Group items tagged

The U.S. Forest Service is developing an environmental cleanup plan for the San Mateo Uranium Mine under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The site is located on the Mount Taylor Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest, Cibola County, approximately 12 miles northeast of Grants. * The Forest Service prepared an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to identify and evaluate several cleanup alternatives to address the waste rock piles associated with past uranium mining. The recommended cleanup alternative is to consolidate the waste rock piles and place them in an on-site repository. A geomembrane would be placed above the waste rock in the repository and would be covered with clean soil, re-vegetated, and armored with rock. Rock armoring would reduce the potential for erosion during heavy storm events and reduce the potential risk of exposure to gamma radiation and direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of waste rock. The agency is requesting public input and comments on the EE/CA and the recommended cleanup alternative. The EE/CA and the Administrative Record are available for review at the Southwestern Regional Office in Albuquerque and the Mount Taylor Ranger District Office, 1800 Lobo Canyon Rd., in Grants and also available at the following link: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/cibola/projects/index.shtml.

The U.S. Forest Service is developing an environmental cleanup plan for the San Mateo Uranium Mine under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The site is located on the Mount Taylor Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest, Cibola County, approximately 12 miles northeast of Grants. * The Forest Service prepared an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to identify and evaluate several cleanup alternatives to address the waste rock piles associated with past uranium mining. The recommended cleanup alternative is to consolidate the waste rock piles and place them in an on-site repository. A geomembrane would be placed above the waste rock in the repository and would be covered with clean soil, re-vegetated, and armored with rock. Rock armoring would reduce the potential for erosion during heavy storm events and reduce the potential risk of exposure to gamma radiation and direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of waste rock. The agency is requesting public input and comments on the EE/CA and the recommended cleanup alternative. The EE/CA and the Administrative Record are available for review at the Southwestern Regional Office in Albuquerque and the Mount Taylor Ranger District Office, 1800 Lobo Canyon Rd., in Grants and also available at the following link: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/cibola/projects/index.shtml.

The solution according to members of CAUSE is sustainable energy in these three alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal. CAUSE totally supports other alternative forms of energy generation as stated in the Pembina Institute's Greening the Grid, Powering Alberta's Future with Renewable Energy. The informative piece can be found at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/greeningthegrid-report.pdf. Rather than follow the global agenda, Alberta and Canada have these options in Greening the Grid available to them and can use them in a big way. The question as to why global leaders are turning back the clock to reinvigorate a 50 year-old industry plagued with safety and cost issues is bewildering. They want a quick fix solution as a way to resolve the carbon emissions problem but Schacherl disputes this fact. "Nuclear is not emission free and it is definitely not a 'quick fix solution.' It takes a minimum of 10 years for a nuclear reactor to be approved and built and likely longer." As global leaders pour money into this 50 year-old problem-plagued industry, money needed for research and development for cleaner, safer energy alternatives, will be taken away.

The solution according to members of CAUSE is sustainable energy in these three alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal. CAUSE totally supports other alternative forms of energy generation as stated in the Pembina Institute's Greening the Grid, Powering Alberta's Future with Renewable Energy. The informative piece can be found at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/greeningthegrid-report.pdf. Rather than follow the global agenda, Alberta and Canada have these options in Greening the Grid available to them and can use them in a big way. The question as to why global leaders are turning back the clock to reinvigorate a 50 year-old industry plagued with safety and cost issues is bewildering. They want a quick fix solution as a way to resolve the carbon emissions problem but Schacherl disputes this fact. "Nuclear is not emission free and it is definitely not a 'quick fix solution.' It takes a minimum of 10 years for a nuclear reactor to be approved and built and likely longer." As global leaders pour money into this 50 year-old problem-plagued industry, money needed for research and development for cleaner, safer energy alternatives, will be taken away.

CPS Energy has made two critical errors in their dealings on the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear plant: assuming that nuclear energy will be cheap and that the cost of alternatives is too high. This month, just two days before the San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds to move forward with the STP expansion, CPS announced that the cost estimate for the project had risen as much as $4 billion. That brought the cost of expanding the nuclear power plant to $17 billion - a $12 billion increase from NRG Energy's original estimate just last year of $5.4 billion. Cheaper and safer ways exist to meet the city's need for power. With the bond vote now pushed back until January, the City Council should take the time to get bids on alternative energy scenarios for San Antonio's new electric generation. This input would present the council with the most cost-effective, least risky, most environmentally sustainable plan possible.

CPS Energy has made two critical errors in their dealings on the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear plant: assuming that nuclear energy will be cheap and that the cost of alternatives is too high. This month, just two days before the San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds to move forward with the STP expansion, CPS announced that the cost estimate for the project had risen as much as $4 billion. That brought the cost of expanding the nuclear power plant to $17 billion - a $12 billion increase from NRG Energy's original estimate just last year of $5.4 billion. Cheaper and safer ways exist to meet the city's need for power. With the bond vote now pushed back until January, the City Council should take the time to get bids on alternative energy scenarios for San Antonio's new electric generation. This input would present the council with the most cost-effective, least risky, most environmentally sustainable plan possible.

"An Idaho company is moving closer in its effort to build a nuclear power plant in Payette County. Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. officially filed a rezone application on Tuesday, June 22, asking that 5,000 acres of land near New Plymouth be converted from agriculture to industrial use. In April, Payette County Commissioners unanimously approved a change to their county's comprehensive plan, opening the door for a rezone application. A slate of hearings are expected to attract opponents and proponents of the plant, which Alternate Energy claims will create 5,000 jobs. Dates have yet to be announced, but check back to Citydesk for updates."

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.

NOT one hand was raised in favour of an incinerator at last night's public discussion of an alternative to mass burn. The meeting, chaired by Rodney Brouard, saw about 200 people attend to hear what Baltic Development Group had to offer. The company put forward its method of using steam to treat waste, which separates recyclables and turns the rest into a product that can be used as an alternative to plastic.

Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.

Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

The Department of Energy has dropped a proposal for a less expensive alternative to treating and disposing of some of Hanford's radioactive tank waste. The alternative could have saved as much as $459 million, according to figures in an earlier Government Accountability Office report, but Hanford officials were unable to win the regulatory support of the states of Washington and New Mexico. About $40 million has been spent on the project. Less than two months ago, DOE released a draft environmental impact study that included the less expensive option of sending some of Hanford's tank waste to a federal repository in New Mexico rather than glassifying it at the $12.2 billion vitrification plant being built at Hanford.

The Department of Energy has dropped a proposal for a less expensive alternative to treating and disposing of some of Hanford's radioactive tank waste. The alternative could have saved as much as $459 million, according to figures in an earlier Government Accountability Office report, but Hanford officials were unable to win the regulatory support of the states of Washington and New Mexico. About $40 million has been spent on the project. Less than two months ago, DOE released a draft environmental impact study that included the less expensive option of sending some of Hanford's tank waste to a federal repository in New Mexico rather than glassifying it at the $12.2 billion vitrification plant being built at Hanford.

"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: "

As in the past, the Snake River Alliance opposes Alternate Energy Holdings' latest proposal. Nomad nuclear reactor developer Don Gillispie, chairman and CEO of Eagle-based Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., said Tuesday that he has submitted a comprehensive plan amendment application for development of a nuclear power plant on 5,100 acres in Payette County. "This is a key step to developing an additional nuclear site in Idaho," Gillispie said in a statement. He still has a rezoning application in process in Elmore County. Previously he sought to get approval to site that plant in Owyhee County. He said Idahoans are just learning about the economic benefits a nuclear plant could bring to rural communities.

As in the past, the Snake River Alliance opposes Alternate Energy Holdings' latest proposal. Nomad nuclear reactor developer Don Gillispie, chairman and CEO of Eagle-based Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., said Tuesday that he has submitted a comprehensive plan amendment application for development of a nuclear power plant on 5,100 acres in Payette County. "This is a key step to developing an additional nuclear site in Idaho," Gillispie said in a statement. He still has a rezoning application in process in Elmore County. Previously he sought to get approval to site that plant in Owyhee County. He said Idahoans are just learning about the economic benefits a nuclear plant could bring to rural communities.

"- An organization long critical of Los Alamos National Laboratory's plan for a new nuclear facility says the National Environmental Policy Act needs to be followed before the building can move ahead. The Los Alamos Study Group contends the project is on a larger scale than alternatives analyzed seven years ago and has not been subjected to a NEPA analysis. The watchdog group is sending a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and National Nuclear Security Administration head Tom D'Agostino about their concerns. The group says reasonable alternatives to the project were never analyzed."

"Uranium nitride, a nuclear fuel that might one day offer a more efficient alternative to the uranium and plutonium oxides now used, has been given a boost by research that has illuminated its reactive properties. The threat of climate change and uncertain fossil fuel prices have made nuclear power a tempting option for meeting some of the world's future energy needs. The nuclear industry today uses oxides of uranium and plutonium, but some chemists think they could one day be replaced with uranium nitrides."

During his campaign, Barack Obama lamented our over-reliance on fossil fuels and declared confidently that "the possibilities of renewable energy are limitless." He then called for American investment in "alternative sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and advanced biofuels." To that list -- or maybe instead of it -- William Tucker would add "nuclear power." [Bookshelf] In "Terrestrial Energy," Mr. Tucker argues that nuclear power is the best option realistically available to us to reduce our national dependence on foreign oil and address the nettlesome matter of "greenhouse" gas emissions. About the other alternatives he is skeptical, believing that they will deliver too little energy at too high a cost. Mr. Tucker, a veteran journalist, has been writing about energy and the environment for some 30 years and knows whereof he speaks.

Amergen Energy Company, LLC, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 37 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) has published a draft plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating license DPR-50 for an additional 20 years of operation for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1). TMI-1 is located in Londonderry Township in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on the northern end of Three Mile Island near the eastern shore of the Susquehanna River. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources.

Nuclear power critics cite an ailing U.S. economy as yet another reason to rethink the controversial energy source. "We're in a new world of hurt," said longtime energy insider S. David Freeman. "The economy is shrinking. Take a fresh look. There are other alternatives." Freeman tours Texas newspapers this week to promote energy efficiency and alternative sources - solar, wind and other renewables.

In the midst of renewed global interest in nuclear energy, a long-overlooked nuclear fuel, thorium, is being re-examined as a potential solution to some of the industry's most daunting problems, including disposal of waste. Widely available in the sandy beaches of India, Australia, and the United States, among other places, thorium is a naturally occurring, slightly radioactive element that is being heralded by advocates as a safer alternative to uranium that could help limit the production of nuclear waste and prevent nuclear technology from being used for weapons rather than energy.

The catch: Waste America's realization that it must kick its expensive foreign-oil habit has energized the previously moribund nuclear power industry, which is proudly selling itself as the cheaper, cleaner alternative. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering at least a dozen applications for new power plants, and it expects to receive 23 more applications within two years. Nuclear power should be included in the panoply of preferred alternatives to fossil fuels - along with wind, solar, geothermal, hyrdroelectric energy and anything else that weans the nation from its $700-billion-a-year taste for foreign oil.

Since when is nuclear an "alternative energy source"? Nuclear power has been around for decades. It's second only to coal for electricity production in the United States, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. And yet in its recent public survey, Three Mile Island repeatedly refers to nuclear power as an "alternative energy source."

A proposed third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs won't be needed if Maryland invests in alternative energy sources and reduces consumption, according to a public interest group. "Clean energy can provide Maryland with a more reliable, more affordable supply of electricity," said Johanna Neumann, state director of Maryland Public Interest Research Group, which released a report Thursday making a case for clean energy alternatives.