 |
Announcements |
|
 |
|
 |
| GNEP Public Hearings - Thursday, February 08, 2007Public Hearings are scheduled February 13-March 19, 2007 at sites for the public to provide comments, raise issues and concerns regarding the the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program. read more ...
|
| | DOE Announces 11 Sites for GNEP Siting Studies - Tuesday, January 30, 2007The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced on January 30, 2007 that over $10 million will be used for 11 commercial and public consortia selected to conduct detailed siting studies for integrated spent fuel recycling facilities under President Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). read more ...
|
| | ANA Warns of GNEP's Environmental and Proliferation Dangers - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 On October 31, 2006, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) sent out a media advisory opposing DOE’s plans to bring the nation’s spent nuclear fuel to any site and to build a full-scale commercial reprocessing plant and fast burner reactor. “GNEP would be a financial, environmental, and nuclear proliferation disaster,” says Susan Gordon, Director of ANA. To access the ANA Press Release, click here: ANA GNEP Press Release.doc
|
|
|
 |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | | published Tuesday, February 19, 2008 | 1127 Views :: 0 Comments | Estimated future environmental liability costs for the Pantex Plant top
$400 million, according to government figures obtained by a New Mexico
environmental group, but a Pantex official said the estimates are a few
years old and that such costs are expected to drop over time.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, May 31, 2007 | 1005 Views :: 0 Comments |
program would expand global nuclear energy
production by creating plutonium fuel to be used in a new generation of nuclear
power plants through the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel – extracting the plutonium and uranium from used fuel – is
the dirtiest operation of the nuclear fuel cycle and produces separated
plutonium and other nuclear weapon-usable materials and vast amounts of
extremely dangerous waste.
GNEP is incredibly expensive. Government
estimates place the cost between $3 billion and $6 billion in its first five
years. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) has provided no costs for
operation and eventual decontamination. An estimate by the National Academies of
Science states that reprocessing the spent fuel now targeted for Yucca Mountain
would cost between $50 billion to $100 billion more than direct disposal (1996
dollars).
Despite the claims of proponents,
reprocessing is not “recycling” and will not help the nation’s waste problem—it
will only spread the radioactive waste over a greater volume of waste streams.
The waste from reprocessing is hotter than the original spent fuel and will
still require storage in a geologic repository.
For a short period in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. government reprocessed
spent nuclear fuel for use in commercial reactors until the practice was banned
in 1976. Even though the ban on reprocessing was lifted in 1981, industry showed
no interest due to its exorbitant costs and the availability of inexpensive
uranium ore. Reprocessing for nuclear weapons other military programs took place
in Washington State, South Carolina, and Idaho from the 1940s through the 1980s.
These sites remain some of the most polluted places in the Western Hemisphere.
The legacy of reprocessing is 100 million gallons of extremely dangerous
high-level radioactive waste, stored in 243 leak-prone tanks and threatening
crucial water resources.
|  |
| | |
|
|
| | | published Thursday, May 31, 2007 | 3689 Views :: 1 Comments | The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) mandates that the public be allowed the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the federal government's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement process.
ANA has submitted their comments on the Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership plan which threatens to revive the practice of "reprocessing" spent nuclear fuel. Reprocessing is the technology which created the horrible environmental contamination at Hanford, WA, Savannah River Site, SC, West Valley, NY, and the Idaho National Laboratory.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, May 23, 2007 | 6228 Views :: 0 Comments | May 23, 2007
 The House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee approved their spending bill for FY 2008, cutting all funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, reducing spending on nuclear reprocessing and plutonium reactor fuel programs, while restoring money for badly needed environmental cleanup of Department of Energy sites.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, May 10, 2007 | 6171 Views :: 0 Comments |
The
Department of Energy (DOE) FY 2008 budget request was submitted to
Congress on Monday, February 5, 2007. The Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability (ANA) is concerned that spending on nuclear weapons and
energy will divert funds away from environmental cleanup, radiation
health programs and plutonium disposition. The Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability opposes any attempt to cut funding for vital cleanup
programs while increasing spending on unnecessary weapons activities.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, April 23, 2007 | 5709 Views :: 0 Comments | "Radioactive Report Card" flunks U.S. Nuclear Weapons Programs: ANA seeks new budget priorities; expert report blasts Global Nuclear Energy Partnership as "costly radioactive waste shell game."
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, February 01, 2007 | 6971 Views :: 0 Comments | The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), a national network representing communities downwind and downstream from U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, is concerned that spending on nuclear weapons and energy will divert funds away from environmental cleanup, radiation health programs and plutonium disposition.
|
| read more.. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Resources |
|
 |
| | | |
|