News Release

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) today issued the following statement on a July 26 hearing by the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee on the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Facility.

“Department of Energy officials have affirmed their support for a mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility. They testified that MOX remains their choice for disposition of 34 metric tons of plutonium at Savannah River Site in South Carolina.  This is welcome support for a program that has become a bone of contention in Congress.

“Our nation’s nuclear legacy leaves us with some costly technical challenges. Before moving down any disposition path, it is important to know the options and to analyze the pros and cons.

“This hearing gave Department of Energy officials the chance to lay out their case for MOX.  They did so with a chart showing that disposition using MOX fuel was $400 million cheaper than plutonium immobilization over the life cycle of the project.  They also reassured us that Russia will simultaneously dispose of 34 tons of its own weapons grade plutonium, which reaffirms the non-proliferation benefits of the program.

“As with any major engineering project, questions remain, particularly surrounding the Russians’ plan to employ fast neutron reactors in lieu of light water reactors to irradiate plutonium-based fuel. 

“Nonetheless, I believe the Department made the case for MOX. As the first witness, Dr. Matthew Bunn, pointed out, MOX is not a perfect choice, and it is a good choice only if the 34 tons are a first step, followed by further disposition of plutonium by both parties.”

* * *

Rep. Spratt’s opening statement at the hearing, which lays out the history of the program and the issues the hearing was intended to address, appears below.

“I would like to thank the Ranking Member for yielding his time, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on an issue of importance to the nation and to South Carolina. 

“For more than five years, the Department of Energy has proposed to build a Mixed Oxide, or MOX, fuel plant at Savannah River Site.  The plant’s purpose is to convert weapons-grade plutonium into fuel that can be “burned” or irradiated in light-water reactors.  There are two benefits from this process.  First, it degrades plutonium into elements that are no longer fissile or usable as warhead material, and second, it extracts the energy potential from surplus plutonium. 

“Until recently, DOE’s plan to build a MOX fuel plant at Savannah River Site was to be matched on a parallel track in Russia. The Russian Federation, with foreign financial assistance, was to build a similar plant. Each plant would process at least 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium into mixed oxide fuel, which would then be burned in a nuclear reactor.

“The House Energy and Water Appropriators have now decided to zero out funding for the MOX fuel program, citing mainly Russia’s rejection of DOE’s proposal, but also cost growth and technical hurdles. The purpose of our hearing today is to take a thorough look at the MOX program, assess its progress, and compare it with other options for the disposal of plutonium. 

“To set the stage for our discussion, a little history is helpful.

“In 2002, the State of South Carolina, in an arrangement with the Department of Energy and Congress, accepted 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium for MOX processing. In exchange, the State of South Carolina received assurances that the MOX fuel plant would be completed on schedule, and those assurances were backed up by penalty payments, or liquidated damages, to which the Department of Energy agreed, if the MOX fuel plant’s construction was delayed beyond 2011.

“In parallel with this effort, the United States agreed to help fund a MOX fuel facility in Russia, where the Russians would likewise convert 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium into MOX fuel.  To most, this seemed to be a fair deal.  In the U.S., we would eliminate the expense and risk of safeguarding weapons-grade nuclear materials. In Russia, we would diminish the risk that weapons-grade materials might fall into terrorists’ hands.  And for the nuclear power industry, we would provide a new source of reactor fuel.

“For the last several years, we have been told by the Department of Energy that liability concerns for U.S. contractors in Russia were holding up  the MOX fuel facility. We thought that problem was finally resolved last summer, but early this year, a more fundamental disagreement came to light.  In February, the Russians informed U.S. officials that they would move forward only (1) if the plutonium fuel could be burned in new so-called fast neutron reactors (which could raise proliferation concerns), or (2) if the international community paid for the whole MOX project.  This development called into question the nonproliferation benefits that the U.S. expected from MOX.  However, in a joint statement with the U.S., Russia has recommitted to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium.

“I understand the appropriators’ concerns about changes to the MOX fuel program.  They are major changes. But without a MOX fuel fabrication plant, South Carolina will be stuck with tons of weapons-grade plutonium and no clear path for disposal.  When South Carolina agreed to take the nation’s plutonium, we did not agree to become plutonium’s final burial place.  We took the plutonium on the strength of DOE’s promise that a fabrication facility was coming.  The penalty payments imposed on the Department of Energy were our assurance that this would happen.

“In the Defense Authorization bill this year, we took what I consider sensible steps to account for the new circumstances. The committee reaffirmed our conclusion that the MOX facility is worth pursuing, separate of the Russian facility if need be.  The committee also reaffirmed our commitment to construction of a Russian MOX facility in parallel, if possible.  And the committee fenced off a portion of the MOX fuel funds, pending a report from the Department of Energy that reaffirms MOX as the preferred technology and most cost-effective means for disposing of weapons-grade plutonium. 

“The decision by the Energy and Water appropriators to zero out the MOX program has accelerated the timeline for this report, but it has not changed the issues surrounding the MOX program.  I am not dogmatic about MOX; if other options are available and are cost effective, I am open to those options.  But sunk cost carries some weight. Over half a billion dollars has been invested in the MOX facility already, an EIS has been approved, design work on the facility is 85% completed, and plutonium is piling up in the K Reactor, a facility not designed for that use.  This should make all of us wary of scrapping the whole idea and starting over. 

“Mr. Chairman, I hope that the testimony today will give us an opportunity to weigh carefully the pros and cons of the MOX program, particularly as it compares to other options like immobilization.  To name just a few questions, I would like for our witnesses to address these questions:

“What is the life cycle cost of the MOX facility as compared to immobilization?

“What technical challenges remain in the construction of a MOX fuel plant and immobilization?

“What is the effect of a decision to delay or discontinue MOX on the schedule for plutonium disposition?

“What is the status of negotiations with Russia regarding MOX?  Is the burning of plutonium fuel in fast neutron reactors an acceptable alternative, with comparable end results?

“What alternatives other than MOX and immobilization are available for plutonium disposition and what are their costs and benefits?

“Chairman Everett and Ranking Member Reyes, let me thank you again for holding this hearing. This is a matter of great importance, and I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony and our discussion about plutonium disposition.”

###