Unconventional nuke hub in works for state

The Savannah River Site Greenville News file photo e-mail this story print this story

_____Top stories_____

Advocates of such a plant say it would be a clean way of lighting thousands of homes and businesses while reducing the country's dependence on foreign energy. But opponents argue that no clear plan has surfaced for dealing with the radioactive waste, and the plant could become a terrorist target.

At least three U.S. congressmen, including two who said they have met with Duke Power officials, are pushing for a new reactor at the site 100 miles south of Greenville. The reactor would be the nation's first in nearly 30 years, with construction beginning as early as 2010.

For power companies, the decision on a new reactor will come down to whether they can make money — and they will need taxpayer help, said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

"Wall Street isn't willing to put up money for nuclear power plants," he said. "Every company that's talking about nuclear power plants wants federal subsidies."

NuStart Energy Development, a consortium of nine energy companies, is exploring several sites for a new reactor, including Savannah River Site and Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi, said Dan Keuter, who sits on the consortium's management board and is Entergy's vice president for energy development.

Savannah River Site is attractive because consortium members Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Southern Company operate in the area, he said.

"If they get together, that could be a good common site (where) they could build not only one unit, but multiple units," Keuter said.

Glenn Carroll, coordinator for Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, opposes a new reactor and said fallout from a meltdown could reach Greenville. Taxpayer-funded subsidies, she said, would "cost Joe Sixpack."

"It will take from his health care, his education, whatever, to fund this industry that can't seem to make it on its own," Carroll said.

Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy, has said it may build a nuclear power plant somewhere within its service area, which includes the Upstate and North Carolina but not Savannah River Site. The division's search for a potential site is independent from NuStart Energy Development's efforts, said Duke Power spokeswoman Rita Sipe.

Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis from Travelers Rest said he recently met with Duke Power president Ruth Shaw in Washington and "urged her to look at Savannah River Site as the natural place" to build a new reactor.

The reactor could make hydrogen, he said, and help position the state as a player in making cars of the future and their fuel. The plant also could be used to teach nuclear technology, he said.

Inglis said Shaw appreciated his advocacy but didn't commit to anything.

Duke Power spokesman Tom Williams said that while "all options are on the table," the company's focus for locating a new nuclear reactor is on its service territory.

But it could be another company that builds at Savannah River Site. Several have expressed an interest in bringing reactors to the site and the 700 jobs each would create, said Fred Humes, director of the Aiken/Edgefield Economic Development Partnership.

"We would welcome more discussion and little bit more detail about the potential for it," Humes said.

Jim Warren, director of NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, said a new reactor anywhere would increase the risk for "acts of malice." And, he said, it would create more radioactive material even as delays and other problems have bedeviled plans for storing the nation's waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

"We believe it's the wrong direction for North or South Carolina to go," Warren said.

Nuclear power proponents argued that Yucca Mountain will open eventually and Savannah River Site is as safe a location as anyone will find.

"There are a lot of targets," Inglis said. "A nuclear power plant would not be my choice of targets if I were a terrorist."

Keuter said the reactor types the consortium is considering would produce electricity but not hydrogen. The downside to building at Savannah River Site, he said, is that the companies would need help erecting transmission lines to get the electricity to their customers.

"If the state or somebody else helped them with the transmission, it would be a very viable site," he said.

Gov. Mark Sanford is "open to exploring any options that are on the table," spokesman Will Folks said.U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-Columbia, said he told Duke Power representatives at a state Chamber of Commerce event that Savannah River Site would be perfect for a new reactor because it is secure and has community support.

"They were coy, but they were positively coy," said Wilson, a deputy general counsel for the U.S. Department of Energy from 1981 until 1982.

NuStart Energy Development will handle the licensing for a new plant, then hand the project to one or more of its members, Keuter said.

The 310-square-mile site near Aiken has a workforce of fewer than 12,000, down from the 1950s peak of 35,000, said Will Callicott, a spokesman for Westinghouse Savannah River Co., which operates the site for the U.S. Energy Department.

The site made tritium and plutonium for nuclear weapons during the Cold War, but about 80 percent of the mission now is managing waste, including storage of spent reactor fuel, he said.

U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, whose district includes Savannah River Site, has been "trying to get the reactor," spokeswoman Colleen Mangone said.

U.S. Rep. Henry Brown Jr., R-Hanahan, said he has "been trying to promote the Savannah River Site as some kind of nuclear power hub." The vision includes building a plant that would turn weapons-grade plutonium into mixed oxide fuel for use in commercial reactors, he said.

"Technology is on our side," Brown said. "I think a breakthrough will happen there."

The fuel-producing plant cleared a hurdle recently when it won approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Construction on the facility, expected to cost more than $1 billion, will begin in 2006, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

Several of the state's political leaders have signaled they are open to a new reactor, even if they aren't campaigning for one.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham believes the federal government should support nuclear power with an energy plan that promotes research and development, spokesman Kevin Bishop said.

"A new nuclear power plant will be beneficial to the economy and help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels," he said.

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint is "supportive of nuclear energy technology and bringing new jobs to South Carolina," spokesman Wesley Denton said.

Paul Alongi can be reached at 298-4746.