|
|
|
|
 |
|
BREDL Southern Anti-Plutonium Campaign
The
United States Department of Energy plans
to reprocess nuclear warhead plutonium
into commercial nuclear power reactor
fuel. The site for fabrication of the
fuel, also called MOX, is Savannah River
in South Carolina. Weapons-grade
plutonium now stored at military sites
across the nation would be transported to
the southeast, made into fuel, and
shipped back out to Duke Power reactors
near Charlotte, North Carolina and Rock
Hill, South Carolina.
|
|
| |
BREDL Continues its Decade-long Campaign
to Halt Plutonium Fuel
Aug. 5, 2010: Tennessee Valley Authority’s
Browns Ferry and Sequoyah nuclear power plants are identified in
the July 19th Department of Energy Notice of Intent as the
reactors designated for plutonium fuel use. The handling of
special strategic nuclear materials requires the highest safety
and security procedures. But the identified problems with fire
protection, over-worked plant employees and site security lapses
at these TVA power plants should eliminate them from further
consideration by the DOE for plutonium disposition.
Read BREDL Comments
to U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security
Administration
|
Statement to the Review Conference of the
Parties to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty
Delivered May 11, 2005 at the
United Nations in New York.
May 9, 2005: Prevent the Reprocessing
of Military Plutonium Wastes into Fuel.
Statement to the Review Conference of the
Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Delivered May 11, 2005 at the
United Nations in New York. Excerpt:
| We hereby
stand opposed the reprocessing of
plutonium for fuel because it
presents unsupportable risks to
public safety and the
environment, and undermines the
goal of nuclear
non-proliferation. The
circulation of plutonium fuel in
the commercial sector would
increase the risk of diversion.
There is no way to ensure that
plutonium reprocessing facilities
for electric power will not be
turned to military use. We
submit that a global movement for
a world without nuclear weapons
must also halt the drive for
plutonium power. |
|
Anti-Plutonium Campaign Wins Concessions
On April
18, 2005 the U.S Nuclear
Regulatory Commission issued the
public version of its final
decision on the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense
League’s legal challenge to
Duke Power’s request to test
plutonium fuel at the Catawba
nuclear power station. In its
application to amend its
operating license, Duke requested
exemptions from post-9/11 federal
requirements designed to protect
nuclear materials from theft or
sabotage. The judges granted
the exemption but imposed
four conditions that Duke is
required to meet before it can
receive the fuel at Catawba. They
are:
| 1.
Duke shall modify its
security procedures
regarding plutonium fuel. 2. Duke must
demonstrate its ability
to counter an attempt at
theft of plutonium fuel
by undertaking tabletop
and force-on-force
exercises.
3. Duke
must upgrade its security
monitoring procedures
during acceptance of
plutonium fuel.
4. Duke
must establish and have
in place all procedures
identified during the
intervention hearings for
accepting the plutonium
fuel. These measures
include coordinating
transfer of plutonium
fuel from DOE,
coordinating with local
law enforcement agencies
and ensuring that armed
responders are dedicated
to the protection of the
plutonium fuel.
|
The
plutonium fuel tests necessitate
the insertion of four lead
test assemblies (LTA) into
the Catawba reactor for at least
two fuel cycles. Duke sought to
exempt Catawba Nuclear Power
Station from the regulations for
Category I facilities which have special
strategic nuclear materials such
as 2 kilograms or more of
plutonium. Duke’s Catawba
nuclear station would contain 80
kilograms of plutonium during the
proposed plutonium fuel tests.
Commercial
nuclear fuel typically
contains the oxide form
of uranium. The nuclear
industry’s term for
this novel fuel is
“MOX” because
it is a mixed oxide
containing both uranium
and plutonium. But the
primary fissile isotope
of the fuel is plutonium,
so we use the more
accurate term
“plutonium
fuel.”
Our case required access
to sensitive documents,
Safe Guards Information,
making many of the legal
proceedings closed to the
public. Relevant
information was provided
only to our technical
consultant, Dr. Edwin
Lyman of the Union of
Concerned Scientists, and
to our attorney Diane
Curran, of Harmon Curran
Spielberg and Eisenberg,
who complied with all
security requirements.
The Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board’s
ruling, originally issued
on March 10th, required
additional review and
approval before it could
be released to the public
in censored format on
April 18th. The redacted
version is freely
available and is posted
on our website. |
More info: Read
ASLBP decision (Public Redacted
Version)
BREDL Report: "Anti-Plutonium
Campaign Wins Concessions"
|
|
|
|
