March, 16 2009, 02:18pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tom Clements, 803-834-3084
Nick Berning, 202-222-0748
DOE's Plans to Use Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Jolted by Duke Energy's Withdrawal From Program
Future of MOX Program Again in Doubt as DOE Now Has No Nuclear Reactors to Use the Controversial Fuel
COLUMBIA, S.C.
The troubled plan by the Department of Energy (DOE) to use nuclear
fuel made from surplus plutonium was recently dealt a grave blow with
the loss of all reactors that had been expected to use the fuel.
Duke Energy Corporation has allowed its contract to use the
controversial mixed oxide fuel (MOX) in four Duke reactors in North and
South Carolina to lapse, throwing into question the survivability of a
program that has stumbled from one problem to another over the last
decade.
In its annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) on February 27, 2009, Duke revealed that the contract to use MOX
had "automatically terminated on December 1, 2008" after a failed
attempt to renegotiate the contract with Shaw AREVA MOX Services (MOX
Services), contracted by DOE to carry out the MOX program. Duke has
said it "is interested in receiving a future proposal from MOX Services
for the use of MOX fuel," but right now the planned use in the Catawba
and McGuire reactors has been terminated.
Due to this negative turn of events for the misguided and costly MOX
program, the public interest organization Friends of the Earth is again
calling for the program to be terminated once and for all.
"Given the lack of reactors to use the plutonium fuel and ongoing
problems over the last decade with this program, it's past time for
Congress to pull the plug and halt construction of the MOX plant at the
Savannah River Site," said Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign
Coordinator with Friends of the Earth in Columbia, South Carolina.
A DOE official has informed Friends of the Earth that DOE is
speaking with three utilities about possible MOX use and that Duke may
reenter into negotiations. It is believed that the Tennessee Valley
Authority could be interested, though, like other utilities, it would
have to conduct a lengthy MOX test to validate use of the fuel.
"The events around the loss of the Duke reactors should serve as a
red flag to other utilities that their participation in the troubled
plutonium program will be fraught with risks and obstacles," Clements
said.
Friends of the Earth and the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed
in August 2008 that a test of MOX fuel in Duke's Catawba-1 reactor had
failed due to abnormal fuel assembly performance and the that the "lead
test assemblies" (LTAs) were pulled from the reactor after only two of
the necessary three 18-month irradiation cycles. The failure of this
test, the groups claimed, left DOE without the required information
necessary to certify with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the
performance of the fuel, being tested for the first time with weapons
plutonium.
It is unknown what impact the failed LTA test has had on Duke's
decision to withdraw from the MOX program but DOE's lack of
guaranteeing a reliable schedule for MOX delivery, due to the failed
MOX test and continuous delays in the project, have likely caused Duke
to reconsider use of the fuel. Such fuel made from high-quality weapons
plutonium has never been used before.
The test MOX fuel had been manufactured with U.S. weapons plutonium
shipped from the Los Alamos National Laboratory via Charleston, S.C. to
a now-closed French MOX plant (Cadarche), making a repeat of the
54-month irradiation test difficult. Irradiated fuel pins were
evidently removed from failed MOX test assembles stored in the Catawba
spent fuel pool and shipped to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for
testing. Information on analysis of the test fuel is not available. No
matter which reactors use MOX, the test will have to be repeated for
three 18-month cycles, causing further uncertainty, delays, and cost
escalation.
Despite the lack of reactors to use the plutonium fuel, MOX Services
is continuing to use taxpayer dollars to construct a $5-billion factory
at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina to make the fuel
from 34 metric tons of "surplus" weapons-grade plutonium.
On March 4, 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) release
a report entitled Department of Energy: Contract and Project Management
Concerns at the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of
Environmental Management (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-406T),
which underscores potential problems in reliably delivering MOX fuel to
a utility. Concerning the MOX plant at SRS, GAO stated that "the
project's schedule, in addition to other problems, does not adhere to a
key practice that is fundamental to having a sufficiently reliable
schedule-specifically, MFFF project staff have not conducted a risk
analysis on their current schedule using statistical techniques. ...
Consequently, NNSA cannot adequately state its level of confidence in
meeting the MFFF project's completion date, and NNSA's schedule for the
project therefore may not be reliable." Thus, utilities are nervous if
their need for a reliable schedule for fuel delivery can be met.
Friends of the Earth has also been informed by a DOE official that
DOE offered Duke conventional enriched uranium (LEU) fuel if it could
not meet a MOX delivery schedule but negotiations for that LEU fuel did
not produce positive results before the Duke MOX contract expired on
December 1.
Notes:
Duke Energy Corporation "Form 10-K" annual report filed with the SEC, Feb. 27, 2009
https://idea.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326160/000119312509041096/d10k.htm
"In 1999, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a contract with Shaw
AREVA MOX Services (MOX Services; formerly Duke COGEMA Stone &
Webster, LLC) to purchase mixed-oxide fuel for use in the McGuire and
Catawba nuclear reactors. Under this contract, beginning in 2007, MOX
Services would fabricate batches of mixed-oxide fuel from stockpiles of
plutonium derived from surplus weapons at a facility under construction
at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River site in Aiken,
South Carolina. Mixed oxide fuel is similar to conventional uranium
fuel. Following review and approval by the NRC, four MOX fuel lead
assemblies, fabricated in France, were irradiated for two fuel cycles
(approximately three years) in Unit 1 of the Catawba Nuclear Station.
In 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas and MOX Services engaged in discussions
to renegotiate the terms of the contract prior to its expiration on
December 1, 2008. The parties were unable to reach agreement and the
contract automatically terminated on December 1, 2008. Duke Energy
Carolinas has communicated to MOX Services that it continues to support
the objectives of the surplus weapons disposition program and is
interested in receiving a future proposal from MOX Services for the use
of MOX fuel." (page 14)
FOE-UCS news release on Failed MOX test in Dukes Catawba Reactor, August 4, 2008:
https://www.foe.org/nuclear-fuel-test-failure-raises-concerns
and
https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-fuel-test-failure-0140....
UCS-FOE 4-page Backgrounder of August 4, 2008 on Failed MOX Test in
Duke's Catawba Reactor - "AREVA Fuel Assembly Problems Doom DOE
Plutonium Fuel Test" - available on request
For Duke's June 10, 2008 report to the NRC, with first public
mention of failed MOX test, go to the NRC's ADAMS digital library and
search for "ML081650181" at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.
For an April 2008 AREVA presentation that discusses the abnormal
fuel assembly growth problem, go to NRC's ADAMS digital library and
search for "ML081300390."
Shaw Areva MOX Services October 18, 2008 solicitation "To All
Nuclear Utilities in the USA" for more reactors to use MOX available on
request.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Mistrial Declared in Abu Ghraib Torture Suit Against US Contractor
"This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history," one plaintiff vowed.
May 02, 2024
The federal judge presiding over a case filed by three Iraqis who were tortured by U.S. military contractors in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison two decades ago declared a mistrial Thursday after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
After eight days of deliberation—a longer period than the trial itself—the eight civil jurors in Alexandria deadlocked over whether employees of CACI conspired with soldiers to torture detainees. The Virginia-based professional services and information technology firm was hired in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration to provide translators and interrogators in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion and occupation, conspired with soldiers to torture detainees.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema—who said Wednesday that "it's a very difficult case"—declared a mistrial.
Plaintiff Salah Al-Ejaili toldThe Guardian that "it is enough that we tried and didn't remain silent."
"We might not have received justice yet in our just case today, but what is more important is that we made it to trial and spoke up so the world could hear from us directly," he added. "This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights—which filed the case—said that "we are, of course, disappointed by the jury's failure to reach a unanimous verdict in favor of our plaintiffs despite the wealth of evidence."
"But we remain awed by the courage of our clients, who have fought for justice for their torment for 16 years," Azmy added. "We look forward to the opportunity to present our case again."
Al Shimari v. CACI, which was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute—a law allowing non-U.S. citizens to sue for human rights abuses committed abroad—plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Zuba'e, and Al-Ejaili accused CACI of conspiring with the U.S. military to perpetrate war crimes including torture at Abu Ghraib. The men suffered broken bones, electric shocks, sexual abuse, extreme temperatures, and death threats at the hands of their U.S. interrogators.
The case marked the first time a U.S. jury heard a case brought by Abu Ghraib survivors. Along with the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, the prison became synonymous worldwide with U.S. torture during the War on Terror. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died while in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners suffered torture and abuse ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A 2004 probe by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba found that the majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners—the Red Cross said 70-90%—were innocent. Women and girls were also imprisoned at Abu Ghraib as bargaining chips to lure militants wanted for resisting the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of their homeland. Some reported rape and sexual abuse by their captors, which reportedly led to the "honor killing" murders of multiple women.
CACI denies any wrongdoing and still gets millions of dollars worth of U.S. government contracts each year. In February, Fortunenamed CACI one of the "World's Most Admired Companies" for the seventh consecutive year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Hobbs Signs Repeal, Arizonans Push Abortion Rights Ballot Measure
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," said the campaign behind the ballot initiative.
May 02, 2024
While Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs on Thursday signed legislation repealing an 1864 abortion ban, reproductive rights advocates in the state reiterated that fuller freedom over family planning requires passing a November ballot measure.
In response to an
Arizona Republic opinion piece noting that there is no emergency clause in House Bill 2677, the law repealing the ban, "which means it won't go off the books until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns," Arizona for Abortion Access stressed that "Arizonans will still be living under a law that denies us the right to make decisions about our own health."
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," the campaign behind the ballot initiative said, adding that only passing the Arizona Abortion Access Act "changes that for good."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient. Arizonans were fighting for it even before the state Supreme Court reinstated the 160-year-old ban.
Even Hobbs recognized that the battle for reproductive freedom is far from over, saying Thursday that "today, we should not rest, but we should recommit to protecting women's bodily autonomy, their ability to make their own healthcare decisions, and the ability to control their lives."
"Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor's office," the Democrat pledged.
Her signature came just a day after the Arizona Senate approved H.B. 2677, following its state House passage last month. In both cases, a couple of Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to advance the legislation—defying not only party members in the state but a national GOP that is hellbent on ending access to abortion care.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Wednesday that the Senate vote "to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state" and she was looking forward to Hobbs signing the bill.
"However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year," Mayes acknowledged. "Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner pointed out that "on Tuesday—though technically unrelated—Mayes' office asked the Arizona Supreme Court to stay the issuance of the mandate in the case holding the near-total ban enforceable."
According to Geidner:
If granted, that would push the issuance of the mandate to July 25—90 days beyond the date when the Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayes' request for reconsideration—which would then block enforcement to at least 45 days beyond that, to September 8.
At that point, the repeal law passed on Wednesday likely will have gone into effect—meaning that the 15-week ban would remain the applicable law throughout this entire time—and the expected vote on the proposed constitutional amendment will be less than two months away.
Planned Parenthood Arizona took similar action after the Senate vote on Wednesday. The group's CEO, Angela Florez, explained that "we have said all along that we will use every possible avenue to safeguard essential care for our patients and all Arizonans, and that's exactly what we're doing with today's motion."
"While anti-abortion extremists in the state Legislature will continue to do everything in their power to undermine Arizonans' freedom and criminalize essential healthcare, Planned Parenthood Arizona is taking action to prevent a harmful total ban on abortion from taking effect in our state," Florez continued. "The court's April 9 ruling was both tragic and wrong, but it rested on trying to discern legislative intent. The Legislature has now spoken and clearly does not want the 1864 ban to be enforced."
"We hope the court stays true to its word and respects this long-overdue legislative action, by quickly granting our motion to end the uncertainty over the future of abortion in Arizona," added Florez, whose group supports the ballot measure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOE Investigating Columbia University for Anti-Palestinian Harassment
"Students have the right to speak out against the genocide of Palestinians, without fear of unequal treatment, racist attacks, or being denied access to an education by their university," one lawyer said.
May 02, 2024
Palestine Legal announced Thursday that the U.S. Department of Education has launched a federal investigation into "extreme anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic harassment" at Columbia University a week after the advocacy group filed a complaint on behalf of four students and a campus organization.
"While the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) looks into all complaints it receives, it only opens a formal investigation when it determines the facts warrant a deeper look," Palestine Legal pointed out on social media. "The complaint explains how Columbia has allowed and contributed to a pervasive anti-Palestinian environment on campus—including students receiving death threats, being harassed for wearing keffiyehs or hijab, doxxed, harassed by [administration], suspended, locked out of campus, and more."
"Instead of protecting Palestinian and associated students when their voices are most needed to oppose an ongoing genocide, Columbia has taken actions to reinforce this hostile climate in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," added the group.
"The law is clear, if universities do not cease their racist crackdowns against Palestinians and their supporters—they will be at risk of losing federal funding."
Palestine Legal senior staff attorney Radhika Sainath stressed that "the law is clear, if universities do not cease their racist crackdowns against Palestinians and their supporters—they will be at risk of losing federal funding."
"Students have the right to speak out against the genocide of Palestinians, without fear of unequal treatment, racist attacks, or being denied access to an education by their university," the lawyer added.
Since the filing, which highlighted that Columbia University President Minouche Shafik invited "the New York Police Department (NYPD) onto campus for the first time in decades to arrest over 100 students who had been peacefully protesting Israel's genocide of Palestinians," the Ivy League leader has called officers back to the school for more arrests.
On Tuesday night, the NYPD "violently arrested and brutalized dozens of student protestors, some with guns drawn, using sledgehammers, batons, and flash-bang explosives," noted Palestine Legal, which represents Maryam Alwan, Deen Haleem, Daria Mateescu, and Layla Saliba as well as Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
Columbia is one of many American campuses where administrators have called the police, who have behaved aggressively toward students and faculty nonviolently demonstrating to demand that their schools and the U.S. government stop supporting the Israeli assault of Gaza, which has killed at least 34,596 Palestinians in under seven months.
The Interceptrevealed last week that OCR opened an investigation into the University of Massachusetts Amherst after Palestine Legal filed a complaint "on behalf of 18 UMass students who have been the target of extreme anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab harassment and discrimination by fellow UMass students, including receiving racial slurs, death threats and in one instance, actually being assaulted."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)—who has supported peaceful student protests and whose daughter Isra Hirsi was suspended from Columbia's Barnard College for protesting last month—highlighted the reporting on social media and some of the verbal attacks that students have endured.
OCR has opened a probe into Emory University following a complaint filed by Palestine Legal and the Council on American Islamic Relations, Georgia (CAIR-GA), according toThe Guardian. The newspaper noted Thursday that complaints have also been filed about Rutgers University in New Jersey and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Emory spokesperson Laura Diamond said in a statement that the university "does not tolerate behavior or actions that threaten, harm or target individuals because of their identities or backgrounds."
CAIR-GA executive director Azka Mahmood said that she hopes the investigation into Emory helps "make sure that the systems put in place against bias are used for everyone across the board—so we can produce a comfortable, equitable place for Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab students in the future."
The probes and complaints are notably being conducted and reviewed by an administration that has condemned campus protests while arming Israeli forces engaged in what the International Court of Justice has called a plausibly genocidal campaign in Gaza.
After U.S. President Joe Biden delivered brief remarks on the demonstrations Thursday morning, Edward Ahmed Mitchell, a civil rights attorney and national deputy director at CAIR, said his "claim that 'dissent must never lead to disorder' defies American history, from the Boston Tea Party to the tactics that civil rights activists, Vietnam War protesters, and anti-apartheid activists used to confront injustice."
"And if President Biden is truly concerned about the conflict on college campuses," Mitchell added, "he should specifically condemn law enforcement and pro-Israel mobs for attacking students, and stop enabling the genocide in Gaza that has triggered the protests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular