(February 28, 1997) Hurrah! The Swedish nuclear power plant at Barsebäck, located in South Sweden and only 20 kilometers away from the Danish capital Copenhagen, will be turned off. The first of its two 600MW reactors will be stopped before July 1998, the second before July 2001.
(467.4638) OOA/WISE-Amsterdam - This decision came on February 4, after a night of discussion in Stockholm between Social Democrats, Center party and the Left wing party. These three parties have a majority in the Swedish parliament. The news made the Danish population very happy and relieved! And specially among OOA activists (Organisation til Oplysning om Atomkraft) who had been fighting against the threat of a nuclear accident at Barsebäck for more than two decades.
Sydkraft, owner of both Barsebäck reactors, says it would seek compensation for loss of electricity production. According to VEBA, the German energy conglomerate which owns 27 percent share in Sydkraft via its 100-percent subsidiary Preussenelektra AG, 'is satisfied that the whole affair is a bag of wind' and are betting that the reactor would not prematurely be closed. Announcing Barsebäck as the target of the first shutdown, a Preussenelektra official said, in theory 'allows the phaseout to begin on time, but doesn't mean it is going to happen'.
This decision is a very late confirmation of the referendum of March 19, 1980. That referendum resulted in a victory for a scenario for a phaseout of nuclear energy by 2010. The nuclear industry invested 20 million SwK (6 million 1980 US$) in the referendum but got only 18.7 percent of the votes. The anti-nuclear line (rapid phaseout) received 38.6 percent, but the Social Democrat line (long-term phaseout scenario) 39.8 percent (see WISE NC 41.369; see also NC 447.4435 for background on the controversy since then).
Sources:
Contact: WISE Copenhagen and/or WISE Stockholm
or: OOA, Ryesgade 19, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45-31-355507;
Fax: +45-31-356545.
E-mail: ooa@email.dk
WWW: www.ooa.dk
(February 28, 1997) Completion of Rovno Unit 4 and Khmelnitsky Unit 2 (hereafter K2/R4) are not the least-cost option, an expert panel commissioned by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) concluded. The report, available on Internet, is published after strong pressure from anti-nuclear organizations all over the world.
(467.4643) WISE-Amsterdam/Brno - Background: In December 1995, the G7 and the European Union signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with the Ukraine, that in exchange for closing the two operating reactors at Chernobyl, the West would provide funds to complete two unfinished Russian-designed reactors plus US$2 billion in non-nuclear energy aid. The nuclear portion of this aid and loan package is conditioned on these reactors proving to be the least-cost option. The EBRD commissioned an expert panel to review these two reactors, which submitted their findings to the EBRD and the study sponsors (G7, EU, US) on February 10, 1997.
All but one member of the panel concluded that the project is not economic, because it does not satisfy the least-cost requirement, and completing the reactors by 2000 would not represent the most productive use of EBRD/European Union (Euratom) funds in support of the development of Ukraine's energy sector at this time, the EBRD press release states.
The EBRD financing procedures require that the project meet sounding banking principles and satisfy conditions for lending in the nuclear sector. This policy requires a least-cost finding for all proposed energy projects.
The panel report concludes: 'Electricity demand (...in Ukraine...) has been so reduced by the still worsening economic situation that there is a large capacity surplus, which, in our judgment, may well last until 2010. In particular there is no need for additional base-load capacity now nor especially when industrial restructuring away from the heavy industrial plant gathers pace as it probably will when economic recovery takes place. In stalling surplus generating capacity would use up limited borrowing authority for purpose not needed and make it more difficult to achieve the economic efficiency objectives behind the Government's market-based reforms in the energy sector.'
Is this the end of the Memorandum of Understanding (and the two reactors?)
Not yet. There will be lots of other reports before the final decision is taken. For exapmle 'financial analysis of the Ukraine power sector and the borrower', 'nuclear safety' and 'public participation'. The EBRD and other potential project co-financiers (G7, Euratom) agreed that this process would be assisted by an independent authority, to be commissioned by the EBRD.
If the EBRD takes its own policy seriously, there is no other conclusion possible than this would be the end for the completion plans for the two dangerous reactors.
But the European Commission seems to be pushing the nuclear project much harder than the bank is.
What can be done to make sure the project remains dead:
Make clear to the EBRD and the EC that there are many people following the issue. The two bodies have to stand by their often- stated commitment not to fund the project if cheaper options are available.
The EBRD says that there is a conclusion to be expected at the end of March/beginning of April.
Sources:
Contact: Paxus Calta, WISE Brno
(February 28, 1997) US Marines mistakenly fired bullets containing depleted uranium on an island off Okinawa, Japan, during training exercises in December 1995 and January 1996. Officials of the US Ministry of Defense apologized on February 11 for the one-year delay in notifying Japan of the 'incidents'. US military authorities did not notify Japanese officials until January 16 this year.
(467.4649) WISE-Amsterdam -The firing of the 1,520 bullets containing depleted uranium on Torishima island, 100 kilometers west of Okinawa's main island, occurred on December 5 and 7 in 1995, and again on January 24, 1996. US military officials said they did not discover the mistake until after the January 24, 1996, practice when servicemen repaired one of the guns on the aircraft after it jammed. The use of such bullets is prohibited on any training ranges in Japan, including uninhabited islands, under US Marine regulations.
The AV-8B Harrier aircraft fired the 25-mm bullets filled with the radioactive depleted uranium because the bullets had been incorrectly labeled, according to US forces. The depleted uranium in the ammunition is used to pierce tanks and other hard materials. Each 25-mm bullet contains 147 grams of depleted uranium.
US troops cleaned up Torishima Island from March to April 1996 and recovered 192 bullets, according to the US military. (For more information on Depleted Uranium, see WISE NC 463/4.4610)
On February 11, 1997, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was informed of another DU event: about 100 rounds of 7.62-mm DU military ammunition were apparently missing. In 1984, 400 rounds of this ammunition were received from Letterkenny Army Depot for storage. In 1994, the 400 rounds were mistakenly transferred along with thousands of rounds of nonradioactive ammunition to another federal agency and subsequently to a local police department. While in the possession of the police, 100 rounds (containing about one pound of DU) were fired at a local police firing range. The remaining 300 rounds were recognized as military ammunition and returned to Picatinny. Picatinny Arsenal personnel were not aware that only 300 rounds had been returned until January 31, 1997, when a detailed inventory was conducted. They are to visit the police firing range in an attempt to locate and recover residual DU. The licensee plans to conduct a thorough investigation and inventory to determine if other similar situations have occurred.
Sources:
Contact on DU: Laka Foundation, Ketelhuisplein 43, 1054 RD Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tel: +31-20-6168294; Fax: 31-20-6892179.
E-mail: laka@antenna.nl
(February 28, 1997) Last year, South African Minister Pailo Jordan ordered an investigation into the international trade of South African primates.
(467.4640) WISE-Amsterdam - The International Press Service (IPS) revealed that baboons were being captured in the wild in two provinces of South Africa and exported to France by a French-owned company called Centre African de Primatologie et Experimentation (CAPE, African Center on Primatology and Experimentation) located on the border of the famous Kruger National Park. The baboons are sent to a laboratory run by the French armed forces in Grenoble, France. The IPS is in possession of official documents indicating that the French military wants to export baboons in order to conduct 'new research to evaluate subclinical effects of irradiation doses experienced by people during an accident in nuclear power plant'.
A letter from the Ministry of Defense in France states that the purpose of the tests would be to devise international standards for 'civilian nuclear activities' and to improve the diagnosis of health problems in people who have been exposed to low doses of radiation. The letter states that the research is being carried out in collaboration with scientists from the University of California in Los Angeles, and the 'use of an animal model and the general conditions of experimentation have been approved by the Ethics Committee of the French Medical Service Research Center'. Local Green groups and animal rights groups are demanding to know why a military-run laboratory is carrying out experiments for the civilian industry.
The supply and use of primates in research has become a major international issue. South Africa is breaching the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), of which it is a member, by exporting baboons.
Source: Dialogue Development, Vol. 5, No. 22, October/November 1996
Contact: Dr. Thomas Butynsky, Zoo atlanta, PO Box 24434, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-2-745374; Fax: +254-2-890615
Email: zoo-abcp@tt.sasa.unep.no
(February 28, 1997) On January 31, 1997, the prefect of the southern Loire region, France, signed the authorization of a landfill of 51 hectares in the estuary of the river Loire at Le Carnet. Electricité de France (EdF, the French electricity company) wants to stabilize the Le Carnet wet areas in order to built a nuclear plant.
(467.4642) WISE Amsterdam -The site is large enough for four reactors. Prime Minister Alain Juppe also gave his go-ahead. He backed Industry Minister Borotra against Environment Minister Lepage. Lepage's argument was that the 125-hectare marshland, of which nearly half would be concreted over (if the plans come true), is rich in biological species. The European Union criticized France for not doing enough to protect the estuary of the Loire.
From 1971 on, the EdF had different locations in the southern Loire region. This is why the proposed reactors, meanwhile, are called 'wandering' reactors. A lot of manifestations were held against these plans. The largest demonstration was on May 8, 1977: 10,000 demonstrators and many arrests and trials, forced the EdF to retreat the site at that time to Pellerin.
1981: The Socialist government of F. Mitterand decided on a moratorium on nuclear energy and the freezing of sites in western France, but Le Carnet, however, continues to be prepared. In 1982 the Country Council and the District Council voted for the choice of the Le Carnet site. The EdF continues to buy pieces of lands, undertake drillings, etc. There are numerous protests.
In 1996 the site of Le Carnet resurfaced. According to a new law on water management, an inquiry register is opened to the citizens of the nearby communities. On October 20, 1996, 5,000 persons protested in the streets of Nantes against the EdF plans. They fear that consequent to the accretion, this area would be more and more damaged, less and less capable of cleaning up and remaining a sanctuary for wildlife. Le Carnet's area is a real enclave in an ornithological zone. It is known as one of the last reed marshes in the ecosystem of the Loire estuary. The EdF recognize the exceptional value of the site as far as fauna and flora are concerned.
Since 1989 the EdF, Framatome and Siemens have spent 120 millions of euros for the study of a new reactor: the European Pressurized Water Reactor) of 1450MW.
Obviously the EdF wants to start the works before the second and last expiration date of the nuclear plants 'Public Utility Declaration'. The EdF is claiming loudly to the locally elected representatives that its goal is not to satisfy any local or national needs. Their aim is to build a new-type reactor, which would serve as a 'technological showpiece" for potential buyers in Southeast Asia.
This spring ' on Saturday, May 31, and on Sunday, June 1 ' an international meeting is to be organized in the wet areas of Le Carnet, as a protest against the recent plans of Electricité de France. The organizers are asking for financial support, for people to come to the manifestation, and for support letters. People willing to attend the meeting are asked to contact the organization for a map and the program.
Sources:
Contact: Fédération Antinucléaire 44. Maison de l'Ecologie, 76 rue Jean Jaurès, 44600 Saint Nazaire, France.
Tel: +33 40 01 95 82; Fax: +33 40 01 96 02.
Email: winrun@naonet.fr
(February 28, 1997) In the morning of February 3, a train carrying three casks with about 180 tons of high-level radioactive waste derailed near Apach (France), not far from the Franco-German border.
(467.4650) WISE-Amsterdam -The waste was on its way from the nuclear power plant in Lingen (Germany) to Sellafield, UK, where it is to be reprocessed.
The train was going at about 30 kilometers per hour, and the casks did not turn over. Anyway, according to the standard of the used- container type, Execellox No. 6, they have to withstand a crash at a speed of 45 kilometers per hour, while nuclear waste transports go often up to 100 kilometers per hour, according to Greenpeace. Therefore, a Greenpeace Germany nuclear expert views the accident as 'a serious warning'.
The incident is not a unique event. On January 15 a nuclear fuel cask derailed in front of the German nuclear power plant at Krümmel during a track change, and on February 3 the engine driver of a nuclear waste transport from Krümmel suffered from a faint.
Source: Greenpeace press release February 4, 1997; Die Tageszeitung (FRG) February 5, 1997
Contact: Greenpeace Germany, Vorsetzen 53, 20450 Hamburg, Germany
Tel: +49-40-31186141
E-mail: greenpeace.germany@green2. greenpeace.org
Indonesian nuclear project stalled.
(February 28, 1997) Minister of Research and Technology B.J. Habibie's determination to develop Indonesia's nuclear power industry hit another snag on December 12. Instead of being 'rubber-stamped', a bill to give the go-ahead for the controversial project failed to be approved in parliament after it became bogged down at the committee level.
When the project was first announced in 1992, domestic and international concerns about safety, waste disposal and economic viability seemed to force the project off the agenda. However, in January 1996, the government announced that the construction of a nuclear reactor, the first of 12 to be built along the north coast of Java, would begin in 1998 or 1999.
Java, with a population of more than 100 million people, is among the half-dozen places in the world with the highest risk of volcanic and earthquake activity.
Indonesian environment groups and Indonesian Democratic Party MPs are campaigning against the project. Even some members of the state party, Golkar, and the military have expressed opposition to it.
Green Left Weekly (Australia), 19 February 1997
South Korean actions against Taiwan waste shipment. On February 5, about 200 South Korean activists sailed on 40 boats several kilometers towards Taiwan, protesting against the Taiwanese deal with North Korea on the shipment of nuclear waste. In Seoul, 1,000 citizens were hindered by riot policemen from protesting in front of the Taiwanese trade representative office. On February 12, Jan Wong, leader of the South Korean environmental group Green Korea, said activists would, if necessary, forcibly block the nuclear waste transport. On a February 14 demonstration in Seoul, international support letters from various NGOs were read.
Reuter, 5, 12 and 14 February 1997
Britain lax in testing food after Chernobyl. According to John Jeffers, former director of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, monitoring radiation in food, such as milk, after the 1986 Chernobyl accident was 'half-hearted and fairly ridiculous'. No systematic efforts have been made to trace where food had become contaminated. In the immediate aftermath there was no government funding into the behavior of radioactivity in moorlands. Britain's Ministry of Agriculture defended itself, saying it tested 28,490 samples of milk, vegetables, fruit, cereals and sheep for radiaton in 1986.
Reuter, 20 February 1996
Siting ITER highest priority for EU; Japan formally requests. A panel of experts from industry, government and academia say that top priority in the nuclear fusion field be construction in Europe of the International Thermouclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Siting the ITER in Europe, however, is not likely. Greifswald (Germany) was abandoned last July as possible site (See WISE NC 457 nucnote). A report commissioned by the European Commission says there would need to be a 50-percent increase in funding in the new century for the EU's thermonuclear research program. The EU's current five-year (1994-1998) R&D framework program reserves US$1.07 billion for fusion research.
On December 12, the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Inc. (JAIF) published a formal request to 'invite' the ITER to Japan. Citizen's groups from Tomakomai City (Hokkaido), one of the local governments seeking the ITER construction, brought about 70,000 signatures protesting the plan.
Power In Europe, 31 January 1997 / Nuke Info Tokyo, January/February 1997
Armenia: no waste to Russia. The Republic of Armenia which, until recently, exported its nuclear waste to Russia, has decided to store it instead. Vladimir Kurginyan, chief inspector of the Armenian State Nuclear Control Commission, told Aegis that spent nuclear fuel should be looked upon as a product good for further industrial use. The wastes remaining after processing are to be held in a special storage depot, currently being built in Armenia with the help of the French firm Framatom. The firm says the waste would be safe for 60 years by which time, it is hoped, new disposal methods would be practicable.
Aegis Bulletin (SU), 14 February 1997
(February 28, 1997) The Lebanese environment ministry adopted new legislation that bans the import of all hazardous wastes into Lebanon. The need for this new legislation was prompted by recent attempts to turn Lebanon into an international dumpsite, as shown by the recent illegal shipment of contaminated plastic waste from Germany.
(467.4645) WISE-Amsterdam - The 'ministerial decision' was passed by Lebanese Environment Minister Akram Shouhayeb on December 17, 1996. It became public and became effective in February 1977 when it was published in the Official Journal. The ministerial decision bans all waste imports for final disposal or for incineration and all hazardous waste imports bound for recycling. Traders must provide officials documents from the country of origin allowing the export of non- hazardous waste and proving that the wastes are not contaminated by any radioactive, chemical or biological substances.
As traders will also have to prove that the imported non-hazardous wastes are suitable for recycling and that the adequate recycling technologies are available in Lebanon, the import of wastes in the guise of recovery will also be outlawed.
The adoption of strong waste import legislation by Lebanon follows the adoption of similarly strict waste export legislation by the European Union. On January 20, 1997, the EU amended its waste shipment regulation 259/93 so that shipments of hazardous wastes for recovery to all non-OECD countries have to end by December 31, 1997.
With this new legislation in place, Lebanon has followed its commitments to the Basel Convention (the international convention on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes), that Lebanon ratified last year. The international community and particularly the less industrialized world decided to put an end to the trend of using poor countries as a dumpsite for hazardous wastes from the rich countries. In September 1995, under the auspices of the United Nations Basel Convention, the member states decided to ban all hazardous waste exports from the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries by January 1, 1998.
Source: Greenpeace press release, 12 February 1997
Contact: Fouad Hamdan, Lebanon Campaigner of Greenpeace Mediterranean, Beirut
Tel; +961 3 756429 or +961 1 785665;
E-mail: gp.med@cyberia.net.lb,
or: Luisa Colasimone, Greenpeace International Press Desk, Keizersgracht 174, 1016 DW Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tel; +31 20 5249 546,
(February 28, 1997) Native nations, the Arizona American Indian Movement, Save Ward Valley, local residents and environmental activists blockaded the entrance to the proposed radioactive dump site at Ward Valley, west of Needles, Calif., on January 29.
(467.4646) WISE-Amsterdam -Officials of the US Department of Energy and other government offices, along with industry representatives, were approaching Ward Valley for a tour of the site. They were met by 100 Native people and supporters who blocked the road. The protesters prevented the tour from reaching the site. The blockade lasted two hours. Tribal and environmental activists had gathered at the site early in the morning. They took part in a traditional ceremony as they waited for the government and industry officials to arrive.
On January 31, California Governor Pete Wilson filed a lawsuit in federal district court to force the Interior Department to transfer the federal land at Ward Valley to the State so construction on the dump could proceed. Wilson also demanded that the anti-dump protest encampment ' on the site for over a year ' be evicted immediately.
Native nations and the entire Ward Valley Coalition have vowed they would resist nonviolently any attempt at eviction or construction. Further defying Wilson, the nations have announced that a mass Spring Gathering is to be held at Ward Valley April 25-27.
Source: Workers World newspaper (US), 13 February 1997
Contact: Save Ward Valley, 107 F Street, Needles, California 92363, USA
Tel: +1-619-326-6267
Fax: +1-619-326-2468
E-mail: swv1@ctaz.com
(February 28, 1997) On the last day of the Second Nuclear Congress in December in Manila, Secretary Francisco L. Viray of the Department of Energy revealed that 10 sites all over the Philippines are being proposed for the construction of nuclear reactors.
(467.4641) Corazon Fabros -Viray, who also chairs the Presidential Steering Committee on Nuclear Power, admitted that even with the mothballing of the Bataan nuclear power plant since 1986, the government has never really closed the door for the nuclear option. In fact, even the Bataan plant is being proposed for operation as a nuclear power plant despite the government's earlier decision to convert it to a natural gas-power plant.
The government's problem is how to sell this option to the Philippine public. The main point of the recent Philippine Nuclear Congress is to wage a 'public acceptance' program for nuclear power in the country. During the technical session on Nuclear Education and Public Awareness, it was proposed that nuclear science be integrated into the school curriculum from grade school to tertiary level, in a 'objective' and 'balanced' way.
Plant construction of the 620MW Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was close to completion in 1985 when work was stopped following questions raised over safety, radioactive waste storage and design (see WISE NC 397.3863). In 1995, President Ramos mandated its conversion to a 1,500-MW power plant to use natural gas.
Source: Pacific News Bulletin, January 1997
Contact: Nuclear-Free Philippines Coalition, Room 511 J & T Building, 3894 R. Magsaysay Blvd., Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines.
Tel & Fax: +63-2-716-1084
(February 28, 1997) The Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy is working hard to get profit from exporting know-how to the Middle East and countries in Asia. The heavily criticized project between Russia and Iran has come to the implementation phase.
(467.4648) Igor Kudrik -Some 150 Russian specialists are currently in Iran providing assistance to the construction of a Russian-designed VVER reactor for a nuclear power plant. Teheran believes that Russia would help to construct four more reactor installations of this kind. The value of the deal amounts to US$2 billion.
One of the priority areas of activity for the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (RMAE) is China and India. In the northwestern region of China, Russian specialists have completed the construction of a uranium-enrichment facility. A project between Russia and China on building two reactor installations with a power output of 1000 MW each is in the planning stage. These Russian-Chinese deals amount to between $3 billion to $4 billion. With India, the RMAE plans to sign a $2-billion to $3-billion contract this year for the construction of a nuclear power plant.
At present Russia is negotiating delivery of floating nuclear power plants to Indonesia. On Cuba, Russia plans to restart construction work on a nuclear power plant, consisting of two VVER-440 reactors. Started in 1983, the project was halted in the early 1990s when more than halfway through.
Negotiations are also being held with Egypt, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, on delivery of various nuclear technologies.
Worth mentioning is also the deal between RMAE and US Enrichment Corp. on delivery of down-blended weapons grade uranium. This deal, instantiated in 1994, amounts to US$12 billion.
On the domestic side, however, RMAE has small reason to feel comfortable. Currently, only 12 percent of Russias energy is produced by nuclear power plants. By the year 2010, the Russian government will close down 18 aging reactor installations. During the recent referendum held in Kostroma County in middle Russia, the local population expressed its negative opinion towards the construction of a new power plant. And throughout the planned renewal of the Russian nuclear power grid, the ever-present lack of funds dominates. By the end of December 1996, RMAE received only 72 percent of what was planned through the Federal budget. Nevertheless, due to the export activities, the salaries in the ministry are higher than average in Russia.
Source: Igor Kudrik, 21 February 1997 at Bellona homepage.
Contact: Bellona Foundation, PO Box 2141, Grünerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
(February 28, 1997) Steve Wing, associate professor of epidemiology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has conducted a reevaluation of the Columbia University Three Miles Island study. The Columbia study is often cited as evidence that the TMI accident has caused no ill effects on the exposed population. However, Wing discovered that people living closer to the path of the escaping radiation cloud developed all cancer types more frequently, especially lung cancer and leukemia.
(467.4637) NIRS -For example, among the 20,000 people who lived near the plant and close to the plume's path, lung cancer and leukemia rates were two or more times higher than what they were near the plant but upwind from the plume. Among those in the most direct path of the plumes, lung cancer incidence was elevated by 300 to 400 percent, and leukemia rates were up by 600 to 700 percent. 'A Reevaluation of Cancer Incidence Near the Three Miles Island Nuclear Power Plant: The Collision of Evidence and Assumptions' can be found in the January 1997 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. Since the piece below summarizes his findings the reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the actual study for more detail and further research.
Three Miles Island nuclear power station, near Harrisburg PA, was originally comprised of two Babcock & Wilcox pressurized water reactors (PWRs) operated by Metropolitan Edison, now General Public Utility Nuclear. The PWR produces electricity by superheating highly pressurized water in a 'primary loop' that circulates around the highly radioactive fuel core. This heat is exchanged in a series of steam generators which boil water into steam that is transferred into a 'secondary loop' to propel the blades in a turbogenerator for the production of electricity.
At 4 a.m. on March 28, 1979, the newly operational Three Miles Island Unit 2 was at 97 percent full power. Two pumps that feed water through the secondary loop suddenly shut down for undetermined reasons and initiated a cascade of equipment failures and operator errors resulting in severe damage to the reactor's radioactive core. A partial meltdown of the TMI reactor core released significant yet unknown quantities of radioactive gas and particulate as the result of the failure of the reactor's multiple barrier system designed to protect the public health and safety. A breach of the fuel rod cladding, the first barrier, occurred as the result of the high temperature melting of the radioactive fuel. This was followed by the failure of the second barrier system, the reactor coolant boundary system and ultimately the failure of the third and final barrier, the containment building itself. A number of escape routes for radiation from the reactor and auxiliary buildings then existed into the atmosphere. While the exact quantity of noble gases of krypton and xenon released from the reactor core cannot be determined due to the absence of adequate radiation monitoring equipment, it can be concluded that significantly more noble gases than currently accounted for were released to affect downwind populations with exposures by the inhalation and ingestion of harmful radiation.
Subsequent to the partial meltdown of the reactor, the TMI Public Health Fund was established to fund research into radiation health effects and radiation protection. The Fund, under supervision of Federal Court Judge Sylvia Rambo, hired investigators from Columbia University to see if 'risks from specified cancers may have been raised by exposure to radiation emanating from the Three Miles Island nuclear power plant'. Data on cancer cases were gathered for the years 1975-1985 and evaluated. Even though the data showed all cancers and lung cancer were significantly associated with accident doses, there was a lack of strong association for childhood and highly radiosensitive cancers. This, in addition to confounding factors, led the Columbia team to conclude that the documented cancer increases did not result from the radioactivity released by the partial core melt.
However, Wing concludes that there are several shortcomings in this original study.
Therefore the study failed to address the potential for greater human doses resulting from more concentrated packets of radioisotopes traveling with the weather patterns. To quote Wing, 'If the premise that maximum doses were no higher than average annual background levels is not open to question, then no positive association could be interpreted as evidence in support of the hypothesis that radiation from the accident led to increased cancer rates.' However, in 1994-95, cytogenetic analyses of individuals near TMI who experienced vomiting, erythema, diarrhea and other symptoms of radiation poisoning at the time of the accident showed genetic damage equivalent with 600-900 mGy of exposure, substantially more than 1 mGy used as maximum dose in the Columbia study.
Documenting the inadequacies of the Columbia study, Steve Wing reevaluated and reinterpreted the data collected by Columbia researchers, addressing problems of incorrectly reported cancer count data for 1975, and incorrectly handled data for the period 1981-85. Wing et al. recognize that dose accuracy was compromised by inadequate monitoring and the eradication of high-dose levels by the court order. Still, they found dose-response relationships between radiation exposure and cancer incidence: the data show that the higher the radiation exposure, the higher the incidence of cancer.
A 10-mile study area was divided into 69 tracts, each assigned radiation dose estimates based on monitor readings and atmospheric dispersion models. Using various models, Wing et al. adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic characteristics, preaccident variation in cancer incidence and the medical detection bias so that these factors would not interfere with a true result. The routine releases from TMI unit one and their effects on the population were also accounted for by adjustment for baseline cancer rates before the accident.
Note: 1. Judge Sylvia Rambo, responsible for this court order (Civil Action # 79-0432), later dismissed the suit brought by more than 2,000 litigants against the utility that operated the reactor, citing a 'paucity of proof' to substantiate their claims. This action was subsequent to Rambo's refusal of much of the scientific evidence presented by the plaintiffs, including some, but not all, of the analyses in the study summarized here.
Source and Contact: NIRS, 1424 16th St. NW #602, Wahington DC 20036, USA
Tel: +1-202-3280002
Fax: +1-202-4622186
E-mail: nirsnet@igc.apc.org
WWW: www.nirs.org
Some 150 tons of damaged fuel rods and other radioactive debris taken from Unit 2 of the Three Miles Island reactor, is looking for a permament home.
(467.4652) WISE-Amsterdam -Crews have completed the cleanup from the 1979 partial meltdown at the Pennsylvania reactor and transported the radioactive materials in 22 shipments to a temporary underwater storage at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in eastern Idaho. It will stay there until safer quarters can be built, at least 2010.
The Energy Department and the state of Idaho plan to spend $30 million to move the 344 containers of TMI waste into steel-and-concrete dry storage casks, deemed an improvement from the 1950s-era cooling water pools that lack protective steel linings or a leak-detection system. The Idaho lab houses about 99 percent of the uranium fuel from Three Miles Island. The rest of the fuel and other parts of the damaged generating station remain at the plant site near Harrisburg, Pa. The station will be dismantled after 2014, when the license for a sister plant expires.
Source: Reuter, 1 February 1997
Contact: Three Miles Island Alert, 315 peffer Str., Harrisburg PA 17102
(February 28, 1997) Austrian decision-makers and editorialists have repeatedly complained that 'Austria stands alone' when it makes antinuclear foreign policy. There are, however, several potentially allied countries. An allience would turn Austria's -and their own- isolation into a front-breaking political force.
(467.4639) Anti Atom International - As a matter of fact, even an Austrian 'victory' against the Mohovce NPP or against any other neighbouring nuclear plant - like the one we won over the Wackersdorf reprocessing plant - brings about no institutional, legal or structural change; thanks to a lot of institutions and agencies (IAEA, NEA, EURATOM, G-7 etc.) the nuclear industry maintains a completely disproportionate influence. Thanks to a large number of international, multi- and bilateral agreements, too.
We do not want to do it 'all over again' every time we fight another nuclear installation. Therefor, it is important to build up institutional foundations on the international level for increasingly tighter regulations on nuclear energy and for energy alternatives -with an International Solar Energy Agency (ISEA) looming on the horizon. Efforts have been made in this direction. A coalition of non-nuclear nations might concentrate and systemarize them and give them the long-term political drive they need.
A Coalition of Nuclear-Free Countries offers many advantages:
We want the Austrian Gouvernment to start consultations / negotiations with one or two potential coalition partners (Denmark, Norway, Ireland...), to create a small nucleous for the start. That's easier and will more easily convince further partners.
Consultations and negotiations may go on simultanously or successively on gouvernment, ministry, or regional levels. Like- wise between Members of Parliaments critical of nuclear power, political parties and their youth organizations, or between official advisory panels (Austria: forum on Nuclear Issues, Energy conservation Agency, Institute for risk Research of Vienna University etc.). At the 'grass roots', environmental NGOs in the respective partner countries will be active correspondingly.
But what should the lawmakers or gouvernments negotiate about?
We have worked out more detailed steps and an approximate timetable that may lead forward the coalition, and goals that the coalition partners are to achieve. On the other hand, we do not mean to present a 'once for all' concept: rather, we would gladly welcome any proposals.
What lobbying was done for the 'Coalition' in Austria?
So far, the Parliaments of all nine Austrian federal regions unanimously supported the project. AAI is running a side-campaign to win the support of the other environmental groups in Austria (and already has that of IPPNW-Austria, among others). Another branch of the campaign is directed to other relevant institutions / organisations, e.g. within the Churches and the trade-unions. In another activity, we approach artists and other well-known personalities asking them to support the Coalition (one of these is Eurosolar's european president and German member of Parliament Hermann Scheer).
Source and Contact: Heinz Stockinger, AAI, Volksgartenstr. 1, 1010 Wien, Austria
Tel: +43-1-5229102; Fax: +43-1-5229103
E-mail: aai@blackbox.at
(February 28, 1997) The US government has admitted that its aid program to accelerate the closure of the oldest Russian-designed reactors in the NIS (Newly Independent States) and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region is a failure, but instead of canceling the program, a substantial expansion is proposed.
(467.4644) WISE Brno -The US Government Accounting Office (GAO) says in its October 1996 report: 'Despite the efforts of the US and other countries, none of these highest risk reactors have been closed and one in Armenia has been restarted.' These 'highest risk reactors' are the 26 RBMK (Chernobyl type) and VVER 440/230 reactors operating. The explicit goal of the aid program is to close these reactors as quickly as possible. The GAO is even aware that paying for safety upgrades is likely working against the stated plans to close these reactors earlier. 'In our view, providing this assistance could pose a dilemma because it may encourage the continued operation of the same reactors that the US wants to see closed as soon as possible.'
In a surprisingly candid report, the GAO even admits that the US Department of Energy (DoE) and the Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC) have failed to link their goals to the US$208 million in aid money already spent. 'DOE officials have not yet established a long-term plan linking the programs' objectives to measurable goals or providing a date to meet these goals. As a result it is unclear how DOE will demonstrate when and how it has achieved the programs' goals. It is also unclear, without such a plan, when the program will end.'
The report goes on to show that of 13 specific aid projects reviewed at the congresses' request, 11 have been delayed in implementation and three for more than two years. Sources of delay include Russian and Ukrainian customs demanding duty payments, 'unanticipated and/or burdensome requirements' by foreign officials, and the inability of Russia and Ukraine to provide adequate financial support for the projects.
Despite the lack of progress in the goal of closing these reactors, the lack of agreements with the aid-receiving countries, the total failure to close any reactors to date, the DOE is proposing to expand the program to US$500 million to be spent over the next 10 years.
To receive a copy of the report, write to US General Accounting Office, Washington DC 20548 USA and request report GAO/RCED-97-5 Nuclear Safety Status of US Assistance to Improve the Safety of Soviet Designed Reactors.
Source and Contact: Paxus Calta at WISE Brno
(467.4647) WISE-Amsterdam - However, if Russia ratifies the START II, new tritium is not needed before 2011. The US nuclear weapons stockpile would then be reduced to 'only' 2,000 to 1,500 warheads. Because tritium has a short half-life of 12.3 years, the tritium in existing nuclear weapons has to be replenished regularly. Tritium from retired nuclear weapons can be recycled for use in remaining warheads. DOE also maintains a reserve stockpile of tritium, which could also be used. Tritium for military purposes is produced by irradiating target rods containing enriched lithium-6.
DOE is expected to select one of its options for tritium production in December 1998. So it has less than two years to evaluate how much tritium it would need to maintain its nuclear arsenal. Estimates vary from 2 kg to 1.5 kg of tritium/year, depending on the number of nuclear weapons.
Originally, DOE viewed only two options for tritium production: building a new accelerator or using civil reactors. On January 15, 1997, DOE added a third option:
1: Building a new linear accelerator at Savannah River Site. Estimated cost: $14 billion. It could be fully operational by 2007. It is intended to operate for 40 years. The DOE prefers an accelerator because it produces no high-level radioactive waste and advances technology from research to production. The proposed accelerator would need about 550 MW. If its start-up date is delayed, some money could be saved due to technology innovations. When another option is chosen in a few years' time, development of the accelerator could be stopped. This could save about $700 million till 1999.
2: Using an existing Fast Breeder, the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in Hanford, Washington, which is now on standby. It would cost $4 billion over its remaining lifetime, estimated at one or more decades. The FFTF operated from 1982 to 1992. On December 7, 1993, DOE Secretary O'Leary announced it should be permanently shut in 1995. In 1995, the DOE rejected the FFTF as a tritium-production machine, but re-start advocates now argue this decision was based on 'erroneous information' on how much tritium it could produce and how long it could operate. To be available as an option, the DOE decided on January 15, 1997, to keep the FFTF on standby for about two years. This decision of the DOE seems to be influenced by the lobbying of Advanced Nuclear Medical Systems (ANMS), which proposed to privatize the FFTF. They than want to sell tritium to the DOE and eventually producing medical isotopes for cancer treatment and materials research, after it has produced tritium for 10 years. ANMS made contributions to the Washington congressional delegation and tried to gain access to the White House, through Hugh Rodham, brother of Hilary Rodham Clinton. ANMS tried to get a cheap source of plutonium to fuel the FFTF, and contacted the owners of the closed Kalkar Fast Breeder Reactor. DOE sees the FFTF as a possible back-up tritium source, while it works on the other options.
If the Russian parliament ratifies START II, the FFTF could even be the main producer of tritium. Recently the Clinton administration studied a possible agreement with Russia on a START III treaty, with new cuts in strategic warheads, going well beyond the 50 percent reduction of START II. In that case, the tritium requirements are so far reduced that the FFTF could be a primary tritium producer. Operation of the FFTF for tritium production would require the transport of 1,000 kg of weapons-grade plutonium annually to the Hanford site.
The so-called Jason report looked at earlier reports regarding the FFTF tritium capability. The reports came to different conclusions, one supporting and the other opposing consideration of a tritium task for the FFTF. The Jason report concludes that the FFTF could produce at least 1 kg of tritium and a likely 1.5 kg of tritium annually. Even at the 1.5 kg/yr production level, the FFTF could not meet all US tritium needs. Another tritium production plant should be needed. The spent fuel from the FFTF would contain about 40 percent plutonium and this would be about 90 percent Pu-239. Operation of the FFTF would create more high-level nuclear waste at the Hanford site. This would be vehemently opposed by local activists and state government officials.
The fact that the DOE did not include the FFTF in its tritium Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is one issue that opponents would seize upon. Before the DOE has an EIS done, it needs to upgrade and devote resources to FFTF maintenance. That violates the National Environmental Policy Act.
3: Using commercial reactors If this option is chosen, it should be the first time that domestic civil nuclear facilities are used for military purposes. The DOE asked utilities to let them know in beginning of 1997 whether they are interested in producing tritium. The DOE is considering options to buy or to lease a civil reactor or reactors in 1997 or 1998. The DOE told utilities to assume tritium production to begin in 2005.
In January 1997, the DOE published a draft 'Request for Proposals related to the production of tritium using commercial light water reactors (LWRs)'. Sixteen utilities in Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington State have expressed interest so far.
The DOE intends to conduct tritium test runs at TVA's Watts Bar reactor this summer, to see whether civil reactors would be effective producers of tritium.
Arizona Public Services Company could possibly offer the DOE to produce tritium in the three Palo Verde units. The DOE will award a tritium production contract to one or more utilities early next year.
This proposal for producing nuclear bomb materials in civil nuclear reactors would blur the line between civil and military use of nuclear facilities. Public opposition to this could diminish utility interest in tritium production.
Not long ago, the DOE downplayed the idea of using existing com- mercial reactors to produce tritium, saying this 'would be contrary' to the long-standing US policy that civilian plants should not be used for military purposes.
But in 1995, the DOE abruptly changed its position and now its officials virtually dismiss the old policy as something that was based on a basic misunderstanding on what tritium is. Sohinki, director of the DOE tritium project, stressed at a January 16, 1996, meeting that tritium is not classified as a 'special nuclear material', which means that it is not considered as weapons usable by the DOE. This is very hypocrite because they use it for military purposes!
It seems very strange but for many years now, the DOE has been looking at the civil reactor option for tritium production. Between 1988 and 1992, the DOE spent $69 million on the development of targets rods, to be used for tritium production in existing commercial PWRs. Test target rods were made and tested in the Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho Laboratory; these were, however, only one-third the size of a standard PWR fuel rod. Tests with full-scale rods in commercial PWRs must still be done. Target testing is to run through the end of 2000.
Foreign fuel contracts provisions requiring that US reactors be used only for peaceful purposes could wrench the DOE's plans to use civilian reactors for the production of tritium for nuclear warheads. These fuel provisions are based on goverment-to- government agreements between the US and Canada, Australia and Euratom.
The DOE will have to supply a utility with fuel made exclusively from US uranium to circumvent these provisions. The DOE tries to get at least one US reactor to insert lead test rods into its core, to see how the tritium target rods interact with the other rods. 'We need at least one reactor, or we don't have a program'. TVA's Watts Bar reactor, which went into operation in 1996 after a 23- year construction phase, is using a core from purely US uranium and is therefor a likely candidate. Georgia Power and TVA agreed to examine the possibility of inserting lead test targets into the Vogtle and Watts Bar reactors, respectively.
However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must review the technical and safety aspects of reactor tritium production, something that has never been done. The NRC has also a responsibility to 'confront and address' the issue of mixing commercial and defense activities and to explicitly state a policy position on it. There is also some question as to whether the NRC has the legal authority to approve the use of reactors for tritium production. By law, NRC is barred from using appropriated funds for licensing of DOE facilities for defense purposes.
Sources:
Contact: NIRS, 1424 16th St. NW #602, Wahington DC 20036, USA
Tel: +1-202-3280002; Fax: +1-202-4622186
E-mail: nirsnet@igc.apc.org
WWW: www.nirs.org