Feds shipping weapons-grade plutonium to Savannah River Site

Feds shipping weapons-grade plutonium to Savannah River Site

Effingham: 50 miles Downstream and 80 miles Downstream

By STEPHEN SACCO
Staff Reporter of the
Effingham Herald (Rincon, Ga.)

Here's a question you don't hear every day: What should be done with 34 metric tons (MT) of surplus weapons-grade plutonium?

If the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Bush Administration have their way this weapons-grade plutonium will be headed for the DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS), a nuclear facility in South Carolina approximately 80 miles up river from Effingham County, where the federal government wants to use it to fabricate fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. In fact, some of it is being shipped there already.

But some people think this is a very bad idea.

The Savannah River Site is within the 50-mile radius of Effingham County measured "as the crow flies." This means that an accident at SRS would most likely impact Effingham.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a meeting in Savannah on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 to discuss with the public the licensing of a facility to be built at the SRS that would make fuel from the plutonium. At this meeting a number of groups and private individuals spoke in opposition to the plan. Though nobody spoke in support at the Savannah meeting, the NRC meetings in North Augusta, GA and Charlotte, N.C. did have supporters as well as opponents.

Former South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges created a stir in 2002 when he filed suit to stop the transportation of plutonium to SRS. At one point, then-Governor Hodges even threatened to lie down in the road to block the shipments. He took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The high court declined to hear it.

"For South Carolina and Georgia to simply accept this without a fight is both dumb and shortsighted," Hodges said in an email to The Herald. "Plutonium is dangerous stuff. Somebody had to stand up to this wrongheaded move. I'm glad I did it."

Hodges, who left office this year after losing his reelection bid, was worried that the plutonium would sit in long-term storage at SRS, a facility that is not equipped to handle long-term storage of plutonium.

"To save money," Hodges said, "[the Federal government] broke their commitment to South Carolina and shelved the second part of the disposal strategy."

The current occupant of the South Carolina State House, Governor Mark Sanford, supports the DOE's plan.

In the United States nuclear fuel is made from low-enriched uranium, which is cheaper to produce and safer than plutonium. Plutonium is the material used to make nuclear weapons.

Rogue states and terrorist organizations have been trying for years to get their hands on weapons-grade plutonium. Just a little plutonium in a dirty bomb (i.e., conventional explosives with nuclear material attached) would be a disaster. Weapons-grade plutonium in its powdered or oxide form is very dangerous because it can be breathed into the lungs and will stay in the body for decades and cause cancer.

If plutonium can be rendered to a state similar to uranium fuel after being used (or irradiated) in a nuclear reactor, it is "unattractive" to terrorists because, though it is possible to extract the plutonium, it would be very difficult and require vast resources. This meets what the National Academy of Science (NAS) calls the Spent Fuel Standard.

How do you turn the plutonium into spent fuel?

There are two methods endorsed by the NAS.

The first is to fabricate fuel from the plutonium and use it in nuclear reactors. This fuel is called mixed oxide fuel or MOX.

The second is a process called "immobilization." Immobilization consists of mixing the plutonium with other radioactive waste and ceramic material until it is in a "glassified" form and then storing it in canisters. In theory somebody could steal a canister of immobilized plutonium but it is so radioactive that they wouldn't live long after opening it.

In 2000 the Federal government chose both methods when the Clinton Administration signed an agreement with Russia to dispose of surplus plutonium using both immobilization and MOX fuel.

But in February of 2002 the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an independent agency under the Department of Energy, reassessed the plutonium policy in a report to Congress.

An all-immobilization method was found to be less expensive ($3.2 billion compared to $3.8 billion for MOX) but the NNSA determined that immobilization would not satisfy U.S.-Russian agreements for plutonium disposal.

"Russian officials said they would not eliminate surplus plutonium if the U.S. pursues an immobilization-only approach," Bryan Wilkes from the NNSA explained, "because they consider the immobilization process reversible."

The NNSA decided it was too expensive to pursue both options and choose MOX.

At that point, three companies - Duke Energy (a North Carolina utility), COGEMA Inc. (a French company that operates MOX fuel facilities in Europe) and Stone & Webster (a company that designs plutonium processing facilities) - formed a consortium called Duke COGEMA Stone & Webster (DCS) to build and operate the MOX facility at SRS.

Duke Energy has a separate contract with the government to buy the MOX at a discount to use in their nuclear reactors in North and South Carolina.

Swords Iulo Plowshares

Tom Clements, a native of Savannah who works for Greenpeace International, is opposed to MOX.

"It's a good premise," Mr. Clements said in a phone interview, "but once you start using plutonium for commercial purposes it's going to proliferate." Mr. Clements believes that immobilization is a safer option.

Clements worries that once we have crossed the line and invested 3.8 billion dollars into the program we will keep using plutonium as fuel and there will be more of this dangerous substance around. He is particularly worried that this will happen in Russia, where they do not have the same controls as the U.S and that some of this plutonium will get into the hands of terrorists.

Opponents believe the MOX policy will result in the very thing it was meant to prevent.

But Rose Cummings of Duke Energy said that the MOX program was only to dispose of the plutonium we have and that further use of plutonium "is not part of this program." The DOE has budgeted money to dismantle the MOX plant after it has completed its mission.

"They want to see the nuclear power industry die," Mr. Wilkes of the NNSA said referring to the opponents of MOX. "So they have to come up with some objection."

It is true that a majority of those opposed to MOX are opposed to nuclear energy, and certainly true of groups like Greenpeace. But this is not true of everybody. The editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal ran a column in October of 2002 in which they stated, "The Bush-Clinton policy on nuclear reactor fuel is a gift to terrorists."

Former Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), a well-known conservative, objected on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1999 to the U.S. funding a MOX facility in Russia because of fears of proliferation.

Opponents are also questioning the terms of the Federal government's contract with Duke Energy.

Sarah Barczak from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Savannah raised this issue in a phone interview.

"The government is using taxpayer money to build the MOX plant," Barczak said. "The government made the pluto-
nium at taxpayer expense, then
the government will transport the
plutonium at taxpayer expense,
and then Duke Energy will use the
fuel at a discount and charge their
customers for it."

"I'm not going to apologize for
getting a government contract,"
she said. "We were chosen
because we are the best team for
this project [MOX]. We would not
have taken ... o·n this project" if we
felt we couldn't do it safely."

Ms. Cummings points out that Duke Energy is part of a regulated industry and their rates are required by law to reflect their costs.

"I'm not going to apologize for getting a government contract," she said. "We were chosen because we are the best team for this project [MOX]. We would not have taken on this project if we felt we couldn't do it safely."

"The MOX fuel program," said Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "is the ultimate example of heating swords into plowshares."

He emphasizes that the point of the program is to make the plutonium unattractive to terrorists. Senator Graham supports the MOX program.

In the 2002 Senate race in South Carolina, Duke Energy contributed $10,000 to then-Congressmen Graham's Senate campaign. The only other candidate for Senate who matched this contribution amount from Duke was Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina. She was also elected to the Senate.

And as a Congressman Graham was the second largest recipient of donations from the nuclear industry for the years 2001-2002.

Bishop denies that Duke Energy's or the nuclear industry's contributions to Graham's campaigns have anything to do with Graham's position on MOX.

"The entire South Carolina Congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats, are supporting the MOX program at the Savannah River Site," Bishop said.

"Duke is supportive of the political process," says Pete Sheffield, a spokesperson for Duke Energy.

Duke commits significant financial resources to lobbying efforts in Washington. Duke Energy contributed $413,265 in the 2001-2002 election cycle according to data released by the Federal Election Commission.

As for Georgia politicians, neither Governor Sonny Purdue or U.S. Congressman Max Burns (R-GA) have returned phone calls seeking comment on the proposed MOX plan. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) is currently studying the issue.

The NRC has recommended that the MOX plant be built, but are still receiving comments until May 15, 2003. They will also conduct a safety review before they issue a license for the MOX plant to operate.

Christian Livemore contributed to the research for this article.