 |
Budgetary Concerns |
|
 |
| | | |
|
Environmental Concerns |
|
|
|
 |
The strontium-90 plume of reprocessing waste at Hanford, WA
|
 |
| | |
|
Nuclear Power Experts |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |
| |
|
|
| | | published Wednesday, May 16, 2012 | 196 Views :: 0 Comments |
In the following op-ed, ANA Director Susan Gordon argues that Rep. Martin Heinrich is not acting in New Mexico's best interest when advocating for funding a new plutonium facility at Los Alamos. Gordon states that what New Mexico really needs is funding to clean up Los Alamos' legacy of radioactive and toxic waste.
May 16, 2012
By Susan Gordon
From the Albuquerque Journal
More than a decade late and 10 times more expensive than originally forecast, the new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement mega-building at the Los Alamos National Laboratory is a textbook example of how Congress misspends the taxpayers’ dollars.
The main mission for the facility originally would have been to support expanded production of plutonium pits – the fissile cores of nuclear weapons. Today, however, the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the nuclear weapons complex, has determined that it does not need the new CMRR.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Tuesday, May 08, 2012 | 167 Views :: 0 Comments |
May 7, 2012
By Rob Pavey From the Augusta Chronicle
The schedule for disposing of plutonium at Savannah River Site’s mixed oxide fuel facility would be extended by two years under a new version of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill released Monday.
The markup released by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon would add two years to schedules that call for the National Nuclear Security Administration to provide detailed reports on the project’s cost and operations timetable, along with key production objectives.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Tuesday, May 01, 2012 | 403 Views :: 1 Comments |
Hanford Challenge Decries Appalling Lack of Oversight, demands
Immediate Stand Down and Complete Investigation
Immediate Release - April 30, 2012 Contact: Tom Carpenter (206) 419-5829 Richland, WA: The Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General released a report today that revealed a disturbing breakdown in Hanford’s quality program that allowed radioactive waste processing vessels to be installed without required documentation proving their integrity. This means that the Department of Energy is unable to prove the safety of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). The IG also found a critical lack of oversight on the DOE’s part, and a failure to collect the repayment of a $15 million assessment against Bechtel, the contractor, when DOE discovered a defective vessel.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, April 30, 2012 | 217 Views :: 0 Comments |
April 30, 2012
By Rob Pavey From the Augusta Chronicle U.S. Senate budget writers followed their House counterparts this week with questions about the rising costs of the mixed oxide fuel plant under construction at Savannah River Site.
In particular, the projected annual cost of operating the facility — after it is completed — has risen from $156 million to $499 million in just two budget years, said a new draft of the 2013 Senate Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department that manages nuclear weapons programs, “has failed to provide a sufficient justification for this increase,” the report said.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, April 30, 2012 | 343 Views :: 0 Comments |
April 28, 2012 By John Severance From the Los Alamos Monitor Apparently, there are plans in the works for an alternative solution to the Chemistry Metallurgy Research Replacement facility, which was deferred for five years by the administration.
So what is Plan B exactly?
The public is not sure yet.
According to the Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor, the NNSA plans to use an existing facility at Los Alamos, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building, as well as Lawrence Livermore’s Superblock Facility and the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada National Security Site, and Los Alamos was expected to analyze several key components of the project during a 60-day study.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, April 30, 2012 | 327 Views :: 0 Comments |
The following article on the undoing of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory extensively quotes Scott Kovac of ANA member group Nuclear Watch New Mexico as he questions Department of Energy representatives on their "plan B" for plutonium management.
April 27, 2012
By John Severance From the Los Alamos Monitor
Sometimes, the show must go on. NNSA has decided to defer the Chemistry Metallurgy Research Replacement facility for at least five years. Activists rejoiced. Those at LANL and NNSA regrouped.
End of story, right?
Not so fast.
As part of a 2005 settlement between the Department of Energy/LANL and a coalition of community groups, a decision was reached to hold semi-annual meetings to discuss CMRR updates.
Wednesday night at Fuller Lodge there was another one of those meetings.
Steve Fong of the Los Alamos Site Office told those in attendance to expect the design deliverables to be completed by the end of the year and that the design was in “closeout mode.”
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, April 26, 2012 | 410 Views :: 0 Comments |
Apr 26, 2012
By John Fleck From the Albuquerque Journal A key group of House Republicans this week signaled their support for the Obama administration’s decision to eliminate funding for a multi-billion dollar new plutonium laboratory at Los Alamos, suggesting the possibility of bipartisan agreement on the controversial move.
Some Republicans in Congress have objected loudly to the administration’s decision to indefinitely defer work on the project. But the committee with jurisdiction over the nuclear weapons budget, in a spending plan made public this week, endorsed the administration’s proposal.
In a report made public late Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the Obama administration’s conclusion that there is currently no need for the multi-billion dollar Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, April 25, 2012 | 319 Views :: 0 Comments |
April 25, 2012
By Rob Pavey
From the Augusta Chronicle
Rising costs at the mixed oxide fuel plant under construction at Savannah River Site could erode funding reserved for other national defense priorities, according to Congressional budget writers.
“Construction continues to slip behind schedule due to unanticipated complexity of the work, poor contractor performance, delays in procurements, and the inclusion of additional work scope,” said a new draft of the 2013 House Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill, posted Wednesday.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, April 16, 2012 | 305 Views :: 0 Comments |
Federal agencies find room to improve in some areas
April 13, 2012
By Rob Pavey From the Augusta Chronicle
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions earned most of its 2011 performance fees, according to the U.S. Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The management contractor for Savannah River Site, which employs 4,978 workers, was eligible for $49.75 million in “performance-based incentives,” and was awarded $44,329,841 from the Energy Department, according to a letter from site manager David C. Moody.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, April 12, 2012 | 520 Views :: 0 Comments |
April 12, 2012
In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by ANA member group Nuclear Watch New Mexico on March 28, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has released the Performance Evaluation Reports for its eight nuclear weapons sites. These reports are the government's scorecard for awarding tens of millions of dollars to nuclear weapons contractors, and were available to the public until 2009. But since that time NNSA has withheld them in a general move toward less contractor accountability.
Click the links below to download the Performance Evaluation Reports for each nuclear weapons site (PDFs) Note: the Sandia National Laboratory report is still undergoing review by the NNSA before it is released.
|
| read more.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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
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)
|
|
| | |
|