Depleted uranium exports to Russia are not a ”resource” – they are radioactive waste
Our conclusion is that this form of TENORM (technically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material) should be considered in principle as a waste material, for which full transparency should be assured over its complete chain of management,
DU Exports to Russia – A case of lack of transparency and research Nuclear Transparency Watch By Jan Haverkamp (Greenpeace, WISE) December 21,
From 1996, the uranium enrichment facilities URENCO Almelo (Netherlands) and URENCO Gronau (Germany) regularly sent shipments of depleted uranium (DU) in the form of UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) to TENEX, later TVEL, in Russia, where this was stored in the open air in Seversk in the Krasnoyarsk region. Protests in Europe then halted these transports in 2009. TVEL is since 2007 a subsidiary of the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom. URENCO carries out enrichment for nuclear fuel production from natural uranium to low-enriched uranium for clients all over the world and has facilities in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK.
In 2019 and 2020, these transports were resumed from the enrichment facility of URENCO Gronau and URENCO UK in Capenhurst.
URENCO Almelo currently has a permit for export, but does not use it. Its DU is sent to France for conversion into stable U3O8 (depleted tri-uranium-octo-oxide or uranium oxide), which is returned to the Netherlands and handed over to the waste management organisation COVRA for interim storage in the VOG facility, awaiting final disposal after 2100.
The claim is that the DU is sent to TENEX, later TVEL, for re-enrichment to natural level and reuse of the resulting double depleted uranium (DDU). Rosatom furthermore claims[2] that DDU and DU are used industrially and that the UF6 also delivers fluorine for reuse purposes. It furthermore, describes in detail how it wants to convert its UF6 stockpile into uranium oxide for waste treatment before 2057.
Continue readingThe design fault in the Taishan nuclear reactor could affect other EPR reactors, including Finland’s Olkiluoto station.
Finnish Nuclear Safety Authority STUK has given its approval to start the
reaction nuclear and low power tests for the EPR OL3 reactor built with a
lot of difficulties by the Areva Siemens consortium in Olkiluoto.
The start took place on Tuesday 21 December 12 years behind the initial project and
with a budget multiplied by 3. The serious malfunctions that affected the
Taishan 1 EPR reactor in China show that this technology is not developed.
Information transmitted to CRIIRAD by a whistleblower indicate that the
nuclear fuel assemblies for the Taishan 1 reactor were severely damaged
during the second irradiation cycle. This situation is probably related to
a fault in design that is reasonably expected to affect other RPEs.
CRIIRAD 22nd Dec 2021
Slovenia and Croatia: lack of transparency on radioactive waste , on intake of international nuclear waste.
The transformation of RW TCT from the exclusively national facility to an international radioactive waste treatment provider was done without prior consultation with, and approval by the public and municipalities.
More than 3000 citizens signed a petition against capacity increase of the RW TCT and demand a prohibition of foreign radioactive waste treatment in Slovakia.
Slovakia is not legally or morally responsible for foreign radioactive waste
Slovenia and Croatia – radioactive waste, transparency, shared responsibilities, shared problems, Three case studies on radioactive waste, By Nadja Zeleznik – Nuclear Transparency Watch 9 Dec 21,
These are case studies in a larger report on radioactive waste and transparency, currently under preparation for the Euratom EURAD programme by Nuclear Transparency Watch.
Publication was expected in October 2021.
Slovenia and Croatia share the nuclear power plant Krško (NEK) which was constructed as a joint venture during 1970-ties in the socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as part of the larger nuclear programme on the use of nuclear energy.
Continue readingSwedish environmental groups sound a warning on the government’s plans for a new radioactive waste dump.
| On 22 December, the Government decided to approve the extension of the repository for short-lived radioactive waste in Forsmark (SFR) with a new repository (SFR 2). SFR is the current repository for short-lived radioactive operational waste from the nuclear power plants and is located under the seabed outside the Forsmark nuclear power plant. SFR 2 is a new repository for short-lived radioactive waste from the decommissioning of the Swedish nuclear reactors, and the repository will be built next to the old one. The government decided to grant permissibility according to the Environmental Code and a license according to the Nuclear Activities Act. The decisions can be found in the news story on the MKG Swedish web page (link below on original)). The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, The Swedish Friends of the Earth and the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) have stated that the government should say no to the new repository. The organisations recently told the government in an opinion that it has not been shown that the new repository will be safe enough. The environment risks being damaged by the repository leaking radioactive particles into the Öregrundsgrepen outside Forsmark faster than expected, perhaps already within 50 to 100 years after closure. In addition, there is already a relatively unexpected and extensive breakdown of the technical repository barriers in the existing repository. The organisations believe that the government should have conditioned the decision on leaving the repository open under supervision for the 400 to 500 years required for the radioactive content to have decayed to less dangerous levels. MKG 22nd Dec 2021 https://www.mkg.se/en/the-government-approves-the-expansion-of-sfr-in-forsmark |
ROLLS ROYCE FALLS 3% ON QATARI INVESTMENT IN SMALL NUCLEAR BUSINESS
- Rolls Royce Holding PLC (LON: RR) has fallen 3% on news of the Qatari investment into the small nuclear reactor business
- It may well not be the investment itself that is the catalyst for the price change but Omicron
- The £85 million Qatar investment isn’t really a material number for Rolls Royce, even as it’s a vote of confidence in the programme.
Rolls Royce shares have continued their recent decline even as the news comes through of a Qatari investment in the small nuclear reactor programme. This could be seen as a surprise – investment in such a programme is likely to be a good deal for Rolls Royce after all. On the other hand, £85 million, the size of the investment, isn’t a large number compared to Rolls Royce – it’s not, as they say, a material number.
The likelihood is therefore that it is wider events driving the Rolls Royce share price, Omicron continues to rage around the world, air travel becomes increasingly restricted and so on. It’s worth pointing out that the RR incomes do not depend, particularly, on actually selling engines to people. There are fees involved in that, most certainly, but there’s an element of selling razors in how the business work. Once you’ve sold someone a razor then you’ve a capitve market for razor blades. Once you’ve got an engine in an aircraft then there’s a decades-long maintenance and repair income flow. That Rolls Royce income stream though depends upon hours in the air – exactly the thing being depressed by Omicron.
Rolls Royce shares have continued their recent decline even as the news comes through of a Qatari investment in the small nuclear reactor programme. This could be seen as a surprise – investment in such a programme is likely to be a good deal for Rolls Royce after all. On the other hand, £85 million, the size of the investment, isn’t a large number compared to Rolls Royce – it’s not, as they say, a material number.
The likelihood is therefore that it is wider events driving the Rolls Royce share price, Omicron continues to rage around the world, air travel becomes increasingly restricted and so on. It’s worth pointing out that the RR incomes do not depend, particularly, on actually selling engines to people. There are fees involved in that, most certainly, but there’s an element of selling razors in how the business work. Once you’ve sold someone a razor then you’ve a capitve market for razor blades. Once you’ve got an engine in an aircraft then there’s a decades-long maintenance and repair income flow. That Rolls Royce income stream though depends upon hours in the air – exactly the thing being depressed by Omicron. https://www.asktraders.com/analysis/rolls-royce-falls-3-on-qatari-investment-in-small-nuclear-business/
Tricastin nuclear power station: a radioactive leak in groundwater
Tricastin nuclear power station: a radioactive leak in groundwater. EDF
revealed, this Tuesday, December 21, that a tritium leak had been detected
in the Tricastin nuclear power plant.
Le Dauphine 21st Dec 2021
Changes in UK nuclear third party liability
UK nuclear third party liability laws updated from January 2022 https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/uk-nuclear-third-party-liability-laws-updated-january-2022, OUT-LAW NEWS | 23 Dec 2021 Eluned Watson, Senior Associate Operators of nuclear sites in the UK, including those responsible for disposing of nuclear matter, should review their insurance and contractual arrangements to ensure they align with a new liability regime that takes effect on 1 January 2022, experts have said.
Michael Freeman and Eluned Watson of Pinsent Masons were commenting after an international protocol was ratified, triggering imminent changes to the nuclear third party liability regime in the UK.Currently, the liability regime for nuclear accidents in the UK is governed by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. That Act implements the OECD Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy and the supplementary Brussels Convention that followed. The Act makes provision for compensation to be claimed for personal injury or property damage stemming from a nuclear accident.
In 2004, signatories to the two Conventions adopted a protocol to amend the third party liability regime that the Conventions provide for. That protocol has only recently been ratified in enough of the signatory countries to allow the changes to take effect. n the UK, legislation was passed in 2016 to anticipate the protocol coming into force. The Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016, which amends the 1965 Act, takes effect on 1 January 2022.
Both the protocol and the UK Order substantially increase the value of claims that can be made in the aftermath of nuclear accidents to €700 million in damages, up from €140 million previously. In line with flexibility provided under the protocol, a cap on claims at €80m has been set in respect of damage to the means of transport.
The legislation sets annual caps on liability for operators of nuclear sites in the UK, initially at €700m a year but rising to a total operator liability of €1.2 billion over a period of five years from 2022.Operators of nuclear licensed sites are required to make financial provision for such liability, such as by insurance.
“We have been working closely with clients in the UK nuclear sector to ensure that their existing insurance and financial provision arrangements incorporate the changes necessary to reflect the changes to the liability regime,” said Watson.
The type of claims that can be made have also been expanded under the new regime.
The additional types of claim that can be made are for compensation in respect of the cost of measures of reinstatement related to the impaired environment, loss of income derived from the environment, the cost of preventive measures, and personal injury and property damage caused by such measures. Limitation periods are also amended. The right to claim compensation for personal injury will be extended from 10 to 30 years. The time limit on bringing claims of all other kinds is fixed at 10 years.
“The changes brought about by the 2004 protocol represents the most significant revision of the nuclear third party liability regime since it was first introduced in the 1960s,” said Pinsent Masons’ Freeman.
“Those operating within the nuclear sector should review all relevant contractual and supply chain arrangements, and in particular nuclear third party liability indemnification provisions, in order to ensure that the changes introduced by the 2016 Order are adequately and appropriately reflected,” he said.
EDF HAS DECIDED TO CLOSE TWO NUCLEAR PLANTS AFTER FINDING CRACKS
EDF HAS DECIDED TO CLOSE TWO NUCLEAR PLANTS AFTER FINDING CRACKS
https://democratic-europe.eu/2021/12/20/edf-has-decided-to-close-two-nuclear-plants-after-finding-cracks/?fbclid=IwAR0PQ0CpQFhNptc25vic5vGb1Mo4apstAvB8erHrKAWA56AB8bcGOIV58Mg 20 Dec 21, Électricité de France S.A., comm owned by the state, shuttered two nuclear power plants after routine safety inspections found cracks at one power plant.
EDF wrote in a press release, “preventive maintenance checks on the primary circuit of reactor number 1 of the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant” found cracks due to corrosion on the pipes.
“Checks initiated on the same equipment of reactor number 2 of the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant revealed similar defects,” the French power giant said.
France’s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) was informed about cracks detected close to the welds on the reactor’s pipes.
EDF temporarily closed Civaux to “replace the affected parts on the two Civaux reactors, the work being governed by a technical instruction prepared in cooperation with the ASN, which leads to extend the shutdown of the two reactors,” it said.
EDF has also chosen to close two reactors at another nuclear plant at Chooz in the northeastern Ardennes department for inspections. Both power plants use the same reactor technology.
The temporarily closing of Civaux’s reactors and Chooz’s reactors will reduce one terawatt-hour of output and couldn’t come at the worst time as cooler weather sent French power contracts to a record high earlier this week.
A power reduction could suggest strain on the power grid amid cooler weather and higher power prices.
In Cumbria – Dangerous Nuclear Waste Dumping- Mission Creep and Obfuscation.
Dangerous Nuclear Waste Dumping- Mission Creep and Obfuscation.
The following images [on original] are from a four page Advertorial by NIREX in Cumbria Life from 1993 (NIREX was the then government body on “Nuclear Waste Disposal.” ) The NIREX plan was for “deep disposal” of intermediate and some low level nuclear wastes. Now in 2021 the “vision” is to put the intermediate level nuclear wastes (previously earmarked for the NIREX dump at Longlands Farm, Gosforth) into Not So Deep Silos’ at the Low Level Waste Repository at Drigg and the even higher activity and very hot nuclear wastes (which even the gung ho NIREX never proposed putting deep underground) into a Geological Disposal Facility ( deep under the Irish Sea is in the frame)……….
Note that the NIREX advert from 1993 states that the Geological Disposal Facility plan is for “intermediate and some low level wastes.” In a newsletter in March this year for the Low Level Waste Repository at Drigg, it was said: “The NDA is exploring the benefits of developing Near Surface (NSD) – for disposing of a proportion of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW), but no decision has been taken on whether UK Government will pursue this option or whether LLWR, will in time, host a NSD facility.”
We asked a number of Freedom of Informations questions which have not been answered directly or honestly with a simple yes or no but serve to deflect and frustrate any scrutiny.
- Have the public been consulted about the RWM/NDA/CoRWM plan for Near Surface Disposal of Intermediate Level Waste at Drigg’s Low Level Waste Repository?
The honest answer would be NO
- Has the Borough or County Council held a debate or vote on whether to take any steps towards Near Surface Disposal of Intermediate Level Wastes by alllowing 16 rock characterisation boreholes to be drilled at a depth of 120m into the underlying sandstone ?
The honest answer would be NO
- What are the category of low and intermediate level wastes proposed for NSD and would this include the category of wastes previously designated by NIREX for a GDF ?
The honest answer would be: the major components of Intermediate Level Wastes are nuclear reactor components, graphite from reactor cores and sludges from the treatment of radioactive liquid effluents. All of these wastes were previously designated by NIREX for a Geological Disposal Facility.
You can see Low Level Waste Repository’s answers here: ………..https://www.lakesagainstnucleardump.com/post/dangerous-nuclear-waste-dumping-mission-creep-and-obfuscation
Finland’s Olkiluoto EPR nuclear reactor starting up, 12 years late
Nuclear: start-up of the Finnish EPR 12 years late. The EPR nuclear
reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, started up overnight for the first time.
Between delays and financial problems, the work started in 2005 was strewn
with pitfalls for the French Areva. The EPR must supply 15% of the
consumption of the Nordic country.
Les Echos 21st Dec 2021
European Commission will decide in 2022 if it considers nuclear energy as a ”climate friendly” investment.
The European Commission plans to finish next year its long-awaited rules
on whether to label gas and nuclear energy as climate-friendly investments
under EU green finance rules, its environment policy chief said on Monday.
The European Union’s executive Commission is considering whether to include
nuclear and natural gas in its “sustainable finance taxonomy”, a rulebook
that will restrict which activities can be labelled as climate-friendly
investments.
Reuters 20th Dec 2021
Inspections of Britain’s ageing nuclear weapons facilities
Inspectors have completed their year-long investigation into the ageing
facilities at AWE in Aldermaston and Burghfield. The Office for Nuclear
Regulation (ONR) has conducted ‘themed’ inspections into five British
nuclear facilities over the last year. It has been looking at how the
industry manages ageing plants and facilities to ensure the necessary
standards of safety and security are maintained.
The final inspection
report is now being compiled, and is expected to identify where
improvements are required. In late 2020, ONR selected five licensees for
inspection, as a representative sample of the industry. They are the Atomic
Weapons Establishment (AWE Plc), in Aldermaston and Burghfield, Berkshire,
EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Limited, at Sizewell B Power Station in
Suffolk, Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd (DRDL) in Plymouth, Magnox Limited,
at Hinkley Point A in Somerset, and Sellafield Ltd, in Cumbria.
Berkshire Live 22nd Dec 2021
European Commission experts call on EU not to label nuclear ‘green’
Commission experts call on EU not to label nuclear ‘green’, https://euobserver.com/climate/153891, By WESTER VAN GAAL 22 Dec 21
BRUSSELS, Thirteen members of the EU Commission’s Technical Expert Group (TEG) put out a petition on Tuesday (21 December) calling on nuclear energy not to be labelled as ‘green’.
“We recommend that nuclear fission has no place on the EU taxonomy of sustainable activities,” the group, led by Dawn Slevin, a financial expert and core member of the commission’s financial stability TEG, wrote.
Dealing with the “do no significant harm” principle in the taxonomy, they concluded nuclear may damage the environment due to the need to store it in underground bunkers for thousands of years, and “because the risk of a severe nuclear accident cannot be excluded, even in the best commercially available nuclear power plants.”
They also warn against politicisation of the rules. “Proponents of nuclear energy use the taxonomy to put a ‘scientific’ stamp on what is primarily a political position on nuclear fission energy aiming to satisfy the few EU member states that wish to promote the associated technologies,” the petition states.
France is spearheading an alliance of 10 member states that argue that nuclear fission and gas-fired power plants should be included in the taxonomy.
The TEG members point out that France and Finland are currently the only EU countries actively building nuclear facilities.
The Finnish Olkiluoto-3 was meant to start generating power in 2009, followed by the French Flamanville-3 in 2012.
However, both are still not operational, tripling anticipated costs, the group wrote. The group includes Paolo Masoni, a nuclear engineer, and Eric Laes, a post-doctoral researcher specialising in atomic energy at the Technical University of Eindhoven.
Politicised debate
In recent months, the decision on whether to include nuclear and gas in the taxonomy has become politicised.
Last week, EU internal market commissioner Thierry Breton told five European newspapers, including Die Welt, that “it is a lie that the EU can become CO2-neutral without nuclear power.”
French president Emmanuel Macron said last week that France and Germany will try to find a compromise on whether the EU should label nuclear and gas as green investments.
But on Monday, the German Greens, part of the new ruling coalition, came out strongly against nuclear, reiterating their opposition to the inclusion of nuclear in the taxonomy.
“The German government’s stance is that nuclear power is not one of the sustainable forms of energy [that] remains,” environment minister Steffi Lemke told fellow EU environment ministers in Brussels on Monday.
German climate and economics minister Robert Habeck later echoed his colleague on German radio Deutschlandfunk, saying: “I do not think nuclear power is the right technology.”
However, chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) did not make such a clear statement at the last EU summit on Friday – and admitted Germany will probably not be able to stop the French push for nuclear.
“France is taking a different path [than Germany]. Other countries do as well,” he said.
“That is why it’s important that you can follow your paths and at the same time stay together across Europe,” he added.
The commission planned to present its decision on nuclear and gas on Wednesday, but this has been postponed until mid-January next year.
It now plans to consult a draft version of the taxonomy with member states before the end of the year or at the start of January 2022 – a process that will be clarified on Wednesday.
The Sustainable Finance Platform, a group of 57 NGOs, scientific and financial experts will also be consulted.
The commission has faced backlash in the past from some of its members, including one of the signatories of the petition, for allowing gas an nuclear to be considered in what was meant to be a science-led exercise.
France and Germany – opposite attitudes to nuclear power
Is nuclear energy green? France and Germany lead opposing camps.
The French government wants to build reactors. The German government wants to shut them down. WP 19 Dec 21,
”………………….. France is leading a group of mostly central and eastern European countries that are pushing the European Union to add modern nuclear energy to a list of “environmentally sustainable economic activities.”
…………. The president of the surrounding Alsace region, Frédéric Bierry, has urged Macron to consider Fessenheim as a possible future site, calling the old plant’s closure a “financial,” “social” and “economic” scandal in the face of a warming climate.
But one of the biggest obstacles — for Fessenheim and for Macron’s broader plans — lies about half a mile to the east of the town’s old nuclear plant. That’s where France ends and Germany begins.
The new German economy and climate minister, Green party member Robert Habeck, was among the politicians who signed a statement celebrating the closure of the Fessenheim plant. The German government has argued that nuclear plants are too risky, and too slow and costly to build, to be a solution to the climate crisis. Germany’s outlook is influenced by nuclear accidents, such as the 2011 Fukushima meltdown in Japan. And Berlin points to reports like one this past week, of cracks in the pipes at a French nuclear reactor, as evidence that plant safety remains a problem.
Germany is among a group of skeptics, including Denmark and Austria, that wants Europe to shut down its remaining nuclear plants and that fiercely oppose a climate-friendly designation for nuclear power, which would signal to green investors that nuclear energy is worthy of financing.
The controversy may come to a head within days, with the European Commission expected to make a decision just before its Christmas break.
………………………………… Environmental activists in Germany acknowledge that continued reliance on coal is a problem even in the medium term. But they are optimistic about how quickly the country can ramp up alternative energy.
Germany’s Green party, in its position as part of the new ruling coalition, has vowed to increase spending significantly on renewables and to limit energy price spikes for consumers. It wants renewables to account for 80 percent of electricity by 2030, up from the present target of about 50 percent.
For German politicians and activists, the idea of nuclear power as green or sustainable is anathema. They talk about the potential for accidents with catastrophic environmental consequences. They note the problems associated with the long-term storage of deadly radioactive waste. They say they don’t want to draw investment away from wind and solar.
German anti-nuclear and environmental activist Stefan Auchter said his country’s path will be validated when the next Chernobyl or Fukushima comes. He compared the use of nuclear energy to playing Russian roulette………………………. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/18/nuclear-energy-climate-france-germany/
The French government asked EDF for earlier restart of nuclear reactors (now on maintenance)
The French government asked Electricite de France SA to restart some
nuclear reactors earlier than planned in order to help with a winter energy
crunch across Europe. Ecology Minister Barbara Pompili said on France Info
radio that she had asked EDF Chief Executive Officer Jean-Bernard Levy in a
meeting on Friday to restart more quickly than planned some reactors that
were halted for maintenance and scheduled to restart in mid-January.
Bloomberg 19th Dec 2021
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (187)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 