Augusta Economy

More News | Fort Gordon | Plant Vogtle | Savannah River Site | Editor

Supporters, opponents of MOX facility speak out at hearing

Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012 9:23 PM
Last updated Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012 12:27 AM
  • Follow Latest News

Proposed changes to the government’s mixed oxide fuel program drew mixed reactions Tuesday night as supporters and foes of the $4.8 billion project shared little common ground.

“I think MOX is the biggest disconnect of the industrial revolution – a factory with no customers,” anti-nuclear activist Glen Carroll told U.S. Energy Department officials during a public comment session in North Augusta.

The MOX plant, designed to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium by blending it into commercial reactor fuel, is also a major economic engine that provides thousands of jobs, said Tom Jenkins, an official with local unions that provide labor for the project.

“We’re ready for it and we have the trained staff,” he said. “We very much support this project.”

Tuesday’s meeting was one of seven scheduled to discuss changes in the MOX program and its related environmental impact statements.

The government has not altered its mission to dispose of the plutonium, but has amended its original plan to build a freestanding plant to process plutonium “pits” from dismantled warheads into powder for use at the MOX plant.

Instead, the new plan will use multiple existing facilities, including the H Canyon facilities at Savannah River Site, to accomplish the same mission without building a new plant.

Plutonium not suitable for MOX will be disposed of at a site in New Mexico.

Critics of the program, however, raised continuing concerns about escalating costs and suggested the plutonium could simply be processed as nuclear waste and immobilized.

Tom Clements, the non-proliferation policy director for the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, also noted that there are currently no clients willing to use MOX fuel in commercial reactors.

Although the Tennessee Valley Authority has indicated an interest in using MOX at its Sequoyah and Brown’s Ferry nuclear plants, a formal agreement does not yet exist, he said, adding that some estimates place the MOX program’s costs as high as $17 billion.

A cheaper alternative, he suggested, would be to immobilize plutonium at the SRS Defense Waste Processing Facility or a similar project that would prevent any future use of the material for weapons.

“The costs are just spiraling out of control, Clements said.

Supporters of the MOX program included Donald Bridges, a member of the SRS Citizens Advisory Board who – speaking as a private citizen – said he supported using the H Canyon facility at SRS to move the project forward.

“Using an existing facility is a cost-effective option for DOE,” he said, noting that the project is now 16 years old and needs to move ahead. “Soon, it will be old enough to go to college.”

The Energy Department will continue to collect comments on the revised environmental impact statement and expects to issue a record of decision on the changes sometime in 2013.

Comments (1) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
SCEagle Eye
870
Points
SCEagle Eye 09/05/12 - 08:06 am
1
0
Don't you find it totally

Don't you find it totally unacceptable that DOE totally refuses to reveal what the total cost estimate is for the MOX program? DOE and contractors are playing the public for a bunch of chumps who will hand over a blank check no questions asked. How long can we let big government get away with this abusive attitude that is rapidly driving the debt higher????

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs