Mar. 5—The Department of Energy is eyeing the Savannah River Site as a potential location at which reactor fuel could be produced, a long-term nuclear venture that would prop up hundreds of jobs while consuming metric tons of plutonium, a hazardous metal that has for years been a source of ire in South Carolina.
In draft environmental review documents published late last year, the department listed SRS, about 30 minutes south of Aiken, as a possible home for feedstock preparation or fuel fabrication, or both, for an under-consideration versatile test reactor in Idaho or Tennessee.
Supporters of the research reactor, often referred to as “VTR,” argue it will bolster testing of advanced fuels and materials and boost the nation’s energy portfolio, all while remaining safe.
“This testing capability is essential for the United States to modernize its nuclear energy industry,” reads the Energy Department’s preliminary review, which is publicly available. An accelerated schedule is necessary, it notes, to “avoid further delay in the U.S. ability to develop and deploy advanced nuclear energy technologies.”
But opponents argue the endeavor — building the facilities, producing the fuel, operating for decades and dealing with the waste generated — is thriftless and poses serious environmental and proliferation risks.
“The DOE claims to need a fast-neutron reactor for experimentation purposes,” Savannah River Site Watch Director Tom Clements said in comments submitted to the department, “but little documentation is presented that public or private entities” are “clamoring for it.”
The fuel
While the Energy Department prefers constructing the versatile test reactor at the Idaho National Lab, hours east of Boise, the government has not formally signaled a favorite in terms of where the necessary fuel would be made.
The December 2020 environmental study considers the Savannah River Site and Idaho National Lab for fuel production, or some combination of the two, but “DOE has no preferred options at this time.”
Though the Savannah River Site was at one point debated as a location for the reactor compound itself — because of its “extensive history” with reactors as well as a spectrum of technical ability and nuclear management skills, documents show — the idea was ultimately dismissed. A reactor hasn’t been run at the Savannah River Site in decades, and other Energy Department installations have up-and-running ancillary facilities.
“The center of excellence for this type of work resides at Idaho or Argonne National Lab,” Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness Executive Director Jim Marra said. But the Savannah River Site, he continued, “has great expertise in handling these materials and could certainly work those other labs, much like they’re working with Los Alamos on the current pit mission.”
The versatile test reactor fuel would require plutonium, among other materials. Plutonium already managed by the department and its National Nuclear Security Administration would suffice, the environmental study states. If not, potential sources exist in Europe.
Up to 34 metric tons of plutonium could be needed for startup and 60 years of versatile test reactor operations.
“Such proposed large-scale fabrication and use of fuel containing a mixture of plutonium and uranium … raises a number of major concerns,” commented Dr. Alan J. Kuperman, an associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.
Caches are already available at the Savannah River Site — to the chagrin of some Palmetto State officials — and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
“I don’t see this as 34 tons of plutonium are going to come to South Carolina and then just sit there,” Kuperman said in a Wednesday interview. “I mean, if they did, that would be really bad logistics management by DOE, and I’m sure your governor would sue and block that.”
What and where
The fuel work at the…
Read More: New reactor fuel mission floated for Savannah River Site, DOE documents show