Uranium Enrichment and Fuel Fabrication - Current Issues (Europe)
(last updated 3 Feb 2010)
Contents:
> See also Current Issues for
> See also:
TVEL wants to build nuclear fuel plant in the Czech Republic
The Russian company TVEL 
wants to build a nuclear fuel fabrication plant in the Czech Republic. TVEL is part of the state holding company Rosatom.
(CT24 Oct. 13, 2009)
EU plans to exempt nuclear fuel processing from carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme
Processing of nuclear fuel has been granted an exemption from European Union (EU) plans to auction carbon dioxide emissions allowances from 2013, although the exemption list will be reviewed before 2010.
Brussels unveiled on 18 September a draft list of industrial and business sectors it fears could relocate outside Europe to jurisdictions with weaker climate change rules in future. Among these was the 'processing of nuclear fuel', which will be given carbon emission allowances under the EU's emissions trading scheme from 2013 to 2020.
Most nuclear activities, including the generation of nuclear power, waste management and the reprocessing and recycling of used nuclear fuel will still have to purchase allowances, including uranium and thorium ore mining.
(WNN Sep. 24, 2009)
> View European Commission press release Sep. 18, 2009
> View European Commission: Carbon leakage
> View European Commission: Emission Trading System (EU ETS)
Euratom Supply Agency concerned about enrichment capacities available for EU utilities from 2010
"The period from 2010 to 2013 could be very sensitive regarding the balance between enrichment services demand and offer, due to the transition between the shut down of gazeous diffusion plants and their replacement by new gazeous centrifugation capacities. Some concerns may appear during this period.
The Agency is concerned about the situation from 2013 onwards, even if European enricher companies said they will not be facing major capacity problems in meeting the requirements from European utilities."
Survey of enrichment requirements and capacity and their contractual coverage , Euratom Supply Agency, European Commission, 8 April 2008 (PDF)
Launching by the European Commission of an Impact Assessment (IA) for the evaluation of a potential legislative measure in the area of Transport of Radioactive Materials (TRAM)
> View details
The closing date for the submission of opinions is 28 January 2008.
> View: C-123/04, Judgment of 12/09/2006, Industrias Nucleares do Brasil and Siemens (European Court of Justice)
> See extra page
Map: Google Maps 
> See also: DU exports of Urenco's Almelo enrichment facility
> See also: Depleted uranium storage at COVRA radioactive waste facility (The Netherlands)
Urenco Almelo enrichment plant applies for capacity increase to 4.95 million SWU per year
Urenco has lodged a request to increase the capacity of its Almelo enrichment plant from 4.5 to 4.95 million SWU per year.
Comments are invited by September 15, 2009.
> View Dutch Ministry of Environment announcement (in Dutch)
Urenco Almelo enrichment plant reaches capacity of 4 million SWU per year
On 31 March 2009 Urenco announced that the enrichment site in Almelo reached the milestone of 4 million SW/a capacity when the 6th cascade of SP5 hall 5 came online.
Explosion in centrifuge manufacturing plant at Urenco Almelo site
At approx. 22:30 on July 23, 2008, an explosion occured at the centrifuge manufacturing plant of Urenco's subsidiary ETC at Almelo. The approx. 25 employees present in the shop evacuated the building without problems.
(NU.nl July 24, 2008)
Dutch Ministry discloses more details on depleted uranium disposition of Urenco's Almelo enrichment plant
On Jan. 22, 2008, the Dutch Ministry of Environment (VROM), in an answer to a parliamentary question, disclosed the transport statistics of the depleted uranium generated at Urenco's Almelo enrichment plant. The data includes the exports of depleted uranium to Russia (for re-enrichment), and to France (for conversion to U3O8).
> View details
Dutch Ministry discloses details on depleted uranium disposition of Urenco's Almelo enrichment plant
On Nov. 27, 2007, the Dutch Ministry of Environment (VROM), in an answer to a parliamentary question, disclosed the following information on the disposition of the depleted uranium generated at Urenco's Almelo enrichment plant:
- Almost half of the depleted uranium generated is sent to the Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval (COVRA) radioactive waste facility, where it is stored. Approximately the same amount is sent to Russia for re-enrichment. Only a small fraction of the depleted uranium generated stays behind at Urenco's site.
- On average, an annual amount of 3700 t of depleted uranium is sent to Russia, and 740 t of natural-equivalent uranium are returned from Russia. The secondary tails generated from the re-enrichment process remain in Russia.
> Download Beantwoording Kamervragen lid Poppe 2070802570 over transport van kernafval (MS Word, in Dutch)
U.S. NRC issues export license for enrichment of Chinese origin uranium at Urenco's European plants
> View here
On Oct. 15, 2007, Ministerie van VROM issued the requested license amendment. The amendment can be appealed before the Raad van State until Dec. 5, 2007.
On June 28, 2007, Ministerie van VROM released the draft license amendment allowing for the increase of the licensed capacity of the Almelo enrichment plant from 3500 t SWU to 4500 t SWU for public comment.
On Oct. 19, 2006, Urenco filed the license application and an environmental assessment for the increase of the licensed capacity of its Almelo enrichment plant from 3500 t SWU to 4500 t SWU. On Nov. 29, 2006, Ministerie van VROM invited public comments on the environmental assessment.
In January 2006, Urenco Nederland B.V. began preparing an environmental assessment for a further increase of the licensed capacity of its Almelo enrichment plant from 3500 t SWU to 4500 t SWU. The comment period has been opened.
Further capacity increase to 3500 t SWU planned for Almelo enrichment plant
On July 13, 2005, the comment period on the revised "Ontwerpbeschikking" for the project was opened.
> View details (NENO - in Dutch)
> Download Sammeleinspruchslisten in Deutsch 
(BBU e.V. - Collective comment forms in German)
A new public participation process was started in Feb. 2005.
On Oct. 27, 2004, the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State ) declared the license for the capacity increase null and void. The decision was based on an irregularity in the public involvement process: the draft licence had only been published in the official journal and in local newspapers, but the residents living near the plant had not been notified individually. The licensing process therefore has to be repeated. (Gronauer Nachrichten Oct. 27, 2004)
> View Council of State decision Oct. 27, 2004 (in Dutch)
This decision came in response to a complaint filed by Dutch environmental groups:
> View Milieudefensie news release Oct. 27, 2004 (in Dutch)
The requested capacity increase was licensed on Feb. 23, 2004.
A hearing was held on August 19, 2003.
On May 23, 2003, Urenco Nederland B.V. has submitted an application for a further increase of the licensed capacity of its Almelo enrichment plant from 2800 t SWU to 3500 t SWU. Early in 2003, the licensed capacity had already been increased from 2500 to 2800 t SWU.
(Gronauer Nachrichten Aug. 6, 2003)
The German Chief Federal Prosecutor is investigating the role of two Germans in the proliferation of uranium enrichment centrifuge technology to Libya.
(Generalbundesanwalt Aug. 26, 2004)
The agreement on the phase out of nuclear energy production concluded between the German government and the utilites on June 14, 2000, does not mention the nuclear fuel facilities, such as the Urenco Gronau enrichment plant, or the ANF Lingen fuel fabrication plant.
The agreement is available from the Federal Environmental Ministry .
Aerial view: Google Maps
> See also: DU exports of Urenco's Gronau enrichment facility · Upgrading of Urenco's enrichment tails in Russia
> See also: Urenco's Depleted Uranium Storage Project (Germany)
Uranium enrichment at Gronau is opposed by AKU Gronau .
Worker exposed to uranium hexafluoride at Gronau uranium enrichment plant
On Jan. 21, 2010, at 14:32 hrs, a worker at Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant was exposed to uranium hexafluoride, when preparing a transport cylinder for a pressure test. The cylinder had been delivered as "empty and cleansed". The amount of uranium hexafluoride released is unknown, but was only a few grams, according to Urenco's estimates. The worker suffered contamination at arms and legs and was hospitalized.
The contaminated area of the plant was isolated and the contaminated air released via the stack. The release to the environment was equivalent to one sixth of the permissible weekly amount. The environmental monitoring around the plant detected no unusual features.
(North Rhine-Westphalia Ministry of Economics Jan. 22, 2010)
According to Urenco, the supplier had erroneously labeled the cylinder as "clean and washed out" though it still contained 1.6 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride. Urenco therefore dismisses any responsibility for the accident. The cylinder was of the type 30B which is used for enriched uranium; it was supplied by Westinghouse Electric Sweden in Västerås. Apparently, the four-step washing process in Sweden was interrupted after the first step for unknown reasons and the cylinder prematurely declared clean.
(Münstersche Zeitung Jan. 26/27, 2010; Westfälische Nachrichten Jan. 27, 2010; Urenco Jan. 27, 2010; SSM Jan. 29, 2010)
> Download preliminary report of North Rhine-Westphalia Minister of Economics Jan. 27, 2010 (47k PDF - in German)
So it appears that the residual UF6 in the cylinder were "heels" (residue left after standard unloading procedure, view details). In this case, the fact that the cylinder was not empty would have been easily detectable with any most simple Geiger counter, since such "heels" cylinders generate the by far highest radiation fields encountered in enrichment plants (view details). So, Urenco needs to explain why the labeling error remained undetected.
Medical investigations showed that the worker suffered no acute lung damage. The radiation dose received by the worker is estimated at 1.1 milli-Sievert. (Münstersche Zeitung Jan. 26, 2010)
Assuming that the dose of 1.1 mSv is completely attributed to inhalation, this dose is obtained for a single inhalation event of approx. 30 mg enriched UF6, containing approx. 20 mg enriched U (see Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator).
The inhalation of 20 mg U of type F (as applicable for UF6) leads to an initial uranium concentration in the kidney of approx. 2 µg/g, which is below the often used nephrotoxicity standard of 3 µg/g (see Uranium Biokinetics Calculator). However, there have been many requests to lower this limit to 0.3 µg/g, to avoid kidney damage. The uranium concentration in the worker's kidney would fall below this lower limit only after approx. one month.
As the Gronau hospital refused to accept the patient for capacity problems, he was brought to the hospital of the neighbouring town of Ochtrup. As this hospital apparently was not prepared to deal with such a patient, he was then transfered to the university hospital in Münster. On Jan. 25, 2010, the patient was transfered to the University of Düsseldorf's nuclear medicine hospital at the Jülich research center, from where he was discharged on Jan. 29. (Westfälische Nachrichten Jan. 22/25/29, 2010)
This odyssey in result of a release of just a few grams of uranium hexafluoride raises the question of what would have happened in the case of a major release of uranium hexafluoride with dozens or hundreds of victims. And, Ochtrup is located 9 km to the east (that is downwind at the prevailing winds) from the enrichment plant. It is amazing to learn that the institutions around a plant that has been handling thousands of tonnes of uranium hexafluoride annually for decades are not even prepared to respond adequately to such a relatively minor release.
On Jan. 23, 2010, Greenpeace held a protest demonstration at the Gronau Urenco plant. On Jan. 24, 2010, a demonstration with 80 participants was held in the city of Gronau. A further demonstration with 150 participants was held in the city of Gronau on Jan. 30, 2010. (Westfälische Nachrichten Jan. 24/30, 2010)
During a special session of the Gronau city council held on Feb. 3, 2010, Urenco CEO Joachim Ohnemus denied any own neglects, but accused the employees of the Gronau hospital of "total ignorance" of the emergency plans [!].
He moreover announced that additional monitoring procedures would be established at the plant to prevent any not completely cleaned cylinders from being submitted to future pressure tests.
(Westfälische Nachrichten Feb. 3, 2010)
[It is not reported, whether Ohnemus gave any explanations, why such monitoring had not been introduced earlier.]
Reportable event at Gronau uranium enrichment plant
On July 17, 2009, during works for the plant expansion, control equipment had been connected to the operating plant without conducting necessary tests. The event was classified INES 0.
(Westfälische Nachrichten July 25, 2009)
Completion of capacity increase at Urenco Gronau enrichment plant delayed
The completion of the capacity increase of the Urenco Gronau enrichment plant has been delayed for almost one year, and the startup date is still unknown.
(taz June 6, 2008)
U.S. NRC issues export license for enrichment of Chinese origin uranium at Urenco's European plants
> View here
Protests against uranium hexafluoride rail transport from Pierrelatte to Gronau
On Dec. 6 and 7, 2006, a rail transport of uranium hexafluoride from the Pierrelatte conversion plant (France) to Gronau (Germany) was accompanied by protests in Waltrop, Hamm, Ahaus, and Gronau.
(SOFA Münster Dec. 7, 2006)
Protests in Gronau against uranium hexafluoride rail transport arriving from Pierrelatte
Upon arrival of a rail transport of uranium hexafluoride from the Pierrelatte conversion plant (France) on Nov. 16, 2006, protests were held in Gronau at the station and at the Urenco enrichment plant.
(SOFA Münster Nov. 16, 2006)
Anti-nuclear camp held at Gronau enrichment plant
On June 16-18, 2006, the organisation Nirgendwo (Nowhere) held an anti-nuclear camp with 50 - 60 participants at the Urenco Gronau enrichment plant.
(Westfälische Nachrichten June 18, 2006)
Urenco Deutschland receives German "Ethics in Business" award
On Nov. 2, 2005, the German branch of Urenco received the German Ethics in Business award.
(Westfälische Nachrichten Nov. 4, 2005)
Note 1: Rather than receiving money, the prizewinners have to pay EUR 4900 to the awarding organization.
Note 2: A partnering organization of the award is BUND , the German branch of Friends of the Earth.
Green party local group dissolved for capacity increase of Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant
In reaction to the licensing of the capacity increase of Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant by the Social Democrat / Green Party coalition State Government, the Gronau local group of the Green Party has declared its dissolution.
(Gronauer Nachrichten April 22, 2005)
Gronau enrichment plant granted license for capacity increase
On Feb. 14, 2005, the Northrhine-Westphalia State Ministry of Energy (MVEL) issued a license for the planned capacity increase to 4500 t SWU/y at Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant. The license comprises the construction of a second enrichment plant next to the existing plant. The existing plant holds a license for 1800 t SWU/y and will reach this capacity in 2005. In addition, the license allows for the long-term onsite storage of 50,000 t of depleted uranium in oxide form. (MVEL Feb. 14, 2005)
The whole capacity increase will cost Euro 700 - 800 million. A first tranche of Euro 200 million has already been allocated. First production at the new plant is expected to begin in the second half of 2007. (Gronauer Nachrichten Feb. 14, 2005)
Failure of ventilation system at Gronau enrichment plant
On March 21, 2004, rain water caused a short circuit in an air pressure sensor of Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant. Subsequently, parts of the plant's ventilation system failed. The problem was corrected within 70 minutes. According to Urenco, the event was categorized below INES 0 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
(Gronauer Nachrichten March 25, 2004)
Security guards at Gronau enrichment plant on strike
The private security guards at Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant are on strike. They are participating in strikes organized by the "ver.di" trade union in Northrhine-Westphalia.
(AP July 25, 2003)
6700 objections filed against Gronau enrichment plant extension
On March 26, 2003, AKU Gronau handed 6700 objections against the capacity increase of Urenco's Gronau uranium enrichment plant over to the NRW state ministry of energy.
> See also: AKU Gronau · BUND NRW (in German)
Protest at Gronau enrichment plant
On September 1, 2002, approx. 200 anti-nuclear activists gathered in front of the Gronau enrichment plant to protest against the expansion of the plant.
Blockade at Gronau enrichment plant
16 anti-nuclear campaigners blocked the access to the Gronau enrichment plant early on August 30, 2002.
(Westfälische Nachrichten Aug 31, 2002)
State Government may stop capacity increase
According to a legal opinion commissioned by the Green Party, the Nordrhein-Westfalen state government is in the position to deny the requested capacity increase of Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant. The federal nuclear phase-out law would allow for such denial, according to the author of the opinion.
(Westfälische Rundschau May 3, 2002)
Environmental NGOs oppose planned capacity increase
At the occasion of the initiation of the environmental assessment for the planned capacity increase of Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant, the three major environmental NGOs *) based in the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen have vowed their opposition to the plan.
(Gronauer Nachrichten May 2, 2002)
*) Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz (BUND), Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz und Umwelt (LNU), Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU).
> View the NGO's news release (May 3, 2002) (in German)
> Download NGO's statement (April 30, 2002) (23k PDF in German)
Capacity increased
At the end of 2000, total installed capacity at Urenco's enrichment plants in The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Germany is approaching 4.8 million SWU per year. (UI News Briefing 00.50, Dec. 13, 2000)
On Dec. 2, 1999, around 40 protestors blocked the transport of UF6 cylinders at the gate of Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant. The transport consisted of 12 cylinders of natural UF6, originating from the conversion plant in Pierrelatte, France. The cylinders arrived by train at the railway terminal in Nordhorn and were then trucked 25 km to Gronau. One protestor was arrested, 26 others face charges with violations of the right of assembly. (Gronauer Nachrichten Dec. 3, 1999)
200 people from Germany and the Netherlands gathered on October 3, 1999 at Urenco's Gronau enrichment plant to call for an immediate phase-out of nuclear energy. Considering the criticality accident at the Tokai nuclear fuel plant in Japan, speakers warned of the hazards of uranium hexafluoride processing, and called for an inclusion of the plant in the government plans for nuclear phase-out.
> see also: URENCO Gronau plans another 122% capacity increase
Urenco will hold a public meeting on January 31, 2002 on the planned capacity increase:
Über die geplante Erweiterung der Urananreicherungsanlage auf 4000 Tonnen Trennarbeit/Jahr will die Geschäftsleitung der Firma Urenco Deutschland GmbH die Gronauer Bürger während einer öffentlichen Veranstaltung am Donnerstag, den 31. Januar 2002 informieren. Stattfinden soll der Informationsabend in der Aula des Werner-von-Siemens-Gymnasiums (Adresse: Laubstiege 23). (Gronauer Nachrichten 23.1.02)
Urenco Deutschland has formally applied for a licence to increase the capacity of the Gronau centrifuge enrichment plant to 4000 t SWU/yr. The current plant has a capacity of 1000 t SWU, which Urenco plans to increase by 800 t SWU under existing licences. Urenco announced plans to build a new 1500 t SWU plant at the site several months ago but has now revised the capacity of the new plant to 2200 t SWU. (NuclearFuel, 5 October 1998)
The license application also includes the construction of two buildings for the storage of depleted uranium as oxide (details here).
On May 28, 1998, Urenco announced that it is planning to increase the capacity of its Gronau enrichment plant by 1500 t/year uranium separation work (SWU).
On Oct. 31, 1997, Urenco's Gronau facility, the only uranium enrichment plant in Germany, received a license to increase its capacity from 1000 to 1800 t/year
uranium separation work (SWU).
> View license text (in German)
In September 1997, the Higher Administrative Court of
Münster had turned down an application filed by a citizen
group to conduct a referendum against the plan.
The previous capacity increase had been licensed in 1994,
allowing for a nearly doubling from 530 to 1000 t/year SWU. The
1000 t/year capacity will only be attained in early 1998.
On Nov. 28, 1997, the Higher Administrative Court of
Münster turned down a case filed by a Green Party member of
the city council of Gronau against the 1994 license.
Capacity also is being increased in Urenco's other plants: in
the end of 1997, the first modules of a new plant in Capenhurst
(UK) went into operation; and the capacity of 1500 t/year SWU of the Almelo plant (The Netherlands) is being expanded by 2000 t/year SWU.
Aerial view: Google Maps
ANF Lingen nuclear fuel fabrication plant applies for capacity increase to 800 t/a
The ANF Lingen nuclear fuel fabrication plant has filed an application for a capacity increase of the deconversion plant from 650 to 800 t/a. (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Umwelt und Klimaschutz, July 2008)
Export of radioactive waste to the US for uranium extration and incineration
> view details
Pitesti nuclear fuel plant to double production from 2010
The nuclear fuel plant in Pitesti will double production between 2010 and 2011 to supply the nuclear fuel bundles needed by the two new reactors of the Cernavoda power complex, informed Nuclearelectrica , the company supervising the plant.
A year before the Unit 3 starts to function, the plant will produce 15,000 nuclear fuel bundles and before the Unit 4 is completed, it will climb to 20,000 bundles. The plant produced last year 9,360 bundles.
(Realitatea Apr. 16, 2009)
The Russian state corporation TVEL is interested in building a nuclear fuel production plant in Slovakia.
(Hospodárske noviny Mar. 3, 2009)
Spanish Supreme Court confirms Euro 1 million fine for Enusa for negligence leading to inadvertent transport of nuclear fuel to the USA
The Room of Contentious Affairs of the Supreme Court has confirmed four fines at an approximated total amount of one million Euros to the National Company of Uranium (Enusa) for "serious infractions" in the physical protection of nuclear fuels, among others. The sentence of the Supreme Court, that brings an end to a procedure initiated by the Minister of Industry and Energy in 1997, confirms that Enusa, a public company, showed a "negligent behavior" and "it produced a risk relative to the physical security of the nuclear material that could have been stolen or got lost".
The sentence of the Supreme Court indicates that all the sanctions were related to the irregular execution of an operation of transport of containers from the factory of nuclear fuel components at Juzbado (Salamanca) to Wilmington (USA). The breach of the protocol of the production processes led to the transport of three containers with uranium oxide to the USA, together with 147 empty ones. However, all 150 containers should have gone to General Electric's Wilmington factory empty. General Electric informed the authorities of the USA, the European Union, and Spain about the incident. Two department heads and four employees of the factory were dismissed.
(El País Dec. 29, 2009)
Westinghouse Electric Sweden
Container not completely emptied at Västerås plant leads to UF6 exposure of worker in receiving plant
On Jan. 29, 2010, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) confirmed that a supposedly clean uranium shipping container had left the Västerås plant only partially emptied and cleaned, which led to the exposure of a worker with uranium hexafluoride at the receiving Urenco Gronau enrichment plant in Germany on Jan. 21, 2010. Westinghouse now has 30 days to describe the incident in writing and the action it intends to take to prevent such events from reoccuring.
> See details of the incident at Urenco Gronau
Excessive uranium levels found in urine of Westinghouse Västerås fuel facility workers
Employees at the Westinghouse fuel factory in Västerås may have been exposed to high doses of uranium.
When the company investigated the uranium levels in urine of the workers, it was discovered that there is a risk that more uranium accumulated in their bodies than previously thought.
The Radiation Safety Authority is investigating now how Westinghouse is dealing with the risk of inhaling uranium dust that is formed in the manufacturing process.
(Sveriges Radio Nov. 13, 2009)
Excess amounts of uranium dumped on municipal dump in Sweden
Ranstad Mineral AB's uranium-processing plant has dumped excess amounts of uranium on the nearby municipal Risängen dump site which is located in the community of Skövde. 1500 kg rather than the licensed amount of 400 kg of uranium was dumped on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB.
> View SSI release, Feb. 17, 2005 (in Swedish)
> View SSI release, Oct. 21, 2005 (in Swedish)
Waste containing plutonium from the dismantling of the former nuclear fuel plant of Siemens in Hanau, Germany, ends up on a municipal dumping ground near Ranstad in central Sweden.
40 metric tonnes of material have been delivered from Siemens to Ranstad Mineral AB. According to a Swedish parliament resolution, the import of radioactive waste into the country is prohibited in principle, but this material is classified as useful residues.
At Ranstad Mineral AB's uranium-processing plant (a former uranium mill), residual uranium is recovered from the Hanau material. After the extraction of the uranium, the material was dumped on the nearby municipal Risängen dump site which is located in the community of Skövde.
In April 2000 it was found that the plutonium concentrations in samples from dumped waste originating from treated Hanau material exceeded the admissible limit of 100 Bq/kg tenfold. The Swedish Radiation Protection Institute (SSI) then prohibited further dumping of this material.
In December 2000 however, Westinghouse Atom AB, the licensee for the dumping, illegally continued dumping of at least five further batches of the material.
SSI then investigated whether Westinghouse Atom AB might have penal responsibility for breaching the Radiation Protection Law. According to the law, a minor breach does not imply penal responsibility. And, SSI considered the breach minor, since no hazards to humans or the environment had occured.
(Der Spiegel / BBC Monitoring Service Apr. 29, 2002; Dagens Nyheter May 4, 2002; SSI documents)
> See also
> more Hanau decommissioning issues
Swiss reprocessed uranium transferred to Eastern Europe for use as inferior quality fuel in old RBMK-1000 reactors
Other than plutonium and high level waste, the reprocessed uranium generated from reprocessing of Swiss spent fuel in the La Hague (France) and Sellafield (UK) reprocessing plants is not returned to Switzerland. According to a report in Swiss weekly SonntagsZeitung, it is, for example, transferred to Areva, who sells it to Russian companies, who use it as an inferior quality fuel in old reactors. The Russian nuclear energy authority has confirmed that it is being used in all units of the RBMK-1000 reactor type (the Chernobyl reactor type, of which 11 units are still in use).
(Schweizer Fernsehen/Der Standard July 5, 2009)
> View Greenpeace Schweiz release July 15, 2009: "Verdacht erhärtet: Falsche Angaben in der Ökobilanz zum AKW Beznau" (in German)
> Download report Recycling von Wiederaufarbeitungsuran? Ein Einblick in die Geschäfte der Schweizer Atomindustrie mit russischen Brennstoffproduzenten (3.65MB PDF - in German)
UK's separated plutonium stockpile poses severe risks warns Royal Society
> See here
Study analyses economics of management options for UK uranium and plutonium stockpile
> See here
The British Geological Survey has performed a pilot study on the isotopic composition of uranium found in stream sediments near nuclear fuel facilities in the United Kingdom.
Samples were collected between 1979 and 1989 downstream from the following facilities:
- Drigg, Cumbria (part of the Sellafield complex),
- BNFL Springfields facility, near Preston (conversion and fuel fabrication),
- URENCO Capenhurst uranium processing complex (enrichment)
Uranium concentrations found in Drigg and Springfields stream sediments were about 20 times background, while those in Capenhurst were up to about 3 times background.
U-238/U-235 isotope ratios observed in stream sediments at Drigg and Springfields were in a 114.0 - 125.4 range (corresponding to 0.79 - 0.86 wt_% U-235), while those observed in Capenhurst were in a 54.8 - 63.0 range (corresponding to 1.55 - 1.77 wt_% U-235). For comparison: the U-238/U-235 ratio for natural uranium is 137.9, corresponding to 0.72 atom-percent, or 0.711 weight-percent U-235.
Without any detailed knowledge of the isotope ratios of the uranium released by these facilites, BGS was not able to determine what fraction of the uranium found in the stream sediments is attributable to the nuclear fuel facilities.
Uranium anomalies identified using G-BASE data - Natural or anthropogenic? A uranium isotope pilot study,
by SRN Chenery, EL Ander, KM Perkins, B Smith; British Geological Survey, Internal Report IR/02/001, 34 p., Keyworth, Nottingham 2002
> Download full report (2.5MB PDF - by courtesy of BGS)
British Energy (BE) said on Nov. 26, 2001, that uranium would need to reach $60/lb for mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel to become competitive, while the current market price is roughly $9/lb. BE Corporate Affairs Director Robert Armour said before the U.K. government's Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committee that though BE had separated plutonium in storage at Sellafield from reprocessing of its advanced gas-cooled reactors' (AGR) spent fuel, it had not attempted to re-use it as MOX "because of cheap uranium." [Platts Nov. 26, 2001]
Aerial view: Google Maps
> See also: Capenhurst tails de-conversion plant project, United Kingdom
> See also: British Nuclear Group Sellafield Limited Capenhurst site
> See also: BNFL's depleted uranium storage facility at former Capenhurst gaseous diffusion plant (UK)
Urenco Capenhurst fails to maintain and test some safety related plant equipment
During a site inspection on 17th December, the licensee's Managing Director informed the site inspector of an event, provisionally rated as category "one" on the INES, (International Nuclear Event System) scale. During the licensee's periodic review of an enrichment facility plant maintenance schedule, (which defines key safety related equipment and the required maintenance frequencies for this equipment) it had just been established that a number of items of plant equipment had been incorrectly safety categorised, resulting in the failure to routinely maintain and test some of this safety related plant equipment. The maintenance should have been in accordance with the plant safety case requirements. The licensee was urgently testing these plant items and preliminary indications were that the equipment was generally functioning in compliance with the safety case requirements. This event was promptly recognised by the licensee as being a significant failure of their safety management system.
(NII site inspector's quarterly report to the local stakeholder group for 1st October to 31 December 2009, Jan. 25, 2010)
Unexpected enhanced site perimeter radiation levels detected at Urenco Capenhurst plant
In late 2008 and subsequently confirmed in 2009, some unexpectedly enhanced levels of radiation were measured, at the boundary of the Urenco UK Limited licensed site, at levels still well below any regulatory limits, but nevertheless warranting further investigation.
(NII site inspector's quarterly report to the local stakeholder group for 1st October to 31 December 2009, Jan. 25, 2010)
U.S. NRC issues export license for enrichment of Chinese origin uranium at Urenco's European plants
> View here
UK Environment Agency invites comment on review of radioactive waste authorisations for Urenco Capenhurst
The UK Environment Agency is reviewing the radioactive waste authorisations held by Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited for part of the nuclear site at Capenhurst, near Chester and invites comments.
Responses are due by 10 April 2007.
> View Environment Agency release Feb. 2007
Urenco Capenhurst tails deconversion plant project
> See here
Urenco Capenhurst seeks approval for enrichment of recycled uranium and for higher enrichment levels
A Preliminary Safety Report has been prepared to seek regulatory approval to enrich recycled uranium at Capenhurst as Urenco already does at its Almelo Plant in the Netherlands. Because of the potential increase in Nuclear power around the world uranium prices have risen which has therefore increased customer demand for enriching recycled uranium. The same report also covers the potential to enrich to higher levels than currently licensed. Again this is in anticipation of new requirements in the civil nuclear power industry as new generations of reactors are developed.
(Minutes of the Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd Local Liaison Committee, 30th November 2005)
UK Government to privatise stake in Urenco
> See Urenco
UK regulator releases review of Urenco Capenhurst's decommissioning strategy
On November 9, 2004, the UK Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installation Inspectorate (NII) released its quinquennial review of Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd's decommissioning strategy. The review also covers Urenco's tails disposition strategy.
> View HSE release Nov. 9, 2004
> Download A review by HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate: Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd's strategy
for decommissioning its nuclear licensed site, Nov. 2004 (300k PDF)
> See also: Enriched uranium found in stream sediments near UK nuclear fuel facilities
Aerial view: Google Maps
> See also: Enriched uranium found in stream sediments near UK nuclear fuel facilities
Operational life of BNFL Springfields uranium conversion plant to be extended by 10 years
Cameco has signed a toll-conversion agreement with British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) to acquire uranium conversion services (UF6) from BNFL's Springfields plant in Lancashire, United Kingdom. Under the 10-year agreement, BNFL will annually convert a base quantity of 5 million kilograms of uranium (kgU) as UO3 to UF6 for Cameco.
In 2001, BNFL announced that the Springfields facility would close in 2006. This new agreement will keep the plant operating for the duration of the agreement.
Cameco will invest $4 million to construct drum tipping and washing facilities at BNFL's Springfields plant. UO3 shipments from Cameco's Blind River refinery to Springfields are expected to begin later in 2005 with UF6 conversion shipments from BNFL starting in mid-2006.
(Cameco March 16, 2005)
Springfields uranium conversion plant to be shut down in 2006
"British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) will cease uranium hexafluoride (UF6) conversion operations at its Springfield facility after March 2006, the company announced. The decision to end the conversion operations follows BNFL's announced schedule for shutting down its eight Magnox plants. BNFL emphasized that production of Magnox fuel and UF6 conversion share manufacturing facilities, and that it would be uneconomical to continue UF6 conversion after Magnox fuel production ends 'sometime after 2005'. Meanwhile, BNFL has sold its uncommitted UF6 conversion capacity to Cameco Corp. Under the agreement, BNFL will cease marketing UF6 conversion immediately, and all production other than that needed to fill existing contract requirements is committed to Cameco, who must take a specified minimum quantity of conversion." (UI News Briefing 01.07, Feb. 14, 2001)
Aerial view: Google Maps
> See also: Enriched uranium found in stream sediments near UK nuclear fuel facilities
Fuel manufacture from reprocessed uranium under consideration for Springfields nuclear fuel plant
"NII has continued to be engaged in discussions with the licensee regarding a proposal to potentially manufacture fuel, using reprocessed uranium as the feedstock. The licensee is currently reviewing the potential to use existing facilities and potentially a new facility to process the associated limited waste arisings. [...] The licensee is also continuing to plan to restart the existing LWR fuel manufacturing line, having recently updated the associated plant safety case."
(Springfields Fuels Limited Springfields Works report, NII site inspector's quarterly report for 1 July – 30 September 2009)
Westinghouse in discussions on takeover of Springfields nuclear fuel fabrication plant
Westinghouse Electric Company will
announce that it is in advanced discussions with the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA) concerning a new organizational arrangement
for the UK Fuel site at Springfields near Preston. These arrangements are
looking at the introduction of a long-term lease when the current site
management contract ends on March 31, 2010 together with the permanent
transfer of ownership of Springfields Fuels Ltd, the company managing the
site. (Westinghouse Sep. 9, 2009)
NDA confirms that operations at Sellafield MOX Plant are to continue
"Given recent improvements in plant performance and positive discussions with customers the NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) has concluded that, at this stage, the best course of action is the continued operation of SMP (Sellafield MOX Plant) in pursuance of completing the current campaign of fuel manufacture."
(NDA Oct. 27, 2009)
Sellafield's rejected MOX fuel to be reprocessed in France
Nuclear fuel rejected by Japan in disgrace ten years ago is finally to be reprocessed. In a multi million pound scandal, the MOX produced by Sellafield was returned after a whistleblower said a check on the fuel was falsified by bored workers. Now the fuel will be taken to France for reprocessing.
A statement from International Nuclear Services, which is run by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and oversees the movement of nuclear fuel, said:
"[...] In 2014/15 the sixteen unirradiated MOX fuel assemblies will be transported to France to be processed in a facility at Cap La Hague operated by Areva NC (which now part owns Sellafield).
The reusable constituents will be separated out and made available for making into new fuel. The waste products will be returned to Sellafield."
(North West Evening Mail (Aug. 8, 2009)
UK government discloses Sellafield MOX Plant losses
The UK government has released figures showing the losses made at the Sellafield MOX fuel reprocessing plant.
Since the plant opened in 2002, the plant has produced a total of only 6.3t of mixed-oxide fuel. In three of those years it produced none, and in one it produced only 0.3t. According to campaign group Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, its original annual production rate was 120t.
Since 2002, it has had an average net cash flow (costs minus sales) of -GBP89.5 million; -GBP626 million in total. Costs include operating costs, overheads and subcontracts. The plant cost GBP498 million to build and GBP139.4 million to commission.
(Nuclear Engineering International April 10, 2009)
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority sees no future for Sellafield MOX fuel plant
The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) apparently does not believe that the Sellafield MOX plant (SMP) will ever function properly. NDA only concedes that the plant possibly might be useful for the production of so-called "low specification MOx" - as part of an option for the disposal, rather than reuse of plutonium:
"NDA have reviewed SMP and do not believe that it provides either the capacity or longevity to be used for the UK civil stockpile and the recycle options that NDA has considered assumed that plutonium is either sold direct or that MOx is fabricated in a new plant. There may be an opportunity to utilise the plant in a meaningful manner for the low specification MOx option."
> Download NDA Plutonium Topic Strategy, Credible Options Technical Analysis, 30 January 2009 (1.1M PDF)
Sellafield MOX fuel plant produces almost nothing
A nuclear plant built at a cost of GBP 470 million to provide atomic fuel to be used in foreign power stations has produced almost nothing since it was opened six years ago, the government has admitted.
The mixed oxide (Mox) facility at Sellafield in Cumbria - which was opposed by green groups as uneconomic - was originally predicted to have an annual throughput of 120 tonnes of fuel.
The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, has admitted in response to a parliamentary question that it had managed only 2.6 tonnes in any one 12-month period between 2002 and 2006-07.
In the four years before 2002, the plant had produced annual figures respectively of 2.3 tonnes, 0.3 tonnes, 0 tonnes and 0 tonnes.
Wicks described the Sellafield Mox plant (SMP) as being based on "largely unproven technology" and pointed out that its estimated annual output had been reduced by 2001 to 72 tonnes.
British Nuclear Group (BNG), which operates the Sellafield site, said a range of improvements were being made to the facility but it admitted that the 2007-08 period had again seen production disrupted by various problems.
BNG has been forced to meet the needs of Swiss and other contracted customers for Mox fuel through buying alternative supplies from France and Belgium.
(The Guardian March 3, 2008)
BNFL calls in chief competitor Cogéma to try to get its MOX fuel plant operating properly
BNFL has had to turn to its biggest competitor, the French group Cogema, for help to try to get its controversial GBP 473 million (EUR 684 million) MOX plant operating properly. The plant is years behind target and has lost the company hundreds of millions of pounds. Two former environment ministers - Labour and Conservative - are demanding a parliamentary inquiry.
(Independent Oct. 17, 2004)
Sellafield MOX plant starts operation
On December 20, 2001, BNFL's Sellafield MOX fuel plant started operation. (Independent Dec. 21, 2001)
FOE and Greenpeace lose appeal against Sellafield MOX plant decision
On December 7, 2001, environmentalists lost their appeal against the opening of the Sellafield MOX plant. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace had urged the English Court of Appeal to overturn a High Court ruling last month that UK ministers had made "no error in law" in approving the Sellafield Mox Plant, which combines reprocessed plutonium with uranium. But Lords Justices Simon Brown, Waller and Dyson unanimously rejected the appeal at a hearing in London, saying the government was "entitled to decide these cases in the real world".
(Financial Times 7 Dec 2001)
> View FOE news release (7 Dec 2001)
Ireland loses legal challenge against Sellafield MOX plant
On December 3, 2001, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg ruled that "the urgency of the situation did not require the prescription of the provisional measures as requested by Ireland" (i.e. a temporary injunction to halt the start of operations at the MOX plant).
The tribunal ordered Ireland and the UK to submit written evidence by December 17, giving Ireland a window of just three days to resolve its complaints before the scheduled opening of the plant on December 20.
(Financial Times 3 Dec. 2001)
> View: International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Hamburg:
The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures
FOE and Greenpeace appeal Sellafield MOX plant court decision
On Nov. 27, 2001, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth asked Britain's Court of Appeal to block the opening of the Sellafield MOX fuel facility. They are appealing a decision by the High Court on 15 Nov. that the government had made "no error of law" in granting approval for the Sellafield facility in Cumbria to begin production of mixed-oxide fuel. (AP 28 Nov. 2001)
> View Friends of the Earth release Nov. 23, 2001
Irish Government calls for injunction against Sellafield MOX plant at International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
The Government is calling for the tribunal to establish Ireland's rights under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to grant its request for an injunction against the authorisation of the MOX plant next month based on a threat to those rights. Ireland says this is necessary to prevent the erosion of numerous other rights granted to it in the convention.
(Irish Times Nov. 20, 2001)
High Court Judge rules Sellafield MOX plant go-ahead not unlawful
On Nov. 15, 2001, a High Court Judge ruled that the Government's recent decision to give British Nuclear Fuels Ltd the go-ahead for the MOX plant at Sellafield was not unlawful under European law. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace had made the case that the Government had wrongly disregarded the £470 million it cost to build the plant when deciding that the plant was economically justified under EU law. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth will consider whether to appeal Mr Justice Collins' decision.
> View Friends of the Earth release Nov. 15, 2001
FOE and Greenpeace take MOX nuke plant to court
The UK Government is being taken to court to prevent the controversial plutonium plant at Sellafield from opening. Lawyers acting for Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace on Oct. 5, 2001, filed papers in the High Court.
> View Friends of the Earth release Oct. 5, 2001
Sellafield MOX plant receives government go-ahead
On Oct. 3, 2001, the UK Government announced that the manufacture of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is justified in accordance with the requirements of European Community law.
Before the MOX Plant can start full operation, BNFL is required under one of the conditions in its Sellafield nuclear site licence to obtain consent for plutonium commissioning from the Health and Safety Executive.
> View DEFRA release Oct. 3, 2001 · Download Decision document (DEFRA)
> View Friends of the Earth release Oct. 3, 2001
The Nuclear Safety Directorate of the U.K. Health and Safety Executive has published the following reports:
HSE Team inspection of the control and supervision of operations at BNFL's Sellafield site (Feb. 18, 2000)
An investigation into the falsification of pellet diameter data in the MOX Demonstration Facility at the BNFL Sellafield site and the effect of this on the safety of MOX fuel in use (Feb. 18, 2000)
Ukraine plans to start production of nuclear fuel assemblies in 2013
The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has endorsed the Nuclear Fuel of Ukraine state program, says Natalia Shumkova, deputy minister of fuel and energy.
She says in 2009 - 2013 it is planned to build on the basis of the Novokostiantyniv deposit a hydrometallurgical plant for the processing of uranium ore with a waste storage, launch the production of fuel assemblies, and create a full cycle of zirconium production, including production of tubular steel. In April 2008, the government set up the Nuclear Fuel concern based on the Eastern ore mining and dressing plant, the Novokostiantyniv uranium mine, state-run company Smoly, the Dnipropetrovsk works of precision pipes, and the Ukrainian scientific research, design and exploration institute of industrial technologies.
(NRCU Sep. 25, 2009)
Ukraine is planning to produce 50 fuel assemblies (FA) in 2013 under the special state economic program "Nuclear fuel of Ukraine."
According to the program, creating the FA production capacities will cost some UAH 3.59 billion [US$ 428 million]. It is planned that UAH 1.285 billion of this amount will be taken from the special fund of the state budget, and UAH 2.305 billion will be raised through attracting investments and funds from enterprises.
Ukraine needs to select a potential partner that possesses the technology to produce fuel for water-cooled reactors. Talks were held with JSC TVEL (Russia) and Westinghouse (United States).
(Kyiv Post Mar 4, 2009)
> see also Russia (Asia)
> see also Tails upgrading
> See also:
Russia not planning to extend HEU-LEU deal
Russia is not planning to extend the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement with the U.S., Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) chief Sergei Kiriyenko said. The HEU-LEU agreement will expire in 2013.
Russia commitments under the existing agreement will be fulfilled, Kiriyenko said. Russia has implemented the program by more than half, having
converted over 250 tonnes of highly-enriched uranium, he said.
(Interfax July 15, 2006)
Companies Amend Deal for Uranium from Dismantled Russian Nuclear Weapons
Cameco, COGEMA and RWE NUKEM (collectively the western companies) announced they have signed an amendment with Techsnabexport (Tenex) that ensures the continued operation of the UF6 Feed Component Implementing Contract (HEU Contract) to the end of its term in 2013. The amendment provides for, amongst other things, that the western companies will forego a portion of their future options on non-quota HEU-derived uranium (i.e. quantities for consumption outside the US) to ensure there is sufficient material in Russia for blending down the weapons grade HEU to commercially usable low enriched uranium (LEU). This change was needed in light of Russia's rising requirements for uranium to fuel their expanding nuclear plant construction program within Russia and abroad. The amendment to the HEU Contract is subject to approval by the US and Russian governments.
(Cameco June 16, 2004)
US, Russia, agree on flexible pricing terms for Megatons to Megawatts program
The U.S. and Russian governments have approved implementation of new, flexible market-based pricing terms for the remaining 12 years of the historic Megatons to Megawatts national security program. The new flexible pricing terms will go into effect in January 2003.
The terms of the amendment between USEC and Tenex, the Russian executive agent, include a commitment through 2013 to purchase at least 5.5 million SWU annually, which is derived from approximately 30 metric tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU), resulting in the purchase of a total of 500 metric tons.
(USEC June 19, 2002)
Factories linked to Novosibirsk nuclear fuel plant polluting major river in Siberia - prosecutors
About ten industrial facilities linked to a major nuclear-fuel plant in western Siberia are polluting the Ob River, local prosecutors said on March 16, 2006.
The factories are all linked to a waste-treatment plant owned by the Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant (NCCP), a key part of Russia's nuclear-fuel production industry.
Local water-administration authorities refused to renew the plant's drainage license in October 2005, saying its treatment systems were inefficient and that it failed to report the precise volume of waste being dumped into the river and the waste's hazardous content.
"We set a threshold for chemical concentration in waste when issuing licenses to protect the environment," a local official said. "How we are supposed to issue a license if we do not even know the amount of waste dumped in the river?"
The official said that the NCCP should install efficient purification facilities before a license can be issued. NCCP officials, however, said the plant would not apply for a new license, as it no longer sent waste through the treatment plant, which is now used only by other enterprises.
A local court fined NCCP 25,000 rubles ($898) and ordered the suspension of waste disposal through the plant until a new license was granted.
Ecology experts are carrying out the evaluation of environmental damages caused by waste dumping into the Ob River, the world's fourth longest at about 2,300 miles, which flows from Russia's mountainous Altai Region through Novosibirsk and empties into the Arctic Ocean.
A controlling stake in NCCP is held by TVEL Corp. , a 100% state-owned joint-stock company that produces nuclear fuel for Russia's nuclear power plants.
(RIA Novosti March 16, 2006)
TVEL set to ship fuel pellets to India
India's Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) has signed a protocol of acceptance with TVEL for the first 30 tonnes of uranium dioxide pellets to fuel Indian nuclear power reactors.
The protocol for the shipment of the first batch of nuclear fuel pellets to be sent to India was signed after a delegation from NFC visited TVEL's Mashinostroitelny Zavod (Elemash) plant in Elektrostal near Moscow, Russia.
TVEL and India's Department of Atomic Energy signed a long-term fuel pellet supply contract worth over $700 million in February. Under the contract, TVEL will supply uranium dioxide pellets to Nuclear Power Corp of India Ltd (NPCIL) for several years to ensure fuel supply to the Tarapur plant in Maharashtra state.
TVEL was the first company to have signed such a contract since the lifting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group's (NSG's) restrictions on India in September 2008. The first delivery of pellets to India is scheduled for the spring of 2009.
(WNN Mar. 23, 2009)
Capacity increase at TVEL Elektrostal nuclear fuel plant
Production of nuclear fuel pellets should be boosted by 400 tonnes per year following the launch of a new plant, TVEL announced. The 'dry conversion facility' - built at a cost of more than US$15 million - was commissioned at the end of March 2003 at the Elektrostal plant of TVEL subsidiary JSC Mashinistroitelny Zavod. The plant reconverts enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas into uranium dioxide (UO2) powder. Plant construction was supervised by engineers from Framatome ANP in Germany. (WNA News Briefing April 8, 2003)
