9 February 2012 Register   Login
Waste & Environmental Cleanup
Featured Environmental Story
CNN interviews residents of Shell Bluff, GA about the lack of monitoring in their community which hosts a nuclear power station and is across the Savannah River from a radioactive superfund site.

Cleanup Sites
Click here to view the Department of Energy's list of Environmental Management sites by state
Print  


 


Past and Present

The Department of Energy (DOE) has produced radioactive materials for nuclear bombs; designed, built, and tested nuclear weapons; and developed reactor and other technologies with little concern for the environmental harm those activities cause. The inevitable result is that all DOE sites are polluted. Nevertheless, DOE remains far more interested in protecting its pollution-causing activities than in correcting the harm they have already done.



DOE is not meeting its legal and ethical responsibility to clean up the legacy of more than 60 years of radioactive and toxic contamination. Instead, DOE is promoting nuclear activities that will create additional pollution and threaten the health of future generations. Currently, water near some DOE facilities, such as Paducah, KY, and Pantex, TX, remains unfit to drink. Some of the nation’s major water sources, including the Columbia River, Snake River Aquifer, and Ogallala Aquifer, are threatened.


After declaring the Yucca Mountain project dead, the Obama Administration called for a "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future" to determine what should be done with US high level nuclear waste. The Blue Ribbon Commission has issued its draft report. A final report will be issued in January

WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN THE U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY FY 2011 NUCLEAR WEAPONS BUDGET REQUEST
published Wednesday, January 27, 2010  7425 Views :: 8 Comments
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
A national network of organizations working to address issues of
nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup
http://www.ananuclear.org

for further information, contact:
Nickolas Roth 914-673-6666
Susan Gordon 505-577-8438
or local contacts listed at end of advisory

for immediate release Wednesday, January 27, 2010
WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN THE U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY FY 2011
NUCLEAR WEAPONS BUDGET REQUEST

The FY 2011 budget request will be released on Monday, February 1, 2010. The Obama administration has laid out an aggressive nonproliferation agenda that includes deep reductions in nuclear stockpiles, ratification of a nuclear test ban, and decreased prominence for nuclear weapons in US defense policy. Despite this agenda, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) budget request will ask Congress to significantly increase nuclear weapons activities, including funding for construction of new facilities that will expand U.S. warhead production capacity. The DOE request will not reflect recent independent scientific conclusions that existing nuclear weapons can be reliably maintained for decades under current, well-established programs.

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), a national network representing communities downwind and downstream from U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, is concerned that increased funding for nuclear energy and weapons research and production will rob precious resources for needed environmental cleanup and clean, sustainable energy solutions.

Items of interest:

The nuclear weapons activities budget will have a significant increase. DOE will ask for a $700 million (10%) increase in weapons activities. According to a recent administration internal memo, the Department of Defense has agreed to contribute $145 million of this increase for nuclear weapons surveillance. There will be significant increases for science and engineering campaigns.

There will be significant budget increases for construction of new U.S. nuclear weapons production facilities. Despite the groundbreaking report from the JASON group of scientists that plutonium pits last a century or more, funding for Los Alamos’s Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility for direct support of plutonium pit production will likely dramatically increase from last year’s $95 million. Similarly, the Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 production plant near Oak Ridge, TN, designed for expanded production of new uranium “secondaries” for warheads, will see a big increase in funding. Instead of new production facilities, money is needed to support expanding dismantlement capabilities in light of a pending agreement with Russia to cut the existing stockpile.

The nuclear nonproliferation budget will increase, but not all of it is for nonproliferation. The Administration will ask for a 26% increase in spending for nuclear nonproliferation programs. A large part of the funding in this category continues to be the mixed oxide fuel (MOX) plant at the Savannah River Site, a facility that poses a unique proliferation threat as it would introduce nuclear reactor fuel containing weapons-grade plutonium into commerce. Increases in the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which includes securing fissile materials, and returning Highly-Enriched Uranium to the U.S., would be welcomed.

Funding for all Life Extension Programs, including the B-61 nuclear gravity bomb, is likely to increase significantly. Facing stiff opposition to programs for newly designed warheads like the Reliable Replacement Warhead, Congress authorized the stockpile management program. This program could be used to create new or significantly modified nuclear warhead designs within existing Life Extension Programs. The first warhead to be extended under this program will be the B-61, which is currently deployed in Europe. The Life Extension Program for the B-61 has been controversial because many European nations have indicated they no longer want the warheads in the country.

Funding for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) will not decrease, despite construction being declared complete. Expect the budget detail to show significant construction and development activities continuing into FY2011. Additionally, expect that "ignition" at the NIF will be further redefined to the much lower bar of "ignition experiments" -- and expect the ignition experiments to be delayed to the late FY2011/FY2012 timeframe, despite the fact that ignition had been promised originally in 2003. The budget numbers do not present complete costs according to a DOE internal report stating that at least 20% of NIF’s total costs have been hidden in other programs.

Funding will likely be provided to address long-standing Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) safety concerns at Los Alamos, which lab managers have yet to adequately address. DNFSB continues to report major deficiencies at the Plutonium Facility with regard to possible seismic accidents. The Board stated that LANL's planned seismic upgrades rely inappropriately on safety systems that will not be implemented for many years and are not sufficient to adequately address the potential seismic accident scenarios.

Funding for the new Kansas City Plant will be omitted from the budget due to an accounting gimmick. In 2010 DOE plans to break ground on a new privately financed weapons production facility for non-nuclear components of nuclear warheads. This unneeded facility will cost taxpayers at least $1.2 billion in off-budget lease payments over the next 20 years.

Funding for nuclear weapons cleanup will be insufficient to meet legally required environmental obligations. Despite receiving $6 billion in ARRA funding, the Environmental Management program is still decades behind in meeting its obligations and billions of dollars short of the estimated $200 billion needed.

Will the Environmental Management (EM) budget request contain performance metrics for base funding and ARRA money? Performance metrics for base funding have been previously included in the annual budget request. The ARRA funds and performance metrics should also be included for the new request so that Congress and the public can understand the required funding and performance metrics for all of EM’s work. This is consistent with the transparency and accountability commitments made by the Obama Administration.

Hanford High-Level Waste Tanks are still leaking and under funded. DOE is seeking to extend the deadlines for emptying Hanford's Single Shell Tanks by 22 years to the year 2040. DOE claims that retrieval of these wastes is a top priority, yet is not matching rhetoric with funding to complete the task earlier.

With Yucca Mountain declared “dead”, will funding be terminated? President Obama has promised to terminate Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste. White House Budget Director, Peter Orszag proposed cutting $46 million from Yucca funding, Energy Secretary Chu wrote back opposing this cut. DOE continues to push for R&D into reprocessing of commercial reactor fuel, a process that poses a proliferation risk as it would separate plutonium and magnifies the nuclear waste problem with numerous new liquid and solid waste streams.

Local Contacts
Beatrice Brailsford, Program Director, Snake River Alliance, Pocatello, ID - (208) 233-7212

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director, Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM - (505) 989-7342

Don Hancock, Nuclear Waste Program Director, SW Research & Information Center
Albuquerque, NM - (505) 262-1862

Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment
Livermore, CA – (925) 443-7148

Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator, Friends of the Earth
Columbia, SC (803) 834-3084

Ralph Hutchison, Coordinator, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
Oak Ridge, TN (865) 776-5050
Resources

Public Comments


ANA's statement to the Blue Ribbon Commission at their Denver meeting in September 2011


ANA's comment on the April 2011 Department of Energy Greater than Class C Waste Draft Environmental Impact Statement.


FACT SHEETS

2011 ANA fact sheet on Nuclear reactors and Waste


Greater Than Class C Waste Fact Sheet from the Snake River Alliance


Department of Energy
Environmental Cleanup:�
Underfunded and Inadequate  2007


Yucca Mountain:
Not the Solution to Nuclear Waste  2007


Spent Fuel Reprocessing and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership


ANA Water Report: 


DANGER LURKS BELOW
The Threat to Major Water Supplies from US Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Plants


GTCC Resources
The Department of Energy is seeking comments to determine the scope of the planned Environmental Impact Statement dealing with the "Disposal of Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste." 

Watch this space and this page for resources helpful in composing your own comments.


© 2012 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability   |  Citadel Hosting  |  Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement