Kenneth Fletcher and Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
4/04/2014
Criticism of the Department of Energy’s plans to suspend work at the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility project mounted on Capitol Hill this week when lawmakers squared off with DOE officials at several hearings. Longtime MOX supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) led the charge in the Senate, slamming the Department’s decision to place the program into a cold standby. “Bottom line is we’re not going to let them stop a program we told them to construct,” Graham told NS&D Monitor this week. “There’s an issue here. When you appropriate money you expect it to be followed by the administration but they’re basically changing course in defiance of congressional directive. There is no alternative, they’re breaking the agreement with the Russians over 34 metric tons of plutonium that could be used to create thousands of warheads. … This is just the most irresponsible decision in the area of nonproliferation.”
The Obama Administration announced in its FY 2015 budget request, submitted to Congress last month, that due to rising costs it would suspend work on the plant while seeking less expensive options to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium under an agreement with Russia. The decision came after the Department launched a study of plutonium disposition alternatives last year led by DOE senior advisor John MacWilliams with representatives from DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy and NNSA’s nonproliferation and acquisition and project management offices. That assessment found that construction costs for the facility had risen to $10 billion, NNSA acting Administrator Bruce Held said this week, up from a previous estimate of $7.7 billion and an earlier baseline of $4.86 billion.
NNSA: MOX Remains an Option
Though the FY 2015 budget request calls for shutdown work to start in March with MOX contractor Shaw AREVA MOX Services, National Nuclear Security Administration nonproliferation chief Anne Harrington confirmed this week that no direction has been given yet to the contractor—though she said it would be. Officials this week emphasized that MOX remains an possibility moving ahead. “Any construction work that is performed would only be in support of placing the MOX facility and equipment in a safe and secure state, and most importantly … recoverable state,” Harrington said at a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing. “We have very much the interest of the U.S. taxpayer in mind here, and the option of moving forward with this project is not off the table, but that is part of what is under consideration right now.”
Graham: ‘We’re Going to Use the Power of the Purse’
The state of South Carolina has filed suit against DOE, stating that it is prohibited from using FY 2014 funds to put the project in cold standby. Following this week’s hearing, Graham said that he is also planning to take action to ensure the project moves forward. “Basically we’re going to use the power of the purse. We’re going to fund this program and direct them to keep construction going. We’re going to reject the idea that it’s wise in terms of financial savings to stop the program because there is no viable alternative,” he said, adding that it would “definitely” be a breach of the agreement with Russia. He also said that DOE officials told him it would cost $1 billion to shut down the MOX project. “There is no viable alternative. There have been cost overruns but it’ll cost a lot more to change course when there is not a course,” he said.
NNSA: Russians Receptive to Change from MOX
In initial discussions the Russians have also been receptive to the Administration’s plans to change a disposition pathway for surplus plutonium, Harrington said at a separate hearing, given that Russia has also modified their plans to include fast reactors. “We have had informal discussion with the Russians about the challenges that we have in this program,” she said at a House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hearing. “In fact we had an unexpectedly sympathetic reaction when they said, ‘We came to you a few years ago and outlined our challenges … and you were willing to sit down with us and negotiate a somewhat different path forward for us. If you find yourselves in the same situation we would be willing to do the same for you.’” She added that those discussions were before tensions escalated during events in Ukraine.
And while Graham said shutting down the plant would be a significant cost, DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz this week suggested there was a difference of $300 million in putting the facility in cold standby versus continuing construction. “We will be looking at how we can soften the blow in terms of some of the skills because putting it in standby is not itself a simple action,” Moniz said at a separate House Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee hearing. “It’s a judgment on optionality. In terms of if in a year or year-and-a-half, one decides that MOX isn’t the way to go, then there would be the issue of having spent another hundreds of millions of dollars on the project. But there are downsides doing it the other way.”
Four Disposition Alternatives Under Consideration
Moniz also confirmed that DOE is examining four alternatives for disposing of the 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium, which are believed to include MOX, deep boreholes, disposing of it at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and blending it with high level waste and vitrifying it. “There are both reactor alternatives and non-reactor alternatives, and there is another issue that the reactor alternatives satisfy the agreement that we have with Russia at this time,” Moniz said. “The other would require a real dialogue, and a dialogue isn’t that simple.”
The alternatives, as well as analysis of the rising cost of MOX, is all outlined in MacWilliams’ report, officials say—a study that hasn’t been made public yet. After questioning by Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) about how the decision was made to suspend MOX, Held told the House Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee that it was based on the report, which “ lays out all of these alternatives that this committee needs to see as soon as it is available because that will provide you the transparency that you need to kind of say, OK, how are we reaching these decisions? You know, what is the good government path forward on this? Because it’s a very difficult, difficult thing.”
Rep. Wilson Leads 20 House Reps. In MOX Support
In the House, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) led MOX supporters this week in a letter to DOE signed by 19 other lawmakers that cited a host of potential issues with a MOX shutdown. They note that funds were “explicitly provided” for construction, not the “cold standby” that the Administration recently announced. “We request they be used only for construction as Congress intended. We are concerned that the intent of Congress is being ignored and as a result we may see a usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse,” states the letter signed by Republican Reps. Wilson, Mick Mulvaney (S.C.), Tom Rice (S.C.), Trey Gowdy (S.C.), Mark Sanford (S.C.), Phil Roe (Tenn.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Ted Yoho (Fla.), Rob Pittenger (N.C.), Doc Hastings (Wash.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), Jack Kingston (Ga.), Robert Hurt (Va.), Bob Goodlatte (Va.), Richard Hudson (Va.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Democratic Reps. Jim Clyburn (S.C.) and John Barrow (Ga.).
Other issues include the agreement with Russia mandating MOX and a lack of information on how the Administration arrived at the $30 billion lifecycle cost for the project that has been cited. Additionally, the lawmakers note that DOE will face stiff penalties if plutonium destined for MOX is not moved out of the state of South Carolina by 2016. “Thus, by simply doing nothing, or ‘studying other alternatives,’ American taxpayers will be left to pick up a $100 million penalty annually with no expiration date in sight. Material will never move out of SRS, and the U.S. will have a serious blow dealt to its international credibility on the nonproliferation front,” the letter states. “It will leave material stranded and derail environmental cleanup missions in South Carolina for years to come. And lastly, walking away would cost the American taxpayers far more money with no return on their investment.”
NEI Calls For Continuation of MOX
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute also called on support for MOX in a letter to Moniz late last week. “To cancel, suspend or simply reduce funding for the project will, unfortunately, validate those critics of the Department of Energy who claim it simply cannot complete complex projects, particularly those concerning nuclear materials disposition,” states the letter from NEI President Marv Fertel. “Unfortunately, DOE’s history with this and other large complex projects does not instill confidence in the commercial industry that the MOX program will be able to deliver commercial fuel to utilities on an agreed-to schedule. However, DOE can and should begin to reverse this trend, and begin to restore confidence by following through with the construction and operation of the MOX facility on a set schedule.”
