|
 The demand has the potential to embarrass the Obama administration
a week before it hosts an important summit on nuclear
non-proliferation and undermine what so far has been viewed as a
success in keeping weapons-grade material safe.
The ship loaded with weapons-grade plutonium left Japan for a
Department of Energy site in South Carolina on Tuesday in what is
the largest such shipment of the highly dangerous material since
1992, the environmental group Greenpeace said.
The shipment "puts South Carolina at risk for becoming a permanent
dumping ground for nuclear materials," Haley said in the letter
dated March 23. "Therefore, stop shipment or re-route this defense
plutonium. God bless."
A representative for the U.S. Department of Energy said it is
reviewing Haley's letter but cannot comment on matters under active
litigation. The state has sued the department over the federal
government's plans to scrap a plutonium recycling plant that has
been under construction for years in the state.
The dispute comes as Washington prepares to host the Nuclear
Security Summit March 31 to April 1.
The plutonium being shipped was supplied by the United States,
Britain and France for the government-owned Japan Atomic Energy
Agency's Fast Critical Assembly research project in Tokai Mura,
according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials.
The agreement to transfer the material to the United States was
reached in March 2014 at a previous non-proliferation summit, the
panel said on its website.
A South Carolina-based environmental advocacy group said the
shipment "only exacerbates the plutonium storage and disposition
problems at" the department's Savannah River Site, a 310-square mile
(500 square kilometers) area bordered by the Savannah River and
Georgia.
"The U.S. Government has done a poor job of explaining why this
material is being taken to SRS,” Tom Clements, director of SRS
Watch, said in a statement.
The 331 kilograms (730 pounds) on board the British-owned Pacific
Egret is only a tiny proportion of the nearly 50 tonnes (55 tons) of
plutonium held by Japan.
ENOUGH FOR 50 NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Japan wants to use the plutonium extracted from spent fuel in
nuclear plants as fuel for modified reactors. But with nearly all
the country's units still shut down in the wake of the Fukushima
nuclear disaster five years ago and no schedule for further restarts
there is little use for the material.
Only a few reactors can take plutonium as fuel.
A homegrown reprocessing plant being built in northern Japan, which
has relied on the British and French to extract plutonium from spent
uranium fuel rods, also has the potential to add to the stockpile,
although its start has been repeatedly delayed.
[to top of second column] |
The plutonium being shipped, enough to make about 50 nuclear
weapons, was taken from the nuclear research center in the port town
of Tokai Mura near Tokyo, for transport to South Carolina.
The website www.vesselfinder.com said the ship is a nuclear fuel
carrier.
Shipments of plutonium are highly sensitive because it can be used
in nuclear weapons or to make a so-called dirty bomb. In Japan,
public sensitivity is also high because it is the only country that
has been attacked with nuclear bombs.
Japan is also the only nation without atomic weapons with
significant amounts of plutonium, which has led to constant
criticism from neighboring countries, scientists and others.
China, a nuclear weapons state, this week said Japan should abide by
its non-proliferation obligations.
"Japan is still stockpiling a large amount of other sensitive
nuclear materials, including separated plutonium and highly enriched
uranium. This certainly is an issue for the international community
to be concerned about,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua
Chunying said on Tuesday.
Thomas Countryman, an assistant U.S. secretary of state in charge of
non-proliferation, has called into question the renewal of an
agreement between Washington and Tokyo that allows Japan to
reprocess and produce weapons-grade plutonium.
The agreement is due to be extended in 2018, but with a new U.S.
administration starting in January its status is unclear.
"We think that there are genuine economic questions where it's
important that the U.S. and its partners in Asia have a common
understanding of the economic and non-proliferation issues at stake
before making a decision about renewal of the 1-2-3 Agreement, for
example, with Japan," Countryman told a Senate hearing last week.
(Reporting by Aaron Sheldrick in Tokyo and and Megan Cassella in
Washington; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing and
Valerie Volcovici and David Brunnstrom in Washington; Editing by
Susan Heavey and Andrea Ricci)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
