DOE and the Savannah River Site The View from South Carolina

1
DOE and the Savannah River SiteThe View from
South Carolina

• Ernest Chaput
• May 23, 2007

2
Topics to be Covered

• The Current Situation
• Community Priorities
• Highlights
• Issues and Concerns
• Thoughts on pending DOE initiatives

3
Disclaimer

• I talk to a lot of people
• This presentation is the synthesis of many
  viewpoints
• I am solely responsible for this presentation

4
General Publics Attitude

• Savannah River Site is an important local
  employer providing quality jobs.
• Most are comfortable with SRS as a neighbor
• Recognized for strong safety and environmental
  protection programs. This trust goes back over
  40 years
• Most detractors are remote from SRS, and are more
  often concerned with DOE programs conducted at
  SRS, not SRS performance

5
Elements of a Community Vision

• SRS is a long-term part of our regional economic
  base
• Its importance/impact is reduced because of (1)
  downsizing and (2) significant diversification of
  local economy
• We support the assignment of new compatible core
  missions to SRS
• SRS physical assets and intellectual talent are
  used to leverage new private sector jobs and
  investment
• We are not a closure site

6
Consensus Guiding Principle

• No waste or excess nuclear materials shall be
  brought into South Carolina unless an approved
  and funded pathway exists for its processing and
  shipment to either a customer or an
  out-of-state waste disposal facility
• DOE obligations to South Carolina shall be
  legally enforceable

7
We are a Involved Community

• SRS public support is legendary large numbers,
  broad based and two states
• This is only half the story. Community
  participation and support at many levels
• Actively support adequate budgets
• Comment on matters affecting site efficiency and
  long-term viability
• Sec 3116 Waste Determination Actively supported
  regulatory approval of Saltstone Permit
  Modification
• Participated in MO contractor selection draft
  RPF comment process
• Home to Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
• Aiken County funding of Center for Hydrogen
  Research modern laboratory facility for SRNL,
  technical transfer for the community
• Nurturing of SRS spin-off businesses

8
Community Priorities - Programmatic

• Expedited removal of high level waste from
  underground tanks and preparation for disposal in
  national repository
• Expedited stabilization for safe storage of
  plutonium from SRS and other locations
• Expedited preparation of plutonium received from
  out-of-state locations into forms suitable for
  shipment to users or out-of-state waste disposal
  facilities
• Regulatory milestones are met
• National laboratory and infrastructure programs
  are sufficient to attract new DOE missions and
  have beneficial impact on private sector
• Sufficient funding for timely support of program
  needs
• Early availability of Yucca Mountain

9
Community Priorities - Institutional

• Some common elements in the DOE and Community
  long-term visions
• Open, continuing and timely communication
• Locally and with Washington
• Timely follow-through on commitments
• An effective Community Relations Program
• Working with the Communities to leverage SRS
  activities for off-site jobs and investment

10
Recent Positive Highlights

• DOE support for Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
  Facility (MOX) construction
• DOEs aggressive program to deal with WIR lawsuit
• Community appreciates DOE efforts to protect high
  level waste and DWPF programs
• Focus on risk reduction
• DD programs placed in lower priority
• A recognition of SRSs ability to assist in
  addressing DOE-wide needs

11
Current Areas of Concern

• Delayed Construction of MOX Facility
• resulted in Aiken County lawsuit
• Congress is the current holdup
• Delay in Salt Waste Processing Facility
• facility redesign not in overall best interest
• Lack of Disposition Pathway for excess plutonium
  not suitable for MOX plan de jour
• Research Reactor SNF remains without an approved
  disposition pathway
• Regional capabilities not always considered in
  contracting programs
• Eliminates opportunity for local economic
  development
• No DOE vision for long-term SRS viability
  (recapture of DOE investment)
• Individual near-term program interests appear to
  transcend DOE long-term corporate requirements
• Savannah River Ecology Laboratory is one example
• Improved communications could have minimized some
  of these concerns

12
Thoughts on DOE Initiatives

• Initiatives involving SRS
• Complex 2030
• Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
• Plutonium Vitrification Facility
• Plutonium and HEU consolidation initiative
• Energy Initiatives

13
Complex 2030

• Community supports DOE plans
• Modernize, right-size and cost effective
• We believe SRS is well suited for plutonium
  mission and will actively support that assignment
• Receipt of plutonium from other locations will
  not be an issue if (1) part of production mission
  and (2) non-suitable plutonium prepared for
  disposition.

14
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

• An Energy Park on SRS is a location being
  considered in draft PEIS.
• We propose that all three facilities can be
  located on SRS
• GNEP fits community vision for DOE and commercial
  nuclear energy missions
• High level of local support but many questions
• Several Regulatory Challenges
• Licensing a new reactor type NRC
• Decay storage and ultimate disposal of Sr and
  Cs considerable state input may be required
• Community concerns include
• SNF shipped to SRS, facilities are cancelled
  (defacto regional storage)
• Lack of Congressional understanding and support

15
Plutonium Vitrification Facility

• This facility is five years overdue. Has a
  strongly defined role in Surplus Plutonium
  Disposition
• Pathway for safe disposition of excess plutonium
  not suitable for MOX Facility
• Not a substitute for MOX
• Does not meet programmatic objective
• Does not have adequate capacity

16
Plutonium and HEU Consolidation Initiative

• DOE correctly identified SRS facilities as best
  able to dispose of surplus/waste plutonium and
  HEU currently at multiple DOE locations.
  Billions of Dollars can be saved.
• We want to help but we will protect against
  repeat of Rocky Flats debacle.
• Legally binding commitments
• Must be viewed as beneficial for total state (not
  just area surrounding SRS)

17
Energy Initiatives

• Nuclear Energy (in addition to GNEP)
• We want to be a greater player (partner with
  Idaho) in Gen IV and Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.
• We are an active player in Nuclear Power 2010.
  We were a NuStart finalist. Also reviewed as
  alternate site in North Anna EIS
• Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
• SRS has largest staff of hydrogen scientists and
  engineers (Capability based on 50 years of
  tritium work)
• South Carolinas many assets have been organized
• Good reception from industry many cooperative
  programs
• Have been unable to become part of DOE core
  program.
• Nation will benefit from increased SRNL
  participation in DOE programs

18
In Summary

• South Carolina and SRS served the nation well
  during the cold war
• Events over the last ten years have tested the
  relationship between DOE and the community
• SRS is not a closure site
• There are many important challenges facing DOE
  and the nation which can benefit greatly from SRS
  participation.
• SRNL and basic SRS infrastructure should be
  supported based on potential future contributions
• DOE and the community need to redouble efforts to
  align our visions for the future of SRS. We will
  both be stronger.