MOX: WHERE THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS MEET

Deep pockets are required to engage in large-scale nuclear activities. This is particularly the case when it comes to any endeavor involving plutonium. There are no pockets deeper than those of the U.S. taxpayers, so it is no accident that the world's nuclear cartel is swarming to feed on the sweet money that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is offering for a Mixed Oxide (MOX) plutonium reactor fuel program for "surplus weapons plutonium disposition" both in the U.S. and in Russia.

A contract awarded by DOE in 1999 to a consortium of nuclear interests features the French government corporation COGEMA as the primary designer of a U.S. plutonium fuel fabrication facility that is slated to be built in the midst of the vast environmental contamination already polluting water, wildlife and neighboring communities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. Other members of the consortium are Duke Engineering Services, Stone and Webster and a host of subcontractors, which include: Duke Energy, Virginia Power (Dominion Resources), Nuclear Fuel Services, BELGONUCLEAIRE, Electricite de France and Framatome Cogema Fuels, which recently acquired Babcock and Wilcox.

BNFL was a contender for this contract, but was edged out by COGEMA when BNFL's intended U.S. partner, Commonwealth Edison, with its aging, troubled fleet of reactors was essentially ordered to the bench through citizen pressure. BNFL will, however, play host to the deal since it owns a large share of Westinghouse Savannah River, the current SRS operations contractor.

If this program goes forward, SRS will also be the site for a new plutonium processing facility to produce the plutonium oxide, as well as a plutonium immobilization plant that will use the existing nuclear waste at the site to pull plutonium out of weapons-usable form.

The program is universally opposed by the environmental community in the U.S. Europe and Russia since MOX decreases the margin of safety at reactors and so increases the likelihood of a reactor accident, and also makes the health consequences of an accident much worse. The waste produced by using plutonium fuel is more radioactive and also contains a higher percentage of the very long-lasting deadly elements called actinides. Plutonium fuel wastes are more difficult to store and handle even than the already dastardly wastes resulting from uranium reactor fuel use. Even some pro-nuclear advocates oppose MOX when they learn more about it since it may accelerate aging of reactors.

The other reason that the European nuclear interests are flocking here is that a MOX fuel fabrication facility is the only piece missing in order to "close the nuclear fuel cycle" in the United States. This would remove any further question about plutonium as a commodity in the world's trade flow. However, plutonium fuel, the mythical grail of the nuclear dream, has proven to be a colossal environmental and economic failure in Europe. The current travails of BNFL and Cogema provide ample testament to that.

MOX fuel would be used here and in Russia in aging reactors that were not designed for it, creating additional problems over the increased risks that plutonium brings. While there is a history of using MOX fuel in Europe, nowhere in the world has plutonium from nuclear weapons been used as fuel. The higher percentage of the elite bomb-designer's Pu-239 with its unique propensity to go super critical (explode), makes this a complete, first-time ever experiment.

People can only stand back and marvel at the willingness of these corporations and our governments to risk civilian populations in the U.S. and Russia by implementing commercial reactor fuel derived from plutonium weapons for the first time. It is interesting that all six designated U.S. MOX reactors are in the Southeast (Catawba 1 & 2 in SC, McGuire 1 & 2 in NC and North Anna 1 & 2 in VA) and that some of the Russian weapons plutonium fuel would likely go to Ukraine. Neither region (Southeast U.S. or Ukraine) has ever achieved full parity with its capital cities.

The irony is that the MOX program is billed as an effort towards nuclear nonproliferation. The promise is also given that MOX facilities will be closed after 50 tons of surplus weapons plutonium from the Cold War and dismantled warheads is processed. This is unlikely. The contract is explicit that the MOX plant will not be dismantled and decommissioned at the end of the program and so there is no provision for how eventual decommissioning would be paid for. The term "deactivated" is in the contract but not defined. Interests who have been willing to oppose Yucca Mountain include those who would like to see to U.S. start over on reprocessing of civilian reactor fuel, recovery of plutonium and production of more MOX fuel. These same folks advocate breeder reactors too. And this is in the name of nonproliferation?

In the U.S. and Russia, plutonium fuel as a commodity will be a clear security risk since it will be weapons-usable material up to the point where it comes out of the reactor, making the transport of the fresh fuel a risky business. Of course, India and Pakistan have demonstrated that any plutonium can be weapons usable. Plutonium as a commodity is inherently in opposition to the spirit of nuclear nonproliferation. NIRS is a plaintiff in a lawsuit right now asserting that DOE is violating the Nonproliferation Treaty with the MOX program, particularly with the inclusion of Canada in an offshoot called Parallex, designed to test the use of MOX in Canadian CANDU reactors. –Mary Olson