Abstract:The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded a contract to the consortium Duke Cogema Stone and Webster (DCS) to dispose of up to 33 tonnes of excess weapons‐grade plutonium (WG‐Pu) by irradiating it in the form of mixed‐oxide (MOX) fuel in four U.S. commercial pressurized‐water reactors (PWRs). This paper estimates the increase in risk to the public from using WG‐MOX at these reactors and finds that it exceeds recently established Nuclear Kegulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines. Therefore, the NRC will have a technical basis for prohibiting the use of MOX at these reactors unless the risk that they will experience a severe accident can be significantly reduced. MOX fuel will displace a fraction of the low‐enriched uranium (LEU) fuel that these reactors currently use. Because MOX cores have greater quantities of plutonium and other actinides than LEU cores throughout the operating cycle, the source term for radiological releases caused by severe reactor accidents will be greater for MOX‐fueled PWRs. In this paper, the radiological consequences to the public from containment failure or bypass accidents at MOX‐fueled PWRs are calculated, and compared to those resulting from the same accidents at LEU‐fueled PWRs. This paper finds that compared to LEU cores, the number of latent cancer fatalities (LCFs) resulting from an accident with core melt and early containment failure would be higher by 39%, 81% or 131% for full WG‐MOX cores, depending on the fraction of actinides released (0.3%, 1.5% or 6%). Under the DCS plan, in which WG‐Pu will be purified using an aqueous process and only 40% of the core will be loaded with WG‐MOX, the number of LCFs would be 11%, 25% or 30% higher, respectively. The average LCF risk to individuals within ten miles of a severe accident approximately doubles for a full WG‐MOX core, and increases by 26% for a DCS core. These results are of particular concern for the nuclear plants in the DCS consortium, Catawba and McGuire. These plants have ice‐condenser containments, which Sandia National Laboratories estimates are at least two orders of magnitude more vulnerable to early failure than other types of PWR containments. The findings of this paper also apply to the proposed use of WG‐MOX in WER‐1000 reactors in Russia, which meet less stringent safety standards than U.S. reactors.

Multiple Recycling Characteristics and Cost of MOX Fuel Using Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Commercial PWR

Heterogeneous minor actinide recycling in a boiling water reactor

Possible ways to solve the problems of using MOX fuel in thermal reactors

Public health risks of substituting mixed‐oxide for uranium fuel in pressurized‐water reactors

Nuclear Energy Sustainability and MOX Fuel: Global Scenarios Evaluations up to 2050

Transmutation of Minor Actinides and Power Flattening in PWR MOX Fuel

Study of Minor Actinides Transmutation in PWR MOX fuel

Transmutation Study of Minor Actinides in Mixed Oxide Fueled Typical Pressurized Water Reactor Assembly

Denaturing Ex-Weapons Plutonium

Utilizing even Plutonium Isotopes as burnable absorbers for controlling the reactivity and power distribution in Pressurized Water Reactors

Conceptual Study of Neutron Physics of Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Ceramic Fast Reactor

Evaluation of fuel cycle scenarios on MOX fuel recycling in PWRs and SFRs

Evaluation of the technical options of radioactive waste management for utilization of MOX fuel: thermal impact of minor actinide separation with geological disposal of high-level waste

Neutronic performance evaluation of Plutonium Recycling in two core sizes for a 250 MWt Molten salt reactor

BN-800: Spent Fuel Dose Rates and the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement

Study on Integrated TRU Multi-Recycling in Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor CDFR

Feasibility study on reprocessing of HTGR spent fuel by existing PUREX plant and technology

Feasibility Study on the Analysis of MOX Particle Behavior

Gamma and neutron detector performance in a MOX fuel fabrication plant environment

PWR fuel performance and future trend in Japan

Some economic aspects of reducing americium production in a two-component system of thermal and fast reactors