WAfreepress@gmail.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Contents on this page were published in the April/May, 1994 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1994 WFP Collective, Inc.
SMALL STORIES
ABOUT
BIG NEWS
Two proposals, one dubbed "Project Isaiah" and its cousin, we'll call it "Whoops' revenge," sounds great on the surface, but if one of these powers up, it could be our worst nightmare.
Here's the general idea. The proposals call for taking the plutonium now being removed from nuclear warheads at the Energy Department's Pantex plant in Texas, and converting it to fuel used by nuclear reactors. "Project Isaiah" - a biblical reference to turning swords into plowshares - is a private venture developed by a former managing director of the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS). It calls for finishing two abandoned reactors, WNP-1 and WNP-3, and running them on a mixture of plutonium and uranium fuel.
The other proposal, from WPPSS itself, calls for finishing WNP-1 and converting the now operating WNP-2 to run on plutonium, and killing off WNP-3. Both plans would require changes to existing laws that prohibit the commercial use of plutonium. Details, details...
In the 1970s, WPPSS began building five reactors. Only one, WNP-2 on the Hanford Reservation, has ever operated, and only at 60 percent capacity. WNP-2 won top billing on last year's Public Citizen "top 50 nuclear lemons list." It has the worst operating record of any reactor in the country. (If you're keeping score, the recently-closed Trojan plant near Portland came in second.)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently fined WPPSS $75,000 for violations at WNP-2 in 1991 and 1992. According to the trade journal Nuclear News (whose "compliance" column makes for very interesting reading), the standard fine was $50,000, but the NRC boosted the amount "because of WPPSS' poor past performance in procedure adherence." Whoops.
The unfinished WPPSS reactors represent the biggest municipal bond failure in American history: a default of $2.5 billion. Running these poorly designed reactors on a mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium is a sure recipe for disaster. But many in Washington's congressional delegation, namely "Stormin'" Norm Dicks, are backing it as industry pressures them for more electrical capacity.
They also see plutonium-burners as an alternative to the hydroelectric dams that environmentalists want "drawn down" to preserve endangered salmon runs on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Plus, think of all the construction (and later, cleanup) jobs it would create.
Local environmental groups, including the Nuclear Safety Campaign, the Washington Environmental Council and Heart of America, are voicing concern about the scheme. Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's position is unclear. She refused to allocate the $25 million requested to study the feasibility of the proposals; however, she has asked Governor Lowry for his opinion.
In turn, Lowry and his staff are apparently taking the proposals seriously. The Bonneville Power Administration has even given WPPSS approval to further study the proposals. (Ironically, BPA forecasts little need for the energy from several more reactors.)
Among the primary concerns raised by environmental groups are questions of economics and safety. Why spend hundreds of millions on outdated technology that produces more dangerous waste when we desperately need to develop renewable energy? Safety concerns include both the operation of these plants and the transportation of plutonium from Texas, not to mention the processing required to turn plutonium into a usable fuel.
At a time when plutonium proliferation and disposal are among the biggest dilemmas we face on this planet, creating new demand for the stuff simply encourages greater danger when we have not yet resolved how to control and safely entomb the material. Putting plutonium in nuclear reactors would likely create more, not less, radioactive waste.
Three separate studies - by the Office of Technology Assessment, the National Academy of Sciences and the Rand Corp. - have all advised that the U.S. and Russia first learn how to safely dismantle nuclear weapons store plutonium before we jump headlong into half-baked schemes to use it in reactors.
Let the governor and state and congressional representatives know that this one won't fly.
|
|
|
|
|