10 February 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.


Los Alamos Monitor Article on GNEP Hearings
published Friday, November 21, 2008  6952 Views :: 12 Comments
Nuclear partnership debated
By ROGER SNODGRASS

The Department of Energy’s project to support domestic and international
nuclear energy development drew a relatively light response at a public
hearing Thursday.

Five people spoke against and one urged full speed ahead.

Sol Golub of the department’s Office of Nuclear Energy gave an overview of
the history and issues involved in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) and the matter at hand, a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement

There was no participation by Los Alamos National Laboratory or Los Alamos
county officials or local business leaders, as has been the case in recent
nuclear-related hearings. The session was the only GNEP hearing in northern
New Mexico in this phase.

Bill Stratton, a member of the Los Alamos Education Group, urged the
department to get going before the country is so far behind that it runs out
of electricity.

“Stop using the PEIS as a stalking device,” he said “Find a contractor to
design the plant and start doing it on a modest scale. One learns by trying.
I urge DOE to commence these activities,” he said.

Opponents agreed that the project was too expensive — with no estimate of
lifetime costs — and too dangerous in terms of enlarging the sphere of
radioactivity and by potentially proliferating weapons-grade nuclear
materials.

“Reprocessing is the fundamental link between a nuclear reactor and a
plutonium bomb,” said Susan Gordon of the Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability, representing a national network of organizations.

“Irradiated or ‘spent’ fuel is separated into its constituent ingredients
usually using acid. One of the ingredients, plutonium can be used to make
new reactor fuel – or nuclear bombs.”

The summary document for the proposal anticipated certain “areas of
controversy.”

“During the scoping process, concerns were raised relative to nuclear power
in general and the alternatives specifically,” the authors wrote. “DOE
believes that several of these areas remain of concern and reflect differing
points of view or irreducible uncertainties.”

Although the deadline for comments is now set as Dec. 16, Golub said that
date was likely to be extended another 60 days.

This PEIS entered the public arena with a preliminary notice in March 2006
and drew some 14,000 comments during a series of scooping meetings a year
later.

Since then the scope of the document has changed from one that laid out a
vast international program for nuclear services and picked locations for
several large facilities.

The new draft no longer evaluates impacts from the international partnership
component, and looks at “generic” sites rather than specific locations.

Los Alamos National Laboratory, for example, was one place under
consideration the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility, the proposed central
government research center for reprocessing, waste management, safeguards
and separation of the radioactive wastes.

Should the proposal advance, site-specific impact statements would be
required that take into account the selected location and its activities.

That leaves formidable technical questions at the heart of the current
proposal – whether to choose one of the alternative “open fuel cycles” or
one of several “closed fuel cycles.”

The difference between open and closed is that in an open fuel cycle, the
fuel goes “once through” the reactor and what is left goes to a repository.
In the closed cycle, spent fuel from the nuclear reactors is reprocessed for
additional use.

“We recognized in 20-20 hindsight that one proposal to close the fuel cycle
wasn’t sufficient,” Golub said, in discussing the restructured proposal.

There was also additional feedback from the nuclear industry. Four
industrial teams were awarded $34.3 million since September 2007, to provide
design studies and technology roadmaps from the business perspective.

Their consolidated report, Golub said, was about “how to make it
economical.”

Comments should be sent to:

Mr. Frank Schwartz

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Nuclear Energy – NE-5

1000 Independence Ave.

Washington, D.C. 20585

Fax: 866-645-7807

More information including the entire study, reports and documentation is on
the Web: www.gnep.energy.gov
Copyright www.lamonitor.com. All rights reserved.

Rate this Article  
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

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
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