A U.S. flag flaps above a smaller one adorned with the U.S. Department of Energy's seal at the Savannah River Site's F-Canyon. The Canyon, so named for its long narrow shape separates plutonium from radioactive waste.JEFF JANOWSKI/STAFF

Missions expected to stabilize work force

Web posted May 30, 1999

By Brandon Haddock
Staff Writer

New plutonium-processing plants slated for Savannah River Site probably won't cause an economic boom, some local boosters said. The plants might, however, prevent a bust.

``This is an opportunity to keep what we have today,'' said Danny Black, president of the Tri-County Alliance, a group devoted to promoting economic development in Allendale, Bamberg and Barnwell counties. ``Hopefully, the plutonium missions will stabilize the work force. We won't have any more reductions.''

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced in December that he planned to locate several plants at SRS, at a cost of about $1.4 billion, to help dispose of the nation's excess plutonium. The nation now has about 55 surplus tons of the radioactive metal, a key component of nuclear weapons.

Click on the image above for a full-sized version of the graphic "SRS' economic impact."STAFF

In addition to about 1,000 longterm jobs, the plants would require a construction work force of more than 1,000 workers at the peak of construction. SRS, which once produced rare radioactive materials for the nation's nuclear-weapons program, has lost more than 10,000 jobs in recent years to post-Cold War cutbacks.

The plutonium plants would stem that tide, some local business leaders said. Although several SRS facilities are scheduled to close as the plants started work, jobs lost from the shutdowns would be regained at the new plants' openings.

``Because many of the folks that performed one job will move on to the next function, there won't be wholesale hiring of a new work force or construction work force,'' said John Lindsay, vice president of community outreach for SRS contractor Westinghouse Savannah River Co. ``We think that this ultimately will have the effect of maintaining the long-term viability of the site.''

Although the plutonium work might stabilize the site's work force, it would not have the economic potential of tritium production, some boosters said. SRS proponents sought but did not receive the tritium work.

AN SRS SPECIAL SECTION

STORIES

• Plutonium disposal key to SRS future  • Disposal mission brings plutonium full circle  • Plutonium disposal involves two methods  • Groups still concerned by using MOX fuel       Missions expected to stabilize work force  •  Politicians working for new mission at SRS

GRAPHICS

• Nuclear weapons treatment  • How nuclear waste is processed  • Plutonium storage sites  • SRS' ecomonic impact

A proposed ``linear accelerator'' at SRS would have produced the radioactive gas for the nation's nuclear-weapons stockpile, but also could have been used to create medical isotopes and other commodities, some business leaders said.

Such possibilities could have launched high-tech industries in local counties, a scenario that likely won't come with the plutonium plants, Mr. Lindsay said.

``I think that the prospects of that are not nearly as likely as they would be if you're talking about medical isotopes,'' he said. ``The plutonium technology exists already. It perhaps will be enhanced, but it is already existing technology. There won't be that much in the way for economic development.''

Alone, the linear accelerator would have brought about 400 long-term jobs, and a peak of about 1,000 construction jobs, to the region.

U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hasn't surrendered the fight for the accelerator. He said recently that he plans to introduce legislation that would bring the plant to SRS if other facilities slated for tritium work don't get required federal licenses by Dec. 31, 2002.

But some nuclear activists said the site still has the opportunity to become a technological leader, even without the accelerator. But to do so, activists said, the site must abandon the proposed manufacturing of mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel -- a centerpiece of the plutonium work slated for SRS.

Many activists oppose MOX use, which would combine plutonium with uranium in fuel rods for commercial nuclear reactors.

Instead, the department should ``immobilize'' plutonium by baking it into ceramic pucks, then disposing of the pucks within canisters of radioactive waste, some activists said.

SRS could become a leader in immobilization technology if it is researched and developed properly, said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

``I think the Energy Department isn't doing all the things for immobilization it needs to do,'' Dr. Makhijani said. ``It needs to build pilot plants. It needs to increase its budget for the technological approaches it needs for immobilization.

``In the approach that we advocate, SRS would become a world leader in immobilization technology. It cannot become a leader in MOX technology, because it's going to import that technology from others who already use MOX.''

Energy Department officials do plan to immobilize some, but not all, of the nation's excess plutonium at SRS. Officials plan to use most excess plutonium in MOX fuel, largely because Russian officials demand it.

Russian officials believe MOX use is the only way to ensure plutonium cannot be reused within nuclear weapons.

Regardless of the U.S. Energy Department's path, its continued investment in SRS bodes well for the local economy, some people said.

``That's a great draw for us,'' Mr. Black said. ``The brain trust is here, and the Energy Department is keeping the brain trust here. The resources are available for companies that might have the need.''

Brandon Haddock covers energy issues for The Augusta Chronicle. He can be reached at (706) 823-3409 or bhaddock@augustachronicle.com.