NUCLEAR SHORTS….

Washington: In a victory for environmentalists, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson in mid-July temporarily halted the "recycling" and release of contaminated metals from nuclear weapons plants into general commerce. Richardson’s decision reflects increasing public awareness and concern over the concept of radioactive "recycling," and NIRS’ growing campaign to stop the practice before it becomes embedded in the nuclear culture. Although Richardson’s action was a step in the right direction, NIRS’ Radioactive Waste Project Director Diane D’Arrigo warned that other types of contaminated materials, such as concrete, can still be released from DOE plants. More importantly, Richardson said he is waiting for development of a "standard" before allowing further release of contaminated materials. The DOE is working on such a standard, as are the NRC and EPA.

Meanwhile, the NRC has hired the National Academy of Sciences to help legitimize the concept, which essentially states that some radioactive materials are, in the words of a previous NRC, "below regulatory concern." The NRC is set to approve plans by Maine Yankee and Big Rock Point to allow "rubblization" of some of their contaminated materials as part of decommissioning the reactors. The utilities want to bulldoze parts of their reactor buildings and other structures into on- and off-site landfills.

Washington: You probably know this by now, but if not: President Clinton kept his five-year old promise and vetoed the Mobile Chernobyl bill, which was passed by both the House and Senate. The veto was sustained in the Senate by one vote; the House did not vote on the veto.

Meanwhile, the Las Vegas Sun reported on December 1 that the Department of Energy has been working with the nuclear industry to ensure that Yucca Mountain will be chosen as the nation’s nuclear waste dump, even though scientific studies of the site are not complete.

According to the Sun, the DOE has concluded in a draft document that Yucca will be acceptable, and a note, apparently attached to the draft by a DOE contractor, says that the document is intended to help the industry sell the project to Congress.

The draft admits that the cost of Yucca Mountain, and related expenses such as waste transport, is now at $58 Billion, up from the DOE’s previous estimate of $36 Billion in the mid-1990s.

Washington: In a potentially dangerous development, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has recommended that Congress step in and determine whether the EPA or NRC should establish standards for protection from low levels of radiation. At issue is an eight-year old fight between the two agencies over which one has authority to set radiation standards. The EPA generally has proposed more protective standards; the NRC has consistently proposed standards that benefit the nuclear industry over public health.

For example, the EPA has proposed groundwater standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada waste dump of 4 millirems/year, or approximately the equivalent of a 1 in 10,000 lifetime risk of fatal cancer. The NRC has proposed a 25 millirems/year standard for groundwater—or about eight times less protective. The EPA has proposed basic clean-up standards for nuclear sites of about 15 millirems/year—considered by most environmentalists as unacceptably dangerous, while the NRC holds to its 25 millirems/year level, and for some instances, goes to 100 millirems/year, and 500 millirems/year for sewage sludge.

The GAO report was requested by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who long has supported NRC establishment of radiation standards over EPA standards. It is likely that Domenici will attempt to legislate acceptance of NRC standards. The report is available at www.gao.gov

California: In a major victory, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision and ordered a new trial in the case of a worker at the San Onofre nuclear complex who died of cancer at the age of 43. The woman’s husband and her four children filed suit against Southern California Edison charging that her exposure to radiation at the plant caused her rare form of cancer.

Said plaintiff attorney Don Howarth, "We are particularly pleased with this opinion because it will affect cases across the country. Power plants operating negligently have been able to avoid their obligations by using laws which were not designed for the complexities of cancer in the toxic tort context. We cannot go back and correct the wrongs done to the widows and orphaned children of the past, but at least future cases will have a just standard."

According to Howarth’s firm, San Onofre operated with more than 100 defective fuel rods for more than two years during the 1980s, leading to substantial radiation exposures among plant workers and others.

North Carolina: Three people, including NC WARN director Jim Warren, were arrested October 17 for committing non-violent civil disobedience at Carolina Power & Light’s Raleigh headquarters. The three were part of a group protesting CP&L’s plans to expand the irradiated fuel pool at Shearon Harris—which environmentalists believe would be used for the import of high-level waste from other CP&L reactors, and perhaps even other utilities, making the Raleigh-Durham area a de facto high level waste dump.

On November 30, NC WARN released a document prepared by Union of Concerned Scientists that found that two fuel pools at reactors during the past year had lost cooling for 48 hours—potentially significant safety incidents, since fuel pools can begin to boil over after 48 hours. At the Duane Arnold reactor in Iowa, temperatures reached 11 degrees above the point where damage to safety equipment can occur.

Canada: British Energy strikes again. In a controversial deal, British Energy has leased the eight Bruce reactors (four of which were mothballed) for the next 18 years. The plants’ owner, Ontario Hydro, should get about $3.1 billion for the deal (although environmental groups think even that figure is overstated), which it wants to use to pay back some of its current $7.8 billion debt. But Canadian ratepayers think the money should be used against some of the $21 billion in stranded costs the utility has accumulated over the years—losses that ratepayers are being expected to cover.

Meanwhile, follow this—it gets complicated: British Energy is a partner with PECO Energy in the most controversial U.S. nuclear firm, AmerGen. British Energy already operates 11 reactors in the United Kingdom, the 8 Bruce reactors makes 19. PECO Energy already operates four reactors, and has an interest in two others. The PECO and BE joint venture AmerGen operates three reactors, and is attempting to purchase one more. Meanwhile, PECO Energy has merged with Unicom of Illinois, which operates 10 reactors, and has two more awaiting decommissioning. The new PECO/Unicom firm is called Exelon, and AmerGen falls under the Exelon umbrella.

Thus, Exelon, directly and indirectly, already controls 37 reactors, and is working on more…..

France: The French nuclear safety inspectorate and environment minister are demanding the permanent shutdown of Cogema’s nuclear reprocessing plan at Cadarache, in the southern part of the country. In documents leaked to WISE-Paris, the French inspectors said that there is a growing earthquake risk in the region of the plant, and complained of Cogema’s refusal to consider closing the facility. Indeed, instead of working toward shutdown, Cogema has increased production of MOX fuel at the plant, although the fuel is intended for Germany, which has announced it intends to phase out use of MOX, or plutonium-based, fuel. Cogema also has threatened to move its operations to an equally controversial nearby facility at Marcoule. The Cadarache plant originally was built to service the failed Superphenix breeder reactor, but Cogema now appears ready to continue the plant’s operation at any cost. That should be ample warning to the U.S., where Cogema is slated to be a major player in the proposed U.S. MOX fuel program.

Russia: Another anti-nuclear action camp in Russia has ended in police violence. This time, the camp was being held near Mayak, home to much of Russia’s nuclear weapons industry and site of a major proposed MOX fuel facility, which the Russians hope to build with U.S. help. Earlier, camp participants had engaged in radiation monitoring in the area, especially along the Techa River. They found radiation levels ranging from 10 times higher than background to more than 100 times above background, and posted signs warning drivers in the area as well as residents that they were in high radiation zones.

That was apparently too much for Russian authorities. When camp participants held a public protest to build awareness of their findings, they were met with police batons and brutality. Several were hospitalized by the unprovoked attack.

The camp ended as a success, however, as the vice-governor of the Chelyabinsk region announced his agreement with camp participants that no radioactive waste from outside Russia should be stored in the region. Russian environmental groups collected well over 2.5 million signatures in order to conduct a national referendum on the issue. However, the government disqualified a large number of the signatures, and claimed that the groups had failed to collect the necessary 2 million.

In July, camp sponsor ECODEFENSE! released documents showing that the Taiwan Power Company had reached a secret agreement with Russia’s Kurchatov Institute, Russia’s largest nuclear weapons center, to store radioactive waste from Taiwan’s nuclear reactors on the Russian island of Simushir, off the country’s east coast. The documents said that Taiwan plans on sending some 200,000 barrels of "low-level" atomic waste to Russia, and will pay some $10 billion for the privilege. However, Russia has not yet changed its laws to allow importation of foreign nuclear waste.

The country is under heavy internal and external pressure to change its laws however. Groups ranging from the U.S.-based Non-Proliferation Trust to utilities across Asia are lobbying to make Russia an international atomic waste dumping ground, despite the unanimous opposition of Russian environmentalists and widespread disapproval by the public, who believe that Russia already has suffered enough from radioactive contamination.

Taiwan: The Taiwanese government in October cancelled construction of the country’s fourth nuclear plant (which would include its 7th & 8th reactors). The cancellation brought a threat from the U.S. to force Taiwan to pay for the reactors anyway, which were being constructed by General Electric. Of more immediate concern to the Taiwan government and its new president, Chang Chung-Hsiung, was an impeachment drive organized by pro-nuclear parliamentarians. However, it appears that Chang had survived his political opponents, perhaps helped by a march in Taipei of nearly 20,000 people demonstrating in support of the reactors’ cancellation.

Turkey: In another major victory, the Turkish government has decided not to proceed with plans to build that nation’s first atomic reactor complex at Akkuyu. After a decade of study and planning for the project, the government abruptly made an about-face and determined that the proposed nuclear plant would be too expensive, too dangerous, and would leave Turkey responsible for the plant’s radioactive waste. Several multinational corporations, including Westinghouse, Siemens, and Atomic Energy of Canada actively were pursuing the Turkish deal.

Ukraine: The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) voted December 7 to provide a $215 million loan to help Ukraine construct the proposed K2/R4 reactors, despite a last-ditch international effort to stop the loan.

On November 29, more than 320 environmental groups from across the world, led by CEE Bankwatch, released a letter to the EBRD opposing the proposed loan.

NIRS in the U.S. and organizations across Europe met with government delegations in an effort to explain that the K2.R4 reactors can never meet western safety standards; that Ukraine is unlikely to ever be able to repay such a loan (it collects only about 8% of its electricity billings in cash); and that there are far better means of meeting Ukraine’s energy needs than by building new nuclear reactors. The reactors are meant as a replacement for the permanent shutdown of Chornobyl, which is scheduled to take place December 15.

The loan was unusually divisive for an institution that likes unanimous votes; only 63.7& of the shares voted for the project. Eight nations voted against the loan and 11 others abstained from the vote. While the U.S. supported the loan, a majority of the European Union nations either voted no or abstained. Since the bulk of the project’s cost is supposed to come from the EU controlled European Commission, activists are now targeting it for the next round of opposition.