You would think that after spending tens of millions of dollars on Environmental Impact Statements and Supplement Analyses that the DOE would be proud of its work. Yet so many documents relating to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) are missing online. This includes the 1996 NTS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the most recent Draft Supplement Analysis, or Draft SA, a document that is drawn up, and reviewed by the public, every five years per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to see if the most recent EIS is still applicable, or adjustments need to be made. They appear to no longer exist online at the website of the DOE/NNSA/NSO (www.nv.doe.gov).*
USEC Inc. has submitted its application for a loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to fund construction of the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio.
DOE invited nuclear energy projects to submit loan guarantee applications on June 30, 2008. The omnibus fiscal year 2008 appropriations act authorized DOE to issue $38.5 billion worth of loan guarantees through the end of fiscal year 2009, with $2 billion for advanced "front-end" nuclear fuel cycle facilities.
Since 2006, GAO has issued 12 reports examining DOE's contract and project management. Two of these reports examined the performance of DOE's largest construction projects-nearly all of which are managed by NNSA or EM-and EM's largest nuclear waste cleanup projects. These reports documented that the cost increases and schedule delays that have occurred for most of these projects have been the result of inconsistent application of project management tools and techniques on the part of both DOE and its
contractors. Specifically, GAO reported in March 2007 that 8 of the 10 major NNSA and EM construction projects that GAO reviewed had exceeded the initial cost estimates for completing these projects-in total, DOE added nearly $14 billion to these initial estimates. GAO also reported that 9 of the 10 major construction projects were behind schedule-in total, DOE added more than 45 years to the initial schedule estimates. In particular, the Waste Treatment Plant project at the Hanford Site had exceeded its original cost estimate by almost $8 billion and experienced schedule delays of over 8 years.
GAO also reported in September 2008 that 9 of the 10 major EM cleanup projects GAO reviewed had experienced cost increases and schedule delays-in total, DOE estimated that it needed an additional $25 billion to $42 billion to complete these cleanup projects over the initial cost estimates and an additional 68 to 111 more years than initially estimated. In addition, GAO has issued a number of other reports over the past 3 years on specific
Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Friends of the Earth environmental organization, the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) recently released color photos of 18-wheeler trucks used to transport weapons grade plutonium, uranium and other nuclear materials over local highways to the Savannah River Nuclear Site for disposal. Prior to the DOE release, the only public image of the trucks and their escort vehicles belonged to Tom Clements, the Southeastern Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the Earth, who snapped a photo of the vehicles leaving the Charleston Naval Weapons Station with plutonium shipments bound of SRS and Duke Energy's Catawba reactor in 2005.
The trucks in the recently released DOE photos are likely the same type as those used in recent plutonium shipments from the Hanford site in Washington State to the Savannah River Site (SRS). The K-Area Material Storage facility at SRS is slated to house approximately 13 metric tons of "non-pit" (never weaponized) plutonium, Allen Gunter, an SRS-based DOE manager, told City Paper in a Jan., 2008 report.
Beyond ecological imperialism
Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT
So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth.
Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries.
The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook.
But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu
Beyond ecological imperialism
Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT
So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth.
Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries.
The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook.
But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu
"The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center, DOE/EIS-0226.
The EIS evaluated the decommissioning and long-term stewardship alternatives at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) and Western New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, N.Y. DOE worked in partnership with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to develop a preferred alternative before issuing the final environmental impact statement.
The action alternatives examined in the EIS included: "
The Department of Energy is proposing that tons of very low-level radioactive soil from a closed plutonium extraction plant in New York be trucked to Tennessee.
The Chestnut Ridge Landfill in Anderson County was the only landfill mentioned as the likely dirt depository during a conference call Thursday organized by DOE.
Some 6,000 cubic yards of soil that contains cesium-137 and detectable levels of strontium-90 and plutonium-239/240 are to be excavated from the New York site starting in mid-October, according to a DOE briefing.
That's the equivalent of some 200 dump truck loads of waste.
The Department of Energy is proposing that tons of very low-level radioactive soil from a closed plutonium extraction plant in New York be trucked to Tennessee.
The Chestnut Ridge Landfill in Anderson County was the only landfill mentioned as the likely dirt depository during a conference call Thursday organized by DOE.
Some 6,000 cubic yards of soil that contains cesium-137 and detectable levels of strontium-90 and plutonium-239/240 are to be excavated from the New York site starting in mid-October, according to a DOE briefing.
That's the equivalent of some 200 dump truck loads of waste.
The U.S. Department of Energy's "Report to Congress on the Demonstration of the Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Decommissioned Nuclear Power Reactor Sites" (DOE/RW-0596, December 2008) concluded that the agency does not have authority under present law to accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage from decommissioned commercial nuclear power reactor sites.
According to a Dec. 10 press release, the report was prepared pursuant to direction in the House Appropriations Committee Report that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 that DOE develop a plan to take custody of spent nuclear fuel currently stored at decommissioned reactor sites.
On Wednesday, January 14, 2009, Secretary Bodman will discuss major DOE achievements over the last four years, energy-related challenges and major opportunities he sees for the future. Additionally, Secretary Bodman will discuss the release of "A Decade of Discovery," which highlights how the DOE National Laboratories have helped develop energy-efficient buildings; new, cleaner alternative fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; safer, more efficient, nuclear power plants; improved responses to disease outbreaks; more secure and streamlined airport security; more effective treatments for cancer and other diseases; and astonishing discoveries that are altering our understanding of the universe and enabling scientific breakthroughs in fields such as nanotechnology and particle physics. Since the founding of the first DOE lab more than 60 years ago, the complex has been associated with the recipients of more than 80 Nobel Prizes.
An additional investment of $6 billion over the next four years at SRS and other DOE cleanup sites could mean 10,000 new jobs.
As part of President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan, billions of dollars could be funneled into the Department of Energy's cleanup program with a view to significantly accelerate the remaining work, according to an internal DOE document.
"These footprint reduction efforts will lower monitoring and maintenance costs enabling (the office of Environmental Management) to focus on critical long-term activities like managing highly radioactive liquid tank waste," documents state. "They will also enable the leveraging of DOE/EM site assets to address national energy and environmental goals through the Energy Parks Initiatives."
Notice of Availability of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center (DOE/EIS-0226-D [Revised]) (referred to as the ``Draft Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS'' or ``Draft EIS''). This Draft EIS revises the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-Term Management of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (DOE/EIS-0226-D) issued for public comment in January 1996 (referred to as the ``1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS'').
Nuclear power generator operators would go straight to the US Department of Energy to seek damages instead of to the courts if the agency does not remove all of the spent fuel from future reactor sites within 10 years after the unit closes, DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said Monday. Sproat told reporters following a nuclear waste symposium in Washington that under a proposed DOE spent fuel disposal contract for new reactors, a utility would receive $5 million a year until all of the spent fuel has been removed from the site. Total damages paid to a utility, Sproat said, would be limited to the total amount the utility has paid into the federal Nuclear Waste Fund for the disposal of spent fuel generated by that unit.
Notice of Availability of Draft Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Availability and Public Hearings.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Draft Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GNEP PEIS, DOE/EIS-0396). The Draft GNEP PEIS provides an analysis of the potential environmental consequences of the reasonable alternatives to support expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production while reducing the risks associated with nuclear proliferation and reducing the impacts associated with spent nuclear fuel disposal (e.g., by reducing the volume, thermal output, and/or radiotoxicity of waste requiring geologic disposal). Based on the GNEP PEIS and other information, DOE could decide to support the demonstration and deployment of changes to the existing commercial nuclear fuel cycle in the United States. Alternatives analyzed include the existing open fuel cycle and various alternative closed and open fuel cycles. In an open (or once-through) fuel cycle, nuclear fuel is used in a power plant one time and the resulting spent nuclear fuel is stored for eventual disposal in a geologic repository. In a closed fuel cycle, spent nuclear fuel would be recycled to recover energy-bearing components for use in new nuclear fuel.
The Department of Energy plans to spend less money in coming months at its environmental cleanup sites including Hanford than was approved by Congress in a continuing budget resolution for spending through early March.
DOE's goal is to be conservative and not overspend in the first five months of the year as the funding amount for the rest of the year still unclear.
DOE will use the administration request for funding in fiscal 2009, which would cut annual spending on DOE cleanup nationwide from a little more than $5.7 billion in the fiscal year 2008 budget to $5.5 billion. The fiscal year started Oct. 1.
At Hanford, the budget for cleanup under the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office would drop from the $886.5 million approved for fiscal 2008 to $851.8 million under the administration's request for fiscal 2009. That's a decrease of $34.7 million.
Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding the Proposed Exemption From Certain Regulatory Requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shana Helton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 492- 3284; fax number: (301) 492-3348; e-mail: shana.helton@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2301, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption to the United States Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office (DOE or applicant), from the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501(c). Section 20.1501(c) requires that dosimeter processors hold current personnel dosimetry accreditation from the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Exemption from this requirement of 10 CFR 20.1501(c) would allow DOE to use the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP) process for personnel dosimetry at Idaho Spent Fuel (ISF) facility independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho.
The Department of Energy needs to improve oversight after a contractor at Hanford was allowed to approve federal funding on behalf of DOE for its own contract, according to an audit by the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General.
The audit also said that in some cases the contractor was allowed to prepare statements of work, which established DOE's requirement for work to be performed under its contract.
The DOE Hanford Office of River Protection, or ORP, already has made some changes after recognizing that oversight of Project Assistance Corp. was weak before the Office of Inspector General began its investigation.
DOE issued a blanket purchase agreement to Project Assistance Corp. in 2003 for project management, risk assessment, program assessment, quality assurance, safety, cost and schedule estimating, budgeting and finance, and engineering.
Annual costs of the contract have increased from $4.7 million in 2005 to $9.2 million in 2008.
The US Department of Energy will issue a "no significant impact" finding on its plan to sell portions of its excess uranium inventory in the US uranium market, DOE's William Szymanski told officials Wednesday at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual fuel cycle conference. The finding stems from an environmental impact statement DOE began work on last year under the Bush administration, as the department surveyed how best to manage 59,000 metric tons of DOE-owned uranium that are now stored in cylinders. The finding soon will be published in the Federal Register, said Szymanski, the director of global nuclear fuel assurance in DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. A statement that then-Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman issued last year states DOE believes it can sell up to 10% of the nation's annual nuclear fuel requirements on the US uranium market and "not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industry." The department still "needs to cross all the 'Ts' and dot all the 'Is'" to ensure that the administration of President Barack Obama will approve such a plan, Szymanski said.
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended AGENCY: Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Employment Standards Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of revision of listing of covered Department of Energy facilities. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is publishing a list of Department of Energy (DOE) facilities covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA). This notice revises the listing of DOE facilities that was included as part of the list of covered facilities last published by DOE on August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51825) to include the determinations made by OWCP on this subject through June 23, 2009.
The U.S. Senate this week confirmed the nominees to fill six high-level positiions at the Dept. of Energy. According to a DOE release, those confirmed included Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman; Under Secretary for Energy Kristina Johnson; Under Secretary for Science Steven Koonin; Scott Blake Harris, general counsel; David Sandalow, asst. secretary for policy and international affairs; and Ines Triay, asst. secretary for environmental management.
In a statement distributed by DOE, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, ".The department has set aggressive goals for creating green jobs, addressing our climate crisis and putting the country on a path to energy independence, and these confirmations are an important step toward reaching those goals."
Here's the background DOE provided on the political appointees:
The Department of Energy (DOE) is accusing its management and operations contractor of "poor management" and said that delays in removing certain legacy waste is undermining its confidence to meet contractual goals.
In a letter from Savannah River Site Manager Jeff Allison, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) was informed Dec. 1 that its seeming inabilities to meet deadlines for the removal of legacy transuranic waste (TRU) from SRS "undermine DOE's confidence in SRNS' ability to achieve DOE's performance expectations for the overall TRU project."
Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR) Manager Allison sent the letter to SRNS President and CEO Garry Flowers, stating that 4,200 cubic meters of legacy TRU must successfully be disposed of by Sept. 30, 2012.
"However, recent performance suggests this expectation may not be realized," Allison wrote. "I find this disconcerting, especially given the past history of success with this project."
The Department of Energy (DOE) is accusing its management and operations contractor of "poor management" and said that delays in removing certain legacy waste is undermining its confidence to meet contractual goals.
In a letter from Savannah River Site Manager Jeff Allison, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) was informed Dec. 1 that its seeming inabilities to meet deadlines for the removal of legacy transuranic waste (TRU) from SRS "undermine DOE's confidence in SRNS' ability to achieve DOE's performance expectations for the overall TRU project."
Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR) Manager Allison sent the letter to SRNS President and CEO Garry Flowers, stating that 4,200 cubic meters of legacy TRU must successfully be disposed of by Sept. 30, 2012.
"However, recent performance suggests this expectation may not be realized," Allison wrote. "I find this disconcerting, especially given the past history of success with this project."
Group items tagged 
