nuclear-news

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

US nuclear industry clamors for waiver process details as Russian uranium ban looms

companies with enriched uranium contracts with Russia can seek to continue to receive their material .

Questions were raised during the meeting about whether the names of those receiving waivers would be made public

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/051024-us-nuclear-industry-clamors-for-waiver-process-details-as-russian-uranium-ban-looms Author, Andrea Jennetta     William Freebairn 10 May 24

HIGHLIGHTS

DOE plans to issue notice on process shortly after bill enactment

Utilities worried about criteria for showing inability to obtain fuel

Waiver process important to entire industry, Centrus CEO says.

US nuclear operators and nuclear fuel market participants have asked a series of questions to the US Department of Energy in a meeting last week, eager to learn details of a system of waivers being developed in connection with the passage of a ban on Russian enriched uranium late last month. DOE officials, while guarded, told the industry it would be ready for speedy and reasoned adjudication of waiver claims, according to attendees.

The Senate unanimously approved the measure April 30, following passage of a similar bill in the House of Representatives in December. The ban takes effect 90 days after President Joe Biden signs the bill into law.

Under an as-yet disclosed waiver system, companies with enriched uranium contracts with Russia can seek to continue to receive their material by demonstrating they do not have viable alternate sources of fuel or that continued deliveries are in the national interest.

Two people who attended an April 30 meeting with DOE officials said the department indicated it will be ready to publish a Federal Register notice within 30 days of enactment of the legislation outlining the process for seeking waivers.

The legislation is designed to reduce US reliance on Russian uranium for nuclear fuel following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Russia supplies about 20% of US reactor operators’ enrichment needs, although most utilities have sought to reduce their dependence on Russian state nuclear company Rosatom in recent months.

However, a utility fuel buyer said there was skepticism among some participants that the department would be ready, as there are myriad complexities around the process and timetables.

“They still don’t have a lot of answers,” the fuel buyer said.

Biden has not signed the legislation, which was sent by Congress to the White House May 8, according to one meeting participant. The bill becomes law if the president does not veto it within 10 days of formal receipt from Congress, whether he signs it or not, several meeting participants said.

Questions were raised during the meeting about whether the names of those receiving waivers would be made public, whether uranium coming into the country for fabrication into fuel and export out of the US would require or receive waivers and what criteria would be used to permit utilities to receive Russian fuel, the people said. All those who spoke about the meeting did so on condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting and avoid hurting their relationship with the DOE.

The rapid timeframes involved raise questions as well, the fuel buyer said. “How are they going to do this on a 90-day schedule, when there are ships literally on the water” containing enriched uranium, the person said.

A uranium producer in attendance said DOE officials indicated they would seek to act as rapidly as possible for requests on material in transit or requiring a decision regarding short-term deliveries.

An industry official who attended the meeting said DOE indicated it would take a “relaxed approach, particularly over the next couple of years,” in approving end-user waivers. Still, the department was noncommittal in its plans, the person said.

DOE plans to request detailed information on why a delivery should be allowed, with information on the impact on the national interest as well as the potential challenges in securing replacement material, the attendees said. Utilities would need to show that inventories are not sufficient to replace the imported material, one of the people said. DOE would adjudicate those claims, this person said.

The uranium producer said the passage of the legislation offered miners a better option than the potential for executive action which the White House had indicated could take place should Congress fail to act. He said DOE in its meeting seemed unaware that the legislation was about to be passed by the Senate later that day, and so some of the department’s comments were guarded because officials did not know whether an executive order barring the imports or the language of the House legislation would prevail.

Centrus preparing for waiver submittal

The applicant for the waivers must be the importer of record, one person who attended the meeting said. This would mean that in the case of re-sellers of Russian enrichment services, such as Centrus, the re-seller would apply on behalf of customers, this person said.

Centrus and its predecessor companies have for several years purchased from Russia’s state-owned Tenex an annual quantity of Russian enriched uranium under a quota set by the Russian suspension agreement, then sold the LEU to utility customers.

“We obviously have all the intentions to apply for a waiver at the first opportunity,” said Centrus President, CEO and Director Amir Vexler in a first quarter earnings call May 8. “Yes, we’ve been preparing. We’re going to make use of this process, and it is extremely important, not only to Centrus, but to the industry here in the US.”

The company could find itself in a precarious financial position without access to enriched uranium to deliver to customers……………………………….

International impact

US utilities are not the only ones affected by the ban, several people said. Any foreign utility that has Russian enriched uranium delivered to a US fuel fabricator for re-export as fuel would also need a waiver, they noted.

DOE mentioned that utilities should be aware of at least one such pending case, which two people said is likely a reference to Mexico’s Comision Federal de Electricidad, which operates two GE-supplied boiling water reactors that get fuel from the US.

DOE officials reminded participants in the meeting that any process and all waivers will still have to comply with US sanctions requirements, one attendee said, and that waiver requests will have to take into account the availability of the American Assured Fuel Reserve, a stockpile of government-owned enriched uranium designed to protect nuclear operators from a disruption of nuclear fuel availability.

DOE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

May 13, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Uranium | Leave a comment

Congress Restricts Russian Uranium Imports, Unlocks $2.7 Billion for Domestic Fuel

Rifka Handelman, MAY 08, 2024,  https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/congress-restricts-russian-uranium-imports-unlocks-2-7-billion-for-domestic-fuel

The bill allows the energy secretary to issue waivers but aims to wean the U.S. off Russian nuclear fuel.

Legislation that restricts imports  of unirradiated low-enriched uranium (LEU) from Russia is now headed to the president’s desk after the Senate passed it by unanimous consent last week.

The restriction will take effect 90 days after the president signs the legislation, which is expected to occur.

The act allows the secretary of energy to issue waivers for imports up to certain limits if there is no other viable source of LEU available. As of 2022, U.S. civilian nuclear power plants collectively sourced about 12%  of their uranium from Russia.

Once the restriction is in place, the Department of Energy is permitted to spend up to $2.72 billion to support domestic production of LEU and high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which is a more concentrated fuel intended for use in prospective advanced reactors.

Congress allocated  these funds through the final appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2024 but made them contingent on the U.S. restricting imports of Russian uranium.

The funds will specifically go toward implementing the Nuclear Fuel Security Act,  which aims to expand U.S. capacity to make HALEU fuel and ensure there is a reserve of uranium that can sustain U.S. reactors in the event of supply chain disruption.

May 10, 2024 Posted by | Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

US cutoff of Russian uranium imports viable but costly to replace

The Sun, 3 May 24

WASHINGTON: The United States’ move toward banning imports of Russian uranium will be viable but replacing that supply will be costly to fund the necessary investment needed to meet the growing demand, a leading US uranium firm and expert told Sputnik.

The US Senate on Tuesday passed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, sending it to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law. The legislation bans US imports of unirradiated low-enriched uranium produced in Russia or by a Russian entity and measures to close loopholes.

However, the legislation allows waivers should the US determine that no alternative viable source of low-enriched uranium is available to sustain the continued operation of a US nuclear reactor or nuclear energy company, or if it also determines the importation of uranium is in the national interest. Any waiver issued by the US Energy Department must terminate by January 1, 2028, while the ban expires on December 31, 2040.

Scott Melbye, executive vice president of Uranium Energy Corporation and president of Uranium Producers of America, told Sputnik that the ban will mean the US will boost uranium production in the coming years, but also noted that significant new investment will be needed for that to happen.

“The US and its close allies have sufficient mineral resources, technologies, and companies to regain this level of leadership, however, significant capital needs to be deployed to make that a reality,“ Melbye said…………………………………………………………………….

The industry executive noted that the US, Canada, Japan, and the United States plan to mobilise US$4.2 billion to promote a reliable global nuclear energy supply chain, which presents strong export opportunities for American uranium.

The EIA notes that during 2022, 3 per cent of the uranium loaded into US civilian nuclear power reactors was US-origin uranium and 97 per cent was foreign-origin uranium. The United States purchased a total of 32.1 million pounds of uranium concentrate from abroad in 2022.

In 2022, Russia supplied almost a quarter of the enriched uranium used to fuel America’s fleet of more than 90 commercial reactors.

Princeton University Professor Frank Von Hippel, who has served as the US Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, also believes the plan is possible, but will require Western nuclear utilities to spend more.

“It would require the Western nuclear utilities to buy more uranium and to pay more for enrichment work,“ Von Hippel told Sputnik. “The US utilities, at least, are notoriously sensitive to even small cost increases. That is why it has taken two years for Congress to get to this point. And… they are allowing escape clauses if any utility really gets desperate.”

The legislation is meant to cut off a source of revenue to Russia amid its special military operation in Ukraine, but Von Hippel said he does not expect it to make much of a difference considering Russia gets most of its foreign exchange from selling oil and gas.

Russian nuclear company Rosatom could be expected to lose some reactor sales and some fuel sales in some other countries because of the ban, but other countries that have already signed contracts for new reactors, and have them under construction, are locked in, Von Hippel added.

Sarah Fields, programme director for environmental group Uranium Watch, said that although her group supports cutting off revenue to Russia, they also urge the United States to end its reliance on nuclear power.

“The United States should end its reliance on nuclear power, which is not a viable solution to climate change,“ Fields told Sputnik. “Uranium Watch does not support the expansion of uranium fuel production in the United States. With no national repository for long-term care and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, it is irresponsible and foolish to continue to extend the lives of existing nuclear reactors and support the development of new reactors.”

Fields further said that uranium mining is the least regulated part of the nuclear fuel chain and continues to pollute land, air, and water as well as expose rural and Indigenous communities to radiological emissions and contamination……………………………. https://thesun.my/world/us-cutoff-of-russian-uranium-imports-viable-but-costly-to-replace-DG12413527

May 5, 2024 Posted by | Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Production of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) threatens our environment, health, and safety.

The nuclear industry is pushing for mass production of HALEU, which poses
significant risks to our environment, health, and safety. This form of
enriched uranium for new types of nuclear power reactors could perpetuate
the cycle of nuclear proliferation here in the US and worldwide.

Here’s the problem: HALEU requires producing uranium that is close enough to
weapons-grade that it could be used as cover to develop nuclear weapons.

Making it produces more radioactive pollution, and using it would generate
waste that is more hazardous and difficult to manage. And if the U.S.
starts making HALEU for nuclear power plants, other countries will believe
they should have the right to do so–opening the floodgates to weapons
proliferation and forever compromising the U.S. in standing against that.

We must voice our opposition to this reckless endeavor and demand
accountability from decision-makers. Your comment can make a difference in
shaping policy and preventing the acquisition of HALEU.

NIRS 13th April 2024

 https://nirs.salsalabs.org/HALEUCommentsApril2024/index.html

April 15, 2024 Posted by | Uranium, USA | 1 Comment

Speaking with one voice -tribes call for cleanup, remediation and an end to uranium mining and milling

The early uranium they mined was for atomic bombs dropped on other brown people far away. Later, the mined uranium was used to fuel nuclear power plants whose radioactive releases increase leukemia rates in children living nearby and whose waste is targeted at, yes, more Native communities. 

By Linda Pentz Gunter, Beyond Nuclear 7 Apr 24

They were there to tell their stories. The contamination of air, land and water. The sicknesses. The displacement. The loss of community, culture and language. The deprivation of fundamental human rights. And they spoke with one voice in their plea for justice, the voice of Indigenous peoples in the United States and their lived experience of uranium mines and mills.

The occasion was a thematic hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) at the Organization of American States. The topic was: United States: Impacts of uranium exploitation on indigenous peoples’ rights.

The speakers came from Navajo, Arapaho, Havasupai, Ute and Oglala Lakota. 

And, across the room, they came from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of the Interior.

The Native American speakers made the same plea they have reiterated for decades: effective cleanup and removal of the radioactive waste that has poisoned their communities and people, and will do so again as long new uranium mines are allowed to go forward. And no new mines.

The personal stories they told the listeners — representatives from the US government, the IACHR panel and members of the public in the audience —were those of universal injustice against Indigenous communities, stories that have been told before and, seemingly, have to be told over and over. They are stories that are listened to and not heard, often not responded to and almost never acted upon. 

“We used to drink the spring water,” said Anfreny Badback of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, a member of the White Mesa Concerned Community who oppose operations at the White Mesa uranium mill near Blanding, Utah. “We don’t anymore.”

The mill belongs to Energy Fuels and is the last remaining such facility in the United States. It receives uranium tailings and other radioactive materials for “processing” and dumping. The mill was built right next to the tribal community on top of hundreds of culturally significant sites, a consideration that is routinely ignored.

Teracita Keyanna, a Navajo woman from the Red Water Pond Road Community Association, described how she had to take her family out of their home community because of the health risks to her children due to the continued failure to clean up the radiological contamination from the Church Rock uranium mine and mill. The mill suffered a devastating tailings pond dam break in 1979 that resulted in the biggest accidental release of radioactive waste in US history. As a result of the relocation, Keyanna said, her children are losing touch with their language and culture.

“We are the poorest community in the country but rich in cultural practices” said Tonia Stands, an Oglala Lakota who testified with her small daughter at her side. ……………………………………………………………………….

All of the stories were those of erasure. To be erased does not necessitate a massacre. It can just be decades-long neglect by the US government to make right a terrible wrong. The loss of a safe environment; no access to clean water or healthy food; the neglect of adequate or even any cleanup; the destruction of a culture; the deprivation of tradition and language. All of these constitute a genocide. No one called it that at the hearing. But that is what it is.

From the government spokespeople we heard mainly that they were doing their best; that they had listened; had held consultations; or that it fell outside their jurisdiction. 

But, as Christopher Balkhan from the IACHR panel pointed out, there seemed to be some sort of disconnect between the official regulations “and what is actually happening”. He noted the difference between free, prior and informed consent and consultation. Was the former being offered to these communities? “If not, why not?” he asked.

On the government side, tossed bones were presented as lavish gifts. Clifford Villa, Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sought to reassure the communities that cleanup operations in their communities would deliver an abundance of jobs to residents as if somehow the opportunity to clean up a toxic mess not of their making and which had sickened and killed their families for decades should be accepted as some sort of honor. 

Similarly, Bryan Newland, assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior, praised the uranium mining carried about by tribes as part of a “long-lasting contribution to the national security of the United States.” 

But it was nothing of the kind. The early uranium they mined was for atomic bombs dropped on other brown people far away. Later, the mined uranium was used to fuel nuclear power plants whose radioactive releases increase leukemia rates in children living nearby and whose waste is targeted at, yes, more Native communities. 

The cleanup requests have “fallen on deaf ears” said Edith Hood, also of the Navajo Red Water Pond Road Community. Many wondered if the same was happening at the IACHR hearing. The collective presentations of both the civil society and government sides were squeezed into 20 minutes apiece, with another 12 minutes for follow-up to questions from the commission.

“I’ve been a leader for 20 years and I have not seen a single response from any state or fed agency to my tribe on our pleas to stop Pinyon mine,” said Carletta Tilousi of the Havasupai Tribal Council at a press conference after the event. She and her tribe are fighting the newly active Pinyon Plain uranium mine at the edge of the Grand Canyon and the headwaters of Havasu Creek, owned by Energy Fuels Resources…………………………………………………….

Eric Jantz, legal director at the New Mexico Environmental Law Center and representing the tribal speakers, summed up their requests in his opening remarks, noting in particular the absence of consent. What they wanted, he said, were three things: 

  • For the United States to place a moratorium on all new uranium mining and processing on Indigenous lands or near culturally important sites until it has remediated all legacy waste and implemented laws governing uranium development that are consistent with its human rights obligations; 
  • That the US begin phasing out ongoing uranium mining and processing in Indigenous communities. The only exception to this moratorium would be when an Indigenous nation has given its free, prior and informed consent to develop mineral resources within its jurisdiction. Free, informed and prior consent should especially include the right to say ‘no’. 
  • Finally, during a moratorium, federal agencies responsible for regulating uranium production and remediation should review and change as necessary their policies, and regulations should be consistent with the United States’ human rights obligations.

………………………………………………………………………………………….. The IACHR can recommend a corrective course to the U.S. government. The big question now is will they?

Watch the full hearing.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/04/07/speaking-with-one-voice/

April 8, 2024 Posted by | indigenous issues, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Tribes condemn start of uranium mining at Pinyon Plain Mine south of Grand Canyon

ADRIAN SKABELUND Sun Staff Reporter, Jan 13, 2024,
 https://azdailysun.com/news/local/tribes-condemn-start-of-uranium-mining-at-pinyon-plain-mine-south-of-grand-canyon/article_13efb3b0-b16a-11ee-973a-c789810e105e.html

Two northern Arizona tribes this week condemned the start of operations at a uranium mine just south of the Grand Canyon.

The statements came after Denver-based company Energy Fuels Inc. announced last month that operations at its Pinyon Plain Mine had commenced.

“It is with heavy hearts that we must acknowledge that our greatest fear has come true,” a statement from the Havasupai Tribal Council read.

Meanwhile, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said in a statement that mining remains opposed “by all neighboring tribes that have forever called Grand Canyon their home.”

The Havasupai Tribe, along with many conservation groups, have long worried that the mine could contaminate area groundwater.

The Pinyon Plain Mine, previously known as the Canyon Mine, sits above the Redwall-Muav aquifer, which acts as a source of water for countless seeps and springs throughout the Grand Canyon, and is the sole source of drinking water for the Havasupai.

The mine also sits near Red Butte, an area with deep cultural importance to the Havasupai.

Energy Fuels has insisted that mining poses no risk to groundwater in the area.

Energy Fuels Vice President of Marketing and Development Curtis Moore said last month that the concerns over contamination were unfounded and designed to scare the public and push an antinuclear political agenda.

But those statements provided little comfort to those opposed to the mine.

“As guardians of the Grand Canyon, we the Havsuw ‘Baaja, the Havasupai Tribe, have opposed uranium mining in and around our reservation and the Grand Canyon since time immemorial. We do this to protect our people, our land, our water, our past, our present and our future,” a statement from the Havasupai Council read. “And yet, despite the historic and current assistance and advocacy from numerous allies, and the countless letters, phone calls and personal pleas, our urgent requests to stop this life-threatening action have been disregarded.”

Nygren on Thursday called on the federal government to protect tribes from the impact of new mining.

“I join our neighboring tribes and the many non-Native organizations to implore the federal government to uphold its promise to protect us,” Nygren wrote. “We are very concerned about the impending transport of radioactive materials from the Pinyon Plain/Canyon uranium mine to White Mesa Mill in Utah.”

The statements came as activists say they have observed uranium ore being stockpiled at the mine site.

Moore previously told the Arizona Daily Sun they didn’t yet know when they would begin to haul ore from the mine to the Utah Mill for processing. He said it was likely to begin within the year, however.

In 2012, the Navajo Nation passed a law banning the transportation of uranium ore within Navajo lands. That law does not impact federal highways that cross tribal lands.

There are two potential routes trucks bringing uranium ore from the mine to the Utah mill could take. One would direct trucks through Flagstaff, while a second would utilize ranching roads to skirt north of the city. Still, both routes pass through the Navajo Nation on U.S. Route 89.

Nygren also said he was disappointed that he and other tribal officials only learned mining operations had commenced through media reports, as opposed to hearing the news from federal partners.

“Despite all of our objections through the years, we learn through the media, rather than from our federal trustee — the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land Management — as would correctly expect, that our land and water will again be threatened with contamination,” he said. “Our relatives, the Havasupai, Hualapai and other tribes along the Colorado River, are bracing themselves for renewed anxiety, worry and constant unease about the safety of their resources and homelands.”

There is a long and controversial history of uranium mining within northern Arizona.

Throughout the Cold War era, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted and often processed from Navajo Nation lands. Hundreds of those mines, often near Navajo communities, were then abandoned by the companies operating them.

More than 500 contaminated sites remain across the Navajo Nation.

February 11, 2024 Posted by | indigenous issues, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

US eyes reports Iran has accelerated uranium enrichment

Aljazeera, 27 Dec 23

Tension has risen between Washington and Tehran amid the Israel-Gaza war.

The United States has expressed deep concern over reports that Iran has accelerated its production of weapons-grade uranium.

The comments from a White House National Security Council spokesperson came late on Tuesday in response to a report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that warned that Tehran has accelerated production of the high-grade material……………………………

The United Nations atomic watchdog’s report to member states said that Iran has increased the rate at which it is producing near weapons-grade uranium in recent weeks, reversing a previous slowdown that started in in mid-2023.

Iran had previously slowed the rate at which it was enriching uranium – the process of raising the level of uranium-235, the isotope used in nuclear fission –  to 60 percent purity. Uranium enriched at 60 percent is just a step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 percent. Nuclear power stations require 3.67 percent.

The IAEA said its inspectors had verified the increased rate of production since the end of November at facilities in Natanz and Fordow to about 9kg (20lb) per month, the same level of production that Iran was maintaining in the first half of 2023 before a drop to 3kg (6.6lb) per month in June.

Raised tension

Iran appeared to have slowed its enrichment programme earlier this year as a gesture as informal talks with the US over a nuclear treaty resumed. But the Israel-Gaza war has raised tensions between Washington and Tehran………………………………….more https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/27/us-frets-over-irans-accelerated-uranium-enrichment-programme

December 31, 2023 Posted by | Iran, Uranium | Leave a comment

Iran undoes slowdown in enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade -IAEA

Russia has completed its delivery of nuclear weapons to Belarus, according
to its president, Alexander Lukashenko. Lukashenko was in St. Petersburg,
Russia, for the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council on Monday when he told
reporters that the last delivery of tactical nuclear weapons from the
Kremlin occurred in early October.

 UPI 26th Dec 2023

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2023/12/26/belarus-Russia-completes-delivery-nuclear-weapons/8721703569787/

December 29, 2023 Posted by | Iran, Uranium | Leave a comment

The US deal to normalise relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel brings risks of a Middle East #nuclear arms race

#anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes

The risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is ‘acute’, a former
British ambassador to Riyadh has warned, amid reports that the US could
help Saudi Arabia develop a civil nuclear programme in exchange for
normalising relations with Israel.

Joe Biden’s administration is working
keenly on a package of agreements that would see Riyadh formally recognise
Israel’s nationhood, becoming the biggest Arab power to do so since the
Jewish state was founded in 1948. Riyadh has made US assistance with its
civil nuclear programme a key demand of the talks.

Under the terms of the deal, the Wall Street Journal reported last week, US and Israeli officials
are discussing a potential US-run uranium enrichment centre on Saudi soil.

Telegraph 1st Oct 2023

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/01/saudi-nuclear-israel-recognise-deal-price-warning-race/

October 5, 2023 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, Uranium, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Top nuclear experts urge Biden to not allow Saudi uranium enrichment in mega-deal

even if the enrichment facility in Saudi Arabia is operated by Americans, it will pose “an unacceptable proliferation risk, particularly given Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s public comments on nuclear weapons”.

Barak Ravid 22 Sept 23  https://www.axios.com/2023/09/21/saudi-nuclear-power-uranium-mbs-biden-megadeal-israel

A bipartisan group of more than two dozen nuclear and Middle East experts sent a letter to President Biden on Thursday urging him not to allow Saudi Arabia to have a uranium enrichment program on its soil, according to the letter first shared with Axios.

Why it matters: The Saudi demand for a civilian nuclear program that includes uranium enrichment is the most complicated and sensitive part of the mega-deal the White House is negotiating with the kingdom and Israel.

  • It is one of Saudi Arabia’s main demands in the Biden administration’s efforts to secure a peace deal between the kingdom and Israel.
  • But it not only faces opposition from the experts who sent Thursday’s letter but also from Israel’s opposition, as well as many members of Congress who are critical of the Saudi government over its human rights record.

What they’re saying: The 27 experts who signed the letter say they support normalization but think the kingdom doesn’t need uranium enrichment to produce peaceful nuclear energy.

  • “We urge you to reject the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s request for uranium enrichment as part of or separate from a normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel,” they wrote.
  • The experts stressed that uranium enrichment on Saudi soil could bring Saudi Arabia to the brink of acquiring nuclear arms — a reality U.S. policy should keep from happening.

Signatories to the letter include several former U.S. officials who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and worked on nuclear or Middle East issues.

  • They also include David Albright, one of the leading nuclear experts in the world, Olli Heinonen and Pierre Goldschmidt, both former deputy director generals of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former national security adviser, Jacob Nagel.
  • The letter was co-organized by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington think tank that holds pro-Israeli views.

State of play: The Biden administration is still negotiating with the Saudi officials the conditions for a possible civilian nuclear program.


  • Separate negotiations on the issue are being held between the Biden administration and the Israeli government.
  • Unlike the signatories of the letter, Netanyahu doesn’t object to Saudi Arabia having a civilian nuclear program and his government is negotiating with the U.S. the red lines and the guardrails for a program that would include uranium enrichment.
  • A senior U.S. official told reporters on Wednesday that there is total alignment between the Israeli government and the Biden administration when it comes to the red lines.
  • The White House did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment.

The big picture: In the letter, the experts also said that even if the enrichment facility in Saudi Arabia is operated by Americans, it will pose “an unacceptable proliferation risk, particularly given Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s public comments on nuclear weapons”.

  • MBS told Fox News in an interview that was aired on Wednesday that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would “have to get one, for security reasons, for balancing power.”
  • The experts also wrote that Saudi threats to go to China for nuclear technology are not a reason for the U.S. to change its policy on nuclear enrichment, a step that will be “a sign of weakness” and could encourage similar efforts by other countries.

  • The experts added that allowing Saudi Arabia to have uranium enrichment capability like Iran could trigger a regional nuclear arms race.
  • “Any nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia must meet the highest non-proliferation standards and enhanced inspection and transparency measures through a strong Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” they wrote.

September 23, 2023 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, Uranium | Leave a comment

  Foundation for the Defense of Democracy and The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center urge Biden against helping Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium

In an effort to get Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel, the Biden
Administration is considering offering Riyadh a U.S. civilian nuclear
cooperative agreement that would allow the Kingdom to enrich uranium, a
process that could bring it within weeks or days of acquiring a nuclear
weapon.

With nuclear fuel making activities, such as uranium enrichment,
there is no way to assure timely warning of possible military diversions:
By the time there is a detection, it’s too late to prevent the last few
steps to making a bomb. This inherent safeguards gap makes any endorsement
of enrichment in the Kingdom dangerous.

Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud is
publicly on record pledging to acquire nuclear weapons if he believes Iran
is acquiring one. Some argue this risk must be taken to keep the Kingdom
from embracing ever tighter relations with China. This is mistaken The
United States is the richest nation in the world. It has other more
powerful and far less dangerous ways to influence the Saudis’ thinking.

 NPEC 21st Sept 2023

September 23, 2023 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

British activists join Nuclear Free Local Authorities in supporting Swedish Sami against uranium mining

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities and Lakes against the Nuclear Dump have been joined by activists from twelve anti-nuclear campaign groups in a letter to organisations representing the Sami people of Sweden offering support in their fight against uranium mining.

A ban on uranium exploration, mining and processing in Sweden came into force on 1 August 2018 but, last month, Swedish Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari announced that the ban would be lifted and that ten new nuclear reactors would be built over the next twenty years. In the face of international and domestic criticism, the centre-right government has since reined in the commitment to new nuclear by talking instead of a vague commitment to developing ‘green power’, but there has been no roll-back on uranium mining.

Sweden accounts for 80% of the European Union’s uranium deposits and already extracts uranium as a waste product when mining for other metals. Foreign companies, including Aura Energy and District Metals, have already expressed an interest in exploiting reserves. Even if the new government’s nuclear hopes come to naught, there will still be a ready export market for any output. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has made the surety of uranium supply from Russia and its allies uncertain and the recent military takeover in uranium-producing Niger has shaken the market; consequently, pro-nuclear European nations will be looking for any stable source from a neighbour. 

The correspondents fear that any resumption of uranium mining will come at a heavy price to the traditional lands and lifestyles of the Indigenous Sami People, with a degradation of their natural environment and their health. The Sami (or Saami) inhabit the region of Sápmi, which embodies the most Northern parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and North West Russia, and are best known for their reliance upon semi-nomadic reindeer herding.

Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair of the NFLA’s Steering Committee, said: “Sadly the world over, uranium mining has been, and still is, often visited upon Indigenous People in their Traditional Lands by large, profit-hungry corporations. In addition, national governments have chosen their lands to carry out nuclear weapons testing and nuclear waste dumping. The impact has been enormous – the lands of Indigenous People have been poisoned, their health destroyed and their culture and traditional way of life decimated.

“Sweden has signed the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People pledging to defend the lands and lifestyle of the Sami, but the decision to resume uranium mining could, if left unchallenged, lead to their destruction. In sending this collective letter, we, the British and Irish local authorities opposed to nuclear power, with British anti-nuclear groups and activists are pledging ourselves as allies in this fight”.

Co-sponsor, Marianne Kirkby, founder of LAND, Lakes against the Nuclear Dump, added: “Here in Cumbria, we feel so much empathy for the Sami people who have had no say whatsoever in the opening-up of Sweden’s wild areas to the devastation of uranium mining. 

“In the UK, we have no uranium mining, but plenty of nuclear plants. We are constantly told that nuclear power is ‘clean’ and ‘home-grown’. This blatant lie is the means by which Sami lands are put under pressure for new uranium mining exploitation in areas where it was previously, and quite rightly, banned as being too destructive to the health of people and planet”. 

“This lie of ‘clean nuclear’ is the means by which Indigenous people, whether in Cumbria or in Sweden, whether at the waste end or the fuel end of the nuclear industry, are being exploited by the most toxic industry there is without even a ‘by your leave’.  We stand in solidarity with the Sami in saying NO – NO MORE!”

September 14, 2023 Posted by | indigenous issues, Sweden, Uranium | Leave a comment

Does Europe need Niger’s uranium?

Will the lights go out in Europe if Niger were to prevent France from mining more of its uranium? DW asked experts in Niger and Europe about the energy supply chain in the wake of the coup. Niger’s greatest treasure lies underground: Uranium is the most
important commodity in the Sahel state. But coup plotters have been in
charge for just over a month, fuelling fears that the uranium supply to
global markets is in jeopardy. France, the former colonial power in Niger,
is in a particularly tight spot. Around two-thirds of its electricity comes
from nuclear power plants powered by uranium sourced in Niger. It also
exports electricity to other countries in Europe that have no nuclear
plants of their own.

 Deutsche Welle 4th Sept 2023

https://www.dw.com/en/does-europe-need-nigers-uranium/a-66711717

September 8, 2023 Posted by | Niger, Uranium | Leave a comment

US Doubles Imports of Russian Uranium to Largest Amount Since 2005

 https://sputnikglobe.com/20230824/us-doubles-imports-of-russian-uranium-to-largest-amount-since-2005-1112841852.html

– The United States bought 416 tonnes of uranium from Russia in the first half of 2023, which is 2.2 times bigger than in the same period last year and the largest amount since 2005, Sputnik has calculated using data of the US federal statistical system.

In the first six months of 2022, the US bought 188 tonnes of uranium from Russia, and 418 tonnes in January-July 2005.

Russia supplies the US only with uranium-235 enriched fuel, which is the country’s main “radioactive” imports. However, the analysis also took into account data on imports of natural and depleted uranium, which the US purchases from other countries.

The cost of imported Russian uranium amounted to $696.5 million, which is the highest value since 2002, the year when the US started to break data down by months. The cost of supplies increased 2.5 times year-over-year, and Russia’s share in US uranium imports grew by 13 percentage points to 32%.

The US also significantly increased its purchases of uranium from the United Kingdom in 2023 – by 28% to $383.1 million, bringing it to just under 18% of all imports. The most significant increase was observed in France’s exports, which stood at $319 million, 15% of total imports, in 2023 against $1.9 million a year earlier.

August 31, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, Uranium | Leave a comment

There should be no Saudi uranium enrichment

The ultimate argument against a US-Saudi nuclear deal is the crown prince himself, who is in line to be king and for practical purposes already is.

He is a liar and a gruesome killer. Saudi Arabia, for all its modern trappings, is a primitive state with no effective checks on his powers. The king makes the laws, rules by decree, and is the chief judge. He has powers the British king gave up in the 13th century. Saudi Arabia has a long way to go before it will be a safe place for nuclear energy.

By Victor Gilinsky | August 28, 2023
 https://thebulletin.org/2023/08/there-should-be-no-saudi-uranium-enrichment/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter08282023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_SaudiUranium_08282023&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter08282023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_SaudiUranium_08282023

There is increasing talk of a United States-brokered “grand bargain” on Middle East security, the core of which would be normalization of ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It isn’t clear what motivates Joe Biden to press for this deal now. The obvious goal would involve the eternal search for peace in the Middle East, but there are hints that such a bargain may have more to do with keeping the Saudis out of China’s orbit.

One thing we know, Biden’s lieutenants are lobbying hard in the Senate for acceptance of some version of far-reaching demands from the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, among them access to uranium enrichment technology that would ostensibly provide fuel for future Saudi nuclear power plants. Indeed, enrichment is a step in the production of nuclear reactor fuel. It is also a vital part of one of two paths to the atomic bomb.

One thing we know, Biden’s lieutenants are lobbying hard in the Senate for acceptance of some version of far-reaching demands from the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, among them access to uranium enrichment technology that would ostensibly provide fuel for future Saudi nuclear power plants. Indeed, enrichment is a step in the production of nuclear reactor fuel. It is also a vital part of one of two paths to the atomic bomb.

That isn’t of course the polite version of the crown prince’s plan. He says he wants to use domestic uranium, of which the Saudis claimed to have large deposits, to fuel civilian nuclear power reactors. He wants to produce fuel domestically, ergo he needs to acquire enrichment technology. But despite Saudi claims, there are no significant uranium deposits in the country. Recent reports reveal that the teams of geologists sent to search for it have turned up empty-handed. That hasn’t, however, caused the crown prince to lose interest in enrichment, which is itself a revealing fact about his intentions—and his reliance on American cupidity. 

To cope with what the Saudis regard as excessive suspicion of others, they have suggested they are open to accepting some modest additional oversight arrangements, which they cynically expect Congress to accept after members engage in some ritual handwringing.

You would think the Saudi insistence on inclusion of enrichment, no matter how restricted, would be a non-starter for a US-Saudi “123” agreement for nuclear cooperation. (Compliance with Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act is essential for any significant US-Saudi nuclear trade.) But such common sense is a thin reed to lean on when it comes to Washington nuclear politics. Powerful lobbies have been pushing for years for sale of power reactors in the Middle East and for generous subsidies to allow this to happen. The departments of Energy and State will be supporting this, too, claiming that international “safeguards” would be effective in preventing misuse of civilian nuclear facilities. The official line on nuclear energy is still Atoms for Peace, as it has been since President Eisenhower’s 1953 speech. Recall that George W. Bush said even Iranian power reactors, by themselves, were perfectly legitimate.

The problem is that hardly anyone in Congress has any real understanding of nuclear technology. The members are swept off their feet by promises of safe, non-carbon producing energy sources, especially when nuclear proponents use adjectives like “small” and “modular” and “advanced.” Congressional discussions on international aspects seldom get beyond “restoring America’s competitive advantage in nuclear energy.”

There is also little understanding of the limitations of international “safeguards,” the inspection system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (Is there any realistic recourse if the Saudis break the rules?) It is indicative of Saudi Arabia’s attitude toward the IAEA that it has used every stratagem to minimize its safeguards responsibilities. The minimization strategy does not violate IAEA requirements, yes, but a country anxious to demonstrate its nuclear bona fides should be more forthcoming in its nonproliferation cooperation.

The 2008 US-India civil nuclear agreement is an eternal warning about how American international nuclear policy can go off the rails when the president and Congress are swept away by visions of gaining an ally against China plus the prospect of dozens of power reactor sales. That agreement ran a truck through the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and none of the sales of nuclear power plants materialized.

The Saudis know Americans can be made to swallow principle—they recently succeeded in humbling the US president on human rights and oil prices—and so are unlikely to soften their stance on inclusion of enrichment in a 123 agreement. The White House will be looking for a formula that accepts it, but adds some restriction, or appearance of restriction, or another sweetener, perhaps related to Palestinian rights, that would allow members of the House and Senate to go along with inclusion of enrichment in a US-Saudi agreement.

Who would stand in the way? Not the Republicans: They love the Saudis. The one possibility is if Israel balks at any deal that includes Saudi enrichment. Opposition Leader Yair Lapid told Democratic Party lawmakers visiting Israel recently that he opposes a potential Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization deal that allows Riyadh to enrich uranium because it would harm Israel’s security. But the Israeli government’s response—that is, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s—has been ambiguous.

Somebody needs to stand up. Not only should the United States say no to Saudi enrichment, but Washington should also rethink the entire notion of nuclear power reactors in Saudi Arabia. Such reactors, coupled with a reprocessing facility to extract plutonium from used fuel, which the Saudis will surely want as well, provide the other path to a bomb, a plutonium bomb.

With its constant threat of wars, the Middle East is no place for nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors in the region have been targeted in aerial attacks a dozen times. The safety issues that followed the capture by the Russians of the Zaporizhzhia power reactors in Ukraine should teach us something, too. Nuclear reactors do not belong in regions of potential conflict.

The ultimate argument against a US-Saudi nuclear deal is the crown prince himself, who is in line to be king and for practical purposes already is. He is a liar and a gruesome killer. Saudi Arabia, for all its modern trappings, is a primitive state with no effective checks on his powers. The king makes the laws, rules by decree, and is the chief judge. He has powers the British king gave up in the 13th century. Saudi Arabia has a long way to go before it will be a safe place for nuclear energy.

August 29, 2023 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, Uranium, weapons and war | Leave a comment