A. Passing the Hat for Russian MOX

The US is doing some heavy international lobbying for financial support of Russian MOX as its own plutonium disposition program would stall if the Russian program fails to secure funding. The G-8 Plutonium Disposition Plenary Group, co-chaired by the US, continues to work to find funding for the Russian MOX program with some $560 million pledged thus far toward the estimated $830 million in start-up costs.

However, Michael Guhin, chief negotiator on the US-Russian disposition agreement, said "a lot more work" is needed before a funding plan will be solidly in place by next July when the G-8 reconvenes in Genoa. Guhin estimates that without a financing framework in place by that time, the 2007 start-up date for MOX in Russia would be delayed.

Some sticking points are what project oversight donors would be allowed as well as how they will be protected from liability in case of an accident. Another glitch was the Russian desire to sell the western-financed MOX to European utilities, thus undercutting the traditional markets of MOX fabricators BNFL and Cogema (Cogema was awarded the US MOX contract along with Duke Energy and Stone & Webster).

Russia has now said it would use the MOX in Russian reactors first, but as the US wants to double the disposition rate in the second year of the program, the use of non-Russian reactors is a very real possibility. At least one country (Switzerland) has expressed a willingness to use Russian MOX, the US has lobbied Sweden on the proposal, and France "isn't opposed to" studying the idea, as long as it meets certain conditions.

In an effort to sell "the western option," Russian officials have recently highlighted concerns about MOX in VVER-1000 reactors. They also said that Russia needs not only financial help, but assistance in selling the idea of MOX to the public -- important to Minatom who has made no secret of its desire to expand Russia's plutonium infrastructure and profit from commercial MOX and reprocessing operations.

B. MOX Plant Environmental Report

Duke, Cogema, Stone & Webster (DCS), the consortium awarded the Dept. of Energy's MOX contract, is due to submit an environmental report on the proposed MOX fabrication facility to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on December 22nd.

The report will serve as a precursor to an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared by NRC for the facility. NRC will also draw heavily from DOE's Plutonium Disposition EIS rather than conduct new environmental studies on the impact of the facility.

DCS is expected to submit a construction authorization request to the NRC in early 2001 and an facility license application in mid-2002.

MORE INFORMATION:

NRC answers to questions about the EIS: www.nrc.gov/NRC/NMSS/MOX/MEETINGSUMMARY/moxqa.html#4

C. CANDU Update

Despite a recent National Academy of Sciences report indicating that plutonium disposition using MOX in CANDU reactors would not meet the "spent fuel standard" (see October 2000 Nix MOX Bulletin Board), tests of Russian and US MOX will still go forward, either in December 2000 or January 2001.

The tests are part of the US-Russian Project Parallex which involved the transport of MOX fuel across Canada and the US to a research reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd's Chalk River nuclear facility near Ottowa. The transports as well as the project as a whole met stiff opposition from US and Canadian activists throughout the past year.

For more on the recent NAS report and what it means for MOX in CANDU reactors, see the Nuclear Control Institute's press release at .

(Thanks to Tom Clements of the Nuclear Control Institute for all items in this section .)

A. Domenici Proposal

US Senator Pete Domenici (R, NM) introduced legislation in early December that proposes to link loans to Russia with international oversight of fissile materials, including plutonium.

Called the "Fissile Materials Loan Guarantee Act," the bill would authorize federal guarantees on private loans up to $1 billion. For every $20 million in loans, Russia would be required to place 2 metric tons of weapons-grade material - one ton of highly enriched uranium and one ton of weapons plutonium - under permanent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) control. The bill also requires that the loans be used for nonproliferation or energy programs. (Can you say MOX?)

(Thanks to Tom Clements)

B. Putin's Future with Greenpeace?

As Russian environmentalists prepare to appeal the government's rejection of 2.5 million signatures for a referendum on the import of nuclear waste into Russia, struggle to stop the momentum toward MOX, live with severe radioactive contamination for which no cleanup is planned, and grapple with new proposals for a massive expansion of nuclear power in Russia, President Putin is pondering a future career as a fellow eco-warrior.

In an interview with the Canadian newspaper "Globe and Mail," the Russian president admitted he admired "people who devote their lives to environmental problems" and hinted that he "wouldn't be sorry" to work as an environmentalist after his term expires. Perhaps while he is in office he will stop MOX and nuclear waste imports as a way of gaining some early eco-training. . .

Full story: www.globeandmail.ca/gam/International/20001214/UVLADN.html

(Thanks to Nadejda L.Kutepova of the Agency for Information Cooperation and Vladimir Slivyak of Ecodefense!)

A. The Ol' CUS is Late

Phase I of the Savannah River Site "Canyon Utilization Study" (CUS), due on November 15th, has still not been released and will probably be delayed until early 2001. The study will identify materials in the DOE weapons complex that could be reprocessed in the canyons at SRS.

Given the weapons labs' vision for the future of DOE (see item D below), the study should be an interesting look at the latest DOE schemes for extending the life of plutonium production technology at SRS.

(Thanks to Tom Clements)

B. Tank Closure EIS: Public Meetings

Public meetings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the plan for closing 49 high-level waste tanks at SRS have been scheduled for January 9th in North Augusta, SC and January 11th in Columbia, SC. Times have not yet been announced.

DOE's preferred option (though not preferable by environmental standards) is to empty most of the material from the tanks and cover the rest with grout, leaving them (and a good bit of residual radioactivity) in place.

The Draft EIS can be downloaded from the web at: http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/docs/deis/eis0303/eis0303d.html

SEND COMMENTS on the EIS by January 23rd to:

Andrew R. Grainger, NEPA Compliance Officer
Savannah River Site
Building 742-A, Room 185
Aiken, South Carolina 29802;

or by email to nepa@srs.gov
or leave a message at 1-800-881-7292.

(Thanks to Don Moniak of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League)

C. Plutonium Shipments

1. Plutonium Oxides to SRS from Rocky Flats
   Delayed Until mid-2001

   Continued problems with the Plutonium Stabilization and Packaging System (PuSPS) at Rocky Flats have pushed start-up of the system back to mid-March 2001. Shipments to SRS would not occur before summer, 2001. Rocky Flats site contractor Kaiser-Hill says the delays are construction related and do not reflect technical obstacles. The Dept. of Energy recently changed a standard governing contamination levels so that it now allows higher levels of contamination to remain on the inner canister containing the plutonium, thus lowering one technical hurdle that had threatened the viability of PuSPS.

   <><><><><><><><><><><><>

2. 2. Plutonium-Contaminated Waste from SRS to WIPP
   Expected February or March 2001

   SRS is one step closer to shipping plutonium-contaminated waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad New Mexico. An audit by the DOE Carlsbad Area Office to determine SRS compliance with waste acceptance criteria concluded that SRS has the correct programs in place to ship the waste to WIPP, but needs to improve implementation and effectiveness. After a review of the suggested corrective actions and final approval by the state of New Mexico, SRS will be able to ship the waste in February or March of 2001.

   MORE INFORMATION:
   www.dnfsb.gov/weekly/sr/sr2000.htm
   Click on November 17, 2000 site report.

D. DOE Labs' Vision: Plutonium Forever

A new report from Los Alamos National Laboratory suggests that the reprocessing canyons at SRS could be used to produce even greater amounts of weapons plutonium so that the US will have more plutonium to use as a bargaining chip with Russia to encourage it to reduce its plutonium stockpiles. (We're not making this up.)

Managing the Nation's Nuclear Materials: The 2025 Vision for the Department of Energy, was released by Los Alamos National Laboratory in early December. It examines several possible scenarios for future US security needs and projects a need for production ranging from 20 to 500 new nuclear weapons per year. It also foresees the need for a "significant capability" in the weapons complex for weapons material fabrication, fuel "recycling," and MOX, in addition to the proposal above to fabricate more US plutonium in order to reduce Russian plutonium stockpiles.

This "vision," far-fetched as it seems, is firmly grounded in current DOE plans. For example, in reference to the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility proposed for SRS as part of the MOX program, the report states,

(Thanks to Don Moniak)