The trip was organized by Fran Macy and Enid Schreibman of the Center for Safe Energy in CA to conduct "people's hearings" on MOX, modeled on a similar effort in the southeast in 1998.

Others in the delegation included:

• Lou and Janet Zeller of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
• Don and Karen Peck Moniak of Serious Texans Against Nuclear Dumping
• Tom Clements of Nuclear Control Institute

In Ekaterinberg we were joined by:

• Mycle Schneider of WISE Paris
• David Lowry, environmental policy and research consultant, Stoneleigh England.

(Additional activists from the US and elsewhere attended the Krasnoyarsk conference which took place after the hearings.)

Russian coordinating groups included:

• Moscow:
  Center for Nuclear Ecology and Energy Policy (Lydia Popova);

• Saratov:
  Socio-Ecological Union of Saratov and the Center for Assistance to Environmental Initiatives (Olga Pitsunova and Andrey Pinchuk);

• Rostov:
  Inter-Regional Movement for Nuclear Free Don (Irina Reznikova and Vladimir Shalimov);

• Ekaterinberg:
  Committee for Radiation Safety, Ekaterinberg (Leonid Piskunov* and Vladimir Outkin)

  *(see important note about Dr. Piskunov below.)

The Hearings:

Note:
For all the hearings, a formal position paper against MOX was generated that will eventually be translated into English and I hope to circulate in the US. A letter to G-8 countries regarding MOX funding was generated at the Krasnoyarsk conference and has been posted separately -- contact Lou Zeller directly for a copy: bredl@skybest.com. I'm hoping more on the Krasnoyarsk conference will be posted by those that attended.

1. SARATOV / BALAKOVA

General:
Saratov is located on the Volga River about 3 1/2 hours downstream (by road) from the Balakova NPP where all 4 VVER-1000 units are slated to burn MOX.

Balakova NPP Tour:
It was difficult to get straight answers from our guides at the plant (who at first acted as if they knew nothing about any MOX program), and we were surprised at the lax security (despite the armed guards). For example, they did not search the bus before letting us drive on through the gates, and we were not badged during the tour, nor were our bags x-rayed. After many non-answers to our MOX questions, we finally learned that test assemblies are due to be burned in unit #4 in 2004.

Hearings:
At the hearings the Balakova NPP official assured us that any needed modifications will be made and should be fairly simple, Russian reactors are every bit as safe if not safer than US/European reactors, weapons MOX is better and easier to use than commercial MOX, and "there will be an environmental review" which was meant to address all possible concerns from the audience related to environmental safety. The official also said that he felt a it would be safe to use up to a 50% MOX core at Balakova.

Despite reassurances, local opposition during the hearing to the MOX plan and the plant itself was strong. The plant official was grilled by the audience, but received few real answers (if any). When they asked why MOX was being forced on them, the reply was that the decisions are made by elected officials who are acting "for their benefit." A lot of comments were about how the decision to use MOX was made and then announced to the public, without a chance for them to comment first. (Sounds familiar...)

One person asked if this NPP rep. felt plutonium was a "national treasure." Surprisingly, he replied no - it should be disposed of. But if there is an energy use for it, then it should be considered for use, unless it is too dangerous. When asked what "modifications" would be necessary, he said he does not like to use that word, and that the VVERs were a lot like European reactors and wouldn't need much modifying.

There were numerous other speakers (including the entire US delegation -- topics including safety of VVER 1000 reactors, plutonium basics, problems w/ MOX in Europe, anti-MOX activism in the US, etc.), the vast majority of whom spoke against the MOX program and about the problems they are already facing from radioactively contaminated ground, water, and air, and concerns about power plant safety.

The hearings were organized by Olga Pitsunova of the Socio-Ecological Union of Saratov. The day following the Balakova hearings, we met with local energy and emergency response officials in Saratov and spoke to students in an energy class in a local school.

2. ROSTOV

General:
Rostov is located about 75 km (? - estimation) downstream from Volgadonsk on the Don River. The Rostov NPP (in Volgadonsk) is not on line yet, but is 95% completed and has been mentioned as a candidate for MOX in the past. Unit #2 is due in 2015. There has been fierce opposition by activists and oblast and city officials against completion of this plant, which was sited on poor soil at the southern edge of a reservoir that feeds into the Don River. Activists have been harassed, arrested, and during one protest, even beaten up. Some city officials and state Duma deputies have written pleas to stop the plant, but have generally been ignored.

Hearings:
Local organizers hoped that the hearing would help solidify local policy makers' opposition to the plant and step up efforts to stop it. (They also hoped for greater cooperation among US and Russian activists on nuclear power safety issues.)

At least 2 state Duma deputies were in attendance. One mentioned that they are being told energy costs will be reduced by 50% if the plant goes on line. They are also being told the local economy will collapse if the plant does not open. (Olga Pitsanova, organizer of Saratov hearing, reminded the audience of similar predictions about the Balakova NPP. More schools, better economy, etc. were promised, but all they did was open a kindergarten for plant workers. Now workers not even being paid, though there are townhouses built for plant operators. Balakova referred to as "village of nuclear orphans.")

One state Duma deputy testified that despite their opposition and questioning of safety of the plant, the Minatom license for Rostov sailed through in 3 months. Also, despite passage of a local referendum opposing the plant, the courts ruled that because it was a federal facility, no referenda would apply.

Virtually all the speakers (and there were many over 2 days -- most of the 40-50 people in attendance) spoke out vehemently against the plant, against MOX, and against nuclear power in general. One participant also presented information on serious problems with the Kalinin NPP, which has also been suggested for MOX use. One problem at Kalinin is lack of money for storage/transport of spent fuel; another is the poor soil quality under the plant (there are cavities in the soil), another is that some control rods have curvature and deformity problems, making safe reactor control questionable.

We also heard an analysis of the environmental assessment they've done on the Rostov plant which was short on real data and long on empty reassurances that any emergency will be mitigated using the "proper channels," etc. The (non)data the public has received ranges from useless to ludicrous, given the quotes from this document.

The hearings were organized by Irina Reznikova and Vladimir Shalimov of the Inter-Regional Movement for a Nuclear Free Don.

Side Note:
At both the Saratov/Balakova and Rostov hearings, there was much opposition expressed to Minister Adamov's proposal to import 20,000 tons of spent fuel into Russia as a money-making scheme. The public is well aware that there is already much contamination and no solution for the existing spent fuel in the country. Adamov is also proposing large expansion of nuclear power in Russia so that the surplus energy can be sold for cash. Whether and how these plans will come to fruition remains to be seen, but there is no question that environmental activists in Russia are strongly opposed to both proposals.

3. EKATERINBERG:

General:
Ekaterinberg is a heavily industrialized city of 1.3 million located in the southern Ural mountains, 25 km from the Beloyarskaya NPP where the BN600 (breeder reactor) is located.

It has a range of environmental contamination problems resulting from the multiple polluting industries in the city and nearby. (Many of the USSR's munitions for WWII were manufactured in this region.) Of particular concern is the water, which is contaminated with numerous heavy metals. Clean-up is a problem because in some cases, tailings from the many mines in the area have stabilized somewhat over time, and mitigation efforts actually cause new contamination. There is also a problem of thermal pollution in the lakes and streams near the Beloyarskaya plant.

Activists and scientists from the Ural Environmental Union told us that contamination from Mayak (which they referred to as a "bleeding wound" - located south of Ekaterinberg at Chelyabinsk) was worse than what they receive from the Beloyarskaya NPP. Ekaterinberg is 200 km from where the infamous Kyshtym accident occurred in 1957 at the Chelyabinsk-65 complex, which spread massive amounts of contamination -- estimated at 2 million curies in the fallout plume.

A poll showed that most citizens in Ekaterinberg are opposed to the BN-800 breeder reactor, which Minatom would like to build at the Beloyarskaya site (but lacks funding for). We were told people are aware MOX might be burned in the BN-600, but they are "hoping for the best." Concerns raised by environmental NGOs are generally dismissed by local papers, as all NGOs are written off as "Greens" who are presumed to be not knowledgeable or professional about nuclear matters.

Beloyarskaya NPP Tour:
Units #1 and 2 at the site (RBMK type graphite reactors) have been closed since 1982 and 1988, respectively. Storage of the spent fuel from these units is the plant's "biggest headache," as they described it. It was interesting that while in the visitor's center we asked where this spent fuel was stored and they pointed in a general direction down the hall... There is no plan in place for what to do with the fuel - soonest removal and decommissioning of units #1 and 2 would be in 50 years.

Unit #3 is the BN-600, which began operation in 1980, has a 30-yr design life, and a capacity of 600 MW electrical, 1470 thermal. (The heat from the reactor is not used - one guide said, a bit proudly, that it is used to heat the local lake.) They are planning on a 25% MOX core by 2004 and 100% core in 2008. Security at the plant again seemed a bit loose and conditions overall seemed rather shabby. We observed standing water on the floor both in the control room and in the turbine room. The number and condition of the firehoses appeared very inadequate, and the turbine room overall had a run-down look, with pipe insulation hanging off in pieces in some places.

Workers at this plant had not been paid in 2 months, though they found our interest in this quite curious and inquired why we thought it would affect plant safety. Some areas were clearly marked as requiring ear protection for workers, but even we as visitors were offered none (even when we asked for it), and workers did not appear to be using any such protection either.

Though the BN-600 has had some serious sodium leaks, our guides downplayed this, refuting even the DOE/Oak Ridge Natnl. Lab document we had with us. They replied this information was simply incorrect. They also said the design itself of the BN-600 would minimize any chance of fire from a sodium leak. We were also reassured that the concrete containment vessel can withstand an airplane crash (and therefore is presumably strong enough to contain an accident).

Some test assemblies of MOX were burned in the BN-600 in 1988 and 1990 - this spent fuel is also stored on site. Local activists/scientists that have monitored the environment near the plant said the first time they started finding plutonium contamination in the environment was after the MOX test runs.

As at Balakova, there were armed guards at the plant, but still, there was no x-ray machine or badging of visitors for the tour.

Hearings:
The local organizers were a bit different than the activists in Rostov or Saratov in that they are members of a union of scientists (Urals Environmental Union - founded 135 years ago) and have a bit more conservative approach to their opposition to the power plant and to MOX. Their approach has been to scientifically document environmental problems associated with the plant and register their opposition using more scientific means.

The hearing was held at a technical institute and included much testimony about the lingering effects of the 1957 Kyshtym tank explosion at Chelyabinsk, technical presentations on health and genetic problems in the area, contamination of the Techa River and surrounding environs, general radiation releases from accidents, waste (mis)management and ongoing operations at Chelyabinsk, etc.

One lawyer who spoke represented the first family that has received compensation from the government for health damage due to radiation exposure from nuclear weapons operations. She is now representing several adults who as children were forced to be part of a "liquidators" crew that cleaned up a nuclear spill. They are now ill and are seeking compensation, which thus far has been denied.

Leonid Piskunov, head of the Union and convener of the hearing who has been documenting contamination from the plant for many years, reported on several accidents that have happened at the plant over the course of its operation and the contamination that has been documented as a result of operation of the plant.

A week or so after this hearing, Dr. Piskunov was hospitalized and subsequently died of his illnesses. His work has been extremely important and his passing is a great loss.

As in Rostov and Balakova, a final document on the conclusions of the hearing was drafted which included a general statement in opposition to MOX. We hope to have an English version for circulation in the near future.

(Two of us returned to the US after this hearing, but the subsequent MOX Conference in Krasnoyarsk was attended by the rest of the delegation. For a copy of the letter drafted at the conference to G-8 countries opposing the funding of the Russian MOX program, contact Lou Zeller at bredl@skybest.com.)

• Return to Nix MOX Bulletin Board
  
• Go to Nix MOX Bulletin Board Index