(497.4917) WISE Amsterdam - This court decision is a victory for local environmentalists, because it "is the first time this product" (depleted uranium) "is qualified as a final waste". Cogema claimed the uranium could be enriched in the future for use as nuclear fuel, in a future commercial laser-enrichment plant. The depleted uranium is now stored at the Eurodif enrichment plant at Tricastin as uraniumhexafluoride (UF6). In a special plant, the UF6 is converted into uranium oxide (U3O8). Cogema had planned to begin shipping the uranium to Bessines by train this fall.
The court ruled that depleted uranium must be considered as final waste as long as it is not demonstrated that it would be used as raw material in the nuclear fuel cycle. The permit was annulled because Cogema had not followed procedures about radioactive waste dispo- sal in its application to store the uranium.
Cogema announced it would appeal the court's decision to the administrative appeal court at Bordeau.
The court's decision is very remarkable. Neither in the US nor in the three Urenco coun- tries -England, Germany and the Netherlands- is depleted uranium formally seen as waste. In the Netherlands, room is reserved for the storage of depleted uranium at the COVRA waste-facility in Borssele. But according to Urenco, depleted uranium is "a potential valuable resource" and not a waste; the company sends depleted uranium to Russia for en- richment to natural U-235 level.
Worldwide at least 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium are stored: next to 200,000 metric ton in France, more than 700,000 tons in the US, 300,000 tons in Russia and some 25,000 tons at the three Urenco enrichment plants. The US Department of Energy (DOE) also plans to store part of its depleted uranium after conversion into U3O8.
Depleted uranium normally has a tails assay of 0.3% uranium-235. Natural uranium contains 0.7% U-235. If enrichment plants would deplete uranium to 0.15% instead of to 0.3% U-235, 20 percent uranium would be saved. So, theoretically, the stocks of depleted uranium represent a very large source of uranium. But at present due to market conditions (low uranium prices, about US$10 a pound, and an enrichment price of US$85-US$100 per separative work unit), the tails assay of depleted uranium would stay at 0.3% to 0.35% U-235. There is a simple reason for this: it is more economical to use more cheap fresh uranium and less relatively expensive enrichment work than vice versa. To produce one kilogram of enriched uranium, about 5 kg natural uranium is needed and about 4 kg swu. The four kg remaining depleted uranium has a tails assay of 0.3% in this case. At a tails assay of 0.15%, about 4 kg natural uranium and 5 kg swu are needed.
This waste of uranium is in strong contrast to the nuclear industry's claim that it is necessary to recycle the plutonium which is separated from the spent fuel in very expensive, highly polluting reprocessing plants. If all separated plutonium should be used, which is not the fact, it would only save 16 percent uranium, against potential savings of 20% uranium at enrichment plants at a tails assay of 0.15% U-235.
These mutual conflicting practices (re-use of plutonium and waste of uranium) form a very strong argument against reprocessing, which is seldom used by the anti nuclear movement and is never countered by the nuclear industry.
If the nuclear industry really had the intention to use uranium as economically as possible, it would have chosen not to reprocess but to lower the tails assay of depleted uranium.
Sources:
- Nuclear Fuel, 15 August 1994, 1 January 1996, 16 June 1997 and 27 July 1998
- Urenco Communique, 16 June 1996
- Urenco letter to Laka Foundation, 31 August 1998
Contact: Joop Boer, WISE Amsterdam
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |