Dismantling the Bomb and Managing the Nuclear Materials September 1993 OTA-O-572 NTIS order #PB94-107554 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Dismantling the Bomb and Managing the Nuclear Materials, OTA-O-572 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993). For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-932X” ISBN 0-16 -041968-9 ii Foreword he Nation has embarked on a bold new mission to enhance world peace through deep and lasting cuts in nuclear arsenals. It has removed thousands of nuclear weapons from active, deployed status and has begun eliminating delivery systems and dismantling the warheads themselves. Our old Cold War adversary,T the former Soviet Union, has taken similar steps. The United States and Russia have pledged to continue their programs of weapons retirement and warhead dismantlement, and are discussing methods of defining and achieving long-term goals. Such efforts are unprecedented and challenging; they require resources and talent as well as enduring dedication within Government institutions. People are concerned that the work be conducted so as to avoid the types of adverse environmental and health impacts that resulted from nuclear weapons production in the past. Experts have been investigating how to use, control, or dispose of the nuclear materials-plutonium and highly enriched uranium—recovered from dismantled warheads. For these reasons, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs requested that the Office of Technology Assessment conduct a study of the key technical, policy, and institutional options to be considered in the Federal Government’s plans. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations endorsed this request. This report presents the results of OTA’s investigations and analyses. Although current Federal efforts are adequate for the present, they are insufficient to meet the long-term challenge ahead. OTA concludes that the success of future warhead dismantlement and materials management requires a focused, high-level governmental effort to develop a comprehensive national policy. It also requires an open decisionmaking process and capable institutions to set and implement long-range goals and plans. In this report, OTA suggests various initiatives that Congress could consider to establish a national policy, determine the next steps in warhead dismantlement and nuclear materials management, approach decisions on the ultimate disposition of nuclear materials, enhance the institutional capabilities necessary to ensure success, and encourage sound dismantlement and materials management in Russia. Substantial assistance was received from many organizations and individuals for this study. OTA sincerely appreciates the guidance received from its advisory panel, workshop participants, numerous reviewers, contributors, consultants, and contractors. We also received help from several Federal agencies, including the Departments of Energy, Defense, and State, and other Federal, State, and local agencies. Without this cooperation and expert advice, OTA would not have been able to accomplish this study. Roger C. Herdman, Director . Ill Advisory Panel John E. Till Daniel S. Miller, Esq. Chair-ma Colorado Office of the Attorney General Radiological Assessments Corp. John M. Napier John F. Ahearne Techniques, Inc. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society Robert H. Neill Charles Barrett Environmental Evaluation Group Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Worker’s State of New Mexico International Union Louis Peoples Thomas A. Burke Madison Gas & Electric Co. School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Ambassador Rozanne L. Ridgway The Atlantic Council of the United States Beverly E.C. Gattis STAND of Amarillo., Inc. Frank N. von Hippel Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Esq.l International Affairs Goodwin, Procter and Hoar Princeton University Kenneth Liechtenstein James D. Wernerl Division of Infectious Disease Natural Resources Defense Council Rose Medical Center John M. Whiteley Robert R. Loux Professor, Social Ecology and Social Sciences Nuclear Waste Project Office University of California at Irvine State of Nevada NOTE: OTA appreciates andis gratefulfor the valuubleassistance andthoughtjidcritiques provided by theadvisorypanel members. Thepanel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumesfill responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. IJ=S D. Werner aud Shern Wasserman Goodmau served on the Piuwl before joining DOE and DOD, respectively. iv Project Staff Clyde Behney PETER A. JOHNSON German Reyes Assistant Director Project Director Analyst Health, Life Sciences and the Environment Emilia L. Govan Kathy Cox Project Director Analyst John Andelin Assistant Director, Mark Brown Paul Carroll to Aug. 31, 1993 Senior Analyst Research Analyst Robert Niblock Joan Ham Program Manager Senior Analyst Oceans and Environment ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF CONTRACTORS Kathleen Beil Jackie Braitman Arjun Makhijani Office Administrator Kahtilya Consulting, Inc. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Kimberly Holmlund Robert Budnitz Administrative Secretary Future Resources Associates Robert Morgan Washington University Sharon Knarvik Stan Kolar Secretary Kolar Associates Florence Poillon Editor Stephen Lipmann CONTRIBUTORS Environmental Research and Monica Schoch-Spana Isaac Amuah Analysis Consultant Jan Linsenmeyer Allison Lowery Tara O’Toole v workshop Participants PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION WORKSHOP John Ahearne Brian Costner Marvin Miller Sigma Xi Energy Research Foundation Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carl Anderson Alan Croff National Research Council Oak Ridge National Laboratory Loring Mills Edison Electric Institute Robert Bernero Harold Feiveson Nuclear Regulatory Commission Princeton University William Sutcliffe Lawrence Livermore National Carl Bloomster Thomas Fox Laboratory Pacific Northwest Laboratory Pacific Northwest Laboratory Ted Taylor Robert Civiak Arjun Makhijani Consultant Office of Management and Budget Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Louis Willett Thomas Cochran U.S. Department of Energy Natural Resources Defense Council Howard Canter Charles Haughney Duane Schmoker U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pacific Nuclear Corp. Jesse Cleveland Dewey Large William Shuler U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Ecology Inc. U.S. Department of Defense Paul Cunningham Paul Maddox Victor Trelis Los Alamos National Laboratory Westinghouse Savannah River U.S. Department of Energy Corp. Ted Dobry John Trout U.S. Department of Energy Ed Moore U.S. Corps of Engineers Westinghouse Savannah River Joel Gingold Corp. Louis Willett S.M. Stoner Corp. U.S. Department of Energy vi c ontents 1 Summary 1 The Challenge 2 The Office of Technology Assessment Study 3 Dismantlement of Nuclear Warheads 5 Management of Nuclear Materials 10 Information Access 13 Cooperation With Russia 14 Conclusion 15 2 Analysis of Warhead Retirement Programs and Plans 17 DOD: Weapons Return and Preparations for Dismantlement 22 Nuclear Weapons Safety Issues 25 Conclusion 30 Chapter 2 References 31 3 Warhead Dismantlement Programs and Plans 33 Present DOE Activities and Plans 33 Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues in Dismantlement 45 Conclusions 61 Chapter 3 References 62 4 Future Disposition of Nuclear Materials from Dismantled Weapons 67 Overall Disposition Concerns 70 Plutonium Storage 77 Plutonium Processing 87 Plutonium Disposition-Conclusion 99 Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium 100 Chapter 4 References 105 5 Public Concerns and Information Access 109 Public Concerns 111 Information Access 116 Approaches for Institutional Changes 120 Conclusion 122 Chapter 5 References 123 vii 6 Opportunities to Aid Russian Dismantlement 125 Warhead Dismantlement in Russia 126 Management of Russian Plutonium 135 U.S. Agreement for Purchase of Russian Weapons HEU 137 Conclusion 143 Chapter preferences 145 7 Policy Issues and Initiatives 149 A National Dismantlement Policy 151 Strengthening DOE Management 152 Nuclear Materials Storage 154 Nuclear Materials Disposition 157 A New Materials Management Organization 159 Information Access 161 Cooperation With Russia 163 Conclusion 166 A Plutonium Pit Storage at Pantex 169 B United States and Russia Joint Understanding on Strategic Offensive Arms 179 c United States and Russian Agreement on the SSD Program 181 D United States and Russian Agreement on the Disposition of Uranium from Nuclear Weapons 185 E Labor and the Mission Change Within DOE 189 F Acronyms and Glossary 197 G Reviewers 201 . Vlll Summary 1 uring the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union built and maintained large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Over the past 2 years, the leaders of these nations have pledged to withdraw tactical weapons and Dsharply reduce the size of the strategic weapons arsenal. Both nations have begun to retire thousands of weapons and to dismantle the nuclear warheads-the part of the weapon that contains its massive destructive power. Reducing the nuclear “Successful dismantlement arsenals of both nations presents a unique opportunity and a and disposition of the weapons challenge. The opportunity is to eliminate large numbers of materials may be the single warheads and reduce the threat of nuclear war. The challenge is most important public health, to devise feasible and practical means of dismantling them and environmental, and social managing