The issue of interim storage of used (spent)1 fuel is dependent on a number of key factors, some
of which are not known at this time but are the subject of this study. The first is whether or not
the Yucca Mountain Project continues or is cancelled such that it may be able to receive spent
fuel from existing and decommissioned nuclear power stations. The second is whether the United
States will pursue a policy of reprocessing and recycling nuclear fuel. The reprocessing and

The table is based on historical costs through 2006, which are shaded, and projected costs in the 2008 TSLCC. To convert to 2010$, multiply by 1.0586. The 2008 TSLCC assumes a single repository system capable of accepting and disposing of SNF and HLW equivalent to 122,100 Metric Tons of Heavy Metal (MTHM). This estimate includes all defense wastes currently destined for disposal at Yucca Mountain and projected discharges of SNF from commercial utilities, including the 47 nuclear power reactors that had received license extensions from the NRC as of January 2007.

This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models.

The Construction Industry Research and Policy Center (CIRPC) at the University of Tennessee was awarded a contract by the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, under their grant program with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), to analyze injuries of employees of the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) and their contractors’ working at DOE work sites. The injury data analyzed were injuries recorded in DOE’s Computerized Accident Incident Reporting System (CAIRS).

The key challenge of this National Academy of Public Administration project is captured in the subtitle of this report, Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations.

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.

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

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