 |
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 Tuesday, February 17, 2009 | 5504 Views :: 1 Comments | |  |
What happens to the U.S. arsenal if we don’t do life extensions?
Practically speaking, essentially nothing. DOE has never identified an
uncorrectable aging issue in the nuclear arsenal that would compromise
the ability of weapons to “function as designed.” Eventually,
surveillance may discover an aging anomaly that would call a warhead ’s
reliability into question. By then, the U.S. should be retiring
warheads as it meets its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.
In contrast, DOE asserts the only viable alternative to life extension
for current warheads is building new bombs—the Reliable Replacement
Warheads. Whether by LEP or the RRW
program, planning for maintenance of a modernized nuclear arsenal for
many decades to come is contrary to our Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) disarmament obligation.
-From ANA's 2008 DC Days Fact Sheet
|
| Comments |
by wedding on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 | |
<a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggown.com/">wholesale wedding gowns</a>
<p>
<a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggown.com/">wholesale wedding gown</a> </p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggown.com/">wholesale wedding dresses</a></p>
|
|
Click here to post a comment |
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
| | |
|