

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tom Clements, tomclements329@cs.com, 803-834-3084
Nick Berning, nberning@foe.org, 202-222-0748
Department
of Energy (DOE) documents released to Friends of the Earth reveal that
the public utility Energy Northwest hopes to bring experimental
radioactive plutonium fuel into Washington State for use in risky tests
in a nuclear reactor not originally designed for that purpose. The
documents also reveal that the utility has sought to keep information
secret the about the controversial and risky pursuit of use of surplus
weapons plutonium as nuclear reactor fuel.
The environmental watchdog group Friends of the Earth believes that
the plutonium mixed oxide fuel (MOX) should be kept out of the state and
that such tests would pose unacceptable safety risks and lead to
unacceptable costs.
According to a DOE document dated January 6, 2011, and confirmed by
documents obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act, Energy
Northwest is "formally evaluating the potential use of MOX fuel" in the
company's single nuclear reactor - the Columbia Generating Station
reactor - located at the Department of Energy's Hanford site near
Richland, Washington. The reactor is a GE boiling water reactor (BWR)
and was licensed in 1984. The Hanford site, where it is located, has
produced about 65 metric tons of weapons plutonium in now-closed
reactors dedicated to military use.
"It is foolish for Energy Northwest to continue down this costly and
risky path and we urge the utility to drop the controversial MOX
plans," said Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator
with friends of the Earth in Columbia, South Carolina. "Due to
non-proliferation and safety concerns, weapons plutonium should not be
used as fuel in the Columbia Generating Station or any other nuclear
power reactor."
"It's no surprise that the utility tried to keep its controversial
plans to use reactor fuel containing weapons-quality plutonium secret.
Myriad technical and public relations problems are posed by the
potential use of a fuel that has never before been tested in a boiling
water reactor. Bringing plutonium back to Hanford to be used as fuel
and stored as waste will set back cleanup efforts at the site. It's hard
to see how the public could accept bringing plutonium back to Hanford
after most of it has been shipped off the site," Clements said.
MOX fuel made from surplus weapons-grade plutonium has never before
been used in any country on a commercial scale and presents a host of
political and licensing problems for Energy Northwest. MOX containing
approximately five to seven percent weapons-grade plutonium presents
technical challenges to reactor operation and fuel management and
storage, poses security risks in transport and handling, and presents
the threat of larger radiation release in an accident. One of the
undated FOIA documents from Energy Northwest states, "It does not make
sense from either an economic perspective or risk perspective for Energy
Northwest to pursue the use of MOX fuel." But nuclear officials have
pushed ahead in spite of those concerns.
Over 200 pages of FOIA documents reveal that officials at Energy
Northwest have been developing plans with the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and the Department of Energy to begin a "three-!phased
approach to integrating MOX fuel" into the reactor. According to the
documents, testing would begin with irradiation of 10 to 20 fuel pins
fabricated by the laboratory in 2013 or 2105, followed by the use of up
to eight "lead use assemblies" (LUAs) around 2019 for three or more
two-year irradiation cycles (a total of six or more years), with loading
of up to 30 percent of the reactor's core with MOX fuel beginning
around 2025. Each step would require license amendments from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Department of Energy is currently constructing a $5-billion
facility to make MOX fuel at its Savannah River Site in South Carolina
and construction continues even though no nuclear reactor has been
identified that will use the MOX fuel. Duke Energy began testing of
experimental MOX fuel in 2005 but dropped out of the program after a
test in its Catawba reactor in South Carolina failed after two rather
than the necessary three 18-month irradiation cycles (the three cycles
would have lasted a total of 54 months). Now, the Energy Department,
via the contractor Shaw AREVA MOX Services, is focused on discussions
for MOX use with the Tennessee Valley Authority and Energy Northwest as
wider interest in the problematic fuel is lacking.
A March 2009 Memorandum of Understanding between the Tennessee
Valley Authority and Energy Northwest regarding the exploration of
whether MOX could be used in boiling water reactors is among the FOIA
documents obtained by Friends of the Earth. Fuel fabricator GE-Hiatchi
has also been involved in the MOX-use discussions and participated in a
secret meeting with Energy Northwest, the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Shaw AREVA MOX Services, and DOE at the Savannah River Site
in September 2009.
The MOX program laid out in the documents is speculative as it would
have to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would be
dependent on capacity to fabricate MOX test assemblies made from weapons
plutonium. No such production capacity currently exists, so the MOX
plant at the Savannah River site, scheduled to undergo startup testing
in 2016 or later (if construction finishes and if it can overcome an
operating license challenge by public interest groups), would have to be
used to fabricate "lead use assemblies." This means that the MOX plant
at the Savannah River Site is at risk of sitting idle for years as no
MOX fuel beyond that used in testing could be produced during the test
phase as NRC approval for the fuel's quality and performance would be
lacking.
Energy Northwest presentations obtained via the Freedom of
information Act point out potential problems with MOX use, saying that
there must be "no negative impact on reactor operation" and that MOX use
must be "cost neutral" for Energy Northwest. An Energy Northwest
senior engineer in charge of fuel management wrote in a December 2009
email that those at Energy Northwest and the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory pursuing MOX use "don't want any unexpected press releases
about burning MOX fuel in [the Columbia Generating Station reactor]."
That same official commented that the DOE's lack of utilities interested
in using the MOX fuel "doesn't look good politically."
###
Notes:
1. FOIA documents from Energy Northwest (partial, final)
2. DOE Presentation on Status of MOX Plant, January 6, 2011
3. Friends of the Earth letter to NRC, Jan. 29, 2011, on plans by
Energy Northwest to use MOX, for Columbia Generating Station license
renewal application
4. Friends of the Earth letter to Energy Northwest CEO Mark Reddemann, Jan. 31, 2011, urging the end of MOX use.
5. Friends of the Earth news release "Duke Energy Abandons Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Testing Program in South Carolina Reactor," November 12, 2009
6. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) MOX fact sheet - "Plutonium Disposition Remains In Disarray"
7. Information on NRC website about Columbia Generating Station:
8. Energy Northwest overview
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) 783-7400Despite the strait's closure, Trump insisted it was "open as far as we're concerned."
US President Donald Trump on Sunday twice told journalists to stop asking him about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran once again closed after the president declared an end to the ceasefire deal between the two countries.
The first instance came during an interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, who pointed to conflicting statements from the Iranian government and US Central Command about the status of the strait, which is an essential shipping lane for global petroleum supplies.
Trump replied that "it's open, and I don't want to talk about it because I want to honor the life" of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who died on Saturday from what his office described as "a brief and sudden illness."
"So I don't want to talk about it," Trump continued. "I told you that before the call."
WELKER: Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is closed. CENTCOM says it's open. Which is it?
TRUMP: It's open, and I don't want to talk about because I want to honor the life of Lindsey Graham, so I don't want to talk about it. I told you that before the call. pic.twitter.com/3ed7dN1bhK
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Shortly after, during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump was again asked whether the strait was still open.
"It's open as far as we're concerned," Trump told Tapper. "Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak."
"Okay," Tapper replied. "We appreciate your time, sir."
TAPPER: Iran has declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. Is that true?
TRUMP: It's open as far as we're concerned. Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak. pic.twitter.com/TwssTycQdF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Iran shut down shipping traffic in the strait after Trump launched an illegal war against the country in late February. The strait's closure resulted in spiking oil and gasoline prices, which coincided with further erosion in Trump's approval ratings.
Although traffic through the strait initially picked up in the wake of a June memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran, it has since slumped as the ceasefire between the two nations has fallen apart.
Ana Marie Cox, contributing editor at The New Republic, bashed both Welker and Tapper for heeding the president's requests and not pushing him to answer questions about the war he unlawfully started.
"Frankly astonished that supposed news sources agreed to terms to interview Trump and appeared to be deferential to them," Cox wrote in a social media post, "enough that they were apologetic in brining up other topics."
Cox's sentiment was echoed by Kai Ryssdal, host of NPR's Marketplace, who remarked that "the guy being interviewed doesn’t get to pick the questions."
Journalist Helen Kennedy challenged Trump's assertion that asking about the status of the Iran war was irrelevant when talking about Lindsey Graham.
"Making war with Iran was Lindsey Graham's favorite thing," Kennedy observed. "It's not like it's unrelated."
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this country. What a horrific legacy," said one critic.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most relentless proponents for using US military force overseas, died on Saturday night at the age of 71.
In a statement posted on Graham's (R-SC) social media account, the senator's office said that he "passed away from a brief and sudden illness."
"Sen. Graham's family appreciates prayers at this time," the office added, "and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period."
During his life, Graham advocated either starting or getting involved in multiple wars across the world, and he was reportedly instrumental in convincing President Donald Trump to launch an illegal attack on Iran without any authorization from the US Congress.
Although Graham was once a Trump critic—he infamously declared in 2016 that the Republican Party would get "destroyed" if it made the former Celebrity Apprentice host its presidential nominee—the South Carolina Republican grew to become one of the president's staunchest allies.
Some critics of Graham reacted to his death by rehashing what they considered to be his least admirable traits.
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, remarked that Graham "never met a war he didn't want to send your kids to."
Alejandra Caraballo, clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, also reflected on Graham's lifetime of war mongering.
"You can say a lot about Lindsey Graham," Caraballo wrote, "but at least he got to see the thing he most wanted before he died, bombing school children in Iran."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse predicted that Graham would leave behind a decidedly poor legacy.
"When Lindsey Graham appears in a history book," wrote Kruse, "it'll be his prediction in 2016 that the Republican Party would be destroyed for supporting Donald Trump and then a few lines about how he proved it by becoming Trump's toady. That's pretty much it. That's his legacy. Pathetic lickspittle."
Steve Schmidt, a former Republican strategist who left the party due to its embrace of Trump, wrote that Graham was "a simple, tragic man" who "lacked a moral core."
"The great empty spaces of his life were filled with an insatiable need for 'relevance,'" Schmidt observed. "He found it as a cast member in the most malignant reality show ever made."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, had a similar analysis of Graham's character.
"Lindsey Graham supported the International Criminal Court when it charged [Russian President Vladimir] Putin but turned on it when it charged [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu," wrote Roth. "Principled, he wasn't."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, wrote that Graham "spent the last decade of his life in public service... trying hard to be remembered as an enemy of the Constitution who worked to destroy American democracy."
Grossman added that Graham "exhibited occasional signs that he knew why that was bad but kept doing it anyway."
Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, offered a grim assessment of the late senator.
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this country," wrote Zakarin. "What a horrific legacy."
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"