|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Plutonium Dangers Overlooked, Experts Say
While countries have taken measures to secure weapon-grade highly enriched uranium in order to prevent it from falling into the hands of terrorists, the dangers of plutonium ending up in those same hands has not received equal attention, proliferation experts said in the Christian Science Monitor today (see GSN, Oct. 6). A heavily guarded convoy of vehicles believed to be transporting U.S. weapon-grade plutonium left a plant in northern France today for a recycling factory 660 miles southeast, Reuters reported. Police were guarding all bridges on the convoy’s route to the Cadarache plant in southeastern France, according to Reuters, where the radioactive material is scheduled to be recycled into civilian reactor fuel. The fuel is then expected to be returned for use in the United States. The process is part of the U.S. Energy Department’s program to convert plutonium from “excess” nuclear weapon materials — as part of a post-Cold War agreement between the United States and Russia — into mixed-oxide (MOX) plutonium-uranium fuel (Jacky Naegelen, Reuters, Oct. 7). Some experts said the shipment brings attention to “separated” plutonium from nuclear power plants, which could be converted into a weapon. “The big risk we face with separated plutonium is from theft by terrorists at a factory making reactor fuel — maybe an inside job,” said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security. “You always have to worry about the physical protection of plutonium. Nations always tell you their protection is good. But it may not be enough.” The amount of worldwide civilian-held plutonium has doubled in the past 13 years, according to Albright’s institute. Private reactors in 14 nations held 235 metric tons of separated plutonium in late 2003, enough to make 40,000 weapons the size of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki in World War II. France converts tons of separated plutonium to MOX fuel each year, according to the Monitor. Despite MOX being classified as “reactor grade,” it could still make an effective bomb, said Leonard Spector of the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies. While fashioning a weapon from highly enriched uranium is a simpler process, terrorists could build a plutonium-based device with expert help, according to some experts. A 15-pound piece of the radioactive material — about the size of a baseball — would be sufficient to build a bomb powerful enough to destroy a large portion of a major city, according to the Monitor. However, by developing plutonium-reprocessing technology, the United States can increase its energy independence and reduce nuclear waste, according to the Bush administration. “It is our hope that this technology will ... provide the benefits of recycling spent fuel without increasing proliferation risks,” Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow told Congress in July. The United States officially continues to oppose use of plutonium-based fuels at civilian reactors in other nations, the Monitor reported. The shipment to France, however, undermines that message, experts said. “The Bush administration has explicitly changed its policies,” said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist in the global security program of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It is actively promoting recycling spent fuel at home and abroad.” Japan has a new reprocessing plant seeking certification, India hopes to expand its reprocessing capacity and China has said it wants to reprocess plutonium for civilian purposes, according to the Monitor. The spread of reprocessing technology and the potential transition to MOX fuel in U.S. reactors could both pose risks at a time when loose nuclear materials are of increased concern. “It’s like seeing an accident in the future and pressing on the accelerator,” said Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “We’re all human, and we make mistakes in government. But on this we should just cease and desist” (Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 7).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
