NEWS FROM ED MARKEY UNITED STATES CONGRESS MASSACHUSETTS 7TH
DISTRICT
 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE      December 9, 1996
 
CONTACT:  Michal Freedhoff
          (202) 225 2836
 
 
 
     MARKEY CRITICIZES ADMINISTRATION REVERSAL OF           
          20-YEAR PLUTONIUM POLICY
 
Calls Use of Plutonium "Burning a Hole" in Nonproliferation Net
 
 
WASHINGTON, DC -  Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) today released a
letter to the President taking sharp issue with the
Administration's consideration of the use of plutonium as a fuel
in civilian nuclear power plants. The letter was sent to
President Clinton last Friday, December 6.
 
"This decision, if implemented, will be a major setback in U.S.
non-proliferation policy," said Markey. "This is the match that
will burn a hole in our nonproliferation safety net."
 
Rep. Markey was joined in the letter by seven other Members of
Congress in urging the President to reject a DOE proposal that
could reverse twenty years of U.S. non-proliferation policy.
Approval of the proposal could result in the burning of excess
weapons-grade plutonium in civilian nuclear reactors. Instead of
allowing plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads to be used as
fuel, the letter recommended that the Administration support the
safer and more economical means of disposal and solidification in
glass.
 
The lawmakers' letter warned that "Using plutonium for civilian
power generation purposes would reverse twenty years of U.S.
policy, would undermined the U.S. message to the rest of the
world on commercial plutonium use, and could result in some
countries using he pretext of military plutonium disposal to
design and construct nuclear power plants that depend on
plutonium for fuel." The risk of theft of plutonium by terrorists
also increases as the materials would have to be transported from
military to civilian facilities.
************************************************************
 
December 6, 1996
 
President William J. Clinton 
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
 
Dear Mr. President:
 
     We are writing to urge you to reject proposals to dispose of
nuclear materials from dismantled nuclear warheads by burning
them as fuel in civilian nuclear power plants. We understand that
the Department of Energy shortly plans to submit a programmatic
environmental impact statement that will recommend a plutonium
disposal strategy which could result in two thirds of the 50 tons
of excel weapons-usable material being incorporated into a mixed
-oxide fuel (MOX) which would be burned in U.S. commercial
nuclear reactors. Reportedly, under this proposal, the remaining
weapons material would be immobilized in glass for subsequent
disposal in a permanent underground repository. We are writing to
strongly urge you to reject the proposed hybrid disposal plan in
light of its adverse implications for U.S.  nuclear
nonproliferation policy, and to opt instead for the safe and more
economical means of plutonium disposal through immobilization
alone.
 
In a November 1, 1996 memo to Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, Mr.
John Holum, Director of the United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, says that the use of plutonium in U.S.
commercial nuclear reactors "would set a very damaging precedent
for U.S. non-proliferation policy." It is clear that plutonium
use for civilian power generation purposes would reverse twenty
years of U.S. policy, would undermined the U.S. message to the
rest of the world discouraging commercial plutonium use, and
could result in some countries using the pretext of military
plutonium disposal to design and construct nuclear power plants
that depend on plutonium for fuel. We are also concerned that the
security risks associated with the transport of plutonium from
military facilities to civilian reactor sites and its subsequent
storage in the civilian locations increases the opportunities for
theft or diversion by terrorists.
 
In addition to the security risks associated with using MOX as
fuel, we also believe that the plan may be economically flawed.
The Department of Energy reportedly acknowledges that the
production of MOX is a more expensive means of military plutonium
disposal than immobilization in glass, and that it will take 3-6
years longer to implement.
 
For all of the aforementioned reasons, we strongly urge you to
recommend that the disposal of excess plutonium be restricted to
immobilization in glass, and that you reject the dangerous and
expensive "hybrid" option of also preparing to burn MOX fuel in
civilian reactors.
 
Thank you for you consideration of our views on this matter.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Edward J. Markey
Member of Congress
(D-MA)
 
Robert A. Underwood
Member of Congress
(Delegate, Guam)
 
John Lewis
Member of Congress
(D-GA)
 
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Member of Congress
(D-CA)
 
Carolyn B. Maloney
Member of Congress
(D-NY)
 
Thomas M. Barrett
Member of Congress
(D-WI)
 
Howard Berman
Member of Congress
(D-CA)
 
Peter A. DeFazio
Member of Congress
(D-OR)