SRS budget proposal draws criticism

Officials raise concerns about deferral of some funds to develop plant to treat spent nuclear fuel

Web posted February 13, 2000

 Have a thought? Go to the @ugusta Forums.

By Brandon Haddock
Staff Writer

Savannah River Site's proposed $1.6 billion budget already has its critics.

Unveiled last week during President Clinton's rollout of his proposed $1.84 trillion budget for fiscal year 2001, the SRS plan would increase the federal nuclear-weapons site's funding from a stagnant $1.5 billion in recent years to $1.64 billion.

But the budget also leaves some high-profile projects unfunded or underfunded, drawing criticism from Capitol Hill, local site supporters and some nuclear watchdogs.

``We as a community and as a site have got to continue to press the importance of our programs to make sure they are adequately funded,'' said Ernest S. Chaput, special projects director for the Economic Development Partnership, which promotes development in Aiken and Edgefield counties. ``There are a lot of people pushing for the same dollars.''

Despite a few snags, the proposed budget was good for SRS overall, Mr. Chaput said.

``I think the good news is the continuation of the environmental restoration and the site cleanup activities,'' he said. ``The overall level of funding, the fact that it's up and not down, is good news, given the fiscal situation in Washington.

``Six or eight months ago, there were a lot of people who were afraid the budget might be down in dollars, and that is not the case.''

But Mr. Chaput and members of the nuclear-watchdog community raised concerns about the deferral of some money to develop a plant to treat spent nuclear fuel at the site.

About $7.5 million was proposed to research a proposed ``melt-and-dilute'' plant for the fuel, but $12 million in construction money for the plant was not granted.

The plant would melt the fuel, which is heavy in weapons-grade uranium, then mix the smelt with depleted uranium, making the radioactive metal too weak for use in weapons.

The project could have used more money, Mr. Chaput said, but enough money was provided to prevent the project from slowing too much.

``There seems to be a significant amount of money in there,'' he said. ``You could probably do more if you had more money, but they seemed to make a good-faith effort to keep that moving along.''

Some activists were more pointed.

``I think the way they're allocating this budget belies their support for melt-and-dilute,'' said Tom Clements, executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington. ``It look like it's a delaying tactic not to build this facility even if they say they're committed to it.''

But because the technology behind melt-and-dilute is not fully developed, it wouldn't be prudent to proceed with design of the plant, SRS officials said.

To do so, said SRS Chief Financial Officer John Pescosolido, would be to invite the same problems that hobbled the site's $500 million In-Tank Precipitation Facility. That plant was closed in January 1998 because of problems inherent in the plant's design.

``We've got a ways to go in research and development and running normal experiments before we are in a position to start the design work,'' Mr. Pescosolido said. ``It really pays to have the technology down and to understand it before you design the facilities that will incorporate it.''

The site probably won't be ready to start that design until fiscal year 2002, he said.

Mr. Clements said he believed that design of the plant could be done even before the method is fully tested.

``I think it's good they're doing the research, but we just question whether they're committed to carrying this program out,'' he said.

Proposed decreases in funding for another project drew attention from members of Congress. U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond and U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, both South Carolina Republicans, issued statements denouncing what they called a decrease in funding for a ``linear accelerator'' that would produce tritium.

Tritium is a radioactive gas used in the nation's modern nuclear weapons. Congress approved the use of commercial reactors to produce tritium, but required the Energy Department to complete design of the accelerator as a backup alternative.

If needed, the accelerator would be built at SRS.

The accelerator project would receive about $26 million under the proposed budget, about $33 million less than required, according to Mr. Thurmond.

In a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, Mr. Thurmond said he was ``deeply concerned'' about the issue, and he stated that the funding decision violated the statute requiring the department to complete design of the accelerator.

``The president's budget submitted earlier this week directly undermines the national security goals of the nuclear weapons program by eliminating critical engineering design funds for the accelerator option,'' Mr. Thurmond said. ``By suspending preliminary design work, the administration has directly violated the above statute.

``This points to a total lack of support for properly maintaining the tritium supply and an operative nuclear weapons program on the schedule of President Clinton's Nuclear Weapons Memorandum.''

When asked about the lawmakers' complaints, an Energy Department spokesman in Washington pointed to other successes in the department's tritium production plan.

A test run of tritium production has been completed at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant in Tennessee, Drew Malcolm said.

In addition, the department soon will begin construction of an SRS plant that will remove tritium from the tritium-producing fuel to be used in commercial reactors, he said.

``The commercial light-water reactor program has enjoyed a number of successes and the Energy Department will begin construction of the tritium extraction facility at SRS this summer,'' Mr. Malcolm said. ``Additionally, a 30-year, $1.5 billion contract with TVA has been signed for the irradiation of tritium-producing burnable absorber rods.

``The Watts Bar test has been successfully completed and the contract for the production of (the rods) will be awarded shortly.''

Reach Brandon Haddock at (706) 823-3409.