21 May 2012 Register   Login
Plutonium Fuel (MOX)
Budgetary Concerns

ANA's Nuclear Reality Check$ report on the Department of Energy budget

Environmental Concerns

The strontium-90 plume of reprocessing waste at Hanford, WA
ANA's 2011 Environmental issues
fact sheet.


 


Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel (MOX)
Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel (MOX) is composed of uranium dioxide and plutonium dioxide powders which are mixed inside of fuel pellets.  Because plutonium releases more radioactivity than uranium, this mixed fuel is more difficult to control inside of reactors and requires more safeguards than traditional uranium reactor fuel. In 2008 MOX fuel rods being tested by Duke Energy started warping and Duke withdrew from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s testing agreement.

The additional risks posed by MOX plutonium fuel, along with renewed global skepticism about nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, have resulted in the world-wide decline of the MOX industry. Japan has cancelled all of its orders for MOX plutonium fuel and the UK has recently closed its MOX plant in Sellafield due to a lack of customers. With no willing customers, the Department of Energy is pressuring the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to use MOX plutonium fuel. Some of the reactors that TVA is considering for MOX have the same Mark I exploding design that failed in Fukushima.

The US MOX program results from the 1998 Agreement on the Management and Disposition of Plutonium with Russia. This agreement designates 54 metric tons of surplus weapons grade plutonium for “immobilization” through irradiation as MOX fuel. Most of this plutonium comes from dismantled warheads. Although MOX is funded as a nonproliferation program, it actually increases proliferation risks in two ways:
  • By transporting dangerous plutonium oxide powder from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico where the US is currently processing its weapons plutonium to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina where MOX fuel assemblies will be manufactured.
  • Encouraging commercial markets for plutonium as reactor fuel.

Today, the Russians have changed their minds about what they will do with their MOX fuel and plan to use it in “breeder reactors” which actually generate more plutonium – hardly a nonproliferation advance. Adding salt to this wounded program is its cost; ballooning from an original estimate of $1.6 billion to $9.7 billion today.


Reprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel / Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
What is Reprocessing?

Reprocessing refers to the chemical separation of fissionable uranium and plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. The World War II-era Manhattan Project developed reprocessing technology in the effort to build the first atomic bomb. With the development of commercial nuclear power after the war, reprocessing was considered necessary because of a perceived scarcity of uranium. Breeder reactor technology, which transmutes non-fissionable uranium into fissionable plutonium and thus produces more fuel than consumed, was envisioned as a promising solution to extending the nuclear fuel supply. Commercial reprocessing attempts, however, encountered technical, economic, and regulatory problems. In response to concern that reprocessing contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, President Carter terminated federal support for commercial reprocessing. Reprocessing for defense purposes continued, however, until the Soviet Union’s collapse brought an end to the Cold War and the production of nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy’s latest initiative to promote new reactor technology using “proliferation-resistant” reprocessed fuel raises significant funding and policy issues for Congress.

Source: "Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development," Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 2008.

What is wrong with GNEP? (Click on each to learn more)

-Reprocessing is exorbitantly costly

-Reprocessing generates toxic waste and does nothing to solve the problem of nuclear waste


-Reprocessing undermines nuclear nonproliferation efforts


What can you Do?

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Energy (DOE) has drafted a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and is in the middle of a comment period in which you can tell DOE what you think about their plan. You do not have to be an expert. You just need to care about the future of your community and country. Check back on this page to see information on upcoming hearings in or near your community.


Blue Ribbon Nuclear Waste Commission Fails to Chart Safe, Publicly Acceptable Nuclear Waste Plan
published Thursday, February 02, 2012  1274 Views :: 0 Comments

for immediate release: Thursday, January 26, 2012

for further information, contact:
Bob Schaeffer: 239-395-6773
Katherine Fuchs: 202-544-0217, ext. 2503
local contacts listed at end of advisory

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future report released today received mixed reviews from groups that monitor sites where large quantities of radioactive waste are stored. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) said major flaws in the report include the Commission’s “failure to advocate prompt removal of commercial spent fuel from reactor cooling pools with placement in hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) to safeguard commercial spent fuel at nuclear power plants.” ANA and hundreds of community groups had told the Commission that HOSS could protect the heavily reactive material for the decades needed to develop a scientifically sound and publicly acceptable waste disposal program.
 
 “The Commission’s decision to support consolidated interim storage at the expense of HOSS continues decades of policy failure in this area,” explained ANA Director Susan Gordon. “The reality, which the Commission recognizes and the nuclear industry is pursuing, is that reactor sites must store their spent fuel for decades. Instead of pursuing centralized facilities, on-site storage should be improved to protect public health and the environment. Centralized storage would leave thousands of tons of waste at operating power plants. It would also create even more storage sites and endanger millions living along transportation routes.  At the same time, it would increase the risk that consolidated fuel will be reprocessed.”
 
ANA Program Director Katherine Fuchs continued, “Just as power plants must safely store their spent fuel, Department of Energy facilities must safely store high-level waste. The recommendation to send those dangerous materials  to a non-existent disposal site ignores the fact that those wastes are not ready for transportation.  Funds should be spent to solidify those wastes and provide robust storage.”
 
“We are disappointed in some Commission recommendations. We are not surprised, however, since none of the commissioners represent communities downstream or downwind of major nuclear weapons sites or nuclear power plants.  No one on the commission has even worked with such groups, as we have pointed out since the Commission was formed,” said Don Hancock, Director of Southwest Research and Information Center’s Nuclear Waste Safety Program.
 
ANA does support the Commission’s recommendation not to pursue commercial waste reprocessing. “The Commission understands that reprocessing is prohibitively expensive, creates new waste streams, and poses a nuclear proliferation risk” said ANA’s Nonproliferation Policy Director Tom Clements. “In these austere times, we shouldn’t even invest in reprocessing research. In these austere times, the government shouldn't even invest in reprocessing research. Instead it must focus on safer and more secure storage of spent fuel at existing waste storage facilities.”
 
The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) is a 25 year old national network of three-dozen grassroots and national groups representing the concerns of communities near U.S. nuclear weapons sites that are directly affected by 65 years of nuclear weapons production and waste generation. 
 
Local Contacts:
 
Susan Gordon, ANA Director (NM): 505-577-8438
Tom Clements, ANA Nonproliferation Policy Director (SC): 803-240-7268
Don Hancock, Southwest Research and Information Center Nuclear Waste Safety Program Director, (NM): 505-262-1862
Beatrice Brailsford, Snake River Alliance Program Director (ID):208-233-7212


Rate this Article  

MOX Facts
  • The MOX program's $12 billion+ cost puts real nonproliferation programs at risk.
  • There are no US customers for MOX plutonium fuel - it's a project with no purpose.
  • Russia isn't holding up its end of the bargain, their program will create more plutonium.

ANA's March 2012 comments to the Department of Energy regarding their plans to dispose of plutonium via the MOX program.

Ploughshares Fund fact sheet on cutting MOX out of the budget.

Issue brief on MOX from Friends of the Earth.

Letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding MOX fuel testing

Institute for Energy & Environmental Research's Science for Democratic Action issue on MOX

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article on MOX vs. other plutonium disposal methods.

Freedom of Information Act Documents
Response from the National Nuclear Security Administration regarding ANA's FOIA request for the Feb. 15, 2012 Congressionally mandated report on the MOX program.

Impact Study on the use of MOX fuel at Browns Ferry and Sequoyah nuclear power plants

Summary of 2009 TVA meeting: discussing MOX in Tennessee Valley Authority (AL) and Energy Northwest (WA) reactors.

MOX FOIA dump #1:
  • Report No. EN-MOX-002, Oct. 2009
  • MOX Loading Procedures in Europe, Energy Northwest Comments
  • Major Steps during FUel Receipt
  • Energy Northwest MOX Summary, Aug. 2009
  • MOX Fuel Board Presentation, Jun. 2009
  • Report No. EN-MOX-001, May 2009
  • MOX Fuel Long term & Near Term Focus Presentation, May 2009
  • MOX Status Presentation, April 2009
  • Memorandum of Understanding between the Tennessee Valley Authority and Energy Northwest for Advanced Fuel Cycle Demonstration, Mar. 2009

MOX FOIA dump #2:
  • Energy Northwest Request for Public Records Form including delegation letter from JL Lewis to S Gambhir (2pgs)
  • Energy Northwest Public Records Request Act Privilege Log Request Control Number (8pgs)
  • 31 emails dating from April 2009-January 2010 (86pgs)
  • "Request for Proposal in Support of Paragon Fuels Response to DOE RFP DE-RP02-98CH10888 for Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication and Reactor Irradiation Services" letter from JW Baker to Kathleen A. Wehlan. (29pgs)
  • "Questions for BPA" (4pgs)
  • "The Use of MOX Fuel" (3pgs)
  • MOX Fuel OVerview Presentation (7pgs)
  • Draft Results from FY11-20 Strategic Planning Session (8pgs)

Reprocessing Resources
Blue Ribbon Commission final report, including recommendations on reprocessing.

ANA comments from the New Mexico scoping hearing for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding surplus plutonium disposition.

ANA comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding proposed rulemaking on reprocessing


© 2012 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability   |  Citadel Hosting  |  Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement