Staff Reports
NS&D Monitor
12/11/2015
The nation’s planned MOX method of plutonium disposition is vulnerable to annual funding constraints, while a downblending approach is lower in both cost and associated risks, according to Aerospace Corp. The company conducted a congressionally mandated study on alternatives to the costly MOX project, which includes ongoing construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Part 1 of the study was released in April and concluded that downblending 34 metric tons of weapon-usable plutonium and storing the resulting material at a repository would be significantly cheaper than moving forward with the MOX method, which would convert the plutonium into commercial nuclear fuel.
The Union of Concerned Scientists obtained Part 2 of the study and released it on Tuesday. Part 2 considers MOX, downblending, and three other alternatives that were also assessed last year in another study conducted by the Department of Energy. According to Part 2 of the Aerospace report, the "cost-to-go" estimate for downblending is adequate for concept-level costing and consistent with industry best practices. Meanwhile, the growing life-cycle cost of the MOX project, which Aerospace projected to be $51 billion in its April report, is three times as high as the downblending projection. Part 2 of the Aerospace report further says that the MOX method still has a fair amount of risks associated with the completion of construction and startup of the MFFF. As a result, the company has identified "challenges in maintaining workforce and suppliers with the requisite experience in facilities, systems and operations.”
Part 2 of the Aerospace report did highlight uncertainties tied to the downblending approach, including issues at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, N.M. WIPP is the only facility that has been mentioned as a landing spot for the diluted plutonium once the material is ready for disposal. But the transuranic waste storage facility has been shut down since February 2014 due to two separate incidents — a salt haul truck fire on Feb. 5 and the release of a small amount of radiation on Feb. 14. The Department of Energy is pushing to reopen WIPP next year, but has not set a specific date after scrapping the projected March 2016 restart date. In this context, Aerospace reported that a "permanent disposal repository for the downblended material has not been definitively identified."
Despite concerns over the downblending approach, Aerospace has pegged it as the most cost-effective and practical when compared to the other alternatives. One method is the fast-reactor approach being used by Russia under the accord with the U.S. that calls for each nation to eliminate 34 metric tons of plutonium. Under the process, plutonium-based weapons would be broken down and used as chargers for a casting furnace. The broken-down plutonium would be blended with other elements in the fast reactor to create a metal fuel. The second Aerospace report did not include cost projections for this option, but a similar DOE report released in 2014 stated the method would cost about $50 billion. Aerospace concluded that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing process would be "lengthy" due to significant technology development and the need for a demonstration phase to prove the viability of the fast-reactor approach. The licensing and the associated risks, which include the need for additional facilities for metal fabrication, make the method one of the least desired pathways.
Less is known about the deep borehole disposal alternative, which would require workers to drill holes, 5,000 meters deep, into crystalline basement rock. Canisters containing the plutonium would be placed inside about halfway down and covered up with cement to seal them off. Neither the 2014 DOE report nor the Aerospace analysis provided cost projections for the method.
A final method is immobilization, which would convert the plutonium into a glassy form, place it in a can, and encase the can using a high-level waste glass, creating a "glass waste canister." The 2014 DOE report priced the method at $29 billion, but the Aerospace report says the cost estimate was too low and that the uncertainties of costs and schedules make the method a major risk.
About $5 billion has been spent on MOX to date. Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with UCS, said the two Aerospace reports indicate the MOX method must be abandoned. He added that he expects the Department of Energy to try to end funding for the program in the fiscal 2017 federal budget. "Thus far, the main obstacle to pulling the plug on the project is the South Carolina congressional delegation, which sees it as a jobs program," Lyman said. The MOX project employs about 2,000 workers.
Following the release of Part 1 of the study, DOE notified Congress that it had "no preferred alternative" to plutonium disposition. The message was a change from the department’s stance in 2012 when it cited the MOX method as its preferred method. Moving forward, the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act commissions Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to provide an updated performance baseline for MOX, which would outline a new cost and schedule for the project. Moniz is to provide the baseline in time for President Barack Obama to use the information in his fiscal 2017 budget proposal, which usually surfaces in February.
