US Plutonium Policy Fueling Safety & Smuggling Crisis

[the.greenbase@green2.greenpeace.org]

----------
Original-TO:      World Press (Green2:Green2:Gnl:INET)
Original-Cc:      The Greenbase (Green2:Green2:Gnl:Main)
----------
               ************************
               GREENPEACE PRESS RELEASE
               ************************
 
>> GREENPEACE: U.S. PLUTONIUM POLICY FUELING SAFETY AND
SMUGGLING CRISES  
 
WASHINGTON, DC, February 28,1996 (GP) As the dual crises of
radioactive contamination and weapons proliferation mount,
Greenpeace today accused the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
of irresponsible "foot dragging" in the development of a
national plutonium policy.  The criticism came in response to
the DOE's release of a draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the
disposition of U.S. plutonium which provides options but no
decisions for how to deal with the nation's primary nuclear
weapons fuel.
 
"Hand wringing and foot dragging may keep DOE consultants at

work but they do not solve the plutonium crisis," said Tom
Clements, nuclear expert for Greenpeace.  "While the world
faces the growing threats of plutonium stockpiling and
smuggling, such inaction is inexcusable."     
The DOE conducted its PEIS in response to concerns about the
short-and long-term disposition of plutonium produced for U.S.
nuclear weapons.  Plutonium, contained within nuclear weapons,
or removed from warheads as part of the disarmament process,
presents a significant threat to the environment and public
health.  At the same time, plutonium removed from nuclear
weapons remains directly weapons-usable and is therefore a
serious proliferation threat.
 
The spectre of proliferation stemming from the seizure, sale
or diversion of weapons plutonium has appeared most
dramatically in and around the former Soviet Union.  Numerous
cases of the smuggling of weapons material from the former
Soviet Union have been reported and/or prosecuted.  It is
widely accepted that the lack of U.S. policy on plutonium
disposition encourages inaction from the Russian government
which must also contend with significant economic,
environmental and political policy hurdles.
 
The DOE report offers options for plutonium disposition which
include: non-action, the use of plutonium as a fuel for
nuclear reactors, or treatment of plutonium as a nuclear
waste.  No support exists for inaction. Equally unjustifiable
is the use of plutonium as a fuel in reactors, which could
lead to the transport of weapons-usable plutonium along the
roads and rails of the U.S., presenting an imminent threat to
the lives of Americans.  In addition, the use of the plutonium
in reactors raises serious environmental and public health and
safety issues.  
 
"The only option the U.S. should be considering is to treat
plutonium as a doubly dangerous nuclear waste," said Clements. 
"It must be isolated both from the environment for thousands
of years, and from easy human handling if we are to guarantee
nuclear non-proliferation and human security."
                                -ENDS-
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                           
CONTACT: Tom Clements  202-319-2506  

----------