Plutonium
Fuel Brief:
New legislation introduced in the US Senate by Energy Committee Chair, Frank Murkowski (R-AK), would insure the expanded use of nuclear power in the United States, and encourage the use of nuclear fuels derived from reactor waste. If this legislation is approved, widespread use of plutonium fuel (MOX) is likely. (S 388, The National Energy Security Act of 2001 introduced on February 26, 2001)
Plutonium fuel is advantaged
by waste reuse because all reactor waste contains plutonium. Plutonium can be
made into fuel without enrichment (a dirty, energy intensive process) required
for reuse of uranium. Plutonium fuel use is already being pursued by the US
Dept. of Energy with nuclear weapons grade plutonium under the guise of nuclear
non-proliferation. This reverses a 20-year US ban on plutonium
fuel.
If
approved, this plan would also reverse 20 years of sound prohibition of
commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing. Spectacularly expensive failures in
Washington and New York states, and citizen intervention in South Carolina, the
only nuclear fuel-reprocessing site in the US is at the DOE’s Savannah River
Site (SRS). SRS is incidentally the proposed site for the first-ever US
plutonium fuel factory planned for turning former nuclear weapons plutonium into
reactor fuel (a very convenient package deal).
While plutonium from nuclear
reactor waste is better known and understood as a fuel than the highly
experimental idea of using weapons grade plutonium as a fuel, all plutonium
brings increased risk, costs and hazards to the nuclear power
equation.
Murkowski’s S 388
:
Ø
Promotes
increased reliance on nuclear energy (Sec. 2.a.7);
Ø
Directs
Congress to determine, "whether the spent fuel in the repository should be
treated as waste subject to permanent burial or should be considered an energy
resource that is needed to meet future energy requirements" (Sec. 107.a) which
would require reprocessing
Ø
Creates
an Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research at DOE to research and develop
"technologies for treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel" (Sec. 107.c); including research on
transmutation and [re]processing (Sec. 107.e.2);
Ø
Directs
the Secretary of Energy to assess "innovative financing techniques" - including
federal loan guarantees, federal
price guarantees, special tax considerations, and direct federal government investment - to "encourage
and enable" construction of new nuclear power plants (Sec.
111);
Ø
Amends
the Price-Anderson Act and extends it for 10 years to August 1, 2012 (Sec.
401-409); with no reference to increased liability due to plutonium fuel
use…
Ø
Appropriates
$60,000,000 in FY2002 for a "Nuclear Energy Research Initiative" to be
managed by the DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy (Sec. 410); and also $25,000,000 in FY2002 for DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy to map out the design
and development of a new nuclear energy facility in the U.S. (Sec.
412);
Ø
Establishes
a system of incentive payments for existing commercial reactors generating and
selling electricity (Sec. 420); and allows utilities to claim as a deductible
costs of temporary spent fuel storage (Sec. 961).
More…
What
must be done to stop S 388 and similar legislation:
Bottom line, an all-out
political campaign based on wide spread public education is the only way. This
requires that we get to know our elected officials, and develop mechanisms to
funnel large amounts of public in-put to them. It is not enough to make one
phone call…we must have a relationship with the staff of our Senators and
Representative.
There are also
administrative routes that may be helpful. Resolutions by elected officials and
governing bodies, professional organizations and other groups opposing the
provisions embodied in S 388 and forwarded to all members of the Congressional
delegation as well as the chairs and ranking members of the Committees of
Jurisdiction – in the Senate: Energy, Finance, Budget and Natural
Resources.
Traditional Organizing
Methods:
Create a local communication
structure –
Ø
Email
lists
Ø
Local Phone tree – this is
for upcoming votes, where an e-mail may not produce
results
Ø
Enlist folks to stay “tuned”
to key web sites http://www.nirs.org/ and http://www.citizen.org/cmep add yours here!
Communicate with Senators
and Rep
Ø
Most effective: hand written
personal letter, composed by sender
Ø
Start a sign-on letter like
a petition to collect signatures at events
Ø
Write letters to local /
regional paper’s Editor – or send a copy your letter to your members of congress
to the paper asking them to print that. Members of Congress CONSISTANTLY read
the letters to the Editor in their home state/district
Ø
Create a drum beat of
contact with your 2 Senators and Representative….don’t let lack of response
deter you…
Ø
When word comes of an
impending vote, CALLS to the DC offices is what is needed.
Ø
If your Senator or Rep
opposes this legislation: DO NOT THINK YOUR JOB IS OVER! Praise them in public,
and in the press. Be sure that they get letters of thanks and
support.
Ø
If you get no commitment, or
they support S 388, consider the Bird Dog approach: Begin tracking when these folks are in
your area…work with others who are concerned. Start showing up at public events
and bring your concerns out in these public arenas: constituent breakfasts, press
conferences on any subject, any venue…plan your tackle to be short, and cast so
that no matter what the response, he/she looks bad. Like “Could you tell me why
you support S 388 and new nuclear power reactors when they still have not
figured out how to get rid of nuclear waste without spoiling Nevada ground
water?” Contact NIRS for ideas on how to make this work.
Be Creative and make up excuses to remind and educate about the terrible down-sides of nuclear power…How about Nuclear Waste Appreciation Day…spelling out the evils as we know them!
P.O. Box 7586
Asheville, North Carolina
28802
828-251-2060
fax 828-236-3489
nirs.se@mindspring.com
http://www.nirs.org