The New York Times, citing unnamed sources, reported Tuesday that the Bush administration might abandon plans for disposing of about 55 tons of plutonium.

Under the plans, Savannah River Site would be responsible for treating the radioactive metal to prepare it for disposal.

The federal nuclear weapons site probably would receive at least $3.9 billion in new plants should the plan go forward. SRS supporters lobbied hard for the new mission, in part because it was expected to create more than 1,000 long-term jobs.

In anticipation of the mission, shipments of plutonium to SRS are scheduled to begin in October, despite the concerns of South Carolina political leaders about the fate of the proposed plutonium plants.

A U.S. Department of Energy spokesman called the Times article ''speculative'' and said his agency continues to work on the proposed SRS plants.

''We're moving forward unless there's a set announcement from the administration on the policy of this,'' Joe Davis said. ''So far, there's not been such an announcement. We're not going to base our actions on speculative articles.''

A spokesman for the National Security Council would not comment publicly Tuesday about the article. The council has acknowledged that it is reviewing the plutonium-disposition program, particularly efforts to help Russia get rid of its surplus plutonium.

PREVIOUS STORIES • Watchdog questions need for SRS plutonium plant • Plutonium meeting brings no resolution • Governors' resolution pushes nuclear cleanup • Storage of metal debated • Plutonium shipments will occur • SRS plants get support amid dispute • Hodges calls off roadblock exercise • DOE will postpone shipments to SRS • Official sees SRS as nuclear plant • SRS plans could be abandoned • Condon battles plutonium shipments • Roadblocks plan draws new GOP fire • Condon questions plan to stop SRS plutonium • Professor advocates test reactor • Hodges fights SRS plutonium plan • Graham questions SRS feud

U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he wanted to find out who was behind that review.

''This unknown group, or person, who created this policy change without talking to anybody is the group we need to corral,'' Mr. Graham said. ''Whoever thought it might not be the way to go internationally had no understanding of the domestic implications of their decision.

''They're going to study this thing all through next year. In the meantime, we're going to get the plutonium. No way.''

Plutonium, a radioactive metal used in nuclear weapons, can cause cancer if inhaled or ingested even in small amounts.

Concern about the status of the plutonium mission had grown in recent months. Last winter, the Energy Department suspended work on one of the proposed SRS plants, the ''plutonium immobilization facility.''

Cost estimates for the second plant, which would use plutonium to make fuel for nuclear-power plants, rose from $1.4 billion to $2.4 billion.

Such setbacks have made South Carolina's elected officials uneasy about accepting the plutonium some of them once lobbied to get.

South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges has threatened to use roadblocks to stop plutonium shipments to SRS until the federal government clarifies its plans for treating the metal and shipping it back out of the state.

''I will not allow South Carolina to be the permanent dumping ground for our nation's plutonium,'' Mr. Hodges wrote Tuesday in a letter to President Bush. ''Further, I will use every available means to protect the health and safety of South Carolina families.''

South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon has said he will sue to stop the shipments, which are scheduled to begin in October.

South Carolina's congressional delegation has added provisions to federal funding bills that would stop shipments if the Energy Department doesn't agree to a deadline for removing plutonium from SRS.

''This confirms the concerns that U.S. Senator Fritz Hollings and Governor Hodges have had for many months,'' said Andy Davis, a spokesman for Mr. Hollings, D-S.C.

''The administration's budget was grossly inadequate to fund the work at SRS, and there were no long-term plans to move the material out of the state,'' Andy Davis said. ''That means it would be coming to South Carolina to sit, and that's not acceptable.''

Mr. Graham said he thought such a situation could be avoided.

''If plutonium comes to South Carolina in October, I expect it to be under a disposition plan which has everybody on board and is acceptable to the state and the nation,'' the congressman said. ''Failing that, it's going to be an all-out political fight.''

Reach Brandon Haddock at (706) 823-3409 or bhaddock@augustachronicle.com.