C.A. Beard (LANL) letter on MOX for Chalk

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>]

FYI,

> Friday, January 21, 2000
> How the plutonium lift helped the world
> Canada, working with the U.S. and Russia, solved an impasse
> Carl A. Beard
> National Post (CANADA) 
> In the waning days of the Cold War, the United States and Russia agreed to
> dramatic reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Missiles were destroyed,
> but the plutonium inside them was not. Both countries have simply put it
> in storage. 
> This is not a problem in the United States, where plutonium stocks are
> well guarded. But in Russia, which employs a tattered security system, the
> situation is different. Many Russian plutonium storage facilities adopted
> primitive security methods, such as placing wax seals on doors to detect
> trespassing and theft. The possibility of terrorists or rogue states
> stealing plutonium is very real. 
> Canada, though not a nuclear power itself, is doing something about the
> problem. The recent shipment of a small quantity of plutonium from the
> United States is part of that effort. If the Canadian project proceeds
> according to ambition, more than 100 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium
> from the United States and Russia may eventually be processed. 
> Why is Canada's participation necessary? The answer lies with the
> lingering distrust and disagreement between the U.S. and Russia. 
> Many in the U.S. favour a plutonium disposal process whereby plutonium is
> mixed with radioactive waste and buried. The Russians, on the other hand,
> see their plutonium as an asset that should be converted into fuel for
> energy-producing nuclear reactors. Every kilowatt of electricity the
> Russians generate with nuclear power permits them to sell more fossil fuel
> abroad. But the U.S. has opposed converting the plutonium to nuclear fuel
> for security reasons. When plutonium is used in nuclear reactors, it is
> degraded but not destroyed. It can still be recovered and used to power
> crude weapons. 
> And so, by 1996, the situation had become deadlocked. 
> Then, scientists from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., in conjunction with
> partners at Ontario Hydro and Zircatec, developed a bold idea: The U.S.
> and Russia could transform their plutonium into nuclear fuel and ship it
> to Canada, where it would be used to produce electricity and then
> disposed, without further recycling, under full International Atomic
> Energy Agency safeguards. Canada would effectively become a plutonium
> escrow agent under an arrangement that would make both countries happy.
> The Russians would be paid for their plutonium, giving them cash for a
> fuel they do not have the technology or resources to fully exploit
> themselves. The U.S. would be assured the plutonium -- both its own and
> Russia's -- would never be stolen. 
> The plutonium transported into Canada by helicopter last Friday --
> destined for a test reactor at Chalk River -- was part of this plan. The
> shipment marked the largest elimination of weapons-grade plutonium to
> date, and I am proud to say I was part of the group of scientists at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory that fabricated that fuel from a dismantled
> nuclear weapon. Working hand in hand with our colleagues from AECL and in
> conjunction with scientists in Russia, we have been able to make the world
> a little safer. Without Canadian involvement this would not have happened.
> 
> And what of the dangers associated with plutonium and its transport from
> New Mexico to Canada? 
> Plutonium is shipped under extraordinary safety measures. Release is next
> to impossible. And even if plutonium were released, what would happen? 
> In the early part of this decade, a study was conducted at Los Alamos
> National Laboratory on 26 workers who had been exposed to plutonium during
> their work on the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. As of 1992, 19 were
> still living, 46 years after the exposure occurred. Moreover, this group
> did not exhibit any diseases (including cancer) at rates higher than the
> general public. 
> These results are hardly consistent with the idea that the workers had
> been exposed to "the most toxic substance known to man." 
> But make no mistake, plutonium is dangerous ... not because of the
> possibility that it might be accidentally released in transit, but because
> of the possibility that it might be intentionally released in the
> detonation of a nuclear weapon. 
> Thanks to Canadian participation, that risk will be lessened considerably.
> 
> Dr. Carl A. Beard is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at
> Austin. He has also worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he was
> Project Leader for Nuclear Fuels Research and Development activities
> 
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html