From: Franovich, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:40 AM
To: Kock, Andrea
Subject: RE: Question on article on MOX at Japan
Unit 3 definitely as some MOX fuel loaded in the core and possibly in the U3 SFP. We may want to ask for the Catawba MOX proposal/safety evaluation report (which the project is now dead) and the Browns Ferry (?) proposal if the staff can provide the dose/health consequence analysis and a synopsis of their take on the MOX issue in terms of public risk. Duke had done extensive work, but I don’t know where TVA is on this. The amendment to use MOX in the reactor would be handled by NRR with support from NMSS as needed (at least that was the previous arrangement).
From: Kock, Andrea
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:31 AM
To: Franovich, Mike
Subject: Question on article on MOX at Japan
Mike: below is the question I plan to forward to OEDO asking for more information on the article below on MOX fuel that WCO asked about this morning. Is there anything I should add to the questions or do you have additional information on this topic?Thanks!
HI Alan! I am copying Kathy in case one or both of you is tied up in the Ops Center. Commissioner Ostendorff would like additional information regarding the article below that was in the “NRC in the News” yesterday. Specifically, has the NRC staff verified the claim that Reactor 3 contains MOX fuel, and if so, has the fact that some of the fuel is MOX posed any safety challenges during the event. Also, more generally, has the staff evaluated the concerns that MOX fuel poses greater safety or security concerns? If so, can you forward the staff’s assessment. Thanks.
Mixed Oxide Nuclear Fuel Raises Safety Questions. The Scientific American (3/25, Matson) reported that reactor No. 3 at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi power station in Japan “has one characteristic that differentiates it from its neighboring reactors and from any operating reactor in the US” Among the “hundreds of standard nuclear fuel assemblies in its core… are some that contain a mix of uranium and plutonium,” or MOX. The use of MOX is controversial, and some “critics say that MOX is riskier than standard fuel and that there are better ways to dispose of excess plutonium.” Notably, “the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which operates the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and two other nuclear facilities, has expressed some interest in trying MOX and may step up to take fuel from” the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in South Carolina.
Technical Assistant for Materials
Office of Commissioner Ostendorff
- UK closes key MOX nuclear reprocessing plant in Sellafield due to tragic events in Japan (enformable.com)
- March 12th, 2011 UPDATE on Fukushima Daiichi – 15:30 telecon – NRC unsuccessful so far in lead role (enformable.com)
- March 15th, 2011 UPDATE: 2000 EDT Telecon on Fukushima Daiichi – Unit 4 New Fire Broken Out – Doses in Area around 30R/hr (enformable.com)
- March 27th, 2011 – NRC, GE, EPRI, INPO, Naval Reactors, and DOE Fukushima Severe Accident Management Measures (enformable.com)
- March 29th, 2011 – Has TEPCO-NISA determined extent of damage to floors around spent fuel pool? (enformable.com)
- NRC Officials to discuss Watts Bar construction November 8th in Athens (enformable.com)
- Over 4,000 electronic dosimeters destroyed by Tsunami at Fukushima Daiichi leaving only 500 (enformable.com)
- April 2011 – Risk versus Concern – Public Health Messaging of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Incident (enformable.com)
- March 30th, 2011 – Now that you’ve returned from Japan, would you meet with us? (enformable.com)
- Savannah River MOX report 6 months overdue to Congress (enformable.com)