February, 03 2011, 09:58am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tom Clements, tomclements329@cs.com, 803-834-3084
Nick Berning, nberning@foe.org, 202-222-0748
Secret Plan Exposed to Use Surplus Weapons Plutonium in Washington State Nuclear Reactor
FOIA Documents Reveal Energy Northwest Plans Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Experiments While Seeking to Control Information Leaks to the Media
COLUMBIA, S.C.
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) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Climate Movement Cheers Michigan AG's Plans to Sue Big Oil
"Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable," said the state attorney general
May 09, 2024
Advocates of holding fossil fuel giants accountable for their significant contributions to the climate emergency welcomed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Thursday announcement that she intends to sue the polluting industry.
"Big Oil knew decades ago that their products would cause catastrophic climate change, but instead of doing the right thing they lied about it," declared Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The people of Michigan deserve their day in court to make these companies pay for the massive harm they knowingly caused."
Dozens of municipalities and attorneys general for the District of Columbia and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have already filed climate liability suits against Big Oil in recent years.
"Our 'Pure Michigan' identity is under threat from the effects of climate change," said Nessel, whose state was praised last year for passing clean energy legislation. "Warmer temperatures are shrinking ski seasons in the UP and disrupting the wonderful blooms of Holland's Tulip Time Festival. Severe weather events are on the rise."
"These impacts threaten not only our way of life but also our economy and pose long-term risks to Michigan's thriving agribusiness," she continued. "The fossil fuel industry, despite knowing about these consequences, prioritized profits over people and the environment. Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable."
The Democratic attorney general's office explained that she is "seeking proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as special assistant attorneys general to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state of Michigan."
The Detroit Newsnoted that "Nessel took a similar tact in suing drugmakers for the opioid crisis, farming out much of the work to outside law firms in Michigan, Texas, and Florida."
According to the newspaper:
Nessel's office is working with other state departments to assess the costs associated with climate change, such as the cost of expanding storm water systems to handle flooding caused by stronger storms, responding to natural disasters, or supporting northern Michigan tourism economies dealing with dwindling ice and snow.
"This is going to be a massive discovery effort to find out exactly what our Michigan damages are now already and what can we expect to see in the future as a result of climate change," she said.
"I don't know that there's a bigger issue facing the state of Michigan than climate change," Nessel told the outlet. "We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in damages and we're already starting to see that on a day-to-day basis. We know this is only going to get worse."
The youth-led Sunrise Movement applauded Nessel's plans and asserted that U.S. President Joe Biden—who is seeking reelection in November—and the Department of Justice "must follow suit."
The group's call echoed similar demands that emerged last week in response to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Compare Biden's Proposed Asylum Rule to 'Failed Trump-Era Policies'
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," said one migrant rights advocate.
May 09, 2024
Immigrant rights advocates on Thursday slammed the Biden administration's proposal to fast-track the rejection of certain migrants seeking asylum in the United States.
On Thursday the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule that would empower immigration officials to disqualify certain asylum-seekers during their initial eligibility screening—called the credible fear interview (CFI)—using existing national security and terrorism-related criteria, or bars.
DHS said the rule would apply to noncitizens who have "engaged in certain criminal activity, persecuted others, or have been involved in terrorist activities."
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation."
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called the proposed rule "yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here."
However, Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued that while "bars are an important feature of our immigration laws to ensure that dangerous individuals are not allowed into the country," they must be "accurately applied where warranted."
"This change could make the process faster by excluding people who would not be entitled to stay," he noted. "However, due process will likely be eroded by accelerating what is a highly complex legal analysis needed for these bars and conducting them at the preliminary CFI screening."
As Chen explained:
At that early stage, few asylum seekers will have the opportunity to seek legal counsel or time to understand the consequences of a bar being applied. Under the current process, they have more time to seek legal advice, to prepare their case, and to appeal it or seek an exemption. Ultimately to establish a fair and orderly process at the border, Congress needs to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the resources to meet its mission and also ensure the truly vulnerable are not summarily denied protection without due process.
Democratic lawmakers—some of whom held a press conference Wednesday on protecting undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—also criticized the proposal.
"As the Biden administration considers executive actions on immigration, we must not return to failed Trump-era policies aimed at banning asylum and moving us backwards," said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), referring to former Republican President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee to face President Joe Biden in November.
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation," he added.
One year ago, critics accused Biden of "finishing Trump's job" by implementing a crackdown on asylum-seekers upon the expiration of Title 42—a provision first invoked during Trump administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued by Biden to expel more than 1 million migrants under the pretext of public safety.
Earlier this week, the advocacy group Human Rights First released a report detailing the harms of the policy on its anniversary. The group held a press conference to unveil the report and warn of the dangers of further anti-migrant policies.
"The interviews with hundreds of asylum-seekers make clear that the asylum ban and related restrictions strands in danger children and adults seeking asylum, punishes people for seeking protection, leads to the return of refugees to persecution, spurs irregular crossings, and denies equal access to asylum to people facing the most dire risks," Human Rights First director of research and analysis of refugee protection Christina Asencio said during the press conference.
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," Asencio added.
On Wednesday, three advocacy groups—Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project—sued the federal government on behalf of noncitizens with disabilities seeking more information regarding CBP One, the problem-plagued Customs and Border Protection app migrants must use to schedule asylum interviews at U.S. ports of entry.
"We have and continue to see migrants with disabilities facing unlawful discrimination and unequal access to the asylum process due to the inaccessibility of the app," said Laura Murchie, an attorney with the Civil Rights and Education Enforcement Center involved in the case.
"CBP needs to release these documents so we can advocate for and ensure compliance with the law so asylum-seekers with disabilities do not continue to be harmed by CBP's disregard for rights that are guaranteed by federal disability law," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Says Israel 'Will Stand Alone' as Biden Threatens to Withhold Arms
"If we have to, we will fight with our nails," the Israeli prime minister said in response to the American leader's warning against a major Rafah invasion.
May 09, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday responded to U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to withhold shipments of arms used by the Israel Defense Forces to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians by declaring that his far-right government would continue its assault on Gaza with or without American help.
"If we are forced to stand alone, we will stand alone," Netanyahu said in a video ahead of next week's anniversary of Israel's establishment in 1948, largely via the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arabs. "I have already said that if we have to, we will fight with our nails."
Echoing Netanyahu, Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the IDF already has the "necessary weapons" to wage war, "including in Rafah," where over 1 million people forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza are sheltering alongside around 280,000 local residents, all of them bracing for a full-scale Israeli invasion.
The prime minister's remarks came a day after Biden threatened to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel if it launches a major invasion of Rafah—even as critics noted that Israeli forces have already attacked and entered the city. Some accused Biden of walking back a previous "red line" warning against any assault on Rafah.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Biden is delaying shipments of two types of bombs to Israel in order to send a message that the president's tolerance for what he called Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" of Gazan civilians is waning.
However, observers noted that Biden recently signed off on $14.3 billion in emergency armed assistance for Israel atop the nearly $4 billion the key ally already receives from Washington each year. The Biden administration has quietly approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel since October 7, while pushing for billions of dollars worth of additional deals, including advanced fighter jets.
Biden has also repeatedly bypassed Congress to fast-track weapons transfers to Israel as it wages what the International Court of Justice in January called a "plausibly" genocidal war that's killed, injured, or left missing more than 124,000 Palestinians—mostly women and children—since October 7.
The U.S. administration also provides diplomatic cover for Israel's policies and practices in the form of United Nations Security Council vetoes.
Despite all this support—which comes as most election-year voters supporting Biden's Democratic Party believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza—Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Thursday tweeted, "Hamas ❤️ Biden."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular