Savannah River Site Waste 

by Suzanne Rhodes, 2021 LWVSC Specialist, Nuclear Waste Disposal

HISTORY: Huge old tanks holding radioactive and chemical liquid wastes at the Savannah River Site (SRS) have concerned the League of Women Voters of SC for more than 40 years. Pre-treatment closure processes are underway and are encouraging.  

In the 1950s, 310 square miles of farmland along the northeast side of the Savannah River Valley near Aiken were condemned for a “bomb” plant.  In the early years, the emphasis was on the rapid production of weapons materials.  No environmental regulations were in effect at that time, and no thought was given to future cleanup.   

Five coal plants operated for decades to produce electricity for SRS, even after clean air regulations were established.  Biomass and a nuclear plant currently produce energy for the site. Local citizens have welcomed the cleaner operations.

SRS past weapons materials productions have been of concern, particularly those which released mercury and tritium off-site.  Columbia is ‘downwind’ of SRS.  Messy operations have ceased, at least for the moment. The current focus is cleanup.  

ON-SITE OPERATIONS, PAST AND PROPOSED: Major contractors usually work at SRS under a cost-plus contract, which encourages contractor involvement in the habitual practice of the Department of Energy (DOE) to begin construction prematurely, with routine design/build, redesign/rebuild escalations of budgets and extensions of schedules. 

The Mixed Oxide (MOX) facility, an $8 billion failure, was finally canceled because of design/redesign reschedules and budget escalations, as well as design issues.  The purpose of the MOX facility was to fabricate fuel for commercial reactors from unused weapons materials (new fuel that wasn’t welcomed by commercial reactor operators).  This was, unfortunately, a semi-typical proposal in that the French had developed a MOX fuel concept, with limited success, and sold an old design to DOE.  Updated design and construction were necessary for many reasons, many times. Schedules and budgets of MOX ballooned.  Finally, MOX was canceled, despite the vigorous and insistent support of SRS contractors and SC politicians.

This new pits proposal would assume to rededicate the shell of the MOX plant to the production of plutonium pits, or cores for nuclear warheads, and would reportedly hire thousands of new employees. SRS currently employees about 10,000 people.  

Although I personally have great respect for the technical leadership and technical staff at SRS, politicians, and contractors are a problem.  Local citizens have blindly supported jobs proposals as presented by DOE and its contractors.  The Chambers of Commerce, mayors, county councils, even United Ways, have turned out in droves of unquestioning support, especially for this plutonium pits proposal.  

This new mission for SRS would generate wastes similar to those of long-term concern of the League. The manufacture of plutonium pits for nuclear weapons is part of an exceedingly expensive and extensive warhead ‘modernization’ program. The Government Accountability Office and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board have both criticized the planning and the budgeting estimates of the pits proposal, as well as that it avoided “best practices.”

The League is concerned that this mission will divert the focus of SRS leaders in charge of closing the old tanks of Cold War wastes, some tank volumes equal to full-sized Olympic pools.  There is now no clear plan for stabilizing the new pits' wastes.

Manufacture of plutonium pits elsewhere has produced on-site and off-site pollution, (including a Superfund site).  When the pits proposal was promoted in SC, the Superfund site wasn’t mentioned – only a new park (as an example of how ‘clean’ the operation had been).

WHAT TO DO WITH SRS WASTES: For decades, DOE has advocated waste storage at SRS: “Atoms for Peace” wastes from sloppily managed labs around the U.S. and the world (which the League didn’t oppose), plutonium from a troubled Japanese reprocessing venture, German spent fuel for experimental separation of plutonium, and Canadian spent fuel - each for indefinite on-site waste storage at SRS, and which the League opposed.  Germany and Canada have the talent, means, (and legal responsibility) to handle their wastes, as Canada had done for more than a decade.  Canadian liquid wastes were nevertheless trucked to SRS. German wastes are in Germany, at least for now.

In addition to the Atoms for Peace wastes, 11.5 metric tons of plutonium were stranded at SRS because MOX was terminated. Japanese wastes brought about 0.75 tons.  Pits production could bring another 7.5 metric tons. Plans to treat and remove this material, as required by law and agreement, remain vague.  The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico is often mentioned for permanent storage of some of the weapons-related wastes, but sending much more SRS wastes to WIPP than currently scheduled could require “bumping” other scheduled waste from other federal facilities. Indefinite storage at SRS is a clear possibility. A West-Texas/New Mexico site is a possible “interim” storage site if its promoters succeed.

Last year, S.C. hired a law firm to renegotiate an overdue DOE agreement to remove plutonium and nuclear wastes from SRS.  The result of the new “bargain” is 15 more years of storage at SRS, in return for the promise of money. 

COLD WAR:  The “need” for new U.S. weapons is at least as questionable as the cost estimates and design planning for pits.  U.S. and Russia each have about 6,000 potential weapons; the total at all other nations is about the same. More weapons materials are in stockpiles.  The pits proposal currently includes a redesign of weapons deployment systems at an uncalculated cost to taxpayers.  International arms races have begun, with the U.S. and Russia leading the way.     

How and why are the new SRS plutonium pits proposal AND the concurrent renewal of Cold War pressures significant?  Old and new U.N. international non-proliferation treaties are promising, but the U.S. and other nuclear nations have not participated.  This February, Presidents Biden, and Putin agreed to extend the New START Treaty, which limits and monitors nuclear warheads as well as deployments in U.S. and Russia, which are both preparing for full-scale nuclear war, not deterrence.  Much more collaboration is needed, and U.S. leadership is vital.

COMMERCIAL REACTORS AND THEIR WASTES: For about 30 years, South Carolina has been in court numerous times in an attempt to force Nevada to open the “Yucca Mountain” site for geologic storage of troublesome wastes (especially commercial spent fuel).  For about 40 years, Nevada has opposed hosting the site.  Every Nevada governor and attorney general has opposed it, as do Nevada citizens.   

Nevada issues in court have concerned inadequate radiation-protection standards for the wastes in the repository (Nevada has won this issue). Other pending major challenges include the lack of essential rail access to Yucca Mountain, and the documentation of earthquakes and fractured rocks at the site.  There are almost 200 pending legal contentions.

There is water under the Yucca Mountain site, and the rock under and over the site is now recognized as porous.  The so-called solution to this challenge to isolate the wastes from water is to somehow put a titanium wrap around the nuclear waste prior to the closure of the site.  I have seen the proposal (it is online) which, in my opinion, is only a couple of steps beyond the cocktail-napkin stage.  The water beneath the nearby Nevada Nuclear Test Site is carrying isotopes south.

There is no technical option for permanent storage at Yucca Mountain and no current political option elsewhere.  Some ‘temporary’ storage proposals in the West Texas/New Mexico area persist.  Wastes imported from U.S. sites or other countries to SRS have no apparent place to go.  SRS may be an ultimate storage site for many wastes, however “unplanned.”   

One of many so-called “small modular reactor” designs is now likely to be built at an Idaho DOE laboratory.  Economic analyses indicate that the electricity generated will not be any cheaper than commercial nuclear reactor electricity. 

Fuel in recent decades has performed in the commercial reactors longer, making more electricity.  I initially thought this was excellent, until I learned that the resulting spent fuel waste is significantly hotter, both thermally and radioactively.  The small-reactor spent fuel, if generated in Idaho, will reportedly be even hotter.  We do not have a plan for adequate casks for either long-term on-site storage of spent fuel - or for its transportation.

When I began working on Governor Riley’s staff, I felt that a proper geologic formation could secure nuclear wastes and fuel rods for the necessary isolation period.  I served on a national nuclear waste team with members like me and geologists from South Carolina and other states, who were more skeptical.  I lost my faith. 

Some say the ultimate solution to nuclear waste storage is only a political challenge; others say it is a technical problem. I am convinced it is definitely both, and probably insurmountable, at least with current political and technical options. 

PROLIFERATION: The world now has about 25,000 warheads.  The U.S. so-called ‘need’ for new nuclear warheads, which are currently tens of years old, will allegedly provide improved ‘performance.’  There is much conflict over whether/if we need these warheads – and if the existing warhead ‘life times’ might extend an additional 100 or more years.  In the meantime, U.S. and Russian nuclear upgrades are stimulating other countries to upgrade or initiate weapons, reminiscent of the recent Cold War.

The United Nations sponsored an old non-proliferation treaty, and a new treaty has recently been unveiled.  Thus far, the U.S. and other nuclear states are not among those signing either treaty.  The New START treaty is better than nothing, as it limits us to 6,000 warheads and 3,000 launchers, but we need much more.  We also hope for China.

The proposed new pits for new warheads are a new shape, and in many instances, the new shape allegedly requires a new delivery system. We may be considering trillions of dollars in new design, development, and delivery costs into the future. 

Back to plutonium pits and the so-called need for more weapons: Please check the chilling review of Daniel Ellsberg’s recent book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,  https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/12/28/doomsday-ex-machina-daniel-ellsberg-and-the-nuclear-gang/.  Ellsberg’s considerations and recommendations are in line with LWV/US non-proliferation policies.  

Ellsberg reveals several incidents in which United States’ presidents were tempted to initiate a nuclear first strike.  No one knows what similar challenges other countries have experienced.  Ellsberg offers strategies to reduce or eliminate the future possibility of similar temptations, and closes out The Doomsday Machine by calling for a dismantling of the ‘omnicidal’ system that he convincingly argues could eventually destroy us. He offers a list of proposed changes including a U.S. “no-first-use policy,” eliminating our ICBMs, dismantling the American Doomsday Machine, and others.  

SUMMARY: Neither South Carolina’s environment, the U.S., its economy, nor our world, needs these pits, nor the new deployment devices to deliver pits.  What we all need are solid international non-proliferation policies and treaties, in line with existing LWVUS policies.  We now have a plan to clean up SRS in the next 20 years, IF we don’t generate more waste. 

**The SC Environmental Law Project just agreed to request DOE provide a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the many important environmental issues associated with pits production (which LWV/SC asked for years ago).  With luck it will also address the so-called ‘need’ for the pits in both time and purpose, wastes generated on site and off site, suitability of the MOX shell, numbers of jobs,  and the option of not going forward.