Lawmakers challenged Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Tuesday to commit to resolving the issues that are preventing Congress from taking a definitive stance on the future of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina.
Perry reaffirmed the Energy Department’s intentions on MOX during a House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee budget hearing, saying “there is a better, there is a cheaper, there is a proven way to dispose of plutonium” – the dilute and dispose option DOE has proposed instead of finishing construction of the Savannah River Site facility intended to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess weapon-usable plutonium.
Under the alternative plan that originated during the Obama administration, the processed material would be shipped from the Savannah River Site to DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.
“Before we walk away from something we’re in the middle of, we ought to have the plan to move forward and be sure that we can do it,” subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said, calling for an “honest cost comparison” and “honest assessment” of the status of construction of the facility.
While project contractor CB&I AREVA MOX Services says the plant is 70 percent complete, the Energy Department places progress at roughly 40 percent. Construction costs are also disputed, as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates the facility will cost $17.2 billion to complete by 2048, while the contractor says it will be $10 billion by 2029.
The discrepancy stems from different metrics used to measure progress, as well as different assumptions about escalation of costs throughout the duration of the project. The department has spent about $5 billion on the MOX program to date.
Simpson argued during the hearing that federal cost comparisons have not been accurate, “because there’s a lot of things that they left out of the cost of dilute and dispose, such as transportation, such as keeping WIPP open, and long-term storage at WIPP, and so forth.”
The lawmaker said those discrepancies must be resolved before DOE proceeds with any plutonium disposal plan. He said he worries about potential bureaucratic hurdles a decade from now, should the U.S. pursue the alternative approach, which might involve New Mexico’s acceptance of diluted plutonium at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or something like South Carolina’s ongoing litigation demanding the Energy Department remove plutonium from its state.
Noting that the Energy Department must first receive approval from the states of New Mexico and South Carolina for various parts of the dilute and dispose process, Simpson said, “I don’t want to be held hostage to that.”
Disposal at WIPP, for one, would require regulatory action, including amending existing regulations to expand the facility and, therefore, its storage capability. Meanwhile, South Carolina lawmakers have strongly opposed all prior attempts to terminate MOX, arguing this method is the only viable plutonium disposal option.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) said during the hearing that Congress should not waste any more money locked in a stalemate with the administration over this issue. He asked for a commitment that the Energy Department will resolve the cost and regulatory issues to better inform congressional funding decisions on MOX.
“That is what we are intending to do,” Perry said in response. Ultimately, he said, “I cannot in good faith say that going forward with that program is wise.”
“I want to sit down with the [MOX] contractor,” Perry added.
The administration’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal would direct $270 million toward termination operations at MOX and another $9 million to research the alternative approach, which involves blending the excess plutonium with inert materials and storing the resulting mixture in a geologic repository.
Perry suggested Wednesday at a Senate energy and water development subcommittee hearing that the material processed through the dilute and dispose method could be stored somewhere other than WIPP, the facility the Energy Department has repeatedly pointed to as the eventual disposal site. He said “there are obviously other options” for disposal but did not specify which ones he would consider, saying only that no decisions have been made yet on the matter.
