 |
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 Monday, December 19, 2011 | 693 Views :: 0 Comments |
ANA member Tom Carpenter and 2011 whistleblower awardee Dr. Walt Tamosaitis were interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show on December 15th. They discussed problems at the Waste Treatment Plant which is supposed to process millions of gallons of nuclear waste currently leaking underground in Washington State.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, December 19, 2011 | 633 Views :: 0 Comments |
December 17, 2011
From the Associated Press
The compromise budget bill approved by the U.S. House on Friday slashes funding for and prohibits any site preparation work on a controversial new $6 billion nuclear facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The spending bill appropriates $200 million for the project this fiscal year, $100 million less than the administration had requested. It also notes that “no construction activities are funded for the project this year,” and calls for a new report on the country’s capability for manufacturing “pits,” or the cores that power nuclear weapons.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, December 12, 2011 | 815 Views :: 0 Comments |
The following article discusses the Hanford, WA nuclear waste treatment plant that ANA has long been concerned about. The article examines retaliation against Walt Tamosaitis, a whistleblower who ANA recognized at our 2011 DC Days awards reception. The piece also quotes ANA member, Tom Carpenter, a long-time Hanford watchdog.
December 11, 2011
By Shannon Dininny
From the Associated Press
The federal government says a one-of-a-kind plant that will convert radioactive waste into a stable and storable substance that resembles glass will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more and may take longer to build, adding to a string of delays and skyrocketing price tag for the project.
In addition, several workers at southeast Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation have raised concerns about the safety of the plant's design — and complained they've been retaliated against for voicing their issues.
The turmoil has some in the Pacific Northwest uneasy about the plant's long-term viability and fearful that a frustrated Congress could balk at paying more money for a project long considered the cornerstone of cleanup at the highly contaminated site.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, December 05, 2011 | 743 Views :: 0 Comments |
Dec. 2, 2011
By William Hartung
From the Huffington Post
Your government is slated to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade to purchase, maintain and operate our massive nuclear arsenal. The costs include everything from new nuclear bombers, submarines and bomb factories to the huge but unknown costs of deploying and maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons.
It's an outrage that we are spending this kind of money on these outmoded and unnecessary systems at a time when deficit reduction is the order of the day. It is equally outrageous that our government will not tell us exactly how much we're spending on them -- and may not even be keeping track.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Tuesday, November 22, 2011 | 1275 Views :: 0 Comments |
Region’s Leading Hanford Cleanup Watchdog Group Will Ask for Federal Court to Order Action to Empty Leaky High-Level Nuclear Waste Tanks to Prevent Safety and Environmental Disaster
For Immediate Release Nov. 21, 2011 Contact: Gerry Pollet, JD; Executive Director (206)382-1014 / cell: (206)819-9015 The US Department of Energy (USDOE) informed Washington State today that it is not able to meet the court approved schedule it agreed to in October, 2010 for building the massive plant to turn liquid High-Level Nuclear Waste in leaky tanks at Hanford into a glass, referred to as the Vitrification Plant. Heart of America Northwest, the region’s leading Hanford Clean-Up watchdog group had objected to the highly publicized court settlement in 2010 between the USDOE and State, under which the USDOE was allowed to take an extra 22 years – to the year 2040 - to empty massive leaky, decades old, Single Shell Tanks of High Level Nuclear Waste in exchange for what USDOE and Washington State said would be a court enforceable schedule to build the Vitrification Plant.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Friday, November 18, 2011 | 805 Views :: 0 Comments |
Nov 18, 2011
By John Fleck
From the Albuquerque Journal
Members of a federal safety panel meeting in Santa Fe on Thursday expressed impatience with federal efforts to reduce nuclear safety risks at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
“We’re a little frustrated,” said Peter Winokur, chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Winokur’s comments came during a public hearing at the convention center probing nuclear safety at the lab’s current facilities, emergency preparedness and plans for new buildings at the nuclear weapons design and manufacturing center.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, November 17, 2011 | 591 Views :: 0 Comments |
Nov 17, 2011
By John FleckFrom the Albuquerque Journal
Seismic upgrades to the building at Los Alamos National Laboratory used for plutonium manufacturing could cost $150 million to $300 million and take until 2020 to complete.
The spending and timeline was included in a September report from the lab’s federal managers to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which will gather today in Santa Fe for a lengthy hearing on safety at the nuclear weapons lab.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, November 16, 2011 | 708 Views :: 0 Comments |
The following article discusses the MOX plutonium fuel program, which ANA opposes. Touching on several of the problems with the program, the Reporter quotes two ANA members, Tom Clements and Jay Coghlan.
Nov. 16, 2011
By Wren Abbott
From the Santa Fe Reporter
Los Alamos National Laboratory is doubling down on a project that helps create a controversial, highly reactive new fuel used in nuclear power plants. Beginning next year, LANL will create twice as much plutonium oxide, an essential component of mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel, which combines uranium and plutonium.
MOX fuel is believed to have amplified the effects of the recent nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Sunday, November 13, 2011 | 638 Views :: 0 Comments |
Nov 13, 2011From the Albuquerque Journal
LOS ALAMOS – From the fourth floor of the newest building on Los Alamos National Laboratory’s plutonium row, geophysicist Terry Wallace can see the Pajarito Fault three miles away.
The fault’s forested stair step, created in a series of earthquakes over the past million years, defines the base of the mountains rising to the west. It has also come to play a defining role in discussions of the major buildings along Pajarito Road, home to the lab’s main nuclear facilities. To the north, the lab’s Plutonium Facility is in the midst of a major retrofit because of concerns about earthquake safety. The work will not be done until 2020.
Up the road, lab officials are struggling to move out as quickly as they can from the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building, an old nuclear lab not designed to modern earthquake standards. Below Wallace’s vantage point is the site of what lab officials hope will become, in the next decade, a major new plutonium lab.
Questions about earthquake safety surround all of the projects.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, November 09, 2011 | 706 Views :: 0 Comments |
This article, which exposes the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's inability to meet it's performance milestones - and new strategy of simply doing away with performance metrics - features quotes and research from ANA's member group the Southwest Research and Information Center.
Oct 11, 2011
By John Fleck From the Albuquerque Journal
Cutting the federal budget seems all the rage in political circles these days.
The problem, as is becoming increasingly obvious, is that all that money is currently going to someone. Those people very much seem to want to continue to receive it or, if possible, get more.
As an example, consider the tug of war over money the Department of Energy is spending in southeastern New Mexico to dispose of its backlog of radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant outside Carlsbad.
Congressional budget cutters have proposed modest spending reductions. The project’s defenders have gone into hyperdrive.
|
| read more.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOX Facts |
|
|
|
|
- The MOX program's $9.7 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 |
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
| | |
|