Confronted by ever growing mountains of uranium nuclear waste the option to export part of the problem to Russia was taken up by the European nuclear industry led by Eurodif/ Cogema, Urenco and their leading utility customers.

Comprehensive information on all aspects of the nuclear waste trade with Russia are not in the public domain, so the figures available only tell part of the story.(1) However, contract details have become available in through official sources in Russia which reveal the dimension of the trade:
  - In compliance with a contract between Minatom and the French company Cogema (#54-02/60006), reprocessed uranium was to be imported for enrichment at the Siberian Chemical Plant (Tomsk-7) in 1992-1993 in the form of uranium protoxide at the amount 150 tons per year, from 1994 and further on in the form of hexafluoride – up to 500 tons per year. The contract expired in 2000.(2)
  - By 1995 the Siberian Chemical Plant (Tomsk-7) received 759 tons of uranium in the form of oxides and 100 tons in the form of hexafluoride from the French company Cogema.(3)
  - The Eurodif company (France) was to send under various contracts: in 1996-1999 13,887 tons of depleted uranium, in 2000-2003 - 8386 tons of DU, in 200-2003 – 9,815 tons of DU. The company Urenco (Great Britain) in 1996-2003 was to send 59,328 tons of DU under the contract, in 2002-2003 – 13,676 tons of DU.(4)


Under these contracts some depleted uranium with enrichment 0.3% (with uranium-235) was to be re-enriched to the level of natural uranium (0.7%) or the level of enrichment sufficient to produce fresh uranium fuel –3.5-4.95%. During the enrichment most of the imported waste uranium hexafluoride is converted to even more depleted uranium in the form of hexafluoride with enrichment of about 0.2%.(5)

But this process leaves the vast bulk of the uranium at Russian nuclear sites. For the contracts listed above, 106,725 tons of uranium (depleted and reprocessed) were sent in Russia. Only 9,742 tons were returned to Europe, in the form of enriched or natural uranium. Thus 96,983 tons or more than 90% remain in storage in Russia.


The mythological justification

The nuclear industry justification for exporting a large amount of uranium waste to Russia is for further processing, including re-enrichment either to be supplied back to Europe in the form of uranium oxide or manufactured fuel.

In Russia, in theory the imported DUF6 are fed into surplus enrichment cascades as feedstock and the enriched product is mostly natural-equivalent uranium plus some reactor-grade low-enriched uranium. The re-enriched uranium is sent back to Urenco and Eurodif. According to figures collected by Peter Diel(6) in an authoritative report out of 14000 tons exported annually, European nuclear companies (Eurodif/Cogema and Urenco) receive back 2,330 tons. It is reported that a further 3300 tons is re-enriched by Rosatom for either domestic use or further export. Thus the net increase in imported European uranium waste, year on year is in excess of 8000 tons.

On Diehl’s figures, the Russia recovery ratio of 3 to 4% enrichment for the return stream, seems to be too high for DUF6 imports that are likely to be depleted to around 0.3 to 0.4%, but even so if annual imports have been consistent since 1996, the DUF6 imported stockpile should now be about 90,000 tonnes of uranium in around 7,000 containers, in addition to nuclear waste imports prior to 1996.

As with all aspects of the nuclear industry, there are many issues that remain uncertain. While EDF claim that reprocessed uranium exports to Russia are reused, in 1989, vis-a-vis the problem arising from repu and the inability to re-enriching it at the Eurodif factory, representatives of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) declared officially: "the solution was until now to export the uranium of reprocessing, in exchange, of enriched natural uranium".(7) Thus the basis of contracts during the 1980’s was a form of swapping rather than direct re-export of imported uranium.

Ticket of French uranium export to Electrostal, Russia in U308 form, May 2005
Click on image to enlarge

That this was past practice is confirmed by CEA. But Greenpeace investigations in the last few years suggest that at least for some exports to Russia it remains the same operation. As reprocessed uranium is being exported in some (of not all cases) in the form stable of U308 as detailed by the transport manifest below, which is the form generally dedicated to storage. Russia does not convert U308 into usable materials.

At least as far as depleted uranium in the United States, Areva confirmed earlier this year that material arising from its new enrichment plant to be built in New Mexico would be disposed of at a nuclear waste facility.(8) On Sep. 8, 2004, U.S. NRC staff presented its view before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that depleted uranium is a low level waste - and the DU therefore may be transferred to the Department of Energy (DOE) for disposition, as requested by the license applicant (Urenco‘s U.S. subsidiary Louisiana Energy Services - LES).(9)

Reprocessed uranium (repu) use in French and other European reactors remains extremely limited. In addition to the poor economics, reprocessed uranium presents problems due to the presence of fission products which are not separated during reprocessing, such as U-236. The use of repu in fresh fuel manufacture increases the radioactive burden for workers, as well as contaminating the plant. Another reason why repu is exported to Russia where radioprotection standards are below those of western Europe. In terms of long term plans to re-use reprocessed uranium, EDF has declared in its accounts that it will be monitoring the storage of reprocessed uranium over the next 250 years.(10)

Notes:
1. EDF recently confirmed the existence of contracts with Russian nuclear export company TENEX at a public meeting on October 8th 2005 in Villette, France. When questioned to give more details, such as quantities involved, EDF spokeperson Granger stated that it was "indecent to speak about such things".
2. Summary Conclusion of the Independent Panel on Expertise of the Contract on Reprocessing Nuclear Materials at the Siberian Chemical Plant from May 23, 1992, Tomsk.
3. Copy of the letter of the Siberian Chemical Plant #02-17/808 from 30.11.1995.
4. Copy of the letter of the RF Nuclear Energy Minister #01-5328 from 29.09.2003.
5. ibid.
6. See Peter Diel report Re-enrichment of West European Depleted Uranium Tails in Russia for Eco Defence, August 2005, extract at Appendix 1.
7. Rapport IPSN (aujourd’hui IRSN) du 28 nov 2001 pour le groupe permanent cycle du combustible. H. Guillaume, R. Pellat, Ph. Rouvillois, "Rapport sur le bilan et les perspectives du secteur nucléaire en France", CEA, May 1989 - p. 87 “Uranium arising from reprocessing is significantly different from natural uranium. Slightly more enriched (1% instead of 0.7%), it also contains some highly irradiating isotopes (U234 and U236). The presence of these isotopes makes the operations of enrichment and fabrication of fuel more difficult, and moreover more costly, because of stricter rules for operators protection et because of the risk of contamination of the facilities and equipments used. In particular, reprocessed uranium can hardly be re-enriched in the EURODIF plant, where the gaseous diffusion technology used does not allow for the separation of 234 and 236 isotopes from the useful ones (235 and 238); a period of some months of “cleaning” would be necessary after a campaign of reprocessed uranium re-enrichment before the plant can be operated again for natural uranium. The solution has been up to now the export abroad of the reprocessed uranium and the delivery, in exchange, of natural uranium enriched. Reprocessed uranium quantities held by EDF did not amount to an important volume up to now anyway. With the end of the exchange contract planned in 1990, coïnciding with the start of large scale reprocessing of EDF spent fuel in La Hague UP2-800 plant, will highlight the problem. This can however be partly solved by incorporating reprocessed uranium to the strategic stocks, equivalent to three years of consumption, that EDF is bould by regulation to hold. Reprocessed uranium would therefore only be used in the case of a serious crisis of uranium supply, that would make the overcost due to the higher radioactivity of this resource negligible”.
8. LES and AREVA Sign Memorandum of Understanding for Deconversion Facility near the National Enrichment Facility, ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Feb. 3 /PRNewswire/ 03/02/05.
9. See Re-enrichment of West European Depleted Uranium Tails in Russia prepared for Ecodefense Russia by Peter Diehl, August 2005.
10. Rapport de la Cour des Comptes, January 2005

.