Following the proposals for nuclear fuel assurance of International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, 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

Dear Secretary Chu:
At the direction of the President, you charged the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future with reviewing policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel
cycle and recommending a new plan. We thank you for choosing us to serve as Co-
Chairmen of the Commission and for selecting the talented and dedicated set of
Commissioners with whom we serve.
We have sought to ensure that our review is comprehensive, open and inclusive. The
Commission and its subcommittees have heard from hundreds of individuals and

Dear Co-Chairs Hamilton and Scowcroft:
The Obama Administration believes that nuclear energy has an important role to playas America moves to a clean energy future. One of my goals as Secretary of Energy is to help restart America's nuclear industry, creating thousands of new jobs and new export opportunities for the United States while producing the carbon free energy we need to power America's economy.

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.

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 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.

In February, 2011 the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future requested the Department of Energy
(DOE) to provide a white paper summarizing the quantities and characteristics of potential waste generated by various
nuclear fuel cycles. The BRC request expressed interest in two classes of radioactive wastes:
 Existing waste that are or might be destined for a civilian deep geologic repository or equivalent.
 Potential future waste, generated by alternative nuclear fuel cycles (e.g. wastes from reprocessing, mixed-oxide

Fundamentally, a nuclear energy system uses nuclear fission to create heat, which is then available for generating electricity or other applications, including seawater desalination, heating, and production of other fuels. The nuclear energy system as currently deployed in the United States, Figure 1, consists of a number of integrated components, beginning with the natural resources required for nuclear fuel, followed by fissioning of the fuel in reactors connected to electricity generation facilities, and ending with the disposition of all wastes, including used nuclear fuel (UNF).

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 document summarizes DOE’s commercial nuclear energy RD&D program based on a R&D roadmap and on DOE/NE’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. The roadmap is written at a high level and is mostly qualitative in terms of activities, milestones and decisions to be made and does not contain budget information. The fiscal year 2011 budget request contains more specific and detailed information on activities, milestones, decisions, and budgets but only for fiscal year 2011 and the two preceding fiscal years.