<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>All plutonium production to go to
INEEL</title></head><body>
<div><tt><font size="+1" color="#000000">This just in from the NY
Times. As if the Snake River aquifer didn't have enough radiation
problems already.</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font size="+1" color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font size="+1" color="#000000">Mark
Solomon</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font size="+1" color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font size="+1" color="#000000"><br>
<b>June 27, 2005<br>
<br>
</b></font><font size="+3" color="#000000"><b>U.S. Has Plans to Again
Make Own Plutonium<br>
<br>
</b></font><font color="#000000"><b> By</b></font><font
color="#000066"><b> WILLIAM J. BROAD</b></font><font
color="#000000"><b><br>
<br>
<br>
</b><font size="+1">The Bush administration is planning the
government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war,
stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material.
The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a
speck can cause cancer.<br>
<br>
Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds
over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site
outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand
Teton National Park in Wyoming. Officials say the program could cost
$1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and
radioactive waste.<br>
<br>
Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is
intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details.
But in the past, it has powered espionage devices.<br>
<br>
"The real reason we're starting production is for national
security," Timothy A. Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems
at the Energy Department, said in a recent interview.<br>
<br>
He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve
nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.<br>
<br>
The laboratory is a source of pride and employment for many residents
in the Idaho Falls area. But the secrecy is adding to unease in
Wyoming, where environmentalists are scrutinizing the production plan
- made public late Friday - and considering whether to fight it.<br>
<br>
They say the production effort is a potential threat to nearby
ecosystems, including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National
Park and the area around Jackson Hole, famous for its billionaires,
celebrities and weekend cowboys, including Vice President Dick
Cheney.<br>
<br>
"It's completely wrapped in the flag," said Mary
Woollen-Mitchell, executive director of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free,
a group based in Jackson Hole. "They absolutely won't let on"
about the missions.<br>
<br>
"People are starting to pay attention," she said of the
production plan. "On the street, just picking up my kids at
school, they're getting keyed up that something is in the
works."<br>
<br>
Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is
valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity.
Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft
that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells. For
instance, they now power the Cassini probe exploring Saturn and its
moons.<br>
<br>
Federal and private experts unconnected to the project said the new
plutonium would probably power devices for conducting espionage on
land and under the sea. Even if no formal plans now exist to use the
plutonium in space for military purposes, these experts said that the
material could be used by the military to power compact spy satellites
that would be hard for adversaries to track, evade or destroy.<br>
<br>
"It's going to be a tough world in the next one or two decades,
and this may be needed," said a senior federal scientist who
helps the military plan space missions and spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of the possibility that he would contradict federal
policies. "Technologically, it makes sense."<br>
<br>
Early in the nuclear era, the government became fascinated by
plutonium 238 and used it regularly to make nuclear batteries that
worked for years or decades. Scores of them powered satellites,
planetary probes and spy devices, at times with disastrous
results.<br>
<br>
In 1964, a rocket failure led to the destruction of a navigation
satellite powered by plutonium 238, spreading radioactivity around the
globe and starting a debate over the event's health effects.<br>
<br>
In 1965, high in the Himalayas, an intelligence team caught in a
blizzard lost a plutonium-powered device meant to spy on China. And in
1968, an errant weather satellite crashed into the Pacific, but
federal teams managed to recover its plutonium battery intact from the
Santa Barbara Channel, off California.</font></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font size="+1" color="#000000"><br>
Such accidents cooled enthusiasm for the batteries. But federal
agencies continued to use them for a more limited range of missions,
including those involving deep-space probes and top-secret devices for
tapping undersea cables.<br>
<br>
In 1997, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
prepared to launch its Cassini probe of Saturn, hundreds of protesters
converged on its Florida spaceport, arguing that an accident could
rupture the craft's nuclear batteries and condemn thousands of people
to death by cancer.<br>
<br>
Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than the kind of
plutonium used in nuclear arms, plutonium 239. Medical experts agree
that inhaling even a speck poses a serious risk of lung cancer.<br>
<br>
But federal experts say that the newest versions of the nuclear
batteries are made to withstand rupture into tiny particles and that
the risk of human exposure is extraordinarily low.<br>
<br>
Today, the United States makes no plutonium 238 and instead relies on
aging stockpiles or imports from Russia. By agreement with the
Russians, it cannot use the imported material - some 35 pounds since
the end of the cold war - for military purposes.<br>
<br>
With its domestic stockpile running low, Washington now wants to
resume production. Though it last made plutonium 238 in the 1980's at
the government's Savannah River plant in South Carolina, it now wants
to move such work to the Idaho National Laboratory and consolidate all
the nation's plutonium 238 activities there, including efforts now at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Tennessee.<br>
<br>
By centralizing everything in Idaho, the Energy Department hopes to
increase security and reduce the risks involved in transporting the
radioactive material over highways.<br>
<br>
Late Friday, the department posted a 500-page draft environmental
impact statement on the plan at</font><font size="+1" color="#000066">
www.consolidationeis.doe.gov</font><font size="+1" color="#000000">.
The public has 60 days to respond.<br>
<br>
Mr. Frazier said the department planned to weigh public reaction and
complete the regulatory process by late this year, and to finish the
plan early in 2006. The president would then submit it to Congress for
approval, he said. The work requires no international assent.<br>
<br>
The Idaho National Laboratory, founded in 1949 for atomic research,
stretches across 890 square miles of southeastern Idaho. The Big Lost
River wanders its length. The site is dotted with 450 buildings and 52
reactors - more than at any other place - most of them shut down. It
has long wrestled with polluted areas and recently sought to set new
standards in environmental restoration.<br>
<br>
New plutonium facilities there would take five years to build and cost
about $250 million, Mr. Frazier said. The operations budget would run
to some $40 million annually over 30 years, he said, for a total cost
of nearly $1.5 billion.<br>
<br>
An existing reactor there would make the plutonium. Mr. Frazier said
the goal was to start production by 2012 and have the first plutonium
available by 2013. When possible, Mr. Frazier said, the plutonium
would be used not only for national security but also for deep-space
missions, reducing dependence on Russian supplies.<br>
<br>
Since late last year, the Energy Department has tried to reassure
citizens living around the proposed manufacturing site of the plan's
necessity and safety.<br>
<br>
But political activists in Wyoming have expressed frustration at what
they call bureaucratic evasiveness regarding serious matters.
"It's the nastiest of the nasty," Ms. Woollen-Mitchell said
of plutonium 238.<br>
<br>
Early this year, she succeeded in learning some preliminary details of
the plan from the Energy Department. Mr. Frazier provided her with a
document that showed that production over 30 years would produce
51,590 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste.<br>
<br>
He also referred to the continuing drain on the government's national
security stockpile, saying the known missions by the end of this
decade would require 55 pounds of plutonium for 10 to 15 power
systems. Those uses, he said, would leave virtually no plutonium for
future classified missions.<br>
<br>
Ms. Woollen-Mitchell was unswayed. In January she told the Energy
Department that so much information about the plan remained hidden
that it had "given us serious pause."</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font size="+1" color="#000000"><br>
The Energy Department is courting Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free
because it has flexed its political muscle before. Starting in late
1999, financed by wealthy Jackson Hole residents like Harrison Ford,
it fought to stop the Idaho lab from burning plutonium-contaminated
waste in an incinerator and forced the lab to investigate
alternatives.<br>
<br>
In the recent interview, Mr. Frazier said he planned to talk to the
group on Tuesday and expressed hope of winning people over.<br>
<br>
"I don't know that I'll be able to make them perfectly
comfortable," he said, "but they know that the department is
willing to listen and talk and take their comments into
consideration."<br>
<br>
"We have a good case," Mr. Frazier added, saying the
department could show that the Idaho plan "can be done safely
with very minimal environmental impacts."<br>
</font></tt></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="-2" color="#000066">Copyright 2005 The
New York Times Company</font></div>
</body>
</html>