Welcome to…

Hosted by

Pull the Plutonium Pork – End Pull the Plutonium Pork – End MOXMOX

Monday, June 24, 2013

3:00 PM EDT

Pull the Plutonium Pork – End Pull the Plutonium Pork – End MOXMOX

Tom ClementsSoutheastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator

Friends of the Earth1112 Florence St.

Columbia, SC 29201803-834-3084

tomclements329@cs.com

The good news: ~55 metric tons of plutonium has been declared “surplus” for weapons use

Pits, metal, oxides, residues, fuel• Pantex – “pit” storage, Texas• Rocky Flats: shipped to SRS & WIPP• Hanford – Washington: shipped to SRS• SRS• Los Alamos Lab - New Mexico• Lawrence Livermore Lab - California• Argonne National Lab - West, Idaho

Disposal of U.S. “surplus” plutonium via mixed oxide fuel (MOX) is

- far over budget, with more increases at hand;- is an inefficient jobs program in South Carolina, being protected by Senator Graham;- is the most expensive disposal option;- MOX poses problems with reactor operation, radiation release in case of severe accident and problems with storage of hotter spent MOX fuel- has no clients (commercial nuclear reactors) for MOX fuel;- results in more handling and processing of plutonium;- poses proliferation risks by introducing plutonium into commerce and sends the wrong message internationally about plutonium use;- is linked to the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel and plutonium “breeder” reactors.

The MOX program should be terminated before billions more dollars are wasted. Alternatives must be vigorously pursued.

National Academy of Sciences study on disposition of “surplus” plutonium-1994

• Advocated the “Dual Track” – plutonium fuel (Mixed Oxide - MOX) and immobilization

• Disposition to meet “Spent Fuel Standard”

• At all points in disposition to meet “Stored Weapons Standard”

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process began in 1996 by DOE’s national Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)- Originally supported the “dual track “approach;

-EIS identified no reactors for MOX use;

- Review under President George W. Bush terminated “immobilization” in high-level waste;

- Supplemental EIS began in July 2010 - looked at MOX use in reactors owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority & some plutonium to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) – final SEIS to be issued in July 2013?

US-Russia “Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) of 2000,

amended 2010 – both sides to dispose of at least 34 metric tons; can be changed by written agreement

Plutonium-239 “pit” is the heart of a nuclear weapon

DOE Nuclear Bomb Complex

“Pits” from dismantled weapons stored in bunkers at DOE’s Pantex site in Texas

Savannah River Site (SRS) designated as storage site for “non-pit” plutonium and MOX

facility - 310-square miles in size

K-Reactor produced plutonium at SRS and is storing 13 metric tons of weapons-

grade plutonium

SRS Plutonium “Puck”-shipped to Rocky Flats to make “pits”

3013 Pu storage cans in K-Reactor building at SRS

K-Area Materials Storage (KAMS) facility

SRS's five heavy water production reactors produced 36.1 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium

Hanford – produced 67.4 MT in 9 reactor

SRS Reactor Name Start-Up Date Shutdown Date

R-Reactor December 1953 June 1964 P-Reactor February 1954 August 1988

K-Reactor October 1954 July 1992 L-Reactor July 1954 June 1988 C-Reactor March 1955 June 1985

H-Canyon Reprocessing Facility- separated weapons-grade plutonium & sent waste to tanks

- a “national asset” for commercial reprocessing R&D?

-

High-Level Waste Tanks “Farms”- received waste from H- and F-Canyon

reprocessing plants, this is plutonium-production by-product waste

High-level waste is the immediate threat at SRS, not plutonium:

“Radioactive waste stored in SRS tanks poses the single greatest environmental risk

in the State of Carolina.”

Terrel Spears, Assistant Manager, Waste Disposition Project,

DOE Savannah River Operations Office,on January 8, 2008 to National Academy of Sciences Cleanup

Technology Roadmap Committee

Reprocessing and waste tank area

HLW waste tank “farms”

Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF)- glassifying HLW, has processed 15% of

tank waste in 17 years, 3600 canisters poured (of 7500 total) and in two storage facility, 3rd

facility delayed

Canisters to be filled with vitrified waste glass & HLW mix, lethal dose in 1 minute

Duke Energy’s McGuire & Catawba reactors chosen for MOX testing and usein March

1999– Duke dropped out in 2008 after failed MOX test; “ice condenser” reactor model w/

thin domes

BN-600 “breeder” reactor Beloyarsk-3; BN-800 under

construction

TVA’s Browns Ferry – Fukushima-style GE Mark I “boiling water

reactor”

GE Mark I and II: pressure suppression systems, thin domes

US Pu Dispositon Facilities at SRS

• MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility

• Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility (PDCF) - canceled

• Waste Solidification Building (WSB) - to solidify TRU waste from MOX plant

• H-Canyon to purify Pu for MOX;

• Preparation to send “non-MOXable” Pu to WIPP

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) – construction began August 2007; Jan. 2010 photo

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility area – March 2013

$7.7 billion MOX plant – April 2013;2004 - $1.8 billion; 2008- $4.8 billion

DOE: plutonium disposition “assessment”

“NNSA remains committed to the plutonium disposition mission. However, considering preliminary cost increases and the current budget environment, the Administration is conducting an assessment of alternative plutonium disposition strategies in FY2013, and will identify options for FY2014 and the outyears.”

(page DN-113)

DOE project “mismanagement” cost still at 2008 level & still no life-

cycle cost

Problems with MOX

FY 2104 DOE budget request:- $478 million for plutonium disposition; - $320 million forMOX plant construction, - estimate for MOX plant operation: $543 million/year;- funding drops to $200+ million in FY2015-FY2018

~$22 billion left for overall MOX program – no DOE “life-cycle” cost

figure ever released

Alternatives to MOX

“Can-in-Canister” immobilization

Immobilization by hot isostatic pressing (HIP) Container at the left is filled with powdered material. On the right, after 8 to 9 hours, the powder has been turned into 5

liters of solid ceramic.

Credit: UK National Nuclear Laboratory

Ominous link between MOX, reprocessing and breeder reactors

Questions? Comments?But first, Friends of the Earth TV ad on MOX,

released on June 19, 2013

Through another lens,

Plant Vogtle

Not here, not now,

Not here, not now!

Georgia

South Carolina

Environmental Justice Issues

•compounded ‘nuclear impact‘ increases human and environmental burden

• legacy of institutional racism

•lack of sufficient monitoring and information dissemination

Areas of concern

• Working locally to restore the Department of Energy environmental monitoring in Georgia

• Working in communities, educating on the stakeholder role to advocate for the ‘cleanup not buildup‘ as the funding priority at SRS

• Speaking and testifying with communities at SRS Citizen’s Advisory Board meetings on issues of public concern

• Bringing residents/constituents to meet with their local, state, and federal elected officials to say

NO to new nuclear missions/waste streams at Savannah River Site

MOX - PlutoniumInterim Storage at SRSReprocessing

• Advocate for stronger protections and regulations to protect the most vulnerable populations and environment

Congress and MOX

Pro-MOXPro-MOX Anti-MOXAnti-MOX• Sen. Lindsay Graham

(R-SC)• Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)• Rep. Jim Clybourn

(D-SC)• Rep. Joe Wilson (R-

SC)

• Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)

• Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)

• 328 other members of the House

• Key House and Senate Staff

Who cares about MOX?

A short story about a lot of money• Fortenberry Amendment

(http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll325.xml)

• Sequestration

• FY14 Budget Request

• Hold on Secretary of Energy nomination

• FY14 National Defense Authorization Act

• FY14 Energy and Water Appropriations

Stop funding it• “Fence” funding in the

National Defense Authorization Act

• Cut funding through Energy & Water Appropriations process

• Department of Energy requests “reprogramming”

Start alternatives• Department of Energy

“assessment” of alternatives

• Government Accountability Office report

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t license MOX

• No Utilities agree to accept MOX

How can we stop MOX?

What can you do?• Look for an email action alert

• Engage the media– Local media

– National media (http://bit.ly/AtlanticMOX)

• Meet with your members of Congress

Please contact us for more information:WAND National Office

691 Massachusetts Ave, Arlington, MA 02476 | 781-643-6740

WAND/WiLL Washington, DC322 4th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202-544-5055

Georgia WAND 250 Georgia Ave. Ste 202, Atlanta, GA 30312 | 404-524-5999

www.wand.org www.willwand.org

www.gawand.org