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.

An Act to provide for the development of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, to establish a program of research, de- velopment, and demonstration regarding the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, and for other purposes.

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 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.

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

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)

This report puts forth a number of options and recommendations for how to engage
stakeholders and other members of the public in the storage and management of spent
nuclear fuel and high level waste in the United States. The options are generated from a
scientific review of existing publications proposing criteria for assessing past efforts to
engage publics and stakeholders in decision-making about risky technologies. A set of
nine principles are derived for evaluating cases of public and stakeholder engagement with

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.