ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n291

Internet Message Format | 2000-04-13 | 51KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #291
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Friday, April 14 2000      Volume 01 : Number 291




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:35:26 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) RE: [abolition-caucus] MOX is NOT dead in U.S.!

The DOE is paying the Russians to ship about 5 ounces of weapons grade
Plutonium to Canada  as part of a MOX Program. During our hearing last
Friday in Federal District Court in Kalamazoo, we produced a scientist who
under oath and subject to cross-examination testified that this could kill
about 1 million people in the event of an accident. The DOE did not dispute
that number. They just argued that an accident was not going to happen.
Despite Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc. fab

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


- -----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Zerriffi [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 2:30 PM
To: Boyle, Francis; '[e-mail]';
[e-mail]
Cc: Boyle, Francis; ''[e-mail]' ';
''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]'
'; ''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]' '; ''TP2000'
'; ''Scottish CND' '; ''[e-mail]' '
Subject: [abolition-caucus] MOX is NOT dead in U.S.!


MOX is not dead!!!!  These are two entirely separate programs.  One is
dealing with spent reactor fuel from research reactors and the other is
dealing with plutonium from weapons.  This decision not to reprocess the
spent research reactor fuel containing highly enriched URANIUM has nothing
to do with whether surplus weapons PLUTONIUM is used in a reactor or not.
This is not a decision to forgo MOX (a mixture of uranium and plutonium
fuel) in US reactors or to forego MOX in Russian reactors.  Please do not
lead people to think that the efforts to change the direction of the
disposition program can be slackened.

Hisham Zerriffi
Senior Scientist
p.s. One more point of clarification.  The DOE is paying for a test of
Russian plutonium in CANDU reactors in Canada.  The program is nowhere near
the stage of making a decision to proceed with full scale MOX use in
Canada.  This is not to minimize the implications and impact of the Russian
and American Pu tests in Canada (FYI, I grew up mostly in Canada and am
outraged at their actions), I think it important to be absolutely clear as
to what is going on or we risk doing a disservice to ourselves.

At 11:54 AM 4/13/2000 -0500, Boyle, Francis wrote:
>Yes, but Richardson and the DOE  are still paying Russia to ship weapons
>grade plutonium to Canada for use in a MOX Program there. fab.
>
>Francis A. Boyle
>Law Building
>504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
>Champaign, Ill. 61820
>217-333-7954 (voice)
>217-244-1478 (fax)
>[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ellen Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:35 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S.!
>
>
>Energy Department Opts Against Reusing Spent Nuclear Fuel
>
>By Cat Lazaroff, Environment News Service, April 12, 2000
>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-12-06.html
><http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-12-06.html>
>
>WASHINGTON, DC, April 12, 2000 (ENS) - The Department of Energy has decided
>that spent nuclear fuel should be melted down for permanent disposal,
rather
>than reprocessed for reuse as fuel or other products. The decision, which
>environmentalists say will prove safer than reuse of the fuel, is also
being
>hailed as a victory for nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
>
>Energy Secretary Bill Richardson (All photos courtesy DOE)
>
>The policy was established in a report being issued publicly by the
>Department of Energy (DOE) this week. The "Savannah River Site Spent Fuel
>Management Final Environmental Impact Statement" evaluates alternatives for
>the safe and efficient management of spent nuclear fuel from power plants
>that is stored at or scheduled to be received by the DOE's Savannah River
>Site in South Carolina.
>
>The DOE had been considering a process in which the spent fuel would be
>reprocessed, separating the wastes into highly enriched uranium and a large
>volume of liquid radioactive waste. Critics feared the uranium could be
used
>to build nuclear weapons, hindering U.S. and international moves toward
>disarmament and nonproliferation. In addition, the disposal of radioactive
>liquid waste is considered more hazardous and difficult than disposal of
>solid wastes.
>
>Instead, the DOE is leaning toward melting down the wastes and mixing them
>with nonreactive substances, forming metal ingots that the agency says can
>be safely stored in permanent repositories. The process also makes the
>uranium in the wastes unsuitable for making bombs.
>
>"The melt-and-dilute technology under development at SRS will further our
>efforts to reduce the danger from weapons of mass destruction," Richardson
>said in a statement. "Also, it will reduce waste generation and provide a
>cost effective, long term way to manage aluminum based spent fuel."
>
>The DOE's choice of a new technology which does not reprocess the spent
fuel
>avoids adding to the stockpile of nuclear weapons material, said the
Nuclear
>Control Institute (NCI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
>
>"Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson deserves congratulations for making
>sure that this important new policy was actively pursued and approved,"
said
>NCI Executive Director Tom Clements. "Now he must act decisively to make
>sure there is an adequate budget to implement the policy and get the job
>done."
>
> Spent fuel rods underwater at a receiving basin for off-site fuels at the
>Savannah River Site
>
> The decision covers highly enriched uranium spent fuels from research
>reactors in the U.S. and similar wastes imported from other countries for
>disposal. Other forms of spent fuel covered in the Environmental Impact
>Statement will be reprocessed, but both NCI and NRDC view the decision on
>the highly enriched uranium spent fuel as an essential step in hastening
the
>end of reprocessing in the U.S. and an important example for other nations.

>
>"This decision sends a positive non-proliferation signal internationally
and
>is a critical step toward the closing of reprocessing facilities at SRS,"
>said NRDC Staff Attorney David Adelman. "These plants were built as an
>integral part of fissile material production for weapons during the Cold
>War, and they are no longer needed. Long term funding for melt-and-dilute
>must still be assured to keep the shutdown of these plants on track."
>
>Of the 68 tonnes of fuel covered in the Environmental Impact Statement,
>about 48 tonnes - 60 percent of the mass, 97 percent of the volume of the
>wastes - would be subjected to the melt and dilute treatment. The processed
>ingots would be destined for eventual shipment to the planned permanent
>repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
>
>Melt-and-dilute involves the melting in an oven of the aluminum-clad highly
>enriched uranium research reactor spent fuel assemblies, with conversion of
>the melted material into low-enriched uranium ingots. In order to
>demonstrate the new technology, the DOE plans to melt highly enriched
>uranium spent fuel in an oven soon to be installed in the old L-Reactor
>building at the Savannah River Site.
>
>The full-scale treatment facility is expected to be operational in the
>L-Reactor building at Savannah in fiscal year 2008. L-Reactor was
>permanently closed in the late 1980's after decades of plutonium and
tritium
>production for weapons.
>
>Spent nuclear fuel pools like this hold tons of reactor wastes at Savannah
>River Site
>
>DOE's Savannah River Site, located near Aiken, South Carolina, currently
>stores a large quantity of foreign and domestic spent fuel in pools and is
>scheduled to continue receiving such material from numerous research
>reactors around the world until 2009. The United States originally supplied
>the bomb-grade uranium fuel to reactors in over 30 countries and numerous
>U.S. universities, but after realizing the proliferation risks of such
>supply began a program to convert the wastes into forms incapable of being
>used for weapons.
>
>DOE's concerted effort to convert research reactors to low enriched uranium
>ingots, known as the Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactors
>(RERTR), has proved to be one of the U.S. government's most successful
>non-proliferation initiatives. Under the RERTR program, DOE agreed to
accept
>spent highly enriched uranium fuel for disposition in the U.S. in order to
>reduce risks of its diversion overseas for weapons.
>
>NCI and NRDC praised Secretary Richardson for fulfilling a commitment made
>in the 1996 by one of his predecessors, Hazel O'Leary, to develop
>non-reprocessing technologies for management of the returning spent fuel
for
>environmental and non-proliferation reasons.
>
>"We congratulate Secretary Richardson for honoring DOE's earlier commitment
>to the American people to pursue non-reprocessing disposal options for this
>bomb-grade spent fuel," said Clements. "As the U.S. moves to treat
>weapons-grade nuclear material as waste rather than as a valuable commodity
>to be introduced into commerce, foreign states will be encouraged to do the
>same."
>
> The H-Canyon corridor at the Savannah River Site - one of the two
remaining
>DOE reprocessing facilities
>
> The U.S. terminated commercial reprocessing of spent fuel in 1972 but has
>yet to present a firm timetable for closing the two remaining DOE
>reprocessing facilities, F- and H-Canyons, both located at the Savannah
>River Site.
>
>"From an environmental perspective, the people of South Carolina and
Georgia
>should welcome this decision by DOE, but they deserve to be presented a
>timetable for closure of the dirty and dangerous reprocessing facilities,"
>said Clements.
>
>The DOE will issue a record of decision sometime after the end of a 30 day
>public comment period beginning Friday. The final Environmental Impact
>Statement will be published in the Federal Register on Friday.
>
>     ___________________________________________________
>
>NucNews Archives: http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
><http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm>
>Today's Newspapers: http://prop1.org/nucnews/links.htm
><http://prop1.org/nucnews/links.htm>
>Submit Letter/Notice/Article: mailto:[e-mail]
><mailto:[e-mail]>  (NucNews-Editor)
>About NucNews: http://prop1.org/nucnews/nucnews.htm
><http://prop1.org/nucnews/nucnews.htm>
>E-Mail Archive: http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews
><http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews>
>Subscribe:  mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>(NucNews-Subscribe)
>
>Here are excellent e-mail news resources (free, by subscription, for
>educational purposes, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.):
>
>DOE Watch - [e-mail] |  <http://members.aol.com/doewatch>
>http://members.aol.com/doewatch
>Downwinders - [e-mail] |  <http://[e-mail]/>
>http://[e-mail]
>EnviroNews - [e-mail]|http://www.envirolink.org/environews

>Planet Ark - mailto:[e-mail]|
><mailto:[e-mail]%7Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.planetark.org%2Fnews%2F>
><mailto:[e-mail]%7Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.planetark.org%2Fnews%2F>
>http://www.planetark.org/news/
>Radbull (Radiation Bulletin for Activists) - mailto:[e-mail]
><mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>      Distributed without payment for research and educational
>   purposes only, by subscription, and archived for the use of all,
>             in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>25% Off All Prints!
>Buy one today at Corbis.com
>http://click.egroups.com/1/3357/1/_/91925/_/955644853/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the
account you wish to be subscribed to:
"[e-mail]"
>
>
>Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.
>



*****************************************************************
Hisham Zerriffi
Senior Scientist
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD  20912
Phone: [phone]       Fax:   [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]    Web:    http://www.ieer.org
*****************************************************************

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.6 Million Digital Images!
Download one Today from Corbis.com
http://click.egroups.com/1/3356/1/_/91925/_/955654277/
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account
you wish to be subscribed to: "[e-mail]"


Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:31:14 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) DOE Strategic Plan Apr24 extension, deadline for public comments

A boon for "Clean Energy Now!" Campaign?:

To my surprise, my request for extension of deadline for submission of
public comments on DOE Strategic Plan draft has been granted via below email
this morning from DOE extending public comments deadline to April 24, 2000.

This is a unique window of opportunity to submit to DOE, and via plan below
for the public record accessible via internet to anyone including media and
political candidates, your suggestions for changes in DOE strategy in the
21st Century regarding energy policies and priorities;  nuclear power,
weapons, and waste, National security considerations, DOE research in
forefront sciences of many kinds, etc.

The Strategic Plan draft may be viewed at http://www.doe.gov/strategic_plan
and your public comments submissions to [e-mail] should
also be copied for the public record and referencing in this writer's final
public comments submission of April 24, 2000, per deadline extension offered
in below post, to ensure best DOE and public consideration of your input.

Although this extension seems to be specifically directed to me (perhaps due
to my complaint that as a commenter on DOE Comprehensive National Energy
Strategy (CNES) of 1998 I was not notified of prior 31Mar deadline for
comments on Strategic Plan except by coincidental receipt of third party
forwarding on Apr7 about deadline's prior extension to Apr 10), I will
reference/include in my Apr 24 submission all postings copied (cc) to
[e-mail] which list archive I set up this morning so
submissions copied to it may also be viewed by the public on an ongoing
basis at http://www.egroups.com/group/strategic-plan

If you have already copied to me re: public comments submissions on DOE
Strategic Plan emailed before today, I have forwarded them to list above
where my submissions of Apr7 and Apr 10 are also already posted.

This additional time until April 24th may offer chance for additional
significant and valuable ideas/inputs.


David Crockett Williams
Science in Society and Public Policy list
http://www.egroups.com/group/dcwilliams
(my DOE Strategic Plan submissions* to date are also at this url)


From: "Bob Emond" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *by10Apr!! Comment on DOE Energy Strategic Plan2000
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2000 9:07 AM

Thank you for your [*]note.  We agree to extend the comment period for your
comments to April 24, 2000.

In pursuit of our goal to seek public comment we issued a press release
February 24, 2000; notified our key stakeholders and other key interest
groups (approximately 1400) by mail; placed a notice on the DOE homepage for
the duration of the comment period; and used other public forums (for
example the newsletter you received).  The success of our outreach is
measured in part by the several thousand downloads of the draft plan on our
web-site.  In this number are several hundred visits by the public which
were simply not possible until the recent availability of this technology.

The Comprehensive National Energy Strategy of 1998 is fully integrated into
the draft plan.  Anyone who contributed to that public process has already
made significant contributions to the draft plan.  We have a continuing
interest in your comments and look forward to your response by April 24.

Thanks

Bob

===================


David Crockett Williams  [e-mail]
GLOBAL  EMERGENCY  ALERT  RESPONSE
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000

Global Peace Walk 2000
http://www.globalpeacenow.org
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/gpw.html
Updates 415-267-1877 -- Voicemail 415-863-2084
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/schedule.html SCHEDULE & contacts

USCampaign:   Williams-Peltier for US Pres/VP
[e-mail]
http://www.egroups.com/group/williams-peltier

The Vision of Paradise on Earth
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/vision.html

**Support HR 2545:
Global Nuclear Disarmament & Economic Conversion Act
Details & Email:  http://prop1.org/prop1/letter.htm
Sign letters to senators  http://prop1.org/prop1/letter.htm#senate
and Representatives http://prop1.org/prop1/letter.htm#letter

Easy index to email Congress & Media
http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd
(copy & paste email letters to media and Congress)

An Agenda for Peace
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/agenda.html




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:57:21 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: But Quintupled  In Canada: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S.!

In a typical bait-and-switch operation, US DOE just announced that they are
quintupling  the amount of weapons grade plutonium shipped from Russia to
Canada at the behest of the United States. Anyone for five million dead
people? fab.

This piece was broadcast this morning at 8:00AM. Available at

http://cbc.ca/clips/ram-audio/mclauchlin_wr000413.ram

- ---------------------------------

CBC Radio News

Canada may accept more plutonium than initially agreed to WebPosted

Thu Apr 13 13:25:41 2000

MONTREAL - An American official says there is more plutonium from

Russia on its way to Canada - five times more than originally

expected.

The weapons-grade plutonium is to be processed at AECL's nuclear

reactor in Chalk River, Ontario. It's part of an experiment involving

Canada, the United States and Russia.

The U.S. department of energy is paying Canada to take in plutonium

that would have been destined for American or Russian nuclear weapons

to see if it can be disposed of as reactor fuel.

The American shipment arrived in January, 120 grams of plutonium. The

terms of the agreement call for the same amount to be shipped in by

the Russians, 120 grams.

Now the head of the American office in charge of the program, Laura

Holgate, says Russia will ship not 120 grams, but five times that

amount.

"I don't have the total figures but it's roughly 600 grams of

plutonium," Holgate said.

But that's not the figure Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is using.

Company spokesperson David Lyle says, "It's not going to be

significantly different from the shipment that occurred from the U.S."

But it is a significant difference, according to the Canadian

Environmental Law Association. Theresa McClennahan is legal counsel

for the association. She says the increase in the amount of plutonium

is illegal.

"We would say no, it's not legal to amend the plan in this way. And

this decision to take so much more fuel is also an extremely

significant change to the original plan."

McClennahan says the changes to the plan should be the subject of

public discussion, or at least parliamentary debate.

She says this apparent increase in the amount of fuel increases the

hazard to which Canadians will be exposed and she expects some

interested group will want to challenge it in court.


Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


- -----Original Message-----
From: Boyle, Francis
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:54 AM
To: '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]
Cc: Boyle, Francis; ''[e-mail]' ';
''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]' ';
''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]' '; ''TP2000' ';
''Scottish CND' '; ''[e-mail]' '
Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S.!


Yes, but Richardson and the DOE  are still paying Russia to ship weapons
grade plutonium to Canada for use in a MOX Program there. fab.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


- -----Original Message-----
From: Ellen Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:35 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S.!


Energy Department Opts Against Reusing Spent Nuclear Fuel

By Cat Lazaroff, Environment News Service, April 12, 2000
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-12-06.html
<http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-12-06.html>

WASHINGTON, DC, April 12, 2000 (ENS) - The Department of Energy has decided
that spent nuclear fuel should be melted down for permanent disposal, rather
than reprocessed for reuse as fuel or other products. The decision, which
environmentalists say will prove safer than reuse of the fuel, is also being
hailed as a victory for nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson (All photos courtesy DOE)

The policy was established in a report being issued publicly by the
Department of Energy (DOE) this week. The "Savannah River Site Spent Fuel
Management Final Environmental Impact Statement" evaluates alternatives for
the safe and efficient management of spent nuclear fuel from power plants
that is stored at or scheduled to be received by the DOE's Savannah River
Site in South Carolina.

The DOE had been considering a process in which the spent fuel would be
reprocessed, separating the wastes into highly enriched uranium and a large
volume of liquid radioactive waste. Critics feared the uranium could be used
to build nuclear weapons, hindering U.S. and international moves toward
disarmament and nonproliferation. In addition, the disposal of radioactive
liquid waste is considered more hazardous and difficult than disposal of
solid wastes.

Instead, the DOE is leaning toward melting down the wastes and mixing them
with nonreactive substances, forming metal ingots that the agency says can
be safely stored in permanent repositories. The process also makes the
uranium in the wastes unsuitable for making bombs.

"The melt-and-dilute technology under development at SRS will further our
efforts to reduce the danger from weapons of mass destruction," Richardson
said in a statement. "Also, it will reduce waste generation and provide a
cost effective, long term way to manage aluminum based spent fuel."

The DOE's choice of a new technology which does not reprocess the spent fuel
avoids adding to the stockpile of nuclear weapons material, said the Nuclear
Control Institute (NCI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

"Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson deserves congratulations for making
sure that this important new policy was actively pursued and approved," said
NCI Executive Director Tom Clements. "Now he must act decisively to make
sure there is an adequate budget to implement the policy and get the job
done."

 Spent fuel rods underwater at a receiving basin for off-site fuels at the
Savannah River Site

 The decision covers highly enriched uranium spent fuels from research
reactors in the U.S. and similar wastes imported from other countries for
disposal. Other forms of spent fuel covered in the Environmental Impact
Statement will be reprocessed, but both NCI and NRDC view the decision on
the highly enriched uranium spent fuel as an essential step in hastening the
end of reprocessing in the U.S. and an important example for other nations.

"This decision sends a positive non-proliferation signal internationally and
is a critical step toward the closing of reprocessing facilities at SRS,"
said NRDC Staff Attorney David Adelman. "These plants were built as an
integral part of fissile material production for weapons during the Cold
War, and they are no longer needed. Long term funding for melt-and-dilute
must still be assured to keep the shutdown of these plants on track."

Of the 68 tonnes of fuel covered in the Environmental Impact Statement,
about 48 tonnes - 60 percent of the mass, 97 percent of the volume of the
wastes - would be subjected to the melt and dilute treatment. The processed
ingots would be destined for eventual shipment to the planned permanent
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Melt-and-dilute involves the melting in an oven of the aluminum-clad highly
enriched uranium research reactor spent fuel assemblies, with conversion of
the melted material into low-enriched uranium ingots. In order to
demonstrate the new technology, the DOE plans to melt highly enriched
uranium spent fuel in an oven soon to be installed in the old L-Reactor
building at the Savannah River Site.

The full-scale treatment facility is expected to be operational in the
L-Reactor building at Savannah in fiscal year 2008. L-Reactor was
permanently closed in the late 1980's after decades of plutonium and tritium
production for weapons.

Spent nuclear fuel pools like this hold tons of reactor wastes at Savannah
River Site

DOE's Savannah River Site, located near Aiken, South Carolina, currently
stores a large quantity of foreign and domestic spent fuel in pools and is
scheduled to continue receiving such material from numerous research
reactors around the world until 2009. The United States originally supplied
the bomb-grade uranium fuel to reactors in over 30 countries and numerous
U.S. universities, but after realizing the proliferation risks of such
supply began a program to convert the wastes into forms incapable of being
used for weapons.

DOE's concerted effort to convert research reactors to low enriched uranium
ingots, known as the Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactors
(RERTR), has proved to be one of the U.S. government's most successful
non-proliferation initiatives. Under the RERTR program, DOE agreed to accept
spent highly enriched uranium fuel for disposition in the U.S. in order to
reduce risks of its diversion overseas for weapons.

NCI and NRDC praised Secretary Richardson for fulfilling a commitment made
in the 1996 by one of his predecessors, Hazel O'Leary, to develop
non-reprocessing technologies for management of the returning spent fuel for
environmental and non-proliferation reasons.

"We congratulate Secretary Richardson for honoring DOE's earlier commitment
to the American people to pursue non-reprocessing disposal options for this
bomb-grade spent fuel," said Clements. "As the U.S. moves to treat
weapons-grade nuclear material as waste rather than as a valuable commodity
to be introduced into commerce, foreign states will be encouraged to do the
same."

 The H-Canyon corridor at the Savannah River Site - one of the two remaining
DOE reprocessing facilities

 The U.S. terminated commercial reprocessing of spent fuel in 1972 but has
yet to present a firm timetable for closing the two remaining DOE
reprocessing facilities, F- and H-Canyons, both located at the Savannah
River Site.

"From an environmental perspective, the people of South Carolina and Georgia
should welcome this decision by DOE, but they deserve to be presented a
timetable for closure of the dirty and dangerous reprocessing facilities,"
said Clements.

The DOE will issue a record of decision sometime after the end of a 30 day
public comment period beginning Friday. The final Environmental Impact
Statement will be published in the Federal Register on Friday.

     ___________________________________________________

NucNews Archives: http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
<http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm>
Today's Newspapers: http://prop1.org/nucnews/links.htm
<http://prop1.org/nucnews/links.htm>
Submit Letter/Notice/Article: mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>  (NucNews-Editor)
About NucNews: http://prop1.org/nucnews/nucnews.htm
<http://prop1.org/nucnews/nucnews.htm>
E-Mail Archive: http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews
<http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews>
Subscribe:  mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
(NucNews-Subscribe)

Here are excellent e-mail news resources (free, by subscription, for
educational purposes, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.):

DOE Watch - [e-mail] |  <http://members.aol.com/doewatch>
http://members.aol.com/doewatch
Downwinders - [e-mail] |  <http://[e-mail]/>
http://[e-mail]
EnviroNews - [e-mail]|http://www.envirolink.org/environews
Planet Ark - mailto:[e-mail]|
<mailto:[e-mail]%7Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.planetark.org%2Fnews%2F>
<mailto:[e-mail]%7Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.planetark.org%2Fnews%2F>
http://www.planetark.org/news/
Radbull (Radiation Bulletin for Activists) - mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>

      Distributed without payment for research and educational
   purposes only, by subscription, and archived for the use of all,
             in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.





- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 19:14:20 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fail Safe op-ed

Dear Friends,
Here's an op-ed piece I've sent in to USA Today.

NOTHING'S CHANGED SINCE ôFAIL SAFEö
by Alice Slater

This week an estimated 20 million Americans watched ôFail Safeö, the first
live-performance TV drama in 39 years based on a 1964 best-seller, which
painted a horrifying tale of accidental nuclear war.  Broadcast in
old-fashioned black and white, and using a rusty Cold War scenario of the
1950Æs, modern viewers could hardly be faulted for perceiving the harrowing
spectacle as a quaint period piece. Computer failure transmitting faulty
information causes a fleet of United States bombers to proceed on a mission to
obliterate Moscow. To prevent the destruction of the world, the US President,
on the hotline to Moscow, devises a plan with the Soviet President to destroy
New York City in a tit-for-tat response, which then allowed both nations to
refrain from massive retaliation and the incineration of the planet and all
life on earth.

Yet today, the world is just as insecure as in those bygone days of ôFail
Safeö, when the US and Soviet Union practiced ômutual assured destructionö
during the height of East-West confrontation.  Indeed, as recently as 1995,
President Yeltsin actually unpacked the Russian nuclear ôsuitcaseö, when his
military could not readily determine that the launch of a Norwegian weather
satellite was not a US nuclear attack.  Yeltsin had only five minutes to
decide
on a response.   While the ôFail Safeö airborne bombardiers had several hours
to be recalled in 1950Æs time, in todayÆs hi-tech world, a long-range
strategic
missile, accidentally launched, would be impervious to a changed command,
should an error be discovered.

There are 36,000 nuclear weapons on the planet with 5,000 of them poised at
hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in minutes.   Although the nuclear
weapons states  pledged, in the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),  to get
rid of their nuclear weapons, in return for a promise by non-nuclear weapons
states not to acquire them, there is no evidence that they are willing to
ôpursue negotiations in good faithö  for nuclear disarmamentö as promised in
the treaty.   The NPT 2000 millennial review will take place at the UN later
this month   Since the treaty was extended in 1995, India and Pakistan went
overtly nuclear, and Israel moved a step closer to being a declared nuclear
power as it openly debated nuclear weapons policy in the Knesset.

In the wake of NATO expansion, the Kosovo bombing, and US plans to abrogate
the
ABM treaty and build the ôson of Star Warsö, both China and Russia have been
rattling their nuclear sabers.  Russian President Vladimir Putin announced he
will modernize RussiaÆs nuclear arsenal and has rescinded Russia's no first
use
policy.  China is also upgrading its nuclear weapons.  In the midst of these
dangerous developments, the US Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban
treaty (CTBT)

The US rejection of the CTBT particularly undermines the NPT.  In 1995, the
1970 NPTÆs 25-year term was up, and with little  progress towards disarmament,
its extension was in doubt.  The US prevailed upon the signatories to renew
the
treaty, promising to champion a test ban as evidence of its good faith
commitment to disarmament--a measure which the US Senate refused to take.
Now,
after 30 years with no effective nuclear disarmament in place, a growing
number
of non-nuclear states--including 36 with nuclear power capability but no overt
weapons programs--are asking why they should not go the route of India and
Pakistan.

ôThe objective of nuclear non-proliferation is not helped by the fact that the
nuclear weapons states continue to insist that those weapons in their hands
enhance security while in the hands of others they are a threat to world
peace,ö said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan earlier this month.  ôIf we were
making steady progress towards disarmament, this situation would be less
alarming.  Unfortunately the reverse is true.ö

With the growing crisis in US relations with Russia and China, it would be
grievously misleading for the public to view the rain of destruction and
terror
in ôFail Safeö as merely a closed chapter in history.  Unfortunately, the
ôlaunch-on-warningö status of 5,000  US and Russian nuclear weapons,
mounted on
missiles that, once fired, cannot be recalled, demonstrates that we must do
much more to insure the safety of our planet from nuclear destruction.  The
NPT
conference this month will be an opportunity for the world to reduce the
nuclear peril and begin earnest negotiations for a nuclear-free-world.

Alice Slater is President of the Global Resource Action Center and a
founder of
Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear
weapons.




Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]
http://www.gracelinks.org

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination
nuclear weapons.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:54:01 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: But Quintupled  In Canada: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S .!

Draft Articles on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of

Mankind, as revised by the International Law Commission through 1991, U.N.

Doc. A/46/405 (1991), 30 ILM 1554(1991):" Article 26: Wilful and Severe

Damage to the Environment. An individual who willfully causes or orders the

causing of widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural

environment shall, on conviction thereof, be sentenced {to...}."


Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


- -----Original Message-----
From: Boyle, Francis
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 3:57 PM
To: Boyle, Francis; '[e-mail]';
'[e-mail]'
Cc: ''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]' ';
''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]' ';
''[e-mail]' '; ''TP2000' '; ''Scottish CND' ';
''[e-mail]' '
Subject: But Quintupled In Canada: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S.!



In a typical bait-and-switch operation, US DOE just announced that they are
quintupling  the amount of weapons grade plutonium shipped from Russia to
Canada at the behest of the United States. Anyone for five million dead
people? fab.

This piece was broadcast this morning at 8:00AM. Available at

http://cbc.ca/clips/ram-audio/mclauchlin_wr000413.ram

- ---------------------------------

CBC Radio News

Canada may accept more plutonium than initially agreed to WebPosted

Thu Apr 13 13:25:41 2000

MONTREAL - An American official says there is more plutonium from

Russia on its way to Canada - five times more than originally

expected.

The weapons-grade plutonium is to be processed at AECL's nuclear

reactor in Chalk River, Ontario. It's part of an experiment involving

Canada, the United States and Russia.

The U.S. department of energy is paying Canada to take in plutonium

that would have been destined for American or Russian nuclear weapons

to see if it can be disposed of as reactor fuel.

The American shipment arrived in January, 120 grams of plutonium. The

terms of the agreement call for the same amount to be shipped in by

the Russians, 120 grams.

Now the head of the American office in charge of the program, Laura

Holgate, says Russia will ship not 120 grams, but five times that

amount.

"I don't have the total figures but it's roughly 600 grams of

plutonium," Holgate said.

But that's not the figure Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is using.

Company spokesperson David Lyle says, "It's not going to be

significantly different from the shipment that occurred from the U.S."

But it is a significant difference, according to the Canadian

Environmental Law Association. Theresa McClennahan is legal counsel

for the association. She says the increase in the amount of plutonium

is illegal.

"We would say no, it's not legal to amend the plan in this way. And

this decision to take so much more fuel is also an extremely

significant change to the original plan."

McClennahan says the changes to the plan should be the subject of

public discussion, or at least parliamentary debate.

She says this apparent increase in the amount of fuel increases the

hazard to which Canadians will be exposed and she expects some

interested group will want to challenge it in court.


Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


- -----Original Message-----
From: Boyle, Francis
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:54 AM
To: '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]
Cc: Boyle, Francis; ''[e-mail]' ';
''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]' ';
''[e-mail]' '; ''[e-mail]' '; ''TP2000' ';
''Scottish CND' '; ''[e-mail]' '
Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S.!


Yes, but Richardson and the DOE  are still paying Russia to ship weapons
grade plutonium to Canada for use in a MOX Program there. fab.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


- -----Original Message-----
From: Ellen Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:35 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) MOX is dead in U.S.!


Energy Department Opts Against Reusing Spent Nuclear Fuel

By Cat Lazaroff, Environment News Service, April 12, 2000
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-12-06.html
<http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2000/2000L-04-12-06.html>

WASHINGTON, DC, April 12, 2000 (ENS) - The Department of Energy has decided
that spent nuclear fuel should be melted down for permanent disposal, rather
than reprocessed for reuse as fuel or other products. The decision, which
environmentalists say will prove safer than reuse of the fuel, is also being
hailed as a victory for nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson (All photos courtesy DOE)

The policy was established in a report being issued publicly by the
Department of Energy (DOE) this week. The "Savannah River Site Spent Fuel
Management Final Environmental Impact Statement" evaluates alternatives for
the safe and efficient management of spent nuclear fuel from power plants
that is stored at or scheduled to be received by the DOE's Savannah River
Site in South Carolina.

The DOE had been considering a process in which the spent fuel would be
reprocessed, separating the wastes into highly enriched uranium and a large
volume of liquid radioactive waste. Critics feared the uranium could be used
to build nuclear weapons, hindering U.S. and international moves toward
disarmament and nonproliferation. In addition, the disposal of radioactive
liquid waste is considered more hazardous and difficult than disposal of
solid wastes.

Instead, the DOE is leaning toward melting down the wastes and mixing them
with nonreactive substances, forming metal ingots that the agency says can
be safely stored in permanent repositories. The process also makes the
uranium in the wastes unsuitable for making bombs.

"The melt-and-dilute technology under development at SRS will further our
efforts to reduce the danger from weapons of mass destruction," Richardson
said in a statement. "Also, it will reduce waste generation and provide a
cost effective, long term way to manage aluminum based spent fuel."

The DOE's choice of a new technology which does not reprocess the spent fuel
avoids adding to the stockpile of nuclear weapons material, said the Nuclear
Control Institute (NCI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

"Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson deserves congratulations for making
sure that this important new policy was actively pursued and approved," said
NCI Executive Director Tom Clements. "Now he must act decisively to make
sure there is an adequate budget to implement the policy and get the job
done."

 Spent fuel rods underwater at a receiving basin for off-site fuels at the
Savannah River Site

 The decision covers highly enriched uranium spent fuels from research
reactors in the U.S. and similar wastes imported from other countries for
disposal. Other forms of spent fuel covered in the Environmental Impact
Statement will be reprocessed, but both NCI and NRDC view the decision on
the highly enriched uranium spent fuel as an essential step in hastening the
end of reprocessing in the U.S. and an important example for other nations.

"This decision sends a positive non-proliferation signal internationally and
is a critical step toward the closing of reprocessing facilities at SRS,"
said NRDC Staff Attorney David Adelman. "These plants were built as an
integral part of fissile material production for weapons during the Cold
War, and they are no longer needed. Long term funding for melt-and-dilute
must still be assured to keep the shutdown of these plants on track."

Of the 68 tonnes of fuel covered in the Environmental Impact Statement,
about 48 tonnes - 60 percent of the mass, 97 percent of the volume of the
wastes - would be subjected to the melt and dilute treatment. The processed
ingots would be destined for eventual shipment to the planned permanent
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Melt-and-dilute involves the melting in an oven of the aluminum-clad highly
enriched uranium research reactor spent fuel assemblies, with conversion of
the melted material into low-enriched uranium ingots. In order to
demonstrate the new technology, the DOE plans to melt highly enriched
uranium spent fuel in an oven soon to be installed in the old L-Reactor
building at the Savannah River Site.

The full-scale treatment facility is expected to be operational in the
L-Reactor building at Savannah in fiscal year 2008. L-Reactor was
permanently closed in the late 1980's after decades of plutonium and tritium
production for weapons.

Spent nuclear fuel pools like this hold tons of reactor wastes at Savannah
River Site

DOE's Savannah River Site, located near Aiken, South Carolina, currently
stores a large quantity of foreign and domestic spent fuel in pools and is
scheduled to continue receiving such material from numerous research
reactors around the world until 2009. The United States originally supplied
the bomb-grade uranium fuel to reactors in over 30 countries and numerous
U.S. universities, but after realizing the proliferation risks of such
supply began a program to convert the wastes into forms incapable of being
used for weapons.

DOE's concerted effort to convert research reactors to low enriched uranium
ingots, known as the Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactors
(RERTR), has proved to be one of the U.S. government's most successful
non-proliferation initiatives. Under the RERTR program, DOE agreed to accept
spent highly enriched uranium fuel for disposition in the U.S. in order to
reduce risks of its diversion overseas for weapons.

NCI and NRDC praised Secretary Richardson for fulfilling a commitment made
in the 1996 by one of his predecessors, Hazel O'Leary, to develop
non-reprocessing technologies for management of the returning spent fuel for
environmental and non-proliferation reasons.

"We congratulate Secretary Richardson for honoring DOE's earlier commitment
to the American people to pursue non-reprocessing disposal options for this
bomb-grade spent fuel," said Clements. "As the U.S. moves to treat
weapons-grade nuclear material as waste rather than as a valuable commodity
to be introduced into commerce, foreign states will be encouraged to do the
same."

 The H-Canyon corridor at the Savannah River Site - one of the two remaining
DOE reprocessing facilities

 The U.S. terminated commercial reprocessing of spent fuel in 1972 but has
yet to present a firm timetable for closing the two remaining DOE
reprocessing facilities, F- and H-Canyons, both located at the Savannah
River Site.

"From an environmental perspective, the people of South Carolina and Georgia
should welcome this decision by DOE, but they deserve to be presented a
timetable for closure of the dirty and dangerous reprocessing facilities,"
said Clements.

The DOE will issue a record of decision sometime after the end of a 30 day
public comment period beginning Friday. The final Environmental Impact
Statement will be published in the Federal Register on Friday.

     ___________________________________________________

NucNews Archives: http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
<http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm>
Today's Newspapers: http://prop1.org/nucnews/links.htm
<http://prop1.org/nucnews/links.htm>
Submit Letter/Notice/Article: mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>  (NucNews-Editor)
About NucNews: http://prop1.org/nucnews/nucnews.htm
<http://prop1.org/nucnews/nucnews.htm>
E-Mail Archive: http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews
<http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews>
Subscribe:  mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
(NucNews-Subscribe)

Here are excellent e-mail news resources (free, by subscription, for
educational purposes, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.):

DOE Watch - [e-mail] |  <http://members.aol.com/doewatch>
http://members.aol.com/doewatch
Downwinders - [e-mail] |  <http://[e-mail]/>
http://[e-mail]
EnviroNews - [e-mail]|http://www.envirolink.org/environews
Planet Ark - mailto:[e-mail]|
<mailto:[e-mail]%7Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.planetark.org%2Fnews%2F>
<mailto:[e-mail]%7Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.planetark.org%2Fnews%2F>
http://www.planetark.org/news/
Radbull (Radiation Bulletin for Activists) - mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>

      Distributed without payment for research and educational
   purposes only, by subscription, and archived for the use of all,
             in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.





- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #291
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.