You are here

Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee

The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC), formerly the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), was established on October 1, 1998, to provide independent advice to the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) on complex science and technical issues that arise in the planning, managing, and implementation of DOE's nuclear energy program.

NEAC periodically reviews the elements of the NE program and based on these reviews provides advice and recommendations on the program’s long-range plans, priorities, and strategies to effectively address the scientific and engineering aspects of the research and development efforts. In addition, the committee provides advice on national policy and scientific aspects of nuclear energy research issues as requested by the Secretary of Energy or the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy.

The committee includes representatives from universities, industry, foreign nationals, and national laboratories. Particular attention was paid to obtaining a diverse membership with a balance of disciplines, interests, experiences, points of view, and geography. NEAC operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463), 92nd Congress, H.R. 4383' October 6, 1972) and all applicable FACA Amendments, Federal Regulations and Executive Orders.

Reports

  • May 2, 2012

    The Fuel Cycle (FC) Subcommittee of NEAC met February 7-8, 2012 in Washington (Drs. Hoffmann and Juzaitis were unable to attend). While the meeting was originally scheduled to occur after the submission of the President’s FY 2013 budget, the submission was delayed a week; thus, we could have no discussion on balance in the NE program. The Agenda is attached as Appendix A.

  • June 15, 2011

    The Fuel Cycle subcommittee of NEAC met April 25-26 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The main topics of discussion were the Used Nuclear Fuel (UNF) disposal program, the System Study Program’s methodology that is to be used to set priorities for R&D on advanced fuel cycles, and the University Programs. In addition to these, we were briefed on the budget, but have no comments other than a hope for a good outcome and restrict ourselves to general advice until more is known.