 |
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 Friday, February 03, 2012 | 94 Views :: 0 Comments |
Tell the Department of Energy not to put nuclear bombs in power plants!
Jan. 3, 2012
The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently accepting public comments on the scope of their upcoming Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) regarding disposing of surplus plutonium. The DOE has already held it's only public hearing for this SPEIS, but you can still make a comment until March 12th, 2012. Read the comment that ANA submitted at this hearing here.
Submit your own comment!
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Friday, February 03, 2012 | 101 Views :: 0 Comments |
The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, in collaboration with our allies at the Ploughshares Fund, the Arms Control Association, and the Union of Concerned Scientists present two new fact sheets on nuclear weapons funding.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, February 02, 2012 | 164 Views :: 0 Comments |
for immediate release: Thursday, January 26, 2012
for further information, contact: Bob Schaeffer: 239-395-6773 Katherine Fuchs: 202-544-0217, ext. 2503 local contacts listed at end of advisory
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future report released today received mixed reviews from groups that monitor sites where large quantities of radioactive waste are stored. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) said major flaws in the report include the Commission’s “failure to advocate prompt removal of commercial spent fuel from reactor cooling pools with placement in hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) to safeguard commercial spent fuel at nuclear power plants.” ANA and hundreds of community groups had told the Commission that HOSS could protect the heavily reactive material for the decades needed to develop a scientifically sound and publicly acceptable waste disposal program.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Tuesday, January 31, 2012 | 133 Views :: 0 Comments |
January 29, 2012 By LeRoy Moore and Robert Del Tredici
Whether to build the Jefferson Parkway or to turn Rocky Flats into a playground, the determining factor should not be commercial or residential development. The determining factor should be hot particles of plutonium.
A hot particle of plutonium is one that can lodge in air sacs of a lung or be moved via blood elsewhere in the organism. Wherever it resides in the body it irradiates surrounding tissue. A single particle of plutonium can damage more than 10,000 cells within its range.
Nobel chemist Glenn Seaborg, who discovered plutonium in 1941, called it "fiendishly toxic, even in small amounts." Physicist Jeremy Bernstein recently declared plutonium "the world's most dangerous element."
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, January 23, 2012 | 272 Views :: 0 Comments |
January 20, 2012
By Todd Jacobson From the Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor
With less than a month remaining before the Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget release, Los Alamos National Laboratory officials are bracing for what is expected to be a massive cut to its biggest project: the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility. The multi-billion-dollar project that will replace the lab’s aging Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility has come under fire in recent months, both from Congress and from government watchdog groups like the Project on Government Oversight and the Los Alamos Study Group. Although lab and NNSA officials haven’t said anything publicly about the project, lab officials are privately expecting the worst when it comes to funding for the project, which is estimated to cost between $3.7 and $5.8 billion. “We’re not expecting funding for CMRR,” one official told NW&M Monitor. “Right now, we’re planning to go without.”
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, January 23, 2012 | 188 Views :: 0 Comments |
The following article tracks changing plans for constructing the Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Plant at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The article quotes ANA's Nonproliferation Policy Director Tom Clements commenting on the projects ballooning budget.
January 22, 2012
By Rob Pavey
From the Augusta Chronicle
The government’s $4.8 billion quest to rid itself of tons of high-grade plutonium from old nuclear bombs is veering in new directions this year.
The broad plan is to build a mammoth mixed oxide, or “MOX” plant at Savannah River Site, where the material will be rendered forever unusable in weapons by blending it into commercial nuclear reactor fuel.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, January 23, 2012 | 191 Views :: 0 Comments |
The following infographic was developed by the Project on Government Oversight to illustrate how many nuclear weapons and plutonium pits (the nuclear core of atomic weapons) currently our government currently holds in reserve. With so many nuclear components sitting in storage - why do we need to invest billions in producing more?
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, January 23, 2012 | 107 Views :: 0 Comments |
January 19, 2012
By The Associated Press
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho — An accident at the Idaho National Laboratory that exposed 16 employees to plutonium radiation could have been prevented, according to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Inadequate safety measures and ineffective training contributed to the November contamination and lab officials missed several opportunities to make changes, states a report released Wednesday by the Energy Department’s Office of Health, Safety and Security.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, January 23, 2012 | 255 Views :: 0 Comments |
The following feature explores problems at the Washington State nuclear Waste Treatment Plant and quotes ANA member Tom Carpenter. ANA has been tracking progress at the Waste Treatment Plant or decades and recognized whistleblower Walt Tamosaitis at our 2011 DC Days awards reception.
January 17, 2012
By H. Darr Beiser
From the USA TODAY
HANFORD SITE, Wash. – Seven decades after scientists came here during World War II to create plutonium for the first atomic bomb, a new generation is struggling with an even more daunting task: cleaning up the radioactive mess.
The U.S. government is building a treatment plant to stabilize and contain 56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal. A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest. The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted.
And the project is not going well.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, January 12, 2012 | 721 Views :: 2 Comments |
Under Growing Financial Pressure, DOE Revises Plutonium Disposition Program
For Immediate Release: January 12, 2012
Contact: Tom Clements, Columbia, SC, 803-834-3084 KatherineFuchs, Washington, 202-544-0217 Washington, DC – Under growingbudgetary stress, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it is amendinga troubled program to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium[i]. DOE aims to eliminate a costly new facility fordisassembling plutonium cores (pits) from nuclear bombs and is considering processingthe pits in existing facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in SouthCarolina and the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico.
Facing a host of hurdles, DOE aims to turn the separated plutonium into controversial new mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel (MOX) for use in unnamed nuclear power reactors. Today’s notice reveals that DOE is widening its search for utilities willing to accept MOX and states that they “will analyze use of MOX fuel in a generic reactor in the United States to provide analysis for any additional future potential utility customers.”
|
| 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)
|
|
| | |
|