G
etting Rid of Military Plutonium
Using plutonium from bombs as fuel for nuclear power
reactors
invites theft by terrorists and outlaw states. How to stop
this
latest attempt at plutonium commerce: Directly dispose of
plutonium
by burying it with nuclear waste deep in the earth.
|
How close
could plutonium |
|
Overview
Plans
to dispose of plutonium from surplus nuclear weapons by turning it over to
local utility companies for use as fuel in nuclear power plants presents grave
dangers to the public. The Nuclear Control Institute seeks to increase
public understanding of these dangers.
Converting warhead plutonium into
fuel for generating electricity would stimulate commerce in this extremely
toxic, weapons-usable material. Fifteen pounds of plutonium is enough for one
atomic bomb. A few specks of it inhaled into the lungs causes cancer. Commerce
in many tons of plutonium raises risks of theft by terrorists and outlaw states,
and of aggravating the consequences of reactor accidents.
For 20 years, the United
States has followed the prudent policy of not allowing plutonium to be used as
fuel in nuclear power plants, and of discouraging its use in other countries.
But while the United States held the line against plutonium, other governments
like Britain, France, Japan and Russia began building enormous industries to
extract hundreds of tons of plutonium from the wastes produced by nuclear power
reactors and to turn this plutonium into fuel.
U.S. policy calls for burying these
plutonium-laden wastes deep in the earth. This has proved to be the right
choice. The plutonium industries in other countries have been held in check by
prohibitively high costs of producing and protecting plutonium, and utility
companies everywhere are reluctant to use such dangerous fuel.
But now U.S. anti-plutonium policy
is at risk of being overturned by foreign plutonium interests.
The cold war is over, and the
United States and Russia must safely dispose of some 100 tons of plutonium now
being recovered from their dismantled nuclear warheads. The goal is to promote
disarmament by converting warhead plutonium into a form that would be very
difficult to convert back into nuclear weapons.
But the nuclear bureaucracies and
industries of both countries, along with those of Britain, France and Japan, are
seizing the opportunity to turn this plutonium into commercial fuel rather than
dispose of it as waste. Their approach is to convert the plutonium metal cores
of weapons (called "pits") into a powder, mix it with uranium, and fabricate
so-called mixed-oxide ("MOX") fuel for use in civilian nuclear-power reactors.
The MOX approach would take
decades to complete, require billions of taxpayers dollars in subsidies to
electrical utility companies, and promote plutonium fuel industries in other
countries. MOX use, therefore, has a large and powerful constituency that
exaggerates the benefits and conceals the dangers of using plutonium as fuel to
generate electricity.
The Nuclear Control Institute
supports the alternative approach of directly disposing of the plutonium as
waste. This approach "immobilizes" plutonium by combining it with highly
radioactive waste in the form of glass logs (a method called "vitrification").
The glass logs are sealed in stainless steel cylinders and stored for eventual
deep burial in a nuclear waste repository.
A fair comparison of the two
disposal options shows that immobilization is far less costly than the MOX
approach, could be started and completed more rapidly, and poses far fewer
security, health and environmental risks.
Look below for information
that describes the many risks of MOX and the clear benefits of immobilization.
NCI
Comments on NRC's Revised Draft EIS for MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant
(Dr. Edwin Lyman, NCI
President, August 30, 2002)
G-8
Nations to Waste Billions on Russian Plutonium Fuel (NCI
Press Release, June 27, 2002)
Safeguards
Concerns About Proposed U.S. Plutonium Fuel Plant
(Dr. Edwin
Lyman, NCI President, Presentation at the 43rd Annual Meeting of
the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management
(INMM), Orlando, FL, June 24, 2002)
U.S.-Russia
Nuclear Agreement Does Not Eliminate Warheads Or Provide For Effective Plutonium
Disposal (NCI Press Release, May 14, 2002)
NCI
Condemns Security Breach at Duke Power Reactor
NCI
Press Release May 10
NCI
letter to NRC Chairman Meserve May 21
NRC
Response: Commissioner Meserve
July 22
NRC
Incident Report April 9 (PDF,
450kb)
Oconee
nuke plant had worker with criminal record Greenville News May
10
NRC
to NCI: Revised MOX Environmental Impact Statement Is Warranted April
26
Additional
required information for MOX fuel plant is consistent with what
NCI is demanding of DOE, NRC says
Federal
Register Notice
(PDF format)
DOE
Officially Abandons Direct Disposal of Military Plutonium Without Conducting
Environmental Review
NCI
Press Release April
19
DOE
Federal Register Notice April
19 (PDF
format)
NCI
Condemns DOE Decision to Ship Plutonium to Savannah River over South
Carolina's Opposition (NCI
Press Release, April 16, 2002)
NCI
to Energy Secretary Abraham on Plutonium Disposition
Make
Sure Disposal of U.S. & Russian Plutonium Proceeds at Same Pace (NCI
Letter to Sec. Abraham, March 27, 2002)
DOE
Reply to NCI (May 17, 2002)
DOE
Report Reveals New Plutonium Disposition Hurdles (NCI Press Release,
February 25, 2002)
The
Revised Plutonium Disposition Strategy: DOEs House Of Cards (Dr.
Edwin Lyman, NCI, February 22, 2002)
Disposition
of Surplus Defense Plutonium at Savannah River Site (DOE Report to
Congress, February 15, 2002)
(PDF file, 340kb)
Safety and Security of Russian Nuclear Facilities & Military Forces (NIC Intelligence Report to Congress, February 2002)
Request for
"Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" (SEIS) on Plutonium
Disposition (NCI Letter to Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham, February 8, 2002)
Supplemental
EIS Legally Mandated Due to "Substantial Changes" in Plutonium
Disposition Program (NCI Letter to Gen. Gordon, DOE NNSA
Administrator, March 8, 2002)
DOE
"Supplemental Analysis" on Plutonium Storage in K-Reactor at the Savannah
River Site Reveals Plan for Indefinite Plutonium Storage in S. Carolina
(DOE, February 2002)
U.S.
Plan to Use Bomb Plutonium as Nuclear Fuel
Faces Enormous Legal, Economic and Safety
Hurdles (NCI Press Release, January 23, 2002)
U.S.
MOX Plant Challenge Accepted by NRC Licensing Board (NCI Press Release,
December 13, 2001)
Congress Urged To Restore Full
Funding To Dispose Of Surplus Weapons Plutonium As
Waste (August 30,
2001)
The Future of Immobilization
Under the U.S.-Russian Plutonium Disposition Agreement (Dr. Edwin
Lyman, NCI Scientific Director, Paper Presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of
the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Indian Wells, CA, July 18,
2001)
NCI, IEER:
NRC Should Hold Formal Hearings on Duke Cogema Stone Webster Application for
Authorization to Construct a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility
(Nuclear Control Institute and Institute for Energy & Environmental
Research, Letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 9,
2001)
NCI, NGOs
to CNSC: Suspend Plans to Test Warhead-Plutonium MOX Fuel for CANDU
Reactors (Letter from NCI, BREDL and 19 other public-interest groups
to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, January 23, 2001)
U.S. National Academy
of Sciences Report Sounds Death Knell for Use of Plutonium Fuel (MOX) in CANDU
Reactors (NCI Press Release, December
6, 2000)
Panelists
Warn of MOX Fuel Hazards (Rock Hill SC
Herald)
The Safety Risks of Using Mixed-Oxide Fuels in Russias
VVER-1000 Reactors: An Overview
Dr. Edwin Lyman, NCI Scientific Director, May 2000.
Now available in Russian
English Language Version
Russian Language Version (Adobe Acrobat PDF file)
If you don't have an Adobe Acrobat reader, you can download it free at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
NRC Document Reveals
Vulnerable Containment Buildings at Duke Power Reactors Set to Use Plutonium
Fuel (MOX)
Ground
Zero
Article on weapons-plutonium disposition by
Louis Jacobson, Government Executive Magazine, September 2000
German Bundestag Should
Not Allow Hanau MOX-Fuel Plant to be Exported to
Russia
Letter from NCI to Several SPD Members of the German Bundestag, September
12, 2000
U.S.-Russia Weapons
Plutonium Disposal Agreement is "Premature and Dangerous," Says
NCI
NCI Press Release, September 1, 2000
News Coverage of U.S.-Russia Agreement
Comments on the "Emergency
Response Assistance Plan" for the MOX Fuel Shipment from Moscow to Chalk
River
Dr. Edwin Lyman, NCI Scientific Director, August 25, 2000
Disposal of Weapons Plutonium in the
U.S. and Russia: Issues and Options for the G-8
Steven Dolley, NCI Research
Director, Issue Brief for G-8 Okinawa Summit, July 17, 2000
Plan to Turn Weapons
Plutonium into Fuel is a Bad Bargain for the U.S. and
Russia
NCI Press Release, June 2, 2000
Summit Documentation on U.S.-Russian Plutonium Disposition
Agreement
White House
Documents, June 4, 2000
The Safety Risks of
Using Mixed-Oxide Fuels in Russias VVER-1000 Reactors: An
Overview
Report
by Dr. Edwin Lyman, NCI Scientific Director, May 20, 2000
German Bundestag Should Not Allow Hanau
MOX-Fuel Plant to be Exported to Russia
Letter from NCI to Green Members
of the German Bundestag, May 19, 2000
Virginia
Power Quits Plutonium "MOX" Fuel Program
Duke Energy
Shareholders Challenge Plan to Use Warhead Plutonium as Fuel in
Reactors
NCI and IEER: NRC's MOX
Fuel Plant Review Plan Must Include Quality-Control
Criteria
Letter from Edwin Lyman, NCI
Scientific Director, and Arjun Makhijani, president, Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research, to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 27,
2000
US-Russian Deal to Halt
Reprocessing: Overdue and Underachieving
Paducah Plutonium
Contamination: Lessons for DOE's Plutonium Disposition
Program
Paul Leventhal, NCI President, letter to the editor,
Washington Post, August 29, 1999
Plutonium Exposures at
DOE Plant Provide Fair Warning of Dangers Ahead in New Plan to Turn Plutonium
into Fuel
NCI to NRC: DOE License to Export
Pu Technology to Russia Should Be Denied
Letter from NCI to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 30, 1999
NCI Comments on DOE's Supplement to
the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Comments by Dr. Edwin Lyman, NCI Scientific
Director, June 28, 1999
Jesse Helms Nixes
MOX
Excerpt from Statement by Senator Jesse Helms, chairman,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 27, 1999
Groups to Energy Secretary
Richardson: DOE Must Hold NEPA Hearings in MOX Reactor
Communities
Letter from NCI and 7 other public-interest
groups to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, April 21, 1999
NCI Condemns "Wasteful and
Reckless" Plutonium Fuel Deal
NCI Press Release, March 22,
1999
U.S. Plan to Use
Warhead Plutonium as Fuel in Power Reactors Poses Significant Cancer Risks to
Public, New Report Concludes
* Latent Cancer Fatalities in
Severe Accident (16 kb GIF file)
* Average Risk Within 10 Miles (10
kb GIF file)
* North Anna 1 & 2
(Virginia Power)
* McGuire 1 & 2 (Duke
Power)
* Catawba 1
& 2 (Duke Power)
Groups to Holgate: DOE
Economic Analysis Must Include All Relevant
Costs of Plutonium Disposition in Russia
DOE Reprocessing Policy and the
Irreversibility of Plutonium Disposition
Dr. Edwin Lyman, NCI
Scientific Director, Paper Presented to the American Nuclear Society,
Charleston, SC, September 9, 1998
Summit Agreement to Use Weapons
Plutonium in Reactors is a "Nuclear Black Hole," NCI Warns
NCI Press
Release, September 1, 1998
Reaching for a Common
Ground
Speech by Paul Leventhal, NCI President, presented to the
International Policy Forum on Management & Disposition of Nuclear Weapons
Material, Bethesda, Maryland, March 24, 1998
The Case Against Using Military
Plutonium as Civilian Fuel
Paul Leventhal, Remarks to a Symposium on
"Nuclear Materials: A Clear and Present Danger," The American News Women's Club,
March 12, 1998
NGOs Speak Out Against BNFL's
Sellafield MOX Plant
A Pox on MOX
Paul Leventhal,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 1998
Better Plutonium Plan
Paul
Leventhal & Edwin Lyman, letter to the editor, New York Times, February 5,
1998
Additional NCI Comments on Draft Request
for Proposal for MOX Plutonium Disposition
NCI Letter to DOE, January
16, 1998
Comments on the Department of Energy's
Draft Request for Proposals for MOX Fuel Fabrication and Reactor Irradiation
Services
NCI comments to DOE, December 5, 1997
NCI Comments on Draft EA for the Parallex
Project
(CANDU MOX Fuel Exports to Canada)
Paul Leventhal and
Steven Dolley, NCI, September 17, 1997
NCI Supplemental Comments on DOE's MOX
Program Acquisition Strategy
Paul Leventhal and Steven Dolley, NCI,
September 12, 1997
Comments on the Shipment of MOX Fuel to
Canada
Paul Leventhal, NCI president, September 11, 1997
A Safer Plutonium Plan
Edwin
Lyman, scientific director, NCI, letter to the editor, Washington Post, August
24, 1997
Comments of the Nuclear Control Institute
on DOE's MOX Program Acquisition Strategy
Paul Leventhal and Steven
Dolley, NCI, August 12, 1997
Comments on the Department of Energy's
Program Acquisition Strategy for Weapons Plutonium Mixed-Oxide (MOX)
Fuel
Paul Leventhal, president, NCI, July 22, 1997
Comments on the Scope of the Department
of Energy's Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact
Statement
Steven Dolley, research director, NCI, July 18, 1997
Don't Delay R&D on Immobilization of
Warhead Plutonium, Groups Urge DOE
NCI/NRDC/ERF Letter to Energy
Secretary Pea, July 1, 1997
NCI, 55 Other Public-Interest
Groups Launch Campaign to Block Commonwealth Edison MOX Fuel Plans
Steven Dolley, Research Director, NCI, May 27, 1997
The Plutonium Industry and the
Consequences for a Comprehensive Fissile Materials Cutoff
Paul
Leventhal, president, NCI, "Working Towards a Nuclear-Free World," Oxford
Research Group Seminar, in cooperation with Chinese People's Association for
Peace & Disarmament, Oxford University, Oxford, England, April 28,
1997
NCI Fact Sheets on Warhead
Plutonium Disposition
Bury the Stuff
Paul Leventhal,
president, and Edwin Lyman, scientific director, NCI, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, March/April 1997
MOX Disposal of Surplus Weapons
Plutonium: Politically Expedient, But Does It Make Sense?
Paul
Leventhal, president, Nuclear Control Institute, Presented at the Fourth
International Policy Forum: Management and Disposition of Nuclear Weapons
Materials, Lansdowne Conference Center, Lansdowne, Virginia, February 12,
1997
Statement of Paul Leventhal,
president, Nuclear Control Institute, on Energy Secretary O'Leary's Record of
Decision on Military Plutonium Disposition
Debate between Paul Leventhal, NCI, and
Tom Grumbly, Department of Energy, on Plutonium Disposition
"Fox in
Depth," Fox News Channel, December 16, 1996
Broad Opposition To DOE Proposal To
Use Weapons Plutonium For Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Fuel
Press
Release, December 9, 1996
Pantex: A Plutonium Dump for the
Nation?
Paul Leventhal, NCI, and Jim Adams, SECC, November 3,
1996
Energy Department Withdraws
License Application for Export of Weapons Plutonium to Canada
Public and Occupational Health and Safety
Impacts of Plutonium Disposition Alternatives: Comments on the Department of
Energy's Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments by Dr. Edwin
Lyman, scientific director, NCI, revised October 9, 1996
Group Letter to Secretary Christopher:
U.S. Should Propose Joint Plutonium Vitrification Project with Russia at G-7
Summit
Letter, October 3, 1996
Group Letter to Secretary O'Leary:
Plutonium Disposition Cost Analysis Must Include Utility
Subsidies
Letter, September 25, 1996
NCI Comments on DOE's Draft Outline for
Nonproliferation Assessment of Plutonium Storage and Disposition
NCI
Letter, August 13, 1996
Department of Energy's Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Fails to Address Proliferation,
Cost, and Safety Risks of Using Plutonium from Nuclear Warheads as Fuel in
Nuclear Reactors
DOE Extends Public Comment
Period on Plutonium Disposition PEIS at Urging of Public-Interest Groups
"Perspectives on U.S. Options
for Disposition of Excess Plutonium "
By Dr. Edwin S. Lyman, presented to
the 3rd International Policy Forum: Management and Disposition of Nuclear
Weapons Materials, Landsdowne, Virginia, March 21, 1996
"Stabilization and Immobilization of
Military Plutonium: A Non-Proliferation Perspective"
By Paul
Leventhal, presented to the U.S. Department of Energy Plutonium Stabilization
and Immobilization Workshop, December 12, 1995
"A Perspective on the Proliferation
Risks of Plutonium Mines"
by Dr. Edwin S. Lyman, presented to the U.S.
Department of Energy Plutonium Stabilization and Immobilization Workshop,
December 12, 1995; revised January 2, 1996
The MOX and Vitrification Options
Compared: A Non-Proliferation Perspective
Paul Leventhal and Steven
Dolley, Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Radioactive Waste
Management and Environmental Remediation: ICEM '95, Berlin, Germany, September
3-7, 1995
