A U.S. District Court judge on Tuesday denied the Department of Energy’s request for a delay in proceedings for South Carolina’s multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the federal agency. DOE had requested that Judge J. Michelle Childs postpone a June 30 hearing on the state’s request for summary judgment in the civil case charging DOE with failing to meet the terms of a 2003 plutonium disposal agreement.
The department is building the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina to convert 34 metric tons of weapon-usable plutonium into commercial nuclear fuel.
Under the deal with the state, the federal government was required to process 1 metric ton of plutonium at SRS through the MFFF or remove a ton from the state. Since neither occurred, the department was supposed to begin paying $1 million a day to the state, which capped off at $100 million on April 9. Attorney General Alan Wilson waited more than a month after the deadline before suing on Feb. 9 for the $100 million and the removal of the plutonium, followed by filing a motion on April 6 asking for summary judgment.
On April 26, the Energy Department filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit altogether. On May 25, DOE requested that the court postpone the hearing and decision on the request for a summary judgment until after a ruling on the dismissal of the lawsuit. The hearing next week will address DOE’s motion to dismiss the case and South Carolina’s motion for summary judgment.
The judge on Tuesday said delaying a ruling on the summary judgment request “would not serve the interests of judicial economy and could cause prejudice” to the state of South Carolina. Childs also acknowledged the request to dismiss the case, but said the best option is to allow both parties to make their arguments during the June 30 hearing, “even if the court has to allow for discovery and additional briefing subsequent to the hearing.”
The Energy Department and the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office declined to comment, with both stating they don’t comment on ongoing litigation.
