(January 19, 1990) The 1980's marked a decade of decline for the US nuclear industry as radioactive waste doubled, costs quadrupled and mishaps exceeded 34,000 in number.
(325.3249) WISE Amsterdam - These are among the findings of "A Decade of Decline: The Degeneration of Nuclear Power in the 1980's and the Emergence of Safer Energy Alternatives", a study released in December by Public Citizen and more than two dozen other citizen groups in the US. The 38-page study is based on records obtained from the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and other federal and state government agencies as well as industry, academic and private sources. Public Citizen used these records to compare the status of nuclear power in the US at the end of the decade to its status in 1980.
With the end of the 1980's, the US faces a new energy crisis. As energy-related environmental problems such as global warming, acid rain, urban smog and radioactive waste continue to worsen, the nuclear industry argues that it is now time to begin building a "new generation" of nuclear plants. Despite its aggressive self-promotion, the nuclear industry is in decline. The study points out there has not been an order for a new reactor within the US since 1978. More plants were cancelled or permanently retired during the past decade than were completed. Although the number of licensed-to-operate nuclear reactors increased from 69 in 1980 to 112 in 1989, not a single order was placed for a new nuclear reactor at any time during the past ten years. And while only nine reactors are still officially "under construction", only three are actually expected to be completed.
Economically, the average construction costs for new reactors coming on line increased four-fold, from US $1,135 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity in 1980 to $4,590 per kW for reactors completed in 1989. Operating and maintenance costs have risen a total of 69% since 1980, from $44.50 per kW of plant capacity to $75.00 per kW in 1988 (the last year for which there is complete data) - an average annual increase of 6.5% above inflation. Similarly, the cost for major repairs has increased by 30% since 1980 from $959 per kW of capacity to $1,243 per kW in 1987 (the last year for which there is complete data) - an average annual increase of 4% above inflation.
Among other findings are that while there has been a noticeable decline in the average per-worker dose, the NRC has allowed the number of workers exposed to measurable amounts of radiation at US reactors to increase by almost 30% from 80,331 in 1980 to 103,227 in 1988 (the most recent year for which there is complete data). In fact, between 1980 and 1988, there were over 832,000 instances of nuclear power plant workers being exposed to measurable amounts of radiation.
In addition, the study finds that the total accumulation of highlevel waste (i.e. used fuel rods) from commercial nuclear reactors in terms of radioactivity has almost doubled since 1980 and now stands at 18.7 billion curies while the mass of this waste has grown by 170%, from 6,534 metric tons in 1980 to 17,607 metric tons in 1988. Similarly, during the 1980's, the total accumulated volume of disposed "low-level" (but still dangerously radioactive) waste from commercial nuclear power plants has grown by 117%, from 291,300 cubic meters to 631,300 cubic meters in 1988. The accumulated "low-level" waste in terms of radioactivity has increased by more than 140%, from 778,000 curies in 1980 to 1,843,000 curies today. Moreover, nuclear power's share (in terms of radioactivity) of the "low-level" waste generated from all commercial sources has increased from 30% in 1980 to 82% today. Uranium mill tailings have grown by 23.8%, from 94.4 million cubic meters in 1980 to almost 117 million cubic meters by the end of 1988. Yet, over a decade after enactment of comprehensive legislation requiring the clean-up of mill tailings sites, at least 13 of the 25 sites have failed to comply with environmental standards. This is due, in a large part, to industry resistance.
All the while, energy efficiency and renewables have emerged as cleaner, cheaper, safer, and more socially acceptable alternatives to nuclear power. For example, the energy consumed per unit of Gross National Product (GNP) improved by 17.6% between 1980 and 1989, from 23,800 Btu's per dollar of GNP to 19,600 Btu's per dollar of GNP. Moreover, between 1980 and 1989, energy efficiency improvements reduced total US energy use by over 23 quadrillion Btu's (equal to more than 25% of US total current energy use) from the amount that would have been used if energy use had continued to pattern the growth in the GNP as it had prior to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Energy use in 1989 alone was 36.5 quadrillion Btu's less than it would have been had pre-1972 trends continued - an amount six times greater than the energy produced by nuclear power during the same year. Electrical demand was reduced by 82% between 1980 and 1989 from the levels once projected on the basis of pre-1972 trends. Moreover, the cost of these savings were 0 to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh) compared to the 6 to 12 cents per kwh cost for nuclear generated electricity.
Between 1980 and 1989, more than 21,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy-based electric capacity was brought on line, almost half of which is supplied by non-hydroelectric sources including wind, biomass, direct solar, and geothermal. These latter technologies experienced a nine-fold increase during the 1980's, from 1,100 MW in 1980 to nearly 10,000 MW today. And while nuclear power costs have continued to rise, the costs for many renewable energy technologies have dropped dramatically during the past decade. For example, costs for photovoltaic solar cells have been reduced by 75% and the costs for wind and solar thermal electric systems have declined by more than 60%. Also, renewable energy technologies now account for 8.8% of the nation's domestic energy supply compared to nuclear power's contribution of 8.2%. Further, they account for more electrical capacity than nuclear power (98,536 MW compared to 97,526 MW) although not yet quite as much electrical output.
However, federal funding for further research and development of these technologies was slashed during the 1980's. Between 1980 and 1989, federal funding for energy conservation was cut 68%, from $406 million in 1980 to $129 million in 1989. Similarly, funding for renewables was reduced 89%, from $848 million in 1980 to $91 million in 1989 (constant 1982 dollars).
The study recommends that nuclear plants still being built, or which are presently in "deferred," "delayed," or "low-power" status, should be halted. Reactors that currently closed for safety or economic reasons should be permanently retired. Those plants considered most dangerous should be immediately retired or rapidly phased out unless they are absolutely necessary to meet local energy needs. All remaining nuclear power plants should be closed as soon as possible. Future nuclear power investments should be directed towards developing technically sound and environmentally safe solutions for the long-term storage of nuclear waste and for the safe decommissioning of existing nuclear. Future energy planning should be based on "least-cost" principles whereby investments are made in those energy options which are the least costly based on both direct economic costs as well as environmental and social costs. Thus, funds now proposed to be invested in developing another generation of nuclear plants should instead be invested in improved energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Source and contact: Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project, 215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington DC 20003, tel: (202) 546 4996. Copies of the full study are available for $5/copy; free copies are available to members of the media.
(January 19, 1990) Top Argentine musicians are aiding two groups - Asociacion UNESCO: Paz, Ambiente y Desarrollo (Peace, Environment and Development) and Friends of the Earth Argentina - in their anti-nuclear campaigning.
(325.3255) WISE Amsterdam - At a concert held on 9 and 10 December, musicians such as Alejandro Lerner (the concert's organizer), Leon Gieco and Marilina Ross introduced an audience of more than 10,000 people to the problems involved in reprocessing. During the 2 days of music, Asociacion UNESCO and Friends of the Earth showed parts of the famous documentary "Dark Circle" on a giant video screen and musicians spoke against the reprocessing plant, still under construction at Ezeiza, Argentina's nuclear research center. In addition, pamphlets explaining the main problems with reprocessing were given to everyone and research on the subject was made available.
Although the reprocessing plant is not yet built, Argentina has already had much experience with reprocessing technology. In collaboration with West Germany, Argentina built a pilot reprocessing plant which operated, outside international safeguards, from 1969-1972. There is still disagreement over how much spent fuel was treated. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) puts the amount at 200 kilograms of spent fuel per year, while the West German government contends the amount was only one kilogram. If the SIPRI figure is correct, Argentina could have produced enough plutonium for a bomb during that period. The much larger plant now under construction was supposed to have been completed in 1983 and was expected to be able to produce enough plutonium for 10 bombs per year by reprocessing 18 tonnes of spent fuel annually.
The groups' next campaign will be against the nuclear repository that the CNEA (Argentina's Atomic Energy Commission) wants to build, and will also focus on alternative energy sources. Information on nuclear waste dumping and alternatives such as wind energy is being sought by campaigners. They request that material on the subject be sent to the address below.
Sources:
Contact: Asociacion UNESCO: Paz, Ambiente y Desarrollo, Acuna de Figueroa 1511 7mo. "B", (1170) Buenos Aires, Argentina.
(325.3252) WISE Amsterdam
(January 19, 1990) (Campaign for land rights of Western Shoshone and other indigenous peoples throughout the world. Includes the Indigenous Uranium Forum.) (Ayn wiped out text by accident.)
Contacts: In Europe: Renate Domnick, Hansaplatz 5, 2000 Hamburg 1, FRG
Günter Wippel, Oberau 63, 78 Freiburg, FRG
In the US: Western Shoshone National Council, PO Box 68, Duckwater, Nevada 89314, tel: (702) 863 0227
(January 19, 1990) The problem of where to put high-level radioactive waste from Finland's two Olkiluoto nuclear power plants is still unsolved. In the case of the two state-owned plants at Loviisa, the waste is simply transported to the Soviet Union.
(325.3251) WISE Helsinki - Where it goes once it is in the USSR, and how it is stored, is not known, except, apparently, by a very few people in the USSR. And this has ecologists in both Finland and the Soviet Union worried. It doesn't seem to worry Finnish nuclear businesses and authorities, however. When asked what was the final destination of what was the world's biggest nuclear waste consignment to have ever been transported - a consignment which left Loviisa for the Soviet Union late this summer - Antero Tamminen, chief of the technical division of the Loviisa plant, answered that he did not know and was not interested.
The Loviisa consignment consisted of 28 tons of highly radioactive waste which had been stored in the borewater-basin in the nuclear waste storage of the power plant for five years. According to the Finnish daily newspaper Ilta-Sanomat, it corresponds to one year of nuclear fuel waste from the Loviisa station. The waste was carried to the USSR on a special train consisting of eight massive waste transportation wagons built of steel and lead that came from the Soviet Union. First, however, the waste had to be carried by trucks from the nuclear station to the train, 20 kms away.
The wagons were to cross the Finnish border at Vainikkala and later be transferred to the Soviets at Vyborg. After Vyborg, the destination was unknown to the Finns. According to the Ilta-Sanomat, Boris Kurkin, a lecturer at the Soviet domestic ministry, says there are unmarked dumping areas where dangerous radioactive waste has been buried near almost every industrial center in the USSR.
Aleksei Jabkolov, a Soviet academic and chairman of Greenpeace in the Soviet Union, echoes Kurkin, saying the USSR has no central deposit for nuclear waste and it is dumped all over. (Before perestroika, the Soviet authorities began construction of a hugh nuclear waste tomb under the clay strata in Krasnoyarsk under the Yenisey river in Central Siberia. The project was stopped, however, after massive protests among the local population. But only after billion of rubles had been spent.) Jabkolov, and a newly founded environment protections committee he heads, have begun an investigation into the nuclear waste situation and its problems.
Meanwhile, Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), the privately-owned company which owns the Olkiluoto reactors, is looking for a place in the Finnish bedrock to bury all its nuclear waste. According to at least some experts, however, there is too much movement and small fractions in bedrock in Finland.
Sources:
Contact: EVY, Pursimiehenkatu 29-31A, SF 00150 Helsinki, Finland.
(January 19, 1990) The problem of where to put high-level radioactive waste from Finland's two Olkiluoto nuclear power plants is still unsolved. In the case of the two state-owned plants at Loviisa, the waste is simply transported to the Soviet Union.
(325.3251) WISE Helsinki - Where it goes once it is in the USSR, and how it is stored, is not known, except, apparently, by a very few people in the USSR. And this has ecologists in both Finland and the Soviet Union worried. It doesn't seem to worry Finnish nuclear businesses and authorities, however. When asked what was the final destination of what was the world's biggest nuclear waste consignment to have ever been transported - a consignment which left Loviisa for the Soviet Union late this summer - Antero Tamminen, chief of the technical division of the Loviisa plant, answered that he did not know and was not interested.
The Loviisa consignment consisted of 28 tons of highly radioactive waste which had been stored in the borewater-basin in the nuclear waste storage of the power plant for five years. According to the Finnish daily newspaper Ilta-Sanomat, it corresponds to one year of nuclear fuel waste from the Loviisa station. The waste was carried to the USSR on a special train consisting of eight massive waste transportation wagons built of steel and lead that came from the Soviet Union. First, however, the waste had to be carried by trucks from the nuclear station to the train, 20 kms away.
The wagons were to cross the Finnish border at Vainikkala and later be transferred to the Soviets at Vyborg. After Vyborg, the destination was unknown to the Finns. According to the Ilta-Sanomat, Boris Kurkin, a lecturer at the Soviet domestic ministry, says there are unmarked dumping areas where dangerous radioactive waste has been buried near almost every industrial center in the USSR.
Aleksei Jabkolov, a Soviet academic and chairman of Greenpeace in the Soviet Union, echoes Kurkin, saying the USSR has no central deposit for nuclear waste and it is dumped all over. (Before perestroika, the Soviet authorities began construction of a hugh nuclear waste tomb under the clay strata in Krasnoyarsk under the Yenisey river in Central Siberia. The project was stopped, however, after massive protests among the local population. But only after billion of rubles had been spent.) Jabkolov, and a newly founded environment protections committee he heads, have begun an investigation into the nuclear waste situation and its problems.
Meanwhile, Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), the privately-owned company which owns the Olkiluoto reactors, is looking for a place in the Finnish bedrock to bury all its nuclear waste. According to at least some experts, however, there is too much movement and small fractions in bedrock in Finland.
Sources:
Contact: EVY, Pursimiehenkatu 29-31A, SF 00150 Helsinki, Finland.
(January 19, 1990) On 17 December, after 15 days, the fast to stop Golfech has ended. But the campaign continues.
(325.3254) WISE Amsterdam - On 3 December six members of STOP GOLFECH had begun a hunger strike to draw people's attention to the problems of nuclear energy in general and the Golfech-1 reactor in particular (see WISE News Communique 323/324.3238). Although the hunger strikers feel that their demands had little concrete results, there is so much else to be done in the campaign that they decided to put an end to the strike and move on to other things.
The loading of Golfech was scheduled for 27 November but had been delayed 15 days because of generic problems in the pressurizer leading to leaks at the points where instruments are connected. These problems have been found on all 1300 MW reactors (see also WISE News Communique 323/324.3239). Loading has now been completed.
However, there is also the problem of lack of water, a problem that Golfech's director of works, Daniel Michon, refuses even to admit exists. Yet over the last five years the level of the Garonne river has dropped significantly. No study has ever taken account of this problem, but it seems reasonable to STOP GOLFECH to worry about the effects of the emission of liquids and gases which are both radioactively and chemically contaminated while the river level is so low. The problem is especially alarming as the Garonne serves as the supply for drinking water from Agen to Marmande and there has as yet been no alternative water supply found.
In addition, there is the mud problem. At a meeting between STOP GOLFECH and the nuclear station's director, the problem of residual mud in the steam generators of 1300 MW reactors, which brought about the halt of Nogent-1 and St. Alban-2 and damaged about 100 tubes per generator, was discussed. Mud of the same type also appeared at Golfech after the first high temperature tests. A representative of the safety authorities told STOP GOLFECH that "a definitive solution to this generic anomaly of steam generators has yet to be found." But he "hopes" that the serious problems of Nogent-1 and St. Alban-2 would not reappear in the new reactors now being put into service...Meanwhile the mud at Golfech is being cleaned up and is expected to take three weeks.
Generic anomalies also exist in the steam generators. Here the consequences are much more serious than those found in the pressurizers. This kind of problem is classed at level 2 on the scale of accident gravity. That is to say, the problem can degenerate to a more serious level. These anomalies correspond to a degradation of material which is essential for safety and necessitates notable modification to the maintenance program. STOP GOLFECH is even more worried and vigilant about this as the same fault has appeared in the reactors at Cattenom, Flamenville, Paluel, St. Alban and Nogent - all of which are the same reactor type as the Golfech reactors.
STOP GOLFECH is demanding:
On a more positive note, the deputy mayors of Toulouse and Ramonville have organized a petition to be circulated amongst local politicians demanding that a local information campaign and a referendum be held before the authorization to start the chain reaction is given. As of 22 December they had 41 signatures.
Meanwhile, a 24-hour presence in caravans at Golfech has been established and demonstrations will continue to be held every Sunday afternoon at 3 o'clock. In addition, STOP GOLFECH is still distributing copies of its European appeal and post cards it is asking the international community to send to the French president. Finally, STOP GOLFECH has launched a subscription to pay for a financial report to be prepared by the Institut d'Evaluation Europeen des Strategies Energetiques en Europe on the economic effects of Golfech on the region. Contact them at the address below.
Source and contact: Jim Rowe, Vivre Sans Le Danger Nucleaire De Golfech, BP 343, 47008 Agen Cedex, France, tel: 63 29 16 54 (24 hours).
The US high-level nuclear waste repository has been delayed again.
(January 19, 1990) The US government now foresees the opening of the Yucca Mountain (Nevada) high-level nuclear waste repository in the year 2010 - a setback, this time, of 7 years. This new plan assumes that there will be no unexpected setbacks in the progress of the program and that science proves that the proposed site is suitable; but this assumption becomes more and more improbable. Opponents argue that Yucca Mountain is an unsuitable site based on groundwater travel time, tectonics and the presence of natural resources in this area that could produce future mining intrusion. So officials have already revived plans to construct a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility as a short-term solution. Some US officials now even propose above ground storage instead of burial of the waste in an underground repository. Nuclear Fuel (US), 11 Dec. 1989; The New York Times, 5 Dec. 1989
During a rally of 2000 people against the proposed high-level waste repository at Bourg-d'Ire (Maineet-Loire) on 16 December 1989 four persons were injured. On 21 December another rally with 200 people took place at the same site, this time with police shooting off tear gas shells. On 30 December 250 protestors blocked the Nantes Paris TGV (high speed) railway line near the site. Demonstrations also took place at other proposed sites for high-level nuclear waste repositories in France, e.g with 500 participants on 21 December at Saint-Jean-sur-Reyssoze (Ain), and in Trayes (Deux-Sevres) farmers continued to prevent investigations of the underground. Journal du Centre (France), 18 Dec. 1989; Ouest France, 21 & 22 Dec. 1989, 2 Jan. 1990
Rumania's secret uranium mines: Rumania's political prisoners were often sent to work in the harshest conditions down uranium mines in Transylvania. That's one secret recently revealed by the country's new Interior Ministry to the London Evening Standardœ (London, 2 Jan. 1990). Colonel Florica Dobre, permanent secretary to the Interior Ministry told the London newspaper: "The mines were kept very secret. We do not know if Ceausescu was planning a nuclear capability. Our new government is trying to find out." The prisoners sent to the mines were "...held in isolation in cold, unfurnished cells, and allowed no visitors unless they cooperated with Ceausescu's regime." According to Dobre, all these prisoners have now been set free. "Top secret" research was also carried out at the country's Institute of Atomic Physics at Magurule, but the Colonel could give no detailed information about this. MineWatch (UK), Jan. 1990
Residents of Rongelap, a Pacific atoll and part of the Marshall Islands, contend that their island remains unsafe due to the effects of a nuclear bomb tested by the US in their area. The test, codenamed "Bravo", occurred in 1954, yet there has still been no comprehensive radiological survey of the atoll done. The US Department of Energy has now promised a 6-month review of Rongelap's safety as part of "a new culture and the Department that places greater emphasis on the importance of environmental, safety, and health-related issues". This was announced by a top DOE official at a special US Congressional hearing. The Reagan and Bush administrations claimed that Rongelap is safe for habitation. Roughly 350 Rongelapese, concerned about incidents of leukemia and thyroid cancer, evacuated the island in 1985 to live on another island, Mejato. Senator Jeton Anjain, a representative of the Rongelapese in the Marshall Islands government, said the DOE believes the Rongelapese should return to their home island "despite the fact that the Rongelap environment today is highly contaminated with radiation." It is not that the Rongelapese people do not wish to return home, but, as Anjain stated, "we will only return home if Rongelap Atoll is determined to be safe." Meanwhile, Anjain has asked the Congress for emergency humanitarian aid in the form of a temporary resettlement from Mejato while the people await the outcome of the studies. Pacific News Bulletin, Dec. 1989
President Ngiratkel Etpison of Belau has set 6 February as the date for the seventh plebiscite in which the government will seek the approval of Belau's voters on a compact of free association with the US. Fearful that 75% of Belau's voters might not share their enthusiasm for the Compact, those left over from the Ta Belau Party established in 1987, with former President Sali, to push pro-US policies - have formed a "Movement for Free Association" to amend the constitution. The new group has opened an office and is beginning to collect petitions for a referendum to amend the constitution, to eleminate the 75% requirement (see WISE News Communique 323/4.3246). According to Bonifacio Basiluis, Chief of Staff to Pres. Etpison, the group hopes to get 4,000 signatures (only 2,500 are needed) for the petition. If the petition drive is successful, the group would then go to Belau's Congress, OEK, to ask for legislation that would allow a referendum on the 75% clause in the constitution, which would be held before the February plebiscite for the Compact. Pacific News Bulletin, Dec.1989
On 29 November 1989, the Cook Island News, a daily newspaper in Rarotonga, the Pacific, reported that France has set off its largest underground blast of the year at Fangataufa. The 90 kilotonne explosion was the fourth in the second series set off by France in 1989. Moruroa is used for smaller tests, but fears of damage to that atoll prompted France to move larger blasts to Fangataufa as of last year. The test is the 111th to date since French tests went underground. The newspaper ended its short article with the comment, "there are fears they will cause the atolls to break up, spilling nuclear waste into rich fishing grounds and onto populated islands". Pacific News Bulletin, Dec. 1989.
Preussen Elektra and Bayernwerk, two of West Germany's big electricity companies, are meeting with East German authorities in order to get permission to extend the capacity of the East German electricity net. The aim of the talks is to cut down environmental pollution of the ineffective brown coal-fired power plants and decrease East Germany's dependence on brown coal as well as increase the effectiveness of East Germany's power plants and supply a certain continuity of electric energy. But what's behind them is the desire of Preussen Elektra and Bayernwerk to build two nuclear power plants (1300 MW each) in East Germany. The construction material (steel and concrete) would be provided by East Germany itself (that would cover approximately half of the construction costs), while West German companies such as Siemens would provide the nuclear technical materials. Half of the electricity production of these plants would go back to West Germany in order to pay back investment costs by the West German companies. Die Welt (FRG), 19 Dec. 1989
In West Germany's incinerating plants, not only are highly toxic chemicals burnt (which release toxics like dioxin and heavy metals), but so are radioactive materials which - depending on the isotope release up to 370,000 Bq/kg. The West German company Schering AG, for example, burns not only chemical waste in its extremely old incinerator (built right next to residential areas in Bergkamen, FRG), but also radioactive waste from hospitals and the Schering research center in Berlin. These facts came to light in connection with the official investigation into the Transnuclear scandal as Schering was one of Transnuclear's business partners and had received orders from Transnuclear to eliminate nuclear materials such as Tritium and Carbon14 in 1982 and 1983. In another incinerator in the neighborhood, highly radioactive waste from hospitals had been denied and had to be transported to special nuclear plants for storage. Burning, of course, cannot eliminate radiation. After burning these kind of materials, radioactivity can be found in the air, water and slag that leaves the incinerating plant. Radioactivity will only be spread and contaminated slag will most likely be stored on domestic waste dumps... Contact: Bürgerinitiativen Umweltschutz (BBU), Prinz-Albert-Str. 43, D5300 Bon, FRG. BBU, Oct. 1989
The Norwegian Food control Authority recently sent out a letter to health officials stating radiation levels from Chernobyl fallout are still so high that consumption limits on some fish and meat must remain in effect. Per Strand of the State Institute for Radiation Hygiene said that the biological half-lives of cesium-134 and -137 may be 10 to 20 years, not the one or two previously hoped. In fact, radiation levels in some Norwegian meat and fish is now higher than it was soon after the fallout arrived in the spring of 1986. In some areas, cesium has concentrated in livestock feed, resulting in up to 30% of Norway's livestock being contaminated. Many animals are fed special tablet and feed before slaughter to remove enough radioactivity so that the meat can be sold for human consumption. Michael Brenna, an official of the Food Control Authority, said meat sold to the public must pass strict tests, so the main effect of the limits is on Sami reindeer herders, farmers who slaughter their own livestock, and people who eat mutant fish caught in mountain lakes. Associated Press (via GreenNet, gp.press, topic 40, 10 Jan 1990); Miles Goldstick (Sweden)
The lack of cooling water and the technical problems in France's 1300 MW nuclear power plants have forced the French EdF electricity company to buy West German coal for burning in conventional power plants. So, apprehensions reported in WISE News Communique 320 have become a reality in spite of an up to now very mild winter. Badische Zeitung (FRG), 12 Dec. 1989
In a concession to environmentalists, the US Department of Energy (DOE) will not restart its Savannah River defense nuclear reactors until an environmental impact study is completed, according to a DOE letter obtained 18 December. It was not immediately clear whether the decision would mean a further delay in restarting the three reactors, which were shut down last year to undergo massive safety upgrades, worker retraining and management restructuring. The first of the reactors, the country's only source of tritium needed to make nuclear warheads, is tentatively scheduled to resume production next fall. The decision came after three US environmental groups - Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Energy Research Foundation - sued the DOE in December 1988 seeking to force completion of the study before the restart. Associated Press (via Greennet, gp.press, topic 5, 19 Dec. 1989)
On 9 January it was announced in Sweden that West German companies have paid the Swedish government about 3 billion Swedish crowns (SKR) (about US $500 million) to take over the reprocessing contract Sweden had with France for 57 tonnes of spent reactor fuel. Although the trade deal was made several years ago (and prior to West Germany's decision to abandon construction of the reprocessing plant at Wackersdorf in favor of reprocessing in France and the UK), this is the first time that the financial arrangements have been made public. The original agreement between Sweden and France included a Swedish investment of about 4 billion SKR (about US $613 million) in the French UP3 reprocessing plant at La Hague. Already Sweden has paid about 1.5 SKR (about US $2.5 million). Sweden broke the agreement with France after widespread protests in Sweden against reprocessing because of its military connections. Now, Sweden does not allow reprocessing of spent fuel. However, West Germany has a policy of trying to reprocess spent fuel as much as possible... Swedish National TV evening news 9 Jan. 1990 WISE News Communique 314.2139
The Hungarian Electricity Board confirmed that it was to begin negotiations with Electricite de France (EdF) 22 December on collaboration in the construction of nuclear power plants. According to the Board, Hungarian intent is to build jointly two 1,000-MW units at Paks. Prior to this announcement, the Hungarian government had just suspended plans for two Soviet 1,000-MW units there. What Nucleonics Week describes as EdF's "rather discreet" entry into the eastern European market began about 18 months ago. EdF says the type and scope of the collaboration with Hungary is still "wide open" and could range from design of instrumentation and control systems to "a complete product of the China type" - in reference to EdF's project management role in the Daya Bay PWR construction. (Considering the mess made at Daya Bay, that certainly isn't reassuring...) Nucleonics Week, 14 Dec. 1989
(January 19, 1990) There are two types of smoke detectors available for home use - ionizing and photoelectric.
(325.3256) WISE Stockholm - The photoelectric smoke detectors are an improved alternative to ionizing smoke detectors which contain the radioactive isotope americium-241 (the decay product of plutonium-241). Most detectors are of the ionizing variety.
Americium ionizes the air within a chamber of the smoke detector, enabling the air to actually carry an electrical current between two electrodes. When smoke particles enter the chamber, the current is interrupted, thus triggering the alarm. By contrast, photoelectric detectors contain a light source, and a light-sensitive photocell that is not directly in line with the light. When smoke particles enter the detector, they scatter the light beam, and the photocell detects the reflected light. This process triggers the alarm.
Americium-241 emits alpha and gamma radiation. Ionizing smoke detectors contain up to five micro-curies (185,000 becquerels) of americium 241. It has been estimated that one micro-curie (37,000 becquerels) of americium 241, if evenly distributed, has the potential to cause 78 lung cancers. The International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) has set a maximum body burden for americium of 0.03 micro-curies (1,110 becquerels).
Photoelectric smoke detectors have other advantages over the radioactive model: they are better at detecting smoky fires. About 75% of home fires are smoldering fires and account for most fire deaths. However, ionizing detectors are faster at detecting the smaller smoke par- ticles of open flame fires. Further, photoelectric detectors last much longer than the estimated ten year life span of the radioactive type.
The Nuclear Awareness Project in Ontario, Canada is selling photoelectric smoke detectors for CDN $30.00 (best price in Ontario) plus postage and handling ($2.00 in Canada). The Nuclear Awareness Project has also published a short half-page "Consumer Guide To Smoke Detectors" containing information on producers and distributors in Canada.
Sources:
Contact: Nuclear Awareness Project, Box 2331 Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7V4, Canada, tel: 416-725-1565, e-mail: web:nucaware.
(January 19, 1990) We have recently received letters of appeal from organizations and individuals in Poland for international support in the campaign against the Zarnowiec nuclear power plant.
(325.3253) WISE Amsterdam - For awhile, it looked as if nuclear power in Poland would be ending, when Klempicz was stopped and plans to stop the building of Zarnowiec were put forward. But, in September of last year, Polish people got the first bit of unofficial information that the nuclear problem was returning. Since then there has been much activity around the issue. We have recently covered actions against the plant, including a blockade and hunger strikes (see WISE News Communiques 322.3226 and 323/4.3238).
In the campaign against Zarnowiec, members of the Polish Ecological Club based in Poznan, Poland, have written papers, memorials and petitions to key persons in Poland. They prepared special information for all members of Parliament four times. It is a very absorbing and tiring campaign, due in part to the strong nuclear lobby in the country.
According to Peter Pruszczak in Gdansk, the inhabitants of Gdansk are against nuclear power in Zarnowiec and there has been much public support for the actions against the plant. But, he adds, the questions raised by the manifestations have gone unanswered. Not only this, but information of the hunger strike and blockade were suppressed. He states that due to the unwillingness of the government and Parliament to discuss the nuclear issue publicly, the Polish society is misinformed. Pruszczak states that it seems that people are running out of non-violent means of resistance and so help is very much needed. He suggests writing ecological and peace groups in Europe,Ür . Ü.demonstrations at Polish embassies and consulat s. Lastly, he asks for contacts! He can be reached at the address given below.
In a letter from the Franciscan Ecological Movement, Wladyslaw Dobrowolski writes that the nuclear lobby is very strong especially in Warsaw and it had and still has a great influence on the government through Solidarity leaders. The attitude of Polish society is made clear by the more than 250,000 signatures of people from all over the country on demands sent to the Prime Minister and the Parliament to ban investment in Zarnowiec. Dobrowolski goes on to say that in December 1989 the government decided to stop building Zarnowiec in 1990, but that they did not declare a final ban of the investment itself. This means that during the entire year of 1990, money will be spent for the protection of the facilities already built. Furthermore, there is contradictory information about the governmental decision to have a referendum on the matter (see also letters below).
TO ALL INTERESTED IN NUCLEAR SAFETY IN EUROPE
We are campaigning to stop the construction of the nuclear power plant at Zarnowiec near Gdansk in Poland. We are afraid that our action may not succeed because of the existence of a powerful nuclear lobby.
We need immediate help!
In the present situation the Polish government is very sensitive to Western public opinion and to the pressure of Western governments. You can support our efforts by sending the enclosed letter to your President, or your Prime Minister, or your MP (according to your choice), by having this letter published in your national press, and by sending it to the Polish government.
Franciscan Ecological Movement
Walowa 28
80855 Gdansk, Poland
President...
Prime Minister...
MP...
It has been brought to my attention that the construction of the nuclear power plant at Zarnowiec near Gdansk is the cause of a deep anxiety in Polish society. Some doubts have been expressed:
The fact that Zarnowiec is much closer to us than Chernobyl makes us seriously concerned. I appeal to you to take all necessary measures towards the evaluation of the possible dangers that the operation of such a plant could bring to us, and possibly to exert pressure on the Polish authorities to stop the construction of this plant.
Yours sincerely,
(name)
Those informed:
1. local press
2. the Polish government: The Prime Minister of Poland, T. Mazowiecki, Al. Ujazdowskie 1/3, 00©583 Warsaw, Poland
3. the organizers of the action: Franciscan Ecological Movement, Walowa 28, 80©855 Gdansk, Poland
Sources and contacts:Polish Ecological Club, Ul. A Mickiewicza 35, 60-837 Poznan, Poland, tel: 66 5061, W 63
Franciscan Ecological Movement, Walowa 28, 80-855 Gdansk, Poland
Peter Pruszczak, Szyprow 5 A/7, 80-855 Gdansk, Poland
Energypolitical Association Alternative for Nuclear Power (EVY), c/o Ulla Klotzer, Pursimiehenkatu 29-31A, SF 00150 Helsinki, Finland.
(January 19, 1990) Finland is a northern European country with less than five million people living in an area of 337,000 square miles.
(325.3250) WISE Helsinki - In its economy, the share of the service and administration sector in both the labor force and the GNP is bigger than that of the manufacturing industry. However, the pulp and paper branch is important for the country's economy. Its share of all Finnish exports comes to about 45%, and it consumes about a half of the energy in the whole manufacturing sector.
The forest industry is, in general, eager to increase its output and to shift to a more electricity intensive processing technique. So far, the raw material for the Finnish pulp and paper industry has been supplied by the country's own forest (although a minor part comes from the USSR). In recent years, however, the Finnish forests have been affected by pollution. Now only about 60% can be considered to be in good condition.
A considerable share of the Finnish forest is owned by farmers or other individuals or private companies. The farmers and individuals are often reluctant to sell the forest industry their wood, while the forest industry complains of the high price of wood. So, more and more, industry tries to acquire raw material from abroad, concentrating its efforts on acquiring eucalyptus and other tropical wood for use...
URANIUM FROM SOUTH AFRICA
As the forest industry becomes more electricity-intensive, nuclear power acquires more significance. At the end of 1989 the share of nuclear power in the total electricity supply in Finland was 38%. Finland has for the time being four nuclear power plants. their total output is about 2000 MW, making a share of 30-40% of the total electricity supply (varying seasonally). The plants are situated in pairs at two spots. The stateowned energy company IVO (Imatran Voima) has two plants in the small city of Loviisa, 80 km to the east from Helsinki. The two other plants, situated at Olkiluoto on the southwest coast, are owned by TVO (Teollisuuden Voima), a privately-owned company controlled mainly by the forest industry.
In 1987 TVO bought uranium oxide from the West German company of NUKEM. The uranium was labeled as having come from Niger. Following the famous Transnuclear-Nukem nuclear waste scandal of 1987, Jup Weber, a Luxembourg MP, began an investigation. He found that an amount of uranium sold to TVO and documented as having coming from Niger was in reality of South African origin.
In November 1989 Mr. Weber visited Finland and tried to present his findings to the Finnish Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr. Ilkka Suominen. The minister refused to receive him. Instead, Mr. Weber had talks with an officer from the Ministry who said that the origin tracking is a task of the Finnish Customs authorities. The officer could not promise any help for Mr. Weber in his investigations, according to the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomatœ (21 Nov. 1989). In the same article, a spokesperson for TVO said that the main thing was that the documents were correct and said further, "If swapping should have taken place (earlier), it is not our business." This, despite the fact that Finnish law forbids trade with South Africa, and the license of the TVO nuclear power plants forbids any use of South African material.
On the occasion of Mr. Weber's visit, almost a half of the Finnish MPs signed a parliamentary inquiry, asking why TVO was allowed to import the uranium. The Minister of Trade and Industry is due to answer in February 1990.
Meanwhile, in the summer of 1989, four citizens petitioned the Chancellor of Justice (the main prosecutor), requesting an investigation TVO's uranium purchases.
Source and contact: Jarmo Kalanti, EVY, Pursimiehenkatu 29-31A, SF 00150 Helsinki, Finland, tel: 358631047.
(January 19, 1990) Three companies now control over half the entire world's uranium production, and more than two-thirds of all uranium reserves. Two of these are government-controlled (France's Cogema and the joint Federal Canadian/Saskatchewan provincial governments' Cameco). The third is the privately-owned British conglomerate RTZ (formerly Rio Tinto-Zinc) which, since it bought up most of British Petroleum(BP)'s mineral assets last year, is now the world's biggest mining company.
(325.3248) WISE Amsterdam - Ironically, today's situation among producers bears remarkable similarity to that prevailing 15 years ago, when RTZ, together with the French, Canadian, Australian and South African governments engineered a massive uranium cartel - part of whose effect was to drive up the price of uranium five-fold in three years. The aim of the cartel was to pull the rug from under US producers - then dominating world output.
Today, it is US producers who are again suffering. According to Gerald Grandey, president of the Uranium Producers of America (UPA), only four of the country's 26 uranium mills are currently operating, and all but five US underground mines have been closed. A more than one billion dollar investment has been written off. Although no new nuclear reactors have come on-line since the Three Mile Island disaster, a decade ago, the country's operating nuclear plants require around 40 million lbs. of uranium each year. Less than 30% of this is currently being provided by US mines.
Mr. Grandey puts the bulk of the blame for this state of affairs on the USSR and China - both of which have been supplying "heavily-subsidized" uranium to US utilities and undercutting national producers. (China made its first uranium sale to the US in 1989.)
However, the world picture is somewhat more complex than Gerald Grandey's analysis might suggest. US uranium producers are among the highest-cost in the world, while grades at most mines have been falling for many years. Because the world is still awash with excess uranium (being sold off by consumers who don't want it), the market price has now fallen to its lowest ever (less than US $10 per lb.). This is hardly an incentive to the industry to explore for new deposits - with the result that, in the USA and Canada (where exploration costs are ten times what they are in Australia) companies are concentrating on expanding older deposits rather than going after new ones.
Another factor which, in the long term, is bound to reduce the viability of the US uranium industry is the recently-agreed Free Trade Act between Canada and the US. This will enable long-term contracts to be sealed between US utilities and the country with the world's largest (and, to date, most reliable) uranium output.
Strangely enough, none of this means that demand for uranium is lagging behind production: on the contrary, for some years now demand has been running slightly ahead of production and (says Mr. Grandey) will grow by at least 2% every year for the next 10 years. It seems that world-wide credibility in nuclear power is suffering less than confidence in the uranium industry.
This is an interesting and important state of affairs - if it's true. For, in the absence of widespread adoption of fast breeder technology, more efficient throughput of uranium fuel in civil reactors, and a considerable drop in the price of enrichment services (which would encourage more efficient use of uranium feed, and enrichment tails recycling), new uranium supplies will continue to be the life-blood of nuclear power.
Where will such supplies come from? South Africa's primary uranium production has almost ceased, while its secondary production (from gold mines) has fallen drastically, under the impact of sanctions (specifically the US sanctions of 1987). Namibia's has also been dropping in recent years - though the advent of a SWAPO-controlled government might bring new contracts during the 1990's. For a long time France has been trying to scale-down its commitments to the African producers it established (in Gabon and Niger) during the 1970's, while virtually all domestic French production is absorbed in the country's civil/military program. Non-Soviet Eastern European uranium output - never that large - might cease altogether (both for political and economic reasons) in the near future: Hungary stopped producing in 1989. The future for small producers in the rest of Europe and South America cannot be said to be encouraging either. (For the producers, anyway Ed.)
That leaves Canada, Australia, what remains of the US uranium industry, and the USSR and China. Canada's uranium sector is surely the healthiest in the world - with its huge, enormously rich, Saskatchewan deposits only just being exploited to their potential. However, Canadian regulations require that exports can be permitted only after domestic state-owned utilities have purchased 50 years of their requirements. A collapse of confidence in the country's nuclear industry (or, more šgraphically, a melt-down in one of its Candu reactors) could result in generous supplies of uranium being available on the market. It is also possible that (combined with strict applications of the Federal nonªproliferation rules, which have been continually breached over the past 10 years) such a circumstance could knock out Canadian yellowcake, once and for all.
Next to Canada, Australia continues to be the "great white hope". Ex- ploration expenditures are not only relatively very low, but several major deposits located (and "proven") in the 1970's could be brought into production within a few years, if the price rallied. Nonetheless, despite considerable confusion surrounding Federal Australian government policy ("three mines" are permitted, but are these the three mines opened up in the last 11 years or "any" three uranium mines?), last year Prime Minister Hawke seemingly swung to šthe "greens" and promised not to sanction further uranium exploitation - at least until 1992. Exploration continues on a modest scale, specifically in Martu country (Aboriginal traditional land in the Western Desert) where RTZ's Australian associate company, CRA, is determined to dig up what it claims is a new "uranium province" equal to the huge Arnhemland deposits in the Northern Territory.
MINEWATCH: NEW PROJECT LAUNCHED Partizans regularly monitors the mining press and has files on companies dating back to the 1970s. Besides information on the companies themselves, the group is able to provide resumes of the likely impact of specific projects and addresses of contacts with experience in that particular field. In addition Partizans has access to research (due for final completion in September this year) which has monitored the activities of every major mining company worldwide, with special emphasis on their activities on indigenous peoples land. This research has taken years to prepare; the cross-indexes alone between companies, communities, holding companies and their subsidiaries come to some 10,000 entries. Thus, Partizans is in a unique position to launch a project such as MineWatch. And at a time when the world mining industry is dominated by multinational corporations which not only continue to invest relatively little on infrastructure, labor and environmental safeguards, but impact tremendously on indigenous and Third World communities, such a project is badly needed. Short-term aims of the project are to empower communities close to mining sites or whose land and water is at risk of being taken over and damaged by mining operations, in order that they can make their own best judgments on specific projects. Its long-term aim is to help build up perceptins about mining in a similar fashion to that pioneered by NGOs around food production, tropical forestry, and hydro©electric/big dam projects. But MineWatch will not be a lone venture. It can only succeed with participation by like-minded groups and communities around the world. If you would like to participate in this venture, |
Any development planned in the US will probably concentrate on the Arizona "breccia" pipes - but this is a region of great naturalistic and spiritual importance to the Havasupai people; opposition to mining is strong and it will not be easy for the companies to gain approval. If expansion in the Grand Canyon region gets vetoed, Rio Algom (RTZ's Canadian subsidiary) might still make up some of the domestic shortfall by reworking Kerr-McGee's extensive uranium holdings in the southwest. (Rio Algom bought these from America's most notorious nuclear fuel corporation a year ago.) Nor should we forget the far from negligible contribution made to US uranium output from phosphates/phosphoric acid production, solution mining and the potential to be gained from "recycling" massive tailings piles. But even if all these sources were used in the next 10 years, it is difficult not to conclude (as has the US Secretary of Energy for five years running) that the US uranium industry will remain "nonviable".
That the Soviet Union is an important supplier of the raw material for western nuclear programs may come as a surprise to many. On the other hand, it has been enriching a significant proportion of European and US uranium hexaflouride for some years. Just how big a contribution it is now making to US imports is difficult to determine. Without precise data on the Soviet uranium industry (and how far it depends on other eastern European mines), we can't know whether the heavily-subsidized material now reaching the market is above that which is needed, thanks to Chernobyl, or would have been made available in any event. China remains a puzzling question. What is publicly known about its uranium mines could be written large on a fairly small scrap of paper. A year ago, Tibetan exiles in Europe released details of strategic minerals in their occupied country which the Chines regime has earmarked for possible exploitation: these included reference to huge uranium deposits which could conceivably be mined, by imported technicians and forced Tibetan labor, both for home use and export, by the turn of the century.
As for the remainder of the world: it can fairly safely be concluded that no new major uranium deposit will be opened so long as current market conditions persist and nuclear power continues to lose confidence among a large part of the world's communities. There will never be a mine in Greenland. Nor in Scandinavia. Nor Algeria. It is highly doubtful if any new mines will open in Africa or southern Asia. The possibilities are still there in South America; quite real in Tibet. Otherwise the field for anti-uranium campaigners is pretty well-defined: North America and Australia is where the action has to be.
Source and contact: MineWatch, 218 Liverpool Road, London N1 1LE, UK, tel: 01-609 1852.