**********************Yurika's E-mail Pu-Update****************** Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow Project Physicians for Social Responsibility FISSILE MATERIAL DISPOSITION & CIVIL USE OF PLUTONIUM Issue No. 3 October 24, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------ CONTENTS NEWS BRIEFS 1. G7 Paris Meeting to be Held on Weapons Plutonium Disposition 2. Industry Ambitions in the "Disarmament" Market Column:Who Are BNFL and COGEMA? 3. IAEA Approves Air Shipment of Plutonium 4. German Plutonium to Hanford FFTF for Tritium? 5. Russian HEU to be Supplied to Research Reactors in Europe? 6.Draft Nonproliferation Assessment Published ***************************************************************** NEWS BRIEFS 1. G7 Paris Meeting to be Held on Weapons Plutonium Disposition On October 28-30,1996, the G7 governments plus Russia will convene in Paris with Belgium, Switzerland, the European Union, and the IAEA to discuss plutonium disposition options. The French initiative Paris meeting is not specifically aimed at promoting the reactor option using plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel (MOX), but is expected to have all disposition options, including vitrification discussed.(1) US and Russia have engaged in a joint study to look into the disposition options. The "Joint United States/Russian Plutonium Disposition Study" (September 1996) which will serve as a basis for the discussion at the Paris Meeting analyzed four plutonium disposition options, which are 1)Water Reactors 2)Fast Reactors 3)Immobilization and 4)Geologic Disposal. The significant difference between this study and the studies made solely in the US is that a fast reactor option is included. Since fast reactor is the ultimate objective of a plutonium economy, this is a clear indication that Russia is pushing for utilizing plutonium to get into a plutonium economy. With the European nuclear industries stronly supporting the plutonium economy, the summit discussion is likely to be dominated by the European MOX initiatives, if the US does not present any viable proposal other than the reactor options. On October 17, 1996, a session was organized for the officials of the State Department, Department of Defense and Department of Energy to discuss with NGOs what to propose at the Paris Summit. It became obvious during the discussion that the US government, with the official Record of Decision yet to be made in December,1996 is not prepared to present any concrete proposal. The officials present merely repeated the position that the US government is open to all options. When the NGOs raised the issue of the impacts of LWR or fast reactor options on the civil plutonium industry,and asked how the US government is prepared to disencourage the civil reprocessing, they flatly answered that their mission is to focus on what to do with the 50 tons of "excess" weapons plutonium, not civil plutonium. But the fact is that the same companies in the civil plutonium industries would be contracting and implementing the disposition program, and these companies have a strong stake in maintaining their plutonium businesses. When asked whether these companies would be attending the Paris Summit, the officials present at the meeting confirmed that though this meeting is only for government representatives, there are corporations which cannot be separated from governments, such as BNFL(British Nuclear Fuels plc) of UK and COGEMA(Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires) of France. Twelve NGOs in Washington DC, including Physicians for Social Responsibility, Nuclear Control Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace International, Institution for Science and International Security, wrote to the Secretary of State on October 3,1996 urging that all disposition options be discussed, with a special emphasis on the immobilization of plutonium in glass.(2) They stated that the Paris Summit is "the first real opening that permits the United States to influence Russia toward a dual-track approach in evaluating disposition options and toward consideration of vitrification" and that "a concrete U.S. proposal" is essential for this meeting. The letter emphasized that "A pilot MOX plant built with foreign capital would subsidize Russia's pursuit of a commercial plutonium industry." ---------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Nuclear Fuel, June 3, 1996 (2) Letter to Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, October 3, 1996 ================================================================ 2. Industry Ambitions in the "Disarmament" Market BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS PLC(BNFL) is one of the major companies in the plutonium business and is currently focusing on extending their business in the US "disarmament" market. They submitted an "expression of interest" to the DOE for "moxification" of US weapons plutonium in January 1996. BNFL is promoting itself as an "international nuclear waste management" company.(3) The biggest contract they have secured is a cleanup project of Hanford waste tank, with Lockheed Martin, worth $4 billion, announced on September 25, 1996. Since this contract involves only 7% of the total tank waste, they predict that the contract could lead to many years of add-on works.(4) BNFL is also one of the three principal subcontractors of Westinghouse's $6 billion, five-year contract for managing the cleanup operations of DOE's Savannah River Site, with Bechtel and Babcock&Wilcox.(5) BNFL also won a $53 million contract with DOE to manage plutonium at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site in Denver, Colorado.(6) BNFL is, in addition, involved in talks with the Russian government about their excess plutonium.(7) Belgium's MOX fabricator, BELGONUCLEAIRE, held a seminar in Washington DC on July 9, 1996 to promote its capacity in US of fabricating MOX fuels from weapons plutonium. Their design of a MOX plant is similar to that of their planned P1 plant in Belgium that can be used for producing MOX fuel from weapons plutonium only. However, as discussed in the previous issue, the P1 plant has not been constructed due to illegitimate licensing procedures.(8) ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LTD(AECL) is an entity aggresive in burning excess plutonium from both US and Russia in their CANDU reactors. A feasibility study on its probability is under way by DOE, AECL, and Ontario Hydro, whose reactors would be used for the project. A similar study has been launched with the Ministry of Russian Federation for Atomic Energy (Minatom) as well.(9) BNFL is willing to coordinate these arrangements.(10) Application for export of a small quantity of plutonium-uranium fuel pellets to Canada has been filed by DOE and Los Alamos National Laboratory to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in July.(11) The objective of this export is to confirm feasibility of the CANDU MOX option. Nuclear Control Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace petitioned the NRC to reject this export license on October 4th. The groups stated that though the quantity of plutonium is small, "it represents an important first stepping stone to a program of substantial proportions." CANDU reactors are operated not only in Canada but in India, South Korea, Romania and Argentina. If MOX utilization in Canadian CANDUs are endorsed, it would be likely that the countries with CANDU reactors "seize on MOX demonstration in Canada as a precedent to justify their own use of plutonium."(12) SIEMENS of Germany and French COGEMA are most prominent in "moxification" of Russian plutonium. The G7 Summit in Moscow(April,1996) opened a way for multilateral ventures among western nuclear industries to convert fissile materials from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into fuel. Siemens had announced earlier when they decided to close down their MOX fabrication plant in Hanau that they are "in principle willing to make the plant and the requisite know-how available" for the conversion of weapons plutonium to produce MOX fuel assemblies.(13) However, "Under the prevailing circumstances the idea will remain an unrealizable dream." (14) French COGEMA has a separate idea of constructing a plant called the Transformation Objets MOX(Tomox), based exclusively on COGEMA technology. However, both schemes are incompatible with each other and there is no financing for either project. ------------------------------------------------------- (3) Financial Times, October 10, 1996 (4) BNFL Press Release(September 25, 1996), Seattle Post- Intelligence(September 26, 1996) (5) UPI August 6, 1996, North-West Evening Mail (Cumbria, UK) August 23, 1996 (6) Nuclear Fuel, April 8, 1996 (7) Nuclear Fuel, April 8, 1996 (8) Nuclear Fuel 7/15/96, (9) Plutonium MOX Fuel Initiative by Dept. of Foreign Affairs & International Trade and Natural Resources Canada (May 1996), Washington Post (8/11/96) (10) Nuclear Fuel, April 8, 1996 (11) Letter from Los Alamos National Laboratory to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 11, 1996 (12) Letter to NRC, October 4, 1996 (13) Siemens Press Release, "Siemens and Utilities Abandon MOX Plant in Hanau, Limited-Term Option for Disarmament Purposes Ensured," July 7, 1995 (14) Quoted from a paper "Options for Plutonium in Germany," presented by E.R. Merz (Research Centre Julich) for the International Seminar on MOX Fuel (June 1996, UK) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHO ARE BNFL AND COGEMA? THEY ARE THE ENTITIES WHICH HAVE GREATLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE WORLD. ACCORDING TO A SURVEY MADE BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, "OVER 95% OF THE RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ENTERING THE ATLANTIC FROM EUROPEAN NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS ORIGINATE IN SELLAFIELD AND LA HAGUE"(15) OWNED BY BNFL AND COGEMA RESPECTIVELY. BNFL(British Nuclear Fuels plc) is a government owned company providing a full range of nuclear fuel cycle and waste management services. It has overseas offices in Tokyo, China, South Korea, seven offices in the United States with a head office in Washington DC, and new offices in France, Germany and South Africa. The company was established in 1971, inheriting the Sellafield nuclear complex, owned by United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA), established to develop nuclear weapons. Ever since its beginning, the nuclear complex has discharged enormous quantities of radioactive wastes into the sea and air. The total amount of radioactivity discharged into the Irish Sea from its startup till 1984 is twice the amount of radioactive waste dumped by former USSR into the Arctic Sea.(16) In 1985, the Sellafield facility was named the "Nuclear Laundry" when the Yorkshire TV documentary reported that the childhood leukemia in the area was ten times more than the national average. The figure was updated to be 14 times by Health and Safety Executive Report in 1994.(17) The new reprocessing plant THORP was so controversial that it could not get government authorization to startup for almost two years after construction in 1992, because of radioactive discharge levels and economic concerns. Now after two years of operation, the plant was criticized by CORE (Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment) in its recent report, "THORP - Lame Duck and Loser" (August, 1996) for not making any profits and only struggling at half of its projected level of operation. BNFL actually announced that they have made a loss of 88 million pounds, but nevertheless a record export sales of 501 million pounds.(18) COGEMA(Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires) is another giant in the nuclear fuel cycle industry, involved in every phase of the fuel cycle. It was established in 1976, taking over the large-scale military-civil nuclear complex at La Hague owned by Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (CEA). They are authorized by the government to discharge more radioactivity into the environment than their competitors. For instance, the licensed liquid discharge limit of La Hague reprocessing plants for alpha emitting radioactivity(ie. plutonium) is 1200 times greater than that of the German government for the cancelled Wackersdorf reprocessing plant. For beta emitting radioactivity (ie. strontium-90, cesium-137, excluding tritium), it is 40,000 times greater, and 300 times greater for tritium.(19) Moreover, COGEMA is planning to store German spent fuel in order to keep their German customers' reprocessing contracts. This clearly violates the French Nuclear Waste Law of 1991 that prohibits the storage of foreign waste in France. --------------------------------------------------------- (15)"The MOX Industry or the Civilian Use of Plutonium" C. Kueppers & M.Sailer (IPPNW 1994) Chapter 3 (16) Ibid. (17) Memorandum from CORE (September 6, 1996) (18) North-West Evening Mail (Cumbria, UK) August 31, 1996 (19) "Plutonium Fuels: An Independent Analysis of the Strategy and Performance of Plutonium Production and Use in France" Mycle Schneider (WISE-Paris, June 1996) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3. IAEA Approves Air Shipment of Plutonium The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved new criteria for a separate air-shipment cask at their Board of Governors Meeting held in Vienna on September 9, 1996. The new criteria for the air transport container, known as Type C, requires a more stringent crash proof impact test of 90 meters per second (203 mph) in place of the one for Type B casks currently in use requiring only 13 meters per second(30 mph). Nevertheless it is not as stringent as that required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of US which is 129 meters, almost equivalent to the flight recorder standard,and 282 meters for flights over US territory.(20) However, this is only a guideline, and it will not be in effect until it is approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and by countries involved. Until then, Type B casks can continue to be used for air shipments of plutonium with multilateral approval of the parties directly involved. It takes two years for ICAO to approve the new guidelines, and as much as ten years for countries to adopt them, so in effect, air tranport of plutonium may go on for years with casks which do not meet the new standard, which in itself is not as safe as that of the "black box." (21) MOX fuel has been and is being transported by air from UK to Swiss reactors. The first shipment of 4 tons of MOX, equivalent to 100 kg of plutonium, took place in June 1994. The next transport of 2 tons of MOX fuel took place between then and December 1995. Switzerland has contracts with BNFL to fabricate a total of 14 tons of MOX, and if the rest of the MOX fuel is also to be air lifted, there would be some 5 more tranports.(22) On September 12, 1996 Greenpeace detected an air transport of MOX fuel from Germany to Scotland and delayed the transport at the Belgium Airport for an hour. The cargo of MOX fuel came from the abandoned Hanau MOX fabrication plant by road, and was flown from the Ostend Airport in Belgium to Wick Airport in Scotland. This was to avoid protests in Germany against the air lifting of the material. (23) The Belgium government on September 25,1996 announced that they had decided to suspend further air shipments of plutonium to the UK until they conclude a review of the conditions under which plutonium is transported. They hailed Greenpeace for raising concerns on the shipment. Since the Belgium airport is a crucial point in the shipment of nuclear materials between Germany and UK, the decision by the Belgium government is considered a severe blow to the UK plutonium industry.(24) ---------------------------------------------------------------- (20) IAEA-TECDOC-702, Status Report on Plutonium Air Shipments, by Sharon Tanzer (NCI) August 31, 1996 (21) Greenpeace Press Releases, September 4 & September 11, 1996, NCI Press Release September 13, 1996 (22) Greenpeace Memorandum, Shaun Burnie (October 1, 1996) (23) Reuter, September 12, 1996 (24) Greenpeace Press Release(September 25, 1996), The Scotsman (September 27, 1996) ================================================================ 4. German Plutonium to be Sent to Hanford for Tritium Production? Plutonium fuel from the abandoned Kalkar fast breeder reactor in Germany may be sold to the United States to produce tritium.(25) Advanced Nuclear and Medical Systems (ANMS) in Richland, WA plans to buy 205 plutonium fuel rods from Germany which were intended for Kalkar. They are to be burned in the currently closed Fast Flux Test Reactor(FFTF) at Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State in order to produce tritium for US nuclear weapons program. ANMS is a consortium which expressed interest in tritium production in response to the DOE inquiry, and proposed privatizing FFTF to sell tritium to DOE. It would produce medical isotopes for sale as well. FFTF was built in the 1970s to support the development of fast breeder reactor program, but was canceled along with the closing of the Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactr. FFTF's shutdown was officially announced in 1993. However, beginning in 1996, DOE has put FFTF back on the table to consider its viability as a tritium source together with the possible burning of plutonium. If things go as ANMS plans, the plutonium fuel will be shipped by air or sea from Germany to a naval nuclear fuel fabrication facility owned by Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) in Erwin TN, before shipping it to Hanford.(26) Further to that, according to ANMS plans, DOE would sell them Fuels & Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) which is adjacent to FFTF and would be converted to produce MOX fuel using excess weapons plutonium.(27) --------------------------------------------------------------- (25) Der Spiegel No.43, October 21, 1996, "Ganz heiss"(Very Hot) (26) Greenpeace Press Release (Amsterdam), October 19, 1996 (27) Nuclear Fuel, October 21, 1996 =============================================================== 5. Russian HEU to be Supplied to Research Reactors in Europe? One of the crucial agreements achieved at the Moscow G7 Summit (April 1996) was a bilateral agreement between France and Russia calling for Russia to supply highly enriched uranium (HEU) from dismantled nuclear weapons for research reactors of France, in return for allowing Russians to use French research facilities. This is perceived by some Europeans as a breakthrough for "Europeanization" of fuel cycle policy, thereby "freeing" research reactors in Europe from the US restricted supply of HEU. Ever since the 1950s, US has served as the sole supplier of HEU, with the takeback condition of spent fuel to the US, so that US could have control over this weapons capable fissile material from non-proliferation perspective. If HEU could be supplied by Russia and the spent fuel sent to Dounreay in Scotland for reprocessing, the Europeans would be independent from Washington's spent fuel policy. In Germany, the Bavarian government started construction of a new research reactor using HEU on July 31,1996. The reactor will be the first built to use HEU since 1978 outside of China and Libya, and is against US efforts to eliminate commerce in weapons-grade nuclear materials and the specific aim of the US-sponsored Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactor program.(28) Though the Russian government as well as the French deny extending the agreement to an European context, the Euratom Treaty considers European Community as a single borderless entity within which nuclear materials may flow freely in principle. Germany, after considering the alternative option of sending the spent HEU from current research reactors to Dounreay for reprocessing, decided to accept DOE's offer of takeback. Germans favor DOE's offer, since they would not have to accept the waste created by the reprocessing option. (29) However for the research reactor FRM-2 in Bavaria, the German industry and the state of Bavaria have come on a counteroffensive, claiming that US is violating Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which says the nuclear weapon states are obliged to supply materials to non nuclear-weapon states for peaceful use of nuclear energy. Negotiations between Minatom and Euratom actually seems to be going on. (30) --------------------------------------------------------------- (28) Nuclear Fuel 5/6, 5/20, 6/17, 1996 (29) Nuclear Fuel 8/12/96 (30) Nuclear Fuel 10/21/96 ============================================================== 6. Draft Nonproliferation Assessment of Plutonium Dispostion Alternatives Published for Public Scrutiny The Draft Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material Storage and Plutonium Disposition Alternatives was published on October 1, 1996 from the Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation of DOE . Copy is available from the Nonproliferation Office(tel:202-586-5940). There will be nine meetings sponsored by DOE for public to submit verbal and written comments. Comments may also be submitted through mail, e-mail (assessment@hq.doe.gov), or by calling the toll free number (1-800-835-8009). All comments are due by November 6, 1996. Mailing address: US DOE, Nonproliferation Assessment, NN-41JAP, 10000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, USA. Meetings to be held: 10/28: Oakland Operations Office (Oakland,CA)/Nevada Operations Office (Las Vegas,NV)/Idaho Operations Office (Idaho Falls,ID) 10/30: Richland Operations Office (Richland,WA)/ Bonneville Power Administration (Portland,OR) 11/1: Headquarters (Wahshington,DC) 11/4: Pantex Site Office (Amarillo,TX) 11/6: Savannah River Operations Office(North Augusta, SC)/ Oak Ridge Operations Office (Oak Ridge, TN) 11/8: Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site(Northglenn, CO) ***************************************************************** Thanks to Kathryn Schultz of Center for Defense Information, the Pu-Updates are now available on CDI's Home Page on the Web. It could be accessed at under Fissile Materials in the Issues section. **************************************************************** For any information or comments on the newsletter, or for subscription, or for previous issues, please contact Yurika Ayukawa at 202-898-0150 Ext.226, fax 202-898-0172, or e-mail .