The MOX program to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons plutonium by converting it into mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for nuclear reactors has failed and costs have spiraled out of control. Over $5 billion has already been spent with perhaps another $20 billion needed to complete the program. No reactors have been secured to use the MOX fuel and the MOX plant under construction has faced continual delays and cost overruns. It is time to reconsider the MOX program and explore alternative plutonium disposition options before more money is wasted.

1. Time to Reconsider NNSA’s
Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Program
Tom Clements
Nonproliferation Policy Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
http://www.ananuclear.org/
tel. 803-834-3084
tclements@ananuclear.org

2. Admirable Goal: Dispose of 34 MT of
surplus weapons plutonium – MOX
chosen over disposition as waste

3. L-Reactor at Savannah River Site, 1954-1988,
plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons

4. Why is the MOX program failing?
Where did it go wrong?
 Continual delays since inception in mid-1990s
 Costs out of control and growing $5+ billion spent,
perhaps $20 billion to go – NNSA refuses to give
estimates
 No reactors secured to use MOX – no decision by
TVA
 MOX is hotter, makes reactor harder to control,
storage problems
 As weapons-grade MOX has never been used before,
MOX testing in reactors will cause more delays
 Operating license of MOX plant being challenged
before NRC
 Start-up of the MOX plant could be problematic; no
operational schedule for MOX plant
 Unknown what MOX fuel would be produced first –

5. MOX Problems, continued
 “MOX Services turnover rate increased from 15% in
FY 2010 to 24% in FY 2011 with the result that the
project has experienced a nearly complete turnover of
construction management personnel in the last year.
Finding experienced replacements has become
difficult and expensive.”
 Part of DOE pattern for mismanagement, cost
overruns for large projects – price tag is unknown
 Continues to pose proliferation risks by establishing
plutonium infrastructure and introducing plutonium
into commerce
 Has become jobs program for South Carolina
 Options exists to manage plutonium and must be
analyzed before more money is wasted, but NNSA is
failing to develop a
“Plan B”

6. Proposed MOX reactors by
Tennessee Valley Authority
Browns Ferry – Athens, AL
GE Mark I Boiling Water Sequoyah – Chattanooga, TN
Reactor – Fukushima design Pressurized Water Reactor

7. Energy Northwest
Columbia Generating Station – Richland,
WA
GE Mark II BWR

8. Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Plant at the DOE’s
Savannah River Site –
under construction by Shaw AREVA MOX Services

9. Past NNSA budget requests for MOX
plant – challenges from the start
FY2002: “…include the FY 2003 construction start,
FY 2006 construction plant start-up, and FY 2007
full-scale operations start date (to meet the
irradiation start date).“
Now: unspecified production start-up in 2018
FY2004: “The overall estimated cost for the MOX
FFF is $1,622 M Total Estimated Cost (TEC). This
amount includes the MOX FFF design budget
($171 M). The construction costs are estimated to
be $1,451 M (including contingency).”
Now: $4.8 billion with no public update in years

10. Plutonium Disposition Funding,
FY13
FY 13 budget request from NNSA
 MOX plant construction $389 million
 Other plutonium disposition $499 million
Total $888 million
House Approps $748 million
($132 million cut in committee, $17 million cut by
full House)
Senate Approps $888 million

11. HOUSE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013 - REPORT
MOX plant cost increase from $4.8 to $5.4 billion or
$5.7 billion? NNSA refuses to release new cost
estimate.
“Construction continues to slip behind schedule due
to unanticipated complexity of the work, poor
contractor performance, delays in procurements, and
the inclusion of additional work scope. The
Department is now reporting internally that the total
project costs could be understated by as much as
$600,000,000 to $900,000,000, and that the project
will overrun its projected completion date by months if
not years.”

12. HOUSE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013 - REPORT
“However, due to the rampant cost growth that has
been reported to construct and operate the MOX
facility, the remaining funding available within this
account is highly constrained and the amount has
been reduced from the request. If the NNSA is
unable to contain the escalating costs of the
ongoing MOX project, funding for other priorities,
such as the uranium enrichment project, will be
severely limited.
Similarly, the Committee will consider whether
additional steps, including legislation, are necessary
to protect the taxpayers’ investments in this program.”

13. SENATE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013 - Report
―Estimated operating costs have grown from
$156,000,000 a year in fiscal year 2011 to
$356,000,000 a year in fiscal year 2012 and now
are estimated at $499,000,000 a year—an increase
of more than 200 percent in just 2 years.‖
―The Committee is also concerned about testing
needed to use fuel made from weapons-grade
plutonium for boiling water reactors. Testing may
significantly increase costs and it is not clear
whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[NRC] has sufficient resources to evaluate the
testing data to make a determination about the
safe use of this fuel.‖

14. NNSA FY2013 request:
FY 2014‐FY 2017: $3,591,260,000 to be requested
for plutonium disposition‖ –$900 million/year into
the future
-- Impact on defense nuclear nonproliferation funding --

15. GAO Report on MOX Plant Costs not
Enough
Why has Congress given the MOX program a blank
check?
HOUSE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013 – report
requirement:
Department of Energy/Nonproliferation ...
“Comptroller General review of MOX facility
cost estimates”
In-depth review of plutonium disposition
needed, including a review on non-MOX

16. Determination
Flexible Manufacturing Capability for
the Mixed Fuel Fabrication Facility
(MFFF)
 “
April 1, 2011 -
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/EIS-0283-S2-
IAD-2011.pdf
DOE seeking more reactors beyond TVA, Energy
Northwest
“DOE proposes to modify the MFFF design to
allow the flexibility necessary to manufacture fuel
for a variety of reactor designs. The modifications
would provide the MFFF with the capability to
produce fuel for boiling water reactors (BWR) and
next-generation light water reactors, in addition
to the current capability for manufacture of
pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel.”

17. MOX costs – $20 billion yet to be
spent?
 Remaining MOX plant construction – about $3
billion
 MOX plant operating costs - $499 million/year x
20 years = $10 billion
 Payment to utilities to modify reactors, use MOX,
store hotter irradiated MOX fuel for longer period
 Support facilities, such as Waste Treatment
Building
 Administrative costs
 Delays, contingencies, accidents
 Decontamination and decommissioning

18. MOX testing by TVA: AREVA trying to
avoid testing as it would lead to delays and
cost increases
 MOX made from weapons-grade plutonium is a “new fuel form”
which must be tested in reactors, but AREVA and NNSA are
trying to avoid this given schedule and cost impacts
 Tony Ulses, branch chief of NRC’s reactor systems branch, said
AREVA “has a steep curve ahead” to demonstrate to staff that
MOX fuel made from weapons-grade plutonium can be licensed
for use in US power reactors without testing
 “In response to your question to DOE and MOX Services, the
decision whether or not to perform additional testing of MOX fuel
assemblies will be evaluated and determined by reactor
licensees and the NRC, and not by NNSA or its contractors. At
this time, the determination whether additional LTAs are required
for licensing BWR MOX fuel has not been made.” (message to
me, Feb. 15)

19. MOX ―lead test assemblies‖- show
stopper?
 MOX test in a PWR by Duke Energy from 2005-2008
was terminated early and only tested for two 18-
month cycles and not the normal three
 No test of weapons-grade MOX has ever been done
in a BWR (Browns Ferry)
 Test in Browns Ferry could only be done after MOX
plant at SRS produces the test assemblies, starting in
2018 at the earliest
 Testing in Browns Ferry could take 6 years, plus cool-
down, post irradiation examination = ~10 years
 Browns Ferry 60-year licenses end in 2033, 2034,
2036
 Need to repeat PWR test in Sequoyah?
 Thus, required MOX testing will cause severe delays
and increase costs far beyond current projections

20. Breeder reactors can produce weapons-grade plutonium, thus
the U.S. is helping Russia’s ability to have capability to
produce more plutonium
“Provide technical support to the DOE in meeting U.S. obligations
to support disposition of weapon‐grade plutonium in Russia.
Provide U.S. technical oversight of work in Russia associated with
the disposition of surplus Russian weapon‐grade plutonium in the
BN‐ 600 and BN‐800 fast reactors and support the
implementation of IAEA verification activities in both the U.S. and
Russia.”
- from NNSA FY13 request

21. Time to halt MOX and explore other
disposition options
 Since the program’s inception in the mid-1990s,
not a single gram of plutonium has been disposed
of beyond test amounts
 Congress has not conducted sufficient oversight,
allowing program to spin out of control
 Situation could worsen with no reactors able to
use MOX and costs increasing, time to pull back
is now
 Non-MOX options, such as immobilization of
plutonium in high-level waste must be
reexamined
 Comprehensive GAO study needed
 NNSA must be directed to develop cheaper,
quicker, safer options

22. Supplemental EIS Coming Soon,
“Cut MOX” letter to Sen. Alexander
The Supplemental EIS on plutonium disposition will
be released before the end of July. It will analyze use
of MOX in TVA reactors, as well as disposal of some
contaminated plutonium as waste.
In 2010, SEIS meetings were held in Athens, AL,
Chattanooga, TN, Augusta, GA and New Mexico and
we expect there will be hearings in the same places in
August.
Please stay tuned and attend the SEIS
meetings and make comments!
Comment at TVA Board meeting – August 14,
Chattanooga. (August 13 listening
session…?)
Send the ―cut MOX‖ letter to Senator
Alexander!

23. Tom Clements
Nonproliferation Policy Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
http://www.ananuclear.org/
tel. 803-834-3084
cell 803-240-7268
tomclements329@cs.com