Kenneth Fletcher
NS&D Monitor
4/11/2015
Department of Energy officials are still in the hot seat with lawmakers over the decision to suspend the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility project, and this week they did not provide any specifics on alternatives for plutonium disposition. DOE last month announced that due to rising costs it would immediately move to put the plant under construction into "cold standby" as it examines its options. But that change of course has made waves in Congress. "This committee told you to build the MOX program. We didn’t tell you to study some other alternative," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said this week at an April 9 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hearing. "I want to make sure that we don’t break our agreement with the Russians. I want to make sure that the people of South Carolina are not left holding the bag because there is no alternative to MOXing that’s viable, that can meet the time periods required and that’s cheaper."
DOE officials generally referred requests for more details to an unreleased plutonium disposition alternatives assessment undertaken launched last year by DOE Senior Advisor John MacWilliams. "We do believe that there are options that are significantly cheaper. We owe it to the committee to get you that report as soon as we possibly can so that we, all together, can make a very good government decision," acting National Nuclear Security Administration chief Bruce Held said at an April 8 House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing this week, adding later that the report may be released next week.
The MacWilliams study reportedly includes a $30 billion figure for the lifecycle cost of the MOX plant. But that number has been disputed by an official from AREVA, which is part of project contractor Shaw AREVA MOX Services, who has reportedly said that $4 billion has been spent so far and remaining costs including operating the facility total less than $13 billion, according to the Augusta Chronicle. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz this week said that the cost estimate discrepancies are due to differences in how the lifecycle cost is calculated. "The $30 billion confusion is because there are multiple facilities and it doesn’t do me any good to build a fabrication plant and not have the other parts of the thing," he told reporters following a hearing "In fact, there’s not a huge discrepancy between the contractor’s numbers and our numbers. It’s just that they quote the building that they’re building, and we say here’s the whole project cost."
Moniz: ‘MOX is the Most Straightforward Path’
MOX is designated as the disposition pathway for 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium in an agreement with Russia, and options being considered include continuing with MOX, disposal in deep boreholes, disposition at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and immobilization in high-level waste. "MOX is the most straightforward path. It is what we’ve agreed to do. It is what we have spent billions of dollars on already. I think we’ve been very clear," Moniz told reporters, adding that DOE would work with the Congress on the issue. "We have to take a pause and look really hard at these alternatives to see what we do. If the Congress and the Administration agrees to say no, we’re going to do that, okay. But if we are under the same kind of budget pressure then the question is where does it come from?"
But few details are available on the cost and feasability of alternatives. When Graham asked where the immobilized material would be stored, Moniz responded: "As I said, there are other issues to be addressed." But Graham replied: "There is no plan. There is no viable plan to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium. There is nobody going to receive this in an immobilized state. The Russians have agreed to MOX as a disposition plan two years ago. So I don’t know where this is coming from, and I don’t think it’s coming from this secretary, who’s a very fine man. This is a major decision for this committee to address. We’re about to blow a chance to get thousands of nuclear warhead material off the market forever. You’re breaking faith."
Sen. Landrieu: MOX ‘Woefully Underfunded’
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Mary Landrieu (D-La.) also expressed concerns about the suspension of MOX at a hearing this week. "This is a very important question for this committee," she said, adding later: "We have a contract with no alternative—with no alternative—an inability, in my view, to renegotiate with the Russians now or for the foreseeable future, and yet this budget is woefully underfunded for a project that’s not only important to jobs here at home, which is a very important reason, but it’s important to live up to the commitment that we have made."
Rep. Wilson: Suspension Disrupts Nonprolif. Efforts
Also this week, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), whose district includes the Savannah River Site where the MOX plant is being built, raised the issue with Held at the House Armed Services Committee hearing. "By placing this into cold standby, I believe it interrupts the environmental cleanup missions and disrupts the nonproliferation efforts," Wilson said. Held replied that a "serious mistake" was made when construction started before design was complete, leading to rising costs. "One of the options could still be the MOX project, though, if we can work with the M&O contractor and drive down the price of actually making—the real question is, what is the smartest way that is cheaper than $25 billion?"
