Kenneth Fletcher
NS&D Monitor
2/28/2014
After recent steps pointing toward the potential termination of the project, more clarity on the future of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility is expected to come with the release of the Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request next week. Bruce Held, acting head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, this week emphasized the importance of disposing of 34 metric tons of surplus plutonium under an agreement with Russia, but was vague on whether MOX would be the path forward. “The question is what is the most cost-effective way of disposing that plutonium. The MOX project was identified as the way to go earlier. Cost projects have run up in such a way … and the budget situation of the country has changed and such. We have to re-look at the viability of that approach,” Held said at a Feb. 27 Energy Communities Alliance meeting in Washington, D.C.
The MOX plant under construction at the Savannah River Site has been the Administration’s planned option for disposing of the surplus plutonium under the agreement signed with Russia in 2000. However, last year the NNSA faced a cost estimate that increased the construction price tag for the facility by nearly $3 billion, from $4.86 billion to $7.7 billion. The Administration subsequently announced that it would launch an assessment of plutonium disposition alternatives and cut funding for the project in its FY 2014 budget request. But backing away from MOX was met with strong opposition from some lawmakers, notably longtime supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). And despite the Administration’s proposed cuts, Congress increased funding for the project over the budget request level in the omnibus spending bill passed earlier this year.
This week, Held signaled that the Administration in no way intends to back off its commitment to dispose of its surplus plutonium. “We are not re-looking at the importance of disposing of the 68 metric tons, 34 on our side, 34 on the Russian’s. The world will be a safer place if we do that; we are going to do that,” Held said. But how disposal would be done in the absence of the MOX plant is uncertain. The Administration has not released the results of its MOX alternatives analysis, which was led by DOE Senior Advisor John MacWilliams. However, possible options for the plutonium include immobilization through vitrification in other high level waste, or direct disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Capitol Hill Briefing Set for Feb. 28
MacWilliams is set to brief staffers on Capitol Hill on Feb. 28 on the MOX project ahead of the release of the budget request. The meeting comes amidst widespread speculation that the Administration plans to shut down the MOX project. Last week, the NNSA dispatched a consultant to the MOX project to examine options for terminating Shaw AREVA MOX Services’ contract for plant construction. The consultant is believed to be retired DOE official David Darugh, who was chief counsel during the shutdown of the Superconducting Supercollider Project in Texas cancelled by Congress in the 1990s. When reached for comment last week, Darugh said he was “not permitted to talk about the MOX project.” The consultant’s visit took place while contract talks on a path forward for the project continued this month between MOX contractors, Administration officials and lawmakers including Graham.
Local Officials Threaten to Sue Over Pu Disposal
Amidst the reports, local supporters of the MOX plant are upset about the possibility that the project may be terminated. “It has the same smell as Yucca Mountain,” Chuck Smith of the Aiken County Council told NS&D Monitor, referring to DOE’s controversial 2010 decision to shut down the proposed high-level waste repository in Nevada. Smith stated that the reconsideration of MOX is a “political decision” and not related to any technical issues. Legislation requires the Department to remove or process a portion of the surplus plutonium stockpiled in South Carolina by 2016 or face fines of up to $100 million per year.”We will use the court system to get it out of the state if they don’t meet their legal requirements,” he said. Aiken County has signed on to several lawsuits in opposition of the Department’s shutdown of the Yucca Mountain project.
The South Carolina Congressional delegation has remained fairly quiet on the uncertainty surrounding MOX. Graham (R-S.C.), who has been a staunch defender of the project, did not respond to a request for comment this week, and neither did Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), another vocal MOX supporter. But Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), whose district includes Savannah River, last week vowed to fight against any shutdown of the MOX program. “My colleagues and I in the United States Congress are determined to fight back against this possible decision,” he said in a statement. “In the coming weeks, I plan to launch a campaign against any attack by the Administration to help secure the future of this project. The President has chosen to play politics with our nation’s nuclear nonproliferation strategy and this will not be tolerated.”
MOX Services Aims to ‘Set the Record Straight’
At the project site, MOX Services President Kelly Trice aimed to “set the record straight” in a message to employees last week. “You may also see additional speculation in the media about actions or rumored actions DOE and NNSA are taking. Unless we receive official notice or direction from DOE and NNSA, it doesn’t matter what is written or said online or in the media. Please try and ignore the noise from Washington and focus on your work,” Trice said in the Feb. 20 message obtained by NS&D Monitor. It adds, “Our first priority is to finish construction on the MFFF, and our calculations show it will take $4 billion to complete. This, of course, depends on funding levels the administration requests to Congress.”
Trice also took issue with the $30 billion lifecycle cost estimate for the plutonium disposition program quoted recently as a DOE report figure in media reports. “I (and many others) don’t understand where the $30 billion figure that has been quoted comes from. I haven’t seen the report and I don’t know if it will ever be released,” Trice said. He added, “What is not clear to readers is the definition of a ‘life-cycle cost.’ It is not how much it will cost to build—or even operate—the facility we are building, but rather, it is the total cost, from start to finish, of the entire U.S. plutonium disposition program. The ‘life-cycle cost’ includes the estimated cost of the waste building construction and operations, the MFFF operations (for 15 years), reactor modifications, secure transportation, H Canyon operations, Los Alamos National Laboratory plutonium disposition operations, and the amount spent to date to construct the MFFF, as well as the amount spent so far on the pit disassembly and conversion mission.”