measurements are available.

The purpose of these calculations is to characterize the criticality safety concerns for the storage of Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) nuclear fuel in a Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel (DOE SNF) canister in a co-disposal waste package. These results will be used to support the analysis that will be done to demonstrate concept viability related to use in the Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR) environment.

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)