9 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.


Oak Ridge GNEP Meeting
published Thursday, December 04, 2008  5482 Views :: 4 Comments
By John Huotari | john.huotari@oakridger.com
The Oak Ridger
Posted Dec 03, 2008 @ 11:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — Critics had some harsh words for the U.S. Department of Energy on Tuesday regarding a draft environmental impact statement prepared for a proposed program meant to safely, securely and sustainably expand the use of nuclear energy.

DOE has prepared the statement for what is known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and officials had a public hearing on the program at the New Hope Center at the Y-12 National Security Complex. First proposed by the Bush Administration, GNEP would expand the use of nuclear power as an energy source, both domestically and internationally. Officials say it would also strive to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation and limit the impacts of getting rid of spent nuclear fuel.

But, during a two-hour public comment period during the Tuesday hearing, the critics expressed a variety of concerns with the proposed program and with the environmental impact statement, prepared as part of a process required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

"In 20 years of looking at NEPA, I've never seen anything as pathetic as this -- and I've seen some 'doozies,'" said Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance.

Critics' concerns included a potential increase in the risk of nuclear accidents, the unknown financial costs of implementing GNEP, and possible environmental and health hazards, among other things.

They also wanted to see a nonproliferation impact assessment for the program. Daniel Stout, nuclear fuel recycling director for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, said the nonproliferation assessment is due "any day."

Erik Johnson of Maryville called the GNEP program "irresponsible, dangerous and immoral."

"We need to bury this proposal," he said.

Don Safer, board chairman of the Tennessee Environmental Council, said "it's the height of human arrogance" to inflict radiation on future generations for electricity now.

Several critics advocated for putting money into renewable energy and working to conserve more instead.

Supporters, though, said the use of nuclear power could reduce emissions and should be expanded. Conservation, renewable energy and clean coal ought to be used also, but they need to be supplemented by other sources, including nuclear power, the supporters said.

As electrical demand continues to rise and the nation tries to reduce reliance on foreign energy sources, the United States needs a reliable mix of power-generating facilities, including nuclear, renewable energy, natural gas, and wind and solar power, Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan said.

He said the Oak Ridge City Council has endorsed the GNEP program, and Oak Ridge has been studied as a potential site for a GNEP facility. However, the environmental impact statement, officially known as a draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, or PEIS, does not discuss possible sites for facilities.

The mayor and other local representatives, including Parker Hardy, president of the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, said the city has the expertise, work force and talent to help with GNEP.

"Oak Ridgers believe in nuclear energy," Oak Ridge City Councilwoman Ellen Smith said. "We want to play a role in implementing this technology in the future."

Tony Buhl, president and chief executive officer of EnergX, argued that nuclear power is safe, and Americans need to embrace the total energy portfolio.

"It's really time for all of us to come together," Buhl said. "It's not my way or your way. It's going to have to be our way."

However, even those who seemed generally supportive of GNEP found things they'd like DOE to improve in the PEIS.

The document contains program alternatives for GNEP but does not recommend a preferred alternative. The alternatives are:

• Taking no action, meaning continuing to use existing "once-through" uranium fuel cycles;

• Using open, or once-through, fuel cycles, possibly with thorium fuel, heavy water reactors or high-temperature gas-cooled reactors; or

• Using closed, or recycled, fuel cycles, potentially including thermal reactors, fast reactors or a mixture of the two.

DOE supports closing the fuel cycle.

Stout presented the draft PEIS Tuesday and said GNEP cost analyses could come later, attached to site-specific studies.

He said he was not sure if GNEP will continue under President-elect Barack Obama.

"This is a decision for the next administration," he said.

However, Stout said Obama has emphasized a desire to combat climate change, so nuclear power will probably be part of the nation's future energy portfolio.

An estimated 70 or more people attended Tuesday's hearing, and 18 of them spoke during the public comment period. Those who were more critical of GNEP slightly outnumbered those who were generally supportive.

More information on the draft PEIS, along with copies of the document, is available at www.gnep.energy.gov.

DOE plans to extend the public comment period on the draft PEIS past Dec. 16, although a revised date has not yet been set, Stout said.

A final PEIS, which will include a preferred alternative, could be released in 2009.

John Huotari can be contacted at (865) 220-5533.

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