Nuclear ships: frequently asked questions

A shipment of nuclear fuel bound for Japan from France is due in the Tasman Sea in the next month. It could sail through New Zealand's exclusive economic zone. VERNON SMALL looks at key questions.

Who is moving this fuel?

The consortium undertaking the shipment, Pacific Nuclear Transport, is owned by state-owned British Nuclear Fuels plc (62.5 per cent), France's state-owned COGEMA (12.5 per cent) and a consortium of Japanese electricity companies, the Overseas Reprocessing Committee (ORC), which holds 25 per cent.

BNFL operates 51 sites in 15 countries and employs 23,000 people. It specialises in making fuel, reactor services, electricity generation, spent fuel management and decommissioning and cleaning up sites.

COGEMA, with nearly 20,000 staff, specialises in mining uranium and converting, reprocessing and recycling spent fuel. It also runs engineering and industrial services and nuclear fuel transport.

Overseas Reprocessing is a consortium of 10 Japanese power generators employing 149,000 staff.

What is MOX fuel and what is it used for?

MOX (Mixed Uranium and Plutonium Oxide) is a nuclear fuel made of a mixture of uranium and plutonium. The plutonium content varies from 3 per cent to 10 per cent, depending on the design of the fuel. It is the second-most-common commercial nuclear fuel after uranium.

Seventy reactors worldwide are due to be using it by 2010. There are 436 nuclear power plants in operation in the world supplying about 16 per cent of the electricity. A further 36 plants are under construction. But Greenpeace notes that European nations, in particular, have stopped building new plants.

MOX was first made in 1963 and 400 tonnes have been used in commercial reactors since then, mostly in Europe. The consortium argues that the advantage of MOX over uranium fuel is that it reuses plutonium created as a byproduct in the plants. Recycling lowers the amount of new uranium that must be mined and reduces waste by about 25 per cent, the consortium claims.

A uranium fuel reactor produces 250kg of plutonium a year, while a 100 per cent MOX reactor uses up more plutonium than it produces, burning about 60kg of plutonium a year.

Greenpeace says the reprocessing produces huge amounts of waste and the plutonium is changed so it could be used for weapons. The consortium says no country has the ability to do that.

Greenpeace is also critical of the amount of high-level waste that must be shipped back to Japan as a result of the reprocessing. It would prefer it if the spent fuel was stored, not reprocessed.

The MOX in the shipment coming near New Zealand is in the form of ceramic-like pellets inside zirconium alloy rods, which are assembled to form MOX fuel assemblies. One pellet, a few centimetres long, has the same energy output as a tonne of coal. The consortium says it tests its safety measures strenuously, but Greenpeace says the tests are not stringent enough.

Can nuclear fuel be endlessly recycled?

Fuel is unloaded and replaced every three to four years when it starts to become less efficient. Spent fuel is typically made up of 94 per cent to 96 per cent unburned uranium, which is recyclable, 1 per cent plutonium created in the core (also recyclable), and 3 per cent to 5 per cent "ashes," which are not reusable.

Fuel is reprocessed through a series of mechanical and chemical steps which sort out the components of the spent fuel and separate it from the waste.

Why does it have to be transported around the world?

Japan will not have its own facility for reprocessing the spent fuel until at least 2005, although the international furore over nuclear shipments is encouraging the Japanese to move.

They use British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield plant and COGEMA's site at La Hague for storing and reprocessing it. Japan decided to start using MOX in 1997, and electricity companies there have said they plan to have 16 to 18 of the country's 51 reactors loaded with MOX by 2010.

The rest use uranium fuel (UOinf2). Nuclear fuels produce 35 per cent of Japan's electricity generation.

What safety measures are taken to protect the fuel on the ship?

The fuel assemblies are sealed in casks of steel weighing between 80 and 100 tonnes. Each is about 6m long and 2m in diameter.

Safety measures are set by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

What about the ships it travels in?

The fuel is shipped using two 104m-long, 16m-wide British ships, the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail. One carries the shipment, the other acts as an escort.

Both are armed with naval guns to protect them against pirate attacks and terrorists. On board is an armed force from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, who specialise in protecting nuclear sites.

The ships carry enough diesel to sail from France to Japan without calling into port, and they make no scheduled calls.

They have reinforced double hulls, and backup navigation, communication, electrical and cooling systems. Sonar location systems on board can operate in up to 6000m of water.

What if there is an accident?

The consortium says that if the pellets were to end up in the sea they would take thousands of years to dissolve. It says Japanese research has indicated that in coastal waters the radiation exposure of those living nearby would be one-millionth of background radiation.

If the pellets were exposed in deep water, the impact would be equal to one ten-millionth of background radiation. International company Smit Salvage has the contract to salvage the ships, but in light of difficulties lifting the Russian submarine Kursk, Greenpeace wonders about the practicality of salvage if the ship were to sink in deep water.

What if there was an emergency?

The consortium claims that a fully trained team is on 24-hour standby. Commercial arrangements are made with teams in countries close to the route. Specialist help from those countries would not be required and the ship would "not automatically" head for the nearest port for help, the consortium said.

Does the consortium have to pay compensation if anyone is injured by the shipment?

Foreign Minister Phil Goff says the consortium does not accept full liability and would not compensate New Zealand for the loss of its clean, green reputation.

The consortium says the Paris and Brussels conventions enable anyone suffering injury or damage from the nuclear cargo to recover compensation without having to prove anyone was at fault. It says the conventions are backed by insurance.

Countries not covered by those conventions would be dealt with under "relevant civil law."

Can we ban the shipment from our 200-mile economic zone?

No, not under international law, says the Government.

Greenpeace points to a recent Argentinian court ruling that the safeguarding of the maritime environment from hazardous cargoes such as nuclear waste overrides the law of the sea and may allow the ships to be banned.

The consortium has said it does not intend to sail into New Zealand's economic zone, although it reserves the right at the discretion of the captain - if there is bad weather for instance.

Mr Goff says he has received Japanese Government assurances that the ships will not enter the 200-mile zone unless there is a risk to the ship or for humanitarian reasons.

The two stances amount to the same thing. Mr Goff plans to lodge formal protests with Britain, France and Japan over the route.

The Australians seem more relaxed and have shown no sign of lodging a protest.

Greenpeace says this is because the Australians are planning their own shipment of spent fuel to La Hague.

When will the ship be near NZ?

Anyone's guess. Probably in a month or so. The consortium will not say for security reasons where it is at any time, and Greenpeace does not have a ship fast enough to follow it. If the New Zealand Government uses its maritime surveillance aircraft, it may know, but it has not yet decided whether to pass that information to the public and protesters.

Anatomy of a nuclear fuels transport ship

Herald Online Marine News