 |
|
|
| | | published Monday, November 17, 2008 | 53 Views :: 0 Comments |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
For more information contact: Rachel Larson, cell 971.533.5380, office 503.274.2720 email: Rachel@oregon psr.org
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility 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.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, November 17, 2008 | 53 Views :: 0 Comments |
The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) objects to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)’s support for reprocessing of high level radioactive waste. As stated in the draft PEIS, GNEP intends to provide nuclear power that is safe, secure and economical while “reducing the impacts associated with spent nuclear fuel disposal and reducing proliferation risks.” ANA, however, finds that the GNEP proposal would actually exacerbate the inherent proliferation, cost, safety, waste, and security risks associated with nuclear power.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, November 17, 2008 | 54 Views :: 0 Comments |
COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel too risky
Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:20 AM
By Bob Alvarez
The
push for new nuclear reactors became a top-tier issue in the
presidential race. Yet one aspect of the debate received little
attention: reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. This issue is especially
relevant to Ohio, where the U.S. Energy Department has considered
locating such a facility near Portsmouth.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Friday, November 14, 2008 | 124 Views :: 0 Comments |
For use in the public comment period on DOE’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Nov.-Dec. 2008
Compiled by Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Watchdog at Beyond Nuclear
For more information: kevin@beyondnuclear.org, www.beyondnuclear.org, (301) 270-2209x1
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, November 10, 2008 | 158 Views :: 0 Comments |
To the Editor:
The Department of Energy (DOE) has released a report recommending that, after a 30 year hiatus, the United States should restart reprocessing of nuclear waste under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The report, titled Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, does not provide any economic or environmental analysis and does not mention the security risks of reprocessing.
The reality is that reprocessing poses a threat to both local communities and to global security. Right now DOE is holding hearings around the country and considering comments from the public on the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). We need to be telling DOE that, instead of pursuing this environmentally destructive, dangerous, and exorbitantly expensive $700 billion program, they should store nuclear waste at reactor sites and safeguard it from terrorist attack.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, November 10, 2008 | 196 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 | 600 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 | 543 Views :: 0 Comments | |
| | | published Wednesday, October 15, 2008 | 588 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 | 550 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.. |
|
|
 |
|