 |
|
|
| | | published Monday, November 10, 2008 | 581 Views :: 0 Comments |
11/3/2008
Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Energy
1000 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20585
The.secretary@hq.doe.gov
Dear Secretary Bodman,
On behalf of our members, the undersigned 48 local and national environmental, peace and security, taxpayer and public health organizations, we request a 120-day extension to the comment period for the Draft Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) currently scheduled to end on December 16, 2008, before the final PEIS is released.
We believe this extension is warranted because (1) Department of Energy (DOE) failed to provide analysis of nonproliferation impacts within the draft PEIS even though DOE had indicated that this important assessment would be made available in conjunction with the PEIS, (2) online accessibility to reference materials cited in the draft PEIS was delayed by more than a week, and is still not available for many documents, (3) the proposal is technically complex with national implications, and (4) the comment period coincides with the upcoming Presidential elections, and holidays, which may make it more difficult for the public to review and comment on the draft PEIS.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, October 16, 2008 | 1026 Views :: 1 Comments |
The Department of Energyís (DOE) proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a program to restart nuclear waste reprocessing in the United States, poses a threat to local communities and to global security. Instead of pursuing this environmentally destructive, dangerous, and exorbitantly expensive GNEP program, DOE should store nuclear waste at reactor sites and safeguard it from terrorist attack.
The analysis provided in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is appallingly inadequate. Despite its legal mandate to analyze the full socio-economic and environmental impacts of GNEP, this document this PEIS does not include a complete life cycle cost analysis, fully addressing environmental or nonproliferation impacts. Furthermore, it inadequately addresses the full extent of health impacts from reprocessing.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, October 16, 2008 | 904 Views :: 0 Comments | |
| | | published Wednesday, October 15, 2008 | 977 Views :: 0 Comments |
Press Release Template for Organizations to use regarding Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
____________________ opposes the reprocessing of nuclear waste under the Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), as recommended by the recent Department of Energy (DOE) report, entitled Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [PEIS] for Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Download Document in Word: GNEP Template for Press Release.doc
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, October 08, 2008 | 805 Views :: 0 Comments |
Separating plutonium under GNEP would increase the production and stockpiles of nuclear weapons usable materials. Spent fuel that has not been reprocessed is considered “self protecting” because it is highly radioactive. Separated plutonium is a fine powder, and approximately 18 lbs. are required to make a bomb.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, October 08, 2008 | 929 Views :: 0 Comments |
Reprocessing has already failed in the United States: West Valley, New York is the site of the only commercial reprocessing plant that operated in the United States. From 1966 to 1972, West Valley ran at 18% capacity and accumulated 600,000 gallons of high-level waste onsite. The cleanup of West Valley will cost more than $5 billion.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, October 08, 2008 | 1074 Views :: 0 Comments |
Although the Department of Energy (DOE) has not provided a life-cycle cost estimate for GNEP, the National Academy of Sciences estimated in 1996 that a reprocessing project like GNEP could cost more than $500 billion. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that "Reprocessing of U.S. spent fuel would cost 25 percent more than plans for direct disposal" in a permanent repository. Under the current plan for GNEP, the taxpayer and rate-payers, not the nuclear power industry, would bear this cost.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, October 08, 2008 | 903 Views :: 1 Comments |
What is a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement?
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposal
document is a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Under
NEPA, DOE is required to analyze the environmental and socio economic
impacts of any proposed actions. The NEPA processes allows for public
participation, by including two public comment periods.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, September 25, 2008 | 527 Views :: 0 Comments |
On September 13th, Mycle Schneider, International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy, gave a fascinating presentation on the Status and Trends of the World Nuclear Industry. To see Mycle's text analysis published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, click here. To see Mycle's powerpoint presentation
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Saturday, April 12, 2008 | 0 Views :: 0 Comments |
The Department of Energy (DOE) has asked Congress for $302 million in fiscal year 2009 for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which it also calls the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). GNEP is a Bush Administration scheme to revive the dangerous practice of reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel. GNEP would endanger the environment, encourage nuclear bomb-making, squander U.S. taxpayer dollars, and deepen the nuclear waste problem.
Download PDF: ANA GNEP final.pdf
|
| read more.. |
|
|
 |
|