Over the decade since NWPA, the disposal
program's strategy, based on its interpretation of the
legislative mandate and regulatory requirements, has
sought:
• in a single large step and under a tight
schedule, to achieve the first-of-a-kind licensing
of a first-of-a-kind repository for isolating
wastes from the human environment for many
thousands of years.
• in a single large step and as rapidly as possible,
to build a full-scale repository and begin
disposing of the bulk of the nation's inventory

The Department of Energy (DOE) is studying a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a
permanent underground repository for highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors,
but delays have pushed back the facility’s opening date to 2010 at the earliest. In the
meantime, spent fuel is accumulating at U.S. nuclear plant sites at the rate of about 2,000
metric tons per year. Major options for managing those growing quantities of nuclear spent
fuel include continued storage at reactors, construction of a DOE interim storage site near

The Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste is a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel1 and high-level radioactive waste from civilian nuclear power generation, defense, national security and other activities.

The almost limitless energy of the atom was first harnessed in the United States, as scientists proved the basic physics of nuclear fission in a rudimentary reactor built in the floor of a squash court at the University of Chicago in 1942, and then harnessed that proven energy source in the form of atomic weapons used to end World War II. Scientists who accomplished this feat moved quickly after World War II to harness that power for peaceful uses, focusing primarily on electricity generation for industry, commerce, and household use.

o Request: The current balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF).
o Response: The balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund $24.56 billion as of November 2010. (Source: U.S. DOE OCRWM Annual Financial Report for Years Ended September 30, 2010 and 2009)
o Request: The NWF fee projections of future fee receipts.

The Commission is charged with submitting a
draft report to the Secretary of Energy before
the end of July 2011. To aid the Commissioners
in fulfilling that responsibility, the Commission
staff has prepared this report to summarize what
the Commission has heard up to this point in
the process. It does not attempt to recount every
comment or opinion submitted to the Commission
thus far; rather, the aim here is to summarize
major themes from the extensive testimony and
public comment the Commission has received to

This report defines issues that need to be addressed by a development program recently initiated to establish the viability of a transuranic program recently initiated to establish the viability of a transuranic burning concept application that would achieve a substantial delay to the need date for a second geologic repository. The visualized transuranic burning concept application is one in which spent fuel created after a date in the 2010 timeframe or later would be processed and the separated plutonium used to start up liquid metal reactors.

The United States currently has no place to dispose of the high-level radioactive waste
resulting from the production of the nuclear weapons and the operation of nuclear
electronic power plants. The only option under formal consideration at this time is to place
the waste in an underground geologic repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However,
there is strong public debate about whether such a repository could protect humans from
the radioactive waste that will be dangerous for many thousands of years. This book

In General: The Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 includes most of the language of S.3469, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012. The most significant change in the 2013 bill is the provision linking construction and siting of a consolidated storage facility to progress on a repository. The 2012 Act prohibited storage of any spent nuclear fuel beyond 10,000 metric tons until the Administration concluded a repository consent agreement.

The purpose of this study is to assist decision makers in evaluating the centralized interim
storage option. We explore the economics of centralized interim storage under a wide variety of
circumstances. We look at how a commitment to move forward with centralized interim storage
today could evolve over time. And, we evaluate the costs of reversing a commitment toward
centralized storage if it turns out that such a decision is later considered a mistake. We have not

This paper provides a brief description of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its regulatory process for the current nuclear fuel cycle for light water power reactors (LWRs). It focuses on the regulatory framework for the licensing of facilities in the fuel cycle. The first part of the paper provides an overview of the NRC and its regulatory program including a description of its organization, function, authority, and responsibilities.

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) provides an analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program,
which is a United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) program intended to support a safe,
secure, and sustainable expansion of nuclear energy, both
domestically and internationally. Domestically, the
GNEP Program would promote technologies that support
economic, sustained production of nuclear-generated
electricity, while reducing the impacts associated with

Indian tribes have voiced their tribal issues in the United States‘ nuclear effort since its
inception, with the siting of what would become Los Alamos National Laboratory adjacent to the
San Ildefonso Pueblo Reservation and the Hanford plutonium production works along waterways
shared with the Yakama Nation and other Indian tribes. The siting of a proposed repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada along with other activities conducted on the Nevada National Security
Site (NNSS) (formerly the Nevada Test Site), increased the need for the United States

In response to the remand of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (1979)), and as a continuation of previous proceedings conducted in this area by NRC (44 Fed. Reg. 61,372), the Commission initiated a generic rulemaking proceeding on October 25, 1979.

Background Medical screening programs were begun in 1996 and 1997 at three Department
of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons facilities (Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Oak
Ridge, and the Savannah River Site) to evaluate whether current and former construction
workers are at significant risk for occupational illnesses. The focus of this report is
pneumoconiosis associated with exposures to asbestos and silica among workers enrolled
in the screening programs through September 30, 2001.

The comparison of different nuclear fuel cycle options has become an integral element to any analysis of the future prospects for nuclear energy, in the United States and around the world. Concerns for supply security and price volatility of fossil fuels, combined with growing resolve to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, have caused a general shift in attitudes towards nuclear energy. However, there are lingering sustainability concerns for nuclear energy – long term uranium supply and environmental impact – as well as concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Dear Co‐Chairs and Members of the Joint Select Committee: The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future was established by the Secretary of Energy at the direction of the President to review policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy. We are pleased to be serving as Co‐Chairmen of the Commission, and we are writing to you to highlight an important action we believe should be reflected in your Committee’s baseline budget projections as you craft a bipartisan plan for reducing the national budget deficit.

This study examines concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in its planning for transition from active waste site management and remediation to what the department terms “long-term stewardship.” It examines the scientific, technical, and organizational capabilities and limitations that must be taken into account in planning for the long-term institutional management of the department’s numerous waste sites that are the legacy to this country’s nuclear weapons program. It also identifies characteristics and design criteria for effective longterm institutional management.

Background Medical screening programs at three Departments of Energy (DOE)
nuclear weapons facilities (Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Oak Ridge, and the Savannah
River Site) have included audiometric testing since approximately 1996. This report
summarizes hearing evaluations through March 31, 2003.
Methods Occupational examinations included a medical history, limited physical
examination, and tests for medical effects from specific hazards, including audiometric
testing. Hearing thresholds by frequency for DOE workers were compared to agestandardized

This report presents a formal analysis of the five sites nominated as
suitable for characterization for the first repository; the analysis is based
on the information contained or referenced in the environmental assessments
that accompany the site nominations (DOE, 1986a-e). It is intended to aid in
the site-recommendation decision by providing insights into the comparative
advantages and disadvantages of each site. Because no formal analysis can
account for all the factors important to a decision as complex as recommending

The Disposal Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) addressed a wide-ranging set of issues, all bearing 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?”

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Program, a United States (U.S.) Department of
Energy (DOE) program, is intended to support a safe, secure, and sustainable expansion of
nuclear energy, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, the GNEP Program would
promote technologies that support economic, sustained
production of nuclear-generated electricity, while
reducing the impacts associated with spent nuclear fuel
disposal and reducing proliferation risks. DOE envisions
changing the U.S. nuclear energy fuel cycle1 from an

The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee was formed to respond to the charge—set forth in the charter of the BRC—to evaluate existing fuel cycle technologies and R&D programs in terms of multiple criteria.

This evaluation investigates the potential benefits of separating the transuranic elements from spent reactor fuel before it is disposed of in geologic repositories. It addresses the question: Would the benefits to radioactive waste disposal justify both processing the spent fuel and deploying liquid metal reactors (LMRs) to transmute the separated transuranics?

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=NP-7…

The Blue Ribbon Commission staff requested this paper cataloging innovative stakeholder involvement programs within the Department of Energy (DOE). I reviewed a variety of material on public involvement, including papers and presentations on stakeholder involvement in DOE programs, published presentations and comments to the BRC, and research reports on stakeholder and public involvement.