Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
7/25/2014
In comments that appear to signal a softening against the battered Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility under construction at the Savannah River Site, Deputy Secretary of Energy nominee Liz Sherwood-Randall this week called MOX the Obama Administration’s “preferred solution” for plutonium disposition before squarely placing the onus for funding the project on Congress. “We should not take any steps that diminish the likelihood of Russia fulfilling its obligation,” Sherwood-Randall, the White House’s former arms control czar, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee during a hearing on her nomination. “We have an obligation to fulfill, and we as a nation have a responsibility to figure out how to get it done in an affordable manner. And if I am confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the appropriators to figure out the way to get this project funded.”
Sherwood-Randall’s comments diverge sharply from previous statements by Administration officials about MOX, which have been focused on a decision to place the facility in “cold standby.” The Administration softened slightly in the face of Congressional opposition—and a lawsuit from South Carolina—when it agreed to postpone mothballing the facility until the start of Fiscal Year 2015 instead of during FY 2014, but Sherwood-Randall’s comments appear to be informed by decisions by all four Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the project to direct continued construction in Fiscal Year 2015 and boost funding.
Congressional Committees Largely Support Project
The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee provided $400 million for the project in its Fiscal Year 2015 spending bill, nearly double the Administration’s $221 million request, while the House-passed FY 2015 Energy and Water Appropriations Act includes $345 million for MOX. The Senate Armed Services Committee also authorized $456.1 million for the project in FY 2015 and the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee boosted authorized funding by $120 million, though that funding boost was stripped out of the House bill during a markup of the full House Armed Services Committee to pay for eight more MQ-9 Reapers for the Air Force. “The technical viability of the MOX approach is not in question,” Sherwood-Randall said this week. “The only reason that the question has been raised about how to proceed is because of the challenges to the funding stream for MOX.”
The Obama Administration announced its decision to place the facility in cold standby as part of its FY 2015 budget request, citing the rising costs it would take to complete construct of the project and run the facility once it’s completed. At the same time, it said it would seek less expensive options to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium under an agreement with Russia and would continue to study alternatives to MOX.
In a statement, DOE spokeswoman Aoife McCarthy emphasized that no decisions had been made about the project. “We have been working closely with the MOX project contractor and others to determine if there are opportunities to make the current MOX fuel approach for plutonium disposition more efficient as we face significant cost growth and funding challenges,” she said. “The Department is currently reviewing execution plans for FY-15 work submitted from the MOX contractor with various funding levels and will determine the best path forward.”
Sherwood-Randall: MOX is ‘Our Preferred Solution’
The decision came after the Department launched a study of plutonium disposition alternatives last year led by DOE senior advisor John MacWilliams that revealed that estimated construction costs for the facility had risen to $10 billion, up from a previous estimate of $7.7 billion and an earlier baseline of $4.86 billion. “The Secretary of Energy has asked the question, ‘Can we do this project with the money that is available to us in a budget constrained environment? And is there any other way it could be done, meeting the obligations we have, and keeping the Russians invested in it as well, that would be a more effective use of the taxpayers’ dollars for the disposal of this plutonium?’ ” Sherwood-Randall said.
Sherwood-Randall emphasized that technical concerns were never a problem for the project. The price tag, more than anything, was the big issue, but Sherwood-Randall seemed to suggest that if Congress were to fund it, the Administration would be OK with moving forward on MOX. “If there is funding for this project that is sustainable over time, this is our preferred solution,” Sherwood-Randall said.
Landrieu: It’s Up to Congress to Fund Project
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has helped lead a bipartisan effort to restore funding for the project, welcomed the new message from Sherwood-Randall and DOE. “I think your statement was crystal clear—that the technology is your preferred technology, the process is your preferred process, but it’s really an issue of funding,” she said. “So it’s up to the members of this committee, and the Appropriations Committee, to solve the funding problem if we want to help you solve this problem that we share together.”
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) remained skeptical, though. “My thought is that it’s good news that the fact the real issue is the challenge of the funding stream, but it does appear to me that the real challenge is the commitment to MOX facility, and not the funding stream itself,” he said. Scott emphasized that there were no alternatives to the MOX facility, and criticized the Administration for not requesting more money for the project in FY 2015. “Congress seems to have a greater … commitment to the agreement and funding the agreement than the Administration is willing to ask,” he said. “I do think it’s fair for me to highlight that perhaps the only known scientific way of disposing of the weapon-grade plutonium being MOX, for the Administration not to have a commitment to ask for the funding necessary seems to me to be disingenuous.”
