A call to action against plutonium

A call to action against plutonium

March 25 is last public opportunity to speak out against new mission at Savannah River Site

ONCE AGAIN
OUR NOTORIOUS
upstream
neighbor, the
Savannah River
Site nuclear facility
(SRS) - located
near Aiken, S.C.,
about 90 miles
from Savannah -
is engaging in a highly controversial
project involving plutonium processing.

We must voice our concern about this
misguided proposal before it's too late.

The U.S. government and electric util-
ities want to produce fuel made from
weapons plutonium, known as mixed-
oxide or "MOX" fuel, to power commercial
nuclear power plants, starting with four
Duke Energy reactors in the Southeast -
two in each of the Carolinas.

A continually shaky parallel mission in
Russia is part of an effort to "dispose" of
the two nations' "surplus" weapons plu-
tonium by making it difficult to steal or
reuse.

However, ongoing debates on funding,
environmental, health, and safety risks
have left many questions unresolved,
including the extent to which plutonium
fuel is intended to be part of a broader
governm.nt .. ub•ldized •chem• to expand
each nation's nuc1Mr infrastructure.

Conclualona dlacuaaed in the draft
Environmental Impact Statement recently
released in late February by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on
the proposed MOX facility, are
upsetting. Of special concern is that acci-
dents could have severe consequences in
communities near SRS, which are pri-
marily communities of color and low-
income.

In fact, the Environmental Justice
section states, "in the unlikely event of a
tritium release at the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility or an explosion at the
proposed MOX facility, the communities
most likely affected would be minority or
low income, given the demographics
within 50 miles of the proposed MOX
facility."

The report states that if a tritium
release occurred in this facility, which dis-
mantles plutonium cores of nuclear
weapons, up to 400 latent cancer fatalities
could occur in surrounding communities.

However, don't be too concerned
about that last figure as the
NRC recently found an error in
initial calculations and hopes to
present corrected figures
soon. Instead of 400
possible deaths, the NRC
believes the facility could
have far fewer. While all
the NRC's calculations are
now suspect, it's no sur-
prise to see the most
damaging information
removed from the doc-
ument.

Last September,
the NRC held a
public meeting in
Savannah to
gather public con-
cerns over this plutonium fuel
project-most focused on nuclear
waste and the effects of an
accident. Few answers were pro-
vided then, and few appea,:_ln_ttils
newreport.

SRS is already a national Superfund
site with more than 30 millions gallons of
high level radioactive liquid waste already
stored onsite in aging waste tanks, many
of which have experienced leaks. While
the site wins the gold medal for having
the most radioactivity of any Department
of Energy (DOE) site nationwide, this new
project would create even more forms of
nuclear waste.

SRS continues to be a radioactive dis-
aster in progress. Known locally as the
"Bomb Plant," SRS began operating in
1951 to produce materials for the pro-
duction of nuclear weapons. Five nuclear
reactors, to produce tritium and plu-
tonium, not electricity, were built along
with numerous support facilities.

The site contributed to the nuclear
arms race and produced approximately 36
metric tons of plutonium, nearly 80,000
pounds, from 1953 to 1988. To put this in
perspective, a nuclear weapon requires
only a few pounds of weapons plutonium.

At a time when the almighty dollar
doesn't seem nearly so mighty, the plu-
tonium bomb fuel project carries a
large, escalating price tag - almost $4
billion - nearly doubling estimates from
a few years ago.

This effort is supposed to be
carried out in Russia too - with the
majority of the funding coming from
the U.S. and other Western
nations - requiring billions of
dollars more and resulting in
more plutonium handling
under conditions which
invite theft or diversion.

Further, the plu-
tonium fuel factory
contract was
awarded to an
international consortium,
Duke Cogema Stone &
Webster that includes the state-
owned French company, Cogema,
which has a questionable environ-
mental record in Europe.

While some are pushing to protest
French wines and berets, more eyebrows
should be raised about how plutonium, a
highly toxic man-made substance with a
hazardous, radioactive life of over 240,000
years, is going to be processed and put
into commerce here in the U.S. by a U.S.-
French plutonium alliance.

This entire project is essentially a risky
experiment fostered by the international
plutoniumindustry and its allies at DOE.
The MOX fuel now in use in countries like
France and Belgium contains reactor-
grade plutonium, which is found in spent
nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear
power plants.

Weapons-grade plutonium fuel has
never been produced on such a large
scale nor are many commercial reactors
designed to use it. There are differences
between the two grades of plutonium that
could have an impact on safety, both
during fuel fabrication and during reactor
operation.

Transportation is another contentious
issue, as the bulk of the plutonium
required for this project is located at
other DOE facilities, such as Rocky Flats,
in Colorado. Recently, even in the midst
of national security concerns, DOE offi-
cials in Colorado admitted that secret plu-
tonium shipments to SRS are now
occurring, with SRS becoming a storage
site for plutonium.

To highlight the risk, shipment of MOX
itself presents a real security threat as
weapons-grade plutonium can be
extracted from seized MOX cargo.

Fortunately we do have some ways to
protest against this plutonium madness
instead of boycotting French fries. The
NRC is returning to Savannah on March
25th to hear our concerns over the plu-
tonium bomb fuel program.

Plus, we have some crucial time to
alert our elected officials and demand that
they support the cheaper, safer, more
secure alternative of securing \he plu-
tonium and managing it as nuclear waste.
It's going to take all of us to stop this dan-
gerous and expensive boondoggle.

Please attend the NRC-sponsored
public meeting on Tuesday, March 25th, at
7 p.m. at the Coastal Georgia Center, 305
Fahm Street.

For background information, visit
www.cleanenergy.org/energy/nuclear/index.html.

The report is at
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/docxollectlons/nurega/staff/sr1767/.

Sara Barczak is the Safe Energy Director
in Savannah for the Southern Alliance for
Clean Energy (formerly Georgians for
Clean Energy).