IEER's plutonium project is moving into high gear with our recent submission to President Clinton of a letter urging him to declare plutonium a security, economic, and environmental liability. The draft declaration, printed below, was enclosed with the letter. IEER believes that a strong public declaration by the President would be a first step toward the vital goal of ending all production and use of plutonium world-wide.

The United States is in a good position to take the lead on this issue. It stopped producing plutonium in 1988 and is currently deciding how to dispose of plutonium from dismantled warheads. In addition, Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary has already said that surplus military plutonium "is a global security risk and an economic liability." Because the U.S. has little interest in plutonium, we believe that the President would agree to IEER's recommendation that he declare plutonium a liability. This would then prompt other countries that are more wedded to plutonium, such as Britain, France, and Japan, to rethink their plutonium plans.

Over three dozen groups from around the country have signed on to the letter to the President. We will keep you posted on its progress and continue our work to keep plutonium issues high on the Administration's agenda.

A Declaration that plutonium is a liability
It is U.S. government policy, based on extensive evidence and analysis, including the January 1994 study by the National Academy of Sciences, that all excess plutonium is a security, economic, and environmental liability. Excess plutonium is defined as all plutonium, of military or civilian origin, in any chemical form, that is not a physical component of the weapons designated as part of the U.S. arsenal in the Nuclear Stockpile Memorandum. It has the following operational meaning for policy:

• Excess plutonium will not be used to make nuclear weapons.
• Excess plutonium will not be regarded as part of an energy program. This does not a priori preclude using nuclear reactors as part of the disposition decision, but it does exclude any plutonium separation from spent fuel. The choice of a plutonium disposition option would be made on the basis of security and environmental criteria, and not on the energy value of plutonium.
• The U.S. government will make it a priority to persuade other countries to join in a similar declaration, even if their current position is that plutonium is a valuable energy resource. Cooperative exploration of energy policy issues will be an important part of U.S. diplomacy on plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the other fissile material of great concern to our security.

For more information on plutonium as a liability, see IEER's report, Fissile Materials in a Glass, Darkly.

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Comments toOutreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

Last updated: September 1996