Plutonium disposalCost of plutonium disposal facility skyrockets
The Mixed Oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel factory at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, being built to help dispose of cold war-era weapon-grade plutonium, would cost up to $30 billion in addition to the $4 billion spent on construction so far. The staggering cost overruns have led many to call for a new, less expensive solution. Matthew Bunn, a former Clinton White House official who helped develop the plutonium disposal program, agrees that the cost of the MOX factory is excessive. “The things we’re trying to accomplish aren’t worth that amount of money,” he said.
A Department of Energy(DOE) classified report says that completing the Mixed Oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel factory at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina may cost billions of dollars more than previously estimated. Completing and operating the factory to help dispose of cold war-era plutonium as part of the nonproliferation arrangement with Russia would cost up to $30 billion in addition to the $4 billion spent on construction so far.
Government officials and industry sources familiar with the study say that the Obama administration is contemplating other options to eliminate the thirty-four tons of weapons-grade plutonium the factory was expected to help eliminate.
The Center for Public Integrity reports that with no clear alternative in site, the administration may propose to fund the plant’s construction in fiscal 2015, but for less than the $343 million appropriated in 2014. The plant’s builder, Shaw Areva MOX Services, a French-Dutch-owned consortium, seeks roughly $700 million a year to keep construction on schedule, but senior administration officials have insisted on a reduction in construction costs in order to support the completion and operation of the MOX factory.
The DOE report estimates that construction costs alone could reach $10 billion, or ten times the initial estimate. To reduce costs, DOE wants Shaw Areva MOX Services to revise the contract to limit the company’s profits and expand the firm’s responsibility for cost overruns. “Areva should know that if it makes mistakes, it should suffer the consequences,” one government critic of the program said, noting past construction problems that have boosted the project’s costs. Shaw Areva’s refusal of DOE demands have led the administration to explore other options to dispose of the plutonium.
A government official involved with discussions about plutonium disposal said that Russia has, surprisingly, indicated that it might support a U.S. decision to dispose of the plutonium by transforming the plutonium metal into a less explosive powder, then bury it deep underground in concrete containers. This option is the cheapest alternative — it would cost only $6 billion and would take five years. The original plan to transform plutonium into a Mixed Oxide fuel which would be burned in commercial reactors has yet to secure a commercial reactor operator who would be willing to use the material. One reason for the MOX factory’s high cost is that DOE would have to pay commercial reactor operators a fee to burn the MOX fuel.
Matthew Bunn, a former Clinton White House official who helped develop the plutonium disposal program, agrees that the cost of the MOX factory is excessive. “The things we’re trying to accomplish aren’t worth that amount of money,” he said. “To me, in an environment of extreme budget constraints and sequesters, there has got to be a better way.”
John MacWilliams, who conducted the DOE study, has proposed disposing of the plutonium in three-mile deep “boreholes” drilled deep into the bedrock. Another option is to mix the plutonium with high-level radioactive waste and store it in a future long-term storage facility. Burying oxidized plutonium would likely take place at DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, a network of underground salt-lined caves. Such an option would demand the site’s expansion, which will require local permission and political will.
