nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

The UK follows Japan in determining extent of nuclear “Transparency” by extending secrecy and protecting corruption!

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

SECRET

TOP-SECRET

Screenshot from 2014-01-16 01:57:46

http://www.sellafieldsites.com/2014/03/new-government-security-classifications/

New Government Security Classifications

In 2012 Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, announced the intention to fundamentally overhaul and replace the existing information classification and marking scheme as part of the government’s Civil Service Reform programme.

Sellafield Ltd’s security regulator, ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation), have instructed Sellafield Ltd and the wider civil nuclear industry to adopt the new GSC protective marking scheme known as Government Security Classifications (GSC).

Government Security Classifications

The new three tier system has three classifications: OFFICIAL, SECRET and TOP-SECRET.

Additionally ONR have mandated the use of an additional classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE for Sensitive Nuclear Information which is classified below SECRET.

Implementing GSC

In line with the rest of UK government, the new GSC scheme is coming into operation on April 2nd 2014. All documents (including commercial correspondence, drawings, specifications, data sheets etc) created by Sellafield Ltd after this date for issue to suppliers will carry the new markings. Documents created prior to this date will continue to carry their existing markings until such time as they are amended in the normal course of work when the new markings will be applied at the same time.

You can find more information about GSC and implementing GSC by following this

Link to Core Briefing for 3rd Party Suppliers

More here;

UK nuclear submarine fleet increases its costs with an undecided future after “high fuel burn up” test of prototype reactor at Dounreay – UK stakeholders ignored again!

…The big nuclear companies threatened DECC from withdrawing all co-operation concerning nuclear matters if they insisted on asking for information that was needed for the stakeholders to argue their points. So, DECC (And NDA) was actually blackmailed (By the “individual and other companies”)….

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/03/06/uk-nuclear-submarine-fleet-increases-its-costs-with-an-undecided-future-after-high-fuel-burn-up-test-of-prototype-reactor-at-dounreay-uk-stakeholders-ignored-again/

I am writing in response to your request
of 22 August for “
copies of the correspondence/reports between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the
Department for Energy and Climate Change regarding the conclusions of the work the NDA has recently undertaken into the management of the UK’s separated plutonium stocks

“…However there is a very high public interest for withholding this information. If the information were released it is less likely that that the individual companies concerned and others would provide the NDA or this Department with commercially sensitive information in the future. This would impede the NDA’s ability in carrying out its role effectively to consider properly the commercial viability of the technical options. Further as procurement is a likely part of securing a future plutonium disposition route, release of this information could threaten the NDA’s ability to secure value for money for UK taxpayers. This would be highly contrary to the public interest….”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244093/13_1157.pdf

More new news here including USA enrichment hopes in Mexico

07.03.2014_No10 / World Nuclear Review

Urenco Remains Bullish, Despite Fall In Earnings

Uranium & Fuel

http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2014/03/07/urenco-remains-bullish-despite-fall-in-earnings

7 Mar (NucNet): Nuclear fuel enrichment company Urenco, jointly owned by the German, British and Dutch governments, has reported a four percent drop in full-year core earnings because customer demand has slowed.

The UK-based company, which its owners are looking to partly sell, saw 2013 earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) fall to 968 million euros (EUR) (1.3 billion US dollars) from EUR 1.01 billion the previous year.

Revenue fell to EUR 1.52 billion from a record EUR 1.60 billion in 2012, the company said.

Urenco group chief executive officer Helmut Engelbrecht said 2013 remained “challenging” in some of the company’s traditional markets. Reduced demand led to a slowdown of the market and increased worldwide inventories valued at EUR 353.2 million.

But Mr Engelbrecht said Urenco retained its 31 percent share of the world market for uranium enrichment services, underlining its position as a market leader. “Following our record year in 2012, we met our revenue expectations in 2013,” he said.

The company said its enrichment facility in the US enables it to provide a domestic enrichment service to North American customers. The New Mexico facility is now the only commercial operational enrichment facility in the US.

More links here

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/27/japan-u-s-move-to-expand-nuclear-power-programs-despite-contamination-at-fukushima-new-mexico/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/01/16/the-new-japanese-secrecy-law-takes-effect-concerning-radiation-health-effects/

https://nuclear-news.net/2013/11/28/womens-and-community-groups-angered-at-japans-new-secrecy-law/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/08/is-the-uks-nuclear-backed-pension-bubble-about-to-burst-new-scientific-research-may-be-the-pin-that-pricks/

 

Advertisement

March 9, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | 5 Comments

European Parliament asking akward questions concerning the fuel cladding on nuclear fuel rods

Parliamentary questions
28 February 2014
P-002367-14
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Werner Langen (PPE)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2014-002367&format=XML&language=EN

 

 Subject:  Fuel element cladding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant
In its issue of 14 February 2014 the Trierischer Volksfreund newspaper reported that the fuel element cladding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant had been examined and found to be actually or possibly damaged. If the cladding material were, say, severely corroded, fuel elements might need to be replaced ahead of time, and other problems could arise.

1. Is the Commission aware that, according to French media reports, 25 out of the 58 French nuclear power plants have corroded fuel element cladding?

2. Has corrosion of fuel element cladding been known to occur at nuclear power plants, and have there been any proven cases at Cattenom?

3. Has risk analysis ever been brought to bear on what is one of the largest and most efficient, but also one of the oldest, nuclear power plants in France?

4. In the light of the stress testing of nuclear installations in Europe, how does the Commission view the safety implications of this type of corrosion?

5. Does corrosion damage of the kind described have to be reported to the International Energy Agency or neighbouring countries?

March 9, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment