| November 30, 2006 |  |
DOE Proposes Nuclear Waste Dumps to 11 Communities
DOE Proposes Nuclear Waste Dumps to 11 Communities
The Union of Concerned Scientists condemned yesterday's decision by the Department of Energy (DOE) to award $16 million in grants to 11 U.S. communities to begin studying their suitability for hosting two dangerous new nuclear facilities. The plan is part of the administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and if realized, would pose serious health, safety and environmental risks to the communities where the plants are located. The plan also would make it far easier for terrorists to gain access to materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons or potent dirty bombs.
"Any community accepting one of these facilities is also accepting a de facto nuclear waste dump in their midst," said Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist at the UCS Global Security Program. "People living near these proposed new nuclear sites have the right to know the truth and should have a say about the dangerous facilities that some of their elected officials want to bring into their communities."
The first of the two planned facilities is a treatment center where spent fuel from nuclear plants around the country would be brought for long-term storage and then reprocessed to extract plutonium and other highly radiotoxic materials. Plutonium can be used to build nuclear weapons and less than 20 pounds are needed to build a simple nuclear weapon.
"Reprocessing is dirty, dangerous and expensive," Dr. Lyman explained. "Reprocessing plants generate large quantities of highly radioactive waste in easily dispersible and potentially explosive forms, making them attractive targets for terrorists seeking to disperse radiation throughout the area. They also routinely release radioactive garbage into the environment, contaminating air and water. Extracting the plutonium makes it easier for terrorists to get their hands on the materials needed to make a nuclear weapon."
A small fraction of the material extracted in the treatment center would be fabricated into fuel for use in the second facility, an "advanced burner reactor" (ABR). The ABR is an experimental type of nuclear reactor far riskier than the "light-water" nuclear reactors used today.
"Fast reactors like the ABR are much more dangerous than conventional light-water reactors because they have a much higher risk of experiencing a runaway nuclear chain reaction that could lead to an explosion like the Chernobyl accident," Dr. Lyman added. "The last thing you want is an explosion in a reactor with tons of plutonium in the core."
Even after reprocessing, all the highly radioactive fission products and most of the plutonium and other actinides will remain stored at the site until final disposal plans are developed and implemented. Given the major obstacles to locating a final disposal site, any community hosting the treatment center will likely remain a nuclear waste storage site for the indefinite future.
"Members of the public in these areas would be wise to reject DOE's dirty millions and avoid this toxic legacy," said Dr. Lyman.
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
