|published Tuesday, May 01, 2012 ||2216 Views :: 1 Comments|
Hanford Challenge Decries Appalling Lack of Oversight, demands
Immediate Stand Down and Complete Investigation
Immediate Release - April 30, 2012
Contact: Tom Carpenter (206) 419-5829
Richland, WA: The Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General released a report today that revealed a disturbing breakdown in Hanford’s quality program that allowed radioactive waste processing vessels to be installed without required documentation proving their integrity. This means that the Department of Energy is unable to prove the safety of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP).
The IG also found a critical lack of oversight on the DOE’s part, and a failure to collect the repayment of a $15 million assessment against Bechtel, the contractor, when DOE discovered a defective vessel.
|published Wednesday, April 11, 2012 ||1380 Views :: 0 Comments|
The following article quotes ANA Nonproliferation Policy Director Tom Clements talking about proliferation concerns related to new uranium enrichment technologies being licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
April 5, 2012
By Elaine M. Grossman
From the Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- A Nuclear Regulatory Commission response to a proposal that the agency demand a proliferation assessment for each new materials-processing facility license application has been delayed until next fall (see GSN, Jan. 12, 2011).
A staff recommendation on the matter had been widely expected by this spring, potentially followed by a vote on the prospective rule change by the agency’s five presidentially appointed commissioners. However, that outlook has changed.
|published Friday, February 10, 2012 ||1416 Views :: 0 Comments|
Tell the NRC to Securely Store Spent Nuclear Fuel
Feb. 10, 2012
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a long-term extension to the Commission’s Waste Confidence decision and rule to account for the storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste for more than 60 years after the licensed life for operation of any commercial nuclear power reactor. Part of this process is the development of an Environmental Impact Statement. This report is the first step in the Environmental Impact Statement process, and public comments on the report will be accepted
until February 17, 2012. Read the comment that ANA submitted here
Submit your own comment!
|published Thursday, February 02, 2012 ||2187 Views :: 1 Comments|
for immediate release: Thursday, January 26, 2012
for further information, contact:
Bob Schaeffer: 239-395-6773
Katherine Fuchs: 202-544-0217, ext. 2503
local contacts listed at end of advisory
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future report released today received mixed reviews from groups that monitor sites where large quantities of radioactive waste are stored. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) said major flaws in the report include the Commission’s “failure to advocate prompt removal of commercial spent fuel from reactor cooling pools with placement in hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) to safeguard commercial spent fuel at nuclear power plants.” ANA and hundreds of community groups had told the Commission that HOSS could protect the heavily reactive material for the decades needed to develop a scientifically sound and publicly acceptable waste disposal program.
|published Monday, September 12, 2011 ||1723 Views :: 0 Comments|
Sept. 12, 2011
By Rob Pavey
From the Augusta Chronicle
The National Nuclear Security Administration is more than six months late on its annual status report to Congress on the mixed oxide fuel project at Savannah River Site.
The document, mandated under the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, was due Feb. 15 and was to include updated details on the $4.8 billion project’s construction progress and completion schedule, among other things.
Critics of the project say the delay is another sign the government’s program to dispose of surplus plutonium from dismantled nuclear bombs could be facing more problems.
|published Sunday, August 14, 2011 ||1981 Views :: 1 Comments|
August 13, 2011
By Annette Cary
From the Tri-City Herald
The Department of Energy has taken a look at all the environmental cleanup yet to be completed at the Hanford nuclear reservation and come up with a big price tag: $115 billion.
That's what it projects will be required to finish environmental cleanup in about 2060 and then prevent any intrusion into areas, such as landfills holding radioactive waste, until 2090.
|published Sunday, August 14, 2011 ||1908 Views :: 0 Comments|
ANA has been closely monitoring the situation reported on in the following article, which quotes ANA member Tom Carpenter and refers to 2011 ANA Whistleblower Award winner Walt Tamosaitis. We've strongly been urging Congress to require complete testing of Hanford's mixers and support the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in their Hanford oversight.
Engineers and scientists say equipment being installed by Bechtel Corp. at the Hanford site in Washington state poses risks, but the Energy Department is letting work continue.
August 14, 2011
By Ralph Vartabedian
From the Los Angeles Times
The Energy Department has asserted that Bechtel Corp. underplayed safety risks from equipment it is installing at the nation's largest nuclear waste cleanup project, according to government records.
A federal engineering review team found in late July that Bechtel's safety evaluation of key equipment at the plant at the Hanford site in Washington state was incomplete and that "the risks are more serious" than Bechtel acknowledged when it sought approval to continue with construction, the documents say.
|published Friday, July 08, 2011 ||1368 Views :: 0 Comments|
July 8, 2011
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently solicited public comments on it's proposition for rulemaking on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. ANA is firmly against reprocessing spent nuclear fuel or converting U.S. reactors to use Mixed Oxide plutonium fuel (MOX, which is the product of reprocessing). ANA took this opportunity to submit this comment opposing the rulemaking as an unnecessary use of tax dollars.
Even though the NRC official comment period ended on July 7th, the comment period was unusually short and our allies are still encouraging people to submit comments. Click here for resources to help you submit your own comment to the NRC.
|published Friday, June 24, 2011 ||1568 Views :: 0 Comments|
June 24, 2011
By Rob Pavey
The Augusta Chronicle
It could be decades before technology advances to the
level where large-scale recycling or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel
could replace the need for a permanent, safe repository, according to a
subcommittee of President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission.
The draft report, issued today, comes at a time when
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is gathering information on how to
license commercial reprocessing facilities that—at least in
theory—could be housed within federal facilities such as Savannah River
Economic development groups have touted SRS as a
potential site for a reprocessing program, which would bring the benefit
of jobs and money with such a new mission. However, reprocessing could
also bring more nuclear waste to South Carolina.
Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the U.S.
Energy Department became responsible for finding disposal solutions for
spent nuclear fuel. In addition to 70,000 tons of spent fuel stored in
dozens of sites, the nation’s 104 commercial power reactors are
generating an additional 2,000 tons each year.
|published Thursday, May 05, 2011 ||1729 Views :: 0 Comments|
May 5, 2011
By Donna Deedy with Michael Grabell,
In the late 1990s, U.S. policymakers approved a plan to turn plutonium
from nuclear weapons into fuel for commercial reactors. The first-of-its
kind plant , now being built in South Carolina, was intended to
reduce the Cold War stockpile and the threat of nuclear material theft
while supplying the country’s energy needs.
More than a decade later, the mixed oxide fuel  (MOX) plant is
running into mounting troubles , including long delays, soaring costs
and the lack of utilities committed to use the new fuel in their
But there’s another aspect of the story that has received little
attention. Two of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s safety reviewers
for the project say the NRC has taken shortcuts on safety to avoid
delaying the construction. Work on the facility was allowed to begin,
they say, before some of the most essential questions were fully
answered. They have been particularly concerned about the danger of
chemical explosions, the adequacy of the ventilation and radioactive
waste disposal systems and the way the plutonium will be tracked as it