A. Update on MOX Fuel Shipment to Japan

A shipment of MOX fuel aboard the British-flagged Pacific Teal and Pacific Pintail containing nearly 450 kilograms of plutonium continues on its way to Japan. The shipments departed from the French port of Cherbourg and the British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) plutonium factory at Sellafield in mid-July. The ships are now in the South West Pacific Ocean headed for Australia and New Zealand and are expected to arrive in Japan in mid-September.

The shipment passed the Cape of Good Hope August 13th amid protest from numerous South African environmental groups, Greenpeace International, the South African Green Party, and the Western Cape Government of South Africa. The route around the Cape was chosen because other routes, through Panama Canal and around South America were so vehemently opposed. Shipment routes are kept secret, and BNFL will not guarantee that possible future shipments will steer clear of South Africa's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, as requested by the South African government.

The Pacific route is also being protested by a coalition of peace, environmental, human rights, women's and church groups in Fiji. A high-level delegation of nuclear industry representatives from Japan, France and the UK visited the Solomon Islands, Fiji, and the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau in mid August to lobby regional decision- makers for their support on future plutonium fuel shipments. BNFL has said it would like to conduct ten shipments per year from Europe to Japan.

In a statement opposing the lobbying efforts, Mrs. Losena Salabula of Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) stated:

(For a text of an advertisement against MOX fuel shipments that ran in the Fiji Times sponsored by PCRC and other groups, see: www.wand.org/issuesact/moxbbdart_8-24.html.)

(Thanks to Pete Roche of Greenpeace UK and Tom Clements of Nuclear Control Institute for this information.)

B. CANDU News

The Canadian newspaper, Globe and Mail, reported August 16th that Canada's proposal to use its CANDU nuclear reactors to burn MOX fuel was determined by Canadian federal officials as early as 1996 to be economically unfeasible. Despite the poor cost outlook the government used a "swords into plowshares" media campaign to sell the idea of CANDU reactor use for MOX.

Documents recovered by the Global and Mail showed the CANDU option would cost 50 percent more than the US light water reactor option. Irene Kock of the Nuclear Awareness Project in Ontario commented, "That is what really suggests to us that there is a hidden agenda on the part of the federal government. The agenda that I think underlies all of this is to keep Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL) in the plutonium-fuel arena."

The Canadian government also continues to push for the use of CANDU reactors at its Chalk River facility for test-burns of MOX fuel by the US and Russia. However, an Environmental Assessment to be conducted by the Department of Energy for the US test has yet to be completed. DOE says Canadian authorities are reviewing various aspects of the program. Russia is said to be ready to make the MOX shipment for its test-burn.

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

C. New MOX Plant Approved in Japan

The Nikkei Weekly reported on August 9 that a new nuclear power plant at Ohma-machi, Aomori Prefecture has been approved by the Electric Power Development Coordination Council. It will be fueled entirely by MOX fuel, the first such reactor in the world. Construction will begin in March 2002, with start-up scheduled in July 2007.

(Thanks to Pete Roche of Greenpeace UK for forwarding this information.)

A. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Plutonium Disposition Due Soon

The Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) is due to be released in mid-September, with the Record of Decision release scheduled for mid-October.

If you would like to be on the list to receive a copy of the Final EIS, contact the DOE Office of Fissile Materials Disposition at: 800-820-5134 (phone) or 800-820-5156 (message and fax). Written requests should be submitted to:

Office of Fissile Materials Disposition
US Department of Energy
PO Box 23786
Washington, DC 20026-3786
Attn: Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement

B. DOE Backsliding on Plutonium Disposition

As we have heard over the last several years, the US will dispose of 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium through its disposition program. Or will it?

In her July 27 speech to the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Laura Holgate, Director of DOE's Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, outlined recent developments in negotiations with Russia on plutonium disposition agreements.

Now, instead of covering the disposition of 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium, the US-Russian agreement will only require that both sides dispose of 34.5 metric tons of plutonium. Charts released with the speech show that for the US, the 34.5 metric tons is broken down into 25 metric tons of clean metal (most likely plutonium "pits," the core of nuclear weapons) and 9.5 metric tons of "impure metal, oxide, fresh fuel, and other forms." (To download a copy of the Holgate speech, go to: http://twilight.saic.com/md/DOCS/PDF.ASP?mDoc=wp-inmm.pdf.)

In addition, a January 1999 report on plutonium aging by Dr. David Olivas of Los Alamos National Laboratory makes reference to diverting plutonium from the disposition program to use in weapons-related research under DOE's stockpile stewardship program. He writes,

The total amount of plutonium this proposal will involve is not able to be determined from the information given. The report can be found at: the DOE Information Bridge website, www.doe.gov/bridge/home.html. Select "Easy Search," then type in the document title, "Plutonium Aging." The full reference information is: Plutonium Aging, Olivas, J.D.; LA-UR--99-112, 12/31/1999.

(Thanks to Don Moniak of Serious Texans Against Nuclear Dumping and Steve Dolley of Nuclear Control Institute for this information.)

C. Fast Flux Test Facility and MOX

The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor at the Hanford Nuclear site in south central Washington state. The DOE would like to re-start this reactor ostensibly to produce medical isotopes and plutonium-238 fuel sources for NASA spacecraft. But a mission in support of nuclear weapons research in the DOE's stockpile stewardship program is also possible (described as providing "special isotopes in significant quantities for national security").

There are also serious safety and environmental concerns: Hanford is already severely contaminated and in desperate need of clean-up, and the reactor coolant, sodium, explodes on contact with air.

FFTF would run on MOX fuel, using on-site supplies of MOX for the first six years, then importing MOX fuel from Germany for the next 7-20 years of operation. After 20 years, it would run on highly enriched (bomb-grade) uranium fuel, in direct opposition to nonproliferation efforts to discontinue the use of this fuel in research reactors. The DOE claims none of the MOX fuel planned for the disposition program would be used at FFTF.

For more information see the Government Accountability Project's August 18 press release at: http://www.whistleblower.org/www/fftfeispr.htm.

(Thanks to the Government Accountability Project and Tom Clements of Nuclear Control Institute for this information.)

D. Shipping Container Problems to Delay MOX Program?

Problems with plutonium shipping containers may cause delays in the DOE MOX program, according to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). An August 11, 1999 DNFSB recommendation to the Department of Energy states that DOE's MOX program "is in peril… because there is no container suitable for shipping the pits from the Pantex Plant to the Savannah River Site, and no plans exist for development of such a container."

Plutonium from nuclear warheads is currently stored at the Pantex Plant in Texas in containers that are not suitable for long-term storage, nor certified for shipment to the Savannah River Site. Attempts to develop a new container have failed and no new viable plan has been put forward.

For more information contact Don Moniak with Serious Texans Against Nuclear Dumping at: dm4stand@arn.net, or 806-358-2622.

Also see: "Recycling Plans in Danger," Augusta Chronicle, August 19, 1999, http://augustachronicle.com/stories/082099/tec_124-5469.shtml.

E. Everything You Wanted to Know About Cogema - in French

If you want to know more about Cogema's environmental and safety record and happen to speak French, DOE has come to the rescue with a list of helpful web links (advertised as being in English, but actually in French). Cogema is the huge French nuclear corporation that is a key player in the consortium with whom the US DOE is contracting for its MOX program.

Cogema's La Hague reprocessing facility in France has been linked to an increased incidence of leukemia in children playing on beaches near the plant. However, DOE admitted in a letter to SC Senator Phil Leventis that it "did not ask for, nor receive, information on the safety record of Cogema's mixed oxide fuel fabrication or reactor facilities in Europe," nor did DOE attempt to independently evaluate the studies indicating increased leukemia incidence.

Anti-MOX activists have attempted to get safety and environmental data on Cogema from DOE for many months with little success. DOE's list of links in French (http://twilight.saic.com/md/DOCS/french.htm) is a poor substitute for this vital information.

The list includes:

• http://www.ipsn.fr/nord-cotentin
• http://www.drire.org/nuc/controle.html
• http://www.drire.org/nuc/opri0904.html
• http://www.cogema.fr/actualites-gb/communiques/index.html

(At this writing one of the four links was not functioning)

The links were provided "with the assistance of Cogema."