Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Fuel Management”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Three-Dimensional Trajectory Design for Reducing Climate Impact of Trans-Atlantic Flights

The impact of aircraft emissions and contrails on the environment adds an additional aspect to aircraft trajectory optimization. This study developed a three-dimensional trajectory optimization algorithm for trans-Atlantic flights in cruise to generate aircraft trajectories that minimize environmental impacts due to CO2 emissions and contrails in the presence of winds. The climate-optimal trajectory is developed using dynamic programming that adjusts a wind-optimal aircraft heading while determining the optimal locations, altitudes and times for en-route step climbs. Flying wind-optimal routes minimize aircraft travel time, fuel burn and associated emissions during cruise while adjusting aircraft heading and en-route step climbs at the optimal locations and times minimize climate impact of contrails. This capability integrates an air traffic management simulation with aircraft fuel burn and emissions models, contrail formation and dispersion models, simplified climate response models, and a common climate metric. A study was conducted to evaluate the potential cost and benefits of flying climate-optimal routes in North Atlantic Airspace and their impacts to the Organized Track System design based on the trans-Atlantic air traffic during a day, July 12, 2012. Results show eastbound flights achieved a larger environmental benefit with less additional fuel burn than westbound flights that operated in strong headwinds that caused more additional fuel burn and aircraft emissions to avoid traversing contrails favorable regions.

climate impact of aviation↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 132: Risk-Informed Approach for Decision Making in WM, D and D and SNF Management: Reasonable Assurance for Safety

Mr. Larry Camper organized a panel of experts to discuss approaches to better make risk-informed decisions in waste management, decommissioning, and the management of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF). The audience heard the perspectives from four panelists that addressed issues ranging from the technical basis used to make risk-informed decisions to for developing cleanup criteria and promulgating regulations and safety standards both domestically and abroad. A summary of each of the presentations given by the panelists is provided herein. This WMS BOD featured panel focused on the Risk-Informed Approach for Decision Making in WM, D and D and SNF Management and the Reasonable Assurance for Safety. The panelists addressed and discussed with the audience different approaches used for decision-making, summarizing ongoing probabilistic vs. deterministic approaches, including IAEA graded approach, and discussed policies/approaches to achieve reasonable assurance for safety rather than using absolute assurance. Panelists with presentations: Risk-Informed Decision Making - More than a Motto? (Paul Black); NRC Staff Perspective on Risk-Informed Approach and Reasonable Safety Assurance in D and D and LLW (Rateb (Boby) Abu Eid); Risk-Informed Decision-Making and Illustrative National Academies Studies (Charles Ferguson); IAEA's Revised Safety Guidance on Remediation (Michelle Roberts); NDA Radioactive Waste Strategy - A Risk Informed Approach (James McKinney)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling Summary of ASNF in DOE Sealed Standard Canisters

A pathway for road-ready and final disposition packaging configurations for the aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ANSF) fuel dictates storage within helium backfilled sealed DOE standard canisters. The typical packaging configuration for the 15-foot DOE canisters places 10 advance test reactor (ATR) elements within a Type 1a basket, and three baskets are loaded within each DOE canister. During in-reactor operations and cooling pond storage conditions, oxyhydroxide layers form on the surface of the aluminum clad fuel. These layers produce hydrogen gas over time due to the fuel’s radiation field. As part of the packing procedure, the ATR fuel should be dried to remove any residual physio-/chemi- sorbed water bound to the surface. The results of this modeling will include results at fully saturated and fully dried conditions. In addition, fuels that are currently stored at the Savannah River Site were also studied for their potential for hydrogen and pressure build up. These two additional fuels modeled were the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) fuel, which is packaged in the same configuration as the ATR, but with a 10-foot-tall DOE standard canister. This was selected due to its relatively high decay heat compared to other DOE-managed ASNF. The second additional fuel studied with the modeling effort was the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) fuel. This fuel is modeled as two separate DOE canisters with the inner and outer annulus split for storage. The HFIR was selected for study due to its high aluminum cladding surface area. In the associated experimental work, Task 2 - Oxyhydroxide Layer Radiolytic Gas Generation Resolution, additional tests were completed in a helium environment, and updated G-values for the radiolytic production of hydrogen from the oxyhydroxide layers were provided. These values were 2.92 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 50% relative humidity and 4.12 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 100% relative humidity. These values are lower than the value for Argon that was used in prior modeling results. In addition, prior modeling results have been completed with the G-value applied to just the mass of the corrosion layer, and this has been updated to apply the G-value for hydrogen generation to the full mass of the fuel. These two effects combine to show much smaller pressure and hydrogen build up for the sealed canister model. For a nominal scenario of stored ATR fuel, after 50 years the model results give a 1.36 atm total pressure, 7% mole percent hydrogen, for the upper decay heat, 1.51 atm total pressure, 16% mole percent hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel 2.6 atm total pressure, 15% mole percent hydrogen. For the MURR nominal case, the model results give 1.34 atm and 6% hydrogen, for upper decay heat this gives 1.41 atm total pressure with 10.8 % hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel, this gives 2.38 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen. The nominal scenario for HFIR fuel gives 1.39 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen, the upper decay heat case gives 1.43 atm with 12.1% hydrogen, and the upper decay heat with undried fuel gives 2.17 atm total pressure with 11.9% hydrogen. These results confirm the ATR scenario bounds the other intact ASNF modeled here. No case modeled yields significant oxygen, and the lower decay heat cases for all fuels modeled have hydrogen concentrations that are under the 4% flammability limit after 50 years of storage. In addition, the modeled pressures for all cases are all significantly below the 500-psi limit for the DOE standard sealed canister.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Technology Development for Dry Storage of Aluminum-Clad Spent Nuclear Fuel - 20490

A candidate disposition pathway for the > 13 MTHM of aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ASNF), owned and managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, is the drying and placement of the SNF into sealed-canister dry storage, with the ASNF-in- canisters 'road-ready' for transportation to and final direct disposal in a repository waste package. Technical information gaps in fuel drying, and fuel dry storage behavior, have previously challenged the declaration of technology readiness for drying and placement of this fuel into the DOE Standard Canister design for > 50 years of safe dry storage. The principal technical information gaps included: i) characterization and thermal dehydration behavior of aluminum (oxy)hydroxide films attendant on the cladding due to film formation during reactor operation and during post-discharge up to long-term wet storage histories; and ii) G-value data to enable estimation of the radiolytic gas generation from the cladding with its (oxy)hydroxide films. Thus, the oxide films on the ASNF challenged the safety of a sealed storage canister with thermal and radiolytic decomposition of the waters on the films that can lead to corrosion, pressurization, and flammability issues. These gaps in the technical information base have largely been closed. This paper discusses the investigations at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and the Savannah River National laboratory (SRNL), and outlines the pending technology development work for input to an engineering design to enable a road-ready dry storage system for ASNF. The ASNF inventory considered for road-ready dry storage is stored at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) at the INL. The ASNF inventory in the SRS L Basin is from foreign and domestic research reactors (FRR and DRR), and is diverse in terms of design, irradiation, and post-reactor-discharge storage conditions; these factors yield a range of characteristics of cladding oxide films on ASNF. Mixed aluminum (oxy)hydroxide (boehmite and bayerite/gibbsite) films, non-uniform in thicknesses up to a maximum local thickness bounded by 25 μm, were observed on ASNF materials removed from wet storage in the L Basin and in non-sealed dry storage at the SRS following reactor service and a long-term (up to 40+ years) interim storage history. The ASNF inventory at INTEC, in both wet and vented dry storage, is predominantly from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), but it also includes DRR and FRR fuel. To address a profound behavior of these films, radiolysis testing of aluminum specimens with mixed type boehmite/bayerite oxide films was performed to develop basic data on G-values for production of radiolytic hydrogen under dry storage conditions with nominal relative humidity, temperature, and cover gas. Modeling and simulation of canister internal environments with postulated inventories of oxide films provides estimation of the evolution of the conditions of the canister loaded with ASNF. Simultaneous Thermal Analysis (TGA/DSC) of hydrated oxide powders, and laboratory-scale aluminum specimens with a bayerite film (∼10 μm) using TGA methods, inform drying time/temperature conditions to be used for the ASNF. A demonstration project is recommended for Verification and Validation of the drying and storage of the ASNF. Remaining major tasks leading up to the hot demonstration include scale-up radiolysis testing and scale-up drying testing. Engineering design with the information from the technology program will establish the safety basis and enable long-term (> 50 years) dry storage compatibility with ASNF in the DOE Standard Canister pending its transportation to and disposal in a repository. This full capability would show the ASNF-in-canister storage system to be road-ready. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 3: Prospects for Shared Solutions for Solving the WM Challenges for Small and Emerging Nuclear Countries

This panel focused on sharing WM solutions for small and emerging nuclear countries. As countries with substantial inventories of spent nuclear fuel pursue their national repository programs with varying degrees of progress, countries with only a few reactors and those at the beginning stages of their nuclear programs face a far different and substantial challenge toward developing a national solution. This session brought together a panel of experts from government and industry to explore shared solutions and next steps building off the recent progress made by international organizations and the recent efforts and lessons learned. Panelists with presentations: The Rationale for a Multinational Repository (Sean Tyson); Perspectives on the Future of the Multi-National Repository Concept (Alan Brownstein); Why Would any Country Accept Foreign Spent Nuclear Fuel? (Charles McCombie); Dual Track Strategy for Small Countries (Leon Kegel)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

The University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) LEU Fuel Element Flow Test Preliminary Design

As part of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) mission to eliminate or minimize the civilian use of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU, ≥ 20 wt% U-235) fuels, the NNSA Material Management and Minimization (M3) Office of Reactor Conversion and Uranium Supply is collaborating with six U.S. high performance research reactors (USHPRR), including one critical facility, to convert from the use of HEU to low-enriched uranium (LEU, < 20 wt% U-235) fuel. Primary conversion objectives for the USHPRR are to develop LEU fuel element designs that will ensure safe reactor operations and maintain the existing experimental facilities performance. The work is being conducted through many interrelated activities by stakeholders across organizations.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1981

Generation of optimum vertical profiles for an advanced flight management system

Algorithms for generating minimum fuel or minimum cost vertical profiles are derived and examined. The option for fixing the time of flight is included in the concepts developed. These algorithms form the basis for the design of an advanced on-board flight management system. The variations in the optimum vertical profiles (resulting from these concepts) due to variations in wind, takeoff mass, and range-to-destination are presented. Fuel savings due to optimum climb, free cruise altitude, and absorbing delays enroute are examined.

Sorensen, J. A.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Preliminary Analysis of Advanced Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, Transportation, and Disposal

Due to increased interest in advanced reactor deployment and their associated potential new fuel cycles, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) program has begun to evaluate the possible implications of long term management and final disposition of the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) generated. Safely managing and dispositioning this SNF, along with any other associated radioactive waste, is the primary focus of this initial preliminary assessment. This paper summarizes efforts to evaluate the characteristics and packaging options for three types of advanced reactor SNF forms: (1) tristructural isotropic (TRISO), (2) metallic, and (3) irradiated fuel salt presented in the report titled “Storage, Transportation, and Disposal of Advanced Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste”. TRISO and metallic SNF and their associated waste streams were emphasized because of the near-term anticipated demonstrations of X-energy’s Xe-100 and TerraPower and GE Hitachi’s Natrium advanced reactors. Preliminary information on spent fuel salts discharged from molten-salt reactors (MSRs) was also examined to provide a baseline for future efforts. All calculations and assumptions were based on publicly available information. This paper identifies several different reactors that produce either TRISO or metallic SNF as well as a few of the reactor and fuel characteristics used for the assessments. Based on these characteristics, calculations were performed to determine the applicability of packaging SNF into existing canister designs. The evaluations included geometric (e.g., dimension, volume) and mass/weight considerations, known operational approaches and loading procedures, physical and chemical considerations/conditions for storage environments, and as-loaded radiation, thermal, and criticality analyses to identify constraints on storage, transportation, and disposal. Gaps in publicly available data pertaining to reactor operation and/or fuel composition provide increased uncertainty in some evaluations. Additionally, uncertainty in packaging and SNF management operations provide additional uncertainty. However, preliminary conclusions can still be assessed through this work and are presented in this paper.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Plan to Qualify New Fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor for Material Minimization

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of five high power research reactors the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program, Office of Conversion is working to convert from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This effort stems from the primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing, and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project is pursuing fuel qualification and licensing of LEU fuels to support the high-performance reactors. All high-performance reactors except HFIR will be converted to LEU monolithic uranium-molybdenum alloy fuel. HFIR will be evaluated for conversion to LEU using a uranium silicide fuel, namely, U3Si2-Al dispersion fuel. The mission of the USHPRR Project is to develop the technology needed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, worldwide use of HEU in civilian applications. The goal is to develop the technical means needed to use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of HEU fuel in research and test reactors without significant penalties in performance, economics, or safety of the reactors. The USHPRR Project has four major elements, called Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ) managed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Fuel Fabrication (FF) managed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Reactor Conversion (RC) managed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and Cross-Cutting (CC) managed at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). FQ is responsible for the qualification of the fuel type. RC is responsible for supporting reactor conversion analysis and overseeing licensing submittals leading to conversions of domestic reactors to LEU fuel. For the FQ effort, FQ (INL) worked in collaboration with RC (Argonne) and ORNL to develop the plan for the uranium silicide fuel qualification for HFIR. The resulting HFIR Fuel Qualification Plan provides the general approach for the USHPRR team to move the selected uranium silicide fuel design for HFIR conversion through qualification. Authorization and use in HFIR will be approved through the DOE’s Office of Science. Uranium silicide fuel was previously qualified in NUREG-1313 at an approximate maximum heat flux of 1.4 MW/m2 and a maximum fuel section temperature of about 130°C. In addition to the different regulator process utilized by DOE, these upper limits will be exceeded in HFIR; therefore, further testing will be necessary to ensure the fuel can meet HFIR qualification requirements. The HFIR fuel loading may exceed 4.8 gU/cm3 which was determined in the NUREG-1313 safety evaluation to be acceptable for use in non-power NRC-licensed reactors provided there exist no other safety considerations. In addition, the uranium silicide fuel will need to be qualified in a HFIR-specific design. This plan includes the currently available information from the USHPRR Project Functions and Requirements document and expands these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results providing evidence that the requirements have been met. Data collection methods are discussed as well as the process to show that the requirements have been met. This document is designed to provide a pathway for researchers to obtain data necessary and at the appropriate quality level for HFIR fuel qualification

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Plan to Qualify New Fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor for Material Minimization

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of five high power research reactors the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program, Office of Conversion is working to convert from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This effort stems from the primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing, and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project is pursuing fuel qualification and licensing of the high-performance reactors to operate with LEU fuels. All high-performance reactors except HFIR will be converted to LEU monolithic uranium-molybdenum alloy fuel. HFIR will be evaluated for conversion to LEU using a uranium silicide fuel, namely, U3Si2-Al dispersion fuel.The mission of the USHPRR Project is to develop the technology needed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, worldwide use of HEU in civilian applications. The goal is to develop the technical means needed to use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of HEU fuel in research and test reactors without significant penalties in performance, economics, or safety of the reactors. The USHPRR Project has four major elements, called Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ) managed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Fuel Fabrication (FF) managed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Reactor Conversion (RC) managed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and Cross-Cutting (CC) managed at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). FQ is responsible for the qualification of the fuel type. RC is responsible for supporting reactor conversion analysis and overseeing licensing submittals leading to conversions of domestic reactors to LEU fuel. For the FQ effort, FQ (INL) worked in collaboration with RC (Argonne) and ORNL to develop the plan for the uranium silicide fuel qualification for HFIR.The resulting HFIR Fuel Qualification Plan provides the general approach for the USHPRR team to move the selected uranium silicide fuel design for HFIR conversion through qualification. Authorization and use in HFIR will be approved through the DOE’s Office of Science. Uranium silicide fuel was previously qualified in NUREG-1313 at an approximate maximum heat flux of 1.4 MW/m2 and a maximum fuel section temperature of about 130°C. In addition to the different regulator process utilized by DOE, these upper limits will be exceeded in HFIR; therefore, further testing will be necessary to ensure the fuel can meet HFIR qualification requirements. The HFIR fuel loading may exceed 4.8 gU/cm3 which was determined in the NUREG-1313 safety evaluation to be acceptable for use in non-power NRC-regulated reactors provided there exist no other safety considerations. In addition, the uranium silicide fuel will need to be qualified in a HFIR-specific design. This plan includes the currently available information from the USHPRR Project Functions and Requirements document and expands these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results providing evidence that the requirements have been met. Data collection methods are discussed as well as the process to show that the requirements have been met. This document is designed to provide a pathway for researchers to obtain data necessary and at the appropriate quality level for HFIR fuel qualification.

Shokes, Tamara↗
DOE OSTI2025

Support for Advanced Fuel Fabrication MC&A Approaches

This report summarizes the key activities of the Material Protection, Accounting, and Control Technologies (MPACT) program’s safeguards training work package for FY25. The work focused on two main areas: domestic safeguards training and the development of new technologies for nuclear material accounting and control (NMAC). A key development during this FY was the delivery of NMAC statistics for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements refresher course. The course objective was to assist industry in meeting the MC&A program requirements for fuel cycle facilities; this training focused on front-end bulk fuel cycle processes. At the same time, a report was prepared on the research output of an effort that focused on the benefits of commercial fuel debundling for NMAC and waste management. The MPACT team evaluated various technologies and proposed a fuel debundling detector that integrates gamma spectroscopy and neutron detection as the most practical solution. The scope of activities under this work package for FY26 focuses on developing a fundamental nuclear material control plan, also known as MC&A plan, for tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel fabrication facilities. This plan will address the various NMAC requirements for facilities that handle Category II.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2013

Performance Evaluation of Individual Aircraft Based Advisory Concept for Surface Management

Surface operations at airports in the US are based on tactical operations, where departure aircraft primarily queue up and wait at the departure runways. NASA's Spot And Runway Departure Advisor (SARDA) tool was developed to address these inefficiencies through Air Traffic Control Tower advisories. The SARDA system is being updated to include collaborative gate hold, either tactically or strategically. This paper presents the results of the human-in-the-loop evaluation of the tactical gate hold version of SARDA in a 360 degree simulated tower setting. The simulations were conducted for the east side of the Dallas/Fort Worth airport. The new system provides gate hold, ground controller and local controller advisories based on a single scheduler. Simulations were conducted with SARDA on and off, the off case reflecting current day operations with no gate hold. Scenarios based on medium (1.2x current levels) and heavy (1.5x current levels) traffic were explored. Data collected from the simulation was analyzed for runway usage, delay for departures and arrivals, and fuel consumption. Further, Traffic Management Initiatives were introduced for a subset of the aircraft. Results indicated that runway usage did not change with the use of SARDA, i.e., there was no loss in runway throughput as compared to baseline. Taxiing delay was significantly reduced with the use of advisory by 45% in medium scenarios and 60% in heavy. Arrival delay was unaffected by the use of advisory. Total fuel consumption was also reduced by 23% in medium traffic and 33% in heavy. TMI compliance appeared unaffected by the advisory

departure metering↗
DOE OSTI2021

Nuclear Fuels and Reprocessing Technologies: A U.S. Perspective

Reprocessing and/or waste management issues are of concern to the “back end” of the nuclear fuel cycle. Of course, there are a great many “nuclear fuel cycle” scenarios to consider; if not in practice, then at least in theory. The simplest conceptually is the “once through” fuel cycle in which the spent fuel is discarded. The more complex fuel cycle scenarios involve reprocessing spent nuclear fuels and a family of nuclear reactor technologies to accommodate burning and breeding for various military and commercial needs. Therefore, the selection of a specific “fuel cycle” is what ultimately imposes the engineering requirements of the reprocessing and waste management technologies. No one part is independent of the other parts in a fuel cycle flowsheet; all parts are fully integrated. This paper presents a summary of radiochemical processes, nuclear reactor technologies, nuclear fuel types, and the reprocessing technologies that serve the different nuclear fuel types. Comprehending how this series of topics are related to each other is a prerequisite to understanding the requirements of any reprocessing strategy. The summary materials presented here are selective, as opposed to comprehensive. More detailed information on any one subject can be found in the reference materials.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Spent Nuclear Fuel Exploratory Roadmaps - 20054

The U.S. Department of Energy manages nearly 2,500 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) resulting from several decades of research, testing, and production reactors [DOE 1995]. This SNF is managed at the DOE Hanford Site in Washington State (Hanford), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Savannah River Site in South Carolina (SRS). From 1995 to 2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) made several key programmatic decisions, supported by appropriate documentation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the management of SNF [DOE 1995]. These decisions have provided an overarching framework for SNF management, as well as site-specific and SNF-related management decisions for the past two decades. In the years since these decisions were made, with the notable exception of the successful drying and packaging of the production reactor fuel at Hanford, a majority of the decisions have been largely unimplemented. Also, since these decisions were made, a number of changes that bear on considerations relative to the path forward have occurred. A SNF Exploratory Road map activity, identified reasonable alternate pathways for DoE's inventory of SNF. Three fundamental pathways were identified in this activity for the long-term management and disposition of DOE SNF: Direct Disposal Pathway, Existing Processing Pathway and Alternate Processing Pathway. Further actions would be required (e.g., evaluation of NEPA analysis, technology maturity evaluations, refinement of cost and risks, benefits and advantages relative to other alternate paths) to define and inform many key decisions that will result in the selection of the disposition pathways that are most beneficial to the US Government in dispositioning DoE's SNF inventory. DOE is currently managing all SNF safely; however, the age of DOE-owned SNF and facilities for storing and processing SNF, coupled with the uncertainty of the storage duration, necessitates decisions and actions to ensure that the infrastructure will be in place to ensure continued safe and effective long-term management and eventual disposal. The identification of reasonable alternate pathways took these considerations into account in an effort to proactively manage conditions that could challenge the safety of storing and managing DOE SNF over the time periods now contemplated and also to ensure that flexibility is preserved to ensure that the DOE SNF remains compatible with final disposition pathways when they become available. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗