JPRS ID: 9209 WORLDWIDE REPORT NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT AND PROLIFERATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: JPRS
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4
• Release Decision: RIF
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: November 1, 2016
• Sequence Number: 40
• Content Type: REPORTS

APPROVE~ FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-R~P82-0085UR000200100040-4
; _ER~ ~ T I _ '~IT I
,~UL~ ~ ~ F~U~ ~

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
3~OR Ol~fiC'IAL U~F. ONI,Y
JPRS L/920~9
_ 23 July 1980
= Vy'c~ridwi R~ ar~
~
- NUCLEAR DEVE LOPME ~1T AND PROLI~ERA~"~O~J -
C~OU4~ ~/~0~
?
~B~S FOREIG~f BROADCAST INFORMAYIOIV SERVlCE _
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
NOTE
JPRS publications contain information primarily from foreign =
newsgapers, periodicals and books; but also from news agency
transmissions and broadcasts. Materials from foreign-language
_ sources are translated; those from English-language sources
are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and
other characteristics retained.
_ Headlin~s, editorial reports, ;nd material enclosed in brackets
are supplied by JPRS. Processing indicators such as [Text]
- or-[E:~ccerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the -
lasr line of a brief, indicate how the original information was
processed. Where no processing indicator is given,~'the infor-
- c~ation was summarized or extracted.
- Ur:familiar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are
en~losed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a ques-
tion mark and enclosed in parentheses were not clear in the
- original but have been supplied as appropriate in context. _
Other unattributed parenthetical notes within the body of an
item originate with the source. Times within items are as
given by source.
The cnntents of this publication in no way represent the poli- _
cies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.
For further infurmation on report content -
call (703) 351-2811.
COPYRIGHT LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING OW~IERSHIP OF -
MATERIALS REt'RODUCED HEREIN REQUIRE TH'1T DISSEMINATION
OF THIS PUBLICATION BE RESTRICTED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONI,Y.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OE'r^ICIA.L USE ONLY
JPRS L/9209
- 23 July 1980
WORLDWIDE REPORT -
NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT AND PROLIFERATION
(FOUO 8/80)
~ CONTENTS
ASIA
JAPAN
. ~nergy Institute Plans To Demolish Experimental Reactor
- (THE DAILY YOMIURI, 11 May 80) 1
= Enterprise Wi11 Collect Uranium From Seawater
(NIHON KEIZAI SHIMBUN, 28 May 80) 2
MITI Plans To Develop Smaller Nuclear Reactora
(ASAHI EVENING NEWS, 9 Jun 80) 3,
WEST EUROPE
- FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
_ SafeCy Record of Nuclear Reactor Criticized
_ (Karen Andresen; STERN, 24 Apr 80) 4
FRANCE
_ Briefs
Nuclear Security Measure 6
ITALY
National Nuclear Energy Chief Interviewed
(Umberto Colombo Interview; L'EUROPEO, 20 May 80) 7
Obstacles in Construction of Montalto di Castro Nuclear Plant
(Gianfranco Ballardin; CORRIERE DELLA SERA, 29 Apr 80). 13
- a - [III - WW - 141 FOUO]
. ~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICIAL CJSE ONLY
_ JPRS L/9209
23 July 1980 -
WORLDWIDE REPORT
NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT AND PROLIFERATION
(FOUO s/so~
- CONTENTS
ASIA
JAPAN
Energy Institute Plans To Demolish Experimental Reactor
(THE DAILY YOMIURI, 11 May 80) 1
= Enterprise Will Collect Uranium From Seawater
- (NIHUN KEIZAI SHIMBUN, 28 May 80) 2
MITI Plans To Develop Smaller Nuclear Reactars .
(ASAHI EVENING NEWS, 9 Jun 80) g
WEST EUROPE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC~OF GERMANY
- Safety Record of Nuclear Peactor Criticized
- (Karen Andresen; STERh, 24 .~pr 80) 4
FRANC~
Briefs
Nuclear Security Measure 6
_ ITALY
- National Nuclear Energy Chief Interviewed
(Umberto Colombo Interview; L'EUROPEO, 20 May 80) 7
Obstacles in Construction of Montalto di Caetro Nuclear Plant '
(Gianfranco Ballardin; CORRIERE DELLA SERA, 29 Apr 80). 13 ~
- a- [ I I I - WW - 141 FOUO ]
- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
JAPAN
~ ENEFGY INSTITUTE PLANS TO DEMOLISH EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR
_ OW120913 Tokyo THE DAILY YOMIURI in English 11 May 80 p 2__FOR ORFICIAL USE ONLY
[Text] Japants first experimental nuclear power reactor will be demolished by 1985 in
order to develop techniques to demo7,ish other reactors currently used for power genera-
tion, the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) decided Friday. JAERI owns
the reactor which is located at its Tokai Research Institute in Tokaimura, Ibaraki-ken.
The ~eactor, off icially named "Japan Power Demonstration Reactor," was put into opera-
tion in October 1963. It was used chiefly for a series oP power generation experiments
and to train technicians of local electric power stations to run nuclear power reactors,
However, operation of the reactor was discontinued after March 1976 when a considerable
amount of radioactive waste water leaked into Kashima Bay through a crack in its auxi-
liary tank.
JAERI plans to carry out numerous tests before demolishing the reactor, including ex-
aminabion of pipes used to supply coolants to the reactor, JAERI offir.ials said. The
method of demolishing the reactor, including remote control of fuel, will be examined,
they added. The officials noted that Japan has had no experience in demolishing nuclear
reactors whereas the U.S, and West Germany have had experience. The U.S. demolished
a reactor at Elk River between 1972 and 1974. They also noted that Japan would in the
future have to demolish another nuclear reactor now in use by numerous electri,c powsr
- stations. Nuclear power reactors can be used for about 30 years on the average, the
officials said.
COPYRIGHT: DAILY YOMIURI 1980
CSO: 5100
1
- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
r'ult ~trr ~...i~u. u5L urv,~Y
JAPAN
- ENTERPRISE WILL COLLECT URANIiTM FROM SEAWATER .
Ojd311025 Tokyo NIHON KEIZAI SHIMBUN in Japanese 28 May 80 Morning Edition
n 7
- [Te~.t] The Metallic Minerals Agency (board ohairman: Ma:;aoki Nishiuchi) has notified
the PTio township office in Mttoyo county, Kagawa Prefecture, of its decision to Uuild a
plant in the town designed to experiment with the collection of uranium from seawater.
When bu:tlt, the plant wi.ll be tha first of its ltind in the world. A formal contract
will be concluded shortly between the agency and the township. The agency plans to
begin construction this September, complete it in mid-1984, and conduct experimental
operations for 3 years followin~ completion.
This experimental plant will collect uran3um from seawater and enrich it. Seawater
contains extremely small quantities of uraru.um. Research is now underway in various
countries on the same sub~ect, but it is said that no plant has ever been built which
can conduct all three processes of 1) absorbing uranium from seawater; 2) detaching
uraTiium from absorbents; and 3) conducting enrichment and separation to heighten
uranium concentration.
rlio, site of the plant, faces Hiuchinada sea zone on the Inland Sea. Another pro~ect
is now underway in the town to build a plant designed to experiment Frith solar-power
generation. It is in an area ad~acent to--and south of--the 10,000_square-meter site
of the planned uranium collection plant.
This uran9.um proJect will require a total of 3 billion yen~'including an operating cost
of 300 million yen each year. When completed, the plant wt11 use 1,500 tons of seawater
per day and produce 10 kilograms of uranium per year.
COPYRIGHT: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha 1980
<
CSO: 5100
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
JAPAN
MITC PLANS TO DEVELOP SMALLER NUCLEAR REACTORS
OW110119 Tokyo ASAHI EVENING NEWS in English 9 Jun 80 p 3
[Text] The Minisf~ry of International Trade and Industry inbends t0'begin developing medium-
and-small multi-purpose nuclear powered generators in the next fiscal year. The reactors
will be used in the ministry~s effort to establish a nation-wide network of reactors to
ful�ill the country~s energy needs.
~ The ministry intends tio finalize the blueprint for the development plan by fiscal 1982,
and embark on the establishment of the reactor network in 1983 at the earliest. The
purpose o� the pro,~ect is to secure the country against future energy shortages.
According to the ministry, the new nuclear reactors will be of the light-water type and
will have a capacity generating 200,000 to 300,000 kilowatts of electricity. The big
nuclear reactors can produce 800,000 to 1,100,000 kilowatts of power.
In addition to generating electricity, the smaller nuclear reactors will be used for
heating and cooling systems by using the steam and hot water pr.oduced b,y the reactors.
_ The not water and steam will be used in local offices ar.d factories. The ministry em-
phasizes that the development of the smaller nuelear reactor could help relieve the energy
shortage faced by non-oil-producing de~~eloping nations, because Ja pan will export them
in the future.
COPYRIGHT: Asahi Evening News, 1980
CSO: 5100
3
_ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL~
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERNiANY
SAFETY RECOItD OF NU(;LEAR REACTOR CRITICIZED
Hamburg STERN in German 24 Apr 80 p 254
[Article by Karen Andresen: "Still. Not Reliable"]
~ (Text] It was reported that at the nuclear power
plant in Brunsbuettel on the Lower Elbe, which has
been shut down for 2 years now following an accident,
safety regulations were being avoided once again.
Actually, the three gentlemen had imagined that their visit to the
Federal Ministry of the Interior in Bonn would be quite different.
Wolfgang Wolter, departmental.chief in charge of nuclear power plants
in the Kie1 Ministry for Social Affairs, and his two companions
Manfred Timm of'the,managing board for the HambLrg Electri~ity Works
(HEW) and the BrunsY~uettel power plant chief Werner Hartel, did not want
_ to talk any more about the atomic power plant at Brunsbuettel in
Schleswig-Holstein. The agenda called for a discussion of general
reactor safety. And the three people from the north were convinced
that the reactor on the Lower Elbe, which had been shut down 2 years ago
following an accident, could soon be operating again. At last, the
Reactor Safety Conanission (RSK) of the interior ministYy had now given
the green light. The still lacking approval of Minister Gerhart Baum
seemed to be only a formality.
But then the report from a news agency came to light, according to which
2 days earlier a mishap had again occur.red at Brunsbuettel: During some
repair work, 130,000 to 150,000 liters of weakly radioactive water had
leaked into the reactor building through an oversight.
"Here we are, talking about everything under the suny but you say
nothing about that," complained Bonn's State Secreta.ry Guenter Hartkopf
_ to his visitors. When he wanted to hear details ~bout the new accident,
- the three gentlemen had to give up. 'They too knew nothing more than
the agency had reported. "Oh boy, then they are still not reliable?"
wondered F[artkopf, an~ he ordered a fresh investigation. The consent
expected by the visitors for the ~tart-up of Brunsbuettel was denied.
_ ~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The HEW was not alone in being angered at Bonn's decision. At the Kiel
Minist.ry for Social Affairs, which has supervision over the atomic power
plant in Brunsbuettel and a1s~ sees itself as the intercessor for the HEW,
the verdict was severely criticized as well. Minister Baum wants to
l delay the start-up of the plant "for flimsy reasons," chided Minister
for 3ocial Affairs Walter Braun in a newspaper interview. Similar words
_ could be heard from the Hanseatic city of Hamburg. Wilhelm Noelling,
the city's senator for finance and at the same time supervisory board
chairn?an of the HEW, asked the people in Bonn in a letter to qLiCkly come
to a decision in favor of the .reactor. The flooding of the reactor
building, he said, was quite insignificant in terms of safety.
The '~ectic activity in Kiel and Hamburg is not without its reasons.
Because as ear.ty as this sunmier, the nuclear reactor will possibly have
to be shut down aRain for at least a year--the HEW has not complied with
a requirement which was set. Some 5 years ago, the Federal Ministry
of the Interior had directed the nuclear power plant operators to
overhaul the scram accumulator_ tank by the middle of 1980. But the
HEW at first procrastinated, in the hope that the safety requirement
which it found inconvenient wo~ald be dropped again.
Not until the middle of 1979 did it bring itself finally to order the
necessary material. The result of this late order: The parts cannot
be delivered until the spring of 1981. Thus the reactor would have to
be shut down for about 9 months before the work on it can commence.
ThereFore the HEW is pressing Bonn to postpone the impending shutdown
deadl'ine. Its grounds: After all, the reac~tor has not been operating
for 2 years, and tnerefore the wear on the m~iterial is less. But Bonn
is setting its face against the HEW arguments, which were immediately
endorsed by the iCiel social ministry. This material, says Bonn,
f finally wears out even if the reactor is shut down. In May, the RSK
experts are supposed to give their opinion yet again on this point of
controversy.
_ The ministry has good reason not to endorse the HEW's lax approach to
the safety regulations, because on 18 June 1978 this practice had led
~ to the most serious radioactive polluting of the environment so far
by an FRG atomic power plant. At that time, at the Brunsbuettel nuclear
power plant a nozzle had broken on one of the pipes which carry steam
to the turbine. Although the measuring instnunents duly registered
the failure, the operating crew blocked the safety system which would
have shut down the nuclear reactor at~.tomatically, an3 they sought in vain
for 3 hours to find the trouble spot. Meanwhile, about 145 tons of
radioactive stear.i flowed from the leak and escaped unfiltered and
uncontrolled through the open folding dormer windows ot~ the power house,
into the open air.
_ Ztao officials of the Federal Ministry of the Interior later claimed that
the HEW had acted negligently. Also, the Kiel social authority had
- failed in its supervisory duty, reproached the officials. Evidently,
those reprimanded at that time still have not understood their lesson.
COP1'RIGHT: 1980 Gruner + Jahr AG & Co.
121?_~.
cso: 5100 5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4
FOR UFFICIr1L USE ONLY
- - FRANCE
BRIEFS
NUCLEAR SECURITY MEASURE--France may as well be prepared for power outages.
The amendment to the draft bill on "the physical protection of nuclear -
materials," introduced by the government on 2 May, calls for suspension
or firing "without advance warning or indemnification" in the event of
the "intenti~nal violation of instructions given by the employer (EdF, ~
CEA, Cogema, etc.) when such vi~laCion affects nuclear safety or endangers
lives or property." The unions see this as an attack on the right to
strike. [Minister of Industry] Andre Giraud replies that it is a safety
_ measure; he is worried by the serious incidents that have occurred
recently at some nuclear power plants, Bugey, for instance. [TextJ
- [Paris L'EXPRESS in Frencl.i 24 May 80 p 125] _
CSO: 5100 ~
~ 6
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ITALY
NATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY CHI~F INTERVIEWED ~ -
rfilan L'EUROPEO in Italian 20 May 80 pp 32-34 _
[Interview with CNEN Chairman Umberto Colombo on safety of Italian nuclear
energy plants, by Giuliano Ferrieri; date and place not given]
[Text] Caorso? As trustworthy as Japanese nuclear plants.
Montalta? It would resist an earthquake with its focal
point under the reactor. Garigliano? It did not operate
properly and we have shut it down. In the opinion of the
CNEN [National Nuclear Energy Commission] chairman, there
is no doubt: we can rely on nuclear energy in Italy.
Nuclear energy is again in the limelight. In Latina a military rifle range
is moving close to atomic energy facilities. In Montalto di~ Castro the new
power plant is for the mement only "a large hole in the ground," around which
work is aL a standstill. In Formia the town council has unanimousZy voted to
send an appeal to the government to appoint a commission to investigate the
damage done by the Garigliano plant (shut down for the last 2 years). And
with reference to Caorso, the association "Friends of the Earth," an inter-
national federative organization which defends the ecology (in Italy it acts
jointly with the radicals), has published a lengthy study commissioned to the
- American experts of MHB Tpchnical Associates. It is entitled "IRSS" (Italian
Reactor Safety Study, a study made on the safety conditions of Italian re-
actors) and concludes that the conditions under which nuclear energy is being -
developed by us "leave something to be desired on the question of safety."
On the opposite front, the government has just launched a five-year plan wY~ich
allots 2,500 billion lire to the CNEN. Are those who have confidence in
- nuclear energy right or those who do not trust it? Who is afraid of it and
who is financing it? CNEN Chairman Umberto Colombo speaks to us about the
_ alleged risks and advantages, safety and economic gains involved in nuclear
energy. That he is concerned in the matter is understood; but, from the
- standpoint of competence, authority and culCure, he is also one of the most
credible defenders of "nuclear energy from the human aspect."
[Question] The American study on Caorso, Professor Colombo: What do you
think of it? Why, with the CNEN invited, did you not participate in it?
7
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200144440-4
i~ur, c~i~ i c i ni, iitii~: utvi.Y
[Anscoer] We did not consider it opportune, even institutionally, to spend
the state's money to pay for a study promoted by a committee which was openly
antinuclear. ide gave the "Friends of ~he Earth" all the documentation they
requested (even the deliberations and notes of our technical commission, �
which are classified). As for the results of the work of the American engi-
- neers, it is a collection of information on an extre~mely heterogeneous level, -
moreover, a repetition of an anaiogous study already ~onducted by the same
group of specialists on a reactor of the Caorso type. It uses the methodology
of the RSS (Reactor Safety Study), the well-known text of Professor Rasmussen
on the safety of nucl~ar plants, however, applying it to hypotnetically more
pessimistic situations. I mean: peremptory and dramatic conclusions are tied
in caith allusions to certain conditions and to small precautionary phrases
on cahich the accent does not fall. The expart understands and weighs all
factors. The inexperienced, who does not understand the precautionary phrases, -
reads and becomes frightened, which is precisely what was desired.
- [Question] As a matter of fact, professor, the Caorso power plant (contro- -
versy about its deEects, prolonged suspension and the like); what degree of
safety does it offer?
[Answer] A degree of ~~afety on a par with the maximum level possible for
boiling-water reactors built by General Electric throughout the world, rhat -
- is, the most highly tested and safest in existence. At Caorso we are within
the same safety limits as the two Japanese power plants similar to ours; and
it is well-known that Japan--which has experienced first-hand the effects of
_ atomic radiation of a far different power--is using some of the most advanced _
safety criteria in the world. Speaking again of Caorso, it is normal to bring _
= a nuclear facility to full capacity i.n stages, and at the Caorso planL- tests
have zchieved 100 percent nominal power. Among the difficulties which occurred,
cae can, for example, cite the case of plastic components on the handles in th~
control room, which b ecame damaged through wear (the manufacturing firm itself ~
, had pointed out the defect) and which were replaced. Since nuclear technology
is recent and complicated, it is possible that there may be breakdowns of
various types; but to have an accident, there would have to be an improbable ~
- chain of simultaneous negative events.
[Question] And the degree of safety at the Montalto installation?
[Answer] It oFfers the best conditions that can be found in Europe. Montalto
had also exceeded the preselection for the EURODIF [European Diffusion Agency]
installation (already built in France now, after our r~nunciation, with four _
" power plants which will be inaugurated in 1981). _
[Question] The best conditions in Europe, even though Montalto is about 30 -
airline kilometers from the area of the recEnt Tuscania earthquake?
- [Answ~:r] The Montalto faciltiy was designed to withstand an earthquake, even -
if its epicenter is directly "under" t??e power plant and its seismic reading
~ a degree t-~igher than that of Tuscania (generally speaking, a degree higher
- means doubled stresses).
8
- FOR OFFICIe,L U~E ONLY _
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FUIt OFFTCIAL tfSl: ONLY :
, [Question] And Garigliano, shut down for the last 2 years?
[rlnswer] In that power plant (which is of the "first generation," from
1964), we had encountered corrosion phenomena in a secondary exchanger. This -
was discovered in a routine inspection, and the reactor was shut down both
to determine the cause of the corrosion (and eliminate it) and because we
asked ENEL [National Electric Power Agency] to check the "entire" plant in
case there were other similar phemomena perhaps in parts of the primary cir-
cuit.
It is strange that, paradoxically, people charge us with insufficient safety
_ control; and then, when the CNEN recommends a halt i.n operations, w~ are
harshly criticized for the precautionary measure taken. As for the control -
committee, let it :.,me; ~oe have nothing to hide. The Formia commune could
have asked us f~;r statistics and information; they have never asked us for
anything, ~ -
(Question] And Latina? Does no t the expansion of the firing range clear
to the periphery of the power plant give the CNEN reason for concern?
_ [Answer] Here th~~ problem is not one oE danger "from" the power plants but,
_ rather, "for" power plants. Th e new areas which are supposed to be in-
cluded in th~a f iring range (to which they already belong) were requested by
the Def ense Department to avoid the possibility of unlawful installations.
That is, it is not a matter of using them for drills but only as supplementary
areas. However, the final decision has not yet been made and is up to the
Council of Ministers. If it is decided to make these areas a part of the
_ firing range, it would mean that the government gives priority to military
exerc:ises c~ver the safety of nuclear power plants .
- [Question] In addition to all the cases of which you have spoken to us,
Professor Colombo, is there "no" as pect of nuclear risk which worries you? -
[Answer] My answer is that, up to now, throughou~ the world there has not
been a single fatal accident coniiected with the operation of nuclear power
plants for the production of energy (and 3,500 billion kilowatt-hours have
been produced, that is, more than all the electric power ever produced in
Italy, through whatever means, from the moment of electrification to the
_ present). The three fatalities of Idaho Falls i.n America, one might object;
but that was a military installation. The 1960 accident in Yugoslavia; but
that was in a research reactor. The Soviet accident of 1959; but that was
. not in a power plant; it was in a deposit of radioactive slag connected with
_ a militar.y installation. And one f atality in Italy, a worker, in an apparatus
for the irradiation of seeds, in Brescia; lcilled by radioactivity, yes, but
not nuclear. And so-called minor radioactivity (x-rays, isotopes, radio-
active wasi:e: laboratory and hospital trash) is a problem with current,
urgent, genuine risks, which I maintain is given less attention and notoriety
than are given to theoretical nuclear risks.
9
_ FOR OFFICIE~,. USE UNLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICI~L USE ONLY ~
[Question] No fatality; and the calculable "fra~tions" of fatalities in ~
the future, the average shortening of life?
[Answer] I believe tliat energy from nuclear fission should cover a certain
_ ar.~ of time in the energy history of humanity, let us say, limited to a cen-
tury (then we shall have nuclear fusion, renewable sources of energy, solar).
I sa;~ this: if humanity should continue to use "this" nuclear energy for
many thousands of years, with thousands of power plants instead of the cur-
- rent hundreds, then thousands multiplied by thousands would mean millions of
power plants per year, and I would not exclude one or two serious accidents.
But considering the limited number of power plants in the world (and extremely
limited in Italy) for a limited time, I think that we are reasonably safe in -
an absolute sense. -
[Question] Perhaps a little less s3fe, since the controllers control them-
selves. I am referring to the notorious purse-snatching of "clause k," when
the CNEN succeeded in getting the responsibility for health control of dangers
from nuclear activities away from the Higher Health Institute.
[Answer] There is often confusion between nuclear safety and the people's
health. Nuclear safety should relate to the construction, utilization and
maintenance of the plants; the CNEN has always had the resp~nsibility for
that control and stiould continue to have it. Then there is the question of
health protection of the workers and people. Here the Department ot Health
comes into the picture; it should continue to have that responsibility and
- we have no intentions of taking it from that department; within the scope of
consultation. However, it would be dangerous at the operational level if
- there were a division of responsibilities.
_ [Quesrion] Nevertheless, America is continuing to update (particularly
af ter the Three Mile Island accident) its norms and regulations on the safety
_ of its nuclear power plants. And Italy?
~ [Answer] It is doing the same; the old power plants have all been inspected
and oFten shut down (like the Garigli.ano of which we spoke, and Trino Ver-
cellese, now shut down precisely because they are installing an emergency
cooling system, which they did not have previously). Naturally, we cannot
= e~pect to transform 20-year-old plants into those which we would now build.
But just as America is reviewing and establishing new parameters, we are -
doing thesame.
[Question] There is a proposal (by the republicans) for a European unifica-
tion of the safety controls of nuclear facilities. What is your opinion or. -
that point? -
[Answer] Valid, in perspective. However, let us not forget that safety is
also a technological problem, therefore with economic interests in the back-
ground. That is why progress toward unification might be slowed down by
efforts to support the industries o~ certain countries, particularly those
at an advanced tertsY~nicanucl.e~ar level .
10 -
FOR OFFICIt,L USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
}~Ult UFI'1C1AL US1: ONLY
(,Question] Economy, costs; is nt~clear energy sti11 "economical" in com-
_ parison with other energy sources? Or does it cease to be economical if we -
take into consideration either the expense of dismantling the power plants
af ter 20 to 25 years (which many experts consider equal to the initial con-
struction expense) or that of eliminating radioactive waste (not quantifiable
because the problem is still unresolved)?
[Answer] We normally include 10 percent in the cost estimate of a nuclear
plant for its future dismantling, and variaus experts (myself included) con-
sider this sufficient. Then too, in the cost of a kilowatt-hour we include
- a secondary factor of 1.5 percent, and this is considered adequate for elimina-
tion of the waste. A problem which is not "unresolved": if we bury the
waste at the same depth, as much as 7,000 or 10,000 meters, as that at which
_ we extract oil.in the ocean (so there are no technological obstacles), the
radioactive waste will not be able to affect the environment for the next
100,000 to 200,000 years. If we now prefer solutions of an engineering na-
ture, so to speak, such as depositing the waste for 50 years in abandoned
mines from which it can then be recovered, it is for reasons of cost; and
because technology is progressing and will give us other solutions in the
future.
[Question] Money: the CNEN has had 2,500 billion lire for the last 5 years.
Does that suit you?
[An~wer] That figure represents the minimum necessary, to be reviewed up-
ward, if the energy crisis should become worse. But we have taken into con- -
_ sideration the fact that our country has a large deficit in government spend- -
ing, and we can, therefore, not invest sums such as those invested by nations
which are financially stronger.
[Question] And only 400 billion in 5 years for CNEN's activity on behalf of
all other energy sources. Is not that a small amount?
[Answer] It does not appear to me to be so.. It has gone from 5 billion in
1979 to 140 billion in 1984, an increase of 28 times; meanwhile, allocations
- for nuclear energy remain constant (that is, they are reduced, considering in-
flation). We must also remember that only the CNEN is concerned with nuclear ~
. energy, whereas for alternative energy sources there are also funds from
the National. Research Council.
[Question] As a matter of fact, you are accused of wanting to extend the -
- CNEN's control to all other sources of energy, 't'o broaden that control.
[Answer) This is a phenomenon which also occurs in other countries. Why2
It is because the nuclear organizations have already had the dialog and ari-
ministrative contacts with industry that alternati.~e energy sources will need.
Better then to expand the operations of the nuclear body than to duplicat�e it -
for the alternative energy sources by creating a new organization of that
type.
11
FOR OFFICItiL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[Question] However, at the last CIP [Interministerial Price Committee] meet-
ing, it is said that Minister De Michelis attacked the CNEN against Bisaglia
and La Malf a, who defended it.
[Answer] :L would not speak of a battle; De Michelis gave a critical but
constructive report on the CNEN's programs, especially on the subject of -
= safety and alternative energy sources.
[Question] Does the presence of socialist ministers in the government
create problems for the CNEN?
[Answer] On the contrary; since the PSI [Italian Socialist Party] has, let
us say, an articulate position on the problem of energy and on the nuclear
problem, this conflicting position favors the country's determination of an
energy policy; and this, once decided and having a majority support, should
be capable of realization. I prefer this way to the other of a minority _
government which, even though highly in favor of nuclear energy, would be
constrained in parliament to deal continuously with the opposition. _
COPYRIGHT: 1980 Rizzoli Editore
8568
CSO: 5100
4
12 . '
FOR OFFICIti: USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
_ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ITALY
OBSTACLES IN CONSTRUCTION OF MONTALTO DI CASTRO NUCLEAR PIANT
- Milan CORRIERE DELLA SERA in Italian 29 Apr 80 p 9
_ [Article by Gianfranco Ballardin: "Future of Montalto di Castro Nuclear
Power Plant Still Uncertain -
[Tex~] Montalto di Castro--"Halt there; turn back," says the guard sworn
in by ENEL [National Electric Pawer Agency] with a pistol in its holster.
We are in the construction yard where ENEL's 2,000 megawatt nuclear power
plant (2 and 1~2 times more powerful than that of Caorso) was scheduled
to be built and is now being bio~ke3 by order of the republican mayor,
Alfredo Pallotti, and confirmed by a very recent judgment handed down by
the regional administrative court of Lazio. To celebrate the event last
Sunday, the citizens of Montalto organized a procession in honor of the
~ "Madonna of victory." At the same time, nonreligious persons celebrated
the victory in the wine-cellars of the area's most celebrated farms.
For years Montalto citizens have been doing everythir.g possible to divert
ENEL's nuclear power plant elsewhere; this area had been designated by
Decree No 393 in 1975. The work, begun about one year ago, was to be com-
pleted within six to seven years. ENEL has already taken over the Land,
paying 25 to 30 million lire per hectare, has extenc~ed Aurelia to the site
selected for the power plant and has completed a substantial part ef t~?e
. excavation. An enormous hole has been dug on the land to house the nuclear
reactor. But now, in accordance with the mayor's orders, the work is
stopped. A couIInittee of geologists, engaged by the co~une, has submitted
a report which claims that ENEL's power plant has been located near an
active volcano. In addition, an extremely dangerous active fault extending
over a distance of about 20 kilometers is said to exist in the plant's sub-
soil; in case of an earthq~uake, there would be a catastrophe.
A few days ago, the Tl~:t [Regional Administrative B~ard] said the mayor was
right and backed zhe work stoppage. "In the next elections," the mayor as-
serts, "the nuclear question will be the piece de resistance of all parties.
The nuclear power plant will be built only if the CNEN [National Nuclear -
Energy Commission] and ENEL are able to prove to us that tY~is site is the
13
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200104440-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
"most suitable and that there is no danger." With the elections in mind,
a muaicipal slate has been drawn up with a single objective: to combat
the construction of the power plar.t. However, it is rather strange to see
a republican mayor block a power plant, while in Rome the republican party
has always been one of the strongest advocates of nuclear power. "In
= Rome," the ma,yor answers, "the republican party may say what it wishes;
but only we are familiar with Montalto's situation."
~ Is it true that ENEL's power plant would be located above an active volcano,
as maintained by the geologists engaged by the M~ontalto commune? CNEN's
_ chief geologist says it is absolutely not true: "There are certainly some
active faults in Montalto's subsoil but not to the extent of endangering
the people's safety. The land on which the Caorso plant is being built is
somewhat more seismic than that of Montalto and, at project headquarters,
we took that into consideration strengthening the plant's foundations."
Is the report of the geologists hired by the Montalto commune then false?
"More than anything else it is a mosaic of half-truths. As one example,
it is not true that the plant would be located above an active volcano.
Some hundreds of thousands of years ago, there were actually some volcanoes
at a few tens of kilometers from M~ontalto; but now they no longer exist."
The judiciary guerrilla warfare, unleashed by antinuclear factions, has
made ENEL's top leaders uncomfortable.
Meanwhile, the group of attorneys and geologists who are collaborating with ,
the antinuclear movement are already thinking of extending the judiciary
guerrilla warfare to the Caorso plant, located in Piacenza Province about
80 kilometers from Milan. On the basis of a recent judgment handed down by
the supreme court, the ordinary magistrature is allegedly invited to block
_ the pawer plant, which would constitute "a serious threat to the population
as a whole." "To resolve this uncertain situation," engineer Franco Velona,
one of ENEL's engineers, comments, "it would perhaps be better to hold a -
~ referendum to decide once and for,all if Italy should or should not follow
- the path of nuclear energy."
COPYRIGHT: 1980 Editoriale del "Corriere della Sera" s.a.s.
' 8568
CSO: 5100 ~ END
- . 14
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200100040-4