Presentation given at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference in Savannah, Georgia on May 3, 2017. It discusses advantages and disadvantages of consolidated interim storage as well as highlights recent work related to the economics of consolidated storage.

<strong>This is a summary report. The full report is <a href="https://curie.ornl.gov/content/future-nuclear-fuel-cycle-interdisciplin…;

"In 2003 MIT published the interdisciplinary study The Future of Nuclear Power. The underlying motivation was that nuclear energy, which today provides about 70% of the “zero”-carbon electricity in the U.S., is an important option for the market place in a low-carbon world. Since that report, major changes in the U.S. and the world have taken place as described in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about climate change have risen: many countries have adopted restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and the U.S.

"This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts, by the year 2050. Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario.

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.

Within the context of long-term waste management and sustainable nuclear fuel supply, there continue to be discussions regarding whether the United States should consider recycling of light-water reactor (LWR) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) for the current fleet of U.S. LWRs. This report presents a parametric study of equilibrium fuel cycle costs for an open fuel cycle without plutonium recycling (once-through) and with plutonium recycling (single-recycling using mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel), assuming an all-pressurized water reactor (PWR) fleet.

The main question before the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee was whether the United States should change its approach to storing and transporting spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) while one or more disposal facilities are established.

The paper discusses issues and options for improving the budgeting and financial management
of the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). The issues and options would facilitate implementation of
any changes in program scope and content, or any changes in organization and management
structure. .
The three issues for possible administrative action include:
1. Instituting financial management enhancements to foster multi-year budgeting and
appropriations; combined accrual and cash budgeting; and separate capital budgeting;

All activities which involve the use of radioactive material inevitably result in nuclear waste as a by-product of their operation. Most of the waste produced by such activities as medical diagnosis and therapy, field and laboratory research, and industrial processes is low-level radioactive waste—primarily small amounts of radioactivity in a large volume of matter.

The Disposal Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has
commenced to address a set of issues, all of which bear directly on the central question: “How can the
United States go about establishing one or more disposal sites for high-level nuclear wastes in a manner
and within a timeframe that is technically, socially, economically, and politically acceptable?”
To answer this question and to develop specific recommendations and options for consideration by the