For Immediate Release: January 12, 2012

Contact:  Tom Clements, Columbia, SC, 803-834-3084

KatherineFuchs, Washington, 202-544-0217

 

Washington, DC – Under growingbudgetary stress, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it is amendinga troubled program to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium[i].  DOE aims to eliminate a costly new facility fordisassembling plutonium cores (pits) from nuclear bombs and is considering processingthe pits in existing facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in SouthCarolina and the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. 

Facing a host of hurdles, DOE aims to turn the separated plutonium into controversial new mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel (MOX) for use in unnamed nuclear power reactors.  Today’s notice reveals that DOE is widening its search for utilities willing to accept MOX and states that they “will analyze use of MOX fuel in a generic reactor in the United States to provide analysis for any additional future potential utility customers.”  

It is unknown which new utilities DOE is courting but today’s announcement reaffirms the difficulty of persuading utilities to use MOX fuel, which presents a number of technical, cost and proliferation challenges, according to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA).  ANA is a network of 35 local, regional and national organizations representing the concerns of communities in the shadows of the U.S. nuclear weapons sites and radioactive waste dumps and has been tracking the troubled MOX program since its inception.

“Today’s action by DOE revealsthat the MOX program is on shaky technical and financial ground, further justifyingCongressional action to eliminate an unnecessary program that has spiraled outof control,” said Katherine Fuchs, program director at the Alliance for NuclearAccountability in Washington, DC.  “Thetime is ripe for Congress to swing the budget ax at the MOX program trimmingalmost $10 billion of government pork.”

 

DOE also intends to analyze thedisposal of large amounts contaminated non-MOXable plutonium in the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. Already, absent an adequate environmental impact analysis, DOE is pursuingdisposal of up to 500 kilograms of plutonium in WIPP.

Today’s announcement states thatnew environmental analysis – an Amended Supplemental Environmental ImpactStatement - will be prepared on the changes to the plutonium dispositionprogram.  One public hearing is scheduledin New Mexico and public comments will be accepted through March 12.

 

DOE plans to fabricate MOX in a$5-billion facility under construction at SRS, but cost overruns and schedulingsetbacks continue to plague the program. Following Duke Energy’s withdrew fromthe MOX program the DOE has been able to contract another utility.  Reactors owned by the Tennessee ValleyAuthority (TVA) – Browns Ferry and Sequoyah – remain in the DOE’s sights, butTVA has not decided to test or use the problematic fuel.

 

After abandoning efforts tobuild a stand-alone pit disassembly facility, DOE is looking into processing theplutonium for MOX in the aging H-Canyon plant at SRS and at Technical Area-55at Los Alamos.  For the past year, SRSofficials have been fighting to find a mission for H-Canyon, the last remainingreprocessing facility in the DOE complex, as it brings in around $150million/year for the site budget.  ANAcontends that DOE must stop throwing money at DOE sites for expensive dead-endprograms simply because of contractor lobbying .

 

##

 

Read about problems with the MOXprogram in the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s “NUCLEARREALITY CHECK$- The U.S. Department of Energy’s MostDangerous Budget-Busting Projects”

 

http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/high_risk_report.pdf

---

[i] Federal Register, January 12,2012: Second Amended Notice of Intent To Modify the Scope of the

Surplus Plutonium Disposition SupplementalEnvironmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Additional PublicScoping

 

text:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-12/html/2012-445.htm

pdf:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-12/pdf/2012-445.pdf