A down-blending method of weapons-grade plutonium is more cost effective than the current MOX program, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.
The highly anticipated, 47-page cost-analysis study of the Savannah River Site's MOX project is finally available to the public. The study is Part 1 of a broad assessment of MOX alternatives. Part 2 will look at several other alternatives and is scheduled to be released in September.
Part 1 compares two methods of ridding the nation of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium - a task that is part of an international agreement with Russia.
The first is the MOX method, which includes the construction of multiple facilities at SRS and other DOE facilities that would convert the plutonium into commercial nuclear fuel. The down-blending method, which would also take place at SRS, would be executed using inhibitor materials, or materials that slow down the chemical process. The solution would then be packaged into approved canisters and shipped to a repository for permanent disposal.
The report was released by Aerospace Corp. - a California-based nonprofit corporation that operates a federally funded research and development center - and is heavily based on cost risks and sensitivity.
The nation already has invested $4.4 billion into the MOX project. According to Aerospace, the cradle-to-grave figure, or life cycle cost, of the entire project would total $51 billion.
That figure includes completion of the main MOX facility at SRS, other construction, labor and related costs for the lifespan of the facility and a two-decade planned operation of the project.
In the executive summary, Aerospace wrote that it first examined a previous cost analysis of the MOX method, considering use of best practices and industry standard approaches to cost estimating, including cost-risk. That study was completed in 2013 and released last year.
"Cost increases due to known delays in the program and the associated cost escalation due to inflation in the out-years were also estimated. These changes were then added to the original 2014 estimate to create a new 'baseline' from which to assess programmatic risk," Aerospace wrote.
Aerospace said the new study also includes more risk assessment of the work scope, and re-evaluated a cost-to-year ratio. Aerospace concluded that the $51 billion is based on whether MOX was to be funded at $500 million per year - the level the Department of Energy has said it would cost to make significant progress. If MOX was funded at $375 million per year - $30 million less than its current funding - Aerospace reported it would cost about $110 billion to complete.
Using the same steps, Aerospace concluded that the down-blending method would total $17 billion to complete.
The downblending program workflow would start with plutonium pits transferred from Pantex Plant in Texas to the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico where they would be disassembled and divided into two product lines: Packing plutonium in dissolvable containers at Los Alamos for dissolution at SRS and conversion to an oxide with the existing supply of non-pit plutonium stored in K-area of SRS.
After the downblending process, the material would then be packaged and transported to a geologically stable underground repository for disposition.
"There is no cost-risk confidence level in the assessment where the MOX Fuel Option life cycle cost-to-go is less than the Downblend Option," Aerospace wrote.
Aerospace was instructed by Congress to conduct a cost analysis of the MOX facility en route to the government body appropriating $345 million to continue construction of the MOX facility. The MOX project currently employs 1,700 people and is about 65 percent complete after spending $4.4 billion thus far.
The study is approved for public use by the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA - a semi-autonomous branch of the Department of Energy. An official use copy of the study was released last month, but the NNSA first had to work with Aerospace to release a redacted study that contained no distribution restrictions for security purposes.
The Aerospace report was met with immediate opposition from congressional MOX supporters and CB&I Project Services group, one of the companies building the MOX facility.
Bryan Wilkes, a spokesperson for the group, said last month the figures in the study don't match up, and that it will take an additional $3.3 billion to finish the main building and five to nine years to complete the MOX facility, depending on the amount of annual funding.
"The biggest costs are going to be labor costs, and that's how we can be certain in our estimates," Wilkes said.
Derrek Asberry is the SRS beat reporter for the Aiken Standard. and has been with the paper since June 2013. He is originally from Vidalia, Ga., and a graduate of Georgia Southern University. Follow him on Twitter @DerrekAsberry.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.