Congress Votes FY 1998 Funding for Controversial Plutonium Disposal Program

With passage of H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY 1998, Congress endorsed a controversial Department of Energy proposal to dispose of surplus weapons grade plutonium. Conference report language accompanying the bill urges DOE to begin work promptly on the storage and disposition of this material, which the National Academy of Sciences characterized in 1994 as “a clear and present danger.”

In December 1996, former DOE Secretary Hazel O’Leary released a study outlining two plutonium disposal approaches: immobilization in glass or ceramic form for storage in a geological repository and/or combining plutonium into a mixed oxide fuel for use in nuclear power plants (see #166- 1996.)

The conference report language approved last week leaves little doubt that Congress wants DOE to proceed. In a section entitled, “Fissile Materials Disposition,” the report states:

“The conference agreement provides the budget request of $103,796,000 for fissile materials disposition. The Department is commended for its recognition that, despite the controversy it evokes, the burn-up of plutonium in mixed-oxide fuel is the preferred method of disposing of large volumes of weapons grade plutonium. The conferees expect the Department to adhere to the schedule and process for selection of contractors for the mixed-oxide fuel plant and reactors in fiscal year 1998.

“However, the conferees direct that the principle objective of the materials disposition program be the conversion of Russian and United States classified materials shapes with special emphasis on weapon primary “pits” into non-weapons usable, verifiable shapes and forms. Material in classified shapes is by far the most attractive for diversion, theft or weapons reassembly, and for that reason this class of material requires immediate attention even if its initial treatment does not lead immediately to final disposition. The conversion of weapons grade plutonium into metallic or oxide forms is acceptable for this step. The choice between oxide or metallic forms should be dictated solely by the rapidity with which the conversion can be accomplished and is dependent upon construction details for different classified shapes. Any delays in this first step predicated on additional research for methods of preparation of materials forms or licensing issues for eventual disposition in mixed-oxide fuel or vitrification are not acceptable. Adequate technologies are available today for conversion of all types of classified shapes.”

An August 1997 DOE “Strategic Plan: Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials,” reiterates that DOE is pursuing both disposal techniques. It states: “The extent to which immobilization or a combination of both approaches are implemented will be determined by future events and considerations, including follow-on work to resolve technical, institutional, cost and international concerns.”

The FY 1998 appropriations language appears somewhat at variance with the strategic plan’s schedule, which is: FY 1998 - selection of immobilization technology; FY 1999 - site selection, completion of “procurement for MOX/irradiation services,” and prototype demonstration of “integrated plutonium pit disassembly and conversion system,” FY 2005 - “construct and operate a full scale facility,” “initiate the immobilization of surplus plutonium in an existing or planned high level waste vitrification facility” and “by FY 2005, or such other date specified in bilateral agreement(s) with Russia, initiate the disposition of surplus U.S. weapons plutonium;" FY 2007 - “private sector to initiate irradiation of MOX fuel.”