NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/environm/2978

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-25 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: DOE Plans to Build New Savannah River Reprocessing Facility
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:33:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>
>DOCUMENT OBTAINED BY GREENPEACE REVEALS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PLAN
>TO BUILD NEW NUCLEAR REPROCESSING FACILITY AT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
>
>   Greenpeace Calls for Planning of Plutonium Factory to Halt
>
>     According to the document, engineering and design work
>would not begin until 2006, with completion of the building
>taking 12 years after authorization from Congress.
>
>     "It is absolutely ridiculous that DOE has already begun
>planning on a new plutonium factory at SRS - not only does this
>violate the spirit of the ongoing modernization study, but there
>is no demonstrated need whatsoever for this facility," according
>to Tom Clements of Greenpeace.  "DOE should immediately renounce
>this plan and explain that a huge stockpile of plutonium and
>uranium from retired nuclear weapons precludes the need for
>any further reprocessing at SRS."

DOE is exercising sound judgement in proceeding with contingency
planning for a follow on facility at SRS. No one can predict the
political state of the world in 2018. It is prudent to begin today
to study what steps would be necessary to continue plutonium
production and processing in the next century. There may not be
time for another Manhattan Project if political winds change, and
certainly not time to do the job as cleanly as possible.

SRS must begin almost immediately to produce new tritium if our
current weapons are to be maintained as a functional deterent.
Plutonium reprocessing and production must begin no later than
2020 in order to maintain the viability of our weapons. The
current plants at SRS will be difficult to keep in operation
as early as 2010 and the technology they use is already 30
years out of date. Today is none to soon to begin planning
follow on facilities to bolster the *proven* program of nuclear
deterrence.

>     Clements added that "Operation of this facility will only
>lead to discharge of more high level nuclear waste, for which no
>method of safe disposal exists.  Most importantly, continued
>production of plutonium will only encourage global proliferation
>of this toxic bomb material.  The U.S. government should take
>steps to dispose of plutonium rather than sending the signal to
>the world community that plutonium extraction is acceptable."

Plutonium extraction is not only acceptable, it's mandatory to
provide continued security and energy needs into the next century.
If, as Clements claims, there is no method of safe disposal for
nuclear wastes, there is but Greenhype has blocked it's implementation,
then how does he expect the plutonium to be disposed of?

>     Approximately 35 million gallons of extremely dangerous
>high level nuclear waste, a by-product of reprocessing, are
>currently stored in tanks at the Savannah River Site.
>Reprocessing produces about 100 times more waste, in volume,
>than the volume of the material being reprocessed.

And proper disposal of that waste concentrates it and glassifies it
to a volume 1,000 times less than is currently required to be stored.
That's because Greenhype and it's fellow travellers block construction
of permanent waste disposal facilities. The bulk of high level nuclear
waste is nonradioactive atoms. Concentration removes most of them before
glassification. Low level waste is less radioactive than the natural
ores from which nuclear materials are extracted and requires no more
care in it's disposal than the original natural material. IE bury it
in a hole.

Gary