A friend of mine is cleaning out his basement in preparation for a move. He’s been in the nuclear industry for many years and actively participated in some of the public battles that activists have initiated to slow or halt new development and seek closure or cancellation of existing projects.

He found a legible, but slightly skewed and blurry copy of a document detailing the plans and strategic talking points that came out of a meeting titled Conference for a Nuclear Free 1990s – No More Chernobyls. The meeting was held on April 26 and 27, 1991 at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Washington DC. The occasion was the 5th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident.

I decided that it would be worthwhile to reproduce the document in its entirety for the benefit of people who enjoy understanding the history of US nuclear energy development and who might not have been involved in the War Against The Atom for very long. Please remember that this is a quoted document and does not represent the views and opinions of Atomic Insights — not by a long shot.

Summary and Observations of the Conference for a Nuclear Free 1990s, April 26-27, 1991 On April 26 and 27, 1991, the Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS), the Safe Energy Communication Council (SECC), and Greenpeace convened the “Conference for a Nuclear Free 1990s – No More Chernobyls” at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, D. C. The conference was attended by over five hundred people, including many representatives of local, regional, and national organizations opposed to nuclear power. Speakers at the conference included: Ralph Nader; Dr. Alice Stewart, Birmingham University, England; Olga Korbut, Chernobyl relief activist and Olympic Gold Medalist; Dr. David Marples, University of Alberta; Dr. Gennady Grushevoy, Deputy to the Parliament of Byelorussia; Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste; Dean Tousley, Cousel for the House Interior Committee on Energy and the Environment; and Amory Lovins. The plenary sessions were chaired by Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of NIRS; Scott Denman, Executive Director of SECC; and Peter Bahouth, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. The conference commemorated the fifth anniversary of the accident at Chernobyl and focused on developing strategies for legal and political action against existing and future development of nuclear power. Ralph Nader delivered the most poignant challenge to the conference attendees to phase out nuclear power and deal with the “professional insanity” that has allowed the nuclear industry to flourish. The enclosure to this report provides the conference schedule. This note summarizes the main points and strategies discussed during the conference in terms of issues affecting NRC. Antinuclear Strategies for the 1990s Label the Johnston-Wallop Energy Strategy bill as a tax increase; claim that higher taxes will be needed to help subsidize the nuclear industry

Don’t let the American people forget about Chernobyl

Develop a strategy now to take advantage of the next severe nuclear accident to kill nuclear power

Develop a Rougue’s gallery of “who’s who in nuclear power,” including members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CEOs of the vendor corporations, CEOs of the utilities, and members of Congress, with the object of making them personally accountable for their decisions and increasing visibility of the process

Work for procurement legislation that requires governmental agencies to purchase items that counter the need for nuclear power (e. g., enhanced efficiency appliances and lightbulbs, solar power)

Target specific controversial issues that appeal to the American public: evacuation planning and the size of the EPZ (5 vs. 40 miles), seismic protection, declining nuclear expertise, and release of INPO reports

Reject any attempts to reach compromises on nuclear issues; any conciliations signal weaknesses of the environmental community in terms of their bottom line position that nuclear power must be eliminated

Eliminate nuclear culture and the secrecy that has fostered this culture, which is “fundamentally anti-democratic” Low-Level Waste Close nuclear power down by halting development of new LLW disposal facilities

Band together national environmental organizations with local opposition groups to fight development of new LLW disposal facilities

Stop the new disposal facility near Needles , California, which is critical to decreasing or reversing the momentum of new site development and in demonstrating the effectiveness of citizen action against the disposal facilities

, California, which is critical to decreasing or reversing the momentum of new site development and in demonstrating the effectiveness of citizen action against the disposal facilities Recognize the need to tailor strategies on a local or regional basis

Improve connections with the media and the educational system — retake the schools

Reject the National Energy Strategy and develop a policy that embraces conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy supplies as principle elements Below Regulatory Concern Push legislation now to void NRC’s 1986 and 1990 BRC policies

Cooperate with the States in supporting legislation that clarifies that NRC has no authority under the Atomic Energy Act to preempt more restrictive State requirements

Reject the NRC’s consensus building effort, which is a transparent scam to derail legislative efforts

Use an economic basis to block deregulation attempts

Support Senator Wellstone’s amendments to the Johnston-Wallop Energy Strategy bill that oppose one-step licensing and clarify that NRC may not preempt more restrictive State regulations

Consider adding provisions in the reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to void BRC decisions and clarify State authority

Ensure that Agreement States (e.g., California) and DOE do not implement BRC while the debate focuses on NRC’s program

Turn the issue around from “how clean is clean” to “How dirty is clean enough” and distinguish between cleanup levels and other limits (e.g,, on waste disposal) allowing contamination up to these levels

Raise issues about the inappropriateness of comparing dose criteria to background levels (which already causes the majority of cancers, per Dr. Stewart), reject dose modeling as the basis for compliance (reject millirems and Effective Dose Equivalent, which is someone’s subjective judgment about the level of risk posed by radiation), and raise the prospect that inclusion of BRC wastes in municipal waste landfills could preclude their mining and recovery in years to come High-Level Waste Continue to stall until Congress gives up on the repository program and the progress grinds to a halt

Recognize that DOE itself is responsible for delays in characterizing the Yucca Mountain site

Acknowledge that Yucca Mountain is not suitable, will not be found suitable, and cannot be licensed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 60 (“the only science in the system is political science”)

Store spent fuel onsite using dry cask storage containers, while society rethinks its approach for HLW disposal; this approach is supported by NRC’s recent waste confidence decision which concludes that onsite storage is safe for 100 years

Reject efforts by the Nuclear Waste Negotiator to negotiate an agreement for siting the repository, which was characterized by Peter Bahouth as an attempt to find Indian lands where the nuclear culture can dump its trash on the oldest culture in the nation License Renewal and Aging Focus on three critical aging issues: pressure vessel embrittlement, pipe cracking and thinning, and steam generator replacement

Concentrate on Yankee Rowe because it will be the first plant to submit for license renewal (in Fall 1991) and because the embrittlement issue is most severe for Yankee Rowe’s reactor vessel (NRC and the utility have no idea how brittle the vessel is; activation of the ECCS could cause thermal shock to the vessel sufficient to cause it to fail catastrophically and lead to a severe accident worse than Chernobyl); a representative from Yankee Atomic Power Corporation, Bill McGee, commented that Yankee is considering a range of options for replacing or fixing the Yankee Rowe vessel

Recognize that there is no scientific basis behind NRC decisions regarding aging issues (“NRC doesn’t know what is going on”), including vessel embrittlement, leak before break policy, pipe wall thinning and cracking, multitude SG tube rupture, and significance of tube plugging; take these issues to the public to show “the Stalinization of American nuclear regulation” and the absurdity of NRC’s regulatory approach

Include consideration of the current licensing basis and a plant’s compliance with this basis as part of the rule on license renewal (expressed by Dean Tousley as his personal views: NRC has no idea about what the licensing basis is for individual plants, NRC said it could not afford the resources to compile the current licensing basis in response to the Bingham Amendment in 1978(?), NRC has no idea whether currently operating plants comply with the licensing basis, the proposed rule shuts to public out by omitting the licensing basis from the scope of the renewal process and allowing utilities to keep files onsite, the rule allows the utilities to request relaxation of the current licensing basis even though the current licensing basis is not a part of the proceeding, the rule delegates the NRC’s responsibility to the utilities by allowing them to define what technical criteria should be imposed on the reactors to ensure safety, NRC has pulled the most important issue out of the license renewal by treating reactor vessel embrittlement separately)

Recognize that NRC’s license renewal rule indirectly codifies the meaning of adequate protection as either (1) whatever level of protection a plant currently provides or (2) the level of safety of the least safe plant at its least safe moment (per Dean Tousley)

Focus on the issues of aging, counterfeit parts, concrete and support structure degradation, and waste storage in license renewal

Involve the public before docketing the license application, when NRC has its greatest impact on the licensee, similar to the approach that has worked well in the prelicensing process for the HLW repository

File 2.206 petitions now to address the reactor vessel embrittlement issue through implementation of the Pressurized Thermal Shock rule, rather than waiting to address this issue as part of license renewal

Work with State governments and public utility commissions to preclude relicensing of existing plants based on economic grounds and “certificates of need” — forget the feds Public Participation Recognize that litigating against NRC is an uphill, drawn out process

Link litigation to networking with other organizations on important issues, proactive media campaigns, and political action in Congress

Look for opportunities to intervene in license amendments and enforcement actions, particularly when the reactors are shut down

Take independent action under the Clean Water Act to compel enforcement against violations; easy to get involved with repeat violations and make the utilities pay

Push legislative approaches to tax nuclear power, such as New Hampshire’s legislation that would impose a tax on nuclear power-generated electricity (imposed as a 0.64% property tax) because nuclear power imposes unique responsibilities and safety burdens on society and long-lasting impacts on the environment (the legislation was introduced by Governor Gregg, passed by the House, and scheduled for a hearing in the State Senate on Thursday, May 2, 1991)

Request information from the librarians at the NRC’s Public Document Room, who are doing a great job in providing information

Oppose what appears to be a concerted effort by the NRC to shut the public out of the process (e.g., raising thresholds for contentions, deficient Sunshine Act notifications, license renewal rule, refusal to release INPO reports)

Be wary of efforts ty the NRC to negotiate agreements or seek consensus; in the LSS negotiated rule, NRC abandoned the consensus position in followup actions on the LSS rule (why should the public participate in a process when the NRC is not obligated to accept the end result?)

Demand that NRC provide followup reports in response to events and improve information transfer to people who live in the vicinity of the plants

Demand explanations when NRC fails to followup on earlier reports of problems (e.g., why didn’t NRC followup on INPO’s identification of problems with check valves on the “A” safety train at Seabrook in 1988, yet the plant was recently shut down to address this issue (8 out of 9 bolts missing on one of the valves)) Radiation Protection Recognize that background radiation is the most important carcinogen and may be responsible for all the ambient fatal cancers (~20% of all deaths in developed countries)

most important carcinogen and may be responsible for all the ambient fatal cancers (~20% of all deaths in developed countries) Recognize that in uteri exposure to background radiation is the most important cause of childhood cancers, based on the results of comprehensive epidemiological studies performed by the NRPB

most important cause of childhood cancers, based on the results of comprehensive epidemiological studies performed by the NRPB Reject attempts by industry and government officials to justify selection of exposure levels based on comparisons with background exposure; given the health effects attributed to background exposures, set radiation protection standards to prevent exposure above background levels

Demand that radiation protection standards be based on the risks of genetic, teratogenic, and latent effects on the immunological system, in addition to lethal and non-lethal cancer

Insist that “real” radiation standards be established rather than standards that employ millirems based on unverified computer models and effective dose equivalents based on subjective estimates of the risks imposed by radiation exposure Chernobyl Recognize that radiation exposures to Chernobyl victims have caused “Chernobyl AIDS” — an immunological deficiency syndrome especially prevalent in children

Push for resettlement of up to 2,000,000 additional people living in areas contaminated by fallout from the Chernobyl accident

Send vitamins and support exchange programs to allow children in Byelorussia and the Ukraine to purge their bodies of cesium and other isotopes

Acknowledge that the frequency of serious blood disorders has increased in adults exposed to Chernobyl fallout from 2.3/10,000 in 1983 to 64.8/10,000 in 1990

Demand release of the medical and dosimetric analyses on the exposed population at Chernobyl that have thus far been kept secret

Demand an independent study be conducted by the Greens about the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident

Declare April 26 as an international day for the prevention of nuclear and other industrial accidents

Recognize that the amount of 137 Cs released from Chernobyl was 6,000,000 times that released from the Accident at TMI

Cs released from Chernobyl was 6,000,000 times that released from the Accident at TMI Acknowledge that the Chernobyl accident was caused by a design failure (e.g., control rods were too short), rather than operator error, and that the accident occurred after a routine shutdown of the plant; emphasize that the USSR representatives lied to the IAEA in August 1986 and that these lies have been knowingly propagated by government agencies that promote nuclear power

a routine shutdown of the plant; emphasize that the USSR representatives lied to the IAEA in August 1986 and that these lies have been knowingly propagated by government agencies that promote nuclear power Demand assessment and cleanup of over 800 nuclear waste dumps that were hastily constructed around the Chernobyl reactor after the accident

Acknowledge that over 7000 people have already died from radiation exposures associated with the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine alone, and that over 4,000,000 people are currently suffering from direct radiation effects April 30, 1991

(Emphasis in original used underlines, but this web version uses bold instead.)

Several of the strategic points have been overcome by events. In some cases, the antinuclear movement won its battle. For example, the NRC’s below regulatory concern process was abandoned and Yankee Rowe owners decided to shut down the plant rather than continue fighting about vessel embrittlement. Yucca Mountain stonewalling continues to be a successful strategy, even 23 years later.

In other cases, the antinuclear movement did not succeed, but it certainly imposed high costs on the industry and the government during the lengthy process of being defeated. About 2/3 of currently operating reactors have been successfully relicensed, several low level waste repositories finally opened, and leak before break rules have been firmly established after extensive testing programs.

One of the reasons for posting this strategy document is to enable nuclear advocates to have a better understanding of the strength and organizational endurance of the antinuclear movement.

It was also enlightening to note the bullets that specifically discourage people in the movement from engaging constructively with people who favor the use of nuclear energy. Those strong warnings might help explain the responses that James Hansen and his climate scientist colleagues have been getting in their effort to persuade environmental organizations to take a fresh look at nuclear energy in light of the need to address CO2 emissions.