5 July 2008 Register   Login
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Announcements
GNEP Public Hearings - Thursday, February 08, 2007
Public 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, 2007
The 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

 


Current Articles

published Tuesday, February 19, 2008  1598 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  1034 Views :: 0 Comments

The Bush Adminstration's dangerous Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 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  4085 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. 

GNEP could mean more polluting nuclear power projectsANA 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  6991 Views :: 0 Comments

May 23, 2007
Today's E&W mark-up could mean more money for cleanup and less for nuclear weapons
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  6787 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  6393 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  7732 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..



© 2008 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability   |  Citadel Hosting  |  Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement