| SRS support is harder to find AIKEN - When Butler Derrick filled South Carolina's 3rd District Congressional seat, the Berlin Wall was still standing and the Soviet Union posed a serious threat to the country's safety. Nuclear missiles were pointed at the United States, and arguing for support of Savannah River Site's production of uranium and plutonium to build up the country's weapons stockpile wasn't a very tough duty. "Everyone knew that it was accommodating a very, very important part of our defense," said Mr. Butler, a Democrat who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975 to 1995. " I think it's difficult to do it now," he said. "It is more difficult to impress upon people the need. The need was so evident back then." Today's leaders face an uphill battle when it comes to funding new missions at the site. Environmentalists have increasingly scrutinized the production of nuclear materials and the cleanup of waste, political leaders agreed. Watchdog groups are more active. The National Resources Defense Council, for example, has stalled the U.S. Department of Energy's cleanup of roughly 90 million gallons of nuclear waste across the country, including more than 35 million gallons at SRS. The group's lawsuit led a federal judge in Idaho to reject how the department classifies high- and low-level waste, halting cleanup at SRS and other nuclear reservations. On July 19, DOE officials and Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., visited the site to champion a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to change the law to allow waste cleanup to go forward. Mr. Graham's amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill would allow DOE to leave 85 percent of SRS's waste at the site and eventually send the remainder to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. If the site sends all the waste to Nevada, as some environmentalists want, it would cost an additional $16 billion and take 23 more years, Mr. Graham argues. "We're fighting a lot of forces that you didn't have to worry about during the height of the Cold War because nobody paid attention to them," he said. Among those forces is Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who leads the House's Energy and Water subcommittee and supports nonproliferation. Mr. Hobson has been a sharp critic of the DOE and his subcommittee slashed millions of dollars out of four projects considered key to the future of SRS, including money for cleanup and a planned mixed-oxide fuel plant that would convert weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for commercial power plants. The proposed plant is supposed to be built at the same time as an identical plant in Russia as part of a nonproliferation agreement. Mr. Graham cites the project as part of the marketing makeover that's needed at SRS. "The MOX fuel program takes tons of plutonium off the table and turns it into a peaceful program," he said, noting that SRS is a weapon in the war against terrorism. Tom Clements sees it from a different point of view. The Greenpeace member said plutonium in Russia would have to be shipped long distances to get to any MOX plant, a higher risk than leaving it alone. The need for nuclear weapons has faded, he said. South Carolina and Georgia's congressional delegations also are rallying for a modern pit facility at SRS, which would manufacture the plutonium pits used to trigger nuclear weapons, possibly modern arms such as the bunker buster. At the same time, politicians have realized the site must diversify. Mr. Graham said he worked for four years to have SRS's research arm named a national laboratory, which Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham did in May. The designation makes the site a contender for some of the country's most highly sought-after research missions. "There's going to be some pain as you change," Mr. Graham said. "You have to constantly sell yourself."
Reach Josh Gelinas at (803) 648-1395, ext. 113, or josh.gelinas@augustachronicle.com.
|