|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
PO Box 88 ~
Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 ~ Phone
(336) 982-2691 ~ Fax (336) 982-2954 ~ Email:
BREDL@skybest.com
|
PRESS
RELEASE
|
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 23, 2001 |
CONTACT:
Don Moniak (803) 644-6953
Lou Zeller (336) 982-2691 |
PLUTONIUM FUEL FUNDING
NEARLY EXHAUSTED
BAD COST ESTIMATES PLAGUE PROGRAM
Documents obtained this week by the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League (BREDL) indicate
that funding for the Department of Energys
(DOE) Plutonium/MOX fuel program contract1 is
nearly exhausted. According to Modification 13 of
its contract with Duke Cogema Stone & Webster
(DCS), DOE has already obligated eight-six
percent (86%) of the total estimated cost for
contract performance (Figure 1)2.
BREDL estimates that 77-80% of the
cost-plus-fixed-fee is obligated
through this fiscal year3,
suggesting the possibility of unexpected future
liabilities for DCS.
DOE has submitted grossly misleading
cost-underestimates to Congress, largely based on
Duke Cogema Stone & Websters
proposal, said BREDL Organizer Don Moniak
of Aiken, South Carolina. We believe the
program should be cancelled before taxpayers are
saddled with another multi-billion dollar DOE
boondoggle that increases the nuclear danger; an
investigation into the validity of original
cost-estimates should be conducted; and DOE
should lift its suspension of the plutonium
immobilization project.
The huge cost-overrun is substantially greater
because the one-year old performance cost
estimate fails to incorporate:
- a 40% increase in the design cost
estimate for the plutonium/MOX fuel
fabrication facility (Fig2);
- higher-than-expected costs of Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensing of the
fuel facility;
- the fact that numerous Base Contract
obligations have yet to be submitted
and/or approved--including final design
packages, reactor licensing amendment
applications, the MOX fuel security plan,
and the entire Lead Test Assembly
program.
<end>
1
DCS is presently under a
cost-plus-fixed-fee contract called
the Base Contract and awarded in March 1999 after
two other bids were rejected. The Base Contract
obligates DCS to conduct numerous activities at
the front end of the plutonium/MOX fuel program
(with DOE retaining Options to extend the
contract for construction, operation, and
deactivation):
design and licensing of a
plutonium/MOX fuel fabrication facility
at Savannah River Site;
design and licensing of
nuclear reactor modifications at Duke
Power Companys Catawba and McGuire
Nuclear Power Plants near Charlotte, NC
and Rock Hill, SC; (although Virginia
Power Companys North Anna 1 and 2
nuclear power reactors are still listed
as mission reactors in the contract);
qualification of
plutonium/MOX fuel for use in U.S. light
water reactors (LWR);
design and certification
of a first-of-its-kind plutonium/MOX fuel
shipping package.
fabrication and
irradiation of plutonium/MOX fuel Lead
Test Assemblies
2
Performance cost is the estimated cost for
the performance of the work under the Base
Contract, and is defined in Part I, Section
B.2.a of the DCS-DOE contract, Contract No.
DE-AC02-99CH10888. The Base Contract
performance cost in March 1999 at
time of award was $116.7 million. Three
subsequent contract modifications through July
2000 led to total increases of $8.6 million to
reach the $125.3 million performance cost
estimate in the most current contract available.
3
The fixed fee for the performance of
the work, which amounts to overhead and profit if
work costs meet cost estimates, is defined in
Part I, Section B.2.(b) of the contract. This
figure, which is considered
proprietary and exempt from public
disclosure, increased through two contract
modifications through July 2000.
BREDL estimates the original fixed fee at
approximately $14 million, or a 10-11% overhead
and profit margin. This estimate is based on
DOEs news release of March 22, 1999 stating
the base contract being worth approximately
$130 million and entailing three to five
years of work. http://www.ch.doe.gov/press/032299.htm
More Info: Plutonium
Fuel Factory facts
Southern
Anti-Plutonium Campaign
|
|
|
|
|