This new report from the National Research Council’s Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board (NRSB) and the Transportation Research Board reviews the risks and technical and societal concerns for the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the United States. Shipments are expected to increase as the U.S. Department of Energy opens a repository for spent fuel and high-level waste at Yucca Mountain, and the commercial nuclear industry considers constructing a facility in Utah for temporary storage of spent fuel from some of its nuclear waste plants.

Following the proposals for nuclear fuel assurance of International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed El Baradei, former Russian President Vladimir V.
Putin, and U.S. President George W. Bush, joint committees of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (RAS) and the U.S. National Academies (NAS) were formed to address these and other
fuel assurance concepts and their links to nonproliferation goals. The joint committees also
addressed many technology issues relating to the fuel assurance concepts. This report provides

In the course of producing electrical power in light water.reactors (LWRs), the uranium
fuel accumulates fission products until the fission process is no longer efficient for power
production. At that point the fuel is removed from the reactor and stored in water basins
to allow radioactivity to partially decay before further disposition. This fuel is referred
to as "spent fuel." Although spent fuel as At is discharged from a reactor is intensely
radioactive, it has been stored safely in moderate quantities for decades. Spent fuel could

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 United States makes decisions regarding the domestic uses of nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle primarily based economic considerations, domestic political constraints, and environmental impact concerns. Such factors influence U.S. foreign policy decisions as well, but foreign policy decisions are often more strongly determined by national security considerations, including concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

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.

To advance nuclear energy to meet future energy needs, ten countries—Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have agreed on a framework for international cooperation in research for a future generation of nuclear energy systems, known as Generation IV. The figure below gives an overview of the generations of nuclear energy systems. The first generation was advanced in the 1950s and 60s in the early prototype reactors.

This report evaluates the relative economics of alternative fuel cycles compared to the current
U.S. once-through fuel cycle, including concepts under consideration by the U.S. Department of
Energy’s (DOE) Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). EPRI utilized a model developed
by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Steady-state analysis Model for Advanced Fuel Cycle
Schemes (SMAFS), to evaluate fuel cycle alternatives. The report also evaluates potential
financing options for a fuel recycling facility. Please note that this report contains preliminary

This report is in response to the directive of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water
Development that the Department of Energy (DOE) update a 1984 report of alternative means of financing and
managing (AMFM) the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the DOE. The
President’s FY 2002 budget also stated: “DOE will submit to Congress an updated report regarding alternative
approaches to finance and manage the program by June 30, 2001[.] DOE will identify in this report models of

Background The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established medical screening
programs at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Oak Ridge Reservation, the Savannah
River Site, and the Amchitka site starting in 1996.Workers participating in these programs
have been followed to determine their vital status and mortality experience through
December 31, 2004.
Methods A cohort of 8,976 former construction workers from Hanford, Savannah River,
Oak Ridge, and Amchitka was followed using the National Death Index through December