Plutonium restrictions may fall

Recent administrative action that would allow a 1,540-pound
increase in the amount of plutonium stored at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory is causing concern over the possible health
hazards to surrounding residents.

According to a new environmental impact statement by the
National Nuclear Society Administration (NNSA) to be released
today, the amount of allowable plutonium stored at the University
of California-managed lab and handled by scientists in individual
rooms would double, permitting multiple research experiments to
occur at the same time. The new, less stringent restrictions would
potentially allow a total of 1.5 tons of plutonium into the
facility over the next decade.

The increase in plutonium levels would allow the laboratory to
conduct more experiments regarding national security. John Belardo,
a member of the nuclear administration, said the reason for the
enlargement of the plutonium storage is “potentially to
conduct classified research experiments for the NNSA.”

“Although (the legislation) raises the administrative
limit, it does not necessarily mean we’ll take the amount of
plutonium to that level,” he added.

Plutonium is a radioactive material that is used to make nuclear
bombs. Scientists at the laboratory are researching ways to apply
plutonium’s ability to generate a nuclear chain-reaction to
the manufacturing and redesigning of nuclear technology. According
to an April 23 article in the Oakland Tribune, one reason for the
increase may be a new laboratory experimental production line for
casting plutonium pits. These, along with explosives and
detonators, could serve as miniature atomic bombs.

Tom Grim, who managed the environmental impact statement with a
group of 20 writers, contradicted this, saying, “The reason
for the new limit is to store excess plutonium. Some of the
facilities to dispose of that plutonium have already started, and
some will take over a decade. We accumulate this excess plutonium
and store it in a bank-like vault.”

Plutonium’s radioactivity, as well as possible safety
breaches within the actual laboratory, have many California
environmental groups concerned over the increase of the material
within the facility.

“There is a long history of plutonium leaks at the
Livermore lab. It has escaped from the lab and turned up in the
community, and workers are exposed. It is true to say that our
health is at risk,” said Marylia Kelley of the Tri-Valley
CARES, a Northern California environmental group.

“The plutonium, in exposed victims, can tear up the cell
in cellular DNA, causing medical problems anywhere from cancer to a
suppressed immune system,” she said.

Within the past decade, the lab has been shut down three times
because of safety breaches. Plutonium has escaped from smoke
stacks, been accidentally dumped into drains and has escaped
through ventilation ducts that were covered using only duct tape.
The lab has been shut down since Jan. 15 of this year for further
safety inspections, according to Kelley.

“The other problem is with safety management. There are no
safety procedures because they don’t even have enough to know
the magnitude of the safety problems,” Kelley said. She added
that the plutonium may be vulnerable to theft or terror attacks
because of the location of the laboratory in an urban area.

Grim said the new amount of plutonium stored at the facility
would cause no further safety risks.

“We already store plutonium. Storing more will not be any
additional risk,” he said.

But Kelley pointed out that the use and storage of plutonium
within the lab is unneeded and poses a safety risk.

“The small fraction of work that needs to be done could be
done at the more isolated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New
Mexico without vamping up their plutonium activity. We believe that
this impact statement is 180 degrees the wrong way to go. The
Department of Energy should make a decision to reduce the plutonium
at Livermore, not increase it,” she said.