Consultation on the Sellafield MOX plant

Submission by the Socialist Environment & Resources Association [SERA]- to the Public Consultation on the Sellafield MOX plant, May 2001

"BNFL is an important employer and major exporter. The government insists it maintains the highest health, safety and environmental standards."

Ambitions for Britain, Labour’s election manifesto 2001, p.13

Prolegomena

SERA recognises the first part of this statement as fact, and agrees that BNFL role as important employer should continue; but disagrees with BNFL exporting nuclear fuel, in particular MOX. SERA unequivocally agrees with the second statement.

This is a political submission. SERA has worked with and within Labour for over a quarter of a century. Our submission to this public consultation, which unusually takes place during a general election campaign, assumes Labour will form a majority government after the election, and so it addresses Labour’s nuclear policy.

Introduction & summary conclusions

SERA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the BNFL revised application to open the MOX plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel plant (SMP) at Sellafield, notwithstanding our considered view that this giant ‘boondoggle’ should never have been built by BNFL-which is wholly government-owned- in the first place. Our submission is political, rather than technical or econometric. SERA implacably opposes SMP. SERA concludes that there is no economic or indeed other justification for the manufacture of MOX fuel for commercial sale. We would commend ministers reading the excellent omnibus study, The Disposition of Civil Plutonium in the UK, published in April 2001 by Fred Barker & Mike Sadnicki -both members of the government–appointed Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee- for an excellent scoping study on the options for the use of SMP other than manufacture of commercial MOX fuel.

Critique

Much of the comment SERA would wish to submit has already been submitted by various objectors at earlier rounds of consultation, first that organised by the Environment Agency, and second jointly by the DETR/Department of Health. SERA emphasises that amongst the primary reasons for its opposition to SMP is that its operation would normalise the use of plutonium –the prime nuclear explosive- in international trade. SERA concludes on the basis of assessing several international analyses of plutonium commerce, that the substantive criticisms of MOX fuel manufacture and trade would significantly increase plutonium proliferation hazards, and hence exacerbate the risk posed by plutonium already separated at Sellafield, (and indeed its analogous plant at La Hague in France). SERA therefore concurs with the comments submitted by other parties to earlier consultation rounds on this unacceptable and importantly avoidable proliferation hazard posed by converting plutonium into MOX fuel, and its subsequent export.
SERA finds itself in a difficulty in making intelligent comment on the re-submitted and updated application by BNFL, because the document the Company has submitted (Annex 2) –as in the first & subsequent rounds of consultation- is a redacted version of BNFL’s full economic argument. Indeed Annex 2 is clearly labelled in its strap line ‘PUBLIC DOMAIN REPORT’, which by deduction means there is a private version. SERA understands that the independent consultants, Arthur D. Little, engaged by the DETR to assess the robustness of the BNFL revised economic case will have full access to the complete report. However, as ADL will not report to ministers until two weeks after this current consultation closes, this means all consultees’ comments -SERA’s included- are inevitably based on partial information. Clearly this is an unacceptable and avoidable situation. Had the consultation period been extended beyond the time when the ADL study was released, all interested parties could have had the opportunity of assessing the study as part of their submission.
In this diminished context, SERA would make the following observations:

3.1 The DTI has seen fit to append to the BNFL revised economic case (annex 2) a letter of endorsement, signed by an official, David Hayes, rather than a minister. When Mr Hayes was approached for a copy of the analysis conducted by the DTI on which his department’s positive conclusions, supportive of BNFL’s case for the market prospects for MOX, were made, the DTI refused to provide a copy. Instead we were referred to section 4, on ‘Customer Support for SMP’, at pp3 to 5 of the BNFL revised economic case which appear to be a collection of self-serving selective citations in support of SMP by foreign potential customers. The fundamental fault with this series of citations is BNFL has not linked any supportive quote to its corporate author. Thus readers have to take it on trust that these letters have substance: on its past record of veracity, SERA suggests ministers read these with cautious scepticism. SERA was informed, along with MPs (see Annex 1), that details of the customer support was collated by the Foreign Office, and it was indicated that his was available from the DETR, but this is not what it says at para.9, p.5 of the DETR consultation paper.

3.2 What is clear is that, notwithstanding the BNFL attempt to convince ministers that it has re-built relations with customers after the crisis of confidence created by the deliberate BNFL falsification of quality assurance data for MOX fuel, with its compilation of unreferenced supportive citations, prospective customers are still wary about committing to MOX. The most stunning example is the foremost prospective Japanese customer, TEPCO, delayed its decision on MOX use by a year on the very same day as the DETR/DoH consultation was launched. (see Annex 2). This development demonstrates the lack of robustness of BNFL’s statement at para 5.7, p.7 of its revised market review.

SERA remains unconvinced at the recent series of BNFL initiated press stories that it has gained commitments for MOX contracts from German and Swedish companies. BNFL should be made to publish these contracts --if need be with specific commercial details omitted—so interested parties can examine exactly how robust they are.

SERA also opposes any new build of nuclear reactors technically suitable to use MOX fuel, as is suggested might happen by BNFL in its revised market review, paras 6.7 & 6.8. SERA also believes it would be impossible to obtain planning permission for any such reactor technically suited for MOX use, mainly due to the increased accident potential for MOX use, as has been demonstrated by technical reports published in January 2000 by the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington DC.*

Conclusion

Ministers should refuse BNFL permission to operate the SMP for commercial MOX production. Instead BNFL should concentrate on securing its plutonium stocks at Sellafield in immobilized form; and should offer similar conditioning and packaging service to UK and foreign customers who have separated plutonium at Sellafield. BNFL should also negotiate with customers to convert reprocessing contracts to storage commitments.

Annex 1 HANSARD, 11 May 2001, column 439

MOX Fuels

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the assessment his Department made of the BNFL economic case for the Sellafield MOX Plant, on which the departmental letter of endorsement included in the current public consultation documentation is based. [161120]

Mr. Hain: The Department endorsed on 22 March the second MOX market review prepared by BNFL for DETR. As noted in the consultation document published by DETR and the Department of Health on 28 March, the Department took into account advice from the FCO on the content of that market review, since it related to the major overseas customers who have had plutonium separated from spent fuel at Sellafield. That FCO advice is available from DETR as part of the consultation process.

Annex 2 The Japan Times: March 30, 2001

Tepco delays MOX debut due to opposition in Fukushima

Tokyo Electric Power Co. will postpone the launch of plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at its nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture because of opposition from the governor, company sources said Thursday.

In April, the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant was scheduled to become the first nuclear plant to use MOX fuel. However, Fukushima Gov. Eisaku Sato said last month that the prefecture will not allow MOX to be used because residents are against it.

MOX, a pellet mixture of uranium dioxide and plutonium dioxide, is designed to be burned in light-water reactors, a process known as plutonium thermal use. Plutonium is obtained by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from nuclear plants. Sato has said the government must review its energy policy, including the use of MOX fuel.

Tepco also plans to start using MOX fuel at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata Prefecture, and Kansai Electric Power Co. intends to do the same at its Takahama nuclear plant in Fukui. Both plants sit along the Sea of Japan coast.

The electric power industry plans to carry out the "pluthermal" project, which uses MOX fuel in a thermal reactor, at 16 to 18 reactors by 2010.

The project was originally scheduled to be launched in 1999, but a safety-data falsification and coverup scandal put things on hold.

Plebiscite petition

NIIGATA (Kyodo) Residents and assembly members of the village of Kariwa, Niigata Prefecture, filed an official petition Thursday requesting the village establish an ordinance to allow a plebiscite to be conducted on a plan to use plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at a local nuclear plant.

Village officials said the petition was filed with village chief Hiroo Shinada, and the Kariwa assembly is expected to deliberate on an ordinance bill during an extraordinary session convening in April.

The move follows the March 2 submission by a group of Kariwa residents and assembly members of the signatures of 1,540 eligible voters, 37 percent of the total voters in the village.

The petition calls for a plebiscite over the so-called pluthermal project at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant, which is operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. The plant received 28 containers of MOX fuel Saturday from France, but it has not yet been officially decided when the project will be launched.

In March 1999, the assemblies of Kashiwazaki and Kariwa on the Sea of Japan coast rejected a petition calling for a plebiscite over the issue. The Kariwa assembly in December passed a similar bill submitted by assembly members, but Shinada vetoed it and ordered the assembly to deliberate the issue again and revote. The bill was rejected in January.

The pluthermal process entails using MOX fuel -- made by mixing uranium with plutonium chemically extracted from spent nuclear fuel -- to power a thermal reactor. The utility plans to introduce the system at the plant's No. 3 reactor.

TOKYO ELECTRIC DECISION AGAINST PLUTONIUM MOX USE DEVASTATING BLOW AGAINST BNFL/COGEMA BUSINESS

March 29th 2001

Tokyo---Greenpeace today welcomed news that Tokyo Electric Power Co. tomorrow Friday will inform the Japanese government that it will not load plutonium MOX fuel into its Fukushima-1-3 reactor during the next year. TEPCO's decision to be explained to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), is a major set-back for Japan's plans to use plutonium MOX fuel in nuclear reactors, and has severe consequences for European manufacturers to secure large MOX supply contracts. Japan's plans to MOX fuel have been continually delayed over the last few years, in particular following the 1999 British Nuclear Fuels MOX quality control scandal, and subsequent doubts over the quality and safety of French/Belgian MOX fuel delivered to Fukushima. Another shipment of MOX arrived only last weekend, March 24th, also at a Tokyo Electric reactor this time in Niigata. Plans to load that MOX fuel were already in severe doubts before today's news.

"This is good news for the people of Fukushima and Japan, very bad news for BNFL and Cogema. There is every chance that no MOX will be loaded in Japanese reactors, once the dangers of using plutonium MOX fuel, and the fundamentally poor standards of BNFL and Cogema will end this program," said Kazue Suzuki of Greenpeace Japan, and one of the plaintiffs in the Fukushima Court case. The decision by Tokyo Electric follows a seven month legal battle to prevent loading of MOX in the reactor. On March 23rd the Fukushima District Court issued its decision turning down an injunction request against loading, which had been based upon demands for Tokyo Electric to release vital quality control data for the MOX fuel. In their decision, however, the court stated that refusal by Tokyo Electric and the European companies not to release data was 'inexplicable.'

Tokyo Electric has come under heavy public and political pressure in Fukushima since the delivery two cargoes of MOX fuel, made by British transport ships in September 1999. First, after BNFL released data on MOX fuel delivered to Kansai Electric power, it was revealed that they had falsified quality control data for MOX fuel pellets. That MOX fuel is now to be shipped back to the UK at a cost of nearly US$200million. Then the scandal spread to MOX fuel produced by the Cogema/Belgonucleaire MOX Group, and delivered to Fukushima. Since 1999 citizens groups, including Greenpeace have been demanding the release of the same quality control data for the Tokyo Electric/Cogema/Belgonucleaire MOX. They have refused citing commercial confidentiality. Analysis done on the limited data released so far indicates similar problems to the BNFL MOX fuel.

The 32 assemblies of MOX fuel at Fukushima were intended to be loaded in early 2000. The court case in Fukushima launched in August 2000, has also helped focus political opposition by the Fukushima Governor against MOX loading. Last week, Governor Sato said that, "Although I had previously given approval for MOX use, the conditions under which I had given them have now been blown to bits." March 29th, it is reported that the Governor will conduct a complete review of Japan's MOX program, and that, "If our conclusion is that once-through plu-thermal (MOX) is better, then freezing it may take two or three years," . 'Once through' means not reprocessing and using plutonium in reactors, but using uranium fuel only.

One of the most directly affected by Tokyo Electric's decision will be British Nuclear Fuels. It is seeking to open a new 500US$ million MOX plant in the UK largely to produce MOX fuel for Japan. However it has no Japanese MOX contracts. On March 28th the UK government announced a new public consultation to help decide whether it should grant an operating license to the MOX plant. BNFL has signed contracts for less than 7% of its capacity. Cogema of France is also desperate to increase MOX production in France for Japan.

"BNFL should give up on its plans to ever open the Sellafield MOX Plant. It should never have been built, has no prospects of securing business with Japan, and the only option for the UK government is to reject plans to give it a license," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International.