ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Aug 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2026
Nuclear Technology
September 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2026
Latest News
A closer look at the initial NLIC selections—Part 2
In January, the Department of Energy announced its new Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) program, inviting states via a request for information to express their interest in hosting a facility supporting work from the front to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
By April, 26 states had expressed interest in hosting such a facility. At the end of July, the DOE signed memorandums of understanding with five states—Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah—to more closely explore the possibilities of state-federal partnerships. These MOUs are not firm commitments from either the federal or state governments. Time will tell which—if any—of the five states develop projects through the program. In the meantime, today, we are taking a close look at what Utah, Idaho, Tennessee can offer in terms of a preexisting nuclear sector that could support new fuel cycle developments.
Charles Forsberg
Nuclear Technology | Volume 180 | Number 2 | November 2012 | Pages 191-204
Technical Paper | Fuel Cycle and Management | doi.org/10.13182/NT12-A14633
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Fuel cycles have not historically been integrated with repository design. Four alternative combinations of fuel cycles and repository systems are assessed in the present work: (a) traditional repositories, (b) repositories with spent nuclear fuel retrievability for recycle or as insurance against unforeseen repository failure, (c) colocation and integration of reprocessing and repositories, and (d) colocated specialized disposal facilities such as boreholes for different wastes. System design choices have major impacts on fuel cycle economics, accident risk, repository performance, nonproliferation, and repository siting. Consequently, there are large incentives to understand the different ways to couple fuel cycles and repositories.The evidence suggests that a repository as only a disposal site (the current system) is the least desirable option given current requirements for the United States. There are large incentives to develop repository sites that colocate and integrate all back-end fuel cycle facilities with the repository - independent of the fuel cycles that are ultimately chosen or how these fuel cycles evolve over time. Colocation and integration change the interface requirements between facilities by eliminating many storage and transport requirements such as the need for waste forms with high waste loadings. That, in turn, can result in reductions in cost, reductions in risk, and improved repository performance. For closed fuel cycles, colocation and integration may eliminate repository safeguards. This also suggests a repository business model similar to that of many airport authorities. Airport authorities manage the runways with colocated public and private airline terminals, aircraft maintenance bases, and related operations - all enabled and benefiting from the high-value runway asset. The common high-value back-end fuel cycle asset is the repository. For the local community and state government, such a strategy couples back-end fuel cycle benefits (high-technology jobs, tax revenue, etc.) with the repository site.