ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, December 10, 1996 TAG: 9612100119
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: From The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times
Hoping to pressure Russia to step up its destruction of weapons-grade plutonium, the Clinton administration on Monday embraced using U.S. plutonium in commercial nuclear power plants.
The decision ignited controversy over whether the administration, which has stressed nuclear material nonproliferation, is sending the world the wrong message by blurring the separation of military and civilian nuclear programs.
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, with White House and Defense officials by her side, said a dual-track of both burning plutonium in commercial reactors as fuel and encasing it in glass for burial presents the best approach to reducing the plutonium stockpile worldwide.
The disposal was estimated to cost $2.3 billion.
``Today's action will reduce global nuclear danger,'' O'Leary said. She said by showing the United States is ready not only to store the plutonium in glass, but also burn it up as commercial fuel ``we will ensure that surplus plutonium is never again used for nuclear weapons.''
In the Energy Department auditorium where O'Leary spoke, environmental groups and a nuclear power industry group handed out competing leaflets.
Environmental groups said that burning the plutonium - even to destroy it - would send an international signal that the United States has endorsed the commercial use of plutonium.
Japan, France and Russia, among others, are seeking to commercialize plutonium burning reactors, and Russia continues to produce and separate plutonium.
But O'Leary said the U.S. proposal to burn plutonium is completely opposite of Russia's ongoing production of plutonium.
``Whether we burn it or put it in glass, the bottom line is the same,'' she said. ``For the first time in history we will be destroying, instead of creating, weapons-grade plutonium.''
During the Cold War, nuclear weapons plants created about 100 tons of plutonium, about half of which has been declared surplus by the Clinton administration. Russia has about 200 tons of plutonium.
Energy Department officials acknowledged that the cost estimate is highly uncertain. For example, they do not know whether they will have to pay incentive fees to utilities to take the plutonium fuel. Utilities will have to modify nuclear reactors and amend their operating licenses to burn the plutonium.
``Most utilities wouldn't touch this stuff for the world,'' said Thomas Cochran, a nuclear expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Plutonium remains highly dangerous for thousands of years and as little as 15 pounds of plutonium is enough to make a nuclear bomb.
The Russians have expressed concern that if the United States decides to dispose of its excess plutonium be encasing it in glass - or vitrification - it would be too easily retrievable for use in weapons. So, they have been reluctant to to destroy their stockpile.
``It's vital for our national security that we work in parallel with the Russians on plutonium disposition,'' said White House science adviser John Gibbons. This will contribute to nonproliferation and not contradict it, he argued.
A coalition of nuclear critics and environmental groups objected, saying the use of weapons-grade plutonium in civilian reactors ``undermines a 20-year U.S. policy to avoid the civilian use of plutonium.''
``It's downright dangerous from a proliferation standpoint,'' said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, an anti-proliferation group. ``It's a way to accommodate the Russians. The U.S. got rolled on this one.''
O'Leary said storage of excess plutonium will be consolidated from seven sites to three: Hanford in Washington state, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and Savannah River in South Carolina.
LENGTH: Medium: 74 linesby CNB