Nuclear Weapons Fuel Still a Burning Question

Re “From Plutonium to Plowshares,” Commentary, Oct. 31: Brent Scowcroft and Daniel Poneman’s proposal to burn weapons-grade plutonium in civil reactors will make a bad problem worse. The proposal will not eliminate the plutonium: About 70% will remain in the spent fuel. In the manufacturing of the plutonium-based fuel, there is the risk of diversion. The proposal further violates a long-standing policy initiated by the Ford administration not to use plutonium as a fuel because it would encourage other nations, thereby risking nuclear weapons proliferation.

And because such fuel increases radiation damage to reactor core structures, the probability of catastrophic failure increases. In the event of accident--or reactor sabotage, which we must be concerned about for the foreseeable future--the plutonium composition will significantly impact the long-term human and environmental consequences. There is, however, a better option: mix the plutonium with highly radioactive fission products for deep geological disposal. This will isolate the material and largely eliminate the attendant risks.

Bennett Ramberg

Los Angeles

*

I am very much in favor of the proposal by Scowcroft and Poneman to burn the weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear power plants. I found a reference to a report, published in January 1994, by the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences, which made a similar proposal. This proposal made a lot of sense then and is even more important today, with the threats of terrorism.

Eugene B. Turner

Torrance