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
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Urges War Crimes Probe of 'Indiscriminate' Israeli Attacks on Lebanon
"The latest evidence of unlawful airstrikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers," said one campaigner.
Dec 12, 2024
Amnesty International on Thursday called for a war crimes investigation into recent Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon that killed dozens of civilians, as well as a suspension of arms transfers to Israel as it attacks Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria.
In a briefing paper titled The Sky Rained Missiles, Amnesty "documented four illustrative cases in which unlawful Israeli strikes killed at least 49 civilians" in Lebanon in September and October amid an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign of invasion and bombardment that Lebanese officials say has killed or wounded more than 20,000 people.
"Amnesty International found that Israeli forces unlawfully struck residential buildings in the village of al-Ain in northern Bekaa on September 29, the village of Aitou in northern Lebanon on October 14, and in Baalbeck city on October 21," the rights group said. "Israeli forces also unlawfully attacked the municipal headquarters in Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on October 16."
Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty's senior director for research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, said in a statement that "these four attacks are emblematic of Israel's shocking disregard for civilian lives in Lebanon and their willingness to flout international law."
The September 29 attack "destroyed the house of the Syrian al-Shaar family, killing all nine members of the family who were sleeping inside," the report states.
"This is a civilian house, there is no military target in it whatsoever," village mukhtar, or leader, Youssef Jaafar told Amnesty. "It is full of kids. This family is well-known in town."
On October 16, Israel bombed the Nabatieh municipal complex, killing Mayor Ahmad Khalil and 10 other people.
"The airstrike took place without warning, just as the municipality's crisis unit was meeting to coordinate deliveries of aid, including food, water, and medicine, to residents and internally displaced people who had fled bombardment in other parts of southern Lebanon," Amnesty said, adding that there was no apparent military target in the immediate area.
In the deadliest single strike detailed in the Amnesty report, IDF bombardment believed to be targeting a suspected Hezbollah member killed 23 civilians forcibly displaced from southern Lebanon in Aitou on October 14.
"The youngest casualty was Aline, a 5-month-old baby who was flung from the house into a pickup truck nearby and was found by rescue workers the day after the strike," Amnesty said.
Survivor Jinane Hijazi told Amnesty: "I've lost everything; my entire family, my parents, my siblings, my daughter. I wish I had died that day too."
As the report notes:
A fragment of the munition found at the site of the attack was analyzed by an Amnesty International weapons expert and based upon its size, shape, and the scalloped edges of the heavy metal casing, identified as most likely a MK-80 series aerial bomb, which would mean it was at least a 500-pound bomb. The United States is the primary supplier of these types of munitions to Israel.
"The means and method of this attack on a house full of civilians likely would make this an indiscriminate attack and it also may have been disproportionate given the presence of a large number of civilians at the time of the strike," Amnesty stressed. "It should be investigated as a war crime."
The October 21 strike destroyed a building housing 13 members of the Othman family, killing two women and four children and wounding seven others.
"My son woke me up; he was thirsty and wanted to drink. I gave him water and he went back to sleep, hugging his brother," survivor Fatima Drai—who lost her two sons Hassan, 5, and Hussein, 3, in the attack—told Amnesty.
"When he hugged his brother, I smiled and thought, I'll tell his father how our son is when he comes back," she added. "I went to pray, and then everything around me exploded. A gas canister exploded, burning my feet, and within seconds, it consumed my kids' room."
Guevara Rosas said: "These attacks must be investigated as war crimes. The Lebanese government must urgently call for a special session at the U.N. Human Rights Council to establish an independent investigative mechanism into the alleged violations and crimes committed by all parties in this conflict. It must also grant the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes committed on Lebanese territory."
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians."
Last month, the court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with Israel's 433-day Gaza onslaught, which has left more than 162,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in the embattled enclave.
The tribunal also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged crimes committed during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and over 240 others were kidnapped.
Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice is weighing a genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel. Last week, Amnesty published a report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
The United States—which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover—has also been accused of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon.
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians," Guevara Rosas said. "The latest evidence of unlawful air strikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers to Israel due to the risk they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular