A. How Do You Spell Scandal? B-N-F-L

British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd. (BNFL), the multinational nuclear corporation based in Cumbria, UK that has produced MOX for reactors in Europe and Japan, is reeling from yet another round of scandals concerning its safety and management practices.

In December, BNFL admitted that MOX fuel shipped to Japan included pellets for which safety data had been falsified. Since that admission, Japan, BNFL's largest customer, has put a ban on contracts with the company, put its MOX program on hold, and called for the UK to take the fuel back - which would require a 40,000 mile round-trip journey by two gunboats at a cost of millions to the UK.

On February 18, while BNFL officials were visiting Japan to attempt to repair relations, the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) released three highly critical reports about BNFL addressing: 1) on-site safety at its Sellafield facility, 2) high-level waste storage, and 3) MOX data falsification.

Safety was declared "only just tolerable" at Sellafield, and the MOX data problem was revealed to go back as far as 1996, meaning shipments to Germany and Switzerland were also affected. The reports cited "systematic management failures" at the plant as a partial explanation for the data falsification.

In wake of the reports, criticism of BNFL has been harsh and widespread -- consequences for the company could be dire. In addition to the harsh response from the Japanese:

• Germany is considering canceling its reprocessing contracts with BNFL after confirmation that safety documentation for fuel delivered to a nuclear power plant in Unterweser, Lower Saxony had been falsified.

• The Unterweser plant must be shut down to remove the questionable MOX fuel and the utility operator is seeking compensation from BNFL.

• The Irish government has called for temporary closure of Sellafield, saying public fears about an accident at the plant have been "clearly well-founded."

• Environment ministers from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland have called for cessation of all radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea from Sellafield.

In addition, just days after the release of the NII reports, inspectors discovered "extremely serious" flaws at the BNFL-operated Hinkley Point power plant on the Bristol Channel, including inaccurate reporting of carbon-14 releases from the plant. It was also found that the 35-year old plant did not meet current safety margins due to improper testing of the steel pressure vessel back when the plant was first built.

Five BNFL workers have been dismissed over the data falsification scandal, but pressure is increasing for high-level dismissals as well. BNFL has been given two months to address managerial and safety problems or face closure of Sellafield. Meanwhile, a resolution has been offered in the House of Commons calling for a study of alternative plutonium immobilization techniques besides MOX (see http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=323).

• For background information see: www.greenpeace.org.uk/index.cfm.
• To see the NII reports go to: www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/nsdhome.htm and scroll down to: "British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) reports"
• For a chronology of events in the BNFL scandal, write to port@bigsky.net.

(Note: BNFL Inc., BNFL's American subsidiary, holds cleanup and decommissioning contracts throughout the US weapons complex and is a key contractor at the Savannah River Site where MOX is proposed for fabrication in the US.)

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

B. Russia to End Reprocessing?

On February 2nd, The Washington Post announced that the Department of Energy was proposing a $100 million program to Russia to stop reprocessing of civilian spent fuel. Is this proposal as heroic as it appears?

First, this is only a proposal - Russia has not accepted the deal and no money has been allocated by Congress. Second, the US specifically excludes Western Europe and Japan from any kind of similar initiative, reducing the global impact of the Russian deal. Third, the positive effects of the program may be completely negated by US and Russian plans to pursue MOX as a means of plutonium disposition: investments into MOX in Russia will benefit its long-term plan for plutonium production, and in the US, a MOX fabrication plant will provide a crucial missing piece to the long-held nuclear industry dream of a "plutonium economy." Might be best not to pop that champagne cork just yet.

(Thanks to Michele Boyd of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Stephanie Broughton of Women's Action for New Directions for this information.)

A. Michigan, Canadian Activists Continue the Fight

In the early morning hours of January 14, the Department of Energy, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL), and Transport Canada carried out a shipment of plutonium fuel slated for tests in a reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, despite a long hard fight by activists in Michigan and Canada to stop it. The MOX test assemblies, which were fabricated at the US weapons lab at Los Alamos, NM, were trucked to the US-Canadian border at Sault Ste. Marie, MI, then transferred to a helicopter and flown to Chalk River. The secret shipments were part of "Project Parallex," a joint US-Russian test on MOX fuel made from surplus weapons plutonium. Plutonium fuel from Russia has yet to be shipped to the reactors.

Shipping plutonium by air is illegal in the United States and air transport of the test assembly was eliminated from consideration by AECL in its transportation plans. Elected officials and activists are questioning the legality of the air shipment, though one AECL spokesperson commented flippantly, "People said if this shipment is so safe why not ship it by air, so that's what we did."

But activists and other are fighting back. In early February, Ontario's civil service union sued the Canadian Ministry of Natural Resources with failing to notify airport workers they were handling hazardous materials when they loaded the plutonium fuel onto the helicopter. And on Feb. 22nd, the Canadian Environmental Law Association issued a legal opinion that transportation of the plutonium by air violated Canadian law, citing AECL's public declaration that air transport was "contrary to American and Canadian law."

Based on this finding, environmental groups in Canada may seek a judicial review in Canada's federal court or participate in US litigation that challenges the legality and safety of the shipment.

For more information contact:

• Kristen Ostling, National Coordinator, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, 613-789-3634 (Ottawa)
• Theresa McClenaghan, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association, 416-960-2284 or 416-998-0997 (cell) (Toronto)
• Dr. Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility 514-489-5118 or 514-853-5736 (pager) (Montréal)
• Chief Mamie David, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 613-575-2377 or 613-930-3288 (cell) (Cornwall)

(Thanks to Kay Cumbow of Citizens for a Healthy Planet; Kristen Ostling of Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout; and Kevin Kamps of Nuclear Information and Resource Service for this information.)

B. Southeast Activists Gather

On January 14-16 activists representing nearly twenty organizations throughout the southeast and some from the Washington-DC area gathered in Keysville, GA for a strategic planning session on stopping MOX. The gathering allowed many anti-MOX activists in the region to meet face to face for the first time and share ideas on how to stop MOX and pool regional resources to help increase effectiveness. Working groups focused on strategies for de-funding MOX, targeting corporations and utilities, and focusing on plutonium transportation. Work will be continue with follow-up and outreach meetings in the coming year. For a summary of the meeting or for more information write to port@bigsky.net

C. Are You Investing in MOX??

Last Spring, anti-MOX activists took a creative approach to fighting Duke Energy (a key member of the MOX consortium and owner of four of six reactors slated to burn MOX) by filing a shareholders' resolution opposing the use of MOX in Duke reactors. The resolution received 7% favorable vote, which was a huge success for this type of action. This year another resolution has been submitted and we are looking forward to even greater success!

If you have funds in a retirement account or mutual fund that includes Duke stock, you may be able to help this year's victory along. Some of the top shareholders in Duke Energy are large mutual funds. These funds each have a fund manager who is responsible for voting the proxy on the MOX resolution. Lobbying mutual funds is legal, so activists who own mutual funds are encouraged to send a letter to their fund managers urging them to vote their proxy in favor of the MOX resolution.

Some mutual funds we have identified include Putnam Investments, Smith Barney (Citigroup), and Prudential. For a list of top fund managers and their contact information, see www.wand.org/issuesact/moxbbdart1_2-25.html or request a faxed copy by contacting WAND at or calling 406-327-0785.

If you don't own mutual or retirement funds, you can still help! Many fund managers rely on services to recommend action on specific shareholder actions. Letters to these services could potentially have a significant impact since several fund managers may contact them seeking advice on the proxy. Send a letter today urging a YES vote on the Duke Energy MOX resolution to:

Social Investment Research Service
ATTN: Suzanne Harvey
1455 Research Blvd
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 301-545-4555

or:

Council of Institutional Investors
ATTN: Sophia Lynn
1730 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Suite 512
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-822-0800

A sample letter to send to both fund managers and recommendation services will be available on the WAND website soon. Let's send a message to Duke Energy that even the shareholders oppose MOX!!

(Thanks to Stephanie Broughton for this summary.)

D. African American Communities Tackle MOX

In mid-January, Citizens for Environmental Justice (CFEJ) of Savannah, GA held a series of five "Emergency Meetings" on MOX in African American communities in Georgia and South Carolina located downwind and downstream of the Savannah River Site. Dept. of Energy officials presented basic information on the MOX program and an anti-MOX perspective was offered by a representative from Women's Action for New Directions.

The meetings were part of an ongoing effort by CFEJ to inform these directly-impacted communities about new plutonium missions planned for SRS and allow community members to ask direct questions about how they might be affected.

A subsequent bi-state conference on MOX will be held March 25th in Savannah involving each of the five communities (Augusta, GA; Keysville, GA; Blackville, SC; Beaufort, SC; and Savannah, GA). A joint statement declaring the official position of these communities on MOX will be issued in late March or early April. For more information contact Dr. Mildred McClain or Imo Jawara, 912-233-0907.

E. Rick Coronado

(Excerpt from a message from Kay Cumbow of Citizens for a Healthy Planet.)

Dear Friends of the Environment,

Rick Coronado, long-time clean air activist, activist against MOX and Fermi 2, who has been an inspiration to the rest of us workaholics in the fight to save life on Earth from poison, pollution, corruption and big money, is in intensive care in Windsor from a stroke. He is in critical but stable condition. For updates on his condition contact Tim Halford at 519-737-1849 or 519-973-4433.

Letters can be sent to the hospital:

Rick Coronado c/o ICU
Hotel Dieu Grace
1030 Ouelette Ave. Windsor, N9A 1E1

Alternate address:

Social Justice & Ecological Network
PO Box 548,
Windsor, ON N9A 6M6, Canada.

Rick, we are thinking of you and sending you healing thoughts. And praying you will fully recover.

--Kay Cumbow

F. The Face of Anti-MOX Activism

See www.wand.org/issuesact/moxbbdart2_2-25.html for a mini-photo album of anti-MOX rallies in Michigan!

(Thanks to Roman and Kim Joy Bergier for providing these photos.)

A. FY2001 Budget Released

The Department of Energy released its FY2001 budget on February 7th. The (somewhat) good news is that money for design for an immobilization facility is partially restored. The bad news is that the funding for immobilization and MOX are still very unbalanced. MOX receives $15 million for plant design while immobilization receives only $3 million. Should this budget become reality, it means that in the last two years, MOX has received over NINE TIMES the funding that immobilization has. Also included is $20 million for a pit disassembly and conversion facility, due to begin construction in FY 2002 - 2005.

The budget does not yet include *serious* construction money. When that appears, it should raise more questions about the program from members of Congress. Stay tuned for the rest of the budget battle!

(Thanks to Tom Clements and Stephanie Broughton for this summary.)

B. Liked the EIS? You'll Love the SRP

On February 1st the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the release of its draft licensing plan for construction of a MOX fabrication facility at SRS. Public comment will be taken until March 13th (more information on how to comment below).

The exciting title, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of an Application for a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility" (or NUREG-1718), may not grab you, but it's an important document to comment on for those considering the possibility of legal action against MOX facilities. The time to build a record of key considerations is now, so that legal standing will easier to establish later on.

A free single copy of NUREG-1718 can be obtained by faxing or sending a written request to NRC Distribution Services, fax # 301-415-2289; phone 301-415-2070, email distribution@nrc.gov. To talk to a real live person contact Andrew Persinko, Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards, US NRC, Washington DC 20555; 301-415-6522.

Mail written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001.

C. Losing Public Access in the Fight Against MOX?

(Excerpts of messages from Mary Olson of NIRS-Southeast and Noel Petrie of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project)

This sign-on letter may help to preserve one of our most powerful tools for fighting plutonium fuel: the adjudicatory hearing during NRC licensing. Read on...

The current NRC adjudicatory hearing process was developed as part of a bargain in the late 1950's. In return for accepting extensive federal hearings, the industry was exempted from any state and local regulation of radiological health and safety and received the limitations on liability. Thus, citizens in any community in which a nuclear facility was to be located gave up both local regulation of the facility and the additional financial and safety assurances that normal insurance industry operations would have brought. In return they got a commitment to full trial-type procedures as part of the federal licensing process. Now the industry is seeking to revoke its share of the concessions in that original bargain.

At the direction of the NRC's Commissioners, the agency has been instructed to limit your rights through both legislation and the regulatory process. Your help is needed now to stop this wrong minded policy!

Public Citizen has written letters to NRC Chairman Richard Meserve and President Clinton to demand our right to a formal hearing and invites you to sign on (deadline is Feb. 25, though individual letters can be sent after this date). For a copy of the letters and/or to sign on, contact Jim Riccio at .

(Thanks to Mary Olson of NIRS for this information.)

A. Safety Board Lists Top Concerns

On January 14 2000 the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) released a new set of recommendations (Recommendation 2000-1) on the remediation of unstable fissionable and other radioactive material in the US nuclear weapons complex (see http://dr.tis.doe.gov/archive2/chron/2000.asp).

The first set of recommendations by DNFSB about these materials was released in 1994. The materials were described at the time to require prompt attention as they posed the greatest safety and environmental risks and could lead to an "inevitable spread of radioactive contamination."

Nearly six years later, some of the most hazardous materials in the complex have yet to be addressed, and the top two most dangerous unresolved issues are at SRS. They are:

1. 230,000 liters of highly-enriched uranyl nitrate solution outside the H Canyon at SRS. DNFSB states that "the solution is a hazard because freezing, evaporation, or chemical change could lead to a uranium concentration and a threat of accidental criticality."

2. 14,000 liters of americium-curium solutions in F Canyon about which DNFSB says "loss of integrity of the tank and its appendages, such as might be caused by corrosion or seismic action, would create an almost insurmountable problem of spread of radioactive contamination."

While DOE cites funding shortfalls as the reason these issues have not been addressed, DNFSB notes that the Atomic Energy Act includes a specific statutory requirement for obtaining funds for implementation of recommendations from the safety board - a provision DOE has yet to obey.

B. SRS' Own Energizer Bunny

A Feb. 4 report from DNFSB notes that plutonium solutions and oxides at the site will be converted to metal in the F Canyon, rather than by stabilizing them in the now-canceled Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility. This mission means the life of the F Canyon will be extended "by several years," a phrase not unfamiliar to canyon-watchers who have seen deadlines for closure of the reprocessing facilities at SRS slip repeatedly over the years. See: www.dnfsb.gov/weekly/sr/sr2000.htm. SRS Canyons: they keep going, and going, and going, and going….

A. Recent Articles from the Augusta Chronicle

1. "SRS Contractor Cited in Report,"
   Augusta Chronicle 1/6/00
   www.augustachronicle.com/stories/010600/met_124-5303.shtml

   "Savannah River Site's top contractor again has failed to follow safety procedures, even as it faced warnings from federal agencies to improve…. During two weeks in late November and early December, employees of Westinghouse Savannah River Co. failed five times to follow procedures designed to prevent "criticalities," or chain reactions, in two site facilities."

2. "SRS Chief Criticized for Hiring"
   Augusta Chronicle 2/9/00
   www.augustachronicle.com/stories/020900/met_MNS-1692.000.shtml

   "The president of Westinghouse Savannah River Co. met with the Augusta legislative delegation Tuesday just to say hello but ended up debating affirmative action with Rep. Ben Allen."

   (This story also covered by CBS on 60 Minutes, Jan. 23)

3. "SRS Budget Proposal Draws Criticism"
   Augusta Chronicle 2/13/00
   www.augustachronicle.com/stories/021300/tec_066-6823.000.shtml

   "Savannah River Site's proposed $1.6 billion budget already has its critics. Unveiled last week during President Clinton's rollout of his proposed $1.84 trillion budget for fiscal year 2001, the SRS plan would increase the federal nuclear-weapons site's funding from a stagnant $1.5 billion in recent years to $1.64 billion. But the budget also leaves some high-profile projects unfunded or underfunded, drawing criticism from Capitol Hill, local site supporters and some nuclear watchdogs."

4. "Report Faults SRS Contractor"
   Augusta Chronicle 2/16/00
   www.augustachronicle.com/stories/021600/met_srs.shtml

   "Savannah River Site's top contractor failed to follow procedures that could have prevented a Sept. 1 accident that contaminated several workers with radioactive plutonium, according to a federal report."

B. Atlanta Journal Constitution Editorial

On January 12, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published yet another editorial questioning the wisdom of MOX, "Nuclear Waste Worries." Excerpts below. For a faxed copy write to port@bigsky.net.

"Jim Setser is anything but a nuclear alarmist.

Now chief of radiation protection at the state Environmental Protection Division, Setser has been monitoring nuclear issues in Georgia for 25 years. He's learned to distinguish between legitimate concerns and exaggerated worries.

And this is one of those times when alarm bells are warranted over new nuclear developments, Setser has decided.

The U.S. Department of Energy has chosen the Savannah River Site just across the border in South Carolina to host three new plants for disposing of weapons grade plutonium.

That's cause for concern in Georgia, where state officials are still trying to learn the full extent of contamination from past activities at SRS.

Ever since radioactive tritium was discovered in Burke County's water in 1992, state officials have been urging the DOE, which oversees SRS, to fund full-scale monitoring of the water both within and beneath the Savannah River, from Augusta to Savannah. If there is a health threat, state officials want to know about it; if not, they'd like to reassure the public. But DOE has refused even to consider the relatively piddling amount the state has requested, about $750,000 a year.

If DOE won't even fix its old messes, why should anyone trust the agency to better control these new operations?"

Letter to the Editor, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Dec. 21, 1999:

"The Atlanta Constitution was right to oppose the Energy Department's MOX plutonium fuel program at the Westinghouse Savannah River nuclear site ("Don't recycle plutonium," Dec. 7). Because of the extreme security and health hazards it poses, plutonium never should be allowed into commerce, which is exactly what this plan would do. It also would build facilities that encourage new plutonium production and keep plutonium in circulation rather than isolating it from the environment.

Plutonium processing is dirty business. Radioactive water from weapons production activities in South Carolina has been found in Georgia's groundwater, but the response has been to lock the wells, not deal with the problem. Can we trust a new plutonium processing mission right on our border? One that will not only pose risks to Georgians but will help make the world's most dangerous substance a profitable commodity? I think not. Surplus plutonium should be immobilized --- an alternative that comes closest to closing the nuclear Pandora's box. As we work to fix our past mistakes, surely we should not make new ones in the process.

-GA State Representative Nan Grogan Orrock