Sellafield Product & Residue Store received first batch of plutonium
The Sellafield Product & Residue Store facility (SPRS) received its first batch of plutonium in preparation for commissioning of the facility for normal operations. Construction of the facility was completed in May 2010. SPRS is designed to store U.K. separated plutonium for up to 100 years. The United Kingdom reported having 84.9 tonnes of separated plutonium at the end of 2009. It has no strategy of dealing with the material. Among most recent proposals is a controversial plan to use the plutonium to fabricate MOX fuel.
Dan Yurman
In the U.S. construction of a $4.6 billion MOX fuel plant in South Carolina is making progress in terms of construction and the licensing process.
However, in terms of actually supplying the MOX fuel to utilities, the normal business issue of getting the fuel to reactor in time for its outage seems to need some attention.
Full details at Fuel Cycle Week
http://fuelcycle.blogspot.com/2011/02/utilities-mull-mox-fuel-volume.html
Pavel Podvig
As I understand, the MOX program has a different problem - utilities don't really want the fuel. Duke pulled out of the arrangement (over safety issues is seems), TVA does not seem be very enthusiastic either (although it may have no choice). It remains to be seen if anything will come out of the Energy Northwest's inquiries. Of course, if NNSA prices MOX "very competitively," they will come back on board, but it does not look like there is a rush to get into the project.
Dan Yurman
Duke did not pull of the MOX program over safety issues. Both Duke and NNSA denied this in November 2009. See my report at this URL.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/11/green-groups-slime-duke-on-mox-fuel.html
Also, in 2011 Duke's primary concern is reliable fuel services. The MOX replacement fuel for up to 40% of the core of the Catabwa reactor will be ordered up to two years ahead of the scheduled reactor outage.
If it isn't available, the utility must have other fuel which will be available for the core to keep the reactor in revenue service. NNSA says it will have 160 tons of uranium fuel available as a back stop, but has not said who will pay for it.
NNSA and its contractor Shaw Areav MOX Services LLC do no seem at this point to be taking the issue very seriously, but a Duke spokesperson told me it is the main sticking point for inking a contract to use MOX at all.
Pavel Podvig
I remember that story. I think it's quite natural that Areva and Duke deny problems with fuel safety. But the fact is that Duke pulled out of the MOX program as a result. Here is a quote from DoE announcement of the change in the plutonium disposition program:
We could argue whether it was fuel safety or concerns about reliability of supply, but Duke seems to be out of the MOX program. Also, as I understand, early termination of fuel irradiation test means that the fuel has go through the irradiation cycle again to get a license. So, my impression is that reliability of supply is the least of the problems in the U.S. MOX program.
Dan Yurman
In preparing the story for Fuel Cycle Week, a Duke Energy executive told me on the record the primary sticking point was NOT fuel performance.
Instead, the spokesperson said it was the inability of NNSA and Shaw Areva MOX Services (SAMS) to commit to guaranteed delivery of the fuel in accord with the scheduled fuel outages of the Catawba reactor.
Insofar as I could tel from talking to NNSA, the government simply hasn't taken the issue seriously at this stage of the project. For its part, SAMS declined to speak to a reporter referring all inquiries to the government.
Pavel Podvig
I understand that the Duke representative said what he said, but there is still a question why the company stopped fuel test and terminated the contract. This doesn't look like something that is done out of concerns about NNSA commitment to supply fuel.
From the technical point of view, I would need to look into this more closely, but I don't understand why potentially unreliable supply of MOX might be a problem - a utility could always switch back to uranium fuel. As far as I can tell, it's not like they have to load 30 percent of the core with MOX.
By the way, TVA also does not seem to be excited about MOX.
Dan Yurman
Yes, a utility would be able to switch back to uranium fuel if NNSA can't deliver the MOX. However, this means the utility has to order a stand-by load of it in addition to paying for the MOX. If I was the utility's CFO I might have some heart burn over that issue.
Also, it is unlikely Duke could load 30% of the core with MOX at one time. More likely they would load 10% of the core on the first outage, another 10% 18-24 months later on the next outage, and so on.
Pavel Podvig
Yes, I think that explains the utilities' reluctance to go the MOX route. Unless DoE starts giving the fuel away, of course - there is a price point for MOX at which it would make sense even with all the precautions that you described.