SRS Watch MOX Boondoggle Update May 26, 2015 Senate Armed Services Committee Requires Extensive Review of Plutonium Downblending as Alternative to Plutonium Fuel (MOX); Authorizes $5 Million for Downblend Analysis To Keep Jobs at SRS, Committee Requests DOE Analysis of Alternative Uses for the Plutonium MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in the Event non-mox Option Chosen NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2016 REPORT, with Downblend Review linked here Columbia, SC The U.S. Senate s Armed Services Committee has taken the step of requiring an in-depth analysis of the option of downblending surplus plutonium for disposal as waste as an alternative to the troubled plutonium fuel (MOX) project. The requirement is yet another sigh that support for making plutonium fuel (MOX) from surplus weapons plutonium continue to erode, according to Savannah River site watch. In a report that accompanies the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee directs the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to answer key questions about the downblend option and provide a report, to be reviewed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), to the defense committees by October 31, 2015. The report language is dated May 19 but was released on Friday afternoon, May 23. The committee notes that the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to struggle with its plutonium disposition program and requires the analysis of the downblend option be undertaken as earlier DOE analyses inadequately assessed the technical, regulatory, and political feasibility of the downblending option. It s good to see that Senator McCain recognizes that the mismanaged MOX project faces a dire financial situation and that it s necessary for Congress to show leadership in looking at other plutonium disposition options, said Tom Clements, director of SRS Watch. As Congress has been negligent in its oversight of the problem-plagued MOX project, it s about time that someone in the Senate showed the backbone to stand up to Senator Graham in examining non-mox options. While the outcome of any review of non-mox options is still not known it is encouraging that the conversation has begun in earnest about viable plutonium disposition alternatives.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is chaired by Senator John McCain, who is said to be concerned over growing costs for the MOX program, as reported in a recent DOE-sponsored document released by the Aerospace Corporation. Senator Lindsey Graham, the top MOX booster in Congress and who sits on the Armed Services Committee, was not able to prevent the downblend language from going into the report. Graham has repeatedly failed to outline a way forward with the MOX project, which is now estimated to have a life-cycle cost of between $51 and $114 billion and which Aerospace determined is not viable at the current funding level of $345 million per year. Sensitive to the unclear future of the Savannah River Site, the committee requested a review by DOE of potential use of the MOX plant in case the MOX option was abandoned and to identify potential longterm mission needs at the Savannah River Site over the next 30 to 50 years. The Armed Services Committee went along with the $345 million requested by the administration for MOX plant construction at the Savannah River Site but also authorized $5 million for the analysis of the downblend option. Notes: National Defense Authorization Act passed Armed Services on May 19, 2015 ### Text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senatebill/1376/text?q={%22search%22%3a[%22s.1376%22]} S. Rept. 114-49 - 114th Congress (2015-2016) May 19, 2015, As Reported by the Armed Services Committee https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt49/crpt-114srpt49.pdf NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 1376] ON TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE text of MOX/plutonium disposition section, pages 327-329: Plutonium disposition program The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to struggle with its plutonium disposition program, the intent of which is for the United States and Russia to each dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium an agreement between the two countries was signed in 2000 and updated in 2011. The existing strategy is based on constructing a facility to fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel and irradiating this fuel in specially-modified commercial nuclear reactors. Once used and removed from a reactor, the plutonium can no longer be readily used to make a nuclear weapon. In 2013, in light of the cost increases and the current budget environment associated with the MOX facility and the overall Plutonium Disposition program, DOE s fiscal year 2014 budget request stated that the strategy for converting plutonium to MOX fuel may be much higher than initially anticipated. The budget request announced that, as a result of these projected cost increases, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) would slow down activities associated with the current plutonium disposition strategy and conduct an analysis of alternatives to complete the mission more efficiently. In April 2014, DOE released its analysis of the existing MOX strategy and four other alternatives including downblending the 34 metric tons and disposing this material at DOE s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), or at a new repository that would need to be constructed if WIPP could not be modified to dispose of this downblended material. The April 2014 analysis found that the downblending option was significantly less expensive than the other four alternatives examined. An April 2015 independent analysis conducted by the Aerospace Corporation of the lifecycle costs associated with the MOX and downblended options also concluded that the downblending option was significantly less expensive than the MOX option. Although cost is a factor in considering disposition strategies, it is important to note that the only option that meets the requirements outlined in the Plutonium Management and Disposition Act PMDA, signed by the United States and Russia, is MOX. All other alternatives would not only require that we renegotiate the PMDA with Russia, but will likely also require statutory and regulatory changes that could cause additional delay. The committee is concerned, however, that these analyses inadequately assessed the technical, regulatory, and political feasibility of the downblending option. To address these inadequacies, the committee directs NNSA to prepare an analysis of the downblending option that includes answers to the following questions: (1) What is the capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, other program costs, and overall lifecycle costs associated with
the optimal downblending strategy? (2) What is the existing subscribed capacity at WIPP and how would DOE accommodate the volume of downblended material from the 34 metric tons from the plutonium disposition program? Since WIPP is currently not accepting transuranic waste as a result of the February 2014 accident, and thus created a backlog of waste that is being temporarily stored at multiple sites, when would the first shipment of plutonium be transported to WIPP if this option was selected? What costs are associated with this delay? (3) Would the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act need to be modified to accommodate this additional volume? If yes, how long with this likely take to complete? What, if any, costs are associated with this delay? (4) Are there statutory changes or other regulations that would need to be modified to support the downblending option? If so, how long would it take to change these regulations and what are the associated costs? (5) Would a new geologic repository be needed to accommodate all or some of this additional volume? If so, what would be the potential cost and schedule of siting, constructing, and operating such a repository? By way of comparison, what was the capital cost of constructing WIPP? (6) What is the optimal blending of weapons-grade plutonium with inert material to maximize space in a repository? (7) How might the percentage of plutonium in containers of downblended material affect the security requirements associated with transporting the material to a repository, the security requirements at the repository, and the ability of international monitors to monitor the downblended material in a repository? (8) What are the nonproliferation and arms control concerns associated with disposing of weapons-grade plutonium in containers that lack a radioactive barrier in a repository? (9) Would the PMDA need to be renegotiated if MOX was no longer the preferred option for the United States to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium? What are the concerns associated with this action? (10) What are the technical impediments to downblending weapons-grade plutonium from pit and non-pit sources? (11) What are the views of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and State of New Mexico in pursuing a downblend strategy? The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $345.0 million in Nonproliferation Construction for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for Nonproliferation Construction to support analysis of the downblending alternative. The committee requests that all cost analyses conducted as part of this analysis follow the best practice guidance of the Government Accountability Office s (GAO) Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. The committee requests the Department of Energy to conduct a two-step analysis of alternative uses for the MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility (MFFF) should an alternative plutonium disposition strategy be adopted and this facility were no longer needed for this purpose. To preserve the long-term mission for the Savannah River Site, (1) identify potential long-term mission needs at the Savannah River Site over the next 30 to 50 years, and (2) using best practices identified by the GAO, conduct an analysis of alternatives to identify how these mission needs could be met by using the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. The analysis for the downblending option and the alternatives to using the MFFF shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than October 31, 2015. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to review the NNSA analysis as outlined in this section with a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 30 days after receipt of the NNSA analysis. Contact: Tom Clements Director, Savannah River Site Watch Columbia, SC tel. 803-834-3084 cell. 803-240-7268 (I will be kayaking on the Congaree River part of the day on Monday, May 25, but will have my cell phone. I will be available on May 26.)