|
Introduction The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the largest nuclear waste dump in the Western Hemisphere and a major Northwest environmental issue. It is a serious long-term threat to the Columbia River, which Oregon depends on for power generation, farm irrigation, fishing, transport and recreation. (more) Mission Our mission is to educate the public on Hanford cleanup issues, and work to increase public participation in the Hanford decision making process. Contact us Web links A Dimly Burning
Wick |
Fatal blow to GNEP? The US Department of Energy is cancelling the wide-ranging environmental analysis of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) project. Its decision follows a change in government policy on commercial reprocessing.
The proposed GNEP program, which was part of President George Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, is intended to support a safe, secure and sustainable expansion of nuclear energy, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, the GNEP program would promote technologies that support economic, sustained production of nuclear-generated electricity, while reducing the impacts associated with used nuclear fuel disposal and reducing proliferation risks. As yet, DoE has no specific proposed actions for the international component of the GNEP program. Rather, the USA, through the GNEP program, is considering various initiatives to work cooperatively with other countries. So far, 25 countries have joined the GNEP partnership.
In a notice published in the Federal Register, the Department of Energy (DoE) said that it had decided to cancel the GNEP programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) because it is no longer pursuing domestic commercial reprocessing, which was the primary focus of the prior administration's domestic GNEP program.
In March 2006, the DoE published an advance notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the GNEP technology demonstration program, soliciting comments on the proposed scope, alternatives and environmental issues to be analyzed. The DoE stated that the technology demonstration program would demonstrate technologies needed to implement a closed nuclear fuel cycle that enables recycling and consumption of used fuel in a proliferation-resistant manner.
The comments that the DoE received included suggestions to prepare an environmental impact statement addressing the entire GNEP program. The DoE agreed and in October 2008 announced the availability of its draft GNEP PEIS. The document provides an analysis of the potential environmental consequences of alternatives to the present US open fuel cycle, in which nuclear fuel is used one time and eventually sent to geologic disposal. DoE's stated preference in the draft was to close the fuel cycle, although it did not identify a specific preferred alternative.
The draft PEIS assessed six programmatic domestic alternatives: no action alternative-existing once-through uranium fuel cycle; fast reactor recycle fuel cycle alternative; thermal/fast reactor recycle fuel cycle alternative; thermal reactor recycle fuel cycle alternative; once-through fuel cycle alternative using thorium; and once-through fuel cycle alternative using heavy water reactors or high temperature gas-cooled reactors.
Although the future of GNEP looks uncertain, with its budget having been cut to zero, the DoE will continue to study proliferation-resistant fuel cycles and waste management strategies. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 provides $145 million for such research and development (R&D). As described in the President Obama's 2010 budget request, the DoE's fuel cycle R&D's focus is on "long-term, science-based R&D of technologies with the potential to produce beneficial changes to the manner in which the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear waste is managed."
In 2007, a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences suggested that the commercial-scale reprocessing facilities envisaged under GNEP were not economically justifiable. |
GNEP hearing comments by Lloyd Marbet My name is Lloyd K. Marbet and I am the Executive Director of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation. On March 26, 2007, I appeared before you, testifying on behalf of Don't Waste Oregon and stated the following:
Upon reading the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, my conclusions have not changed. What we have is a document designed to promote the increased reliance on nuclear power in the most favorable light, free from rigorous comparison "with meeting future electricity demands by non-nuclear means or conservation" (1), while at the same time using nuclear waste reprocessing as justification for exporting nuclear power throughout the world. The issue of non-proliferation is not even addressed, having been separated from the GNEP PEIS and placed in a Nonproliferation Impact Assessment (NPIA) that we are told is being prepared by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and available to be used by the US DOE for its Record of Decision, but only after these public hearings are over. (2) This is highly objectionable considering the need to formulate government policies that actually stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and our right as citizens to provide informed public input on the underlying foundation of these proposals. Yet I forget the forum that I am in, for the controlling factor here is not so much what we have to say but who is in power and how they will manipulate the outcome. It is obvious what the current government administration seeks to do, it is not so obvious whether the next government administration will adopt or reject its legacy. I believe our job as citizens is to bypass this process and go to the source. Our economy is in shambles. Our world is in conflict and the last thing we need to do is spread more nuclear power around. This GNEP EIS isn't reflective of current domestic and world economic conditions, nor does it grasp the seriousness of the crisis we face in the need to immediately reduce global warming gases while at the same time banning the use of nuclear weapons from this planet and protecting ourselves from terrorism. It instead seeks to isolate itself from full accountability while at the same time acting as a fait accompli. We cannot let this happen and we will not stop it here. Our chance, if we have any, is in helping to shape the decisions being made by the new political administration, along with how we individually choose to live our lives. We need to increase the effectiveness of the anti-nuclear movement. We need to join nationally with others in our political lobbying capability. We need to protect ourselves from becoming isolated from each another and help those who also confront this problem. It is not enough to stop this proposal from being implemented at Hanford, we must stop it worldwide. Instead of a Global Nuclear Energy Proliferation Addiction (GNEPA) we need a greening of the planet and we are only going to have that when we create our own environmental impact statement. And it is being done as we speak. In Idaho, Snake River Alliance is bringing Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) to testify, on November 20, before the US Department of Energy in Idaho Falls. Dr. Makhijani has written an important book, "Carbon-free and Nuclear-Free" which you can download for free by going to his website. In a detailed analysis this book demonstrates how we can achieve a Zero-CO2 U.S. economy within 30-50 years without using nuclear and without acquiring carbon credits from other countries. The website also provides the Executive Summary from Dr. Brice Smith's book, "Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change." There are also other important publications that are available on IEER's website and I have brought with me this evening, some written materials from IEER that describe their work. Separate from this I invite you to read Jonathon Schell's excellent new book "The Seventh Decade - The New Shape of Nuclear Danger" and if you are into PowerPoint presentations, The Oregon Conservancy Foundation also has one addressing nuclear power and global warming entitled, "Before Hitting the Ground." Let me end this by saying that I appreciate you all being here and providing your input. If we educate ourselves, we can help educate others and by acting on what we learn become the change we wish to see in the world. Thank you. 1 Draft GNEP PEIS, page 2-31, Section M and page 4-30, Section 4.1.8. 2 See page 1-8, Section 1.2.3. The Oregon Conservancy Foundation |