ALERT!
December 6, 1996

For more info, contact:
Mary Olson, NIRS 828-252-8409

FAXES AND LETTERS NEEDED NOW (addresses at end)

Early next week the Department of Energy will issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on plutonium disposition - the plutonium from dismantling warheads. It is well known that the recommendation of the FEIS will be to proceed on a dual track of 1) making plutonium/uranium fuel (called mixed oxide fuel -- or MOX for short) to be used by commercial power reactors and 2) the balance to be immobilized through vitrification -- or mixed in molten glass. Sixteen nuclear utilities have already expressed interest in taking the MOX fuel.

Within 30 days of the FEIS, Secretary O'Leary will issue a Record Of Decision under NEPA and the program will begin to move forward. IT IS VITAL TO CONTACT SECRETARY O'LEARY NOW, BEForE THE RECorD OF DECISION, as well as the White House, !QW! the final decision lies. The biggest concern that the MOX promoters have is how much resistance they will meet at the local level. We need to show them NOW.

Background

The goal of both programs -- MOX and vitrification -- is to render the plutonium unusable for nuclear weapons. Vitrification is a technique just being developed. However, MOX is no less experimental when it comes to putting it in light water reactors that were not designed for it. MOX would have profound impacts on the operation of these reactors and the discharges and waste that result.

Use of plutonium fuel increases the amount of both plutonium and fission products in both so-called "low-level" and high-level radioactive waste. The routine emissions to air and water will also contain a higher level of plutonium and fission products. The nuclear physics of plutonium fission (more and 'harder' neutrons) suggests that MOX fuel would accelerate aging of reactor core components--already a factor in early reactor shutdowns. Because of the increased fission products, the irradiated fuel would have a greater heat load, complicating all waste storage and disposal options currently available or contemplated. It would also contain about 5 x more plutonium than uranium fuel does after one cycle in the reactor core, making criticality an even greater concern. In other words: it makes an even bigger mess.

MOX also would have profound impacts on the economics of reactor operations, and it would effectively erase any separation between the civilian nuclear establishment and the nuclear weapons complex. A MOX mission for plutonium disposition would be the birth of the Military-Industrial-Utility complex. The DOE and the utilities are showing signs of making this a really sweet deal for some!QW! between four and a dozen reactors. First, DOE would have to pay the costs of converting the reactors to use the MOX fuel. Then, the utilities want to use the MOX fuel only if it is free - another subsidy. Because the waste disposal costs may be higher, DOE may be asked to cover those too. And with upcoming utility deregulation, the DOE might have to subsidize MOX-using reactors to the point that they can survive any competition. This could become not only direct corporate welfare, but could also hinder development of other competitive energy options in that region -- for the 25 years or so that DOE thinks it will take to irradiate the MOX fuel.

Sticking plutonium in the reactors would also require national-security-level protection of the reactor site and the transport of the unirradiated fuel, as well as the MOX fuel production sites, since the unirradiated fuel is a proliferation risk. This program would require the building of a new MOX fuel fabrication site, though there have been some suggestions that initially some fuel would be produced by MOX fabrication facilities in Europe and shipped across the Atlantic. Several European nations, most notably France, are actively pushing the U.S. to adopt the MOX option.

Cogema (France), British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Belgionnucleaire all responded to the DOE's request for "expression of interest" and have been actively lobbying for the MOX option. Why? Not just the business. MOX will close the plutonium fuel cycle in the U.S. Government officials say that this mission is ONLY to irradiate the warhead plutonium--a claim about as credible as the Energy Secretary spending really good money on a powerful, swank car and vowing that she will only ever drive it in reverse! In fact, use of MOX fuel could easily lead to a full-scale reprocessing program.

Coupled with the MOX idea is a second idea: the use of one or more civilian reactors to produce tritium for maintaining the remaining nuclear stockpile, or building new nuclear weapons. One more reason to stop DOE in it's tracks.

The utilities are worried we can stop them at the local level. Each reactor would have to be relicensed, there could be new public utility commission issues, there certainly would be radioactive waste transportation and storage issues, and we're ready to take it to city councils and state legislatures across the land. But let's try and save us all the fight by encouraging DOE and the White House to do the right thing now.

ACTION STEPS:

Letters are the best right now -- do one to the Secretary and CC it to the rest: Please use fax !QW! possible, and stick hard copy in the mail...though a direct appeal to Clinton and Gore to override a runaway DOE is also needed at this time. Letters of any theme are great, but !QW! possible, make it specific to your state/utility.

Honorable Hazel O'Leary Secretary of Energy U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 fax: 202-586-4403 DOE Switchboard: 202-586-5000

President Clinton, Vice President Gore The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20500 fax: 202-456-2461 or: president@whitehouse.gov and vicepresident@whitehouse.gov

John Gibbons, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, fax: 202-456-6021

Anthony Lake, National Security Advisor, fax: 202-456-2883

Utilities that have registered interest in becoming part of the plutonium disposition mission:

Interested only in MOX: Duke Power in collaboration with Commonwealth Edison (McGuire 1 & 2, Catawba 1& 2, Braidwood 1 & 2, Byron 1 & 2, LaSalle 1 & 2); Entergy Operations, Inc. (Grand Gulf, River Bend); IES Utilities, Inc. (Duane Arnold); PECO Energy Co. (Limerick 1 & 2, Peach Bottom 2 & 3).

Both MOX and Tritium production: Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde, 1,2,3); Centerior Energy (Perry 2); Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie 2); Georgia Power Co. (Votgle 1 & 2) Niagara Mohawk Power Co. (Nine Mile Point 1 & 2); N.C. MPA/Piedmont MPA (Catawba 2); Southern Nuclear Op. Co. (Farley 1 & 2), Tennessee Valley Authority (federal) (Bellefonte 1 & 2); Virginia Power (North Anna 1 & 2, Surry 1 & 2); Wisconsin Public Service Co. (Kewaunee); WPPSS (WNP-2).

Tritium production only: Houston Lighting & Power (South Texas 1 & 2); Illinois Power Co. (Clinton).

Non-utility entities interested in one or both projects: AECL -- Team CANDU; COGEMA; Westinghouse Electric Corp.; ABB- Combustion Engineering; BNFL International; Utility Resource Associates; BELGONNUCLEAIRE; Lockheed Martin INEL.

Resources: Check out the following Websites (the NIRS Site will be growing in information on MOX)www.nirs.org and Nuclear Control Institute's www.nci.org/nci/ ALSO: dynamite MOX newsletter published by Yurika Ayukawa, Scoville Fellow at Physicians for Social Responsibility available at the NIRS Website, or via e-mail by contacting Yurika .

< Return to Previous Page