[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Plutonium Program May Be Dangerous

In a message dated 1/22/99 2:00:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, AOL News writes:

<< Plutonium Program May Be Dangerous
 
 .c The Associated Press
 
  By H. JOSEF HEBERT
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) -- A plan to use civilian reactors to get rid of plutonium
from old nuclear weapons has been controversial from the start. Now critics
are rallying around a report suggesting thousands of additional deaths could
result if a major reactor accident occurred using such fuel.
 
 A private nuclear watchdog group, the Nuclear Control Institute, produced a
study Thursday saying the Energy Department severely underestimates the safety
risks of using civilian power reactors to dispose of plutonium that the
government no longer needs because of post-Cold War arms reductions.
 
 The department, which contends the plan would not compromise safety, is
expected to issue a contract next month to a consortium to dispose of more
than 36 tons of plutonium over several decades.
 
 The group comprises two Southern electric utilities, Duke Power Co. and
Virginia Power Co., and the French nuclear fuel manufacturer Cogema. The
utilities would burn the fuel at six reactors in South Carolina, North
Carolina and Virginia.
 
 Energy Department officials and spokesmen for the utilities said they remain
convinced the so-called MOX fuel poses no additional safety risk compared with
the low-enriched uranium normally used in commercial reactors, even if a
severe radiation release should occur.
 
 A DOE spokesman said the department would review the report, but so far
officials only have seen a summary. ``We do take issue with many of the basic
assumptions,'' spokesman Matthew Donoghue said.
 
 Joe Maher, a spokesman for Duke Power, said the National Academy of Sciences
has endorsed such disposal of plutonium.
 
 Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Virginia Power, said the utility has been
assured that using MOX fuel would ``pose no added risk to the employees or the
public. That's a safe thing to do.''
 
 The $2.3 billion plan, which surfaced in 1997, has been criticized by
advocacy groups worried about worldwide nuclear proliferation. These groups,
including the Nuclear Control Institute, argue that the government should
maintain its traditional separation of military and civilian nuclear programs.
 
 But the institute's new analysis raises questions for the first time about
direct safety risks to areas near reactors burning such fuel.
 
 Edwin Lyman, an energy physicist and the study's author, used the
government's own calculations and risk-modeling techniques. He concluded twice
as many cancer deaths could occur from a severe accident using MOX fuel than
if conventional uranium were in use.
 
 He said the fuel, processed from plutonium, would release a much larger burst
of highly radioactive and toxic materials known as actinides -- including
plutonium, americium, cesium and curium.
 
 As a result, ``the number of latent cancer fatalities after a severe reactor
accident will be significantly greater,'' he said. The report estimated from
1,430 to 6,165 additional cancer deaths depending on the type of severe
accident that occurred and the amount of MOX fuel in use.
 
 The report conflicts sharply with the findings of the Energy Department. In a
draft environmental impact analysis, the agency concluded that even such a
severe accident would cause at most 8 percent more -- and possibly fewer --
cancer deaths. That compares with the 27 percent to 96 percent increase
calculated by Lyman.
 
 Lyman said the DOE study assumed an unrealistically low release of actinides
and use of an advanced-design reactor not yet built instead of reactors that
actually would be used. ``They didn't ask the hard questions,'' he said.
 
 Paul Leventhal, the institute's president, acknowledged that Lyman's findings
assume the severest of nuclear accidents -- one in which the reactor's steel
and concrete containment dome is breached and allows radiation to stream into
the environment.
 
 Such an accident, he said, would be ``highly improbable,'' but must be taken
seriously by federal regulators weighing public risk.
 
 In America's worst nuclear accident, at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island
power plant in 1979, the containment vessel remained intact. The world's worst
civilian nuclear accident at Chernobyl involved a reactor without a
containment dome.
 
 If the DOE contract is issued next month as expected, Cogema would build and
run a MOX processing plant at the Savannah River weapons complex near Aiken,
S.C., and the utilities would provide the six reactor to burn the fuel.
 
 Duke Power has said it would use two reactors at the McGuire plant south of
Charlotte, N.C., and two reactors at Catawba plant near Rock Hill, S.C.
Virginia Power plans to use its two reactors at the North Anna plant near
Mineral, Va.
 
 The first MOX fuel shipments likely would not be produced until 2007.
 
 AP-NY-01-22-99 0159EST >>



Plutonium Program May Be Dangerous

.c The Associated Press

 By H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A plan to use civilian reactors to get rid of plutonium
from old nuclear weapons has been controversial from the start. Now critics
are rallying around a report suggesting thousands of additional deaths could
result if a major reactor accident occurred using such fuel.

A private nuclear watchdog group, the Nuclear Control Institute, produced a
study Thursday saying the Energy Department severely underestimates the safety
risks of using civilian power reactors to dispose of plutonium that the
government no longer needs because of post-Cold War arms reductions.

The department, which contends the plan would not compromise safety, is
expected to issue a contract next month to a consortium to dispose of more
than 36 tons of plutonium over several decades.

The group comprises two Southern electric utilities, Duke Power Co. and
Virginia Power Co., and the French nuclear fuel manufacturer Cogema. The
utilities would burn the fuel at six reactors in South Carolina, North
Carolina and Virginia.

Energy Department officials and spokesmen for the utilities said they remain
convinced the so-called MOX fuel poses no additional safety risk compared with
the low-enriched uranium normally used in commercial reactors, even if a
severe radiation release should occur.

A DOE spokesman said the department would review the report, but so far
officials only have seen a summary. ``We do take issue with many of the basic
assumptions,'' spokesman Matthew Donoghue said.

Joe Maher, a spokesman for Duke Power, said the National Academy of Sciences
has endorsed such disposal of plutonium.

Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Virginia Power, said the utility has been
assured that using MOX fuel would ``pose no added risk to the employees or the
public. That's a safe thing to do.''

The $2.3 billion plan, which surfaced in 1997, has been criticized by advocacy
groups worried about worldwide nuclear proliferation. These groups, including
the Nuclear Control Institute, argue that the government should maintain its
traditional separation of military and civilian nuclear programs.

But the institute's new analysis raises questions for the first time about
direct safety risks to areas near reactors burning such fuel.

Edwin Lyman, an energy physicist and the study's author, used the government's
own calculations and risk-modeling techniques. He concluded twice as many
cancer deaths could occur from a severe accident using MOX fuel than if
conventional uranium were in use.

He said the fuel, processed from plutonium, would release a much larger burst
of highly radioactive and toxic materials known as actinides -- including
plutonium, americium, cesium and curium.

As a result, ``the number of latent cancer fatalities after a severe reactor
accident will be significantly greater,'' he said. The report estimated from
1,430 to 6,165 additional cancer deaths depending on the type of severe
accident that occurred and the amount of MOX fuel in use.

The report conflicts sharply with the findings of the Energy Department. In a
draft environmental impact analysis, the agency concluded that even such a
severe accident would cause at most 8 percent more -- and possibly fewer --
cancer deaths. That compares with the 27 percent to 96 percent increase
calculated by Lyman.

Lyman said the DOE study assumed an unrealistically low release of actinides
and use of an advanced-design reactor not yet built instead of reactors that
actually would be used. ``They didn't ask the hard questions,'' he said.

Paul Leventhal, the institute's president, acknowledged that Lyman's findings
assume the severest of nuclear accidents -- one in which the reactor's steel
and concrete containment dome is breached and allows radiation to stream into
the environment.

Such an accident, he said, would be ``highly improbable,'' but must be taken
seriously by federal regulators weighing public risk.

In America's worst nuclear accident, at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island power
plant in 1979, the containment vessel remained intact. The world's worst
civilian nuclear accident at Chernobyl involved a reactor without a
containment dome.

If the DOE contract is issued next month as expected, Cogema would build and
run a MOX processing plant at the Savannah River weapons complex near Aiken,
S.C., and the utilities would provide the six reactor to burn the fuel.

Duke Power has said it would use two reactors at the McGuire plant south of
Charlotte, N.C., and two reactors at Catawba plant near Rock Hill, S.C.
Virginia Power plans to use its two reactors at the North Anna plant near
Mineral, Va.

The first MOX fuel shipments likely would not be produced until 2007.

AP-NY-01-22-99 0159EST

 Copyright 1998 The Associated Press.  The information  contained in the AP
news report may not be published,  broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed without  prior written authority of The Associated Press. 

 

To edit your profile, go to keyword <A HREF="aol://1722:NewsProfiles">
NewsProfiles</A>.
For all of today's news, go to keyword <A HREF="aol://1722:News">News</A>.