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.


Talk on Thursday focuses on plutonium reprocessing
published Tuesday, August 11, 2009  5690 Views :: 26 Comments
August 11, 2009

By ROGER SNODGRASS, Monitor Editor

There are currently several nails in the coffin of a nuclear policy that has
strongly favored commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium. Ivan
Oelrich wants to make sure it doesn’t pop open again.

A recurring idea in the political tug-of-war between proponents and
opponents of nuclear energy, nuclear reprocessing is intended to achieving a
plutonium fuel cycle, and thereby provide a plentiful supply of nuclear fuel
and a more easily-stored waste product.

Oelrich is the Acting President of the Federation of American Scientists
(FAS). He will be speaking Thursday at a public meeting of the Los Alamos
Committee on Arms Control and International Security.

In a recent telephone interview, Oelrich said that during the Bush
administration, the president pushed the reprocessing idea, changing the
name to plutonium “recycling,” but Congress gradually withdrew support.

“DOE wasn’t able to convince the Congress that they had a credible story,”
said Oelrich

In the Obama administration, on the other hand, some members of Congress
have become interested in reprocessing again, while the president is likely
to remain opposed.

“I’m not willing to say it’s a bad idea, but it is a bad idea for the next
50 years or so,” Oelrich said.

“At the Federation of American Scientists, we’re not for or against nuclear
power, as long as it is safe and economical and there is a waste solution,”
he said. “We do believe that you have to solve the proliferation issue,
however.”

Oelrich said current reactors are not designed for and don’t efficiently use
up the plutonium.

“There is plenty of uranium that we can store above ground din dry casks,”
he said. “If you are going to build breeder reactors, it would be better to
wait to use that spent fuel in an efficient system. It will be easier and
cooler, cheaper to process and less dangerous.”

Many proponents point to the French experience as a model, but Oelrich said
the French are building up huge stocks of plutonium that they don’t have a
way to use.

“They have 80 tons of separated plutonium stored in vaults above the
ground,” he said. The British have 100 tons.”

The Obama administration has now shifted the program more fully into a
research project. The Bush Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP,
enrolled a number of members in an organization of nuclear power states that
would rely upon the United States to supply the fuel for an advanced fleet
of reactors.

Asked about the implications of the change for the foreign partners who
signed on to the plan, a Department of Energy spokesperson emailed a
prepared reply.

“The Department of Energy has restructured its fuel cycle R&D efforts to
focus on long-term, science-based R&D of advanced, proliferation-resistant
nuclear fuel cycle and waste management technologies,” wrote Jen Stutsman,
DOE deputy press secretary. “The Department’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
will not be pursuing near-term commercial demonstration projects, which were
the focus of the domestic component of GNEP under the previous
administration.

She added. “The FY2010 budget request includes $192 million for a Fuel
Cycle R&D program that is focused on this long-term, science-based research
and development that could help meet non-proliferation and climate goals and
maintain the country’s national nuclear energy infrastructure.

“The Department is continuing to consider options for advancing the
Administration’s nonproliferation and energy priorities through its
participation in the international activities of the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP).”

“I understand there are a lot of people who know a lot about this (at Los
Alamos),” Oelrich said.

Oelrich has spoken on this subject on the Hill.

“I’ve talked on this many times,” he said. “I don’t have a set speech, but I
specialize the talk for the audience.

Oelrich will speak at 7 p.m Thursday in Graves Hall, United Church, 2525
Canyon Rd.

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