254 



in construction of three prototype plants of prevailing U.S. design 

 and fueled with enriched uranium, the outcome of the competition 

 between natural and enriched uranium fuel cycles was still open. 

 Then, in the late 1960's both France and the United Kingdom became 

 interested in enriched fuel, which the West Germans and Italians had 

 used from the outset. The decision of the French in 1969 to turn from 

 natural to enriched uranium brought with it renewed interest in con- 

 struction of a European facility to supply this material. A parallel 

 proposal that the AEC sell its gaseous diffusion plants to the American 

 nuclear industry seems to have shaken European assumptions as to the 

 long-term reliability of U.S. supply. 



The European enrichment idea took on new life in mid- 1970 when 

 the Commission of the European Communities argued that the setting 

 up of a European uranium enrichment capacity must form part of 

 the overall scheme of the Community and European efforts towards 

 industry oriented scientific and technological development. 298 



In May 1972 the technical and economic problems involved in the 

 enrichment of uranium were considered at a meeting of the EEC 

 Parliamentary Committee on Energy, Research, and Atomic Prob- 

 lems. There, experts reviewed and confirmed the Commission's fore- 

 casts of enriched uranium requirements. According to these fore- 

 casts, which covered the whole of Western Europe, separative require- 

 ments would double every 5 years. It appeared to them impossible 

 to obtain a firm, long-term undertaking from the United States to 

 supply the necessary materials, and therefore the experts urared the 

 community to build its own enrichment plants. However, the con- 

 ference was marked by differences of opinion as to the enrichment 

 technologv to be adopted. 297 298 



The, U.SjS.R. as an Alternative Source of Supply 



Since the Soviet Union also possesses the industrial facilities to 

 enrich uranium for fuel, presumably it, too. could become a supplier 

 of enriched uranium or toll enrichment services in the world market. 

 The U.S.S.R. has indeed indicated interest in supplying nuclear fuel 

 for European power reactors. For example, in March 1971 the French 

 Government announced it had signed a short term contract with the 

 U.S.S.R. for toll enrichment of 80 tons of French materials. The 

 contract was between the French national atomic energy organization 

 and the Soviet agency, Technab Export. It called for delivery of the 

 feed material by the French in 1973 with return of enriched product 

 in 1973 and 1974 at a guaranteed price of between $5.6 and $7.2 million. 

 In comparison, AEC policy is to bill customers at the price in force at 

 time of delivery. The enriched Soviet uranium is fuel for a new French 

 power reactor being built with U.S. technology. 



Speaking of this contract, an aide to the French Minister of Industry 

 commented that it might force the Americans to think twice about 

 more price increases for enrichment services. The Soviet price was less 

 than the AEC's price and was not subject to escalation. Whether the 



»• "uropean Enrichment." Nuclear Engineering International, vol. 15 (July/ August 

 1970). p. 556. 



■» h '"ar Engineering International, vol. 17 (July. 1972), p. 516. 



"• Three separative processes were proposed : gas centrifuge, gas diffusion, and nozzle 

 separation. The French favor diffusion, the Dutch and English favor the centrifuge, and 

 the West Germans favor the nozzle process. 



