islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online

Search Everything in the Lowcountry and the Coastal Empire.

House committee nixes $368M budget for SRS project

Add Comment

WASHINGTON -- The House Appropriations Committee eliminated the entire $368 million construction budget for a controversial plutonium-processing plant at the Savannah River Site on Wednesday, jeopardizing the project scheduled to break ground in October.

But lawmakers from South Carolina say they're not worried that the committee action could kill the plan to transform surplus weapons-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for nuclear energy at the 310-square-mile site near Aiken.

Emily Lawrimore, a spokeswoman for Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., said he "continues to work with other members from South Carolina and Georgia to restore this critical funding."

Before the vote, Wilson said the White House supports efforts to reduce weapons-grade nuclear materials, adding, "with the president's support, we have a chance."

Asked whether Wilson planned to attempt to restore the funds when the bill is debated in the House, Lawrimore declined comment.

On May 5, the Senate Armed Services Committee authorized full funding for the project. Wilson is counting on approval by the full Senate and that the project then will survive intact in the conference committee negotiations to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills.

South Carolina's Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, support the project. DeMint's spokesman Wesley Denton said his boss is working to make sure the Savannah site is "taken care of" in the Senate.

Graham said the program is "vital to our national security and we will continue to work together to ensure it is adequately funded. The citizens of South Carolina, along with the Savannah River Site workforce, should be proud of the role we are playing in making the world a safer place."

Officials from the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, said it is premature to discuss the project's demise.

"It is still early in the congressional process, and we will continue working with Congress to fully fund the budget request," said spokesman Bryan Wilkes.

The project has been controversial in the South Carolina legislature, where some have voiced concern about amassing stockpiles of nuclear material in the state.

Before the committee vote Wednesday, John Scofield, spokesman for chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said some lawmakers are concerned that the price tag for the project has more than tripled.

Originally, the Government Accountability Office estimated the project's total cost at $1 billion, but Scofield said that has ballooned to $3.5 billion.

"There's a potential boondoggle in the making, and we're not going to put taxpayers on the hook," he said. "We think it's prudent to take a pause here and ask the DOE to go back to the drawing board."

In 2000 the United States and Russia signed an agreement for each to eliminate 34 metric tons of plutonium and recycle it into mixed-oxide fuel, commonly referred to as MOX. Savannah River is the only MOX site in the country. Nuclear waste produced once the plutonium is processed would be transported to the federal nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Preparation for construction of the plutonium processing plant has been under way for a year and completion is expected in September, said Jim Giusti, an Energy Department spokesman.

Construction would be finished in 2015, and it would take an additional five years to complete the processing of the 34 metric tons of plutonium, according to the NNSA. The Savannah site already has some plutonium stocks shipped from Rocky Flats, Colo., that will be stored until the facility is completed, the NNSA said.

The Energy Department is continuing to move forward with the project and hasn't found any "issues," said Wilkes, the NNSA spokesman. "There are no cost overruns because we're in the planning phase. We have enough money to begin construction."

Recent developments have caused some lawmakers to question the necessity of such a large facility.

Russia has dragged its feet on the nonproliferation agreement, relieving the United States of its responsibility to abide by the program, Scofield said. "Since the Russians have walked away from the deal, it makes funding this large construction project not necessary. We don't want construction to start on this deal."

Last week, the House voted to allow the United States to separate its program from Russia's and continue the project at the Savannah River Site. Although the Appropriations Committee action eliminated funding for the project, Wilkes said, "We intend to live up to our international agreements, and we expect the Russians to live up to theirs."

Dalia Naamani-Goldman is a reporter with Medill News Service in Washington.

advertisement