The Washington Peace Letter is published monthly for the social justice community of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Its purpose is to support local, national and international struggles against oppression. It seeks to present a radical analysis of current events, covering information not readily available in the corporate media.

The Peace Letter welcomes submissions of calendar announcements, articles, letters to the Editor, and artwork from the progressive community. Articles may be from 300-1200 words, but may be edited for space considerations. Preference is given to materials that cover actions or organizing campaigns in the D.C. metropolitan area.

We reserve the right to select or reject any submission.

Except as noted, Peace Letter items are copyright free and may be reproduced. Please give credit and send us a copy if you do use something.

Alliance Calls for Nuclear Accountability
by Jim Bridgman

April 2001
Volume 38, No. 3

Bleak times are often great times of opportunity. During the Reagan and Bush years of the 1980s, as social spending was slashed, military spending ballooned, and deficits turned into a multi-trillion dollar national debt, millions of people joined organizations to support national and international causes such as promoting peace, preserving the environment, and ending hunger and homelessness. Apathy in the political process declined, funding for non-profits increased and people rallied in the streets with a genuine sense of moral outrage.

Now we have a Republican presidency and a Republican congress, a weakened Democratic Party and emboldened business lobbies that are bringing legislation out of the closet to thrust upon a willing conservative government. Add to this a trembling economy and the picture looks bleak indeed.

But out of dark times can come bright lights that enlighten the public again to their interests and how much they differ from the moneyed interests who too often have their way on Capitol Hill. One such bright light is the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), a network of over thirty watchdog groups working on weapons, cleanup and health issues in the shadows of the nation's nuclear weapons complex.

ANA will host its 13th annual DC Days from April 29 - May 2 in Washington, DC. This is a great opportunity for citizens to get involved in the political process and help counter proposals for a federal budget that favors an already bloated nuclear weapons complex while cutting funding for environmental cleanup.

Stockpile "Stewardship" and New Nuclear Weapons

A prime target for those opposing nuclear weapons is the Department of Energy's (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). Contrary to the SSP's proponents, most of the new bomb program has little or nothing to do with safety (preventing accidental detonations) or reliability (ensuring bombs explode as predicted). Instead, SSP maintains and develops the capability to design and build new weapons and to train a new generation of nuclear weapon designers.

The Stockpile Stewardship Program runs counter to our Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations to negotiate, in good faith, nuclear disarmament. Already India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons and more countries will follow as long as the United States continues its massive investment in nuclear bomb design and production.

Costing now over $5 billion dollars annually, Stockpile Stewardship is more expensive than full-scale nuclear weapons production was during the Cold War.

The most expensive facility inside SSP is the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Located at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) in California, the NIF's stated mission is to "enable key programs and technologies that support the Department of Energy Defense Programs and LLNL missions of ensuring that the nation's nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable" (see http://www.llnl.gov/nif/dir_about.html). The NIF will cost at least $10 billion over its 30-year lifetime and will do more for research into new nuclear weapons designs than the safety and reliability of existing weapons.

The issue of new nuclear weapons has become a prominent issue in arms control and disarmament circles since Senators Warner (R-VA) and Allard (R-CO) teamed up to include language in last year's Defense Authorization bill that requires a $6 million research project by the DOE into new weapons designs that could penetrate hardened bunkers buried deep underground. Based on a paper issued by one of DOE's weaponeers, the intent is to design a mini-nuclear weapon that could blast into secret military bunkers without hurting surrounding populations.The upshot is that some hawkish Senators are getting set to throw away a 50-year taboo on the use of nuclear weapons in warfare by creating plans for their possible use in conventional conflicts.

Nuclear Waste: Yucca and Mox

On the other end of the nuclear weapons production problem is the issue of nuclear waste and excess nuclear materials. Those who have already campaigned against "Mobile Chernobyl," the transportation of nuclear waste on our nation's highways and railways, can now play a helpful role in stopping the opening of Yucca Mountain, a proposed repository for nuclear waste in Nevada. Despite the scientists who have raised serious concerns about the safety of nuclear waste buried in a geologically unstable area for thousands of years, the DOE is pushing to wrap up its regulatory prep-work and open the repository to waste shipments. Raising the stakes, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the weakened radiation standards proposed for Yucca Mountain would provide a precedent for other nuclear sites around the country.

In a related vein, the DOE wants to pursue a technology known as MOX (mixed-oxide fuel) that would purportedly take care of the problem of excess weapons-grade plutonium by using it as fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. The plan poses a serious risk to nonproliferation by encouraging commerce in plutonium here and abroad. Legislation has already been introduced this year that would promote MOX and other dangerous forms of reprocessing. Immobilizing the plutonium, which strengthens the infrastructure for cleanup and advances cleanup technologies, is a more desirable alternative.

Cleanup and Health

Throughout the United States are sites contaminated with radioactive and hazardous materials stemming from nuclear weapons development and production. Agreements between states, the EPA and the DOE to regulate cleanup create legal obligations, which may be violated if projected cuts to the cleanup budget move forward. This could increase the long-term costs of cleanup by inviting legal battles and allowing contaminants to spread further before they are cleaned up. Contaminants are already ruining drinking water in many places. For example, Uranium levels in the Great Miami Aquifer in Ohio have reached 2100 parts per billion (ppb) where the proposed standard is 20 ppb. Contamination from the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington State threatens one of the last Chinook salmon spawning beds in the Columbia River.

Even if adequate cleanup funding was obtained, the technology to thoroughly clean many areas does not yet exist. Partly because of pressure from ANA's membership, the DOE has been forced to create a plan for Long Term Stewardship. The plan will only work though if continued pressure is applied to ensure long term funding and vigilance over cleanup programs at various sites.

The results of 50 years of nuclear contamination are already being felt across the country. The National Cancer Institute estimates that as many as 212,000 Americans have already died from thyroid cancers caused by nuclear weapons tests in the 1950's and 1960's that blanketed the entire country in fallout. After decades of denial, the DOE has publicly acknowledged that many workers were contaminated at nuclear sites and legislation is now in the works to provide some form of compensation. The challenge will be to ensure that care for these communities extends beyond the facility fence lines.

The Challenge Ahead

Clearly we face an uphill battle: new nukes, increased funding for weapons, reduced funding for cleanup, the push for premature nuclear waste policies and the absence of a concern for the wider public health effects of nuclear weapons contamination. However, given enough public pressure, we can counter the cynics and the antagonistic supporters of all-things nuclear. Together we can make a difference.

Jim Bridgman Program Director Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 1801 18th Street, Suite 9-2 Washington, DC 20009 202-833-4668 202-234-9536 (fax) jcbridgman@earthlink.net

Back to Top