Japan's energy needs: nuclear power fundamental New US reactor for Russia to burn weapons plutonium US lurches forward on spent fuel storage and disposal Chernobyl's future a critical question for Ukraine French embrace new-generation reactor type
Early August marks the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a radio broadcast six days later the Japanese Emperor announced to the nation that Japan had surrendered.
The debate on whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified and if in the long run it saved lives, will no doubt continue. Today, the much less discussed but surprising result is that the only nation ever to suffer the terrible destructive power of the atom has so substantially committed itself to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Despite the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this led to the decision in the 1950s to adopt nuclear energy as a means of achieving the energy security and diversity necessary for economic growth. As a result the first order for a nuclear power reactor was placed in 1959, only fourteen years after the dropping of the bombs.
Today Japan has 50 operating reactors, producing nearly one third of the country's electricity, with a further four currently under construction and nineteen planned. In addition, to achieve the maximum degree of self-sufficiency, Japan is developing its capacity in all aspects of the nuclear fuel-cycle from conversion and enrichment through to reprocessing and waste disposal.
Reprocessing of spent fuel and production of plutonium has already begun, consistent with the long-term objective of increased energy independence and security (UIC Newsletter #1 January-February 1995), however the policy has attracted international attention and criticism which has begun to affect energy policy.
Criticism has also recently come from the electricity utilities within Japan. The Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPCO) has asked the government to cancel plans to build a demonstration ATR at Ohma in Aomori Prefecture, following a financial review of the project. FEPCO has instead called for the construction of a 1350 MWe advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) at Ohma with the core fully loaded with MOX fuel. A prototype ATR burning MOX fuel (Fugen, 165 MWe) has been in commercial operation since 1979.
A substantial body of opinion holds that Japan's plutonium policy is unnecessary and that future development should concentrate on reactors that do not require plutonium. It seems therefore that Japan will have to consistently provide transparent information on its plutonium program if it is to gain regional and international understanding for its energy policies. In spite of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these policies are likely to continue above all else to reflect an intense commitment to nuclear energy as a way of achieving energy independence. (Centre for the Study of Australia Asia Relations 'Australia-Asia Papers No 74; NucNet News #306 and 321/95; ANSTO Quarterly Review of Overseas Events - June 1995)
Revised radiation protection standards
New standards have been approved for radiation protection in Australia. These had been anticipated for several years, and the two operating Australian uranium mines have been working with the lower exposure levels.
The National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Health & Safety Commission have jointly prepared new Australian Recommendations for limiting exposure to ionising radiation and a National Standard for limiting occupational exposure. These take into account the 1991 International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP-60 recommendations, and are consistent with the Basic Safety Standards for radiation protection adopted late last year by various United Nations agencies.
The revised occupational exposure limit is 20 millisieverts (mSv) per year averaged over five consecutive years. Exposure limits for members of the public from radiation-related activities remain at 1 mSv per year which is less than the average annual radiation background from the environment. The recommendations should find their way quickly into relevant State, Territory and Commonwealth legislation. (Australian Radiation Laboratory press information)
Uranium sales to France
The public outcry over the French decision to conduct a series of eight underground tests at Mururoa Atoll, starting in September, has raised the question of the sale of Australian uranium to France.
In 1983 the incoming Labor Government banned uranium sales to France because of their nuclear testing program in the South Pacific. This ban cut across contractual arrangements then in place between Queensland Mines and Electricite de France (EdF) for the supply of uranium from the Nabarlek mine. The Australian Government therefore purchased this uranium from Nabarlek for its stockpile. In August 1986 the embargo was lifted and supply from Nabarlek resumed. In 1987 Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) negotiated a contract with EdF for the supply of 300 short tons (272 tonnes) a year from the Ranger mine.
Later in 1988 the Labor Party resolved not to permit any further uranium contracts with France, or the extension of existing contracts. In September 1994 this was made more specific to ban further contracts until France enters into a comprehensive test ban treaty. All Australian uranium is supplied under stringent IAEA and bilateral safeguards arrangements which prevent its diversion from peaceful uses. None will be involved with the proposed French tests. (See UIC Briefing Paper #28 'Uranium Supply to France')
Ranger #3 planning proceeding
Having completed mining of Ranger orebody #1 on schedule last December, ERA Ltd has begun pre-production planning for orebody #3 situated 1.5 kilometres north of Ranger #1. Already approved under the ALP's Three Mine Policy the mining at #3 will be similar to Ranger #1 with 12 metre benches and similar loading and hauling procedures.
Ore stockpiled from Ranger #1 pit will be milled through to 1999 with the transition to ore from #3 starting in 1997. The new pit has been designed in three stages with stage one being on high ground to the south, away from the Magela Creek. Pre-stripping of the orebody is scheduled for mid-1996 with a pre-production drilling program planned for the 1995 dry season. (ERA Newsletter June 1995)
US-Russian reactor to burn military plutonium
A US company plans to build a new-generation nuclear reactor in Russia to generate electricity by burning their military plutonium.
General Atomics of San Diego and Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) have signed final agreements to design and develop a Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) for use in Russia. The system combines an advanced, helium-cooled nuclear reactor using ceramic fuel particles and driving a gas-turbine. Under the agreement General Atomics and Minatom will work together on the design of a plutonium-consuming GT-MHR power reactor with the final goal of replacing the existing reactors at Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk which have been producing weapons-grade plutonium as well as electricity and district heating for more than 100,000 people.
Russia reportedly has between 50 and 100 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium to be disposed of. Two GT-MHR reactor modules, of 250-285 MWe each, could burn 50 tonnes of plutonium in 40 years, while simultaneously producing electricity or energy for district heating. The GT-MHR consumes 95% of the Pu-239 in its fuel (and 60% of total Pu), compared with about half this proportion for normal MOX fuel in a light water reactor, according to General Atomics.
The GT-MHR is an evolutionary development of General Atomics' Fort St Vrain high temperature gas reactor which uses a gas turbine cycle in place of a steam cycle. Apart from reduced generating costs and a significant reduction of nuclear waste it is claimed that the system offers generating efficiency approaching 50%, compared with about 33% for current nuclear power plants operating at lower temperatures with steam turbine generators.
A GT-MHR power plant would include one or more modular units in underground containment silos, each with a reactor vessel linked to a power producing vessel. The use of helium as the reactor coolant allows for much higher operating temperatures than in today's steam or water-cooled nuclear plants, which in turn permits higher operating efficiency at greater safety. Notwithstanding this however, the US House of Representatives decided in July to cut funding for research on the reactor type. (ENS Nuclear Europe Worldscan 5-6/95, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 17/7/95, General Atomics press releases and publications)
Dilution of US and Russian highly enriched uranium begins in USA
The US Department of Energy has begun to reduce the US excess military stockpile by starting to dilute highly enriched uranium with depleted uranium to a level where it can be used as fuel for civil nuclear power reactors. The dilution, being undertaken by the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) at Portsmouth, Ohio reduces the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope mostly from about 90% to about 4%. USEC intends to supply the low enriched uranium to its domestic and foreign customers.
The first two shipments of highly enriched uranium from Russia have also arrived at the USEC's Portsmouth, Ohio plant to be diluted for use in civil nuclear power reactors. These are part of a 500 tonne purchase by the US of material derived from former Soviet Union nuclear weapons agreed to by USEC and Minatom in January 1994 and reconfirmed at a recent meeting in Moscow between the US Vice President and the Russian Prime Minister. (NEI Infowire #95/54, NucNet News #248 and 288/95, UI News Briefing 95/28, UIC Newsletter #1 January-February 1994)
US lurches forward on spent fuel storage and disposal
After years of indecision and prevarication, and with its own 1998 deadline looming, the US Government has decided to grapple with the matter of disposing of spent fuel. At the same time, utilities have moved to avoid total dependence on government promises in this area. US policy dating from President Carter's time forbids reprocessing spent fuel.
By a vote of 400-27 the US House of Representatives passed an appropriations bill that included US$425 million (A$580 million) for the Department of Energy high-level nuclear waste program. The amount was a substantial improvement on the US$130 million previously recommended by the House Budget Committee, which would have closed down the Yucca Mountain waste repository project, but it was less than the US$630 million requested. The funds will enable continued research on the repository and the establishment of a central interim storage facility probably at the Nevada Test Site, though it is uncertain whether this will be in time to receive spent fuel in 1998.
However, meanwhile a core group of 21 US power utilities has signed an agreement with the Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico for the construction and operation on tribal land of a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. Some work on the project in the areas of environmental assessment, technical design and the preparation of detailed contracts covering construction and operation of the site have already started. A further 16 to 18 months will be needed to complete environmental and licensing work before application is made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a licence to build and operate the facility.
Nuclear industry leaders had previously criticised the US House of Representatives for approving a budget resolution which assumed continued collection of more than US$590 million (A$800 million) annually in consumer payments for nuclear waste facilities while withholding most of these funds in order to make the federal budget deficit appear smaller. Funds for building nuclear waste disposal facilities are provided by consumers of nuclear-generated electricity, who pay a surcharge of 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Nearly US$11 billion has built up the fund, but only about half has been spent. (NEI Infowire #95-45, 50, 52 and 56, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 17/7/95, NucNet News #282/95, UIC Newsletter #2 March-April 1995)
Government accepts waste substitution policy
The British government has endorsed a policy of radioactive waste substitution proposed by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL).
All of BNFL's contracts with overseas utilities for the reprocessing of spent fuel signed since 1976 have included options for the return of radioactive wastes. Under the new substitution proposal the overseas customers would have the option of receiving an additional quantity of the more radioactive high-level waste, instead of the less radioactive but more bulky intermediate and low-level wastes that they could otherwise be required to take back.
Greenpeace claims this would see Britain become a 'nuclear dustbin' but the Government's nuclear waste advisers, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, have confirmed that the proposal is environmentally neutral to the UK. The proposal would involve sending back around 15% additional high-level waste in place of intermediate and low-level waste. The total level of radioactivity of the extra low- and medium-level waste will never be greater than that of the extra high-level waste returned to the overseas customers, and it will amount to less than 8% of total UK arisings, which is just 5% of the capacity of the planned Nirex repository.
The advantages of the waste substitution proposal are: . Cutting the number of radioactive waste shipments overseas by 90%. . Reducing transport and handling costs by several hundred million pounds, putting BNFL in a strong position to win further export business worth £2-4 billion (A$4.4- 8.7 billion). . Sustaining 5,450 full-time jobs in the UK into the next century. (ENS NucNet insider #30/95 and news # 292/95)
Chernobyl's future a critical question for Ukraine
In the first quarter of 1995 the 1000 MWe Chernobyl 3 reactor operated at a capacity factor of 99%, making it the best performing reactor in the Ukraine and well above the average of 85% for the country's 14 reactors, according to official figures. Nevertheless the Ukraine Prime Minister has told representatives of the European Union and G-7 nations that the political decision has been taken to close the entire Chernobyl nuclear power station before 2000.
The two major stumbling blocks to closing Chernobyl have been finance and the provision of replacement power. Ukraine nuclear authorities estimate the cost of closing Chernobyl and providing for alternative electricity at US$4.5 billion (A$6.1 billion). More realistically, the G-7 nations propose contributing about US$2 billion to help close Chernobyl, finish three almost complete reactors elsewhere in Ukraine (see below) and modernise the country's electricity network.
The Ukrainian government has entered into an agreement with a multi-national consortium led by the ABB electrical engineering company for the replacement of Chernobyl's generating capacity with 3000 MWe of gas-fired capacity. According to ABB, the gas-fired plant could be built and ready to supply power in 36 months at a lower cost than any other type of thermal station. However, this is contingent upon funding, and at a meeting in Canada in June, which was expected to consider the situation, the G-7 nations failed to vote any money for the closure of Chernobyl.
Meanwhile the French-led 'Alliance' consortium chosen to carry out a feasibility study for the design of a new sarcophagus to cover the destroyed unit 4 has presented a of US$1.6 billion (A$2.2 billion) proposal to solve the problem. It is for an arch-shaped building designed to allow for the dismantling of the damaged reactor and the existing sarcophagus, and packaging the radioactive waste inside for storage and eventual disposal. The consortium says temporary stabilisation work on the existing structure could begin as soon as financing plans are in place, with construction of the new cover beginning in 2000 or 2001, shortly after the envisaged closure date for the entire power station.
A general licence to proceed with fuel loading at the sixth VVER-1000 PWR reactor at the Zaporozhe power station has been issued by Ukraine's nuclear regulatory body. At the same time, a joint Ukrainian-West European project has been launched to upgrade and finish construction of two partially completed VVER-1000 nuclear power units: Khmelnitski-2 and Rovno-4. The other four units at those power stations were commissioned in the 1980s. (NucNet News #220, 225, 228, 303, 310 & 312/95, Nuclear Engineering International, June 1995)
MOX nuclear fuel production abandoned
Siemens has announced that its Power Generation Group (KWU) and German power plant operators have decided not to proceed with the production of mixed oxide fuel (MOX) at the company's plant at Hanau, which is 95% complete. The company blamed the anti-nuclear stance of the Hessen state government for the decision and said that plutonium from the reprocessing of spent fuel in France and England will be used in future to fabricate MOX fuel assemblies in facilities outside Germany.
The company says it is willing in principle to make the Hanau plant available for the conversion of weapons-grade plutonium to produce MOX fuel assemblies but this is a disarmament policy issue which would require a wide international consensus and such a facility could not be operated by a private enterprise. (NucNet News #279 and 302/95)
French utility commits to new-generation reactors
The board of directors of Electricite de France (EdF) has announced its firm commitment to the order by the end of this century of the first of a new generation of nuclear power plants. A news release issued by EdF following the decision said the new reactor would be used to prepare for the renewal of France's existing reactors.
Known as the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), the project is a joint Franco-German development involving Framatome of France and Siemens of Germany. The basic design of the reactor should be completed in the second half of 1997 by which time reliable cost figures should be available. The design will include enhanced safety and operating futures including the requirement that no local evacuation would be necessary in the event of a worst-case accident such as Chernobyl. A final decision to proceed with the construction of an EPR would still have to be approved by the French government.
In a separate statement the head of Siemens' Power Generation Group (KWU) said he believed the EPR would be competitive with conventional power plants, especially those using imported coal. Asked if Germany would order the reactor he said the German utilities had recently underlined their willingness to order EPRs if and when there is base-load demand for the electricity they would supply, and their economic competitiveness has been proved. The licensing procedure in Germany would require between two and three years, so construction of the first EPR could start by the end of the decade at the earliest. (NucNet #283, 294 and 313/95)
Approval for MOX in Japanese light water reactors
Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission has approved a report from its special committee on reactor safety standards, which concluded that the use of mixed oxide fuel (MOX) in Japan's light water reactors presented no particular safety problems and that it would be appropriate to apply the design and evaluation methods currently used for conventional uranium fuels.
The Commission's approval means that Japanese power utilities can now proceed with full-scale preparations for plutonium use in reactor fuel, joining countries such as Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland, where the use of MOX has become established. In recent years MOX, made from uranium oxide and plutonium oxide from the reprocessing of spent fuel, has been used on a limited scale in three Japanese light water reactors. The plan now is to have MOX in use in ten light water reactors by about the year 2000, and in a few dozen of them by 2010. (NucNet News #284/95)
Eleventh reactor linked to grid
The second "Made in Korea" reactor, Yonggwang-4, has begun supplying electricity to the grid. The first of these, Yonggwang-3, began commercial operation at the end of last March. They are identical 1000 MWe pressurised water reactors and are classed as reference reactors for further nuclear construction projects.
During its trial period, Yonggwang-4 will supply 150 to 500 MWe to the grid and is scheduled to go into full commercial operation next March. Construction work on two further units, Yonggwang-5 and -6, is due to begin in December.
This demonstration of South Korea's technological independence coincides with agreement reached in June for the supply of two of these units to North Korea under an accord brokered by the US. The purpose of this is to replace two gas cooled reactors under construction in the North which seemed designed more for production of weapons-grade plutonium than electricity. The PWR project will be led by the US but the contractor for design, fabrication, building and management will be the (South) Korea Electric Power Corporation.
Under the Government's long-term power plan the total number of nuclear power reactors in operation is to increase to 23 by the year 2006. (NucNet news #240 and 323/95)
Moving slowly towards nuclear electricity... Thailand, with a rapidly growing economy requiring increasing amounts of electricity and having only limited fuel resources, has taken a cautious first step towards the possible development of a civil nuclear power program.
At a recent conference in Bangkok it was agreed that nuclear would be one way of meeting increased energy needs, enhancing independence and minimising environmental damage. It was decided however that a public information campaign should be conducted prior to any decision being made about construction of a nuclear power plant.
...and to build a nuclear research centre
The Zurich based Electrowatt Engineering Services has been awarded a contract to help Thailand establish a new nuclear research centre near Bangkok. The company will act as a consultant on the project which will comprise a 5-10 MW research reactor, a treatment and storage facility for liquid and solid radioactive waste and a laboratory to produce medical and research radioisotopes. The intention is to have construction of the centre completed by the year 2000.
(NucNet News #253 & 304/95)
The Restricted Exchange Value (US$/ pound U3O8) quoted by NUEXCO for the last 12 months: June '94 9.25 July 9.25 August 9.10 September 9.05 October 9.05 Novemebr 9.45 December 9.60 January '95 9.65 February 10.40 March 11.15 April 11.60 May 11.80