A. Attention MOX Reactor Communities!

Rock Hill is home to Duke Energy's Catawba nuclear power station, slated for weapons MOX use. But neither the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have bothered to hold public meetings here (or in nearby Charlotte, close to where two other MOX reactors are located).

So regional peace and environmental groups will do it themselves! Join the Carolina Peace Resource Center and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League for an evening of information and networking that will give you the information you need to fight MOX in your community.

Panelists will discuss MOX reactor operations, heath and safety issues, proliferation implications, transportation, and issues related to the nearby Savannah River Site where the MOX program is centered.

* * MORE INFORMATION: * *

Catherine Mitchell (BREDL): (704)-545-9785 or wmitchell@carolina.rr.com
Andrew Cousins (CPRC): (803) 733-2999 or Alcousins@aol.com

B. MOX Plant License Intervention

The MOX consortium Duke-Cogema-Stone & Webster (DCS) is expected to submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December for a license to build a MOX fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site. This process will trigger at least one informal public hearing and provides an opportunity for the public to intervene in the license process.

==> A meeting of groups and individuals planning to be involved in the license intervention will be held in Columbia, SC Friday, November 10 as a "piggy back" meeting to the People's Hearing on Plutonium Fuel.

The meeting will be from 11 a.m. - 3 p.m. RSVP if you plan to attend - location information available at that time. For more information or to RSVP contact Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service SE, 828-251-2060 or nirs.se@mindspring.com.

C. Clean Energy/Clean Air Festival

D. Hearing in Savannah, GA

Public Hearing on Environmental Concerns Facing Savannah
Called by GA State Senator Regina Thomas
Saturday Nov. 11
11 a.m., location TBA
Savannah, GA

Issues include radioactive contamination in the Savannah River, health impacts, threats to groundwater and drinking water supplies.

More information: mox@wand.org

E. Meeting Overload: Why Get Involved?

We've written, we've rallied, we've testified. Phoned, faxed, and emailed. Studied our SPD EIS, parsed our NUREG 1718, tackled our 10 CFR Pt. 71, and at meeting after meeting sat, stood, and spoke out. And now the license process will trigger more meetings - this is a good thing?

Well, yes. MOX activists from Ottawa to Savannah have certainly had their fill of meetings in the last year. But their presence has been important at every one of them. Atlanta WAND MOX Coordinator Jen Kato was at two such meetings in July and wrote the following piece, asking activists:

Shall We Make A Difference?
By Jen Kato, Atlanta WAND MOX Coordinator
(Excerpt below. See full text at: www.wand.org/issuesact/moxbbdart1_10-00.html)

Have you ever overheard a conversation where two people are talking about two different things but still think there is a dialog going on? For me, two Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) public meetings in July on the licensing process for the MOX program* were just that kind of experience.

On the public's end the dialog was not about the process of how MOX facilities would be licensed - but instead a steady stream of very serious concerns about the safety, environmental and nuclear proliferation consequences of MOX itself. A profound disconnect.

When issues about MOX were raised, the NRC repeatedly told us they did not have enough information to answer the question, and yet throughout, they acted as if the MOX project were a certainty.

To fully understand the disconnect at these meetings you had to be there. And perhaps that is the point. You DID have to be there - and at every other public comment opportunity. The process for public input as defined by our government will not allow us to raise the questions that need to be raised about a program as dangerous as MOX. That means we have to define the process on our own for it to have any meaning.

My question to you is: Shall we make a difference? My answer is YES! Look for future opportunities to act, and get involved in Nixing MOX!

=======
* See articles on this NRC meeting:
=> Augusta Chronicle: "MOX Plan Scrutinized by Residents"
www.augustachronicle.com/stories/071400/met_051-5368.000.shtml
=> The State: "Activists fight nuclear fuel plan"
www.thestate.com/headlines/a1docs/mox13f.htm

F. International Nix MOX Day 2000

On September 28th activists from around the world joined together to say NO TO MOX on the 3rd International Nix MOX Day. A statement of opposition to plutonium fuel was signed by over 160 individuals and organizations from 14 countries and distributed to the media and decision-makers.

Some highlights:

• In Blackville, SC (on the southeastern border of the Savannah River Site) about 50 activists and citizens from Georgia, South Carolina and elsewhere gathered in the Macedonia Baptist Church to release the "African American Position on Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication." The emotional event included song, prayer, presentations, food, and fellowship, (and a visit from the Earth Challenge cyclists!) bringing some regional activists together for the first time and sparking renewed energy for the fight against MOX.

• In Washington DC several peace and arms control groups prepared and delivered MOX Information Packets to every member of Congress and also met with NRC Chairman Richard Meserve to express their concerns about MOX, reactor safety, and public process.

• Near the Mayak facility in Russia, where the MOX program would have a heavy impact and where one of the world's worst nuclear disasters occurred in 1957 (Nix MOX Day was timed to coincide with the anniversary of this event), activists went on the radio to oppose development of the BN-800 breeder (plutonium-producing) reactor, which Minatom wants as part of its MOX program. Activists noted that no public official or media outlet mentioned the anniversary of the accident which killed thousands, displaced tens of thousands, and continues to impact human health and the environmental in the region.

For a copy of the Nix MOX Day statement and signatures see:
www.ieer.org/comments/pu-disp/stmt2000.html

G. NCI Highlights Safety Problems in Duke Reactors

On October 19 in Charlotte, NC the Washington DC-based Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) released findings that reactors owned by Duke Energy are "unusually vulnerable to Chernobyl-type accidents" and called on the NRC to take immediate action to reduce the danger. NCI also called on Duke Energy to abandon its plans for MOX in its McGuire and Catawba nuclear plants in North and South Carolina.

The risk comes from an "uncommon" reactor containment design that relies on ice condensers rather than heavy reinforced concrete to mitigate the consequences of a severe accident. NCI states that because of this design, the risk of a major radiological release due to a meltdown would be hundreds of times higher at the Catawba and McGuire reactors than at other reactors with conventional containment.

In light of the findings, NCI is calling on DOE to issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the us of MOX in Duke Energy reactors that use ice condensers.

MORE INFORMATION and NEWS ARTICLES:

• NCI press release, letters, more: www.nci.org/nci-new.htm#menu02
• Augusta Chronicle: www.augustachronicle.com/stories/102000/met_066-4818.000.shtml
• Charlotte Observer:
• Environment News Service: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct2000/2000L-10-20-15.html

H. Package Design Underway for Fresh MOX Fuel Shipments

The NRC recently met with Packaging Technologies Inc. (a subsidiary of Cogema) to discuss design of the package that will be used to transport fresh MOX fuel from the Savannah River Site to Duke Energy reactors slated for MOX use in North and South Carolina.

"PacTec" plans to initiate full-scale testing of prototypes in September 2001 and submit a license application in 2002. (See PacTec's webpage at: .) More NRC meetings about package design are expected.

Help is needed to track this issue. Contact Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast, at 828-251-2060 or nirs.se@mindspring.com.

A. Russia

1. Russian Wants Weapons MOX in European Reactors

In a scheme to help finance its MOX program, lay groundwork for a future plutonium fuel industry and ostensibly to meet an accelerated schedule for weapons plutonium disposition, Minatom has proposed that its weapons MOX be leased for use in European reactors. Minatom first deputy minister Valentin Ivanov claims the project could save $1 billion on the cost of the Russian disposition program.

At the Belgian Nuclear Society Plutonium 2000 conference in Brussels, some Swiss and German utility operators expressed interest in using Russian MOX (though this does not represent government -or public -approval). The US has also worked with Minatom in lobbying the German government to agree to the plan.

Other responses at the conference were telling of the commercial MOX situation in Europe: a representative from Electricite de France said he would not want Russian MOX as they already "have some difficulty in recycling our own plutonium." Belgium is proceeding with a gradual nuclear phase-out and is winding down its existing MOX contracts. A Swedish utility rejected the idea noting that MOX was too expensive in a deregulated market. (Helpfully, a Duke Energy representative noted that in the US, Duke will be compensated for MOX use as well as for reactor modifications necessary to use the fuel.)

It is not at all clear how shipments of fresh weapons MOX fuel would be safeguarded during transport to Europe under the Minatom plan.

(Thanks to Tom Clements of Nuclear Control Institute for this information.)

2. German MOX Plant Going to Russia?

A proposal to ship a mothballed German MOX fabrication plant to Russia to be used as part of Russia's disposition program continues to move forward. However, unresolved liability and financing questions have stalled issuance of an export license and a recently-leaked memo indicates the decision will be deferred until the next G-8 summit in Genoa in mid-2001.

Siemens, the German nuclear corporation that owns the plant, is concerned about the lack of third-party liability coverage for plutonium fuel processing in Russia, as well as lack of coverage in case of cross-border contamination in a MOX-related accident.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder supports the export plan, as do some German Green Party leaders, though many Green Party members oppose it. Russian and US groups have also opposed the plan (see: www.nci.org/c91200.htm for a letter from Nuclear Control Institute. Letter from Russian NGOs available on request from mox@wand.org).

==> ACTION: Delays in the program allow time for more sign-on or individual letters to German leaders, which would support the efforts of Greenpeace and other groups trying to prevent export of the MOX plant. For names, fax numbers and emails of who to write to, contact Tom Clements of NCI, clements@nci.org.

3. All this and Nuclear Dumping Too

Nuclear activists in Russia have had their hands full this summer: In late June a coalition of Russian NGOs held a press conference slamming the US-Russian agreement on plutonium disposition. A month later a well-attended and highly successful anti-nuclear action camp was held near the Mayak plutonium facility in Chelyabinsk which included direct actions by participants and several arrests. Activists have also monitored developments of the Kursk nuclear submarine tragedy as well as a power failure that shut down several reactors, one of which is a breeder reactor slated for MOX that required "heroic" efforts by plant personnel to avert a catastrophe.

A looming backdrop to these efforts is the Minatom plan to import 20,000 metric tons of nuclear waste into the country for reprocessing, storage or disposal over a 10 to 15 year period. Current laws prohibit this, but proposals before the Duma would overturn those laws. Minatom predicts profits of $21 billion from the operation.

In addition to taking direct action, meeting with Duma members and other government officials, and speaking out at every opportunity, Russian activists have collected over *2.6 million* signatures calling for a national referendum on waste imports and dumping in Russia. It must clear multiple hurdles before the public would be allowed to vote on it. The Russian nuclear establishment has dismissed the petition saying the public does not know enough to comment on nuclear matters.

As of this writing, the Duma has postponed consideration of the amendment that would overturn laws preventing waste import until December 19. For more information contact: Vladimir Slivyak ecodefense@glasnet.ru or Nadezda L. Kutepova nadya@nadya.chel-65.chel.su.

B. Cogema News

(Note: Cogema is the French nuclear corporation that was awarded the US MOX contract in conjunction with Duke Energy and Stone & Webster.)

1. Cadarache MOX Plant on Shaky Ground

In July the French nuclear safety inspectorate demanded the closure of Cogema's MOX fabrication facility at Cadarache because of the company's refusal to respond to concerns that it is built in an active earthquake zone. (The Cadarache facility fabricates plutonium from Cogema's La Hauge reprocessing plant into MOX fuel for German reactors.) After months of negotiation, Cogema offered to encase the plant in a concrete shell, a proposal inspectors rejected.

The head of the safety inspectorate, André-Claude Lacoste, called the situation "unacceptable" and warned Cogema the plant would have to close in early 2000. But as the plant was never properly licensed, it is unclear who has authority to shut it down. Cogema has threatened to move its MOX work to another plant at Marcoule, which Lacoste referred to as "blackmail."

Now Cogema wants a license to expand its MOX output at its Melox plant at Marcoule. French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet is trying to block this until the Cadarache plant is closed. Closure could cause serious damage to Cogema's MOX contracts with Germany.

More information:

"COGEMA 'Blackmails' French Safety Authorities Over Cadarache Issue"
WISE-Paris Report
www.pu-investigation.org/ournews/news6.html

(Thanks to David Lowry, environmental policy consultant in Stoneleigh England, for this information.)

2. Japanese Reprocessing in France

Ten Japanese nuclear power companies have made a nearly $1 billion deal with Cogema to reprocess 600 metric tons of spent fuel over a 4-year period. The fuel was supposed to be reprocessed in Japan, but because of delays and limited capacity at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in the Aomori Prefecture (which has tripled in cost since its inception and is 8 years behind schedule), the deal was made with Cogema. The 600 MT represents about 2/3 of the spent fuel produced annually in Japan.

(Thanks to Citizen's Nuclear Information Center, Tokyo, and Steve Dolly of NCI for this information.)

C. Japan

1. MOX Battle Continues

In August, environmental groups filed an injunction against the use of MOX at the Fukushima nuclear plant north of Tokyo (owned by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc. - TEPCO). However, just one day later TEPCO announced it intends to move forward with its plans for plutonium fuel and that the government had approved the safety of MOX fuel the company received from Belgium. Use of MOX at Fukushima had been delayed due to a safety data scandal with fuel produced by BNFL for another nuclear utility in Japan.

Meanwhile, activists have called on Kansai Electric Power Co. (Kepco), which owns the Takahama nuclear plant in the Fukui Prefecture, to provide data on a batch of 16 MOX fuel assemblies now being processed in France for use at Takahama. Kepco is under fire for how it handled the BNFL MOX scandal (see past Nix MOX Bulletin Boards for more information), and it is highly uncertain if the prefectural government will even accept another shipment of MOX fuel. Nevertheless, Kepco and other MOX supporters would still like to see MOX used in 16 to 18 reactors in Japan by 2010.

2. Dr. Jinzaburo Takagi

On October 8th, MOX activists world-wide lost a brilliant and committed ally when Dr. Jinzaburo Takagi succumbed to cancer. He was 62. Takagi was co-founder and former director of the Citizen's Nuclear Information Center in Tokyo, a scientist, author, educator, children's book writer, and renowned critic of the nuclear industry. For his work on an international research project on MOX fuel use, he, along with fellow project leader Mycle Schneider, received the Right Livelihood Award in 1997. He also received the Sankei Children's Book Award (1997), the Yoko Tada Human Rights Award (1992), and the Ihatobe Award in 1994 for his practice as a scientist working for the people. In May of this year he completed an independent report on the Sept. 1999 accident at Tokai (see resources section below).

Please take a moment to read more about the life of this extraordinary man in the words of his friends and colleagues from around the world (follow web link below).
www.wand.org/issuesact/moxbbdart2_10-00.html

D. BNFL Update

1. Data Falsification Scandal Fallout

BNFL's MOX Demonstration Facility at Sellafield remains closed because BNFL has yet to fulfill requirements of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) placed on the company in the wake of last year's data falsification scandal (see past Nix MOX Bulletins for more information).

NII issued 15 recommendations, eight of which have not been fulfilled by BNFL, including explaining how senior management allowed the situation to develop. While four workers involved in the scandal were let go without compensation, three top executives who resigned from their positions received more than £250,000 each.

The payouts are particularly generous considering BNFL posted staggering losses of £337 million for 1999-2000. The damage report included £411 million in fines for the MOX scandal and other transgressions; £40 million in compensation to Japan's Kansai Electric for the bad MOX shipment; £73 million in shipping costs to return the fuel to the UK (BNFL agreed in July to a fuel take-back - see below); and £139 million on lost clean-up contracts in the US (fallout from the MOX scandal). BNFL also learned that its liabilities for decommissioning of nuclear sites jumped from £11.4 to £12.9 billion.

2. Fuel Take-Back

In an effort to end the Japanese ban on BNFL MOX and regain and expand plutonium fuel contracts in Japan, BNFL agreed in July to take back the faulty MOX fuel it delivered to Japan last fall as well as pay £40 million in compensation to Kansai Electric. (The agreement ended the Japanese MOX ban, but not those in place by Germany and Switzerland.) The shipment will take 2-3 years to organize as dozens of countries will have to agree to allow the fuel pass through their waters. It also requires approval from the US Congress.

Environmental groups have vowed to fight and possibly attempt to block the shipments. Pacific nations along the route have expressed opposition as has the Irish Minister of State in charge of nuclear safety. The route could also pass through the Panama Canal.

(Thanks to David Lowry, Pete Roche of Greenpeace UK and Tom Clements for this information.)

A. US-Russian Agreement on Plutonium Disposition

Looking for your very own copy of the US-Russian agreement on disposition of surplus plutonium? Go to: http://twilight.saic.com/md/bilatagreement1.htm and click on "pudispagree.pdf." (Note: the file is in PDF format, which requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, widely available for free on the web.)

The agreement was signed Sept. 1st, but liability issues, such as indemnity for US corporations in case of an accident involving Russian MOX, are still not resolved. The US is seeing "total, unlimited" indemnity for its contractors. Also unresolved is funding for the Russian program (see below).

For more on the agreement see David Lowry's articles for WISE-Paris:
"Minatom minister clears up some outstanding confusions" www.wise-paris.org/ournewsframe/news3.html and
"Russian plutonium politics hit by liability uncertainties" www.wise-paris.org/ournewsframe/news5.html.

B. Dialing for MOX Dollars

The Russian MOX program is estimated to cost $2.5 billion (probably more as this excludes some costs), but thus far, only $400 million has been committed by the US, £70 million by the UK (about $100 million), and $34 million from Japan for the use of MOX in Russian breeder reactors.

The US has been pushing hard on European governments to pony up for Russian MOX, but with limited success. At the G-8 summit in Okinawa this July a decision on funding was put off until next year. (For more on the G-8 summit, see NCI's issue brief at: www.nci.org/g8brief.htm.) Russia has proposed its own funding plan: sell the MOX to European utilities through a specially-created international leasing company. (See section II.A. above.) BNFL and Cogema are not likely to support this strategy.

C. In Brief. . .

• Immobilization Team Forms:
  Cogema has teamed up with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to bid on the US plutonium immobilization contract (note that in the US-Russian agreement immobilization was not included in disposition plans for Russia). Cogema and ANSTO joined with a US-based engineering firm Burns and Roe to form the company "Roe CA." ANTSO would only be involved in the design phase of the project but is contributing its "SYNROC" technology that allows radioactive materials to be bound in artificial rock.

• Russian Disposition RFP:
  The Dept. of Energy will release a Request for Proposals (RFP) sometime in November for design and construction of Russian plutonium disposition facilities. See www.ch.doe.gov/business/acq/ic/ic.htm for more information.

• Source of LTAs Uncertain:
  Since Los Alamos National Lab lost the contract for fabrication of the MOX Lead Test Assemblies (LTAs) no decision has been finalized about where LTAs would be made instead. However, the DCS MOX consortium is looking into the feasibility of using surplus weapons plutonium from the UK (the UK declared 4.4 metric tons of plutonium surplus in 1998). The plan faces numerous political, legal and technical obstacles. A report by DCS to DOE is due by the end of the year.

• MOX Security:
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering reducing physical protection for fresh MOX fuel below Category I requirements. Options include leaving requirements at Category I or moving to "kind of a hybrid" between Category I and standards for low enriched uranium fuel. A Standard Review Plan would be likely be issued on the proposed change ("in the next year or two," according to one NRC official) and made available for public comment.

• Parallex Update
  A shipment of Russian MOX fuel samples, part of the US-Russian Parallex Program, was flown to Canada's Chalk River reactors in September despite much effort by US and Canadian activists to prevent it. For an article on one of the protests see: www.ottawacitizen.com/city/000922/4560037.html.

(Thanks to Ed Lyman and Tom Clements of NCI, Kay Cumbow of Citizens for a Healthy Planet, David Lowry, and Linda Gunter of Safe Energy Communication Council for providing information.)