A COURT in South Carolina will decide next week on the fate of 14 000
chunks of used American uranium now languishing in foreign research reactors,
mostly in Europe. If the court does not allow the US to take back the spent
fuel soon, the operators of several reactors plan to send their stockpiles
elsewhere, possibly to the reprocessing plant at Dounreay in Scotland. That
could threaten the prospects for future nuclear agreements between the US and
Europe.
In the 1950s, under its Atoms for Peace programme, the US began supplying
foreign research reactors with fuel made of highly enriched uranium (HEU), 93
per cent of which is fissile uranium-235. It pledged to take back the spent
fuel for reprocessing. But in 1986, the US suspended the programme and
insisted that before it would accept used HEU from foreign reactors, it would
have to subject the entire programme to an environmental impact assessment.
That assessment has yet to be made, and no research reactor in Europe has sent
spent fuel to the US since 1986.
The US also decided that it would take back fuel only from research
reactors that agreed to run their reactors in future on low-enriched uranium
(LEU), which contains 20 per cent uranium-235. The decision was 鈥渄riven by
fears of proliferation鈥�, says Marcel de Bruin, head of the research reactor at
the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands. The US wants to restrict
trade in any potential bombmaking material, such as used HEU. Spent LEU cannot
be used to make a bomb.
Advertisement
Reaction to this suggestion in Europe, where research reactors produce
mainly medical isotopes and beams of neutrons for studying the structure of
matter, has depended on how easily different reactors can be converted to run
on LEU. The Laue-Langevin Institute (ILL), near Grenoble in France, produces
the world鈥檚 most intense neutron beam. It could not do this if it had to
switch to LEU, says Bruno Dorner, a spokesman for the institute. The ILL鈥檚
operators are now studying a compromise level of enrichment.
Germany is planning to build an even more intense neutron source at
Garching, near Munich, which will rely on HEU. The US says it will not supply
the reactor, and the German operators have sent delegations to Moscow to find
out if Russia could supply their fuel. 鈥淭here is no telling what the US will
do if Garching says it will buy HEU from Russia,鈥� says de Bruin.
Meanwhile, Europe鈥檚 research reactors are running out of space to store
spent fuel. The ILL is sending its used uranium to a temporary store owned by
CEA, the French nuclear agency. But 鈥渢here is a problem about what we will do
in the future鈥�, says Dorner. Last December, Belgium ran out of patience, and
sent its spent fuel from the reactor at Mol to Dounreay for reprocessing.
鈥淭hen the US realised it had to do something,鈥� says de Bruin, because
reprocessing creates potentially dangerous stocks of purified highly enriched
uranium.
In July, the US agreed an emergency plan to take 400 used fuel elements
from European reactors with the severest storage problems and ship them to its
nuclear site at Savannah River, South Carolina, without a detailed
environmental impact statement. Nine reactors in the Netherlands, Denmark,
Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Greece are covered by the emergency
plan. The first of two shipments, carrying 140 elements, left the French port
of Cherbourg on 8 September.
The following day, Carroll Campbell, governor of South Carolina, won a
temporary court order barring the fuel from entering his state. The order was
opposed by the Department of Energy, and was overturned on appeal on 29
September. The fuel is now at Savannah River, a site already bursting with
military waste.
But next week, legal hearings resume to decide the fate of the second of
the emergency shipments. 鈥淚f they decide against us, we expect we would win
again on appeal,鈥� says de Bruin. But if the case turns into a lengthy court
battle, the reactor operators in Germany, Austria and Greece, whose spent fuel
is due on the second shipment 鈥渨ill have to seek other solutions鈥�. The Germans
might be able to find storage space, but the Greeks, and possibly the
Austrians, 鈥渉ave little alternative but Dounreay鈥�, says de Bruin.
The operators of other reactors will be less willing to switch to LEU if
they cannot trust the US to take back spent fuel, says de Bruin. The reactor
at the Ris酶 National Laboratory in Denmark was one of the first to
switch. Jern Kjems, research director at Ris酶, says converting the
reactor cost $1 million, while running costs are up 10 per cent, or
$1 million a year.
鈥淚f costs go higher, we will have to make cuts in research,鈥� says Kjems. If
cuts are needed, the reactor is likely to be safe because it brings in a lot
of research money from the European Commission and other countries. But, says
Kjems, Ris酶鈥檚 world-leading research on renewable energy and energy
efficiency could suffer.
The European Commission鈥檚 high flux laboratory at its Joint Research Centre
at Petten in the Netherlands is considering whether to switch to LEU and will
follow next week鈥檚 court case closely. The neutron flux inside the reactor
would be lower, making it more expensive for it to produce its medical
isotopes. Increased costs would put Petten at a disadvantage to American
isotope producers.
The uncertainty that surrounds America鈥檚 nuclear promises will push Europe
into managing its own fuel and building more stores, says de Bruin. But
Western Europe has another problem. It must decide what to do with spent fuel
from research reactors in the former Eastern bloc countries. In the past, this
used HEU went to Russia for reprocessing.
The affair will also 鈥渄amage the credibility of the US鈥� at next year鈥檚
negotiations to renew the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the treaty
between the US and Euratom, the nuclear arm of the European Union, says de
Bruin. 鈥淚f its promises are not seen to be reliable, this could damage its
efforts to limit proliferation in other areas.鈥�