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.

After more than 20 years of commercial nuclear power, the Federal Government has yet to develop a broadly supported policy for fulfilling its legal responsibility for the final isolation of high-level radioactive waste. OTA's study concludes that until such a policy is adopted in law, there is a substantial risk that the false starts, shifts of policy, and fluctuating support that have plagued the final isolation program in the past will continue.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established a statutory basis
for managing the nation’s civilian (or commercially produced) spent nuclear
fuel. The law established a process for siting, developing, licensing, and constructing
an underground repository for the permanent disposal of that waste.
Utilities were given the primary responsibility for storing spent fuel until it is
accepted by the Department of Energy (DOE) for disposal at a repository —
originally expected to begin operating in 1998. Since then, however, the repository

At the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Academies assessed the safety and
security of spent nuclear fuel stored in pools and dry casks at commercial nuclear power
plants in the United States. The public report can be viewed on the National Academies
Press website at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11263.html.

Background To determine whether current and former construction workers are at
significant risk for occupational illnesses from work at the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
nuclear weapons facilities, screening programs were undertaken at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation, Oak Ridge Reservation, and the Savannah River Site.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), established a
step-by-step process for the siting of the nation's first repository for
high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel. The Act gave the Department of
Energy (DOE) the primary responsibility for conducting this siting process.
The first step in the process laid out in the Act was the development by
the DOE, with the concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), of
general guidelines to be used by the Secretary of the DOE (the Secretary) in

Dear Tim:
As we work to complete our final recommendations to the Secretary by January 29, 2012,
we have determined that our efforts would be aided by the formation of an ad hoc
subcommittee to investigate the issue of co‐mingling of defense and commercial wastes.
Specifically, the ad hoc subcommittee would review and make a recommendation to the
Commission on the issue of whether the 1985 Presidential decision to co‐mingle defense
and commercial wastes for disposal should be revisited in light of changes that have

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) asked us to study whether
occupational safety and health conditions in today's U.S. nuclear industry are reasonably safe,
and if those conditions have improved since the Three Mile Island event in 1979. The BRC also
asked us to look to the future, to try to anticipate worker safety and health risks that should be
addressed by the industry, its government regulators and private watchdogs.
Over the eight weeks allotted, we performed a limited review of the literature and spoke with

Dear Mr. Frazier:
At our request, the Commission staff is in the process of assembling information on the costs and financing of the US program to manage used fuel and high-level nuclear wastes. To assist in the completion of this effort, it would be most helpful if the Department could provide the information listed int the attachment.
...

Approximately 54,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are stored at operating nuclear power plants and several decommissioned power plants throughout the country. Spent fuel storage at these sites was never intended to be permanent. The current Federal plan is to place the fuel in a repository for permanent disposal in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.

At the request of the staff to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (“BRC”), we have reviewed whether certain recommendations in the BRC’s July 29, 2011 Draft Report respecting near-term actions by the Department of Energy (“DOE”) or other officers or agencies in the Executive Branch can be implemented under existing law. These recommendations relate to:
(1) Initial steps to site, license and construct consolidated interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel (“spent fuel”);

An Account of the Programs of Federal Agencies and Events That Have Led to the Selection of a Potential Site for a Geologic Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste

Gentlemen,
In accordance with the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and as the Secretary's designee, I approve your request to establish an ad hoc subcommittee to review and make a recommendation to the Commission regarding the co-mingling of defense and commercial waste.
This letter also serves to appoint Dr. Allison Macfarlane as the chair of the subcommittee and the membership of the subcommittee as identified in your letter to me dated October 31, 2011.

Construction workers were and are considered temporary workers at many construction sites. Since WWII, large numbers of construction workers were employed at US DOE nuclear weapons sites for periods ranging from a few days to over 30 years. These workers performed tasks during new construction and maintenance, repair, renovation, and demolition of existing facilities.

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.

How to dispose of highly radioactive wastes from commercial nuclear power plants is a question that has remained unresolved in the face rapidly changing technological, economic, and political requirements. In the three decades following WWII, two federal agencies -- the Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration -- tried unsuccessfully to develop a satisfactory plan for managing high level wastes.