DATE=12/17/96
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
NUMBER=6-09934
TITLE=WHAT TO DO WITH PLUTONIUM
BYLINE=ANDREW N. GUTHRIE
TELEPHONE=619-3335
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=NEAL LAVON
CONTENT=
INTRO: THE COLD WAR'S END HAS CAUSED GREAT JUBILATION IN MANY
QUARTERS SINCE THE WORLD IS SEEN AS MUCH SAFER NOW THAT
THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION ARE NOT GLARING
AT EACH OTHER OVER THE CONTROL BOARD OF THOUSANDS OF
NUCLEAR MISSILES.
BUT THE MORE PEACEFUL CLIMATE HAS PRODUCED PROBLEMS OF
ITS OWN. NONE IS MORE PRESSING THAN WITH TO DO WITH
UNUSED NUCLEAR MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY THE MOST TOXIC OF
ALL, PLUTONIUM.
NOW THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HAS COME UP WITH A PLAN,
AND THE NATION'S EDITORIAL PAGE WRITERS ARE COMING DOWN
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.
WE GET A SAMPLING NOW FROM _________________IN TODAY'S
U-S OPINION ROUNDUP.
TEXT: THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS
CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE IT CALLS FOR SOME OF THE
APPROXIMATELY 45-THOUSAND-359 KILOS OF U-S PLUTONIUM TO
BE MIXED WITH URANIUM AND EXPENDED IN SOME OF THE
NATION'S COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE, IN GENERAL, THE UNITED
STATES HAS OPPOSED OTHER NATIONS USING PLUTONIUM THAT
WAY SINCE THE RESIDUE CAN STILL BE USED IN NUCLEAR
WEAPONS. THERE IS ALSO CONCERN THAT THE OTHER PART OF
THE PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR SOME OF THE PLUTONIUM TO BE
ENCASED IN GLASS AND THEN BURIED, COULD EVENTUALLY CAUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.
SOME OF THE NATION'S MAJOR PAPERS ARE DIVIDED ON THE
ISSUE. WE BEGIN OUR SAMPLING WITH THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
WHICH FEELS AT LEAST PART OF THE PLAN IS FLAWED.
VOICE: "THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HAS STUDIED A VARIETY OF
WAYS TO SAFELY DISPOSE OF PLUTONIUM, WHICH WILL RETAIN
ITS RADIOACTIVITY FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
WE CAN GIVE THANKS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS
DISCARDED SOME OF THE EARLY SUGGESTIONS, SUCH AS
LAUNCHING THE MATERIAL INTO DEEP SPACE OR BURYING IT IN
THE OCEAN FLOOR. NOW, THE DEPARTMENT IS DOWN TO TWIN
PROPOSALS TO BE STUDIED JOINTLY OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS
FOR TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY..... ONE PLAN IS TO MIX THE
PLUTONIUM WITH OTHER NUCLEAR WASTE AND BAKE IT INTO A
FORM OF GLASS. ..... THIS METHOD, CALLED VITRIFICATION,
ENJOYS GENERAL SUPPORT, THOUGH THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE SAFETY OF LONG-TERM STORAGE. MUCH MORE
CONTROVERSIAL IS THE PROPOSAL TO PROCESS MUCH OF THE
PLUTONIUM INTO FUEL FOR USE IN NUCLEAR REACTORS .....
THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD PUT THE FUEL USE IDEA ON THE
SHELF AND PROCEED WITH THE VITRIFICATION CONCEPT ON A
PRIORITY BASIS."
TEXT: TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IS THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, WHICH
CALLS THE PLUTONIUM DISPOSAL PLAN "REALISTIC."
VOICE: "THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION LAST WEEK ANNOUNCED A
SENSIBLE TWO-TRACK PLAN TO DISPOSE OF MORE THAN 50-TONS
OF SURPLUS U-S PLUTONIUM, THE HIGHLY TOXIC, RADIO-ACTIVE
METAL THAT'S THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS. ..... PURSUING BOTH OPTIONS IS PERHAPS MORE
COSTLY THAN SETTLING ON JUST ONE FORM OF DISPOSAL, BUT
THE TWO-TRACK STRATEGY IS NECESSARY BECAUSE NO ONE IN
WASHINGTON IS CERTAIN WHICH ONE MAY BE THE MOST
COST-EFFECTIVE, TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AND POLITICALLY
VIABLE. THERE ARE PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED
IN BOTH, BUT BECAUSE THE SECURITY THREAT IS SO GRAVE, IT
IS ESSENTIAL TO MOVE FORWARD AND SUCCEED WITH ONE OR
BOTH."
TEXT: STILL IN THE MIDWEST, THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
DISAGREES, CALLING THE PLAN THE "WRONG ANSWER ON
PLUTONIUM."
VOICE: "THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT'S PLAN ..... IS A BRAVE EFFORT ON
A TOUGH PROBLEM, BUT AN UNAPPEALING ANSWER. MUCH MORE
WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE PROPOSAL. THE DEPARTMENT
PROPOSES TO ENCASE SURPLUS PLUTONIUM IN GLASS OR SOME
OTHER KIND OF SOLID MATERIAL AND STORE IT IN A PERMANENT
UNDERGROUND REPOSITORY. THE IDEA HAS THE MERIT OF
ELIMINATING THE MATERIAL ENTIRELY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT,
BUT THE CONTAINERS WOULD HAVE TO LAST FOR THOUSANDS OF
YEARS...... CURRENT EXPERTISE CAN'T PROMISE SUCH
SECURITY. ..... THE DEPARTMENT ALSO WANTS TO MIX SOME
PLUTONIUM WITH CONVENTIONAL URANIUM .... TO PRODUCE ....
FUEL, WHICH NUCLEAR PLANTS WOULD THEN BURN .... A
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS IDEA. THE DEPARTMENT'S
JUSTIFICATION IS THAT IF ENCASING PLUTONIUM IN GLASS
DOESN'T SUCCEED, IT NEEDS ANOTHER OPTION. THAT ISN'T
PERSUASIVE. ..... SAFETY TRANSPORTING PLUTONIUM TO THE
PLANTS NEEDED TO CONVERT IT TO [FUEL] IS DANGEROUS;
THEREAFTER, MOVING IT TO INDIVIDUAL NUCLEAR PLANTS IS
EQUALLY RISKY. .... IT WOULD ALSO TAKE DECADES TO BURN
UP THE PLUTONIUM, GIVEN THE RATE AT WHICH REACTORS CAN
CONSUME IT."
TEXT: THE WASHINGTON POST POINTS OUT THAT THIS POLICY IS
IMPORTANT, BECAUSE RUSSIA HAS LOTS OF LEFTOVER PLUTONIUM
ALSO AND IT IS CRITICAL THAT A SAFE WAY BE FOUND TO
DESTROY IT ALL, BOTH THE U-S SUPPLY AS WELL AS THE
RUSSIAN SUPPLY.
VOICE: "SINCE RUSSIA IS STILL A GREAT PRODUCER (AND CONSUMER)
OF PLUTONIUM, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO BRING MOSCOW ALONG.
THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS APPROACH THIS
NECESSITY IN A STRANGE WAY. THE POLICY OF USING
PLUTONIUM AS A FUEL IS BEING PARTLY JUSTIFIED IN ORDER
TO KEEP THE UNITED STATES IN STEP WITH RUSSIA, WHOSE
SCIENTISTS TEND TO SEE PLUTONIUM - - ESSENTIAL AS A
WEAPONS MATERIAL - - AS A NATIONAL ENERGY TREASURE.
NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA IS A FINE THING. BUT ON
WHAT TERMS? THE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ESTABLISHMENT IS IN
ECONOMIC, BUREAUCRATIC AND STRATEGIC CRISIS, AND BADLY
NEEDS ITS AMERICAN PARTNER'S WISEST COUNSEL, NOT ITS
PERMISSIVENESS. RUSSIANS HAVE AS GREAT A NEED AS
AMERICANS, IF NOT A GREATER ONE, FOR A PLUTONIUM POLICY
THAT REDUCES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE THE RISKS
THAT NUCLEAR MATERIALS WILL FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS.
THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT'S POLICY DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET
THIS IRREDUCIBLE TEST."
TEXT: FINALLY, THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIALIZES ITS CONCERN
ABOUT THE RISKS INVOLVED WITH THESE POINTS.
VOICE: "UNTIL THESE BASKETBALL-SIZED NUCLEAR CORES, NOW UNDER
GUARD AT SELECTED SITES IN EACH COUNTRY, ARE SOMEHOW
NEUTRALIZED, THEY POSE A DOUBLE THREAT. EITHER NATION
COULD REVERSE THE COURSE OF DISARMAMENT AND STICK THE
WARHEAD PLUTONIUM RIGHT BACK INTO NEW WEAPONS. OR
THIEVES, ESPECIALLY IN ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED RUSSIA,
MIGHT STEAL SOME ... FOR USE IN BOMBS BY TERRORISTS OR
RENEGADE NATIONS... BUT BEFORE VENTURING TOO FAR DOWN
THIS [DISPOSAL] PATH, THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO BUILD
IN ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS. THE UNITED STATES MUST MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT USING REACTORS TO RID THE WORLD OF LOOSE
MILITARY WARHEADS DOES NOT SIGNAL AN END TO AMERICAN
OPPOSITION TO A PLUTONIUM FUEL CYCLE FOR POWER
REACTORS."
TEXT: THAT CONCLUDES THIS BRIEF SAMPLING OF OPINION FROM THE
U-S PRESS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE POST COLD WAR'S
EXCESS PLUTONIUM.
NEB/ANG/NL
17-Dec-96 4:51 PM EST (2151 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.