While SRS bids for new project, some protest plutonium plan

Web posted September 22, 1997

By Kathy Steele
South Carolina Bureau

AIKEN -- The courting and the deal-making is well under way for a plutonium fuel fabrication plant.

But it won't be until next year that the Department of Energy will let the players know who gets to build the plant, or where it will be located.

Officials at Savannah River Site are hoping to come up the winners over three other nuclear weapons complexes in Washington state, Utah and Texas. It will mean a new mission for SRS and jobs for the Aiken-Augusta area.

At least two business partnerships are competing to build the plant. Others are expected to join in. They see profits down the road.

But twists and turns that lead to DOE's decisions will include protests from environmental, disarmament and medical groups that don't think this plant is a good idea. When built, it will convert surplus weapons-usable plutonium to a mixed oxide fuel, or MOX fuel, which will then be ``burned'' in commercial nuclear reactors.

Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information Resource Service, said the focus of his group's efforts isn't on changing DOE's mind.

``Our effort is going toward changing minds of utilities,'' he said. ``In an era of deregulation where people are going to be able to choose their power company, we think it will be a very powerful selling point to tell people they aren't the ones bringing plutonium into their neighborhood.

``When people know the truth about MOX, they will reject it handily,'' he said.

A NIX MOX Conference will be held in Washington from Sept. 27-28. It will be a small group mostly of activists concerned with issues related to the commercial nuclear industry, he said.

The opposition groups that protest nuclear power are nothing new, said Rachel Carter, a senior program associate with BNFL in Washington. The British-owned company is one of four members of a consortium, MOX USA, that was in Aiken two weeks ago to meet with SRS officials about the MOX fuel plant.

But BNFL takes a different approach than some in the nuclear industry, she said. The company tries to be as open as possible to media, the general public and opposition groups.

``We try to get out education to the general public,'' Ms. Carter said. ``We like to get everyone in and see things.''

The process will help governments reduce post-Cold War stockpiles of plutonium and is a safe process that doesn't carry the risk factors alleged by opposition groups such as Greenpeace and NISR, she said.

The federal government's decision to begin producing MOX fuel reversed a 20-year national policy against using plutonium in commercial reactors.

As recently as 1993, President Clinton still supported the Non-Proliferation and Arms Export Control Policy, which says that the ``United States does not encourage the civil use of plutonium and accordingly does not itself engage in plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear power or nuclear explosive purposes.''

Then in 1995, DOE issued a decision to follow a dual-track in disposing of the country's surplus weapons-usable plutonium: immobilize it either in glass or ceramics, and convert it into MOX fuel.

Following this policy, DOE estimates that over 20 years the disposal costs will be between $2.3 and $4.8 billion.

Also, DOE acknowledges that MOX fuel makes the process of producing electricity more expensive so utilities that agree to use the fuel can't maintain a competitive edge with other utilities, especially if deregulation is factored in.

In order for utilities to convert their reactors and use MOX fuel the government almost certainly will have to subsidize utilities with hundreds of millions in tax dollars.

That possibility could become a serious obstacle in the government's plan to pursue this project, said Tom Clements of Greenpeace's office in Washington.

The cost to the taxpayer, particularly for fiscally conservative lawmakers, will raise questions about DOE's decision to pursue the dual option of immobilization and MOX fuel, he said.

Also, the need for heightened security against terrorists and other safety issues surrounding use of MOX fuel could concern utilities, he said.

``There are a lot of hidden obstacles in this project,'' Mr. Clements said. ``It's hard to know what the utilities expectations are.''