Kenneth Fletcher
WC Monitor
5/2/2014
As the Department of Energy considers its options for disposing of surplus plutonium, a new study released this week suggests that downblending the material and disposing of it at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant may be the least expensive alternative. While DOE’s current plans calls for the material to be converted into nuclear power plant fuel at the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility under construction at the Savannah River Site, the Department has proposed putting the MOX project in a “cold standby” mode beginning in Fiscal Year 2015 due to rising costs. According to the plutonium disposition alternatives study the National Nuclear Security Administration released this week, downblending surplus plutonium and disposing of it at WIPP was the least expensive option by billions of dollars. The WIPP option would cost about $8.8 billion and be completed in 2046 with less risk and uncertainty than MOX, according to the report. That is $16.3 billion less than the “to go” costs for MOX, which the report estimates at $25.1 billion with a completion date of 2043 with “significant risks.”
The WIPP option would entail mixing the plutonium oxide with “inhibitor materials” to reduce the plutonium contract to less than 10 percent by weight, according to the report. The work would be performed at Savannah River, and two additional gloveboxes would be installed. The downblended material would then be loaded into “criticality control overpack (CCO) packages” that have a maximum limit of 380 FGE (fissile gram equivalent) per package for shipment and disposal at WIPP. The report notes that if a higher rate of 1,000 FGE per package were to be approved, the duration of the disposition mission could be reduced to 15 years.
Notably, the option comes as WIPP is still shut down after a radiation release earlier this year. While some initial shipments of plutonium not suitable for MOX have been made to WIPP, there are a number of hurdles to that option—including amendments to WIPP’s Land Withdrawal Act after recent events have greatly increased scrutiny of the facility. Additionally, if disposal in WIPP were pursued it would mean a renegotiation of the plutonium disposition agreement with Russia, which specifies MOX as the only disposition pathway—and it is a less attractive choice from that standpoint because there is no radiological barrier to retrieval.
MOX Supporter Voices Skepticism
The WIPP option was met with skepticism this week by long-time MOX support Sen. Lindsey Graham during a Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hearing with the NNSA. “This idea of diluting plutonium and saving $16 billion is just an idea that I think will never bear fruit. Do you have any agreement where to put the diluted plutonium? Do you have an agreement where to put the diluted plutonium? Can you put it at the WIPP? Have they agreed to accept it?” he said, adding later: “So you’re going to start one program and you’re going to look at another alternative with no agreement as to where you would put the diluted plutonium that you can inform the committee of?”
New NNSA Administrator Frank Klotz said no discussions have taken place on that option. “This is a first cut at that,” Klotz said, noting that a more detailed study would be conducted over the next 12 to 18 months.
Five Alternatives Considered
In all, five alternatives to MOX were considered in the report, though only downblending and disposal came out to have a lower lifecycle cost than MOX. Deep borehole disposal of the plutonium in underground shafts had significant uncertainty related to both siting the facility and renegotiating the agreement with Russia. Another option, immobilization of the material, would have a lifecycle cost $28.7 billion and not be completed until 2060 with major uncertainties and risks. Finally, irradiation of plutonium fuel in fast reactors, which is currently the option pursued by Russia, was estimated to cost twice as much as MOX and not be completed until 2075.
The lifecycle cost for MOX, which the report put at over $25 billion plus more than $4 billion in sunk costs, has also been a point of contention—with contractor officials and Graham claiming that costs may actually be far lower. “I don’t accept for one minute it’s $25 billion. So we’re going to have a contest over are they right,” Graham said, adding, “Secondly, you’re now telling the state of South Carolina, well, let’s start over. Let’s wait another year, another 15 months. To accept this material to begin with, we had one hell of a fight in South Carolina, where the existing governor said, don’t accept this deal with the federal government; they will leave you hanging.”
Klotz: MOX ‘Still Very Much on the Table’
Klotz emphasized that MOX is still “very much” on the table. “The secretary of energy is committed to continue the process of dialoguing with the Congress over this as we work through the discussions on the budget this coming year, and it’s clearly not off the table,” he said. “But the perspective that we operate from is, this is an extraordinarily expensive process. It’s one the nation’s going to be committed to for a long time, whatever path we choose for plutonium disposition, and we have to make sure that, one, we are committed as a nation, over the long haul, to in fact do it this way and balance it against the other demands on the Department of Energy and NNSA budget in the area of weapons modernization and nonproliferation and preventing nuclear terrorism.”
