Bellona report 2012

Nuclear Fissile Materials

Bellona report 2013

Nuclear Fissile Materials (management practices, technologies, problems, and prospects)

Authors: Alexander Nikitin; Prof. Vladimir Kuznetsov, D.Sc. Eng.; Andrei Zolotkov; Valery Menshchikov, Ph.D. Eng.; Alexei Shchukin, Ph.D. Chem. The second edition of this report has been prepared with support from the Autonomous Non- Profit Organization “Center for the Support of Territorial Development of the Atomic Industry” and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Published by the Bellona Foundation: www.bellona.org

Russia Bellona St. Petersburg pr. Suvorovsky, 59 191015 St. Petersburg [email protected]

Russia Bellona Murmansk P. O. Box 4310 183038 Murmansk [email protected]

Norway Bellona Oslo Post: Boks 2141 Grünerløkka 0505 Oslo [email protected]

Copying permitted when source is stated (Source: Bellona)

Executive editor: Alexander Nikitin English version prepared by: Maria Kaminskaya, with assistance by Lewis Dorman Cover design and layout: Alexandra Solokhina TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ...... 5

List of abbreviations ...... 6

Chapter 1. Uranium ...... 7

Chapter 2. Uranium oxide nuclear fuel ...... 20

Chapter 3. MOX fuel ...... 32

Chapter 4. Weapons-grade fissile materials ...... 43

Chapter 5. Spent nuclear fuel ...... 52

Chapter 6. Thorium ...... 69

Chapter 7. Safety and environmental issues of handling nuclear fissile materials ...... 72

Conclusion ...... 81

Terms, definitions, and reference materials ...... 85

Appendices ...... 92

References ...... 106

3 About the authors:

Alexander Nikitin is an expert with the international environmental organization Bellona, author and co-author of articles, reports, and books on issues relating to the use of nuclear energy, and winner of numerous international environmental and human rights awards. Prof. Vladimir Kuznetsov holds a doctorate degree in engineering and is a member of the Academy of Industrial Ecology and the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences; he is also a member of the Public Council of the State Corporation Rosatom. Valery Menshchikov, Ph.D. in Engineering, has authored over 80 research papers and analytical publications; he is a member of the Public Council of the State Corporation Rosatom. Andrei Zolotkov, an expert with the international environmental organization Bellona, is a radiochemistry engineer, author and co-author of articles, reports, and books on issues relating to the use of nuclear energy. Alexei Shchukin, Ph.D. in Chemistry, is an expert with the international environmental organization Bellona, author and co-author of articles, reports, and books on issues relating to the use of nuclear energy.

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE:

Names of Russian companies and locations, as well as personal names mentioned in this report, have been rendered in English in accordance with common Russian-English transliteration rules. Certain exceptions, however, have been made for a number of companies or locations, and names may appear as they are spelled on the respective companies’ websites or in corporate documents, such as annual reports. English translations are provided for company names in certain cases.

4 Foreword

The first edition of Nuclear Fissile These chapters also include information Materials was prepared and published by on the management (application, storage, Bellona’s experts in late 2011. The report transportation, decommissioning, etc.) of sparked an interest among the general public nuclear fissile materials. and specialists in the field, who offered Additionally, the report presents Bellona their comments and suggestions information on the major companies and regarding additional information and enterprises engaged in production and amendments for the report. enrichment of uranium, fabrication of various This is the second and updated edition of kinds of fuel, reprocessing of spent nuclear the report Nuclear Fissile Materials. In this fuel, and management of accumulated revised version, a new chapter, Thorium, has stockpiles of plutonium and enriched been added to the report, and the chapter uranium. Issues of international practices in Safety and Environmental Issues of Handling managing nuclear fissile materials, and the Nuclear Fissile Materials has been expanded policies that the top nuclear nations have significantly. The authors have also decided adopted in this domain, are examined as well. to remove the previous edition’s chapter Our hope is that the information offered on economics and issue it as stand-alone in this report will give the public a more publication. detailed view of the nuclear fissile materials Structurally, the present edition is divided accumulated in the world, the varying into seven chapters with information on practices of managing these materials, and uranium, uranium oxide and MOX fuels, spent the policies of various nations – including nuclear fuel, weapons-grade plutonium, Russia – in this field. We deem it important highly enriched uranium, and thorium. Each that the information gathered in this report chapter contains brief information on the might be used in order to form opinions, technologies and sources of production proposals, and signals for political and public (generation) of nuclear materials, their initiatives where issues of management of chemical, physical, and other properties. nuclear fissile materials are concerned.

5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AGR Advanced gas-cooled reactor APWR Advanced pressurized water reactor BWR Boiling water reactor FR Fast reactor GCR Gas-cooled reactor HEU Highly enriched uranium HM Heavy metal IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ISL In-situ leaching IUEC International Uranium Enrichment Center LDM Low dispersible materials LEU Low-enriched uranium LMR Liquid metal cooled reactor LWGR Light water graphite-moderated reactor LWR Light water reactor MOX fuel Mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel NDA Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Great Britain NPP Nuclear power plant NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PHWR Pressurized heavy water reactor PWR Pressurized water reactor R&D Research & Development SEU Slightly enriched uranium SFA Spent fuel assembly SNF Spent nuclear fuel SWU Separative work unit TNR Thermal neutron reactor TUK Transport cask (for Russian transportny upakovochny konteiner)

Russian reactor designs: AMB Water-cooled graphite-moderated channel-type reactor (for Russian atom mirny bolshoi) BN Fast neutron reactor (for Russian fast neutrons) EGP Water-graphite heterogeneous channel-type power reactor (for Russian energetichesky geterogenny petlevoi reaktor) RBMK Water-cooled graphite-moderated channel-type reactor (for Russian reaktor bolshoi moshchnosti kanalny) VVER Water-cooled, water-moderated power reactor (for Russian vodo-vodyanoi energetichesky reaktor)

6 CHAPTER 1. URANIUM

Uranium is the main source material for is approximately 2.5×10-4%. It is part of all rock the generation and manufacture of nuclear forming the Earth’s crust and is also present fissile materials. Uranium occurs as a mixture in natural waters and living organisms. of three radioactive isotopes: The lowest uranium concentrations are – U-238, natural abundance: 99.274%, found in ultrabasic rocks, and the highest half-life period: 4.468×109 years; in sedimentary rocks (phosphate rocks and – U-235, natural abundance: 0.72%, carbon shale). half-life period: 7.04×108 years; It has been established that due to – U-234, natural abundance: 0.005%, the natural process of radioactive decay, half-life period: 2.455×105 years. throughout geological history, uranium Uranium emits alpha, beta, and gamma content in the Earth’s crust has been radiation. The specific radioactivity of U-235 gradually depleting. in natural uranium is 21 times less than that of U-238. U-234 is not a parent isotope, but a radiogenic one. It is a member of the U-238 1.1.1. Uranium ores decay series and is a product of nuclear decay of U-238. The radioactivity of natural Of the 14 known geological types of uranium is mainly the contribution of U-238 uranium ores and over 100 uranium minerals, and U-234; in equilibrium their specific only 12 minerals are of industrial value. radioactivity values are equal. Natural The primary uranium ore minerals are uranium’s specific radioactivity is 0.67 μCi/g pitchblende, uraninite, and carnotite. (2.5×104 Bq/g) and is essentially equally Natural uranium ore (with an average divided between U-234 and U-238. concentration of 3 g/t) is one of the most In its pure form, uranium is a very heavy, frequently occurring ores in the earth. But, silvery-white, slightly lustrous metal. It is from the point of view of economic viability, somewhat softer than steel, malleable, developing a uranium ore deposit only makes ductile, and has minor paramagnetic sense where the metal’s concentration in properties. Uranium is a highly chemically the ore is at least 700 g/t (0.07%), although reactive element. It oxidizes rapidly in air, a number of countries in Southern Africa developing an iridescent coat of uranium extract uranium from ores with only 0.01% in oxide. Water is capable of decomposing uranium content. uranium – slowly at a low temperature High-grade uranium ores are very seldom (around 100 °C), and faster at higher found. For instance, the ore extracted at the temperatures. When given a forceful shake, McArthur River underground uranium mine uranium metal particles become luminescent. in Saskatchewan, Canada, has a uranium content of 17.96%. As a rule, however, uranium concentration values in large 1.1. Uranium in nature deposits do not exceed 1%. The economics of uranium mining is Natural uranium mainly occurs in uranium greatly influenced by the deposit’s geological ores, although 11% of this metal is extracted location and its size, access to the ore, as a side product when developing other labor costs, and many other factors. In its types of mineral deposits. classification of reserves and resources of The general abundance ratio (content uranium, the International Atomic Energy in percent) of uranium in the Earth’s crust Agency (IAEA) uses the economic efficiency

7 of their development, taking the existing Experts estimate there is also up mining methods into account. It factors in to 0.9 million tons in proven uranium direct costs of mining, transportation, and deposits recoverable at a cost of between

production of uranium concentrate (U3O8), $130 and $260 per kg of uranium. The costs related to geological exploration total undiscovered – prognosticated and undertaken to extend the life of a mine, those speculative – uranium resources, as per IAEA incurred to ensure environmental safety data, come to 10.4 million tons. Of that, during the development of the deposit and 6.5 million tons are reserves that may be after its completion, capital costs of building recovered at a cost of no more than $130 new production facilities (where necessary), per kg of uranium, and 0.37 million tons are and non-amortization and other expenses. reserves recoverable at a cost of between Three cost categories of uranium ores $130 and $260 per kg of uranium. There are distinguished depending on the cost are no cost estimates for the remaining of producing 1 kg of uranium: <$40/kg; 3.6 million tons. Judging by the uranium <$80/kg; <$130/kg. Besides the above- consumption rate, the total resource of mentioned factors, the economic efficiency 5.4 million tons, with an extraction cost of no of a development during any given period of more than $130 per kg of uranium, should time is influenced by pricing policies and the last for approximately 90 years. market. Currently, development of ores with In Russia, the major commercial uranium uranium mining costs of no more than $80/kg deposits are concentrated in the following is deemed commercially viable. four areas: Zabaykalsky (Transbaikal) Krai: – Priargunskoye (Priargunsky Industrial 1.1.2. Uranium ore reserves Mining and Chemical Union, PIMCU, Krasno- kamensk): 113,100 tons Global explored uranium reserves that – Olovskoye (Olovskaya Mining and can be recovered at a cost not exceeding Che mi cal Company, OMCC, Chita): 13,500 tons $130/kg of uranium, as per 2009 data, total – Gorno-Berezovskoye (Gornoe Uranium around 5.4 million tons. About 96.5% of these Mining Company, GUMC, Chita): 4,600 tons reserves are concentrated in 15 countries Kurgan Region: (see Table 1.1). – Dalmatovskoye and Khokhlovskoye (Dalur, village of Uksyanskoye): 18,000 tons Republic of Buryatia: Table 1.1. Proven recoverable uranium reserves (as of 2009). – Khiagdinskoye, or Khiagda (Khiagda, village of Bagdarin): 47,000 tons Uranium reserves, Percentage № Country Sakha Republic (Yakutia): in tons of global reserves (%) – Lunnoe (Lunnoe, Aldan): 400 tons 1 Australia 1,673,000 31% – Elkonskoye (Elkon Mining Metallurgical 2 Kazakhstan 651,000 12% Plant, Elkon MMP, Tommot): 319,200 tons 3 Canada 485,000 9% As per 2005 optimistic estimates, Russia’s known uranium resources total 515,800 tons, 4 Russia 480,000 9% and its prognosticated resources in optimistic 5 South Africa 295,000 5% estimates are 830,000 tons. However, a real 6 Namibia 284,000 5% assessment of the economic prospects of 7 Brazil 279,000 5% these resources requires their evaluation in terms of cost categories. 8 Niger 272,000 5% 9 United States 207,000 4% 10 China 171,000 3% 1.2. Uranium mining 11 Jordan 112,000 2% 12 Uzbekistan 111,000 2% Uranium deposit figures are not, however, sufficient to reflect the real picture with the 13 Ukraine 105,000 2% mining and production of this metal. Global 14 India 80,000 1.5% uranium mining volumes in 2011 totaled 15 Mongolia 49,000 1% 53,654 tons. Other countries 150,000 3% Global reserves 5,404,000

8 1.2.1. Uranium mining countries as a number of accidents, caused by both technogenic and natural factors, that took The eight top uranium mining countries place at Australian mines in 2010 and 2011. that recover over 1,000 tons of uranium per Furthermore, worker strikes at Rössing year on their respective territories altogether in Namibia in July and September 2011 account for around 92% in global uranium resulted in a protracted downtime at the production volumes. Kazakhstan, Canada, mining enterprise. In spite of this, Namibia and Australia mine around 64% of all uranium is still planning to reform its uranium mining recovered in the world. In 2011, Kazakhstan’s industry and double uranium production share in global uranium production was by developing its new uranium deposits at 36.2% (see Table 1.2). Namibplaas. In 2011, global uranium production New uranium producers have appeared decreased somewhat in comparison to 2010, on the map – such as the Republic of Malawi, to a level of 53,495 tons (49,219 tons were which in 2011 began to produce over 840 tons, mined in the eight top uranium producing becoming a world leader in boosting uranium countries, and 4,276 tons in the remaining production rates, with its production levels uranium mining nations). An increase in approaching those of China and Ukraine. In uranium production in Kazakhstan almost 2011, demand for U3O8 dropped below the totally compensated for a significant drop values of the past six years (see Table 1.2). This in production volumes in Namibia, Canada, was likely the result of an unstable situation Australia, and several more uranium mining in the nuclear energy industry following the countries (see Table 1.2). The declining Fukushima disaster. Still, despite this decrease, production volumes in Australia and Namibia the volumes of uranium mined in 2011 only have to do with the decreasing grades of managed to satisfy the nuclear industry’s uranium ores mined at Australia’s Ranger demand to 85%. The remaining demand was and Namibia’s Rössing deposits, as well covered by uranium stockpiles and MOX fuel.

Table 1.2. Uranium production from ores mined in major uranium producing countries (in tons of uranium), between 2004 and 2011.

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Kazakhstan 3,719 4,357 5,279 6,637 8,521 14,020 17,803 19,452 Canada 11,597 11,628 9,862 9,476 9,000 10,173 9,783 9,145 Australia 8,982 9,516 7,593 8,611 8,430 7,982 5,900 5,983 Niger 3,282 3,093 3,434 3,153 3,032 3,243 4,198 4,351 Namibia 3,038 3,147 3,067 2,879 4,366 4,626 4,496 3,258 Russia 3,200 3,4313,262 3,413 3,521 3,564 3,562 2,993 Uzbekistan 2,016 2,300 2,260 2,320 2,338 2,429 2,400 2,500 United States 878 1,039 1,672 1,654 1,430 1,453 1,660 1,537 Ukraine 800 800 800 846 800 840 850 890 China 750 750 750 712 769 750 827 885 Malawi 104 670 846 South Africa 755 674 534 539 655 563 583 582 India 230 230 177 270 271 290 400 400 Brazil 300 110 190 299 330 345 148 265 Czech Republic 412 408 359 306 263 258 254 229 Romania 90 90 90 77 77 75 77 77 Germany 77 94 65 41 0 0 0 52 Pakistan 45 45 45 45 45 50 45 45 France 7 7545876 Total: 40,178 41,719 39,444 41,282 43,853 50,773 53,663 53,495

Tons of U3O8 47,382 49,199 46,516 48,683 51,716 59,875 63,285 63,085

Demand for U3O8 75,690 74,681 76,067 76,052 76,762 81,134 74,217 Share of global demand n/a 65% 63% 64% 68% 78% 78% 85%

9 1.2.2. International uranium 1.2.3. Uranium production mining companies by Russian companies The combined share of the world’s The primary Russian company engaged major uranium mining companies (with in uranium production is the uranium mining over 1,000 tons in production volumes) was holding Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ), created in 2011 almost 88% of global production, in 1991. Besides ARMZ, several other Russian accounting for 47,200 tons. In 2010, China companies as well as banks – for instance, National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) joined Gazprombank, Severstal, and others – own the top list of leading uranium mining shares in uranium mining companies. companies, expanding it to 11 companies ARMZ is a daughter company of Atom- with over 1,000 tons in production volumes. energo prom. Atomenergoprom, an integrated Ukraine’s uranium mining enterprise Eastern company consolidating all of Rosatom’s Mining-Processing Combine (Eastern MPC) is non-defense-related assets, currently holds

planning in 2012 to boost its U3O8 production 79.98% shares in ARMZ. to 1,000 tons a year by exploring its In 2007 and 2008, ARMZ became the Novokonstantinovsky deposit. owner of practically all Russian uranium According to Rosatom’s data, mining assets, as well as joint enterprises Kazakhstan’s National Atomic Company that explore and develop uranium deposits Kazatomprom (NAC Kazatomprom) kept its in Kazakhstan. Atomredmetzoloto also first-place ranking among the top uranium acquired licenses for the right to mine stand- producing companies with its 11,079 tons by uranium deposits. of uranium produced in 2011, or 20.6% In addition, ARMZ is actively purchasing of the total production volumes. Cameco foreign uranium assets, creating joint enterprises ranked second, and the ARMZ-Uranium with Kazakhstan, Mongolia (Central Asia Uranium One Inc. alliance ranked third. These figures Company, CAUC), Namibia (SWA Uranium differ somewhat from the statistics offered Mines), and other uranium mining countries. by the World Nuclear Association (WNA) In 2009, the holding acquired the Dutch (see Table 1.3), but on the whole, both the company Effective Energy N.V., which holds data from Rosatom and other sources that shares in Kazakhstan’s uranium deposits at provide information on uranium production Karatau (50%) and Akbastau (25%). by major uranium mining companies are December 2010 saw the finalization of commensurate in their main characteristics. a deal to purchase a controlling stake (51.4%) in Canada’s uranium mining company Uranium One Inc., which holds shares in five uranium mining enterprises in Kazakhstan (Zarechnoye, Table 1.3. Uranium production by global international Akbastau, Karatau, Betpak Dala, and Kyzylkum) leaders in 2011. and is also developing uranium mining projects in the United States (in Wyoming, Arizona, and Uranium produced Share in global No. Company Utah) and Australia (the Honeymoon project). (in tons) production (in %) In June 2011, Rosatom completed a deal 1 Kazatomprom 8,884 17 purchasing 100% shares in Australia’s Mantra 2 Areva 8,790 16 Resources Ltd., a company with uranium 3 Cameco 8,630 16 mining operations in Tanzania. Table 1.4 lists companies and enterprises with uranium 4 ARMZ/Uranium One Inc. 7,088 13 mining assets in which Atomredmetzoloto 5 Rio Tinto 4,061 8 owned shares as of early 2012. 6 BHP Billiton 3,353 6 As of the beginning of 2012, the share 7 Navoi 2,500 5 held by Rosatom-owned companies (ARMZ/ Uranium One Inc.) in the global natural 8 Paladin Energy 2,282 4 uranium market was around 13%. Other 7,906 15 In Russia, ARMZ Uranium Holding ran Total: 53,494 100 uranium mining operations at the following three key deposits in 2011: – Priargunskoye (PIMCU, Krasnokamensk, Transbaikal Krai), – Dalmatovskoye (Dalur, village of Uk- syan skoye, Kurgan Region), – Khiagdinskoye (Khiagda, village of Bag- darin, Republic of Buryatia).

10 Table 1.4. ARMZ Uranium Holding’s structure and total shares in the authorized capitals of uranium mining enterprises and companies.

Atomredmetzoloto Shares controlled via Uranium In operation New projects One Inc. (51.42%) Armenian-Russian Mining Co. PIMCU: 79.63% Betpak Dala (Kazakhstan): 70% (Armenia): 50% SWA Uranium Mines Ltd. (Namibia): Dalur: 98.89% Zarechnoye (Kazakhstan): 49.67% 12.5% Khiagda: 100% CAUC (Mongolia): 21% Akbastau (Kazakhstan): 50% Elkon MMP:100% Karatau (Kazakhstan): 50% OMCC: 100% Kyzylkum (Kazakhstan): 30% Honeymoon Uranium Project GUMC: 100% (Australia): 51% Uranium One Inc. (United States): Lunnoe: 50.03% 100% Mantra Resources Ltd. (Australia): 100%

PIMCU carries out underground uranium 266.4 tons. Rosatom plans to further increase mining at four operating mines: No. 1, No. 2, extraction and production of uranium at this Glubokiy, and Mine 6R. The ore is processed deposit in the future. at a hydrometallurgical plant and a heap In the past five years, ARMZ Uranium leaching unit. The enterprise’s end product Holding has essentially had the same – in fact, is triuranium octoxide (U3O8). PIMCO’s rather decreased – production output from production output has seen a decline in the mines it operates in Russia (see Table 1.5). the past several years, as a significant On the whole, in 2011, ARMZ produced portion of high-grade uranium ores in the 7,088 tons of uranium. The holding’s plan deposit has already been extracted. In to boost production includes obtaining order to increase productivity, plans have in 2012 a license to explore and develop been made to continue construction of the Khokhlovskoye deposit. Additionally, Mine No. 8 and complete designing works plans are in motion to continue geological for the construction of Mine No. 6 in 2012. exploration at the Khiagdinskoye ore Rosatom’s hope is to maintain output field and the Lunnoe deposit. ARMZ volumes at this enterprise at a level of no less is also pursuing ambitious plans to than 2,000 tons a year in the future. conduct geological exploration at the Dalur carries out uranium production by deposits developed by Uranium One Inc. in-situ leaching (ISL) at the Dalmatovskoye in Kazakhstan, Africa, the United States, and deposit and currently continues pilot Australia. development at the Khokhlovskoye deposit. The enterprise’s end product is natural uranium concentrate (yellowcake). Table 1.5. Uranium production methods and volumes at Russian In 2011, the company started employing an uranium deposits in 2008 to 2011. “intensified” ISL method using an oxidizing 2008 2009 2010 2011 agent (sodium nitrate) at the Dalmatovskoye Enterprise deposit. As for the Khokhlovskoye deposit, (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) PIMCU (underground in 2012, Rosatom planned to obtain an 3,050 3,005 2,920.0 2,191.0 exploration and production license and start mining at four mines) drilling works there with the subsequent Dalur (ISL) 410 463 507.8 535.2 installation of process well equipment. Khiagda (ISL) 61 97 135.1 266.4 Khiagda employs ISL to mine uranium at Total uranium 3,521 3,565 3,562.9 2,992.6 the Khiagdinskoye ore field. The resulting produced: product solutions are processed at a pilot plant into a finished product – natural uranium concentrate (yellowcake). Uranium production volumes at the deposit practically doubled in 2011 over 2010 figures, reaching

11 1.3. Uranium ore extraction uranium produced in the world; 17% was produced using the open pit mining method; and processing technologies 46% was recovered with in-situ leaching; and the remaining 7% was extracted as a Uranium ore production technologies are side product when developing other mineral practically the same in all uranium mining resources. countries. The only differences that exist have to do with the geological conditions of the recovery sites, characteristics of the ores, 1.3.1. Uranium milling etc. The first stage of uranium production After being extracted from its bearing is extracting the ore from the deposit by formation via either underground shafts or either underground or open pit mining. The shallow open pits, uranium ore is delivered particular method is chosen based on the for processing at a mill, where it is crushed depth of the location of the ore bed. The ore into smaller particles and sorted (dressed) is then transported to a processing plant for by concentration. At the second stage, ore beneficiation (sorting) and extraction of the ore is roasted to achieve dehydration, uranium. The processing plant will include the decomposition of organic matter, oxidation milling facility and the leaching operations. of sulfides, decomposition of carbonates, A flow chart of uranium ore processing is removal of arsenic and antimony, etc. presented in Appendix 1.1. Then the third stage follows – leaching the concentrate by solubilizing uranium in a potent acid solution (sulfuric acid) or alkaline solution (sodium carbonate). The uranium- containing leach solution is then separated from the undissolved particles, concentrated, and purified by sorption using ion exchange resins or by solvent extraction using organic solvents. The resulting concentrate, usually

in the form of uranium oxide, U3O8, also called pure yellowcake uranium, is then precipitated from the solution, dried, and placed in steel containers.

1.3.2. In-situ leaching and in place leaching Fig. 1.1. Uranium production flow chart. Two varieties of the solution mining method are in use: in-situ leaching and in place leaching. With in-situ leaching (see Besides the open pit or underground Fig. 1.2), the ore deposit is accessed using a mining methods, with the subsequent system of boreholes arranged in plan view uranium recovery at a uranium mill, in rows, polygonal patterns, or circles. The the method of in-situ leaching (ISL) is at leaching agent (or lixiviant) – acid or alkaline present widely used as well for production solution – is pumped via injection wells into of uranium. In-situ leaching, also called the ore body, and, percolating through the in-situ recovery, or solution mining, implies ore bed, dissolves the desired components. selectively dissolving natural uranium The resulting pregnant leach solution, compounds using a special chemical solution, saturated with uranium compounds, is which is pumped into the rock right where pumped back to the surface via recovery uranium is found within the ore, without wells. extracting the ore from the deposit. The In cases where uranium occurs in resulting solution is then pumped to the monolithic impermeable ore bodies, the surface and delivered for hydrometallurgical deposit is stripped by underground mining processing. This method is considered an excavations (stopes), and isolated ore blocks advanced technology. are broken up by drilling and blasting. In 2011, underground uranium mines accounted for approximately 30% of all the

12 The upper level is then irrigated with the solvent, which, filtering through in a downward direction, dissolves the uranium- bearing ore. At the lower level, the uranium- containing solution is collected and pumped back up for processing.

1.3.3. Heap leaching Heap leaching is used to extract uranium by stacking ore in a “heap” on an impermeable pad and irrigating it with leaching solutions in order to extract uranium. This process includes crushing and then agglomerating the ore, stacking, and irrigating the ore with a leaching solution. After it is crushed, the ore is first sorted by ore fraction, and stacking is done in homogeneous fractions by layers, Fig. 1.2. In-situ leaching using injection and recovery wells. with crush size gradually diminishing from the bottom layer up to the top layer (Fig. 1.3). Heap leaching, just like other mining methods of uranium ore processing, does not require transportation of the extracted ore over large distances. Furthermore, employing the heap leaching method helps reduce the territory occupied by the tailings dumps. The end product of the uranium ore processing stage of the uranium fuel cycle is triuranium octoxide – U3O8 (or yellowcake) – yellow or brown powder that contains some 90% of uranium oxide. Fabrication of this material completes the uranium ore mining and uranium recovery process. Fig. 1.3. Heap leaching of uranium ore. In August 2012, the spot price of U3O8 held at a level of $49 per pound. Table 1.6 shows changes in U3O8 spot prices over the past ten years (with data for each year current as of the beginning of that year).

Table 1.6. Changes in U3O8 spot prices between 2003 and 2012. Year (January records) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

U3O8 spot price (in U.S. dollars per pound) 10.2 15.5 21.0 37.5 75.0 78.0 48.0 42.5 62.0 52.0

1.4. Uranium conversion removing impurities. Uranium refining begins with eliminating impurities that have large and enrichment thermal neutron absorption cross-sections Before yellowcake is converted into (boron, cadmium, hafnium, etc.). Purification uranium hexafluoride, it undergoes refining, and crystallization yield uranium compounds a metallurgical process involving fabrication that are then delivered to a conversion of high-purity uranium by segregating and facility for conversion.

13 1.4.1. Uranium conversion (UO2). Demand for UF6 conversion was approximately 62,000 tons. Uranium conversion is an industrial process of chemical treatment during which natural uranium in the form of powdered 1.4.2. Isotopic enrichment triuranium octoxide (U3O8) is fluorinated to produce uranium tetrafluoride UF4. Uranium Isotopic enrichment is used to increase tetrafluoride is either transported to a the percent composition of U-235, which is conversion facility for further fluorination fissionable by neutrons of any energy, from to uranium hexafluoride (UF6), or to a its natural abundance level of 0.7% (natural metallurgical plant, where it is reduced to uranium) to 2.4% or higher. metal. Depending on the degree of enrichment, Uranium hexafluoride (hex) has certain there are three grades of enriched uranium. physical properties that are very important 1. Slightly enriched uranium (SEU) has a for the enrichment technology. It can be U-235 concentration within the range of 0.7% in solid, liquid, or gaseous state. In its solid to 2%. Uranium extracted from spent nuclear phase, hex looks like ivory-colored crystals fuel (SNF) also falls into this category. Global with a density of 5.09 g/cm3. In liquid state, its demand for this material is not significant density is 3.63 g/cm3. Uranium hexafluoride since it is mainly used in heavy water reactors can sublime and turn into gas, bypassing the such as the CANDU series. One such reactor liquid phase, within a rather wide pressure requires around 20 tons of slightly enriched range. The reverse process – condensing uranium a year. Therefore, around 1,000 uranium hexafluoride back from gas into tons of uranium will be needed for 46 solid crystals – requires some heat removal CANDU reactors a year – whereas total global with the temperature and pressure kept at capacity for fuel fabrication from slightly appropriate levels. Thus, gaseous uranium enriched uranium for pressurized heavy hexafluoride can be easily condensed by water reactors (PHWR), including the CANDU turning it into a solid phase. Applying heat in reactors, was, as of the end of 2011, around a vacuum achieves the goal of processing the 4,000 tons of uranium per year. solid product back into a gaseous phase. 2. Low-enriched uranium (LEU) has a In Russia, uranium conversion and U-235 concentration of less than 20%. This uranium hexafluoride production facilities is the most common grade of enriched are located in Seversk (Siberian Chemical uranium since it is used in the nuclear energy Combine), Angarsk (Angarsk Electrolysis industry for the fabrication of fuel for light Chemical Combine), Novouralsk (Urals water reactors, as well as research reactors of Electrochemical Combine), and Zelenogorsk various purposes. Fuel for power-generating of Krasnoyarsk Region (Production reactors of the VVER type has an enrichment Association Electrochemical Plant). These degree of 3% to 8%. Research reactor fuel, as facilities’ total combined output reaches a rule, is enriched to between 12% and 19%. around 20,000 to 30,000 tons of uranium As of the end of 2011, global capacity for the hexafluoride per year. In September 2011, fabrication of uranium fuel from LEU for light Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko announced water reactors (LWR) totaled around 13,000 that starting in 2012, all uranium conversion tons of uranium per year. operations would be transferred to the 3. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a Siberian Chemical Combine. Implementing greater than 20% concentration of U-235. this move will cost over RUR 7 billion in state Uranium enriched to a level within the corporation funds alone. The time frame has range of 20% to 85% has a status of uranium been set at no more than two or three years, suitable for application in weapons, although with the transfer scheduled for completion in practical terms, using it for fabrication of before 2015. On December 20, 2011, the an atomic bomb is a significant challenge. Siberian Chemical Combine’s conversion The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima plant launched the first line of the uranium contained some 60 kg of uranium with an oxide “dry” hydrofluorination facility. average enrichment level of 80%. Uranium hexafluoride makes for a very Highly enriched uranium that is currently practical uranium compound to use for its classified as weapons-grade contains 85% further isotopic enrichment. As of June 2012, of U-235, or more. HEU with an enrichment total global conversion capacity was around level of up to 85% is furthermore used to 76,100 tons of natural uranium a year for produce fuel for fast neutron or intermediate uranium hexafluoride (UF6), and 4,500 tons neutron reactors of various purposes – of natural uranium a year for uranium dioxide mostly, research and propulsion reactors.

14 1.4.2.1. Enrichment technologies capacity of 3 million to 6 million separative work units (SWU). The SILEX technology is The following technologies have been believed to be able to significantly reduce the develop ed for uranium enrichment: gas cen- price of fuel for commercial reactors. General tri fu gation, gaseous diffusion, laser sepa- Electric is planning soon to start construction ration, electromagnetic separation, liquid of the new, SILEX-based uranium enrichment thermal diffusion, aerodynamic separation, facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. and several other techniques. However, this technology is not without Gaseous diffusion is currently only used in its problems – namely, that both the lasers, France and, to an extent, in the United States. which are openly available for purchase, A general trend in the enrichment capacity and the technology itself allow for much less development is a transition from gaseous sophisticated operation than centrifuges. diffusion to centrifugation. This transition is Where it took Pakistan and India decades expected to be completed by 2020. to develop their A-bombs – and even the The gas centrifuge technology employs USSR, with its history of extreme efficiency- a large number of spinning cylinders in boosting methods used in the push to series and parallel formations. Uranium expedite the development of the nuclear hexafluoride (UF6) gas is placed under high complex, spent several years on the effort – vacuum into a cylinder that rotates at a the new technology seems to be offering a high speed. This rotation creates a great much speedier process. A mere few years centrifugal force, which pushes the heavier is all that may now be required for even gas molecules containing U-238 toward the a not-so-developed nation to cover the outside of the cylinder, while the lighter distance between commissioning a laser gas molecules, which contain U-235, gather separation uranium enrichment facility and closer to the center. The flow of uranium producing a gun-type uranium bomb (or even hexafluoride with a slightly enriched U-235 an implosive-type plutonium bomb). The content then passes into the next higher meager land area that such a facility needs to stage, while the slightly depleted stream is occupy – several times less than centrifuge- recycled back into the next lower stage. based plants, according to estimates – will The gaseous diffusion and gas make it possible to enrich uranium at a site centrifugation uranium enrichment methods of quite compact proportions, thus hindering that are currently in application were any detection efforts. Furthermore, experts developed in the 1940s and are complex and point out, many countries have a cadre expensive. of laser experts who could work on the Recent years have seen efforts being technology, but that expertise does not exist actively directed toward perfecting laser for centrifuges, which are a bit “esoteric.” enrichment techniques. As early as the Waste resulting from the enrichment beginning of the 1990s, an Australian process commonly contains some 0.25% company called Separation of Isotopes to 0.4% of U-235, since extracting all of the by Laser Excitation (SILEX) developed an isotope content from uranium hexafluoride enrichment technology involving laser is not economically cost-efficient (it is excitation of UF6 molecules. Under the cheaper to buy greater quantities of the process, U-235 is charged with greater energy source material). The depleted uranium that than U-238 and can be separated from the is generated in large volumes at uranium latter in a much easier and more efficient way separation facilities finds little application than what is afforded by the technologies in in today’s industry, with only 5% of all the use today. Several such chambers are capable depleted uranium generated in the world of replacing thousands of centrifuges. The being currently put to commercial use.

SILEX technique thus promises to be much After enrichment, the UF6 stream that now cheaper than either gaseous diffusion or gas has a higher U-235 isotope concentration centrifuging. is hydrolyzed and precipitated, and the In late 2011, General Electric (GE) precipitate is calcined or else is converted by completed its work on the SILEX enrichment pyrohydrolysis and H2 reduction to uranium technology with a large-scale test running dioxide (UO2), or processed into uranium of the new enrichment equipment. The U.S. metal. The finished product is then used to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has manufacture fuel for production reactors, issued a favorable decision on a licensing power reactors, or propulsion reactors, or application by a GE-Hitachi partnership for to produce nuclear components for atomic a projected laser enrichment plant with a weapons.

15 Production of 1 kg of low-enriched 1.4.2.2. Uranium uranium (up to 4% in U-235 concentration) requires 7.5 kg of natural uranium and enrichment facilities 6.5 SWU. This also means that 0.2% of U-235 The very first uranium enrichment plants will remain in so-called “tailings.” Fabrication were built in order to produce weapons- of 1 kg of weapons-grade uranium (with grade uranium for military purposes, and the U-235 content enriched to up to 93%) first reactors, in order to produce plutonium requires 230 kg of natural uranium and 200 for use in nuclear arms. Today, production of SWU. The “tailings” will then contain 0.3% of enriched uranium for civilian (commercial) U-235. purposes exceeds significantly the output of

Table 1.7. Uranium enrichment facilities worldwide, as of 2012.

Method Safeguard Capacity, thousand Country Facility Type Operational status used* status SWU per year Argentina Pilcaniyeu Civilian Resuming operations GD Yes 20-3,000 Brazil Resende Civilian Being commissioned GC Yes 115-200 Shaanxi Civilian Operating GC (Yes) 1,000 China Lanzhou II Civilian Operating GC Offered 500 Lanzhou (new) Civilian Operating GC No 500 Georges Besse I Civilian Shut down GD Yes [was 10,800] France Georges Besse II Civilian Operating GC Yes 7,500-11,000 Germany Gronau Civilian Operating GC Yes 2,200-4,500 India Ratehalli Military Operating GC No 15-30 Natanz Civilian Under construction GC Yes 120 Iran Qom Civilian Under construction GC Yes 5-10 Japan Rokkasho Civilian Shut down GC Yes [was 1,050] Netherlands Almelo Civilian Operating GC Yes 5,000-6,000 North Korea Yongbyon ? ? GC No (8) Kahuta Military Operating GC No 15-45 Pakistan Gadwal Military Operating GC No ? Angarsk, AECC Civilian Operating GC No 2,200-5,000 Novouralsk Civilian Operating GC No 13,300 (Sverdlovsk-44), UEC Russia Zelenogorsk Civilian Operating GC No 7,900 (Krasnoyarsk-45), PA EP Seversk (Tomsk-7), SCC Civilian Operating GC No 3,800 Great Britain Capenhurst Civilian Operating GC Yes 5,000 Paducah, KY Civilian Scheduled for shutdown GD Offered 11,300 Piketon, OH Civilian Under construction GC Offered 3,800 United States Eunice, NM Civilian Operating GC Offered 5,900 Eagle Rock, ID Civilian Planned GD (Offered) 3,300-6,600 Wilmington, NC Civilian Planned LS ? 3,500-6,000

* GC: Gas centrifugation; GD: gaseous diffusion; LS: Laser separation.

Sources: International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM); the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI); IAEA – Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System, NFCIS.

16 weapons-grade nuclear components. The downblending of ex-weapons uranium for main signatory nations of the Treaty on the sale to the United States. Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) A considerable portion of the capacities have ceased production of weapons-grade in use at both sites – on the order of enriched uranium and plutonium for use in 7 million SWU per year – is employed in the nuclear weapons. In expert assessments, enrichment of depleted uranium (uranium India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea “tailings”); remain the only countries that continue Seversk. Location: Tomsk Region. The to manufacture nuclear components for Seversk facility is part of the Siberian weapons. Chemical Combine. SCC’s core production The United States is planning by 2020 facilities are its four nuclear materials to create three new uranium enrichment processing sites: the isotope separation facilities. Currently, almost all of the uranium facility, the uranium conversion plant, and the used in commercial reactors in the Unites radiochemical and chemical and metallurgical States is imported uranium – with about plants. Seversk’s main production output is 40% of this material supplied out of Russia’s enriched (5%) uranium hexafluoride, uranium blended-down weapons-grade uranium. hexafluoride prepared for enrichment, and related uranium enrichment, conversion, and refining services. The facility’s capacity is 1.4.2.3. Russia’s uranium approximately 4 million SWU per year; Angarsk (Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical enrichment and gas centrifugation Combine). Location: Irkutsk Region. AECC’s complexes capacity is approximately 3 million SWU per year; out of the three Siberian plants, Uranium conversion and enrichment in this is the smallest. The combine’s core Russia is done at four enterprises run by the activities are production of low-enriched State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom’s uranium hexafluoride, production of uranium fuel production company, TVEL. hexafluoride, services offering conversion of

Novouralsk. Location: Sverdlovsk Region. U3O8 to uranium hexafluoride, conversion The Novouralsk site is part of the Urals of uranium tetrafluoride to uranium Electrochemical Combine and is Russia’s hexafluoride, and uranium hexafluoride largest enrichment facility (around 14 million enrichment out of the source material SWU per year). Since 2003, eighth- and provided by the customer. ninth-generation centrifuges have been in In Angarsk, an International Uranium operation at the plant. The facility can enrich Enrichment Center (IUEC) has been opened uranium to 80% U-235 (for research purposes at the AECC site. Two projects are being as well as propulsion and fast neutron developed to boost the plant’s output to reactors); other facilities in the country only 5 million SWU per year, and, by 2015, further enrich uranium to between 7% and 20% to nearly 10 million SWU per year. U-235; TVEL Fuel Company is the supplier that Zelenogorsk (Production Association provides the above-mentioned facilities Electrochemical Plant). Location: Krasnoyarsk with uranium enrichment equipment, Region. The facility’s production output is including gas centrifuges. The company’s around 8 million SWU per year. Some of gas centrifuge manufacturing complex Zelenogorsk’s capacity, about 4.75 million includes the following enterprises: Vladimir SWU per year, is taken up with re-enrichment Production Association Tochmash, Kovrov of uranium “tailings” to provide 1.5% Mechanical Plant, Urals Gas Centrifuge enriched material for downblending Russian Plant, and Novouralsk Instrumentation Plant highly enriched uranium destined for the Uralpribor. United States. This plant is also the site for

17 1.4.3. Global uranium and the United States. Israel and North Korea are suspected to have their own enrichment enrichment market programs as well. Currently, the following countries have In 2011, the global uranium enrichment uranium isotopic enrichment technologies services market was between 47 million at their disposal: Argentina, Brazil, China, and 48 million SWU per year, whereas France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the the total global enrichment capacity was Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, Great Britain, approximately 60 million SWU per year.

Table 1.8. World enrichment capacity, operational and planned (thousand SWU per year).

Country Companies and facilities 2010 2015 2020 France Areva, Georges Besse I & II 8,500 7,000 7,500 Germany, the Netherlands, URENCO: Gronau, Germany; Almelo, 12,800 12,800 12,300 Great Britain Netherlands; Capenhurst, UK Japan JNFL, Rokkasho 150 750 1,500 United States USEC, Paducah & Piketon 11,300 3,800 3,800 United States URENCO, New Mexico 200 5,800 5,900 United States Areva, Eagle Rock 0 0 3,300 United States Global Laser Enrichment 0 2,000 3,500 TENEX: Angarsk, Novouralsk, Zelenogorsk, Russia 23,000 33,000 30,000-35,000 Seversk China CNNC, Hanzhun & Lanzhou 1,300 3,000 6,000-8,000 Pakistan, Brazil, Iran Various 100 300 300 Total SWU (approximately) 57,350 68,450 74,100-81,100 Requirements (WNA reference scenario) 48,890 56,000 66,535

Source: WNA Market Report 2009; WNA Fuel Cycle: Enrichment plenary session WNFC April 2011.

1.4.3.1. Global uranium enrichment capacities, and by 2015 is planning to reach an output level of 18 million SWU per year. services suppliers AREVA has a 19% share in the world The main providers of uranium enrichment market. The company has an enrichment services in the world are Russia’s enrichment facility called Georges Besse I TVEL Fuel Company and Techsnabexport with an installed capacity of 10.8 million (TENEX), the British-Dutch-German concern SWU per year and a now obsolete gaseous URENCO, France’s AREVA, and USEC in the diffusion technology. AREVA now operates United States. These companies together a new uranium enrichment facility, Georges control some 95% of the market. Besse II, with a capacity of 7.5 million SWU per year, which enriches uranium via gas URENCO, with a market share of 20%, is centrifugation. The new plant is slated to the largest supplier of enrichment services reach full capacity by end 2016. in the Western world and the most efficient USEC (United States Enrichment enrichment provider among TVEL Fuel Corporation) accounts for 11% of the Company’s foreign competitors. enrichment market. USEC currently operates As of end 2011, the company’s total a gaseous diffusion facility in Paducah, installed capacity was around 14.6 million Kentucky. The Paducah facility is owned by SWU per year. URENCO currently operates the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which three enrichment plants in Europe: Almelo in leases it to USEC for commercial enrichment the Netherlands, Capenhurst in the UK, and operations. The plant’s installed capacity is Gronau in Germany. A U.S.-based enterprise 8 million SWU per year. of URENCO’s, an enrichment facility operated USEC also acts as the executive agent by Louisiana Energy Services (LES)/URENCO of the United States government in the USA, went online in 2010. URENCO is Megatons to Megawatts program. A core steadily building up its uranium enrichment project of USEC’s is construction of a gas

18 centrifugation plant in the U.S. – American In December 2010, the IAEA Board of Centrifuge Plant (АСР). This facility’s Governors authorized the establishment of projected capacity is 3.8 million SWU per an IAEA low-enriched uranium bank that will year. be owned and managed by the IAEA, and The dual – civilian and military – purpose which will assure a supply of LEU for power for which enrichment technologies can be generation. At the end of 2010, Rosatom used is a factor that restricts entrance on the completed stocking the planned 120-ton LEU enrichment market for new major players. reserve in Angarsk, which was placed under IAEA safeguards. As per its main objective, the IUEC stores, maintains, and sells low- 1.4.4. The International Uranium enriched uranium out of the guaranteed reserve. Enrichment Center Plans and prospects. Experts noted no significant growth in uranium production The concept of an International Uranium volumes worldwide in 2011. A maximum Enrichment Center and a Fuel Bank was possible increase probably did not exceed suggested by Russia in 2006. In 2007, the 5% over 2010 figures. Before the Fukushima IAEA agreed to put together a working disaster, the spot price of uranium was group and further develop the proposal. $160 per 1 kg of U3O8. It dropped to $132 September 2007 saw the establishment of a following the disaster, but demand held at new joint enterprise, Angarsk International the same level. At the end of 2010, Rosatom Uranium Enrichment Center, which served announced it had secured $20 billion worth as a foundation for the future IUEC and the of international contracts for export delivery Fuel Bank. Kazakhstan joined the IUEC the of nuclear fuel and uranium enrichment same year. Negotiations have been held on services. possible participation in the project with Ukraine, Armenia, South Korea, Finland, Belgium, and Mongolia. Russia has also invited India to join the project, to provide nuclear fuel supplies to India’s Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. The IUEC’s objective is to deliver low-enriched uranium for power reactors of new nuclear states and nations with small-scale nuclear programs, which will give them equity in the project but will not allow access to the enrichment technology. Russia, which owns 80% in the IUEC, remains the project’s majority shareholder. The IUEC is expected both to sell uranium enrichment services (SWU) and enriched uranium products. Issues of the IAEA’s involvement in the project were settled in 2009. The United States has also expressed its approval of the IUEC project in Angarsk. In 2010, Armenia Fig. 1.4. International Uranium Enrichment Center’s storage facility at and Ukraine joined Kazakhstan and Russia in Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Combine. the project and became IUEC members.

19 CHAPTER 2. URANIUM OXIDE NUCLEAR FUEL

2.1. Terms and descriptions as isotopes of U-233, which are produced by neutron irradiation of Th-232. Nuclear fuel will be used here to refer to According to its chemical composition, two mutually related concepts: nuclear fuel can be metal (including alloyed – fissionable material (nuclides), which fuels), oxide fuel – with uranium used in is capable of sustaining a chain reaction various chemical compounds that remain of nuclear fission and is used as a source of stable under reactor conditions (oxides, energy in a nuclear reactor; carbides, nitrides, etc.) – and mixed oxide

– physical objects, such as fuel assem- fuel, or MOX (PuO2 + UO2). blies, that are composed of fissionable Metal nuclear fuel is used as fuel in gas- material as well as structural and neutron cooled graphite-moderated reactors (the GCR moderating materials and are loaded into a type). Uranium oxide fuel is fuel composed of reactor to produce energy. uranium dioxide with U-235 content enriched Depending on their chemical composition, to 1.8% to 4% or more and sintered, under the following types of nuclear fuel are high pressure and temperature, into pellets. distinguished: metal fuels (including alloys), Uranium oxide fuel is used primarily in PWR, uranium oxide, uranium carbide, and BWR, PHWR, LWGR (RBMK and EGP-6), and uranium nitride (mononitride) fuels, and AGR reactors. other types. Uranium oxide fuel is currently the most common type used in power reactors. The nitride (mononitride) fuel can 2.1.1. Certain physical, chemical, be based on either a uranium nitride (UN) or uranium-plutonium (UPuN) compounds. The and technological properties latter, for instance, is planned to be used in of nuclear fuels the lead-cooled reactors of the BREST series. As a rule, nuclear fuel is a combination Uranium (and plutonium) in its pure of fissile material, which contains nuclei form (as metal) is rarely used as a nuclear fissionable with thermal neutrons, and fertile fuel owing to its low melting point, chemical material – nuclei that are capable, as a result reactivity, low resistance to corrosion, high of neutron bombardment, of producing specific energy release, and other reasons. other, non-naturally-occurring (artificial) At a temperature of 660 °C, uranium metal fissile nuclides (such as Pu-239, U-233, etc.). undergoes a phase change – a transition Nuclear fuel is fabricated (manufactured) that changes uranium’s crystal structure using two types of material: and is accompanied by an increase in – natural uranium fuel, which contains volume. Under prolonged irradiation fissile nuclei of U-235, as well as the fertile within a temperature range of 200-500 °C, material U-238, which is capable of producing radiation-induced expansion may occur: Pu-239 on neutron capture; The irradiated uranium fuel rod expands – secondary material, which does not in length. As it fissions, a nucleus produces occur in nature. two fission fragments whose combined Secondary nuclear fuel includes Pu-239, volume is greater than that of the uranium produced from natural uranium fuel in a (plutonium) atom. Some of the atoms – reactor on neutron capture by U-238, as well fission fragments – are fission-product gases

20 (krypton, xenon, and others) that accumulate point of view of the risks of proliferation of in bubble-like pores in the uranium fuel, plutonium from PWR (VVER) reactors, fuel resulting in internal pressure. That, in turn, based on recycled uranium is considered the leads to fuel swelling, a process depending safest, and the highest risk is associated with on the degree of burnup and temperature fuel manufactured from natural uranium. of the fuel rods. All this can cause damage Nuclear fuel must contain the lowest to fuel cladding. Furthermore, using metallic possible amount of nuclides with a high uranium as nuclear fuel in power reactors is a neutron absorption capacity and that limiting factor for burnup, which is one of the are incapable of fissioning (so-called more important characteristics of reactors nuclear poisons). Nuclear fuel must also operating at nuclear power plants. This is why be compatible with the cladding of the uranium metal is only used as fuel today in nuclear fuel rods and have high melting gas-cooled graphite-moderated reactors that and vaporization points, and high thermal serve as plutonium production reactors, since conductivity. Other requirements are burnup needs to be minimal for the purpose weak interaction with the coolant, minimal of producing high-grade plutonium. cracking or increase in volume due to Two types of uranium are used to irradiation (radiation-induced swelling), as manufacture nuclear fuel: Uranium produced well as good manufacturability properties and enriched from uranium ore, and uranium with regard to both fresh fuel fabrication and separated from spent nuclear fuel as a result SNF reprocessing. of SNF reprocessing – or recycled uranium. Certain high-melting uranium compounds Natural and recycled uranium are different (oxides, carbides, and intermetallic in their isotopic compositions to begin with, compounds) make for good material for and different as well when the SNF cooling fabrication of nuclear fuel. The fuel that period is taken into account. When using has come to be used most commonly in the recycled uranium – in contrast to natural industry is ceramic uranium dioxide (UO2). It uranium – one principal difference is especially has a melting point of 2800 °C, and its density important from the point of view of nuclear is 10.2 g/сm3. Uranium dioxide fuel has no non-proliferation: Uranium separated from phase transitions and is less susceptible SNF contains around 0.5% of the isotope to fuel swelling than uranium alloys. This U-236, which, when used as part of fresh fuel, helps achieve a higher burnup by several leads to increased generation of Pu-238, and percent. At high temperatures, uranium this results in a lower quality of reactor-grade dioxide does not interact with zirconium, plutonium. On the one hand, this could be niobium, stainless steel, or other materials viewed as a downside, but in the context of the used in the fabrication of fuel rods. The problem of non-proliferation, this is a positive main disadvantage of using ceramic uranium factor. Besides, the presence of U-236 inhibits dioxide is its low thermal conductivity, at the multiplying properties of the nuclear fuel – 4.5 kJ/(m⋅K), which limits reactor power in other words, lowers its quality. density because of the possible excessive Uranium recovered from SNF generated local heat and melting of the fuel rod. in PWR (VVER) reactors contains 1% of the Besides, when heated, ceramic fuel is quite isotope U-235, which is why it can be re- brittle and prone to cracking. enriched and used in PWR (VVER) reactors, Good thermal conductivity and or diluted with depleted uranium and used mechanical properties have been observed in in heavy-water reactors. With re-enrichment, dispersion fuels – fuels where small particles

1 kg of reprocessed uranium yields only of UO2, UC, PuO2, and other uranium and 0.2 kg of uranium enriched to 4.1% of U-235. plutonium compounds are heterogeneously Therefore, even if all fuel that is burnt in embedded in a metal matrix made of commercial nuclear reactors were to undergo aluminum, molybdenum, or stainless steel. reprocessing, the resulting recycled uranium The material of the matrix determines the would only yield 20% of fresh fuel, and the fuel’s resistance to radiation damage and its other 80% would have to be produced from thermal conductivity. natural uranium. The types of fuel deemed optimal for Nuclear fuel can also be manufactured liquid metal cooled reactors are uranium from a blend of reprocessed uranium and nitride and mixed plutonium-uranium oxide uranium produced from natural uranium. In fuels. The possibility of using a U-Pu-Zr alloy this case, the mix containing 4.1% of U-235, as metal fuel is also being researched, among 0.31% of U-236, and 95.59% of U-238 can other options. be used to produce nuclear fuel for all types Fuel contained in fuel rods is, as a rule, of PWR (VVER) reactors. However, from the homogeneous. Dispersion, or matrix, fuels

21 are sometimes used, where fuel particles stand-alone storage facilities located on (more often, ceramic) are embedded into a NPP premises, nuclear fuel storage facilities matrix made of an inert (non-fissile) diluent located outside NPP sites, research reactors, material that has shown good nuclear and and onshore and floating storage facilities mechanical properties and an acceptable accommodating nuclear fuel used on ships level of thermal conductivity. and other watercraft. Each nuclear power plant uses a special system for transportation and storage of 2.2. Nuclear fuel handling fresh nuclear fuel. The main operations that are performed with fresh fuel at a nuclear Fresh fuel arrives at a nuclear power power plant are receipt, storage, preparation plant in the form of nuclear fuel assemblies. for loading, and loading of fresh fuel into These assemblies are transported in special the reactor. Upon delivery in railroad cars, containers developed to IAEA standards containers with fresh fuel assemblies are specifically for the delivery of fuel assemblies unloaded into the NPP’s fresh fuel area, from the manufacturer to NPPs. Natural where the assemblies are removed from their radioactivity of fresh fuel in fuel assemblies transport containers and placed in special is quite low; practically no human exposure packing sets for fresh fuel. nor any significant area contamination occurs As per their current characteristics, even in case of a transportation accident. fresh fuel areas at nuclear power plants are In Russia, the guidelines currently in classified as Class 3 storage facilities. Fresh use – the Rules of Safety During Storage and fuel areas are equipped with an emergency Transportation Of Nuclear Fuel At Sites Of pump-out pump and a sump water level Application Of Nuclear Energy (NP-061-05), alarm, an alarm system to detect and alert which came into effect on May 1, 2006 – in case of a spontaneous chain reaction, apply to nuclear power plants, including security and fire alarms, and ventilation and stand-by lighting systems. Fresh fuel assemblies are delivered to the reactor building in packing sets transported on a special interbuilding platform.

2.2.1.Fabrication of nuclear oxide fuel

At nuclear fuel fabrication sites, the process of preparing uranium for the manufacturing of nuclear oxide fuel takes

place in two stages: production of UF6 and conversion of UF6 or UO3 into UO2. Nuclear oxide fuel fabrication is a process

in which uranium dioxide (UO2) is used to manufacture fuel pellets (Fig. 2.1), which are Fig. 2.1. A uranium fuel pellet. then used to make nuclear fuel rods (Fig. 2.2).

Following conversion, the UO2 concentrate or powder needs to undergo several more treatments before it can be processed into fuel pellets. These include homogenization,

during which the UO2 is mixed to ensure uniformity; blending, where, to aid final pellet

structure and density, some recycled U3O8 may be added to the mix; and granulation, during which the powder is “slugged” (pressed into a coin shape a few centimeters across) and then granulated (passed through a screen) to obtain the desired particle size and flowability characteristics. Burnable poisons may be incorporated Fig. 2.2. A VVER-1000 fuel assembly. into the fuel at this stage to compensate for

22 the build-up of neutron absorbers among of energy generation (i.e., the quantity of fission products. Burnable poisons are enriched uranium needed to produce the materials such as gadolinium and erbium that desired amount of energy). have a high neutron absorption cross-section In 2011, the nuclear fuel market totaled and which are converted into materials of around 12,000 tons of heavy metal (tHM). lower absorption cross-section by neutron Yearly demand for fuel fabrication services irradiation. They enable much longer fuel for LWR reactors is 7,000 tHM. In WNA life without compromising safety by allowing estimates, by 2015, demand for nuclear fuel higher fuel enrichment without excessive for light water reactors is expected to grow initial reactivity and heat in the core. to 9,700 tHM. Demand for fuel fabrication Incorporation of beryllium oxide (BeO) for heavy water reactors such as CANDU into the fuel can improve its thermal reactors is today 3,000 tHM per year. Overall, conductivity and hence durability, since UO2 demand for nuclear fuel fabrication services has relatively poor conductivity. may grow, if nuclear generation shows a In order to maximize the efficiency of the corresponding growth. fission reaction, fuel cladding and all other New fuel fabrication facilities are structural parts of the assembly must be as planned in China, South Korea, Ukraine, and transparent as possible to neutrons. Different Kazakhstan. In Kazakhstan, a new facility forms of zirconium alloy, or zircaloy, are the with a projected capacity of 400 tons of main materials used for cladding. This zircaloy enriched uranium per year is being built includes small amounts of tin, niobium, jointly by Areva and Kazatomprom. The plant iron, chromium and nickel. Hafnium, which is slated to come online in 2014. In 2010, typically occurs naturally with zirconium three deconversion facilities were taken deposits, needs to be removed because of its online: two in the United States (Paducah, high neutron absorption cross-section. Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio), and one in Pellets manufactured out of enriched Russia (Zelenogorsk, Krasnoyarsk Region). In uranium are fabricated by cold pressing and 2010, total global deconversion capacity was sintering. They are then stacked in a column 60,000 tons per year. inside a thin-walled tube (fuel cladding) Nuclear reactor vendors are the main manufactured from such materials as a customers of fuel fabrication services since zirconium alloy or stainless steel. These fuel these are the companies that supply nuclear rods are then bundled into fuel assemblies power plant fuel for both the initial and (see Appendices 2.1, 2.2). Helium is used to subsequent loads. fill the fuel cladding gap in order to increase In the European Union, a rule is in effect the conduction of heat from the pellets to the that stipulates that every nuclear power plant cladding, and the fuel rods are sealed at each is to have at least two nuclear fuel suppliers. end. The fuel rods are kept in place inside a In line with this regulation, the U.S.-Japanese bundle by grids spaced at certain intervals Toshiba-Westinghouse has developed the along the assembly’s length. This affords production of fuel for reactors of the VVER the entire structure a degree of flexibility and RBMK types and is supplying limited by compensating for changes in size and shipments of fuel assemblies to Finland, the allowing the coolant to circulate freely along Czech Republic, and Ukraine. Previously, the fuel rods. only Russian-produced fuel was used in all reactors of Russian design. 2.3. Uranium oxide fuel fabrication worldwide Table 2.1. Nuclear fuel fabrication cost structure. Process NEI Estimate UxC Estimate Fabrication of nuclear fuel accounts Uranium production 58% 47% for no more than 8% of the final fuel cost, Uranium enrichment 31% 36% which determines nuclear power plants’ low Fabrication 7% 8% sensitivity to the fuel price. On the nuclear fuel fabrication market, Conversion 4% 4% nuclear fuel is traded in fuel assemblies. The Spent fuel disposal - 5% particular fuel assembly design is commonly approved by the national regulator and Sources: Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 2007 (TradeTech, 2009), must meet specifications for use in the UxConsulting Company (UxC), 2009. corresponding reactor model. Various fuel assembly designs differ in terms of efficiency

23 The global nuclear generation market has Russia’s TVEL, these two represent the main recently seen a consolidation of forces, with competition on the global market. A lesser four fuel fabrication giants now representing rival is Hitachi General Electric. Additionally, the industry that supplies fuel assemblies the following companies are present in the for PWR and VVER reactors, the backbone of market, producers that manufacture nuclear today’s nuclear power generation capacity. fuel exclusively for their respective country’s These four major market players – Toshiba- domestic needs: Westinghouse, AREVA NP-MHI, TVEL Fuel – Industrias Nucleares do Brasil, INB Company, and Hitachi General Electric – (Brazil), together meet 85% of fuel demand. – CNNC (China), The top two contenders for market – Nuclear Fuel Industries, NFI (Japan), domination are the U.S.-Japanese Toshiba- – KNFC (South Korea), Westinghouse and the French-Japanese – Nuclear Fuel Complex, NFC (India). Mitsubishi Heavy Industries-Areva. For

Table 2.2. LWR fuel fabrication capacity worldwide, in tHM per year (current as of September 2011).*

Pelletizing/ Fuel assembly Country Producer Location Conversion granulation bundling Belgium AREVA NP FBFC Dessel 0 700 700 Brazil INB Resende 160 160 280 China CNNC Yibin 400 400 450 France AREVA NP FBFC Romans 1,800 1,400 1,400 Germany AREVA NP ANF Lingen 800 650 650 India DAE Nuclear Fuel Complex Hyderabad 48 48 48 NFI (BWR) Kumatori 0 360 284 NFI (PWR) Tokai Mura 0 250 250 Japan Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel Tokai Mura 475 440 440 GNF J Kurihama 0 750 750 Kazakhstan ULBA Ust-Kamenogorsk 2,000 2,000 0 South Korea KNFC Daejeon 600 600 600 Mashinostroitelny Zavod (MSZ) Electrostal 1,450 1,200 120 Russia NCCP Novosibirsk 250 200 400 Spain ENUSA Juzbado 0 300 300 Sweden Westinghouse AB Västeras 600 600 600 Great Britain Westinghouse Springfields 950 600 860 AREVA Inc. Richland 1,200 1,200 1,200 United States Global NF Wilmington 1,200 1,500 750 Westinghouse Columbia 1,500 1,500 1,500 Total: 13,433 14,858 11,582

* 1) Data on fuel fabrication capacity in Kazakhstan may be inaccurate since Kazakhstan’s fuel fabrication capacity has never been utilized in full. In UxC estimates, Kazakhstan’s fuel fabrication industry produces 300 tHM per year, or only 15% of the stated 2,000 tHM per year; 2) Light water reactors account for 86% of the global nuclear reactor fleet (numbering a total of 376 reactors).

24 Table 2.3. Heavy water reactor fuel fabrication capacity worldwide, in tHM per year (current as of September 2011).

Country Producer Location Fuel assembly bundling Argentina DIOXITEK SA & ENACE Cordoba & Eizeiza 160 Cameco 1,500 Canada GE 1,200 China CNNC Baotou 200 India DAE Nuclear Fuel Complex Hyderabad 435 Pakistan PAEC Chasma 20 South Korea KEPCO Taejon 400 Romania SNN Pitesti 240 Total: 4,155

Fig. 2.3. Nuclear fuel manufacturing facilities in Europe and the United States.

25 Table 2.4. AREVA Group’s fuel fabrication enterprises. water reactors (PWR, BWR, and VVER). The United States and Western Europe are Capacity* WEC’s major sales regions, but the company Powder/Pellets/ is actively seeking ways to enter and gain Enterprise Operator Fuel assemblies Fuel type a foothold in the VVER fuel segment – the (in metric tons of uranium per year) markets in Slovakia (VVER-440) and Ukraine (VVER-1000) – and is the main competition Romans, France AREVA NP-FBFC 1,800/1,400/400 PWR for Russia’s TVEL. WEC is headquartered Dessel, Belgium AREVA NP-FBFC 0/700/700 PWR in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, with key AREVA NP enterprises located in Columbia, South Lingen, Germany 800/650/650 PWR, BWR GmbH-ANF Carolina, and Västeras in Sweden. Richland, U.S. AREVA Inc. 1,200/700/700 PWR, BWR WEC’s fuel fabrication capacity is concentrated at its production site in * Nameplate capacity. Columbia and at enterprises operated by affiliated companies (see Table 2.5). Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) Table 2.5. Westinghouse’s fuel fabrication enterprises. A joint enterprise owned by GE, Hitachi, and Toshiba, GNF is composed of two Capacity* enterprises: GNF-J, which supplies the Powder/Pellets/Fuel Japanese market, and GNF-A, which supplies Enterprise assembly Fuel type all other markets. GNF only produces fuel for (in metric tons of uranium per year) BWR reactors. Its share in the nuclear fuel fabrication market is 17%. Columbia, SC, United States 1,500/1,500/1,500 PWR, VVER Västeras, Sweden 600/600/400 PWR, BWR Springfields, Great 440/440/0 Powder export 2.3.1. Nuclear fuel fabrication Britain** in European countries ENUSA, Juzbado, Spain 0/400/400 PWR, BWR

* Nameplate capacity. Uranium oxide fuel is produced in Europe ** Total capacity: 700 metric tons of uranium per year (260 metric tons of in the following countries: uranium for AGR reactors and 440 metric tons of uranium for LWR reactors). Germany: An AREVA Group daughter

company, the Lingen plant produces UO2 powder (uranium oxide), as well as pellets, fuel rods, and fuel assemblies. It has AREVA Group (formerly, Framatome fabricated more than 20,000 fuel assemblies Advanced Nuclear Power, FANP) since operations began in 1977; AREVA Group, majority-owned by the Belgium: The Dessel plant manufactures state, is a leading producer of fuel assemblies assemblies for PWRs, fuel pellets and rods, a for PWR, BWR, and VVER reactors. AREVA full range of small assembly components, and has a 30% share in the global fuel fabrication assemblies of MOX fuel rods; market. Fuel assemblies for pressurized France: The Pierrelatte plant (Tricastin) water reactors (PWR and VVER reactors) manufactures grids for PWR assemblies; the account for two thirds of this segment, with Romans plant (Romans-sur-Isère) produces

fuel produced for boiling water reactors uranium oxide (UO2), fuel pellets, nozzles, (BWR) making up the remaining one third. fuel rods, and assemblies for PWRs; AREVA Group mostly supplies nuclear Great Britain: The Springfields facility

fuel to customers in Western Europe, but the produces triuranium octoxide (U3O8) powder, company maintains a presence in the U.S. fuel pellets, and fuel assemblies; and Asia-Pacific markets as well. Spain: The Juzbado plant produces fuel AREVA Group owns five fuel fabrication pellets and fuel assemblies. enterprises: FCF and SPC in the United States, ANF in Germany, and FBFC in Belgium and France (see Table 2.4). 2.3.2. Nuclear fuel fabrication Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC) WEC’s majority shareholder is Toshiba. in the United States The company’s share in the fuel fabrication market is 31%. The company has at its Five power reactor fuel fabrication sites disposal the technologies needed to operate in the United States, manufacturing produce nuclear fuel for all types of light fuel by granulating and pelletizing enriched

26 uranium for fuel rod production. These hexafluoride into uranium dioxide powder to facilities, located in Virginia, Washington manufacturing fuel assemblies. state, North Carolina, and South Carolina, are MSZ manufactures nuclear fuel on a operated by Areva, Westinghouse, Babcock & per order basis as requested by the parent Wilcox, and General Electric. companies that supply fuel assemblies to In December 2010, Areva and Mitsubishi nuclear power plants in Russia and abroad. announced the creation of a joint APWR fuel As part of its cooperation with AREVA NP fabrication enterprise at a site in Richland, Wa- (AREVA Group), the plant produces nuclear shington state. The facility produces uranium fuel for PWR and BWR reactors operating in dioxide (UO2), fuel assemblies for PWRs and Western Europe. BWRs, and burnable poison rods (boron car- MSZ has lately been upgrading its bide). The site in Erwin, Tennessee, converts production technologies in an effort to low-enriched uranyl nitrate into enriched urani- use them as a springboard for expansion um oxide and delivers it to the Richland plant to into international competitive markets. In be transformed into pellets for fuel production. 2010, the plant perfected a new powder compaction technology based on equipment developed by Hosokawa, which was used to 2.3.3. Nuclear fuel fabrication produce 140 tons of fuel pellets. MSZ has also introduced into operation uranium dioxide in Russia powder production based on the ADU process

(a ceramic uranium dioxide (UO2) fabrication In Russia, nuclear reactor fuel is produced technology involving UO6 conversion to UO2 at enterprises run by TVEL Fuel Company, using ammonium diuranate). which was founded in 1996. TVEL’s fuel Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant fabrication facilities supply fuel to 76 power mostly produces nuclear fuel for VVER-440 reactors in Russia and in 15 countries in and VVER-1000 reactors. Additionally, NCCP Europe and Asia, as well as to 30 research manufactures nuclear fuel for a number reactors worldwide. TVEL is the sole supplier of research reactors, and produces lithium of fresh nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants and lithium compounds as well. In 2010, in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovakia, and NCCP assembled and commissioned a new also supplies nuclear fuel to all European production line to manufacture ceramic- countries that operate nuclear power plants grade uranium dioxide powder with the help built to Russian (Soviet) designs. of high-temperature pyrohydrolysis. A new TVEL’s nuclear fuel fabrication complex stainless steel precision casting shop has comprises four enterprises: Mashino stroi- also been created, and technologies brought telny Zavod (Elektrostal, Moscow Region); to commercial scale for the production of NCCP (Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates castings meeting quality standards with Plant, Novosibirsk); Chepetsk (Chepetsky) regard to the product’s chemical composition Mechanical Plant (Glazov, Udmurtia); and mechanical properties. and Moskowsky Zavod Polimetallov Chepetsk Mechanical Plant is Russia’s (Moscow Polymetals Plant, Moscow). only producer of zirconium, zirconium These enterprises manufacture nuclear fuel alloys, and nuclear-quality zirconium alloy for light water reactors of Russian (VVER- products, as well as products manufactured 1000, VVER-440) and Western (PWR, BWR) from natural and depleted uranium. Natural designs, uranium-graphite reactors (RBMK- uranium is processed at the plant to produce 1000, EGP-6), as well as research reactors, uranium metal ingots, uranium metal fast neutron reactors (BN-600), and marine powder, uranium dioxide, and uranium nuclear propulsion systems. tetrafluoride. Mashinostroitelny Zavod is Russia’s Moscow Polymetals Plant serves as the leading fuel assembly supplier. The core head organization leading the research into, of the enterprise’s production program and manufacture of, control and protection is fabrication of nuclear fuel supplied as systems for nuclear power reactors, nuclear fuel assemblies for use in practically all marine reactors operating on board of commercial reactor types (VVER-440, VVER- nuclear-powered fleet, as well as research 1000, RBMK-1000, RBMK-1500, BN-600, and production reactors. The enterprise EGP-6, PWR) and research and marine supplies products used in control and nuclear reactors, and also as fuel components protection systems of 42 reactors operated (uranium dioxide powder and fuel at nuclear power plants in Russia and abroad, pellets). The plant operates the entire fuel including power plants in Ukraine, Bulgaria, fabrication cycle from converting uranium and China.

27 Table 2.6. Effective output at TVEL Fuel Company’s nuclear fuel fabrication enterprises in 2007 to 2011, by specific fuel type.

Product 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 VVER-1000 fuel assemblies 1,373 1,289 1,398 1,498 1,289 VVER-440 fuel assemblies 1,790 1,834 1,577 1,808 1,769 RBMK-1000, RBMK-1500 fuel assemblies 3,530 3,360 3,630 3,210 BN-600 fuel assemblies 282 236 223 249 405 EGP-6 fuel assemblies 144 144 144 Research reactor fuel assemblies 71 96 465 445 630 PWR fuel assemblies n/a n/a n/a 326 116 Total fuel assemblies: 3,516 6,985 7,167 8,100 7,563 Total ceramic pellets, in tons uranium: - 1,042.1 1,289.0 1,463.5 1,583.0

In 2010, TVEL’s fuel assembly output the Ukrainian Nuclear Fuel State Concern increased by 8% (not taking PWR assemblies signed a deal envisioning the creation in into account), and the output of ceramic fuel Ukraine of a fuel fabrication site for the pellets grew by 13%. production of VVER-1000 reactor fuel. During the first stage of the project, Russian nuclear fuel manufacturing technologies will be 2.3.4. Russian nuclear fuel gradually transferred to the joint enterprise, starting from uranium reconversion and producers’ international integration up to fuel assembly production. The construction of the fabrication plant is the The nuclear fuel manufactured by TVEL’s second stage of this cooperation. The full enterprises is supplied to the following fuel assembly fabrication cycle is slated to companies: Rosenergoatom Concern be ready for commercial-scale operation by (Russia), NNEGC Energoatom (Ukraine), 2020. By 2013, the plant is expected to have Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (Armenia), successfully started production of nuclear fuel Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania assemblies, with other technologies – for fuel (National Electric Company, Bulgaria), MVM tubing manufacture, uranium reconversion, Hungarian Electricity (Hungary), Slovenské and sintering of fuel pellets – to follow. 2010 elektrárne (Slovakia), Fortum Power and Heat also saw the inking of a nuclear fuel delivery Oy (Finland), ČEZ (Czech Republic), China contract – a deal by which Russia will supply Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation and fuel assemblies to Ukrainian NPPs for the Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corporation (China), duration of the Ukrainian reactors’ useful life Department of Atomic Energy, Government terms, including operating extensions. As per of India (India), and the Atomic Energy the contract terms, all reactor units operating Organization of Iran (Iran). at Ukrainian nuclear power plants will be In addition to complete fuel assemblies, supplied with nuclear fuel manufactured TVEL also exports nuclear fuel components – exclusively to Russian technologies starting such as fuel pellets that the company supplies from 2016. to India. Furthermore, TVEL is working on Russia–Czech Republic–Slovakia. In April developing mixed uranium and plutonium 2010, TVEL and Slovakia’s Slovenské oxide (MOX) fuel. elektrárne signed a contract for the delivery The company’s goal in the immediate of nuclear fuel and associated services term is to make an entrance on the global to Reactor Units 3 and 4 currently under market with an offer of fuel assemblies for construction at Mochovce Nuclear Power commercial power reactors of Western Plant. The deal provides for the delivery, designs. As of 2010, TVEL’s annual export had starting in 2012, of fuel assemblies for the exceeded $1 billion. initial loading of both reactors, with further Russia–Ukraine–Kazakhstan. In 2008, delivery of fuel for five subsequent reloads TVEL and Ukraine’s NNEGC Energoatom for each unit. In the Czech Republic, a full signed a licensing agreement, with TVEL fuel reload was completed in August 2010 transferring to Ukraine its technologies for at Temelin Nuclear Power Plant’s Reactor fabrication of stainless steel components for Unit 1, during which U.S.-produced fuel, fuel assemblies. In October 2010, TVEL and then in use in the reactor, was replaced with

28 Russian-made fuel ahead of a scheduled plant fabricates fuel assemblies for Qinshan's reload. Temelin’s Reactor Unit 2 was switched CANDU PHWRs (200 tons of uranium per over to Russian fuel in 2011. Additionally, year) and some PWRs – 200 tons of uranium TVEL is showing an interest in new nuclear per year from 2010, expanding to 400 tons fuel fabrication facilities in Slovakia and the of uranium per year. In 2012, it became the Czech Republic. North Branch of China Nuclear Fuel Co Ltd. Cooperation with AREVA NP. TVEL and In 2008 SNPTC agreed with both fuel AREVA NP’s German division are engaged companies (China Jianzhong Nuclear Fuel in joint production of fuel assemblies of and China North Nuclear Fuel Co Ltd) to set Western design. As of 2010, over 2,600 up CNNC Baotou Nuclear Fuel Co Ltd to make fuel assemblies had been made, with fuel fuel assemblies for China's AP1000 reactors deliveries shipped to nuclear power plants in (first cores and some re-loads of the initial Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and units will be supplied by Westinghouse). In Great Britain. January 2011, a contract was signed with Westinghouse "to design, manufacture, and install fuel fabrication equipment that 2.3.5. Nuclear fuel fabrication in China will enable China to manufacture fuel" for AP1000 units. A plant is being set up at China intends to become self-sufficient in Baotou, initially at 200 tons of uranium per most aspects of the fuel cycle, but currently, year from 2013, but likely to grow to 2,000 China’s nuclear energy industry still relies to tons of uranium per year. a considerable degree on imported uranium China is aiming to be able to cover its as well as conversion, enrichment, and nuclear fuel needs with domestic production, fabrication services from other countries. but for the time being, fuel for the nuclear China National Nuclear Corporation power plant under construction in Taishan, (CNNC) is responsible for fuel fabrication, for instance – two first cores and 17 reloads – utilising some technology transferred from will be supplied by France’s Areva. Areva, Westinghouse, and TVEL. Areva has announced the prospect CNNC's main PWR fuel fabrication plant of a joint venture with CNNC to produce at Yibin, Sichuan province, was set up in 1982 zirconium alloy tubes for nuclear fuel (based on a 1965 military plant). It is operated assemblies. The joint venture, CNNC Areva by CNNC subsidiary China Jianzhong Nuclear Shanghai Tubing Co. (CAST), was expected to Fuel (JNF), with its subsidiary China Nuclear start production at a plant in Shanghai at the Fuel South. By the beginning of 2013, its fuel end of 2012. assembly production was to grow to a total Two industrial parks focused on nuclear of 800 tons of uranium per year, with plans power were announced in 2010. The first, to further increase production to 1,500 tons near Nanjing in Jiangsu province, is a nuclear of uranium per year by 2015. It has certified technology base, part of the China Nuclear Kazakhstan’s Ulba Metallurgical Plant as a Binjiang Production Base, which includes a source of pellets. research facility for nuclear-grade concrete VVER fuel fabrication at Yibin began in and will feature a factory for pre-assembled 2009, using technology transferred from TVEL structural and equipment modules for CPR- under the fuel supply contract for Tianwan. 1000 and Westinghouse AP1000 reactors (the (First core and three reloads for Tianwan’s modules will weigh up to 1,000 tons each). Units 1 and 2 were from Novosibirsk Currently AP1000 modules are made at a Chemical Concentrates Plant in Russia – 638 Shandong enterprise that has the capacity fuel assemblies, under the main contract.) By to support construction of two reactors per August 2010, Yibin had produced 54 VVER- year. 1000 fuel assemblies which were being Following the disaster at Fukushima loaded into the Tianwan units. In November Daiichi, the Chinese authorities halted issuing 2010, TVEL contracted with Jiangsu Nuclear construction licenses for new CPR-1000 Power Corporation (JNPC) and the China projects, though projects that had already Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNEIC) been started were allowed to continue. to supply six fuel reloads for Tianwan's Unit 1, CPR-1000 is a pressurized water reactor and the technology for fuel to be produced at design, the Chinese version of the French Yibin thereafter. M310. With the CPR-1000 plans abandoned, CNNC set up a second civil fuel fabrication China intends to build AP1000 units. plant run by China North Nuclear Fuel Co Ltd Two EPR units are also being built in at Baotou, Inner Mongolia, in 1998, based on China, and development is under way of the a military plant there dating from 1956. This 1,000 MW ACPR-1000, which may with time

29 become a joint project with France’s EDF. Heavy Industries Ltd. (MHI), in which the Another project being developed in China is French company holds 30 percent, will the CPR-1700, which is supposed to become process enriched uranium into uranium China’s adaptation of the EPR-1600, with an dioxide. increased power capacity. The second industrial base is launched by CNNC in Zhejiang province, about 120 km 2.3.7. Nuclear fuel fabrication from Shanghai. The new site is expected to have these main areas of work: development in Kazakhstan of the nuclear power equipment manu- facturing industry; nuclear training and In Kazakhstan, nuclear fuel is produced education; and applied nuclear science at Ulba Metallurgical Plant (UMP, Ust- industries (medical, agricultural, radiation Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan). detection and tracing, etc.). The plant was built in 1949 and for As well as these major industry centers, some time at first specialized in uranium there is a factory for AP1000 modules set up metallurgy. Then UMP produced HEU- at Haiyang and another in Hubei province to beryllium alloys for use as fuel in marine support inland AP1000 projects and later the nuclear reactors. The plant’s main mission, CAP1400 derivatives. however, was supplying beryllium metal A further centre, the Taishan Clean Energy products to the Soviet nuclear and aerospace (Nuclear Power) Equipment Industrial Park, industries. In 1976, Ulba Metallurgical opened in February 2010 in Guangdong became the leading producer of uranium province, is expected to become a centre for dioxide powder and fuel pellets for VVER and nuclear power equipment manufacturing, RBMK power reactors. initially supplying hardware and services to At present, UMP supplies the following nearby nuclear power projects. Targets call products on the global market: for manufacturers at the park to have 45% of – triuranium octoxide; the nuclear equipment market in Guangdong – ceramic-grade uranium dioxide powder; by 2020. – fuel pellets for VVER, RBMK, and PWR reactors, including pellets with incorporated burnable poisons – erbium oxide and 2.3.6. Nuclear fuel fabrication gadolinium oxide; – fuel pellets for assemblies of the AFA in Japan 3G type for PWR reactors of AREVA NP design; Currently the only producer of nuclear – services for processing hard-to-recover fuel for both boiling water reactors and uranium-containing materials. pressurized water reactors in Japan, NFI UMP’s production includes the following (Nuclear Fuel Industries, Ltd.) was founded facilities: in 1972 by integration of the nuclear power – beryllium production: fabrication businesses of Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. of beryllium metal, alloys, ceramics, and and Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. NFI processed beryllium products; develops, designs, and produces various types – tantalum and superconductor facility: of nuclear fuel, including for high-temperature fabrication of tantalum products as well as gas reactors and fast breeder reactors. In May electronics and high-quality superconducting 2009, Westinghouse Electric Co. acquired devices; a majority stake in Nuclear Fuel Industries. – nuclear fuel fabrication plant. NFI supplies nuclear fuel to such customers Two fuel production lines are in operation as Japan’s major energy companies TEPCO at the nuclear fuel fabrication facility, (Tokyo Electric Power Company) and KEPCO manufacturing fuel for RMBK and VVER (Kansai Electric Power Company). reactors. The plant receives enriched uranium By 2013, a new facility for the production hexafluoride from Angarsk Electrolysis of uranium dioxide powder is slated for Chemical Combine. The material is converted completion in Ibaraki prefecture, an addition to uranium dioxide powder, which is then that is expected to more than double the granulated using an organic binding agent, already existing fabrication capacity – compacted to pellets, and sintered. The fuel currently, at 450 tons a year. The plant, pellets are shipped for subsequent fuel rod part of a joint venture established by Areva, and fuel assembly manufacture at the fuel Mitsubishi Corporation (MC), Mitsubishi fabrication facilities in Elektrostal (VVER-400 Materials Corporation (MMC), and Mitsubishi and RBMK-1000 reactor fuel) and Novosibirsk

30 (VVER-1000 fuel). The plant has an output government made a decision to create a capacity of 2,650 tons of fuel per year. concern called Ukratomprom by merging Ulba’s technology enables production the state-owned NNEGC Energoatom and a of uranium dioxide powder and fuel pellets number of nuclear fuel cycle enterprises into for commercial reactors using not just one vertically integrated company. It was uranium hexafluoride enriched to 4.95% to include Vostochny GOK (Eastern Mining U-235 but also uranium oxides, uranyl and Processing Complex), Pridneprovsky salts, uranium tetrafluoride, uranium ore Metallurgical Plant, Polimin, Smoly, Tsirkony, concentrates, uranium metal, and various and departments of the National Science uranium-containing scrap materials such as Center “Kharkov Institute of Physics and ash and insoluble residues, including those Technology.” The new concern was expected containing burnable absorbers (erbium and to develop nuclear fuel fabrication capacity gadolinium), which are difficult to reprocess to serve Ukraine’s open nuclear fuel cycle with traditional methods. needs. The government’s decision, however, In 2010, Ulba Metallurgical Plant and was abolished in 2007, though a new Japan’s NFI signed an agreement to produce company, Nuclear Fuel State Concern, was nuclear fuel components for the Japanese created in April 2008 with apparently the market. same goal. Iran is a country with an ambition to create its own nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has the 2.3.8. Planned and existing nuclear capability to enrich uranium on an industrial scale. Thousands of centrifuges have been fuel fabrication projects in other installed and are in operation. Recently, nuclear power countries Iran has started uranium enrichment at some 3,000 new centrifuges in Natanz. In It should be noted that, based on the early 2011, reports said a new fuel plate history of nuclear energy development fabrication facility had been completed at worldwide, a distinction is called for between the nuclear industrial complex in Isfahan, to nuclear power generation at power plants produce fuel apparently for the needs of the and the creation of a nuclear fuel cycle Teheran Research Reactor. Furthermore, the serving to supply these power plants with Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center has the fuel, since nuclear power development capacity to manufacture zirconium sponge does not always imply developing a national (50 tons per year), tubing (10 tons per year), nuclear fuel cycle. For instance, a number and strip and bar (2 tons per year). According of countries that are actively developing to some data, this facility became operational civilian nuclear power programs, such as as long back as 2004, though current output Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, South numbers remain unknown. Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and Taiwan, are The particular nature and depth of Iran’s not planning on creating a domestic nuclear nuclear program is becoming progressively fuel cycle industry or have concluded that harder to measure. In November 2011, doing so would be impractical and opted not the IAEA said it had information that Iran to pursue this path. was engaged in activities that had the Ukraine has been developing plans goal of developing nuclear weapons (see to emerge as a new producer of nuclear Appendix 2.3). fuel. In December 2006, the Ukrainian

31 CHAPTER 3. MOX FUEL

MOX (mixed oxide) fuel is nuclear fuel 3) direct production of MOX powders composed of a mix of uranium and plutonium from a uranium nitrate and plutonium nitrate dioxides. solution. The main reason that the nuclear energy When using the mechanical mixing industry today is pursuing the path of using method, an important part of the process is

MOX fuel is the goal of disposing of the fine grinding (micronization) of the UO2 and stockpiles of excess plutonium by burning PuO2 powders, a step essential to achieve it in reactors. MOX fuel fabrication involves densification of powder particles to a desired using depleted or natural uranium, in the degree and quality. The blending takes place form of uranium dioxide, and reactor-grade in a high-energy mill, where a homogeneous or weapons-grade plutonium. solid (U-PuO)2 structure is produced in a short MOX fuel proponents thus forward these time. This technology produces a lot of dust, two arguments: Firstly, we get rid of the which constitutes a significant disadvantage. excess plutonium; and secondly, we burn Furthermore, MOX fuel fabrication results in uranium that is unusable in thermal reactors, the generation of plutonium-contaminated while producing energy as well. waste materials and scrap fuel residues. The second method involves co- precipitating uranium and plutonium salts 3.1. A brief review of MOX fuel from a solution, a technique that produces granules which generate little dust (the fabrication technologies AUPuC process). This method is similar to that used to produce uranyl tricarbonate, but Several MOX fuel fabrication technologies the uranium and plutonium are precipitated are in use today. Fig. 3.1 shows a general simultaneously as (NH4)4(U-Pu)O2(CO3)3, flow sheet of a typical MOX fuel fabrication in aqueous solution. The precipitate is a process. There are significant differences in homogeneous solid solution which, after the MOX fabrication technologies depending calcination at 600 °C, produces a free- on whether weapons-grade or reactor- flowing powder of U-PuO2, a product which grade plutonium is being used. The practice is soluble in boiling HNO3. This process of converting weapons-grade plutonium to requires the transportation of plutonium reactor-grade fuel involves the use of two non- in aqueous solution if the MOX plant is not aqueous methods: Pyrochemical, or producing situated near the SNF reprocessing plant.

PuO2 by hydrogenation of plutonium metal The advantage of this method lies in the and subsequent oxidation in one reactor; and absence of dust throughout the production pyroelectrochemical, where plutonium metal process. But its drawbacks include the is dissolved in a chloride (NaCl+KCl) melt, with danger of occurrence of a spontaneous chain subsequent precipitation of crystal PuO2 in reaction, a risk inherent to any aqueous one electrolyser. plutonium processing method, as well as Three methods are employed to increased amounts of radioactive waste, and manufacture MOX fuel pellets for fuel rods the potential risk of theft, since the uranium used in power reactors: and plutonium used in the process are in 1) mechanical mixing of uranium and separated and purified form. plutonium dioxide feed powders; The third UO2-PuO2 fabrication technology 2) chemical co-precipitation of UО2 and is co-conversion of a uranium-plutonium PuО2 powders using surfactants; nitrate solution, a technique based on

32 PuO2

UO2 blending - micronization (U-Pu)O2

blending

pelletizing

sintering

dry centerless grinding

pellet column preparation

heat treatment

cladding rod filling / tube end plug welding

pressurization

assembling

Fig. 3.1. A typical MOX fuel fabrication process.

33 dehydration and denitration of product production of MOX fuel. Studies conducted solutions by microwave heating. The flow in Russia, for instance, focused on using the sheet of this process represents a mid-way sol-gel process to obtain granulated MOX between the full dry-powder process (BN- fuel which was then pressed into pellets. COGEMA) and the aqueous precipitation However, this manufacturing process made it process (AUPuC) (see Fig. 3.2). This impossible to achieve a high and stable pellet technology requires a very efficient off-gas quality, so a decision was made to revert to treatment unit but lends itself very well to the technique of ammonia co-precipitation automation and operation in shielded glove of uranium and plutonium. Twelve fuel boxes. assemblies were made for the BN-600 design A number of other technologies have using this technology, and most of these have also been tested at various times for the completed reactor tests.

plutonium nitrate uranyl nitrate

receiving and mixing

off-gas treatment conversion unit liquid wastes microwave

UO2 – PuO2 – master-blend

Fig. 3.2. Direct production of MOX powders from a uranium and plutonium nitrate solution.

Table 3.1. Existing and planned MOX fuel 3.2. Global MOX fuel fabrication fabrication capacity worldwide (in tHM). and processing (burning) capacity Country 2010 2015 and MOX fuel prospects after France, Melox 175 195 Japan, Tokai 10 10 the Fukushima disaster Japan, Rokkasho 0 130 MOX fuel has been used in thermal Russia, Mayak, Ozyorsk 5 5 neutron reactors for over 30 years. Currently, Russia, Mining and Chemical 060 MOX fuel is used in 33 thermal reactors Combine, Zheleznogorsk worldwide. Over 2% of nuclear fuel used in Great Britain, Sellafield 40 0 reactors today is MOX fuel. India 20 20 Several MOX fuel fabrication facilities are in operation in the world. Current global MOX Total: 250 420 fuel fabrication capacity and prospects to 2015 are shown in Table 3.1.

34 Today’s global mixed uranium and In Belgium, in December 1993, a plutonium oxide fuel fabrication capacity permission was granted to load two reactors totals around 250 tHM. The main MOX fuel with only up to 20% MOX core, but with a fabrication facilities are located in France, 7.7% plutonium content. Great Britain, and India, and several plants The second wave of MOX development with lesser capacities are in operation in for light water reactors resulted in 1995 in Russia and Japan. In October 2010, Japan the creation of a new fabrication facility in Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL) started construction Marcoule, France, with a capacity of 115 tons of a new 130 tHM MOX fuel production plant of fuel a year. in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture. The project In France and in Belgium, much as in the is slated for completion in March 2016. A rest of the world, MOX fuel producers face a similar facility is planned in Russia, in the number of technological challenges involved town of Seversk in Tomsk Region. Russia in the fuel’s fabrication and storage, which also plans to build a commercial MOX fuel results in higher costs affecting the MOX fuel fabrication plant with a capacity of 60 tons industry. These are such factors as: per year as well as a 14-ton-a-year facility to – the presence of strong alpha emitters produce mixed (dense) nitride fuel for fast and of americium-241, which is a highly neutron reactors. A new MOX fuel fabrication radioactive gamma emitter; plant is being constructed at the MOX fuel – limited storage period of 2 to 3 years for production site in Sellafield, Great Britain. plutonium extracted for the production The United States is planning to create of MOX before its use; additional MOX fuel fabrication capacity – a greater enrichment of fuel necessary in order to utilize excess weapons-grade in order to increase the time fuel rods plutonium. In 2010, Japan started to use MOX can remain in a reactor: With 4.2% fuel at Ikata (Reactor Unit 3) and Fukushima enrichment for uranium fuel and 8% for Daiichi (Reactor Unit 3) Nuclear Power Plants. MOX, and France’s limit of maximum The consequences of the nuclear disaster allowed plutonium content in MOX not at Fukushima Daiichi may affect global MOX exceeding 5.3%, MOX fuel produces fuel programs. A limited number of mixed 30,000 megawatt-days per 1 metric uranium and plutonium oxide fuel assemblies ton of heavy metal, while uranium fuel had been loaded into the core of the nuclear produces 47,000 megawatt-days per 1 power plant’s Reactor Unit 3. Even though metric ton of heavy metal; this had little effect on the progression of the – tests of reprocessing spent MOX fuel accident, the use of MOX fuel in the reactor have produced a form of plutonium with sparked new debate over MOX fuel prospects a large amount of impurities and which, both in Japan and the rest of the world. as a result, was less fissile than plutonium recovered from reprocessed uranium fuel. Further purification of this plutonium 3.2.1. MOX fuel in Europe implied increased reprocessing costs. Reprocessing spent MOX fuel – in contrast MOX fuel was first used in Europe at the to reprocessing uranium fuel – yields Belgian BR3 reactor in Mol, Belgium, in 1963. higher concentrations of transuranic Starting in 1974, MOX fuel was also used elements, and, by extension, higher in the now shut down Chooz A reactor in levels of radioactivity. This was one of France. Belgonucléaire and COGEMA began the reasons why in August 1996, France’s producing MOX fuel jointly at two small energy giant EDF (Électricité de France) plants in Dessel, Belgium (which started announced that it wanted to store spent operation in 1973), and Cadarache, France MOX fuel rather than reprocess it. (which started operation in 1970), with Thus, so far there is no policy regarding capacities at 35 tons and 15 tons of MOX fuel what to do with spent MOX fuel in the future. per year respectively for the two plants. A conclusion that can be drawn from the France and Belgium above is that the suggested path of MOX fuel Today, 16 out of 28 French reactors application, regarded by some as a way to are licensed to use MOX fuel. As per the reduce plutonium stocks, may entail many guidelines enforced by the French nuclear more problems than the plutonium itself. If safety regulator, in France, MOX fuel one added MOX fuel’s mediocre economic assemblies may not constitute more than performance to the nuclear – and in 30% of the fuel assemblies loaded into the particular, the plutonium – industry’s already reactor core. The content of plutonium in the manifest environmental impact, then France fuel may not exceed 5.3%. might re-classify and regard plutonium as

35 waste. In that case, there might be some the Japanese plutonium could be converted hope that future generations will have less into nuclear fuel and burned in new British plutonium to manage than what is envisioned reactors designed to take this type of fuel. In in COGEMA’s reprocessing projects. its August 2011 press release, the NDA said it One of the first consequences of the “will continue to store Japanese plutonium Fukushima disaster was the indefinite safely and securely […] and further develop postponement of new deliveries of French discussions with the Japanese customers on a MOX fuel to Japan. responsible approach […].” France’s Areva is contracted by Japanese energy companies to reprocess Japanese SNF and manufacture MOX fuel. Four Japanese 3.2.2. MOX fuel in Japan reactors were partially switched to MOX fuel prior to the disaster at Fukushima Nuclear Since the Fukushima disaster, the Power Plant, with the accident leaving just Japanese MOX fuel program has been three. On August 3, 2011, World Nuclear experiencing significant difficulties as it came News reported that Areva had announced under pressure from local authorities. the cancellation of orders for uranium and In May 2001, in a referendum held in nuclear fuel amounting to €191 million as a Niigata Prefecture, residents voted against result of the shutdown of reactors in Japan the use of MOX fuel at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa and Germany. Nuclear Power Plant – one of the world’s Great Britain largest reactors designed to burn this type Similarly, it now remains under question of fuel. The residents’ protests were first and whether the high-level radioactive waste foremost caused by lacking guarantees with generated as a result of SNF reprocessing at regard to MOX fuel’s safety. Such concerns Great Britain’s nuclear complex in Sellafield are not without merit: Between 1986 and will be returned to Japan. According to 2011, more than ten rather serious accidents statements from Great Britain, a shipment of took place at Japanese nuclear power plants, high-level radioactive waste that was planned injuring over 500 people. But despite the for 2011 was canceled. The Fukushima protests against the use of MOX fuel, the accident affected Great Britain’s MOX-related government was intent on expanding the plans, with the Nuclear Decommissioning country’s MOX program. If all of Japan’s Authority announcing it would stop MOX fuel reprocessing projects are brought fuel fabrication at Sellafield “at the earliest to completion, the country’s plutonium practical opportunity.” stockpile will in ten years already become the In an August 2011 press release, the NDA world’s largest, reaching 80 to 90 tons – with said it had “assessed the changed commercial 30 tons accounted for by export from Europe, risk profile for” Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) six tons resulting from SNF reprocessing at and “concluded that in order to ensure that the Tokai plant, and another 50 tons coming the UK taxpayer does not carry a future from the reprocessing facility at Rokkasho. financial burden from SMP that the only Situated on the coast some 200 kilometers reasonable course of action is to close SMP at off Tokyo, Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant the earliest practical opportunity.” sits astride the junction of two major SMP’s only customers were ten Japanese geological faults, prompting this description utilities. by seismologist Katsuhiko Ishibashi at Kobe The troubled Sellafield MOX Plant was University in Japan: “a kamikaze terrorist built in the 1990s and designed to handle waiting to explode.” In May 2011, wary of the foreign, mainly Japanese, plutonium dioxide risk of a magnitude 8.0 quake in the next 30 that had been recycled from spent fuel by a years, the Japanese government ordered it facility in the same location, at Sellafield. to close for an indeterminate period while a A Sellafield spokesman said that Japan’s massive sea wall is built around the plant. plans to close one nuclear power plant in Currently under construction in Japan is particular, at Hamaoka, were instrumental in a 1,383 MW advanced boiling water reactor sealing the Sellafield MOX plant’s fate. (ABWR), a project implemented by EPDC and A second MOX plant at Sellafield is now intended to be the first in Japan designed under consideration by the UK government, specifically for the use of MOX fuel containing a project that the government regards as recycled plutonium. a way of solving the problem of storage MOX fuel is used at two reactor units – (utilization) of Britain’s civil plutonium KEPCO’s Mihama-3 and Takahama-4. The stockpile – the biggest in the world. If a operation of these two units suffers regular second MOX plant goes ahead, it is possible disruptions. On August 9, 2004, the third unit

36 at Mihama was closed following an accident interested in the ongoing events in Japan and that killed five people, and only resumed there likely will be lessons learned.” operation two and a half years later. This TVA is said to have started an independent incident served to prompt a freeze on a safety study on the use of MOX fuel. One project that envisioned using MOX fuel at of the documents subject to review is an Takahama-4, even though the permission to environmental impact study. switch the reactor to MOX fuel was issued In order to expand the pool of potential by authorities in Fukui Prefecture, where the clients, the U.S. Department of Energy wants reactor is operated, as early as March 2004. to redesign its mixed oxide fuel plant to make KEPCO now has to prove that Mihama-3 is nuclear fuel for a wider variety of reactors. safe to operate in order to continue to use Changes are now proposed that will enable MOX fuel in its reactors. the facility, planned to make fuel for PWR Before Fukushima, many Japanese reactors only, to also make fuel for BWR utilities were planning to use MOX fuel in reactors and the next generation of light their reactors. For instance, in 2006, Shikoku water reactors, such as AP1000. Electric Power Co. and Kyushu Electric Power Co. were granted permission from local authorities to use MOX fuel at one of their 3.2.4. Russia’s MOX fuel reactors starting in 2011, with MOX fuel constituting 25% of the reactor core. concept and experience Japan has started decommissioning the first MOX-fuel reactor, at Fugen Nuclear Russia’s research into using plutonium as Power Plant. The unit was shut down in nuclear fuel dates back to the second half of March 2003. The decommissioning and the 1950s. dismantlement process is scheduled Two reactor cores containing weapons- for completion by 2028, at a total grade plutonium have been tested in Russia decommissioning cost of JPY 70 billion in the BR-10 experimental fast reactor. (around EUR 700 million). Batches of MOX fuel pins made using a variety of technologies with plutonium of various isotopic compositions have been 3.2.3. MOX fuel in the United States tested in the BOR-60 research reactor. This reactor has been in operation for many years In the United States, where an ambivalent recycling its own plutonium. attitude toward plutonium had shaped well The prototype reactors BN-350 and before the Fukushima accident, the only BN-600, which were primarily fueled with major potential client indicating an interest enriched uranium fuel since the reactors in MOX fuel was TVA, a company with were launched, were used for expanded tests established ties with the federal government. of MOX fuel previously tested in the BR-10 The joint enterprise Shaw-Areva MOX and BOR-60 research reactors. In the BN-350 Services is building a MOX fuel fabrication reactor, the tests were performed with facility in South Carolina. The plant is slated the subsequent investigation and chemical to start commercial operation in 2018. Before reprocessing of test fuel subassemblies the Fukushima disaster, a willingness to with MOX fuel (350 kg of weapons-grade discuss the prospect of using MOX fuel was plutonium). More than 2,000 such fuel expressed by TVA and Energy Northwest. elements were built and tested in the BN-350 TVA could become the largest – or one of the and BN-600. major – customer of MOX fuel assemblies To experimentally substantiate the for as many as two of its nuclear power technology of plutonium utilization in fast plants. So far, no changes have been formally reactors, the semi-industrial plant dubbed announced by the company with regard to Paket was built at PA Mayak, capable its position. But the comments made by its of producing up to 10 plutonium fuel representatives sound non-committal. TVA subassemblies a year. Work is under way still expects its final decision – whether or at Mayak to backfit the Granat and Paket not to agree to a partial switch over to MOX plants in order to meet Rostekhnadzor’s fuel – to be made in 2012, though it does not latest industrial and environmental safety specify any precise time frame. The company requirements. first wants to study what happened with Russia is currently engaged in designing the MOX fuel used at Fukushima. “We're and building a small – 3- or 4-unit – series of still investigating the potential use,” said BN-800 power fast reactors at South Urals TVA spokesman Ray Golden. “We are very and Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Plants.

37 The main purpose of the BN-800 design a critical assembly called SUPR (for mixed was to utilize civil plutonium accumulating at uranium-plutonium lattices) has started Mayak, the product of chemical processing at the State Scientific Center “Alexander of uranium reactor spent fuel. The BN-800 Leipunsky Institute for Physics and Power reactor design is described with a breeding Engineering” in Obninsk for an experimental ratio of 1, that is, it was expected that these study of safety characteristics of light water reactors will use plutonium from thermal reactors using fuel containing plutonium, reactors as fuel for their first loading only, including weapons-grade plutonium. Reactor changing to their own plutonium in the future. safety significant properties of MOX fuel, as Further estimates showed, however, that compared to those of uranium fuel, are listed not only the civilian plutonium accumulated in Appendix 3.1. at the RT-1 reprocessing facility but also all In order to make a decision with regard ex-weapons plutonium released during the to potential MOX fuel application in VVER dismantlement of nuclear weapons could reactors, the compatibility requirements for be handled with the help of the BN-800. the reactor design and MOX fuel assemblies It would only be necessary to postpone will have to be determined and at least a chemical reprocessing of the BN-800 reactor dozen more important safety and economic spent fuel until a considerable portion of characteristics researched. already released civilian and weapons- First and foremost, these are neutronic grade plutonium has been disarmed – i.e., characteristics, since the neutronic behavior converted into spent MOX fuel. Reprocessing of the core differs greatly depending on spent MOX fuel will thus become a deferred whether MOX fuel or uranium fuel is loaded problem. into the reactor. The neutron spectrum Construction has started of a MOX fuel resulting from MOX fuel is harder than that plant to produce up to 900 subassemblies from UO2 fuel. This reduces the worth of the per year as fuel for BN-800 reactors. The soluble boron and control rod absorbers, project is expected to be completed in 2014, which results in an increase in the soluble simultaneously with the launch of the BN-800 boron concentration, increased use of unit at Beloyarsk NPP. The MOX fuel plant burnable absorbers, and a modification will comprise several facilities. The Mining to the control rods to use enriched boron. and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk Furthermore, the delayed neutron fraction (Krasnoyarsk Region) will handle the and prompt neutron lifetime are smaller preparation of feed materials – granulated in MOX cores, while the moderator uranium and plutonium, while the actual temperature coefficient of reactivity and fabrication of fuel elements will take place the Doppler coefficient of reactivity in in Ulyanovsk Region, at the State Scientific MOX cores are more negative than in UO2 Center “Research Institute of Atomic cores – differences that have to be taken Reactors” (NIIAR). Annual weapons-grade into account when analyzing any impacts on plutonium consumption for the fabrication of reactor safety. fuel subassemblies for one BN-800 reactor is Differences are also found in the about 1.6 tons. In other words, if the BN-800 thermophysical properties of MOX fuel and reactor commissioning program is fulfilled, those of UO2 fuel. Thermal conductivity is then all civil and all released weapons-grade lower in MOX fuel, which results in a higher plutonium accumulated at Mayak could be MOX fuel temperature (about 50-100 K transformed into spent fuel within 20 or centerline) and energy stored as compared to

30 years. In order to reduce the content of UO2 fuel at the same power levels. MOX fuel plutonium in the spent fuel and cut spent has a lower melting temperature than UO2 MOX fuel storage costs, an improved BN-800 fuel. Additionally, its decay heat is larger than design without breeding blankets and with a UO2 decay heat in the long term, which may total breeding ratio of about 0.8 is also under be detrimental in severe accidents and in the consideration. cooling pond when compared to UO2 fuel. The possibility of using MOX fuel in Researchers at the Leipunsky Institute VVER reactors has not yet been proven believe continued studies are needed into and is currently only being researched and the criticality and dose rates of fresh and experimented with as part of analytical irradiated MOX fuel. Fresh MOX fuel has validation studies. The goal of this work significantly larger neutron and gamma is to understand the advantages and sources than fresh UO2 fuel, as well as a disadvantages of this direction in plutonium significantly higher alpha activity than UO2 utilization, while taking Western European fuel. The cladding is sufficient to contain this experience into account. Construction of activity and protect the personnel where

38 intact and undamaged fuel is concerned. elements that accumulate at a uranium-fuel- However, different storage standards will be burning VVER of the same power capacity. required for damaged fuel. The situation is quite different, however, Irradiated MOX fuel has a larger neutron if weapons-grade plutonium is used in emission rate. During spent MOX fuel BN-type reactors: The radiotoxicity of transportation, the dose rate at the cask disarmed plutonium does not, for all practical surface, because of the larger neutron purposes, exceed that of the initially loaded source, is three times larger compared to plutonium. spent UO2 fuel. As for the economic efficiency, fast Apart from the concerns listed above – reactors – and the related auxiliary techno- problems that warrant further study and logies – come at a much higher cost than respective conclusions – there are other thermal reactors. In Russia, the electricity reasons that demonstrate that using MOX generated by the first production BN-600 fast fuel in Russian light water reactors today is reactor is 40% more expensive than that of a too dangerous and lacks sufficient rationale. VVER-1000. The cost of the BN-800 has been Firstly, none of the thermal reactors in reduced somewhat by decreasing the metal Russia was designed with the possibility consumption factor to 80% as compared to of using MOX fuel in mind. Both the safety that of the BN-600 project. The economic record and safety specifications of most characteristics of the fuel cycle have also VVER reactors currently in operation – even been improved in the BN-800 project by considering that these reactors burn uranium the transition from uranium fuel, which is fuel – do not meet the prospective standards ineffective for fast reactors, to MOX fuel, and required of newer-generation reactors with by further improvement of the burnup factor. enhanced safety characteristics. Because of The main argument to substantiate and this, the likelihood that a permit (license) will rationalize the Russian MOX-burning fast be issued to replace part of the uranium fuel reactor development program, therefore, assemblies in operating VVER reactors with boils down to the need to dispose of MOX fuel assemblies is practically zero. weapons-grade plutonium and plutonium Second, the issue of spent fuel radio- accumulated as a result of reprocessing toxicity is also essential. The presence in operations at PA Mayak. There are no other spent MOX fuel of long-lived isotopes of serious or favorable arguments offered by plutonium, americium, neptunium, and proponents of MOX fuel application today. curium is known to considerably complicate It must be noted especially that as of today, both the MOX fuel recycling technology no country in the world, including Russia, has and dealing with the challenge of long- fast reactors that can be used to full capacity term waste disposal. To a great extent this for the purpose of plutonium utilization. is attributed to the accumulation in spent And the goal of utilizing the accumulated MOX fuel of Pu-241 – an isotope whose plutonium stockpiles in thermal reactors specific radiotoxicity is 40 times higher than running on full MOX core loads will require that of the basic isotope, Pu-239. During either twice as many reactors or twice as storage, the Pu-241 isotope is transformed much time compared to burning plutonium into the even more toxic Am-241, which in fast reactors of the same power capacity. has a half-life of 433 years. This isotope is This is the result of differences in annual the main contributor to the radiotoxicity of plutonium consumption rates for fuel transuranium elements in spent fuel after the fabrication with regard to VVERs and fast decay of short-lived fission products. reactors, respectively. With the limitation of During the operation of light water one third of the core loaded with MOX fuel, reactors with uranium, about 250 kg/GW(e)/ as at French reactors, the required number of year of reactor-grade plutonium are built up. VVERs will increase six-fold compared to fast About 30 kg of this mass is Pu-241. Burning reactors. up MOX fuel fabricated from weapons-grade plutonium in light water reactors increases the annual build-up of plutonium-241 three- 3.3. MOX fuel transportation fold, or to around 100 kg. Thirdly, the burning of MOX fuel based As other nuclear fissile materials, MOX on weapons-grade plutonium at VVERs – as fuel is transported by sea, air, and land. The compared with the VVERs using uranium- design of transport casks used to ship MOX based fuel – may produce several times more fuel is not publicly available. minor actinides with radiotoxicity more than It is known that IAEA standards and three times as high as that of transuranium guidelines do not specifically prescribe any

39 additional safety measures for MOX fuel minutes. Notably, the IAEA Type C standard casks shipped by sea. Moreover, no scenarios is even less strict than the one required for or specially developed measures exist to ordinary aircraft flight recorders, which handle a sinking accident involving a vessel are to survive a crash speed of 138 m/s (or with a MOX fuel shipment on board. The 496 km/h) and one-hour fire at 1,100 °C IAEA’s position regarding such a risk is that (not separately, but consecutively, i.e. it will result in insignificant damage to the withstanding an accident when the crash environment and minimal human exposure is directly followed by fire, which is not the to radiation. case with IAEA’s Type C test). In fact, there Air shipments are not uncommon today have been cases with black boxes getting as a way to transport MOX fuel in Europe. destroyed in actual aircraft accidents. The US For instance, Swiss MOX rods assembled in standard for a Pu container in air transport is the UK have been flown from an airport in 282 m/s (or 1,015 km/h). Neither Type B nor Carlisle (in northern England near the Scottish Type C containers as specified by the IAEA border) to Zurich. There have also been MOX meet the US standards. transports by air from Germany to Scotland. Type C packages are yet to be developed, The USA has a stricter safety standard and their application can be expected to (NUREG-0360) on air transports in general greatly increase the cost of MOX transport. and is rather unlikely to allow plutonium It is thus not surprising that nuclear fuel or Pu-containing MOX fuel to fly over its industry representatives have pressed for territory. It was disclosed in 1987 that the permission to use other types of packaging air shipment plutonium container that for shipping MOX fuel by air. A 1996 revision had been developed by Japan's Power of the IAEA safety standards introduced an Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development exemption from Type C package: the so- Corporation (PNC) jointly with the U.S. called “low dispersible materials” (LDM) Battelle-Columbus failed the crash tests exemption. Apparently, MOX fuel assemblies conducted at the Sandia National Laboratory. are regarded as qualifying for the LDM This led to a hot debate in the U.S. Congress category, since MOX fuel is firmly sintered and a proposal to toughen the National into pellets and the pellets are contained in Regulatory Commission’s safety criteria for fuel rods made of solid alloy. licensing transport packages for air transport It does not follow directly, however, that of plutonium so that the packages could the existing Type B casks may be used to withstand even the worst aircraft accident. transport MOX by air. The revised edition Essentially, this proposal is tantamount to of safe transport regulations, approved laying a ban on foreign plutonium overflight by the IAEA in September 1996, allows from US airspace. the use of Type B casks for plutonium and A Kyodo News report of June 10, 1997 MOX shipments, provided transporters can revealed that BNFL was considering a demonstrate that radionuclides will not be possibility of air shipment of spent fuel from dispersed even following a severe accident Japan, Switzerland, and Germany to THORP, that ruptures the cask. This is a fairly high Sellafield, sending processed plutonium back threshold test, since the enhanced accident to these countries also by air. According conditions similar to those for testing Type C to BNFL, air shipment was one of the packages would be applied to LDM cargo possibilities and that the choice is to be made itself, rather than its casks. At the moment, it primarily by the overseas utilities with which seems quite difficult for the nuclear industry they are contracted. to meet this condition. MOX containers for air transport would LDM exemption of MOX fuel from Type C be categorized as Type C. A cask of Type C is packaging in air shipment will have to be supposed to withstand “enhanced accident approved by the International Civil Aviation conditions,” including 90 m/s (or 324 km/h) Organization (ICAO). But none of the IAEA impact and one-hour fire at 800 °С separately Type B containers has ever been tested in a (not in succession). But these “enhanced plane crash. accident conditions” only cover 85-90% of Packages for air transport containing air crashes, so the “regulations vs. reality” fissile materials (such as MOX fuel) will also problems arise here again. The IAEA asserts be subject to “enhanced accident conditions” that the 90 m/s standard would only be similar to those for Type C, and will be exceeded in 5% of air crashes, whereas required to maintain subcriticality. Meeting Greenpeace claims that this happens in these standards will be a challenge. 50% of air crashes. It is recognized in IAEA’s Land shipments of MOX fuel, by rail or by data that 10% of aircraft fire lasted over 60 road transport, have been used in shipments

40 between France and Belgium. Likewise, MOX plutonium – costs that exceed noticeably fuel may possibly be transported on land those involved in uranium fuel fabrication. from MOX fabrication plants in Japan to the Table 3.2 shows cost calculations perfor- country’s nuclear power plants licensed for med in Russia with regard to standard RBMK MOX. uranium fuel assemblies as compared to the With regard to land transport of MOX fuel, corresponding data on standard uranium fuel the first problems to consider are those of assemblies for light water reactors and mixed radiation exposure of transport workers and uranium and plutonium oxide fuel assemblies the threat of terrorism. Serious consequences for light water reactors, with equivalent could also occur in severe accidents that go burnup. The calculations were done based on beyond the test conditions required for Type B current global SNF recycling prices. cask. Highways in Japan cross quite a lot of bridges: almost 10% of the total distance of national highways is elevated, more than Table 3.2. Cost of mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel, half of them being higher than 9 meters. It in US dollars per kgHM. is, therefore, a prudent approach to consider “hypothetical” accident conditions exceeding Costs Enriched uranium MOX fuel the IAEA standards for the Type B cask. RBMK fuel assemblies Natural uranium 200 - Uranium enrichment (up to 2.4% U-235) 250 - 3.4. Certain issues of the MOX fuel Separating plutonium from SNF - 5,600 economics Re-use of regenerated uranium - 140 (enrichment to 0.65% U-235) Fabrication of fuel assemblies 200 1,300 Fabrication of MOX fuel is several times Total: 650 7,040 more expensive than manufacturing fuel from the more common enriched uranium – VVER fuel assemblies Natural uranium 400 - twenty times as costly in the case of Japan, Uranium enrichment (4.4% U-235) 600 - for instance, and five times more expensive in Separating plutonium from SNF - 5,600 the case of France. According to the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission’s October 2008 Re-use of regenerated uranium - 420 data, using MOX fuel will increase the cost of (enrichment to 1.2% U-235) 1 kWh of electricity by 40%. But a transition Fabrication of fuel assemblies 300 1,300 to MOX fuel serves to solve two major Total: 1,300 7,320 tasks: utilizing accumulated plutonium and introducing uranium-238 – an isotope that constitutes over 99% of natural uranium and 95% of spent nuclear fuel – into the nuclear fuel cycle. In other words, the MOX fuel technology is undoubtedly expected to As follows from Table 3.2, the cost of boost the Japanese nuclear energy industry’s one MOX fuel assembly for RBMK and, by energy resource potential and let it break extension, the cost of power generated by it, free from its dependency on imported is approximately 10 times greater than that enriched uranium. But today’s global market of a standard uranium fuel assembly with an is well supplied with cheap natural uranium. equivalent burnup. The costs associated with What also should be noted is the relative separating plutonium from SNF contribute inexpensiveness and accessibility of uranium the bulk of the cost of producing a fuel enrichment. These two factors contribute assembly based on mixed oxide fuel. This is to the rather low price of enriched uranium. why the cost of a fuel assembly containing If the price of natural uranium is taken to be uranium and plutonium recovered from VVER $40 per kg, and enrichment is assumed to spent fuel, which contains higher plutonium cost $100 per SWU, then enriched uranium concentrations, will exceed the cost of will cost around $1,100 per kg. By contrast, standard uranium fuel by a fewer number the cost of fabricating MOX fuel elements is of times – just five-fold. Costs involved in much higher, reaching between $1,300 and storage of spent uranium fuel assemblies – $1,600 per kg of MOX fuel at a minimum. which are absent with SNF reprocessing – will The effective cost of MOX fuel fabrication, slightly reduce the described ratios to 8 in the however, is higher still when it includes case of RBMK and 4, in the case of VVER. expenses incurred on measures to ensure The cost of initial core loads for future safety during storage and transportation of fast reactors may reach $800 million per one

41 reactor unit (about 4 tons of fissile plutonium about $500 million in 1995 dollars. Further, per 1 GW). the costs of disposing of MOX spent fuel are A 1995 U.S. National Academy of Sciences likely to be higher than those for uranium report estimated the cost of processing and spent fuel because MOX spent fuel will be fabricating low-enriched uranium oxide more radioactive and contain two to three reactor fuel (4.4% enrichment) at about times more residual plutonium than uranium $1,400 per kg in 1992 dollars, assuming a spent fuel. natural uranium price of $55 per kg. The It is clear that so long as uranium prices costs of MOX fuel fabrication, assuming that are relatively low, the use of MOX fuel is the plutonium was free (that is, obtained as uneconomical even under the most favorable surplus from the nuclear weapons program), circumstances: when the plutonium itself would be about $1,900 per kg in 1992 dollars, is free and uranium is assumed to be more exclusive of taxes and insurance. The higher expensive than current spot market prices. cost of MOX means that annual fuel costs for The cost difference is even greater when the a full MOX core would be approximately $15 cost of reprocessing is taken into account, million more than uranium fuel per year for because reprocessing would add hundreds a 1,000 MW reactor, or about $450 million of millions of dollars to lifetime fuel costs for over its operating life (in 1992 dollars), even each reactor. if the plutonium were free. This amounts to

42 CHAPTER 4. WEAPONS-GRADE FISSILE MATERIALS

The notion of weapons-grade fissile or more, but such a weapon would be too materials first appeared during the time of large in size to allow problem-free delivery or the development and manufacture of nuclear use. The lesser the degree of enrichment, the weapons. Weapons-grade fissile materials more uranium and more traditional explosive include highly enriched uranium (85% U-235 will be needed to produce a bomb. A modern or higher) and weapons-grade plutonium. uranium bomb would commonly require some 20-25 kg of weapons-grade HEU. In Russia, weapons-grade HEU for nuclear warheads used to, and still can, be 4.1. Highly enriched uranium produced at four facilities: Urals Electro- chemical Combine (UEC, Novouralsk, Sverd- Highly enriched uranium (HEU) that lo vsk Region), Production Association nowadays is classified as “weapons-grade” Electrochemical Plant (Zelenogorsk, Krasno- contains 85% or more of U-235. Typically, yarsk Region), Siberian Chemical Combine the manufacture of modern nuclear weapon (Seversk, Tomsk Region), and Angarsk Ele- components requires the use of uranium ctrolysis Chemical Combine (Angarsk, Irkutsk enriched to even higher levels – 90% or Region). higher. In practical terms, a bomb could be Since the mid-1990s, Russia’s HEU manufactured using uranium enriched to 20% stockpile has been shrinking, as, pursuant to

Table 4.1. National stocks of highly enriched uranium as of 2011, in metric tons.**

Stockpile available Naval Naval Civilian Excess (mostly for Country Eliminated for weapons (fresh) (irradiated) material blend-down) China 16* France 26 4.6 India 2* Israel 0.3* Pakistan 2.75* Russia 616* 20* 10* 20* 71 446 United Kingdom 11.7 8.1 1.4 United States 260 130 100 20 100 135 Non-nuclear weapon states 20

* IPFM estimates. For Russia, an ± 120 МТ uncertainty is assumed. ** The numbers for the United Kingdom and United States are based on their publications. The civilian HEU stocks of France, the United Kingdom are based on their public declarations to the IAEA. Numbers with single asterisks are IPFM estimates, often with large uncertainties. HEU in non-nuclear weapon states is under IAEA safeguards. A 20 % uncertainty is assumed in the figures for total stocks in China and for the military stockpile in France, about 30% for Pakistan, and about 40% for India. The 446 tons of eliminated Russian HEU include 433 tons from the 500-ton HEU deal and 13 tons from the Material Consolidation and Conversion (MCC) project. About 4 tons of HEU remain for blend-down within the MCC project. About 10 tons of HEU in non-nuclear weapon states is irradiated fuel in Kazakhstan with an initial enrichment of about 20%.

43 a U.S.-Russian agreement, highly enriched reactors is lower than of that intended for uranium is being diluted to low-enriched liquid metal cooled reactors, but is higher (reactor-grade) uranium for use at U.S. than 20%. In their reliance on highly enriched nuclear power plants. In 1993, the U.S. and uranium as fuel of choice for reactors on Russia signed a government-to-government board of submarines and surface vessels, agreement that started the so-called the United States, France, Great Britain, and HEU-LEU (Megatons to Megawatts) program. Russia are guided by the goal of ensuring In 2011, in accordance with the contract that the core’s energy generating capacity is that was concluded as part of the HEU-LEU enough to support its operation throughout agreement between Russia’s Techsnabexport the vessel’s entire service period. This can and the U.S. USEC, about 834 tons of low- be achieved with highly enriched uranium enriched uranium was shipped to the United and high-quality materials used in the States. The value of these uranium deliveries manufacture of the reactor core. The United to the U.S. in 2011 totaled $1.01 billion. The States Navy currently requires around 2 20-year HEU-LEU program envisioned by this tons of weapons-grade uranium per year, agreement has now been completed to 88%. and 128 tons of excess weapons-grade In preliminary estimates, Russia’s overall uranium – an amount sufficient for 5,000 revenue from the Megatons to Megawatts nuclear weapons – is reserved in the U.S. for program may total $17 billion, including the prospective use in naval reactors. remaining shipments planned before the program’s completion in 2013. As of end 2011, the combined worldwide 4.2. Plutonium stockpile of highly enriched uranium – including but not limited to the weapons- Plutonium (Pu) is an artificial transuranic grade category – covered by IAEA safeguards radioactive chemical element of the actinide was estimated at around 1,470 tons. series with atomic number 94 in Group III in However, in expert assessments, the IAEA Mendeleev’s Periodic Table of the Chemical does not control over 10% of the total global Elements. HEU stockpile. After plutonium was first synthesized in a laboratory, attempts were made to discover it in nature. Trace amounts of plutonium 4.1.1. Highly enriched uranium have been detected in microscopic quantities (0.4-15 parts Pu per 1012 parts U) in uranium- for naval use bearing minerals. It was established that all plutonium isotopes have half-lives that are Fast (and intermediate) liquid metal much shorter than the Earth’s age, so all of cooled reactors were used in the USSR as the primordial plutonium that existed on propulsion reactors on board of nuclear- the planet at the time the Earth was formed powered Alfa class submarines. The Soviet has completely decayed. Extremely small Union built seven such vessels. These quantities of primordial Pu-244 – the longest- submarines’ reactors were loaded with lived plutonium isotope, which has a half- approximately 175 kg of fuel enriched to life of 80 million years – have been detected 90% of U-235. Thus, in the 1970s, around in cerium ores, where they have apparently 1.5 tons of HEU enriched to 90% was remained since they were formed during the altogether produced in the USSR for use creation of the Earth. Infinitesimal quantities in these reactors. In the 70 reactor-years of Pu-239 are also constantly forming as that these nuclear submarines remained in a result of beta decay of Np-239, which, in operation, there had been no core reloads turn, is yielded when uranium undergoes (with the exception of one or two emergency a nuclear reaction as its atoms are hit by reloads). At the end of the 1990s, the Alfa neutrons (for instance, those present in submarines were decommissioned, and the cosmic radiation). The amount of natural reactor fuel was unloaded and shipped to plutonium that is found in the accessible Dimitrovgrad (Ulyanovsk Region), where part of the Earth’s crust, therefore, does not Russia operates the only test facility capable exceed a few dozen kilograms. of accommodating this type of cores. All of the remaining plutonium – mea- HEU of various levels of enrichment is suring hundreds of tons worldwide – is man- also used for nuclear marine propulsion made, i.e. it is of artificial origin. Plutonium in various types of shipboard light water is produced from uranium-238 in nuclear reactors, in Russia and other countries alike. reactors. As a U-238 nucleus captures a The enrichment level of the fuel used in these neutron, a newly formed U-239 nucleus

44 beta-decays into Np-239, which, in its turn, is progresses into a dark purple. With severe transformed by beta decay into Pu-239. oxidation, a coat of olive-green oxide powder

First plutonium production reactors (PuO2) forms on the surface. were built in the 1940s – in the United Plutonium is characterized by a vast States at first, and then in the Soviet Union. variety of specific properties. It has the These reactors were capable of producing lowest thermal conductivity among all plutonium in amounts sufficient for the metals and its electrical conductivity is lower manufacture of a nuclear explosive device. than any metal but manganese. In its liquid The first nuclear military production phase, it is the most viscous of metals. And complex with uranium-fueled graphite- when exposed to temperature changes, it moderated reactors and a facility for chemical undergoes the most extreme and bizarre separation of plutonium from irradiated density changes (allotropic transformations). fuel was built in the United States near It can be as brittle as glass and as malleable Richland, Washington state, at what is known as aluminum. It expands as it solidifies, much as the Hanford Site, or Hanford Nuclear like water freezing into ice. Because of its high Reservation. In 1943, the United States first radioactivity levels, plutonium is warm to yielded plutonium metal in powder form the touch. A large piece of plutonium that is which was then sintered into ingots. In 1945, thermally insulated can develop a temperature the U.S. produced its first three plutonium exceeding the boiling point of water. bombs. One was detonated on July 16, 1945 Plutonium has 15 well-researched radio- in a nuclear test at a site in New Mexico, active isotopes ranging in mass number from another was dropped on Nagasaki on August 232 to 246. Table 4.2 lists the most significant 9, 1945, and the third one was never used. At plutonium isotopes used for the manufacture the height of the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear of nuclear weapons or fabrication of nuclear weapons complex comprised 18 facilities, fuel. including 14 production reactors. In the USSR, the first plutonium produc- tion reactors were built at a site in Chelya- Table 4.2. Plutonium isotopes. binsk Region (Production Association Mayak, Ozyorsk). Five more plutonium-producing Specific radioactivity Nuclide Half-life (in years) Radiation 9 reactors were subsequently built at the Siberian (×10 Bq/g) Chemical Combine (Seversk, Tomsk Region) Pu-238 87.74 α (γ) 630 and three more at the Mining and Chemical Pu-239 24,113 α (γ) 28.2 Combine (Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk Region). Pu-240 6,570 α (γ) 8.4 The USSR’s first nuclear weapon with a plutonium core was tested on August 29, 1949 Pu-241 14.6 β (α) 3,680 at a test site near Semipalatinsk. Two of the 18 Pu-242 375,000 α 0.141 production reactors built in the Soviet Union are still in operation. Later, England, France, and China created their own plutonium production facilities, The isotopes listed in Table 4.2 are with Inida, Pakistan, and Israel joining the present in any plutonium material produced nuclear weapons club in the following years. in a nuclear reactor. The specific isotopic In October 2006, North Korea performed its composition of the produced plutonium first underground nuclear bomb test, with a material depends to a considerable degree yield of around 1 kiloton. North Korea’s next on the fuel’s burnup, the level of initial atomic bomb test was conducted in May enrichment of U-235, as well as the type of 2009, yielding an estimated 12 kilotons. the nuclear reactor, which determines the particular properties of its neutron spectrum. The following categories are used to 4.2.1. Physical and chemical classify plutonium: – weapons-grade plutonium (WGPu) is properties of plutonium isotopes defined as plutonium material containing no more than 7% Pu-240; Plutonium is a very heavy metal with a – fuel-grade plutonium (FGPu) is defined silvery luster. It has a density of 19.8 g/cm3 as plutonium material containing between at a temperature of 25 °С. It is chemically 7% and 18% Pu-240; reactive – much more so than uranium. – reactor-grade plutonium (RGPu) is It quickly develops an iridescent tarnish, defined as plutonium material containing initially of a pale yellow that eventually over 18% Pu-240.

45 As follows from this classification, the energy. When exploded, one kilogram of main factor determining the grade of Pu-239 produces a yield equivalent to 20,000 plutonium material is the content of the tons of TNT. isotope Pu-240. Weapons-grade plutonium, being distinct from its fuel-grade and reactor- grade counterparts, does not differ from 4.3. Plutonium isotopes them so much in the enrichment degree and chemical composition as it does in its isotopic Plutonium-238 was the first plutonium composition, which depends in complicated isotope to be discovered. Its nuclei – as the ways both on the duration of uranium nuclei of all plutonium isotopes with even bombardment by neutrons and on the mass numbers – are not fissile, so it cannot plutonium’s storage period after irradiation. be used to generate nuclear energy. During It should be noted that an atomic bomb radioactive decay (5.1×106 fissions/g-hr), can be created using material with any Pu-238 has a very high heat output, at concentration of Pu-240. This is why the 567 W/kg. It emits very high levels of alpha very term “weapons-grade plutonium” radiation (283 times higher than Pu-239) and serves more to describe an economic can be a source of neutron emission from characteristic – in other words, how it the α, n reaction. The Pu-238 content in affects the cost of the bomb design, which total plutonium composition typically does could be implemented at various technical not exceed 1%. Pu-238 is currently widely and technological levels – than it does to used as a power source for equipment used characterize the plutonium material that can in space technologies and in medicine. be used to manufacture a bomb. On the one Plutonium-238 has an alpha decay energy hand, the cost of the plutonium decreases the of 5.5 MeV. A power source fueled by 1 kg of larger the share of Pu-240 in its composition, plutonium-238 develops a thermal capacity but on the other, the presence of Pu-240 of 560 W. The maximum thermal capacity of increases the critical mass, which drives up an electrochemical cell of identical mass is the cost of the material. However, it should 5 W. Because Pu-238 is not a strong emitter also be kept in mind that the key parameter of gamma rays from the α, γ reaction, it can that has a bearing on the risk of nuclear be used as a power source in medicine, for proliferation is not the amount of Pu-240 instance, to power artificial heart pacemakers. in the plutonium material but its Pu-241 Plutonium-239 is essentially the most content and, to an extent, that of Pu-238. important isotope formed by a U-238 nucleus These isotopes have rather short half-lives upon neutron capture in this reaction: (Т1/2 Pu-241 = 14.4 years, Т1/2 Pu-238 = 86.4 years), and, as they are transformed by beta and alpha decay into other isotopes (Am-241 and U-234, respectively), they alter considerably plutonium’s isotopic Pu-239 today is the chief component composition and, correspondingly, impact its in almost all nuclear weapons since its suitability for use in nuclear weapons. production technologies are simpler, more The United States has built 14 reactors economical, and more promising than for the production of weapons-grade the technologies needed to enrich the plutonium – nine at the Hanford Site in concentration of U-235 in natural uranium to Washington state and five at the Savannah weapons-grade levels. Furthermore, Pu-239 River Site in Georgia. The last of these has larger scattering and absorption cross- reactors was shut down in 1988. sections than uranium, and a larger number In Russia (Soviet Union) weapons-grade of neutrons per fission, and, correspondingly, plutonium was produced at 18 reactors of a lesser critical mass. One kilogram of Pu-239 different types (Table 4.3). is equivalent to 22 million kWh of thermal

46 Table 4.3. Russian (Soviet) plutonium production reactors.

Facility Reactor name Reactor type* Reactor generation Startup year Shutdown year A UGK I 1948 1987 AI-IR UGK I 1951 1987 AV-1 UGK II 1950 1989 AV-2 UGK II 1951 1990 Production Association AV-3 UGK II 1952 1990 Mayak, Ozyorsk OK-180 TVK I 1951 1966 (Chelyabinsk-65) OK-190 TVK I 1955 1965 OK-190M TVK I 1966 1985 Ruslan VVR I 1979 In operation Lyudmila TVK II 1986 In operation I-1 UGK I 1955 1990 Siberian Chemical EI-2 UGKTs II 1958 1990 Combine, Seversk OK-140 UGKTs III 1961 1992 (Tomsk-7) OK-204 UGKTs III 1964 2008 OK-205 UGKTs III 1965 2008 Mining and Chemical OK-120 UGK II 1958 1992 Combine, Zheleznogorsk OK-135 UGKTs III 1962 1993 (Krasnoyarsk-26) OK-206 UGKTs III 1964 2010

* Reactor type abbreviations stand for: UGK: uranium-fueled graphite-moderated channel-type reactor; TVK: heavy water vessel-type reactor; UGKTs: dual-purpose uranium-fueled graphite-moderated reactor; VVR: water-cooled water-moderated reactor.

As shown in Table 4.3, only two production a moderate heat production rate, and thus reactors, of the types VVR and TVK, remain in does not adversely affect weapon usability operation. All uranium-graphite production of plutonium directly. It decays with a short reactors have been shut down, though as 14-year half-life into americium-241, which is yet not decommissioned. The last plutonium non-fissile and does produce a great deal of production uranium-graphite reactor, ADES-2, heat: 106 W/kg. Pu-241 does not emit much which had been in operation at the Mining heat (only 3.4 W/kg) because of its weak beta and Chemical Combine for over 46 years, was emission decay mode. shut down on April 15, 2010. Plutonium-242. Pu-242 has a high neutron State Corporation Rosatom has developed emission rate, at 8.4×105 fissions/sec-kg – a decommissioning concept for uranium- or twice that of Pu-240, and is non-fissile. graphite production reactors involving the A substantial concentration of Pu-242 thus option of radioactively safe disposal in a increases both the critical mass and neutron repository on site. The total cost of measures background. With its long half-life, and a envisioned for these purposes is earmarked relatively low neutron capture cross-section, at RUR 4.8 billion in the Federal Target Pu-242 tends to accumulate in recycled Program for Nuclear and Radiation Safety for reactor plutonium. 2008 and for the Period through 2015, while the cost of decommissioning one reactor is estimated at RUR 2 billion alone. 4.4. Plutonium stockpiles Weapons-grade plutonium can furthermore be extracted from spent nuclear With the exception of Russia, all major fuel during reprocessing, which is done at nuclear weapon states have declared the Mayak using the two reactors that remain in amount of weapons-grade plutonium operation. accumulated in their arsenals. However, Plutonium-240 is the major contaminant exact data are unavailable for certain nations of concern in plutonium intended for such as Iran, Israel, North Korea, and others, weapons use. Pu-240 is fairly fissile, which is why expert estimates are used in more so than U-235. Nonetheless, high related publications. concentrations of Pu-240 raise the required According to these estimates, the global critical mass, thus aggravating the neutron stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium accu- background problem. mulated by all nations totals around 300 tons. Plutonium-241 is about as fissile as The United States has over 50 years Pu-239, has a low neutron emission rate, and produced more than 100 tons of weapons-

47 grade plutonium. All production reactors in the tons – and potentially up to 50 tons – of its United States are currently shut down. As of weapons-grade plutonium as excess for its end 2010, the U.S. weapons-grade plutonium defense purposes. inventory totaled 99.5 tons, of which 54 tons The combined weapons-grade plutonium has been declared by the U.S. government as stock accumulated in other countries excess to national security needs. totals around 18 tons. Of these, the United Russia, in expert estimates, currently Kingdom owns about 7 tons; France, 6 tons; owns between 123 and 200 tons of weapons- China, 2 tons; and the rest belongs to India, grade plutonium. Russia has declared 34 Israel, and other nuclear nations.

Table 4.4. National stocks of separated plutonium (as of 2011), in metric tons.**

Military Excess military Additional strategic Civilian stockpile stored Civilian stockpile stored Country stockpile material stockpile in country outside country China 1.8* France 6* 56 Germany 2 5.6 India 0.52* 4.2* 0.24 Israel 0.8* Japan 9.9 35 North Korea 0.03* Pakistan 0.14* Russia 88* 34 6* 48.4 United Kingdom 3.2* 4.4 86.8 0.9 United States 38 53.9 Others 10.7

* IPFM estimates. ** Civilian stocks are based on the most recent INFCIRC/549 declarations for December 2010 and are listed by ownership, not by current location. Weapon stocks are based on non-governmental estimates except for the United States and United Kingdom, whose governments have made declarations. Uncertainties of the military stockpiles for China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and Russia are on the order of 10-30%. The plutonium India separated from spent heavy water power reactor fuel has been categorized by India as “strategic,” and not to be placed under IAEA safeguards. Russia has 6 tons of weapon-grade plutonium that it has agreed to not use for weapons but not declared excess.

Table 4.5. Uranium and plutonium content in spent nuclear fuel of 4.4.1. Commercial (civilian) one reactor core, in kilograms. plutonium Material Light water reactors Fast reactors Civilian plutonium is produced in nuclear Uranium 960 856 reactors burning uranium fuel and is Plutonium 7 103 separated from the spent nuclear fuel using technologies similar to those employed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Table 4.6. Total amount of SNF accumulated in Russia, including One kilogram of nuclear fuel burnt in a forecast to 2050, and plutonium content, in tons. light water reactor contains around six grams of plutonium. This value is much larger in 2000 2010 2025 2050 the case of fast reactors. Table 4.5 lists data SNF 15,000 23,000 33,000 50,000 on uranium and plutonium content in spent Plutonium content 90 140 240 500 nuclear fuel burnt in light water and fast reactors. Table 4.6 shows changes in the total amount of SNF accumulated in Russia and forecast to 2050, as well as plutonium content in that SNF.

48 If a nuclear power plant is operated Table 4.7. Approximate isotopic composition of plutonium according to nameplate power generation generated in a VVER-type light water reactor. capacity, then the typical isotopic composition of the plutonium generated in the reactor fuel Plutonium isotope Pu-238 Pu-239 Pu-240 Pu-241 Pu-242 will be different than that of weapons-grade Content, % 1.4 56.5 11.28 2.95 1.42 plutonium. Table 4.7 shows the approximate isotopic composition of plutonium generated in a VVER-type light water reactor, with fuel of separated civilian plutonium is stored at burnup at 33 MWd/kg. three sites in Europe – La Hague, Marcoule, The lesser the amount of Pu-239 in and Sellafield – and in Russia, at Production civilian plutonium, and the more the content Association Mayak. Various data also indicate of Pu-240, the less attractive it is for the that around 7 to 10 tons of plutonium has purpose of manufacturing nuclear weapons, been dispersed across the globe as a result as compared to weapons-grade plutonium. of nuclear weapons tests, losses during Yet, civilian plutonium can be used to production, and accidents at various nuclear manufacture a nuclear explosive device – facilities. which, all other conditions being equal, Separated civilian plutonium belongs will simply have larger dimensions, a more to countries that remain engaged in spent complicated design, and a considerably lesser nuclear fuel reprocessing or that have yield. concluded reprocessing contracts. There Nuclear tests performed in 1962 in the are countries such as Germany, Italy, the United States in Nevada (and later, in India, Netherlands, and Switzerland, that also own in 1974) used weapons that had civilian small national plutonium stocks that they plutonium as the fissile core. The tests store on their respective territories. confirmed earlier theoretical calculations The U.S. owns a relatively small stock that held that civilian plutonium could be of civilian plutonium produced at a used to manufacture nuclear weapons. radiochemical enterprise in West Valley, New This effectively made civilian plutonium York, a site closed in 1972. a subject of non-proliferation policies. A Great Britain separates civilian plutonium report on this finding was presented at an from spent nuclear fuel burnt in British and IAEA conference in 1971. According to a foreign reactors. In storage in the United finding by the Lawrence Livermore National Kingdom is currently around 100 tons of Laboratory, “Virtually any combination civilian plutonium. Plutonium from foreign- of plutonium isotopes ... can be used to generated SNF is to be reprocessed into make a nuclear weapon,” which is why MOX fuel and returned to the respective plutonium with any isotope content should client states. The country is yet to determine be regarded as strategically important and its policy with regard to its own civilian dangerous material. The IAEA furthermore plutonium. determined that 25 kg of U-235 in highly France has accumulated around 70 tons of enriched uranium and 8 kg of plutonium were civilian plutonium, of which 30 tons is owned substantial amount of fissile materials – i.e. by foreign customers. amounts sufficient to manufacture a first- Japan has started plutonium separation generation implosion-type bomb of the kind at a facility in Rokkasho, where by the end that was dropped on Nagasaki. of 2010, around 10 tons of separated civilian Taking into account the plutonium plutonium had been produced. contained in SNF that has not yet been Russia submitted to the IAEA in May 2010 reprocessed, overall, more than 1,200 tons its annual declaration on the total amount of of plutonium (both civilian and military) civilian plutonium in the Russian Federation. has been produced worldwide. This figure The communication contains information on continues to rise annually by an estimated 75 the Russian stock of civilian plutonium as of tons. December 31, 2009, compared to the figures In expert estimates, the global stockpile current as of December 31, 2008. of separated (pure) plutonium, both civilian According to this communication, as and military, totals around 500 tons. Storage of the end of 2009, the total amount of facilities of nuclear weapon states contain unirradiated separated plutonium at Russian over 250 tons of separated civilian plutonium SNF reprocessing enterprises was 46.3 tons. not including the plutonium that Russia and At the end of 2008, Russia had 45.2 tons of the United States have declared as excess – this type of plutonium. 34 tons and 54 tons in Russia and the U.S., Plutonium contained in unirradiated MOX respectively. Over 80% of the global stockpile fuel assemblies or other fabricated products

49 at reactor sites or elsewhere amounted to as excess to defense needs, plutonium 300 kg of civilian plutonium. The figure for management, and cooperation in that field. this category is the same as that stated for The protocol was signed in Washington on 2008. The amount of plutonium identified April 13, 2010 and served as an amendment in the communication as “unirradiated to the bilateral government-to-government separated plutonium held elsewhere” stood agreement on the disposition of excess in 2009 at 1,100 kg over the figure of 1,000 kg weapons-grade plutonium signed in 2000. reported for 2008. Under the agreement, each of the The total stock of unirradiated separated countries committed to dispose of 34 tons civilian plutonium stored in Russia therefore of accumulated excess weapons-grade increased in 2009 to 47.7 tons over the plutonium. Also according to the agreement, 46.5 tons stated for 2008. the U.S. is to allocate up to $400 million Of this total amount, 0.3 kg of plutonium to the Russian excess weapons-grade stored in Russia belonged to “foreign plutonium disposition program. The Russian bodies.” Additionally, 0.6 kg of Russia-owned government will contribute RUR 2.5 billion plutonium was in 2009 “held in locations in toward the implementation of this program. other countries” and was thus not included Excess weapons-grade plutonium into the total Russian stock. is accumulated in the process of The communication also contained decommissioning nuclear weapons. The information on the total amount of civilian dismantlement of nuclear warheads in plutonium that was accumulated in spent Russia takes place at the same enterprises nuclear fuel in Russia. These figures were where these weapons were manufactured: rounded to tons: Plutonium in spent fuel that Urals Electrochemical Combine (Novouralsk, was stored at civil reactor sites amounted Sverdlovsk Region), Penza Instrument- to 71 tons, or three tons more than in 2008; Making Plant (Zarechny, Penza Region), and plutonium contained in spent fuel that had Instrument Manufacturing Plant (Trekhgorny, been transported to reprocessing plants Chelyabinsk Region). When operating to totaled four tons, or one ton more than in full capacity, these enterprises are capable 2008; and plutonium contained in spent fuel of disassembling up to 2,000 warheads a held elsewhere was 47 tons, or two tons year. The cost of dismantling one warhead more than at the end of 2008. is between $10,000 and $15,000 depending Overall, Russia’s total stock of civilian on the design complexity. During the plutonium, all categories included, is dismantlement, the nuclear core material – estimated to have been 169.7 tons as of end so-called pit, in which uranium-235 (enriched 2009, having increased by 7.2 tons over 2008 to 90%) and plutonium-239 (enriched to over figures. 90%) are used – is removed from the warhead. The fissile materials, uranium and plutonium, that are extracted from the warheads during 4.5. Plutonium management dismantlement are not just a national-level problem, but also an international one, both and disposition from the environmental point of view and that of non-proliferation goals. Two perspectives have developed today in In December 2003, PA Mayak the world regarding further management of commissioned a unique site of strategic accumulated plutonium. In the United States, importance: the Fissile Material Storage most experts favor the option of disposing Facility (FMSF). This development came as of plutonium in deep geological formations, part of the U.S.-Russia Cooperative Threat mixed with high-level radioactive waste and Reduction program. The FMSF is the only in vitrified form. Russia regards plutonium site of this kind in Russia and is intended to primarily as an energy resource that can be be used for 100-year storage of weapons- used as mixed uranium and plutonium oxide grade uranium and plutonium released in (MOX) fuel for nuclear power plants. Studies the process of the nuclear arms reduction that have started in the 1960s focusing on effort and nuclear weapon component application of pure plutonium as fuel in fast disposition. According to the information reactors have yielded little success and are available, the facility is mainly filling up with likely to discontinue. weapons-grade plutonium packed in special In March 2011, the government of the containers. The total stock of plutonium – Russian Federation adopted a protocol weapons-grade and civilian – that is already amending a bilateral U.S.-Russia agreement in storage at Mayak reaches over 60 tons (see on the disposition of plutonium declared Table 4.8).

50 Table 4.8. Characteristics of plutonium in storage facilities at Production Association Mayak.

Facility Purpose Weight, in tons Activity, in mCi Fissile Material Storage Facility Storage of weapons-grade plutonium 25 130 Reactor A building Storage of civilian plutonium 38 Over 100,000 Total activity: over 100,000 mCi (3.7×1012 Bq)

According to a number of specialists and 4.6. Weapons-grade fissile analysts, using one single facility for storage materials and international policies of dangerous nuclear materials runs counter to the principle of distributed storage of such and safety materials and allows for an unprecedented concentration of radioactive substances in Nine countries currently own nuclear one place. Officially, Rosatom insists that weapons. These are: the United States, the list of possible emergency situations Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, developed for the project documentation Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. for the FMSF provides for all realistically At the height of the Cold War, the USSR’s possible emergency events. But the list nuclear warhead inventory numbered, in still offers no clear answers to a number of some estimates, around 30,000 nuclear questions that arise with regard to the risks weapons. In line with international strategic associated with force majeure events – risks and tactical nuclear arms reduction that have become pertinent considering the agreements, the country was to dismantle facts of the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan. between 16,000 and 18,000 nuclear The major questions are: Do the designs of weapons. By 1997, Russia, as the USSR’s the FMSF and the building housing the first successor, had already disassembled around production reactor, Reactor A, guarantee the 50% of the warheads. In April 2010, the intactness of the material in storage under Russian and U.S. presidents signed a treaty the various scenarios involving a nuclear on Measures for the Further Reduction and attack or an attack with a modern “bunker- Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or busting” bomb of the GBU-28 type or similar? New START, which entered into force on What will happen should these buildings be February 5, 2011, replacing the START I hit with a modern airliner (jumbo jet), with treaty, which had expired in December an in-flight weight of 200 tons and a speed 2009. The treaty is to last ten years with an of over 800 km/h (the parameters adopted option to renew it upon mutual agreement for a crashing aircraft scenario in the FMSF of the parties for a further five years. The project are on par with those of a WWII treaty provides for the following limits: 1,550 bomber)? Keeping in mind the 100 years as nuclear warheads and 700 deployed inter- the expected storage period at the FMSF, continental ballistic missiles, submarine- even the most infinitesimal possibility of such launched ballistic missiles, and heavy threats must be duly considered. bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. When the siting decision for the Fissile Information on the cumulative numbers Material Storage Facility was being made, of nuclear weapons in the two countries’ one option under discussion was transferring arsenals has been made public under the Russia’s plutonium stockpile into a deep New START treaty. As of early 2010, Russia’s underground facility, for instance, at the operative nuclear arms included 2,504 Mining and Chemical Combine (Zheleznogorsk, warheads, while the U.S. nuclear arsenal Krasnoyark Region), where it could be numbered 1968/2468 warheads (the second accommodated on the unoccupied production figure reflects the 500 warheads carried by areas of some of the sites where operations Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range in have been discontinued. This proposal excess of 600 km, submarines, and unguided received a favorable state environmental bombs – weapons that fall outside the scope impact assessment. Other, suitable deep- of the treaty). underground siting options could possibly be developed by specialists for the FMSF project so as to ensure the safety of the materials in storage against all possible threats.

51 CHAPTER 5. SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) refers to nuclear SNF is the most potentially dangerous material and fission products contained in product arising from the application of spent (irradiated) nuclear fuel assemblies nuclear energy, because it contains up to unloaded from a nuclear reactor after their 98% of all radioactivity concentrated in all the use (irradiation). materials of the nuclear fuel cycle. Strictly speaking, spent nuclear fuel The radioactivity of 1 kg of SNF on the first represents a homogeneous-heterogeneous day following its unloading from a reactor highly radioactive mix of structural materials at a nuclear power plant is between 26,000 (which have lost their durability and leak and 180,000 Ci (9.6-67×1014 Bq). A year later, resistance and have become radioactive) its activity will have decreased to 1,000 Ci and a mix of radionuclides (the remainders (3.7×1013 Bq), and over the course of 30 of the initial and newly generated nuclear years, to 260 Ci (9.6×1012 Bq). Owing to the fissile material). This mix can no longer be decay process of short-lived radionuclides, nuclear fuel per se. The term “spent nuclear within one year after its unloading from a fuel,” used to designate what can be called nuclear reactor, the radioactivity level of a “maximally radioactive conglomerate” of spent nuclear fuel will drop by 11-12 times, a different isotopic composition, in contrast and, after 30 years, it will have dropped by to the original nuclear fuel configuration, 140-220 times, slowly decreasing further was coined in order to be able to artificially over hundreds of years. classify this material as falling outside the Fission products that are generated as category of radioactive waste. That this a result of nuclear reactions are elements “radioactive conglomerate” can be used to with mass numbers ranging from 72 to 161, extract, at great cost, new nuclear fissile i.e. from zinc to dysprosium. Additionally, materials, only proves that there is no waste a share of the total radioactivity of SNF is that cannot be used to extract something contributed by radionuclides of iron (55), valuable – it is only a matter of the cost of cobalt (58, 60), nickel (59), and other the technology needed to do it. However, elements – radionuclides that are generated because spent nuclear fuel remains the in the structural materials of fuel assemblies generally accepted term, it will be used in this as a result of neutron irradiation. Nuclear report despite its true meaning, described fission and radioactive decay result in the above. generation in spent nuclear fuel of several hundred radionuclides with half-lives ranging from thousandths of a second to millions of Table 5.1. Major radionuclides contributing to SNF radioactivity years. The main radionuclides contributing to and toxicity. the radioactivity and toxicity of spent nuclear fuel are listed in Table 5.1. Time period (in years) Main radioactivity contributors The necessary component present in Fe-55, Co-58, Ni-59, Sr-90, Ru-106, Cs-134, Up to 100 SNF is the newly generated isotopes of the 137, Ce-144, Pm-147, Eu-154, 155 following actinides: uranium (232, 236), Between 100 and 1,000 Sm-151, Co-60, Cs-137, Ni-59, 63 plutonium (239, 240, 241, 242), americium Between 1,000 and 10,000 Pu-239, 240, Am-241 (241, 242, 243), curium (242, 243, 244), and neptunium (237). Np-237, Pu-239,240, Am-243, C-14, Ni-59, Between 104 and 105 After it is unloaded from a reactor, spent Zr-93, Nb-94 nuclear fuel contains 96% of U-235 and Over 105 I-129, Tc-99, Pu-239 U-238, 1% of Pu-239 and Pu-240, and 3% of

52 radioactive fission fragments (see Appendices According to the IAEA, in operation in 5.1 and 5.2). the world today are: 331 GW in combined The chemical and physical properties of LWR capacity; 23 GW in combined CANDU spent nuclear fuel depend on the type of the capacity; and 19 GW in combined RBMK original fuel and the level of its enrichment, capacity. reactor type and power capacity, the Total global annual SNF accumulation irradiation period, the duration of the cooling figures for each of these reactor types are period following unloading, and a number of listed in Table 5.3 (with one reactor assumed other parameters. as operating at 90% of nameplate capacity of When extracted from a nuclear reactor, 1 GW). SNF is characterized by significant decay heat – the result of beta and gamma decay of the fission products accumulated in the fuel Table 5.2. Spent nuclear fuel accumulated in the world’s top ten assemblies over the course of the fuel’s life nuclear countries (as of early 2011). cycle in the reactor, as well as of alpha and beta decay of the actinides. Country Spent fuel inventory (tHM) Spent fuel policy The presence in spent nuclear fuel of Canada 37,300 Direct disposal “old” and “new” nuclear fissile materials, Finland 1,600 Direct disposal the increased toxicity of the radionuclides, France 13,500 Reprocessing and the decay heat require enhanced safety measures and special technologies needed Germany 5,850 Direct disposal to handle the material. The possibility to Japan 19,000 Reprocessing transport this material, transfer it to “dry” Russia 22,000 Partial reprocessing storage, reprocess it, or perform any other Storage, future South Korea 10,900 operations with it only becomes available options undecided after the SNF has been held in “wet” storage Sweden 5,400 Direct disposal in a cooling pond for a period of three to five Reprocessing, but years. United Kingdom 5,850 future unclear United States 64,500 Direct disposal 5.1. Accumulation, storage, and transportation of spent nuclear fuel in Russia and abroad Table 5.3. Annual global SNF accumulation. The most accurate data available on Average annual SNF the accumulation of spent nuclear fuel in Reactor type (1 GW Typical fuel burnup generation from one various countries can be found in national capacity) (GWd/tHM)* reports that are submitted to the IAEA by the reactor (tons) LWR (light water respective governments of these countries 50 20 in accordance with the requirements of moderated) CANDU (heavy water the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent 7 140 Fuel Management and on the Safety of moderated) Radioactive Waste Management. RBMK (graphite 15 65 As of early 2011, around 250,000 tons of moderated) SNF (expressed as tons of heavy metal) had been accumulated in the world. The amounts * Average fuel burnup is understood to be the ratio of the amount of of SNF (current for the same period) held in energy generated to the amount of fuel loaded. the world’s top ten nuclear countries, where over 80% of the global nuclear potential is concentrated, are listed in Table 5.2.

53 SNF Storage PA Mayak VVER-440 cooling Facility 1, BN-600 ponds Mining and Chemical Mayak Combine RT-1 Plant Start-up facility, SNF Storage 8,600 tU Facility 2, SNF Storage Storage Facility Phase I, 1,000 tU cooling Facility 1, MMC, VVER-1000 17,200 tU ponds 6,000 to 8,600 tU capacity upgrade Storage Facility Phase II, MMC 12,200 tU SNF Reprocessing SNF Plant cooling disassembly RBMK- SNF storage at cask storage Pilot ponds shops at 1000 NPPs areas at NPPs Demonstration at NPPs NPPs Center

underground SNF cooling ponds disposal EGP-6 disassembly "wet" storage "dry" storage sites shop at NPP

cooling AMB-100 ponds AMB-200 at NPP

Fig. 5.1. Management of spent nuclear fuel from power reactors of Russian (Soviet) design.

A typical flow sheet representing the levels considerably. Furthermore, the “wet” management of SNF of power reactors of storage method allows for the possibility to Russian (Soviet) design is shown in Fig. 5.1. control the fuel’s condition, including by visual means. The period needed for the heat output to lower to the required levels ranges between 5.1.1. Storage of spent nuclear fuel one and five years depending on the fuel’s type and burnup. Of all spent nuclear fuel accumulated in The principal risk associated with storing the world, 90% is stored in “wet” facilities, spent nuclear fuel in cooling ponds is a loss and the balance is held in “dry” casks. The of cooling water. The disaster at Fukushima annual spent nuclear fuel generated globally Nuclear Power Plant has demonstrated just is approximately 10,500 tHM per year, with how catastrophic the consequences of such an roughly 8,500 tHM going into long-term event could be in terms of radiation danger. storage and the remainder allocated for Another risk that accompanies SNF storage reprocessing but much of it in interim storage. in cooling ponds is that of a spontaneous The IAEA does not prescribe any particular nuclear chain reaction, which may occur standards with regard to storage methods or if spent fuel assemblies are stored in a duration periods, but points out that the period “densified” mode – packed closely together – of “dry” SNF storage may reach hundreds since water serves as a moderator. This is of years. It falls upon the nuclear states possible either due to a mistake made by themselves to regulate the issues of storage reactor operators or as a result of an accident, duration periods and methods. For instance, such as, for instance, the accident that involved the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the storage pond in Russia’s Andreyeva Bay has made the decision that spent fuel could be (Zaozyorsk, Murmansk Region). stored in “dry” casks for 60 years after the fuel “Dry” storage implies using air or inert has been unloaded from the reactor. Russia gas instead of water. Several design options has no established SNF storage standards. But exist for storage facilities based on the “dry” the problem of long-term – indefinite – storage storage technology: cask-based storage of spent nuclear fuel remains the predominant facilities, reinforced concrete silos, concrete one for the global nuclear industry. modular units, etc. “Dry” casks serve a “Wet” storage ensures the removal of variety of functions: storage proper, packing decay heat in the SNF and reduces radioactivity for transportation, or final disposal. There

54 are, furthermore, a rather large number of easy retrieval of the fuel from its storage designs suggested for dual-purpose casks. containers (see Appendix 5.3). The issue most critical for “dry” storage is Building geological disposal facilities at that of acceptable storage temperature: it three- to five-kilometer depths has today must not exceed 380-410 °С for zirconium become possible with the advances made alloys in an atmosphere filled with inert gas. in the deep-hole drilling technologies. The The “dry” storage method does not challenges that arise with implementing this have the same disadvantages that are option – such as the need to ensure complete characteristic for “wet” storage, but it does insulation of the fuel to protect it from nonetheless present a greater hazard in groundwater, as water penetration can occur terms of radiation risks since the absence of even in a granite monolith – can, theoretically, water increases radiation exposure levels be solved. For instance, Sweden’s SKB employs inside and outside the storage facilities. in its container manufacturing process special Interim storage implies storage of spent alloys that calculations show should resist nuclear fuel in temporary storage facilities the impact of increased humidity levels, at the reactor sites or elsewhere. These temperature fluctuations, and corrosion for facilities could be both cooling ponds and one million years. The long-term geological “dry” modules that could allow for SNF disposal technologies will thus likely continue transportation outside the reactor site. in this trend since disposing of spent nuclear Interim storage facilities can have operational fuel in underground geological facilities is a lifetimes well in excess of 50 years. In Russia, safer option than holding SNF in storage in all nuclear power plants operating RBMK above-ground facilities. reactors, as well as Novovoronezh NPP, have interim storage facilities for accommodation and storage of spent nuclear fuel for periods 5.1.2. Spent nuclear fuel accu- of no less than 10 years. These facilities are located on NPP premises in separate buildings. mulation and storage in Russia One other example of an interim SNF storage facility is the “dry” storage facility Russia’s spent nuclear fuel inventory is operated by Atomflot in Murmansk. Placed in estimated at around 22,000 tHM, with some storage there is spent nuclear fuel unloaded 850 tHM in new SNF generated each year. from the reactors of nuclear-powered The forecast for future accumulated spent submarines, naval cruisers, and icebreakers. nuclear fuel in Russia is shown in Fig. 5.2. Geological disposal. No country regards Spent nuclear fuel varies in its long-term above-ground storage of spent isotopic composition. The typical isotopic nuclear fuel as a safe option suitable for compositions of spent fuel burnt in VVER- long (over 100 years) periods of time. 440 and VVER-1000 reactors are shown in Spent fuel management policies adopted in Appendix 5.4. France, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan are The main contributors to Russia’s SNF structured around the goal of researching stock are currently: 32 reactors operating at and implementing options that would make it possible to close the nuclear fuel cycle – i.e. these countries lean toward tons 60,000 SNF reprocessing. Other countries assume that spent fuel will have to be disposed of 50,000 in geological repositories built hundreds of meters deep underground. 40,000 Many analysts believe spent fuel should be accommodated in geological repositories 30,000 in special containers and within a controlled environment. Great uncertainties remain, 20,000 however, with regard to all of the geological 10,000 disposal options under consideration. The primary challenge is that it will be difficult 0 to predict the short-term (first 100 years) 2009 2010 2015 2025 2035 2030 2035 2040 behavior of the spent fuel placed in a NPP-2006 VVER-1000 RBMK-1000 repository. This is why the projects that have made the most progress investigating the geological disposal approach (for instance, Fig. 5.2. Forecast growth in Russia’s accumulated SNF inventory to 2040, research by Sweden’s SKB) provide for with breakdown by reactor type.

55 Table 5.4. Spent nuclear fuel (in tons) of various reactor types in storage at State Corporation Rosatom’s enterprises (as of January 1, 2008).

VVER- VVER-440, VVER- Propulsion VVER-1000 RBMK-1000 BN-600 AMB EGP-6 440 AMB 1000 reactors Atomflot Kola NPP Kola Combine PA Mayak PA Kursk NPP Kalinin NPP Kalinin Rostov NPP Bilibino NPP Balakovo NPP Balakovo Smolensk NPP Beloyarsk NPP Beloyarsk NPP Beloyarsk Leningrad NPP Leningrad Novovoronezh NPP Novovoronezh NPP Mining and Chemical Mining and Chemical

75.4 73.9 138.5 400.3 98.2 222.1 4,612.0 4,485.2 2,372.1 35.9 190.9 140.9 463.6 4,871.6 5,541.0 SFAs

nuclear power plants (including ten VVER- to accommodate and store spent nuclear 1000s, six VVER-440s, eleven RBMK-1000s, fuel of propulsion reactors, reactors of the four EGP-6s, and one BN-600); eight reactors types VVER-440 and BN-600, and research operating on board of nuclear icebreakers; 20 reactors, with subsequent transfer of this SNF to 30 nuclear-powered submarine and naval for reprocessing. Mayak’s storage facility also cruiser reactors; and around 53 (as of 2009) holds spent nuclear fuel of AMB reactors, research reactors. which is not suitable for reprocessing. At Detailed information on spent nuclear fuel present, a total of around 500 tons of SNF has generation at various reactors in operation been accumulated at the facility. The site is and under construction in Russia is given in operated by Mayak’s SNF reprocessing plant Appendix 5.5. (RT-1) and is part of its spent fuel preparation Temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel of area. various types is done in Russia at the nuclear Mining and Chemical Combine power plants in operation (storage at the In 1986, a storage facility with a capacity of reactor sites and interim storage facilities), 6,000 tons (uranium) was built at the Mining at the special storage facility operated by and Chemical Combine to store SNF from Production Association Mayak (Ozyorsk, VVER-1000 reactors. At present, this facility Chelyabinsk Region), and at the “wet” and is all but filled to capacity. Delivered here for “dry” storage facilities run by the Mining storage is spent nuclear fuel from Russian and Chemical Combine (Zheleznogorsk, nuclear power plants – Novovoronezh, Krasnoyarsk Region). Russia’s accumulated Balakovo, and Kalinin NPPs, and the possibility SNF is mostly concentrated at nuclear power is provided for accommodation of SNF from plants and other Rosatom enterprises (see Rostov NPP. Additionally, the facility accepts Table 5.4). for storage foreign spent nuclear fuel: SNF Production Association Mayak from Bulgaria (Kozloduy NPP) and Ukraine The SNF storage facility at PA Mayak was (South-Ukraine, Zaporizhzhya, Khmelnitsky, commissioned in 1969. The facility is designed and Rivne NPPs). The facility’s capacity is planned to be expanded to 8,600 tons. tons As part of its plans regarding the Mining 30,000 and Chemical Combine’s near future, Rosatom 25,000 is looking to commission there in 2015 a large “dry” air-cooled centralized storage 20,000 site with a capacity of almost 26,510 tons to 15,000 accommodate spent nuclear fuel from RBMK- 1000 and VVER-1000 reactors. Fig. 5.3 shows 10,000 a forecast for future placement of RBMK spent 5,000 fuel for storage in this centralized facility. 0 Filling of the site’s start-up complex with spent nuclear fuel began in 2011. The removal

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 of spent fuel from Russia’s nuclear power Zheleznogorsk "dry" storage facility filling rate plants and transportation to Zheleznogorsk’s new storage facility is expected to take place Fig. 5.3. Projected storage space filling rate at the Mining and Chemical throughout a period of over 20 years. Combine’s “dry” storage facility, starting with its planned commissioning date.

56 5.1.3. Spent nuclear fuel of spent fuel. SNF transportation routes involve, as a rule, deliveries from nuclear transportation power plants to PA Mayak and to the storage Railroad is the main means of trans- facility in Krasnoyarsk. Additionally, some portation used to ship spent nuclear fuel on 700 kg (uranium) of spent fuel is moved the territories of nuclear states. According annually to Mayak from the storage facilities to the IAEA and national nuclear and of the Northern and Pacific Fleets. A general radiation safety agencies, railroad SNF overview of shipping casks used for SNF shipments provide sufficient safety during transportation is given in Appendix 5.6. transportation. However, it is acknowledged Railroad shipments are expected to that certain problems still warrant further expand in the next several years as Rosatom consideration – such as those that may be is planning massive removal of spent fuel from associated with the threat of terrorism and storage facilities at nuclear power plants and the issues of shipping spent nuclear fuel its transportation to the Mining and Chemical across densely populated regions. Combine and Mayak. An effort of similar Maritime shipments are used when SNF is scale – no fewer than 35 special delivery transported between nations or continents, trains – is also planned in Russia’s north as part such as between Japan and Europe, between of an SNF removal project in Andreyeva Bay mainland Europe and Great Britain, as well (SevRAO, Branch No. 1), where some 21,000 as between Russia and European countries. spent fuel assemblies from submarine reactors Certain countries ship their spent nuclear have accumulated in storage. fuel by special vessels with routes lying along SNF transportation by sea is done in these countries’ coastlines (for instance, Russia’s Northwest and in the Far East, Sweden). as Russia’s nuclear-powered submarines IAEA rules do not prescribe against and surface ships are stationed in these transporting SNF by aircraft, but they list a regions. These shipments usually proceed number of additional safety requirements, between naval bases and shiprepairing yards since an accident involving an aircraft with located along the coastline. In the north, spent nuclear fuel on board may have much these are short-distance routes: Polyarny more severe consequences than one where (Shiprepairing Yard 10), Snezhnogorsk land transport or a marine vessel is used. (Shiprepairing Yard Nerpa), Zaozyorsk Estimates show that air shipments of spent (SevRAO, Branch No. 1), Ostrovnoi (SevRAO, nuclear fuel are rather rare and are only Branch No. 2), with the port of Murmansk undertaken when failing to obtain approval as the destination. Transportation has been for, or when it proves impossible for other carried out both by Atomflot’s civilian nuclear reasons to arrange, cross-border delivery support vessels (Lepse, Imandra, Lotta, and of the hazardous cargo by rail, or in similar Serebryanka) and by the Navy’s floating extreme circumstances. maintenance facilities. SNF transportation in Russia is done using The first SNF shipment that was sent along all means of transportation: by rail, sea, air, the Northern Sea Route was done in 1998 and land. Each year, around 30 shipments on board of the motor ship Kandalaksha of nuclear and radiation hazardous cargoes (Murmansk Shipping Company) from the take place in Russia. Transportation risks port of Dudinka to Murmansk. The cargo, have to do, first and foremost, with the poor packed in TUK-19 transport casks, was 71 condition of the country’s roads. Russia’s spent nuclear fuel assemblies from a research accident statistics for land, marine, and air reactor operated by Norilsk Nickel. The vessel transport are at least twice as high as those did not have the required class certification for of developed nations. Furthermore, transport transportation of hazardous cargoes as per the connections demonstrate a real vulnerability Russian classification standards, nor according to terrorist risks. This is confirmed by the to any of the standards of the international INF numerous terrorist attacks that have involved Code (as per the International Code for the all means of transportation in use in Russia, Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear including railroads. Additional risks arise with Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive shipments carried out on routes that go near Wastes on Board Ships, or the INF Code, major cities and densely populated areas. vessels are to be issued an International In railroad shipments, each kind of spent Certificate of Fitness to be assigned one of nuclear fuel is transported in the type of three INF classes to transport such cargoes container car specifically designed to carry (see Appendix 5.7); the Russian equivalent of it. Altogether, 59 different container car this international certificate is the designation designs are used for the transportation «ОЯТ» (for SNF)).

57 In 2003, the government of the Russian and White Seas between Murmansk, Federation approved the following list of sea Andreyeva Bay, Sayda Bay, the closed ports authorized to accept for entry and exit administrative territorial entity Ostrovnoy, vessels and other watercraft transporting and Severodvinsk. Rossita should be able to nuclear materials, radioactive substances, fully accomplish the task of shipping spent and cargoes containing such substances, nuclear fuel and radioactive waste for the in TUK transport packages (handling period of cleanup and remediation works in Class 7 hazardous cargoes): Arkhangelsk, Russia’s Northwest. Bolshoi Kamen, Vysotsk, Dikson, Dudinka, Russia is also developing the option of Kaliningrad, Kandalaksha, Murmansk, Pevek, transporting hazardous cargoes by seagoing Provideniya, St. Petersburg, and Ust-Luga. train ferries, using the roll-on/roll-off In 2010, the ports of Vostochny and Vanino method, or of retrofitting vessels to meet the were added to this list. Of the ports named equivalent requirements. River-sea ships are above, Murmansk is the only port meeting also under consideration for their potential all the safety requirements, since its harbor use in the transportation of spent nuclear includes terminals operated by Atomflot, fuel and radioactive waste, as operating which has the necessary railroad access lines, combined navigation vessels along the cargo-lifting equipment, and physical security Northern Sea Route could reduce shipping systems at its disposal. distances substantially. Transportation of spent nuclear fuel The risks of transporting spent nuclear by sea between Russia and other states is fuel by sea are rather significant. For instance, carried out today, mostly, in accordance in December 2001, due to difficult weather with international contracts that require the conditions and violent wind, the floating repatriation of spent fuel from nuclear power maintenance facility Imandra, while crossing plants and research reactors built by Russia the harbor of the shiprepairing yard Nerpa (Soviet Union) in other states back to the (Snezhnogorsk, Murmansk Region) with a Russian Federation. cargo of spent nuclear fuel on board, fell on In the fall of 2008, as part of the repa- board a decommissioned nuclear submarine triation program of Russian-design research moored at the dock and sustained a hole at the reactor SNF, a first shipment of SNF was waterline as a result. The crew of the Imandra delivered by sea from Slovenia’s Koper to and the rescue services managed to prevent Murmansk. The spent fuel from a research the more severe consequences of the collision. reactor in Hungary was delivered by the Air deliveries of spent fuel into Russia vessel Lynx (Class INF 2 certificate), flying (PA Mayak) took place in 1993 and 1994 and the flag of Denmark. The SNF (1.7 tons) involved shipments of spent fuel from the was packaged in transport casks of the Iraqi IRT-5000 research reactor. These were type SKODA VPVR/M, which, in turn, were shipments warranted by the extraordinary tommed off inside 20 ft reinforced ISO circumstances caused by the 1991 Gulf War. containers. In late 2010, the vessel Puma, In June 2009, a first certified shipment also flying the flag of Denmark, used the of spent fuel by air transport delivered SNF same route to deliver to Murmansk 2.5 tons from Romania’s VVR-S research reactor. An of spent fuel from the Serbian RA research AN-124-100 transport plane brought the 70 reactor in Vinča. In 2009, the Russian vessel spent fuel assemblies (around 25 kg uranium) MCL Trader was retrofitted to comply with from Romania in 18 TUK-19 transport casks the international Class INF 2 requirements accommodated in six special-purpose 20 ft for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. In ISO containers. The total cost of the project 2009 and 2010 this vessel was used to carry was over $10 million. A similar shipment of out five maritime shipments of spent nuclear spent fuel was carried out in 2009, when 26 fuel (25.5 tons) from Polish research reactors spent fuel assemblies were delivered from from Poland’s Gdynia to Murmansk. These Libya’s IRT-10 reactor. Shipments by air have shipments were handled by the Russian apparently been done in other cases as well shipping company ASPOL Baltic Corporation. when spent fuel had to be repatriated from In August 2011, Atomflot took delivery land-locked countries – such as from Hungary, of a new ice class vessel, Rossita, a ship but data on these deliveries are not available. designed specifically to transport spent Using air transport to ship spent nuclear nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (see fuel in any regular manner is undoubtedly a Appendix 5.8). The vessel was built by the very expensive option, which is unlikely to see Italian shipbuilding company Fincantieri broad application in the near future unless a and is expected to transport cargoes in the delivery by this method is necessitated by an North Atlantic region as well as the Barents emergency.

58 Road transport for SNF shipments is and India – intended to remain committed used primarily on short-distance routes – to their SNF management policies, geared for instance, between nuclear power sites, toward SNF reprocessing and closing the where the TUK shipping packages are nuclear fuel cycle. loaded, and transshipment points, where The catastrophe at Fukushima Daiichi they are transferred onto a special-purpose caused Japan to revisit its nuclear policy, and train or vessel, or plane. Trucking heavy and the government has announced it was closing hazardous cargoes such as spent nuclear fuel its fast reactor program, and that it would requires special equipment and additional subsequently phase out nuclear energy safety and security means. completely before the year 2050. The fate of Deliveries of SNF carried by trucks through the Rokkasho facility, which was supposed city streets, even with police escort, present to be commissioned in 2012, is now left a grave risk – though such shipments have suspended. taken place in Russian regions (for instance, Great Britain is reducing its reprocessing up to the mid-1990s, trucks used to transport capacity. In August 2011, the Nuclear spent nuclear fuel in Murmansk to distances Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said it of around 5 km, including routes crossing would soon shut down the MOX fabrication residential city blocks, carrying the shipments facility in Sellafield. The main reason was from Atomflot’s premises to the railroad the enterprise’s unprofitability. The post- loading docks). Fukushima closure of nuclear power plants in Japan is expected eventually to affect reprocessing volumes at Sellafield. 5.2. Spent nuclear fuel India has limited SNF reproces sing capa- city and unclear prospects of expanding it in reprocessing the future. Russia is pursuing a hardline SNF reproces- Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing began sing policy, with plans to build the reproces- with the goal of separating plutonium for sing plant RT-2 and introduce a spent nuclear use in nuclear weapons. But in the 1960s, fuel management bill where this policy many countries with nuclear power programs would be codified on a legislative level. The regarded reprocessing their spent fuel as position of Rosatom’s current leadership a way to use the recovered uranium and is based on the rationale that reprocessing plutonium for fabrication of fresh fuel. Pro- spent nuclear fuel in Russia is a promising po nents of reprocessing argued vigorously international business project. In reality, a lot that natural uranium reserves were being will depend on the economic situation and on depleted, and that the uranium and how successful the technologies that Russia plutonium retrieved from spent fuel during intends to use first at its Pilot Demonstration reprocessing would be the main source of Center, and then, at RT-2, prove to be. fuel for nuclear power plants. Today, with The data listed in Table 5.5 show design- uranium reserves evaluations revised, these basis capacities of SNF reprocessing facilities arguments have faded. worldwide, though none of these enterprises Before the Fukushima disaster, only five have, as a rule, ever achieved outputs nations – France, Great Britain, Russia, Japan, matching their stated capacities.

Table 5.5. Global SNF reprocessing capacity.

SNF type Country Facility Capacity, in tons per year France UP2, UP3, La Hague 1,700 Great Britain THORP, Sellafield 900 SNF from light water reactors Russia RT-1, Mayak, Ozyorsk 400 Japan Rokkasho 800* Great Britain Magnox, Sellafield 1,500 SNF from other reactor types India PHWR, Tarapur 330 Total (estimates): 5,630

* Commissioning expected in late 2012.

59 Overall, around 4,000 tons of spent A general flow sheet of reprocessing nuclear fuel unloaded from commercial irradiated uranium fuel is shown in Fig. 5.4. reactors is currently reprocessed worldwide. The existing decladding methods fall The amount of SNF reprocessed to date is into two categories: those where the fuel estimated at 90,000 tons (out of a total of assembly is mechanically opened to free 250,000 tons already accumulated). The the fuel section from the cladding material SNF accumulation rate is not declining, but (mechanical method) and methods that do is in fact likely to grow. With the current not involve mechanically separating the capacity of the world’s reprocessing facilities, cladding from the fuel composition inside the global stockpile of SNF may reach up to (aqueous chemical methods). 400,000 tons by 2030, including 60,000 tons The mechanical decladding method stored in the United States, 69,000 tons implies the removal of the fuel cladding and accumulated in Europe, and 40,000 tons in other structural materials before dissolving Russia. the nuclear fuel inside. The process takes place in several stages: First, the top and bottom nozzles are cut off from the fuel 5.2.1. Spent nuclear fuel assembly, and it is disassembled into separate fuel rod bundles and then into individual reprocessing technologies rods, then the fuel cladding is mechanically removed from each of the fuel rods. The world has been developing and Aqueous chemical methods allow for applying a variety of spent fuel reprocessing the dissolution of the cladding material in technologies for over 60 years. The acids or acid mixtures without affecting reprocessing techniques used by different the fuel stacks in the fuel rods. Fuel rods countries mostly differ in the decladding fabricated for modern reactors have cladding methods (separating the fuel composition made of corrosion-resistant, poorly soluble from the fuel cladding) and extraction materials – zirconium, zirconium-tin and methods, the latter used to separate the zirconium-niobium alloys, or stainless steel. needed components of the fuel composition. Selective dissolution of these materials

spent fuel assembly storage in cooling ponds

shearing or fragmentation of spent fuel assemblies fuel cladding dissolution in nitric acid

U, Pu U and Pu extraction, fission products fission product separation

radioactive waste reprocessing, uranium, plutonium separation packaging

uranium purification plutonium purification storage of solidified radioactive waste

enrichment fabrication of recycled uranium of uranium-plutonium fuel

uranium fuel delivery MOX fuel delivery disposal of solidified radioactive waste to nuclear power plants to nuclear power plants Fig. 5.4. A simplified SNF reprocessing flow chart.

60 is only possible using highly aggressive with a lesser impact from the radiation environments. Zirconium is dissolved using decomposition processes. The resulting hydrofluoric acid, or by mixing it with oxalic waste is in solidified form and occupies much acid or nitric acid, or in a NH4F solution. A less space. stainless steel cladding is dissolved in boiling This approach to spent nuclear fuel sulfuric acid H2SO4. reprocessing is expected to be used at future The main disadvantage of the chemical reprocessing facilities under construction or decladding process is the generation of large development, such as Russia’s RT-2 plant and amounts of high-salinity liquid radioactive Japan’s Rokkasho. waste. In order to reduce this decladding waste and have it generated already in solidified form, and thus better suited for 5.2.2. Spent nuclear fuel long-term storage, methods are being developed where decladding is done using reprocessing in Russia non-aqueous reagents at high temperatures (pyrochemical processes). In Russia, spent fuel assemblies unloaded Besides the methods mentioned above, a from commercial reactors are reprocessed combined fragmentation/dissolution method at radiochemical facilities operated by is currently applied (see Appendix 5.9): Fuel these three enterprises: Siberian Chemical assemblies are sheared into small pieces, and Combine (radiochemical plant), Mining and the fuel composition thus becomes accessible Chemical Combine (mining and chemical for treatment by chemical reagents and plant), and Production Association Mayak dissolution in nitric acid. The undissolved (radiochemical plant). cladding fragments are scrubbed to remove The only plant that reprocesses spent the remainders of the leach solution and nuclear fuel from power, research, and disposed of as scrap. propulsion reactors is the RT-1 plant at Mayak For solvent extraction, i.e. separation of (Ozyorsk, Chelyabinsk Region), a facility the fuel components, two processes are used: that came online in 1977. In all the years of PUREX (for “plutonium-uranium recovery operation, the RT-1 plant has never reached by extraction”) and REDOX (for “reduction- full design-basis capacity (400 tons per year); oxidation”). Under these processes, the feed in 2008 and 2009, reprocessing throughput nitrate solution of uranium, plutonium, and was 66 tons and 94 tons, respectively. fission products undergoes treatment with The aqueous extraction process flow used solvent extractants in order to separate at RT-1 for SNF reprocessing is similar to a uranium and plutonium from the bulk of the classical version of the PUREX process (see fission products. Fig. 5.5). The next stage is a second extraction SNF reprocessing is done with the purpose cycle, during which uranium and plutonium of producing plutonium oxide, triuranium are further purified from fission products, octoxide, and uranyl nitrate hexahydrate neptunium, and from each other to melt [UO2(NO3)26H2O]. From the “wet” levels meeting the required fuel cycle storage pond, spent fuel assemblies arrive specifications. The uranium and plutonium for disassembly – where the end fittings of are then transformed into commodities the fuel rods are cut off (electric arc cutting) – suitable for subsequent use. and then are transferred further on for frag- The Civex process is an extraction process mentation. The resulting mix of fuel and where nuclear fuel is recycled without metal cladding pieces is fed to a dissolution separating plutonium. Under this SNF apparatus, which yields the process solution – reprocessing method, plutonium is not at a slurry consisting of many components. any stage fully separated from the uranium The clarification and filtering stages follow. and fission products in the treated spent fuel, Separation of the desired components is which complicates significantly the possibility done using multi-stage extraction processes to use it for military purposes. with subsequent precipitation of the required In order to reduce the ecological burden of chemical compounds of uranium, plutonium, SNF reprocessing, non-aqueous technological and neptunium. This is the process flow used processes are being developed. The to recycle spent nuclear fuel from VVER- advantages of the non-aqueous alternative 440 reactors. Similar processes are used at are that these processes are compact, do not reprocessing facilities in France and Great involve the use of large quantities of solvent Britain. extractants or generate large amounts of The uranium and plutonium produced as liquid radioactive waste, and are associated a result of reprocessing at RT-1 are currently

61 used for fabrication of fresh nuclear fuel, primarily, to the content of such radionuclides including MOX fuel. as strontium-90 and cesium-137. Radiochemical treatment of spent nuclear Since it started operations, RT-1 has fuel at the RT-1 plant is an environmentally reprocessed a total of around 4,500 tons of dirty process, which is associated with spent nuclear fuel from VVER-440 reactors, radiation hazards and results in the as well as research and propulsion reactor generation of the bulk of Russia’s solid, liquid, SNF. The overall amount of radioactive waste and gaseous radioactive waste of various generated during reprocessing totals over levels of activity (see Table 5.6). Liquid high- 1.5 million cubic meters in high-level liquid level radioactive waste makes up 95% of radioactive waste, over 4 million cubic meters the generated waste’s total radioactivity; of intermediate-level waste, and around 54 solid waste accounts for 1%; the share of million cubic meters of low-level waste. As liquid intermediate-level waste in total of end 2011, Mayak was holding in storage waste’s radioactivity is around 5%; and low- around 6,000 tons of vitrified high-level level liquid waste contributes 0.01%. The waste with a total radioactivity of around radioactivity of reprocessing waste is due, 637 Ci (2.4×1019 Bq).

nuclear-powered submarines, BN-600, BN-350 VVER-440 research reactors icebreaker fleet

interim storage in cooling ponds

cutting off non-fuel storage of structural waste end fittings

structural spent fuel fragmentation waste fuel decladding fuel dissolution insoluble residues solution clarification evaporation of intermediate-level waste nuclear-safe storage solvent extraction separation of structural waste and purification of U, Pu, Np evaporation of high-level waste

separated civilian PuO with 98% Sr-90, Cs-137, phosphate glass with 2 ~ NpO , plutonium Pu-239 content 2 Tc-99, Pd immobilized high-level for use in as PuO from recycling concentrates, radioactive waste, 2 reactor with 60-75% fast reactor spent on-and-off arrives as vitrified production Pu-239, Pu-241 fuel; fabrication production for blocks at storage of Pu-238 content (placed of experimental engineering facilities for solidified (currently in interim uranium- applications, high-level radioactive being stocked) storage) plutonium fuel research purposes waste

uranyl nitrate hexahydrate melt with 2.4-2.6% U-235 content, for use in fabrication of secondary RBMK fuel

Fig. 5.5. A flow sheet of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing in Russia.

62 Table 5.6. Specific volumes of liquid radioactive waste generated per one ton of regenerated fuel (RT-1 Plant).

SNF type LRW type Average LRW volume, m3/t Standard deviation, m3/t Low-level LRW 2,000.0 707.1 VVER-440 Intermediate-level LRW 150.0 12.4 High-level LRW 45.0 2.3 Low-level LRW 1,552.0 413.0 BN Intermediate-level LRW 59.0 9.38 High-level LRW 31.0 14.4

The design of the reprocessing plant RT-2, – two-stage uranium and plutonium intended to handle spent VVER-1000 fuel, separa tion process, with plutonium with- was developed by the VNIPIET institute. drawn from the main cycle in the form of Construction of the plant started in 1979. A concentrated uranium-plutonium stream; complex of SNF management facilities was – mass transfer separation processes; created for the transportation, reception, – purification by isohydric crystallization and storage of spent fuel, of which the main of uranyl nitrate. one is the “wet” (water-cooled) SNF storage The technologies currently being tested facility with a design-basis capacity of 3,000 at the Mining and Chemical Combine are tons. In December 1985, the cooling pond the Simplified PUREX Process – which is accepted its first delivery of VVER-1000 SNF being used as a baseline process for SNF from Novovoronezh NPP. The storage facility reprocessing – as well as thermochemical became part of the RT-2 plant among other fragmentation, high-level waste vitrification RT-2 facilities in operation. Other RT-2 sites etc. were also at various stages of completion. Based on the results of studies and Since 1991, construction was repeatedly projects conducted in the course of the Pilot halted due to funding difficulties and was Demonstration Center’s activities, a decision eventually abandoned. is expected to be made (no earlier than Currently under development at RT-2 is 2020) on the possible construction of a full- the Pilot Demonstration Center, a facility scale production facility for radiochemical expected to introduce innovative SNF treatment of spent nuclear fuel (the RT-2 reprocessing technologies and become the plant), with the Pilot Demonstration basis for a future SNF reprocessing plant with Center subsequently used for reprocessing a reprocessing capacity starting at 1,500 tons of damaged spent fuel as well as for the a year. The first stage of the new facility, with development and testing of radiochemical an annual capacity of 100 tons, is slated for technologies of various purposes. commissioning in 2017. Full confidence is lacking, however, within The technologies being developed for Rosatom as to whether these technologies use at the Pilot Demonstration Center are prove to be a success. deemed to be third-generation technologies that ensure a considerable – potentially, ten- fold – reduction in the generation of low- 5.3. SNF management policies level radioactive waste, as this waste remains today the major problem. and economic aspects It is claimed that the future Pilot Demonstration Center will base its operations For most countries with nuclear energy on technologies that are unrivaled anywhere programs, the development and application in the world, such as: of policy strategies designed to deal with – thermochemical fragmentation of spent spent nuclear fuel have been a constant nuclear fuel assemblies (so-called Khrust); priority for a great many years. All countries – SNF voloxidation for tritium removal understand that if the task of safely isolating and spent oxide fuel activation; nuclear and radioactive waste is not solved, – two-loop evaporation of liquid radio- then they will have to shrink their nuclear active waste resulting from SNF reprocessing, programs or even shut them down entirely. complete with isolation of the tritium- This is why nuclear nations today are working containing stream; toward achieving two major objectives:

63 ensure that spent nuclear fuel is managed in instance, entitles the country’s municipalities an environmentally acceptable manner and to the right to veto siting decisions regarding that nuclear materials regenerated out of any nuclear facilities, including storage sites, this spent fuel are reincorporated into the in their areas. nuclear fuel cycle. At the same time, there is practically no The first of these problems concerns every doubt that the task of disposing of spent country that uses nuclear energy. The second nuclear fuel calls for the use of geological is only relevant in countries that are still repositories. The biggest advances in this engaged in spent nuclear fuel reprocessing – field have been made by Scandinavian i.e., France, Great Britain, Russia, Japan, countries, which, finding that they could not and India. China, too, intends to build a rely on a prospect of seeing international commercial SNF reprocessing facility, and is storage facilities built, started to make currently building a pilot reprocessing plant, steps toward developing their own. In where hot tests were performed in late 2010. March 2011, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel An environmentally acceptable SNF and Waste Management Company (SKB) management concept implies that nuclear applied for a license to build a spent nuclear countries, first and foremost, will have to fuel geological repository, to be sited in agree on the main principles regarding the Östhammar. The construction is expected transportation, storage, and disposal of to start in 2015, and disposal operations to spent fuel. An important step toward finding begin in 2025. In Finland, at the Olkiluoto solutions to this problem was made when the NPP site, a 4,570-meter tunnel completed Council of Europe adopted the Radioactive at the end of 2010 leads to a facility called Waste and Spent Fuel Management Directive, Onkalo, located at the final disposal depth which establishes radioactive waste and of 434 meters. Initially, the Onkalo facility is spent fuel safety standards enforceable planned to be operated as an underground in the European Union. According to the laboratory to study the properties of the Directive, the fourteen European Union hard rock at the site and determine the member states that have nuclear energy site’s suitability for the purpose of geological programs are to develop and present by 2015 disposal. Later, the access tunnel and national programs with specific descriptions Onkalo’s other underground facilities will of the radioactive waste and spent nuclear be used for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. fuel storage and reprocessing options A licensing application to begin construction that they deem preferable. The Directive of the repository is expected to be submitted received a mixed public response since it in 2012, and the process of securing an includes a regulation permitting (with certain operating license for the site will start after provisos) transportation of radioactive 2020. waste across national borders. The position Still, Sweden and Finland remain the endorsed by non-governmental organizations world’s only two countries to have made is unequivocal: Countries that use nuclear some progress toward finding solutions energy must bear their own costs, including to the problems of controlled geological costs incurred with accumulating radioactive disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In other waste and spent nuclear fuel. states, the development of spent nuclear fuel Any business related to the transpor- repositories or disposal facilities remains a tation, storage, or disposal of nuclear and task deferred at least by a few decades into radioactive waste in countries that do not the future. produce this waste is unacceptable for Certain countries are favoring the society. A discussion, therefore, continues option of creating near-surface facilities with regard to the possibility of creating for interim – decades-long – storage of international storage facilities or repositories nuclear and radioactive waste. For instance, for spent nuclear fuel. It is obvious that the Spain decided to build in the municipality idea of creating such a site has dim prospects of Villar de Cañas a central storage facility because it will entail strong public opposition to accommodate spent nuclear fuel and and face the same problems that nuclear radioactive waste from eight Spanish reactor nations encounter when building their own units. Spain’s national SNF and radioactive domestic storage facilities (situations of waste management entity Enresa said the this kind have been observed in the United storage facility is intended to hold for a States, Germany, and other countries). period of up to 100 years 6,700 tons of spent Almost all states will first have to secure the nuclear fuel, 2,600 m3 of intermediate-level approval of their municipal authorities and waste, and 12 m3 of high-level radioactive the public. Finland’s Nuclear Energy Act, for waste generated as a result of reprocessing

64 in France of spent nuclear fuel from the gas- commercialization of fast breeder reactors. graphite reactor Vandellòs I. The project is France is planning a geological repository estimated at EUR 700 million. for its high-level, long-lived waste in a clay Less than 25% of spent nuclear fuel formation at Bure, aiming for a start up of unloaded from nuclear reactors worldwide repository operations by 2025. is allocated for reprocessing; in Russia, that The United Kingdom has been repro- share is less than 15%. The amount of spent cessing all the uranium-metal spent fuel from nuclear fuel accumulated in the world is rising its gas-cooled graphite-moderated reactors, drastically; and the SNF already accumulated the last of which are to be shut down by 2012. will have to be stored for longer periods It is also reprocessing a significant quantity than initially intended, with storage periods of the uranium-oxide fuel discharged from in interim “dry” cask storage exceeding 100 its second-generation advanced gas-cooled years. This, in turn, will result in the need to reactors. There are no final plans on how to step up research into SNF integrity for the manage the UK’s approximately 100 tons of duration of long-term storage periods and separated plutonium: It might be used as in the need for additional studies of spent MOX fuel in a proposed new generation of nuclear fuel’s behavior in “dry” storage LWRs. A new MOX fuel fabrication facility is facilities. being built at Sellafield for this purpose. The As regards the issues of import and export UK has for many decades been struggling of spent nuclear fuel, France, Great Britain, with site selection for an interim (100 years) and Russia import spent fuel from other SNF storage facility to hold the high-level, countries, including for reprocessing and long-lived radionuclides generated during storage (in Russia’s case only). France and reprocessing. Great Britain, in most cases, send reprocessing Japan, after the disaster at Fukushima products (including uranium, plutonium, Daiichi, announced that its prospective and radioactive waste) back to the country nuclear policy would provide for continued of origin, since laws adopted both in France construction of those nuclear power and Great Britain contain the requirement plants that are already at the last stages of that no radioactive waste – either from completion, but that no new NPP projects other countries or that generated during would be initiated. Furthermore, according reprocessing of foreign SNF or radioactive to the decision made by Japan’s parliament waste – shall remain in storage after handling and government, the country is to phase in these countries. No spent nuclear fuel or out nuclear energy completely before 2050. radioactive materials may be imported into Regardless of whether these decisions are France or Great Britain other than for the carried out, it seems apparent that the purpose of reprocessing, research, or transit prior policy, geared as it was toward speedy transportation between states. development of nuclear energy and SNF Russia imports, for storage, disposal, and reprocessing, is in for significant adjustments. reprocessing, spent nuclear fuel discharged The SNF reprocessing plant and “dry” cask from reactors built by Russia (the USSR) storage facility at Rokkasho should have abroad without sending back the radioactive been commissioned in 2012, but there is waste generated during reprocessing. At yet no information on whether that in fact least, there is no openly available information happened. Japan is also looking to select a on repatriation of radioactive waste back to suitable location for geological disposal of its the countries where the spent nuclear fuel high-level waste. has been imported from. China (Taiwan) today is the site of the Nuclear policy strategies are dictated by most vigorous NPP construction. As of the world’s key nuclear players that continue, end 2010, 28 reactor units were under or intend to continue in the near future, to construction in China, and construction of reprocess spent nuclear fuel (France, Great ten of these had also started in 2010. At the Britain, Russia, Japan, India, and China), same time, having little experience operating countries that are planning direct disposal nuclear power plants – 111 years/13 of spent nuclear fuel (Canada, Germany, the reactors – China has yet to determine a United States, Finland, and Sweden), as well clear future policy regarding spent nuclear as South Korea, which has yet to adopt a clear fuel management. China currently has no SNF management policy. long-term (100 years) storage facilities or France is reprocessing its spent uranium repositories for its spent nuclear fuel or fuel and using the recovered plutonium radioactive waste, but it is building a pilot in MOX fuel for light water reactors. The SNF reprocessing plant and is also planning to spent MOX fuel is being stored pending build a commercial SNF reprocessing facility,

65 with the latter project being at the moment is ultimately tied to the issue of the choice of only at the site selection stage. the nuclear fuel cycle. Germany is in the process of nuclear At the same time, Russia’s nuclear phase-out. Its accumulated SNF is collected industry has yet to form a unanimous opinion at an interim storage site in Gorleben, where regarding the type of the future nuclear fuel it will be stored pending ultimate disposal. cycle, which has a direct impact on the SNF No site for a geological repository has been management strategy to be settled on. The selected yet. main nuclear fuel cycle alternatives are: Canada stores its spent nuclear fuel at the – open nuclear fuel cycle, which implies reactor sites. In 2010, after specific criteria disposing of spent nuclear fuel in stable and requirements had been developed for geological formations; a geological SNF repository, a site selection – fully or partially closed nuclear fuel process began and a search for a community cycle, which implies reprocessing spent willing to host the future site. nuclear fuel for the purpose of extracting Sweden and Finland are planning to use a regenerated uranium and civilian plutonium – shared approach of disposing of their spent products suitable for further use and for nuclear fuel in casks made of special alloy and separation of high-level radioactive waste placed inside deep geological repositories, from them. where the waste is expected to remain in a In order to choose its nuclear fuel cycle, controlled environment. Russia will need to conduct research and The United States has been trying, with development work to identify promising no success, to find a suitable repository site reprocessing (storage, disposal) technologies, for its spent nuclear fuel and radioactive an analysis of the full cost of nuclear- waste since 1970. generated power, and environmental Approximately $15 billion was spent impact assessment studies with regard to preparing the technical basis for a the different nuclear fuel cycle options. license application for a site at Yucca Furthermore, as of today, Russia has no Mountain, Nevada, but in 2010 the Obama regulatory framework governing the issues Administration halted the project. Currently, of SNF management, no legislation codifying almost all spent fuel remains at the reactor the responsibility of entities that generate sites, with “dry” cask storage for older spent spent nuclear fuel, nor any established fuel being deployed as the cooling ponds fill mechanisms of financial and economic up. In January 2010, as a first step toward interaction between the participants of this establishing a new U.S. spent fuel policy, a process. Funding allocated to projects related special commission was created to conduct a to SNF management, as well as to those comprehensive review of current policies and aimed at addressing the problems of legacy to produce a report with recommendations spent nuclear fuel, is provided exclusively for developing a safe, long-term solution at the expense of the state budget as part for the management of the country’s spent of Federal Target Programs for Nuclear and nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Radiation Safety. The comprehensive long-term (until 2070) National Strategy for the development 5.4. The strategy for creating of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, currently under development in Russia, is a national SNF management hoped to provide solutions to the problems system in Russia of legacy SNF as well as those of creating an SNF management structure and establishing In November 2011, Rosatom’s Governing the needed regulatory framework. The Board reviewed the main provisions of the main challenge posed by the search for “Strategy for the Development of the Back solutions to these strategic tasks has to do End of the Life Cycle of Sites and Materials with the spent nuclear fuel infrastructure – Involved in the Use of Atomic Energy until which depends entirely on the type of the 2030.” fuel cycle chosen. The expanded version One of the major objectives of the Back offers for consideration these four fuel cycle End Strategy is creating state-governed SNF alternatives: and radioactive waste management systems 1) a combined closed nuclear fuel cycle and solving the issues of the Russian nuclear based on fast reactors (FR) and thermal legacy. The Strategy underlines that final neutron reactors (TNR), which involves: disposition of spent nuclear fuel requires the reprocessing TNR spent nuclear fuel, development of relevant infrastructure and fabrication of initial MOX fuel loads for

66 FR, reprocessing FR spent nuclear fuel, deferred decision (SNF disposal with the and fabrication of subsequent FR fuel retrieval option) – i.e., moving to Scenario 4. loads out of reprocessing products; Additionally, a plan of the following key 2) MOX-fueled TNR cycle, which involves: decisions, with respective implementation reprocessing TNR spent nuclear fuel, dates, has been developed for Scenario 1: fabrication of MOX fuel for TNR, – 2015: completing design specifications and subsequent long-term storage and estimates for the fast neutron reactor or disposal of spent MOX fuel in a project, with substantiation of the choice geological repository; of coolant with respect to safety and an 3) FR and TNR MOX cycle with plutonium assessment of future capital costs; incineration, which involves: – 2020: collecting the results of tests reprocessing TNR spent nuclear fuel, performed with TNR spent nuclear fuel fabrication of MOX fuel for FR (with reprocessing technologies at the Pilot possible fabrication of MOX fuel for TNR Demonstration Center; completing the and reprocessing spent MOX fuel for design of an industrial-scale TNR SNF TNR as a middle step), and subsequent reprocessing plant; collecting the results of long-term storage or disposal of R&D work conducted on the TNR MOX option FR spent MOX fuel in a geological and technologies and on the technologies repository; of immobilization and disposal of high-level 4) long-term storage /disposal cycle, radioactive waste, as well as results of the which involves: long-term storage of analysis of the full cost of electric power spent nuclear fuel and/or disposal generated using different nuclear fuel cycle of spent nuclear fuel in geological alternatives; repositories with the retrieval option. – 2030: collecting the results of studies The technologies and economic assess- on the possibility of final SNF disposal in ments available today are insufficient for the a geological intermediate- and high-level effort to make a clear determination as to radioactive waste repository, results of TNR the type of the fuel cycle, and, by extension, MOX fuel tests, results of operating the pilot the needed SNF management infrastructure. fast reactor series, and results of developing Therefore, a decision has been made that and testing the closed FR fuel cycle the choice of the nuclear fuel cycle for Russia reference technologies at a multifunctional will be made by clearing consecutively the radiochemical complex; completing the following key points in the decision-making design of an industrial FR and/or TNR MOX process: fuel reprocessing and fabrication plant. – 2015: decision with regard to the Therefore, should negative results on construction of a pilot series of fast neutron these activities be received in the specified reactors; condition for clearing this juncture: time frames, Russia will have to adopt the economic and technological efficiency of the long-term storage/disposal policy, which BN-1200 reactor project; implies long-term storage of spent nuclear – 2020: decision with regard to the fuel and/or disposal of spent nuclear fuel construction of an industrial-scale TNR spent in geological repositories with the retrieval fuel reprocessing line; condition for clearing option. this juncture: the assessment of the full cost of SNF management based on potentially available nuclear fuel cycle alternatives; 5.4.1. Creating business – 2030: decision with regard to further expansion of fast neutron reactor installed opportunities in the SNF capacities; condition for clearing this management sector juncture: factual data on the full cost of a closed fuel cycle. The National Strategy provides for State Corporation Rosatom is leaning the possibility of developing commercial toward a baseline scenario that relies on opportunities in the field of spent nuclear the first alternative, i.e. closing the nuclear fuel management. Rosatom’s chief goal is fuel cycle by using the closed nuclear to become a major market player with a fuel cycle of fast reactors (Scenario 1). global presence and a focus on offering fuel It is, however, stipulated that should no leasing services for new nuclear countries, economically feasible technological solutions reprocessing services for countries operating be made available before 2030 to implement VVER reactors, and sale of technologies Scenario 1, then the possibility must be developed for the SNF management industry. provided for the implementation of the The Strategy states that if Russia successfully

67 develops the closed nuclear fuel cycle 5.4.2. National spent nuclear fuel based on fast reactors, the main service provided in the SNF management sector will management strategy’s deadlines be fuel leasing (taking back spent fuel for and main anticipated results reprocessing, with reprocessing products remaining in Russia). It is noted, however, The development of the National Back that business development in this direction End Strategy, with stipulation of the main will depend on whether SNF reprocessing anticipated results and scheduled time services will prove attractive enough frames, is slated for completion by 2015. economically (cost of reprocessing) for foreign customers, and the SNF reprocessing – achieving the objectives and targets contract portfolio strong enough, to sustain of the Federal Target Programs Nuclear and the operation of an industrial-scale SNF Radiation Safety 1 and Nuclear and Radiation reprocessing capacity long term. Safety 2; According to Rosatom, the state will – developing long-term final disposition have to assume the risks associated programs for legacy SNF in line with with developing the SNF management long-term plans for the development of spent infrastructure. The reason for that is that a nuclear fuel management infrastructure; large spent fuel stock was accumulated by – issuing all legacy SNF (each spent fuel the country’s nuclear industrial complex assembly) with technical dossiers specifying during the Soviet era, and it is at this deadlines scheduled for the implementation time impossible, both in terms of time of all stages of SNF management in and economic constraints, to ensure the accordance with SNF management process allocation of the funding necessary to flows; address the spent nuclear fuel problems by – identifying funding sources for all the enterprises of the nuclear industry. legacy SNF, and coordinating funding State Corporation Rosatom anticipates distribution across funding sources and that the successful implementation of the allocation periods; domestic fast reactor construction program – establishing target values for the will ensure Russia an SNF business market activities’ main key performance indicators with a potential estimated at $25 billion in for subsequent periods. 2010 dollars. Currently, the gap between this Targets for completion before 2030: potential market and the one that actually – finalizing reference technologies for exists is only due to the lack of economically SNF management; attractive spent fuel management – creating the infrastructure needed for technologies. the centralized management of legacy SNF, in Rosatom considers Areva, which also accordance with the developed plans; owns SNF reprocessing technologies, to be its – placing all legacy SNF in centralized main competition on this market. interim storage. Targets for completion before 2070: – completing final disposition of all legacy SNF (100%); – radioactive waste generated during legacy SNF reprocessing shall be disposed of in accordance with the deadlines specified in the approved SNF management process flows.

68 CHAPTER 6. THORIUM

Thorium (Th), the isotope Th-232, is a in the Earth’s crust is about 8×10-4% – around natural radioactive element, the parent isotope the same as lead. Thorium content in river in the thorium series. Just as uranium, thorium water is 2.2×10-14 Ci/liter (8.1×10-4 Bq/liter), can be used in the fabrication of nuclear fuel. or much lower than that of uranium. The chemical element Th belongs to the Natural thorium compounds include actinide series in Group III of Mendeleev’s those with uranium, rare earth metals, and Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements. zirconium. Thorium has been discovered As of 2012, 30 thorium isotopes are in over 100 minerals representing oxygen known, but natural thorium consists almost compounds – primarily, oxides, and much entirely of the single isotope Th-232, since, more seldom, phosphates and carbonates. compared to other isotopes, it has the longest Over 40 minerals are thorium compounds half-life: (T1/2 = 1.4×1010 years). Th-232 is or else thorium is found in them as one of an alpha emitter, its specific radioactivity is the chief components. The main industrial 0.109 μCi/g (4×103 Bq/g). The thorium decay thorium-bearing minerals are monazite (Ce, chain produces the radioactive gas thoron La, Th…)PO4, thorite ThSiO4, and thorianite (radon-220), which is hazardous in significant (Th,U)O2. concentrations. The other natural radioactive Thorite, just like the mineral thorianite, is thorium isotopes, besides Th-232, include very rich in thorium – 45% to 93% in thorium Th-227, Th-228, Th-230, Th-231, and Th-234. content – but is just as rare. Monazite Pure thorium is a silvery white lustrous (monazite sands) is an important source of metal, ductile at room temperature, and thorium, with concentrations of between can be readily worked. In appearance its 2.5% and 12%. Brazil, India, the United resembles platinum, and has a comparable States, Australia, and Malaysia are known to melting point; its specific gravity and have thorium-rich monazite placer deposits. hardness are similar to those of lead. Vein-type deposits of this mineral are found Samples of thorium metal with thorium oxide in Southern Africa. content of about 1.5% to 2% are resistant The largest thorium deposits in Europe are to oxidation, tarnishing very slowly to black. believed to be in Norway (the main reserves Thorium corrodes slowly in cold water, while are located in the Fen complex (Fensfeltet) in hot water, the oxidation rate of thorium in Telemark). But thorium deposits in and thorium-based alloys is hundreds of Norway are not developed because of the times higher than that of aluminum. insignificant concentrations of thorium in the ores – just some 0.2% on average. This complicates the extraction process and leads 6.1. Natural thorium to the generation of a great amount of mill tailings and harmful wastes, which raises Thorium is much more naturally abundant objections from the Norwegian public and than uranium. Trace amounts of thorium the country’s government. are even found in granites. Unlike data for Australia’s thorium reserves total uranium, the data on thorium deposits 489,000 tons (at $176 per pound), thorium in the world are not yet well systemized; deposits in the Unites States are estimated nevertheless, it is generally assumed that at 400,000 tons, and thorium reserves in thorium is three to four times more abundant Turkey and India amount to 344,000 tons and in nature than uranium. Thorium abundance 319,000 tons, respectively.

69 6.2. Thorium production nuclear power reactors started in parallel with the first studies of uranium and The main source material for thorium plutonium utilization. Thorium seemed an production is monazite concentrates. attractive option of nuclear material mainly Thorium extraction is a difficult process since due to its abundance, the opportunity to monazite contains elements whose physical reduce the cost of enrichment in the fuel and chemical properties are similar to those cycle, the high conversion ratios (to U-233) of thorium – rare earth metals, uranium, etc. achievable in a thermal neutron spectrum, The initial stage of thorium production is and also due to other neutron and thermal production of pure monazite concentrate. A physical properties described below. variety of methods and techniques are used Thorium-232 is not naturally fissionable for monazite separation. First, monazite is by thermal neutrons. Still, thorium is a source separated by scrubbing and on shaking tables – of secondary nuclear fuel (U-233), produced a process that makes use of the differences by the following nuclear thermal neutron in the minerals’ density and wettability by reaction: different liquids. Further treatment to achieve finer separation includes electromagnetic Th (n,γ ) Th β Pa β U and electrostatic methods. The final product contains between 95% and 98% monazite. Of the numerous methods of extracting U-233, which results from Th-232, makes thorium from monazite concentrates, only for excellent nuclear fuel that can sustain two have broad commercial application: the nuclear chain reaction and has a number digestion with concentrated sulfuric acid at of advantages compared with U-235 (in 200 °С and treatment of the finely ground particular, during fission, a U-233 nucleus concentrate by a 45% sodium hydrate (NaOH) releases more neutrons). When comparing solution at a temperature of 140 °С. the fission processes that involve U-233, on These processes yield thorium the one hand, and those that involve U-235 or concentrates in the form of precipitates Pu-239, on the other, each neutron absorbed of hydroxides, basic salts, phosphates, or by a U-235 or Pu-239 nucleus produces 2.03- oxalates. They contain between 40% and 2.08 new neutrons, whereas in the case of 70% thorium. The products resulting from U-233, the neutron yield is much higher: 2.37. purification are mostly thorium dioxide or Among other benefits of thorium thorium nitrate, which can then be used to compared to uranium-235 are its high melting obtain other compounds necessary for the point, no phase transformations up to production of thorium metal (for instance, 1,400 °С, and high mechanical performance thorium fluoride or thorium chloride). and radiation resistance of metallic thorium Commercially, thorium metal is and a number of its compounds (oxide, produced by metallothermic reduction of its carbide, fluoride). U-233 is characterized compounds (thorium dioxide and halogenide) by a high multiplication factor for thermal or electrolysis of melts. neutrons, which enables their efficient To produce particularly high-purity utilization in nuclear reactors. A comparison thorium (predominantly, for research of the absorption cross-sections of Th-232 purposes), thermo-dissociation of thorium and U-238 in thermal spectra (7.4 barns iodide is used. In view of the high melting against 2.7 barns) shows that thorium is a point, thorium is produced in powder or better contributor to neutron absorption sponge form, which is then transformed than uranium. This means that a thorium into compact metal by powder metallurgy fuel reactor can ensure a lesser, percentage- method or by melting. wise, level of neutron loss due to parasitic The various complexities of thorium absorption in structural materials – and, production are compounded by the need consequently, higher neutron multiplication to ensure reliable radiation protection parameters. measures. Furthermore, using uranium recycled from spent nuclear fuel from thermal neutron reactors – or plutonium from spent 6.3. Using thorium in the uranium- MOX fuel – requires, because of the presence in the fuel of significant concentrations of thorium nuclear fuel cycle non-fissile isotopes U-236, Pu-240, Pu-242, a higher level of enrichment of U-235 or Historically, investigations of a potential Pu-239 in the fresh fuel loads for thermal application of thorium (Th-232) as a fuel for reactors. In the thorium fuel cycle, this is not

70 as critical an issue, and recycling thorium A thorium core for VVER-1000 reactors reactor spent fuel may be a more promising has been patented in the United States, but option economically. is not produced commercially. The design of There are other advantages to thorium this core helps reduce the U-235 load through reactors. For instance, the reactivity margin the involvement into the chain reaction throughout the core life – the period of of the isotope U-233, which is produced time that the reactor continues to operate by thorium during reactor operation, and at nominal capacity – will be changing less the accumulation of U-232, typical for the in thorium-fueled reactors than in reactors thorium cycles, helps denature plutonium burning uranium or uranium-plutonium fuel. in the core – i.e., makes it unsuitable Besides, thorium reactors may allow for a for reprocessing using the technologies more efficient use of both U-235 and/or available today. This is important from the plutonium added to fresh fuel, which offers point of view of plutonium production and the possibility of using the thorium nuclear proliferation concerns. fuel cycle for the purpose of disposition of For Russia, the option of partial transition the global stock of plutonium. of VVER reactors to a thorium cycle is, on the As for the disadvantages of thorium as a one hand, quite attractive. But the problem nuclear fuel, one is that thorium has to have of how and where to produce U-233 remains fissile material added so that nuclear reaction unsolved. One scenario suggests producing is possible. To use thorium breeding to fuel U-233 in thorium blankets of fast reactors reactors, a highly enriched fissile material and then using the produced uranium to fuel (U-235, U-233, Pu-239) must be used as a VVERs. For enhanced radiation protection, fuel, with thorium included in the reactor for the U-233 extracted from the blanket its breeding potential. On the other hand, material can be additionally diluted with thermal breeder reactors (slow neutron depleted or regenerated uranium, decreasing reactors) are possible using a U-233/thorium the U-232 concentration and thus solving the breeding cycle, especially if heavy water is issue of the thorium fuel’s excessive radiation used as a moderator. hazard. Besides everything else, using thorium as a Canada is considering the option of using nuclear fuel is complicated by the generation thorium fuel in heavy water reactors. The of high-activity isotopes produced by side Canadians are researching the possibility reactions. The chief of them, U-232, is an of involving thorium into the fuel cycle alpha and gamma emitter with a half-life of by developing commercial fuel based on 73.6 years. U-233 with 1% U-232 content has a homogeneous mixture of oxides of two an alpha activity that is three times as high or more heavy metals. Canada’s CANDU as that of weapons-grade plutonium, and, by reactors today operate on natural or slightly extension, is three times as radiotoxic. enriched uranium only. A transition to the The technologies required to convert thorium cycle implies that the composition mined thorium ore into fuel forms ready for of the homogeneous mixtures will, besides use in a reactor involve fewer conversion uranium, include thorium, plutonium, and processes, and, consequently, expenses, uranium-233 oxides. than with conversion of mined uranium Other countries have no programs into UO2 fuel. However, today, thorium envisioning the development of thorium- fuel fabrication technologies cannot yet be based nuclear cycles for commercial use. considered mature. Likewise, the knowledge But some states do research the possibility accumulated to date with regard to thorium of using thorium in nuclear reactors. For fuel’s behavior under irradiation cannot instance, Norway’s Thor Energy is planning to be deemed sufficient. Therefore, the conduct a fuel irradiation experiment testing thorium option has yet to reach a level of thorium-plutonium oxide fuel in simulated development needed to allow it an assured LWR conditions using the research reactor entry on the nuclear technology market. in Halden. The company’s other line of work Of all nuclear countries, India currently is the design and modeling of thorium- is the only one with serious intentions MOX and U-233-thorium fuel assemblies for regarding the thorium fuel cycle option. boiling water reactors. Thor Energy believes Beginning in the 1980s, India has loaded a thorium-fueled LWR reactors could assume total of around 232 thorium fuel assemblies some of the functions traditionally expected in its heavy water power reactors. of fast neutron reactors.

71 CHAPTER 7. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF HANDLING NUCLEAR FISSILE MATERIALS

Nuclear fissile materials, as radioactive soluble uranium compounds is 0.015 mg/m3, elements emitting alpha and beta particles, and 0.075 mg/m3 for insoluble compounds. neutrons, and gamma radiation (ionizing Uranium is also a reproductive toxin. Its radiation) – and because of their extreme radiological effects are local due to the short toxicity levels – are a danger to all life. If for range of the alpha particles produced by no other reason, nuclear fissile materials decay of U-238. Uranyl ions have been shown are dangerous by virtue of their very to cause birth defects and immune system existence in nature, as no rules, guidelines, or damage in laboratory animals. technologies are capable of fully protecting The chemical toxicity of uranium – its humans and the natural environment chemical effect on metabolism – is even a from the hazard that they pose. But since greater hazard than its radiotoxicity. it is impossible to rid of them completely, Mining uranium ore in open pits and in humankind is forced to develop and underground mines is accompanied by the implement safety measures that can, to generation of radioactive dust, radioactive a certain degree, prevent or mitigate the gas, and large amounts of uranium- harmful effects that arise from handling contaminated water released into the these materials. environment. Uranium mining and milling Safety in handling fissile materials is operations, therefore, have adverse health achieved through design concepts and effects both on the mining enterprises’ technological and engineering solutions, workers and the populations residing nearby, physical calculations, personnel training, and as well as detrimental environmental effects. measures developed to prevent the adverse Some 95% of the radioactivity of effects of accidents, emergencies, natural uranium ore containing 0.3% of triuranium disasters, and other force majeure events octoxide U3O8 results from the radioactive or circumstances (tsunami, earthquake, decay of U-238 and reaches 1.2×10-5 Ci/kg lightning, falling meteorite or crashing (4.5×105 Bq/kg). Uranium has 14 long-lived aircraft, etc). radioactive isotopes, each with a radioactivity of 8.7×10-7 Ci/kg (3.2×104 Bq/kg) on average (irrespective of the mass proportion). 7.1. Uranium (health effects and After the ore is processed, U-238 and some U-234 (and U-235) are removed from environmental impact) the ore, and its radioactivity declines to 85% of the initial level. After the removal of most Any form of uranium is hazardous for of U-238, its two short-lived decay products – humans and the environment. Th-234 and Pa-234 – disappear quickly, and Uranium is a general cellular poison that over the following several months the ore’s affects all organs and tissues. Its impact is radioactivity decreases further to 70% of due to its chemical toxicity and radioactivity. the original level. Th-230, in its turn, then The maximum allowable concentration for becomes the main long-lived isotope (its half-

72 life is 77,000 years), decaying to Ra-226 and groundwater conditions after the leaching later on to Rn-222. operations have been completed. The gas radon, a uranium daughter Following the end of operations at the product, which is present in uranium ores site, the leaching solution that remains locked and emanates from rock, is a source of in the pores of the rock begins to diffuse. radiation exposure and thus a health hazard This solution contains high concentrations for uranium mine workers (with lung cancer of such contaminants as cadmium, arsenic, being the primary occupational illness). nickel, uranium, and other elements. The During heap leaching, sulfuric acid is contaminated liquid may spread out beyond poured over the upper surface of the pay the leaching zone horizontally and vertically. streak, then percolates through the ore and Large volumes of mine waste left by accumulates on an impermeable liner, with uranium mining operations, when combined the pregnant leach solution then draining with warm rainy climates, may lead to an off of the bottom of the leach pad, where it outflow of significant amounts of acid- is collected and transported to a processing containing water – a phenomenon known plant. as the acid mine drainage (this, for instance, The hazards associated with heap happened at the uranium mill tailings dam at leaching are posed by off-site dust transport Australia’s Rum Jungle site). and leaching liquid seepage. After the Precipitation can form erosion gullies in ore processing operations cease, the the tailings deposits, and floods can destroy environmental risks persist because of the the whole deposit. Roots and burrowing natural leaching processes which take place animals can intrude into the deposit and due to the presence in the rock of iron sulfide spread the radioactive material, increasing

(FeS2). Natural precipitation, coupled with radon exhalation and making the deposit inflow of air, causes sulfuric acid to generate more susceptible to weathering and erosion. constantly within the piled-up material, a If the surface of the deposit desiccates, process resulting in a permanent leaching the fine sands are blown by the wind over of uranium and other contaminants and adjacent areas. poisoning of groundwater for centuries. Uranium ore is delivered to uranium In warmer climates, metal sulfides, upon mills that perform mechanical and chemical contact with water and air – and especially treatment of the ores during processing. The in the presence of certain bacteria – tend main hazard associated with the operation to undergo reactions that result in the of these mills is the discharge of radioactive formation of sulfuric acid and toxic heavy dust. Additionally, when uranium mills cease metals. These substances may penetrate operations, the problem that emerges is into groundwater and may then be carried that of disposing of the generated high- to water bodies. To date, no uranium mine level radioactive waste. This waste is usually site reclamation has been attempted after dumped with the spoil piles. The chemical acid heap leaching, and ways to achieve it reactions that occur between the depleted are unknown. uranium ore, or tailings, resulting from the During in-situ leaching, the leaching milling operations, and the mine waste, are agent – ammonium carbonate solution accompanied by the generation of gaseous or sulfuric acid – is pumped into the rock products that may exacerbate significantly the through injection wells, and the uranium- environmental situation around the deposits. saturated pregnant leach solution is retrieved Liquid waste resulting from uranium via recovery wells. The uranium ore itself is milling is the toxic solutions that contain not removed from the deposit. This method radium and other metals and contaminate can only be applied if the uranium deposit the environment. These are usually collected is located in porous rock confined within in tailings ponds, set up in the available dep- impermeable rock layers. ressions or by erecting special tailings dams. The disadvantages of the in-situ leaching Tailings ponds containing uranium milling technology are the risk of the leaching waste are created at uranium mines and liquid spreading outside of the uranium open-pit mining sites. One such tailings dump deposit, involving subsequent groundwater usually occupies an area of between 300 and contamination; the unpredictable impact of 500 hectares and contains between 50 million the leaching agent on the rock surrounding and 100 million tons of waste with a total the ore body; the production of waste radioactivity of (5-14)×104 Ci ((2-5)×1015 Bq). slurries and waste water during recovery The amount of tailings is equal to the of the uranium from the leach solutions; amount of processed ore. If the ore contains and the impossibility of restoring natural 0.1% of uranium, then 99.9% of it becomes

73 waste. Besides uranium, the tailings contain all between the waste and groundwater by the elements of the uranium series, i.e., 85% of ensuring natural or artificial water barriers, but the ore’s original radioactivity, since they still this method has not so far been adopted on a contain long-lived uranium decay products, wide scale. The same can be said about the including the long-lived radionuclides Th-230 idea of replacing the waste back into the open (with a half-life of 80,000 years) and Ra-226 pits that were used for uranium production. (with a half-life of 1,600 years). Radium is the constant source of Rn-222, which has a half- life of 3.8 days and which, as it is a gas, easily 7.1.1. Uranium and its health effects spreads into the atmosphere. Radionuclides contained in the tailings On average, approximately 90 μg of produce radiation (at the deposit’s surface) uranium exists in the human body from with levels that exceed background radiation normal intakes of water, food, and air, though by 20 to 100 times. These levels decline this figure may vary depending on the region. with distance from the site, so the radiation Uranium is not uniformly distributed in the is only dangerous for people who are in the body, mainly depositing and accumulating in immediate vicinity of the deposit. Gamma the spleen, kidneys, skeleton, liver, and, with radiation is emitted primarily by bismuth inhalation of poorly soluble compounds, lungs and lead isotopes. The radiation emitted by and bronchopulmonary lymph nodes. Uranium radon – which is the decay product of radium, does not circulate for prolonged periods in also present in the tailings – should likewise the blood. The approximate distribution of not be disregarded. uranium in the human body is as follows: Besides radioactive elements, uranium 66% is found in the skeleton, 16% in the liver, tailings also contain other toxic substances 8% in the kidneys, and 10% in other tissues. that were present in the ore, such as arsenic, Uranium content in the organs and tissues of as well as the chemicals that were used animals and humans does not exceed 10–7 g during the milling. These contaminants per gram of tissue. With animals and humans, lead to a geochemical disequilibrium in uranium enters the gastrointestinal tract with the adjacent territories and may become food and water and the respiratory tract with dangerous for the environment should the air; it also enters the body through the skin toxins spread beyond the tailings deposit. and mucosae. The daily intake of uranium is In an arid region, contaminated salts may 1.9×10–6 g from foods and liquids and 7×10–9 g migrate to the surface of the deposit, where from the air. they are exposed to erosion and spread into Uranium’s biological effects on human the environment. If the ore contains the health may vary depending on the chemical mineral pyrite (FeS2), then acids form inside form of the uranium to which exposure the deposit when accessed by precipitation has occurred and can be triggered both by and oxygen, triggering a continuous leaching chemical and radiological mechanisms. of contaminants. Chemical interactions Irrespective of the route of intake, most between the slurries and the liner under the of the uranium (over 95%) is not absorbed, deposit might deteriorate the performance but is eliminated with the feces and urine. of the liner and thus increase the release of But 5% of the uranium will be absorbed by contaminants into groundwater. the body if the soluble uranyl ion has been At a surface glance, the simplest decision ingested, and only 0.5% in the case of intake that may seem to be the solution to the of an insoluble form (uranium oxide). Soluble uranium tailings problem is putting them uranium compounds are eliminated much back where they came from – into the faster than insoluble ones. This especially underground mines, open pits, etc. But this concerns dust of uranium compounds when is not the best solution. Placing this waste absorbed by the lungs. back into a mine is an unacceptable approach Upon entering the bloodstream, uranium in most cases, since then the materials tends to bioaccumulate and may for many present in the tailings may come into direct years remain in bone tissue (because of contact with groundwater – and these are uranium’s affinity for phosphates). Out of materials containing 85% of the ore’s original the quantity of uranium that is absorbed into radioactivity, as well as all of its toxins. the blood, some 67% will be filtered by the Furthermore, these contaminants are now kidneys and excreted in the urine within 24 much more mobile and “better equipped” to hours. Half of the uranium absorbed by the escape into the environment. kidneys, bone tissue, and liver, is excreted in Disposal in mines is possible if it appears the urine within the period of between 180 possible to completely rule out any contact and 360 days.

74 Uranium has been shown to cause or be passages, by swallowing, by contact, or via a conducive to genetic mutations, tumors, wound), as well as on the properties of the birth defects, cellular level toxicity, and uranium (particle size and solubility). neurological damage. Uranium can also affect Natural uranium’s radiation hazard is growing bones, cross the placenta, and cause mostly due to the emission of alpha particles, damage to the embryo/fetus. which do not penetrate the external skin In addition to its impact on the skeleton, on layers (though there are data indicating that reproductive success, and on cancer induction under certain conditions, alpha particles may and/or promotion, the neurological effects penetrate through the skin as well), but are from the impact of uranium are analogous capable of affecting internal cells (as these to those of a kind of radioactive lead. In all of are more susceptible to the ionizing effects these areas there is some indication of the of alpha radiation) when uranium is ingested potential for the heavy metal damage and the or inhaled. Exposure to alpha and beta radiation-induced damage of uranium to be radiation from inhaled insoluble uranium interacting in a synergistic manner. particles may therefore lead to lung tissue Toxic damage from uranium depends damage and increase the probability of lung on the solubility of its compounds: Uranyl cancer. Similarly, absorption into the blood, and other soluble uranium compounds are and transport to and retention in other more toxic. Percentage values of uranium organs and the skeleton, is assumed to carry retained from the daily intake are 1.1% for an additional risk of cancer in these organs, adults and 1.8% for adolescents. Significant depending on the level of radiation exposure. quantities of soluble uranium compounds One important problem is assessing the (uranyl nitrate, uranyl fluoride, etc.) may be dose of alpha radiation resulting from internal absorbed through the skin, and also absorbed exposure to the natural radionuclides of the quickly by the blood and circulate to the uranium and thorium series, of which most body’s organs and tissues. Insoluble uranium are concentrated in the skeleton. Calculations compounds (UO2, UO4, U3O8) almost never here are difficult because the radiation dose are absorbed through the skin. is not just due to the parent nuclides uranium In the first hours and days following intake, and thorium, but also due to their numerous the highest specific content of uranium is decay products – the genetically related observed in the kidneys. Uranium accumulates radionuclides, whose activity changes in for a period of approximately 4 days, and 16 complex ways over time. days later it starts to be slowly excreted from Uranium deposited in bone tissue causes the body, with an elimination half-life of 150 its constant irradiation (uranium’s half life of to 200 days. In the longer term, over 90% of all elimination from the skeleton is about 300 uranium retained in the body is deposited in days). Numerous data indicate that long- the bones (which is a critical organ). term exposure may result in damage to renal The chemical toxicity of uranium and function both in humans and in animals. The its compounds is similar to that of mercury types of damage that have been observed or arsenic, or their compounds. Notably, are nodular changes to the surface of the uranyl compounds (for instance, UO2(NO3)2) kidney, lesions to the tubular epithelium, and are soluble in lipids and may be absorbed increased levels of glucose and protein in the through intact skin. With intake, aerosols of urine. uranium and its compounds are the most The hazards posed by uranium are hazardous. The maximum allowable air especially pronounced for miners employed concentration of aerosols of water-soluble at uranium, polymetallic, and coal mines, uranium compounds is 0.015 mg/m3, and for as well as employees of uranium mills. The insoluble forms of uranium it is 0.075 mg/m3. general population may be exposed to No more than 3% of all the quantity of uranium – or its daughter products, such as U-238 that has entered the human body via radon – via inhalation of dust or intake of inhalation is detected in the lungs 18 months water and food. later. Uranium content in the air is usually Uranium may cause not just functional, insignificant, but uranium exposure may but also organic changes – both as a result of occur for workers at phosphate fertilizer immediate (direct) impact and indirectly via plants or populations residing in areas the central nervous system and endocrine located close to nuclear weapons production glands. or testing facilities, or residents of areas Uranium’s radiological effects depend where depleted uranium munitions have on how radiation exposure has occurred and been used in the course of warfare, or on the level of exposure (via the respiratory residents of areas located near coal-fired

75 power or cogeneration plants, uranium over time as a result of nuclear weapons tests mines, uranium milling and enrichment worldwide. In certain regions of the planet, enterprises, or nuclear fuel fabrication plants. soils are contaminated with radioactive fallout, including plutonium, released during accidents at nuclear power plants or from the 7.1.2. Safety measures operation of nuclear fuel cycle enterprises. The total amount of plutonium accumulated when handling uranium in the world is sufficient to kill the planet’s entire population several times without even Uranium metal, especially when finely nuclear explosions. ground (as well as uranium hydride), is The Chernobyl catastrophe resulted in a pyroforic – i.e., it may ignite spontaneously. plutonium contamination of a 30-kilometer When burning, it produces uranium oxide area around the plant. Some estimates peg smoke, which easily penetrates the human plutonium content in the soil in the United body. This is why fine fragments of uranium States at an average of 2×10-3 Ci (7.4×107 Bq) metal (powder, shavings, etc.) must be stored (28 mg) per square kilometer. in a fire-safe location and, if possible, in an The total radioactivity of plutonium atmosphere of protective gas or liquid (such released into the atmosphere by spent as under oil). nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities constitutes If possible, water should be avoided a small share of the total plutonium when extinguishing a uranium fire. Dry sand, radioactivity present in the environment common salt, or dry powder extinguishers (1.2×10-5 Ci (4.4×105 Bq)). But for the areas can be used. immediately adjacent to these enterprises, Explosion risks occur especially with air the levels of contamination with plutonium dispersion of metal uranium or uranium released by the plants are quite significant hydride. The lower explosive limit here ranges and present a great hazard. between 45 and 120 milligrams per liter. Plutonium is not evenly distributed on Uranium powder may explode when the Earth’s surface: the maximum activity treated with halogen-containing hydro- of Pu-239, at 2×10-9 Ci/m2 (70-80 Bq/m2), carbons – such as during degreasing with is observed within the area of 35° to 45° carbon tetrachloride, which, therefore, should north – the result of atmospheric nuclear be avoided when degreasing metallic uranium tests conducted at these latitudes. In the (or dichloroethylene should be used instead). Southern Hemisphere and equatorial regions, Explosion risk is present when treating plutonium-239 activity does not exceed uranium with ester admixed with peroxides, 4×10-10 Ci/m2 (10-15 Bq/m2). and an explosion may occur in the press Plutonium radioactivity levels in nuclear mould when pressing uranium powder into weapons testing areas and around plutonium compact shapes in a hydraulic press. These fabrication or radiochemical treatment types of work should therefore be conducted facilities are higher than the values given behind a protective screen. above. Various data indicate that between Special caution is warranted when 7 and 10 tons of plutonium has been dispersed handling uranium to avoid producing a critical around the world as a result of nuclear mass of the fissile isotopes U-233 and U-235. weapons testing, losses during production, Critical state depends in complex ways on the and accidents at nuclear facilities worldwide. geometry, concentrations of uranium and the moderating agent, as well as on the material of the neutron reflector. The lowest critical 7.2.1. Plutonium distribution mass values – i.e., the smallest quantities of uranium that under certain conducive in the human body conditions may be sufficient for criticality to occur – are as follows: 591 g for U-233 Plutonium is one of the chemical elements solutions, and 856 g for U-235 solutions. that represent the greatest hazard for all life – both in terms of the radiological damage it does to internal organs and tissues as it emits 7.2. Plutonium (health effects radiation and because of its chemical toxicity. Still, the chemical toxicity of plutonium as and environmental impact) a heavy metal is incommensurate with its radiological impact. Some 5,000 kilograms of plutonium has Plutonium’s specific radioactivity is been dispersed into the Earth’s atmosphere 200,000 times that of U-238, which is

76 a natural alpha emitter. The maximum A significant amount of plutonium may allowable content of Pu-239 in the human be inhaled instantaneously. This usually body is one million times as low as it is for happens if plant equipment suffers loss of U-238. Plutonium’s toxicity is due, first and containment integrity or due to a ventilation foremost, to its radiological properties. But system failure. For instance, inhaling one gram because of their limited penetrating capacity, of weapons-grade plutonium oxide (with an alpha emitters – including plutonium – are estimated specific alpha activity of 9×10-2 Ci/g only harmful to human health with internal (3×109 Bq/g)) results in an effective lifetime exposure. dose of approximately 0.04 Sv. The principal routes of entry of plutonium The estimated absorbed doses from into the body are via the respiratory organs, weapons-grade plutonium and civilian the gastrointestinal tract, and through the plutonium are essentially equal if they are skin. When plutonium enters the human measured per unit of activity. However, body, it starts irradiating with alpha particles when calculated per unit of mass, a radiation those tissues where it becomes lodged. dose received from civilian plutonium will Upon inhalation or ingestion, alpha-emitting exceed by an order of magnitude the dose microparticles of plutonium remain in the from weapons-grade plutonium – because body for what is practically an indefinite of the higher specific activity of civilian period of time (plutonium elimination plutonium, on account, primarily, of Pu-238. half-life is 50 to 200 years), depositing on The effective lifetime dose from civilian the surfaces of the lungs or on the gastric plutonium is thus some ten times higher mucosa, and migrating into the blood than that absorbed from weapons-grade circulatory system. plutonium. Some 50% of plutonium is deposited The largest plutonium particle that can in bone tissue and 30% in the liver, which be inhaled with ease is approximately 3 μm presents a risk of development of oncological in diameter and has a mass of approximately disease. The allowable content of natural 1.4×10-10 grams. The likelihood of developing uranium in the human body is measured a lethal form of cancer as a result of inhaling in milligrams – whereas for plutonium, it is such a particle is approximately 10-6. nanograms. Plutonium’s entry into the body via Plutonium’s toxicity depends to a large inhalation may have long-term health effects degree on its route of entry into the body. (such as increased risk of fatal cancer), as The impact of plutonium that has been well as delayed and acute effects (such as ingested into the gastrointestinal tract is pulmonary edema). Acute effects, however, commensurate with that of such well-known occur with exposure to rather high doses. For poisons as cyanide and strychnine. The instance, approximately 20 mg of plutonium lethal dose of plutonium when swallowed is of optimal size (around 1 μm) must be inhaled 0.5 grams (and 0.1 grams for cyanide). When for its chemical toxicity to cause death from inhaled, plutonium’s chemical toxicity is pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema comparable to that of mercury or cadmium within one month. Inhaling a large quantity vapor. Plutonium has been referred to as a of insoluble plutonium (over 2.7 μCi (105 Bq)), potent radiotoxin. such as during a fire or an explosion, may Risks of plutonium exposure from result in acute and severe damage caused by inhalation are the most pronounced for radiotoxic effects. personnel of nuclear production facilities. Entry into the gastrointestinal (GI) tract The potential hazard posed by particles may occur both as a result of injection and of plutonium dust when they enter the inhalation of plutonium. Up to 50% of an human body via the respiratory system is insoluble plutonium compound that has determined by their parameters and source. entered the body via inhalation may be In the air, the predominant mass fraction cleared from the lungs via the gastrointestinal is that of plutonium oxide (PuO2), which tract. After its entry into the GI tract, part is capable of dispersing. Plutonium oxides of the plutonium will migrate through the can remain in the lungs for years, whereas mucosa cells into the blood circulation the more mobile compounds migrate much system. Upon its entry into the blood faster to the body’s metabolic systems (the circulation system, part of the absorbed gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes, the material will be eliminated with the urine blood, etc.). Plutonium’s entry into the blood and feces (via the bile), with the remaining circulation and other metabolic systems amount depositing in other organs. The depends on the physical and chemical form blood retains an insignificant amount of the of the plutonium inhaled. plutonium absorbed.

77 The share of plutonium uptake in the The rate of the neutron dose is deter- liver as compared to that in the skeletal mined by spontaneous fission neutrons system varies considerably depending on emitted primarily by Pu-238 and Pu-240. the individual case, but around 50% of With plutonium oxides and other compounds the absorbed plutonium is assumed to be of plutonium with light elements (carbon, deposited in the skeletal bones, and 30% nitrogen, and other elements), neutrons in the liver. The total amount of plutonium resulting from the (α, n) reactions may retained by the body is around 90% of the contribute to the dose. Particles of plutonium total amount absorbed. accumulated, for instance, on fine filters Penetration of plutonium through the may become dangerous sources of external skin (both damaged and intact) may occur exposure, which is why radiation doses both under normal and accident conditions from these sources must be monitored with a release of plutonium particles or regularly and measures must be taken plutonium solutions beyond containment correspondingly. barriers. In most cases, plutonium oxide can be easily removed from the surface of the skin without damaging it. Increased risks of 7.2.2. Plutonium in ecosystems the radionuclide’s penetration into the body may occur if the skin sustains damage from The behavior of plutonium in the aggressive acids (which are used in plutonium atmosphere varies depending on the particle separation processes) or complexing agents size and the dispersal mechanism. Plutonium used to decontaminate the skin. In this case, that has been released into the atmosphere too, the highest concentration of plutonium is is present in the environment as separate found in the bones and the liver, i.e., a typical oxide molecules. Additionally, plutonium may distribution pattern occurs as observed for be detected in the atmosphere as so-called plutonium uptake via other pathways. hot particles – solid particles that contain With contamination of an open injury, plutonium molecules and have a size ranging a large amount of plutonium may be between hundredths of a micrometer to a concentrated locally around the wounded dozen micrometers and a radioactivity level area. An efficient method of reducing of several dozen becquerels per particle; exposure resulting from such contamination this exceeds by hundreds and thousands is surgically removing the contaminated of times the radioactivity of more common tissue. Recommendations for which radioactive aerosols. contamination levels necessitate a decision Aerosols released in the stratosphere in favor of surgical removal are as follows: from nuclear weapon tests and satellite re- surgical removal of the wound is indicated entry are deposited globally over a period for wounds containing over 4×10-9 Ci (150 Bq) of years. Plutonium released into the of plutonium; and wounds containing less atmosphere by fabrication and reprocessing than 2×10-9 Ci (75 Bq) are deemed not to operations and accidents is typically pose significant risk. The risks associated deposited in a relatively short time close with surgical removal of tissues depend to a to the source. Resuspension of particulate considerable degree on the age and health plutonium is not a major concern as fine of the exposed individual, the location of the particles that might again become airborne injury, as well as the nature and total area of adhere strongly to the surfaces of large soil the contaminated tissue. particles and aggregates and are not readily The total dose from external exposure entrained. to plutonium is produced by the combined Plutonium in soil is resistant to migration exposures to both gamma and neutron and translocation irrespective of the source radiation. When handling plutonium, of the fallout. Plutonium quickly becomes external radiation hazards for personnel fast attached to soil particles and then very result from the radioactive decay of its slowly (0.8 cm/year) migrates in soil and primary isotopes – mostly, gamma radiation with water flows. Less than 1% of plutonium from decay products of Pu-241, in particular, is found in the biological components of Am-241. Therefore, special attention is given ecosystems, with the largest portion of it to the ingrowth of Am-241. Gamma emissions bound in the plant life. The mean migration from other plutonium decay products may coefficients for the movement of plutonium become the major source of external gamma in soil are approximately 10-7 cm2/sec. The radiation exposure for personnel if Am-241 is vertical transport rate depends on this either removed or its low-energy gamma rays coefficient and on the concentration of are attenuated by shielding. soluble plutonium species, which, however,

78 as estimates suggest, is less than 0.1% of the processes. Both vertical and lateral transport plutonium that is in the soil. processes are possible, depending on the Translocation of plutonium in soil is conditions. Studies of plutonium uptake by primarily lateral. Vertical movement is marine organisms show that concentration promoted by certain mechanical processes factors relative to the plutonium concentration such as cultivation. Wind and water erosion in sea water are 40, 300, and 3,000 for fish, are the primary mechanisms for the lateral crustacea, and mollusks, respectively. movement of plutonium in soil. Fine silt Plutonium fallout in seas and oceans is clay particles that contain plutonium gradually deposited and becomes lodged in concentrations are readily transported by bed sediments. water, or by wind when dry. Over 99% of all plutonium released into Biological systems (both plants and the environment is contained in seabed animal species) provide additional pathways sediments and surface soils. for the translocation of plutonium from soil. The plutonium fraction transferred to plants after deposition on the leaves 7.3. MOX fuel is approximately 10-5. For expected con- centrations of pluto nium in soil, the fraction MOX fuel fabrication may involve the taken up by roots ranges from 10-3 to 10-5. use of depleted uranium (uranium tailings) Root uptake of soluble plutonium species in or natural uranium as uranium dioxide and the soil is thought to involve complexes of Pu-239, civilian or weapons-grade. The hexavalent plutonium. degree of human exposure risk and potential Ingestion and inhalation are the principal environmental impact associated with MOX mechanisms for the translocation of fuel is thus commensurate with that of the plutonium from soil to animals. Inhalation hazards that are posed by uranium and is of minimal concern because airborne plutonium, which were described above. concentrations of plutonium are low except The risks, hazards, and scale of potential in the vicinity of an accident and then only consequences arising with plutonium for a short time following the accident. contamination increase with the use of Gastrointestinal and pelt uptake by grazing MOX fuel at nuclear power plants. Health animals over a long period of time is also of hazards associated with MOX fuel occur first minimal concern because the amount of and foremost with internal exposure, with plutonium ingested by animals is small and external exposure to gamma radiation from the fraction of ingested plutonium absorbed Am-241, and exposure to neutron radiation. by animals is approximately 10-4. Am-241, a decay product of Pu-241, is one of Combination of the described plutonium the major sources of gamma radiation. The translocation processes via plant and animal most serious hazard in standard MOX fuel systems shows that the fraction of deposited is from neutrons produced by spontaneous plutonium translocated to herbivores is in the fission of Pu-240 and Pu-238. 10-7 to 10-9 range. Personnel involved in the manufacture The distribution patterns of plutonium of MOX fuel are exposed to additional risks in water systems are rather alike for both associated with the technologies used in the marine and fresh water systems. With MOX fabrication processes. microparticles of plutonium deposited in Spent (irradiated) MOX fuel is likewise fresh water, a distributional relationship is an added radiological hazard compared to established between the concentration of spent uranium dioxide fuel, primarily because plutonium in water and the concentration in of the increased content in MOX fuel of sediments or particulate matter. Distribution plutonium and other transuranic elements. constants, which are in the 10-4 to 2×10-6 To ensure nuclear safety when handling range, show that the plutonium resides MOX fuel, the same safety measures are primarily as an insoluble solid. The highest applied as with other nuclear fissile materials: concentrations in solution are observed The mass of the nuclear materials and that in systems with low pH and high sulfate of moderator materials is observed; the concentration. Coefficients for equilibration geometry (combination of mass and spacing of sedimentary and dissolved plutonium are factors) is maintained for the powders, also between 10-4 and 10-5, suggesting that pellets, and other products in storage; the chemical processes in salt water are the areas where work is being conducted similar to those in fresh water. with nuclear fissile materials are equipped Translocation of plutonium in lakes and with monitoring systems, which check for oceans occurs by chemical and mechanical increased neutron emissions (so as to prevent

79 a spontaneous nuclear chain reaction); and the radiochemical plant RT-1 at Production the hazard posed by decay heat (which is Association Mayak. Mayak’s operations due, primarily, to the content of Pu-238) is have resulted in over 8×108 Ci (2.9×1019 Bq) likewise given due attention. in liquid and solid radioactive waste Radiolysis presents a grave hazard when accumulated at the site; 360 million tons in working with aqueous plutonium solutions, liquid radioactive waste has been discharged as it produces an explosive mix of hydrogen into the Techa Reservoir Cascade at Mayak, and oxygen. This risk must also be taken into and this waste is not isolated from the account when handling scrap, which may surrounding environment. This is the world’s contain organic admixtures – i.e., measures largest deposit of liquid radioactive waste in must be implemented to remove these the natural environment. In addition to the admixtures. already accumulated waste, new radioactive From the point of view of radiation safety, waste with a total radioactivity of several the conditions required to handle MOX fuel dozen millions of curies is added annually are different from those needed to ensure from Mayak’s spent nuclear fuel reprocessing safety when handling common uranium operations alone. fuel – on account, first and foremost, of the different amounts of radionuclides present in their respective compositions and responsible 7.5. Uranium fuel for the neutron and gamma radiation doses. Because of this factor, the equivalent dose Fabrication of uranium products, including rate from a fuel assembly with fresh MOX uranium fuel, entails generation of liquid and fuel is considerably higher than that from solid radioactive waste. a uranium fuel assembly. The surface dose Liquid radioactive waste produced during rate for a fuel assembly with fresh MOX fuel fuel fabrication includes raffinates from the is 6.35×102 μSv/h, exceeding that for a fuel solvent extraction stage, mother solutions assembly with uranium fuel by approximately from the precipitation stage, slurries from the 20 times; the dose rate in uranium fuel is filtration and hydrolysis stations, and waste produced entirely by gamma radiation, water from decontamination of equipment whereas in the case of MOX fuel, the shares and working areas. of neutron and gamma contributions are Solid radioactive waste that is accumu- relatively equal and are 3.31×102 μSv/h and lated during fuel fabrication is metal scrap 3.04×102 μSv/h, respectively. (disassembled equipment, utilities, and pipelines), furnace lining, construction materials, industrial rubber, elastrons, filter 7.4. Spent nuclear fuel fabric, respirator masks, etc. In expert estimates, Russia has The main hazards associated with spent accumulated 540 million tons of liquid and nuclear fuel management occur with its solid radioactive waste – or almost half reprocessing. The only spent nuclear fuel of all the radioactive waste accumulated reprocessing facility operating in Russia is worldwide.

80 Conclusion

Developments in the field of management reactors – designs that do not require the of nuclear fissile materials warrant constant same quantities of uranium as thermal attention of politicians, experts, and the reactors do and are capable of operating public, since it is not just regional political on that stock of low-enriched uranium issues that these events have an impact on, and plutonium that has already been but global geopolitics as a whole. accumulated? This field is extremely important from Uranium enrichment capacity is growing, the perspectives of ensuring nuclear and too. The world’s leading nuclear nations and radiation safety, non-proliferation of nuclear nuclear companies hold the largest enriched materials and technologies, assessments of uranium market share. Russia and the the state of nuclear weapons and the nuclear United States are creating uranium banks. energy industry today and in the future, as The American uranium bank AFS (American well as solutions needed for a great many Assured Fuel Supply) has been set up to stock other issues. The impression one has today low-enriched uranium downblended from is that the existing international system of American highly enriched uranium. By 2012, non-proliferation control is incapable of fully the AFS was expected to take delivery of 230 implementing the tasks it is charged with: tons of low-enriched uranium. controlling, accounting for, and preventing The Iranian uranium enrichment the proliferation of nuclear materials. This program remains a special concern for the is corroborated by facts indicating the international community. In January 2012, development of rogue nuclear programs by the IAEA officially confirmed that Iran had certain nations – primarily, Iran, North Korea, started production of uranium enriched Israel, etc. to 20% at its Fordow (Fordo) enrichment The number of uranium production facility. Experts say that when it reaches countries is increasing. The global natural its nameplate capacity, the new plant is uranium market is strong – with such designed to operate up to 3,000 centrifuges. countries as Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, State Corporation Rosatom expects and Russia now accounting for 70% of the nuclear power plants’ demand in fuel world’s uranium production capacity – and fabrication services to grow by 2030 to even the disaster at Fukushima did not affect 17,000 tons of enriched uranium, from the market significantly. State Corporation 12,500 tons in 2011. Russia’s nuclear fuel Rosatom continues to buy up uranium producer, TVEL Fuel Company, continues to production assets. Atomredmetzoloto improve its fuel assembly designs for VVER- today ranks the world’s second largest in 440 and VVER-1000 reactors. In late 2010, terms of uranium reserves and owns 20% pilot operation of third-generation VVER- of the U.S. uranium reserves. The uranium 440 fuel assemblies, with a higher uranium holding ARMZ also owns reserves in Canada, (UO2) mass and enrichment level increased Australia, Namibia, and Tanzania. to 4.87% of U-235, started at Kola Nuclear In November 2011, Sergei Kiriyenko Power Plant’s Unit 4. According to TVEL, the stated that Rosatom’s uranium production main goal of introducing the new design is to assets were enough to ensure supply of improve economic performance of VVER-400 uranium to Russian nuclear power plants – reactors. Rosenergoatom Concern asserts including those built abroad – for the next that the effect expected from employing the 100 years. This, though, raises the following new design will be a 15% reduction in the question: If State Corporation Rosatom has number of fuel assemblies to be replaced acquired such enormous uranium assets with each refueling, with the reactor with a view to secure, for 100 years ahead, operating at 107% nominal capacity. TVEL their use in thermal reactors, then why today is the single supplier of fuel assemblies are such enormous funds being spent on in the competition-free VVER-440 fuel the development and construction of fast market segment, and clearly, no competition

81 is likely anticipated in this segment in the reactors. Russia does not have this type of future, since the VVER-440 reactor design is reactors. Any attempts to use MOX fuel in not expected to be developed further. standard thermal reactors that are not suited In the past several years, State Corporation for the purpose invite the risk of adverse Rosatom has been working steadily to improve consequences. The principal causes of these VVER-1000 reactors and promote them on the adverse effects are: international market, with fuel for reactors of – the physical and technical properties of all designs in the VVER-1000 series becoming, MOX fuel when using it in partial core loads correspondingly, TVEL Fuel Company’s main in thermal reactors have an adverse effect on product. In 2011, VVER-1000 fuel was supplied reactor safety. In particular, use of MOX fuel to and loaded at Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, introduces inhomogeneities into the core, as well as Unit 4 of Kalinin Nuclear Power Plant. which cause difficulties with the calculation of The main fuel designs used for VVER-1000s are the power distribution around the interfaces projects initiated at the end of last century and between the uranium and MOX assemblies; early 2000s. Today, these are fuel assemblies – use of MOX fuel in reactors of the VVER of the types TVS-2M and TVSA-PLUS, as well type reduces the efficiency of the reactor as TVSA-ALFA (TVSA-ALPHA) and TVSA-12. control and protection system, which, in turn, Additionally, the TVSA series now includes a affects safety levels; model modified for compatible operation with – calculational uncertainties with regard TVS-2M. In 2011, a 12-assembly pilot batch to the operating modes of thermal reactors was loaded for operation at Kalinin NPP's partially loaded with plutonium fuel have not Unit 1. yet been reduced to the same level as has TVEL has also started developing fourth- been achieved for the traditional uranium- generation fuel assemblies, with pilot fueled cores. Using MOX fuel, therefore, operation of these assemblies launched in undoubtedly leads to an increased risk of 2012. An engineering design has also been accidents; developed for TVS-2006 fuel assemblies – fallout from an accident involving a intended for a 24-month fuel cycle and MOX-fueled core meltdown will be 2.3 to with expected burnup of up to 70 MWd/kg 2.5 times greater than with a core loaded in reactors of the NPP-2006 (AES-2006) pro- with common uranium fuel. ject. The main solutions implemented in The problem of plutonium still persists this model are: 7.8/0 mm diameter pellets for all the countries that have amassed (no central hole); possibility for a 6% to plutonium stockpiles as well as the global 8% power increase with heat transfer community in general, since plutonium intensification; analysis of the possibility to presents a real threat to the environment increase enrichment above 5%; and analysis and the population, and it is also the main of efficiency of using uranium-erbium fuel. material that can be used to manufacture No orders have as yet been placed for this nuclear weapons. fuel, however, since any NPP-2006 reactors Russia’s position regarding plutonium are yet to be completed. is based on the assertion that this material TVEL, undoubtedly, is the monopoly is a valuable commodity, and because it is producer of fuel for nuclear power plants an artificially produced isotope, it needs to of Russian (Soviet) designs. Still, TVEL’s fuel be disposed of in an equally artificial way. fabrication rivals – Westinghouse, General Accordingly, Russia’s plutonium management Electric, Areva, Hitachi, and Toshiba – have concept – with regard to civilian and lately been ramping up efforts to nudge TVEL weapons-grade plutonium alike – is tied up out of the nuclear fuel markets of the former with the goal of closing the nuclear fuel cycle, USSR and Communist Bloc states, primarily, i.e., using plutonium to produce MOX fuel Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria. and burning it as part of this fuel in reactors, This has caused TVEL to step up construction thus increasing fuel efficiency and reducing in Ukraine of a fuel fabrication facility with a the radioactivity of long-lived nuclear waste. production capacity of 400 tons of uranium Attempts are being made to integrate per year. Russia’s national spent nuclear fuel manage- The issue of using MOX fuel in modern ment system into this same concept. But reactors remains today a complicated and whether these attempts succeed will depend largely unsolved one for many countries, to a great extent on the type of the fuel cycle including Russia. Thermal reactor designs chosen, as this choice will determine the kind that France, Japan, and a number of other of infrastructure that will have to be created countries have at their disposal afford them to manage Russia’s plutonium and spent the possibility to use MOX fuel in these nuclear fuel stocks.

82 The principal provisions of the “Strategy Russia intends to continue to offer services for the Development of the Back End of the in nuclear fuel leasing and in the supply of Life Cycle of Sites and Materials Involved enriched uranium, in line with a number of in the Use of Atomic Energy until 2030,” governmental agreements. adopted by State Corporation Rosatom in Thorium research is seeing continued December 2011, suggest four alternative investments into thorium fuel R&D, and the nuclear fuel cycles for consideration. Russia global knowledge base is growing. Some is leaning toward a version of a closed fuel countries have accumulated a certain level cycle that involves combined use of fast of knowledge and experience today for reactors and thermal neutron reactors. As of the partial use of thorium fuel in a once- early 2012, however, the corporation had not through fuel cycle of light water and heavy reached a clear decision regarding its choice – water reactors. The IAEA, however, is of the primarily, due to economic reasons and also opinion that using thorium in a closed fuel technological and safety issues. cycle – i.e. complete with spent nuclear fuel As per the adopted long-term develop- reprocessing – will only become competitive ment scenario, the choice of the nuclear against open uranium fuel cycles if the price fuel cycle will be made in consecutive steps of natural uranium rises to $400 per kilogram in 2015, 2020, and, for the final decision, or higher. 2030, by clearing certain milestones that Safety continues to be a major issue in will depend on obtaining a number of the field of management of nuclear fissile target results. At the moment, Russia’s materials. Between 1953 and 2010, some plutonium burning program is limited to the 15 criticality events took place at Rosatom’s construction of a fast neutron BN-800 reactor enterprises – mostly, involving installations at Beloyarsk NPP and a MOX fuel fabrication in use at the chemical and metallurgical plant in Dimitrovgrad (scheduled for facilities producing plutonium, plutonium commissioning in 2014), with the plant slated products, and products from highly enriched for completion prior to the reactor launch. uranium, and, for the most part, when Spent nuclear fuel management remains handling solutions and solution mixtures the main problem and the main impediment containing fissile materials. The causes for the global nuclear power industry. The included using nuclear hazardous equipment, disaster at Fukushima served to show once errors on the part of personnel, and a lack of again the urgency of addressing the issues proper control over nuclear fissile materials of spent nuclear fuel storage at reactor sites during production or transportation. and in cooling ponds. This is a complicated Preventing a criticality accident has been and costly process. Upon completing its and remains the chief concern when ensuring stress tests in 2011, the French Nuclear safety at nuclear fuel cycle enterprises. The Safety Authority (ASN) determined a list of incidents that have taken place demonstrate measures required to ensure safety of spent that accounting for and control of nuclear nuclear fuel cooling ponds. The total cost materials are fundamental to nuclear safety. of these measures is estimated at around Enriched uranium and plutonium represent EUR 110 billion. the greatest hazard, and, on account of their The economy of nuclear fissile materials state of matter, so do aqueous solutions management continues to be a rather and hydrogen-containing mixtures. Specific closed one even though all countries that requirements and conditions apply for have nuclear programs have a presence every process that is used at a nuclear in the markets for uranium, nuclear fuel, fuel cycle facility with regard to safety and other nuclear materials. Russia has measures and prevention of health and lately been making efforts to develop environmental hazards. With storage of business opportunities in the field of SNF nuclear “tailings,” the spread of waste management and seeking inroads to take its particles and wind-blown dust dispersal, SNF business to the international market. as well as groundwater contamination, The main business areas here will be selling must be prevented. During nuclear fuel SNF storage solutions and equipment, as transportation, risks occur with disruptions well as reprocessing technologies. It is not in the geometry of the fuel rods in the casks, entirely clear what the Russian nuclear loss of containment, and penetration of corporation’s strategy is with regard to water into a cask. At radiochemical plants, offering SNF reprocessing services for export, violations of safety standards and rules and with regard to storage of spent nuclear may lead to an explosion of hydrogen that fuel of foreign origin on Russia’s territory. is generated when dissolving metals and a What is clear at the moment is only that release of radioactive aerosols and liquids

83 into the surrounding environment. Where enriched uranium to the United States, the radioactive solutions and solution mixtures two countries had an agreement in place are stored and reprocessed, the risks include on disposition of excess weapons-grade localized criticality, an explosion involving plutonium, the U.S. was supporting Russia’s gaseous products of radiolysis of liquids, efforts to enhance physical security of autocatalytic reaction with a release of nuclear installations, and Russia and the U.S. gases in liquid phase, as well as an explosion were also working together on converting of solid radioactive waste remaining after research reactors from highly enriched to evaporation. The risks of geological disposal low-enriched uranium fuel. But the 123 of solid radioactive waste from radiochemical Agreement served to expand significantly the plants are the possibility of a spontaneous two countries’ nuclear cooperation, including chain reaction and a release of radioactive in the field of fissile materials management. substances into water-bearing layers and into Items 3 and 4 of the Agreement’s Article 7 the atmosphere. provide for the possibility of transportation All of the above clearly shows that of nuclear materials from one country to the handling nuclear fissile materials requires other, including via transit through third- special skills and compliance with standards party countries. This leaves open the issue and rules. All nuclear fissile materials are of possible import to Russia of spent nuclear potentially dangerous to humans and the fuel that belongs to the United States. environment. In mid-2011, speaking at a meeting of In 2011, U.S. and Russian officials Rosatom’s Public Council, Sergei Kiriyenko brought into force the bilateral agreement stated that as long as he remained the head for cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of the nuclear corporation, Russia would of nuclear energy, or the U.S.-Russia 123 not import spent nuclear fuel from other Agreement. Russia was the party primarily countries. Unfortunately, the 123 Agreement invested in signing this agreement. Before the does open the door to such a possibility, 123 Agreement, Russia and the United States while Sergei Kiriyenko will not remain at the had already developed quite successful helm forever – and besides, not everything in cooperation in the field of nuclear energy. Rosatom is decided by Rosatom’s head. In particular, Russia has been supplying low-

84 Terms, definitions, and reference materials

1. Terms Fissionable material: A nuclide that is capable of undergoing fission after capturing Nuclear weapon: A device that releases either high-energy (fast) neutrons or low- nuclear energy in an explosive manner as the energy thermal (slow) neutrons. Although result of nuclear chain reactions involving formerly used as a synonym for fissile fission, or fission and fusion, of atomic nuclei. material, fissionable materials also include Such weapons are also sometimes referred to those (such as uranium-238) that can be as atomic bombs (a fission-based weapon); fissioned only with high-energy neutrons. As or boosted fission weapons (a fission-based a result, fissile materials (such as uranium- weapon deriving a slightly higher yield from 235) are a subset of fissionable materials. a small fusion reaction); or hydrogen bombs/ Weapons-grade nuclear material refers to thermonuclear weapons (a weapon deriving the nuclear materials that are most suitable a significant portion of its energy from fusion for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, reactions). e.g., uranium (U) enriched to 90% U-235 or Thermonuclear weapon: A nuclear plutonium (Pu) that is primarily composed weapon in which the fusion of light nuclei, of Pu-239 and contains less than 7% Pu-240. such as deuterium and tritium, leads to a Crude nuclear weapons (i.e., improvised significantly higher explosive yield than in nuclear devices) could be fabricated from a regular fission weapon. Thermonuclear lower-grade materials. weapons are sometimes referred to as staged Enriched uranium: Uranium with an weapons, because the initial fission reaction increased concentration of the isotope (the first stage) creates the condition under U-235, relative to natural uranium. Natural which the thermonuclear reaction can occur uranium contains 0.7% U-235. Nuclear (the second stage). Also archaically referred weapons typically require uranium enriched to as a hydrogen bomb. to very high levels – more than 20% of the Nuclear fuel: Fissionable material that isotope U-235. Nuclear power plant fuel has been enriched to a composition that typically uses uranium enriched to 3% to will support a self-sustaining fission chain 5% U-235, material that is not sufficiently reaction when used to fuel a nuclear reactor, enriched to be used for nuclear weapons. thereby producing energy (usually in the Highly enriched uranium (HEU) refers to form of heat or useful radiation) for use in uranium with a concentration of more than other processes. 20% (frequently, 90% or more) of the isotope Fuel assembly: A structured group of fuel U-235. rods (long, slender, metal tubes containing Low-enriched uranium (LEU) refers to pellets of fissionable material, which provide uranium with a concentration of the isotope fuel for nuclear reactors). Depending on U-235 that is higher than that found in the design, each reactor vessel may have natural uranium but lower than 20% (usually dozens of fuel assemblies (also known as fuel 3 to 5%). LEU is used as fuel for many nuclear bundles), each of which may contain 200 or reactor designs. more fuel rods. Weapons-grade plutonium: Plutonium Fissile material: A nuclide that is capable of that contains almost pure (over 90%) Pu-239 undergoing fission after capturing low-energy and can be used in the manufacture of a thermal (slow) neutrons. Although sometimes nuclear weapon. Plutonium-239 is created used as a synonym for fissionable material, in a reactor that is specially designed and this term has acquired its more-restrictive operated to produce Pu-239 from uranium. interpretation with the limitation that the Reactor-grade plutonium: Plutonium nuclide must be fissionable by thermal produced in commercial, thermal or fast neutrons. With that interpretation, the three neutron, nuclear reactors. primary fissile materials are uranium-233, Fast reactor: A reactor that, unlike uranium-235, and plutonium-239. thermal reactors, operates mainly with fast

85 neutrons and does not need a moderator. Separative Work Unit is a complex unit that Fast reactors are generally designed to use depends upon both the percentage of U-235 plutonium fuels and can produce, through that is desired in the enriched stream and transmutation of U-238, more plutonium how much of the U-235 in the feed material than they consume, i.e. they can be operated ends up in the depleted uranium stream. The as breeder reactors with a conversion ratio SWU unit can be thought of as the amount greater than unity. of effort that is required to achieve a given Thermal reactor: A reactor in which the level of enrichment. The less U-235 in the fission chain reaction is sustained primarily feed material that is allowed to end up in the by thermal neutrons. Most current reactors depleted uranium, the greater the number of are thermal reactors. SWUs required to achieve the desired level of Fuel cycle: A term for the full spectrum of enrichment. processes associated with utilizing nuclear The number of Separative Work Units fission reactions for peaceful or military provided by an enrichment facility is directly purposes. The “front-end” of the uranium- related to the amount of energy that the plutonium nuclear fuel cycle includes facility consumes. The two most important uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment technologies in use today differ enrichment, and fuel fabrication. The fuel greatly in their energy needs. Modern is used in a nuclear reactor to produce gaseous diffusion plants typically require neutrons that can, for example, produce 2,400 to 2,500 kWh of electricity per SWU thermal reactions to generate electricity while gas centrifuge plants require just 50 to or propulsion, or produce fissile materials 60 kWh of electricity per SWU. for weapons. The “back-end” of the nuclear In order to provide the enriched uranium fuel cycle refers to spent fuel being stored in required to fuel a typical light water reactor spent fuel pools, possible reprocessing of the with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts electric, spent fuel, and ultimately long-term storage it would take approximately 100,000 to in a geological or other repository. 120,000 SWU a year of enrichment services. Closed nuclear fuel cycle: A nuclear fuel In addition to the Separative Work Units cycle where spent nuclear fuel is recycled to provided by an enrichment facility, the extract uranium and plutonium for reuse in other important parameter that must be new nuclear fuel. considered is the mass of natural uranium (Sources: The Nuclear Threat Initiative that is needed in order to yield a desired mass (NTI); the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- of enriched uranium. As with the number of mission (NRC); IAEA Safeguards Glossary, SWUs, the amount of feed material required 2001 Edition; Russian State Atomic Energy will also depend on the level of enrichment Corporation Rosatom). desired and upon the amount of U-235 that ends up in the depleted uranium. The amount of natural uranium needed will decrease with 2. Separative work unit (SWU) decreasing levels of U-235 that end up in the depleted uranium. The capacity of a uranium enrichment The table below shows the amount facility to increase the percentage of U-235 of natural uranium and the number of is given by a unit known as the kilogram Separative Work Units required for producing Separative Work Unit (SWU). Production level one kilogram of highly enriched uranium facilities typically have a capacity that ranges and one kilogram of low-enriched uranium, from a few hundred to several thousand with U-235 content in the depleted uranium metric tons SWU (MTSWU = 1,000 SWU). The stream taken at 0.2% and 0.3%.

Requirements for producing one kilogram of low-enriched uranium and one kilogram of highly enriched uranium

U-235 percentage Low-enriched uranium (3.6% U-235) Highly enriched uranium (90% U-235) in the depleted stream Natural uranium SWU of enrichment Natural uranium SWU of enrichment 0.3% 8.2 kg 4.5 SWU 219 kg 193 SWU 0.2% 6.7 kg 5.7 SWU 176 kg 228 SWU

86 3. Classification of nuclear materials

Category 1 Nuclear Materials

Weight of nuclear material, Product Nuclear material in kg, no less than Metal products: 2 in total combined weight Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – metal products, metal slugs; ingots, granulate, their alloys/melts, and blends; HEU 5 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing metallic and blend, total combined amount intermetallic fuel; 2 in total combined weight of Pu, U-233, HEU, of Pu, U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf – rejects and waste reprocessed by remelt without and other nuclear materials dissolution Products with high content of nuclear materials: 6 in total combined weight Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – carbides, oxides, chlorides, nitrides, fluorides, their alloys and blends; HEU 20 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing fuel fabricated blend, total combined amount 6 in total combined weight from said compounds, as well as other products with of Pu, U-233, HEU, of Pu, U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf concentrations (content) of nuclear materials of no less and other nuclear materials than 25 g/liter (25 g/kg)

Category 2 Nuclear Materials

Product Nuclear material Weight of nuclear material, in kg Metal products: ≥ 0.5 but < 2 in total combined weight Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – metal products, metal slugs, ingots, granulate, their alloys and blends; HEU ≥ 1 but < 5 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing metallic and blend, total combined amount intermetallic fuel; ≥ 0.5 but < 2 in total combined weight of Pu, U-233, HEU, of Pu, U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf – rejects and waste reprocessed by remelt without and other nuclear materials dissolution Products with high content of nuclear materials: ≥ 2 but < 6 in total combined weight Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – carbides, oxides, chlorides, nitrides, fluorides, their alloys and blends; HEU ≥ 6 but < 20 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing fuel fabricated blend, total combined amount ≥ 2 but < 6 in total combined weight of from said compounds, as well as other products with of Pu, U-233, HEU, Pu, U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf concentrations (content) of nuclear materials of no less and other nuclear materials than 25 g/liter (25 g/kg) ≥ 2 but < 6 in total combined weight Products with low content of nuclear materials: Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – products requiring complex processing; HEU ≥ 50 in U-235

– products with concentrations (content) of nuclear blend, total combined amount ≥16 in total combined weight of Pu, materials of between 1 and 25 g/liter (between 1 and of Pu, U-233, HEU, U-233, U-235, N p-237, Am, Cf 25 g/kg) and other nuclear materials

87 Category 3 Nuclear Materials

Product Nuclear material Weight of nuclear material, in kg Metal products: ≥ 0.2 but < 0.5 in total combined weight Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – metal products, metal slugs, ingots, granulate, their alloys and blends; HEU ≥ 0.5 but < 1 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing metallic and blend, total combined amount intermetallic fuel; ≥ 0.2 but < 0.5 in total combined weight of Pu, U-233, HEU, and other of Pu, U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf – rejects and waste reprocessed by remelt without nuclear materials dissolution Products with high content of nuclear materials: ≥ 0.5 but < 2 in total combined weight Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – carbides, oxides, chlorides, nitrides, fluorides, their alloys and blends; HEU ≥ 2 but < 6 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing fuel fabricated blend, total combined amount ≥ 0.5 but < 2 in total combined weight from said compounds, as well as other products of Pu, U-233, HEU, and other of Pu, U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf with concentrations (content) of nuclear materials nuclear materials of no less than 25 g/liter (25 g/kg) ≥ 3 but < 16 in total combined weight Products with low content of nuclear materials: Pu, U-233 of Pu and U-233 – products requiring complex processing; HEU ≥ 8 but < 50 in U-235 – products with concentrations (content) of nuclear blend, total combined amount ≥ 3 but < 16 in total combined weight materials of between 1 and 25 g/liter of Pu, U-233, HEU, and other of Pu, U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf (between 1 and 25 g/kg) nuclear materials

Category 4 Nuclear Materials

Weight of nuclear material, in kg, Product Nuclear material no more than Metal products: 0.2 in total combined weight of Pu Pu, U-233 and U-233 – metal products, metal slugs, ingots, granulate, their alloys and blends; HEU 0.5 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing metallic and blend, total combined amount of intermetallic fuel; 0.2 in total combined weight of Pu, Pu, U-233, HEU, and other nuclear U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf – rejects and waste reprocessed by remelt without materials dissolution Products with high content of nuclear materials: 0.5 in total combined weight of Pu Pu, U-233 and U-233 – carbides, oxides, chlorides, nitrides, fluorides, their alloys and blends; HEU 2 in U-235

– fuel rods and fuel assemblies containing fuel fabricated blend, total combined amount of 0.5 in total combined weight of Pu, from said compounds, as well as other products with Pu, U-233, HEU, and other nuclear U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf concentrations (content) of nuclear materials of no materials less than 25 g/liter (25 g/kg) 3 in total combined weight of Pu Products with low content of nuclear materials: Pu, U-233 and U-233 – products requiring complex processing; HEU 8 in U-235 – products with concentrations (content) of nuclear blend, total combined amount of 3 in total combined weight of Pu, materials of between 1 and 25 g/liter (between 1 and Pu, U-233, HEU, and other nuclear U-233, U-235, Np-237, Am, Cf 25 g/kg) materials All other products, including: a) products containing Pu, U-233, HEU with concentrations (content) of less than 1 g/liter (1 g/kg); b) any uranium compounds with less than 20% U-235 content in uranium; Total combined weight of all c) any products with absorbed dose rate of no less than 1 Gy/h = 100 rad/h at 1 m distance nuclear materials that is no less unshielded; than the minimal quantities d) any compounds of: plutonium with plutonium-238 content of greater than 80%; thorium; specified in this table neptunium-237; americium-241; americium-243; and californium-252; e) special non-nuclear88 materials and any of their compounds 4. Accounting for and Control of Nuclear Materials in Russia

Minimum quantities of nuclear materials at a facility starting at which they are subject to state accounting and control

Last significant digits in the value Nuclear material Minimum amount of nuclear material of the weight of the nuclear material in accounting documents Plutonium 15 g 1 g Uranium-233 15 g 1 g Uranium with U-235 enriched to over 10% 15 g in U-235 1 g Uranium with U-235 enriched to no more than 10% but to a level higher than 15 g in U-235 0.1 kg in natural uranium Neptunium-237 15 g 1 g Total combined amount of nuclear 15 g in total combined weight materials specified in [the above five 1 g of Pu, U-233, U-235, and Np-237 categories] Americium-241 1 g 0.1 g Americium-243 1 g 0.1 g Californium-252 0.001 g 0.000001 g Uranium with U-235 enriched 500 kg 1 kg to no more than 0.72% Thorium 500 kg 1 kg Lithium-6 1 kg 0.1 kg Tritium 0.2 g 0.01 g Deuterium, excluding deuterium contained 2 g 0.1 g in heavy water Heavy water 200 kg 1 kg

89 5. Types of fresh nuclear fuel storage facilities and safety assurance requirements Class 1 Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: Fresh fuel storage facility where the possibility of ingress of water is ruled out, which is ensured by, among other means, a combination of the following measures: – location of the storage facility above ground level; – absence of adjacent premises from which ingress of water may occur; – absence in the storage facility of pipelines with water, oil, hydrogen; – location of the storage facility in a flood-proof area to ensure against flooding; – availability of drainage.

Class 2 Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: Fresh fuel storage facility where the possibility of ingress of water is ruled out, which is ensured by, among other means, a combination of the following measures: – location of the storage facility above ground level; – absence in the storage facility of pipelines with water, oil, hydrogen; – availability of water detector alarms and drainage systems or emergency sump pumps connected with water detector alarms.

Class 3 Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: Fresh fuel storage facility for which requirements set out for Class 1 and 2 Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities do not apply. The storage facility must be equipped with emergency sump pumps which engage when triggered by water detector alarms. Sump pump capacity must be sufficient to ensure the removal of water ingressing at maximum possible ingress rate to prevent water collection.

Nuclear safety during storage of fresh nuclear fuel is assured by: – limitations on arrangement of fuel assemblies in packages (packing sets with nuclear fuel), storage canisters, racks; – limitations on the number of fuel assemblies in packages, storage canisters, racks; – limitations on the number of packages, storage canisters in a group; – limitations on arrangements of groups of packages, storage canisters, racks; – control over the arrangement of fuel assemblies, packages, storage canisters, racks.

90 6. Types of fuel assemblies produced by Russian fuel fabrication enterprises

VVER-440 fuel assembly A VVER-440 fuel assembly consists of a bundle of fuel rods, top nozzle, bottom nozzle, and a shroud (wrapper). One bundle comprises 126 fuel rods. TVSA TVSA is a modified design with a rigid skeleton formed by six angle pieces and spacer grids. The main emphasis in developing these assemblies was placed on achieving increased burnup, operational reliability, and bending resistance. Developer: Afrikantov Experimental Design Bureau for Mechanical Engineering (Afrikantov OKBM). TVSA-ALFA (ALPHA) TVSA-ALFA is a next step in the development of the main TVSA design. TVSA-ALFA has eight spacer grids of an extended length and an optimized cell geometry, fuel rods with thinner cladding, and pellets having no central holes. TVSA-T TVSA-T is a modified TVSA design with eight spacer grids, developed for the Czech Republic’s Temelin Nuclear Power Plant to replace fuel supplied by Westinghouse. TVSA-U A modified TVSA design with an increased fuel stack height. TVSA-PLUS A TVSA design developed for an 18-month fuel life cycle in a reactor operating at 104% nominal capacity. RK-3 RK-3 is a third-generation shroudless fuel assembly design drawing on the operational experience of second-generation assemblies and solutions implemented for VVER-1000 assemblies of the TVSA and TVS-2 designs. VVER-1000 fuel assembly A VVER-1000 fuel assembly has 312 fuel rods, 18 absorber rods, 15 spacer grids, and a bottom support plate. In contrast to the rectangular designs that are common for fuel assemblies manufactured by Western producers, VVER-1000 fuel assemblies are hexagonal in shape. UTVS Unlike the standard VVER-1000 fuel assembly, the skeleton of a UTVS assembly is made of zirconium, rather than stainless steel. UTVS assemblies use gadolinium oxide for the burnable absorber, which is uniformly distributed in the fuel pellets inside several gadolinium-containing rods. UTVS uses a repairable demountable design, which means individual rods can be removed and replaced if damage (loss of seal) has been detected. UTVS was jointly developed by Experimental Design Organization OKB Gidropress (Podolsk, Moscow Region) and TVEL. TVS-2 TVS-2 has a rigid skeleton formed by 12 spacer grids welded to the guide tubes. This is a next stage in the development of previous shroudless designs (TVS-M, UTVS), modified to apply improved designs for some of the components and incorporate technical solutions that had shown good operational results in the previous models. Developer: OKB Gidropress. TVS-2 assemblies were in operation at Balakovo NPP since 2003. In 2007, all Balakovo NPP units were converted to TVS-2 fuel, as well as Reactor Unit 2 of Rostov (Volgodonsk) NPP. ТВС-2М TVS-2M is a modified TVS-2 design with shorter end pieces and corresponding extensions (100 mm at the bottom and 50 mm at the top) to the fuel column height, as well as an additional 13th spacer grid in the lower part of the skeleton to increase vibration resistance. The spacer grids are rigidly connected to the guide tubes to form a skeleton with a better bending resistance. The TVS-2M assemblies are intended for an 18-month fuel cycle. TVS-2M assemblies have been in operation since 2006 (Unit 1 of Balakovo NPP). Units 1-4 of Balakovo NPP and Unit 1 of Rostov (Volgodonsk) NPP, which previously used TVS-2 fuel, are now being switched to TVS-2M. Unit 2 of Rostov NPP is operating a core composed entirely of TVS-2M assemblies. TVS-2M also serves as the prototype design for TVS-2006 fuel assemblies being developed for the NPP-2006 (AES-2006) project.

91 Appendix 1.1

Uranium milling process flow sheet (radiometric sorting plant, PIMCU, Krasnokamensk)

underground mining

preconcentration by radiometric sorting (truck scanners) high-grade ore low- to medium-grade ore

crushing crushing

resonance screening, washing -5+0 mm -200+40 mm -40+5 mm

screening (vibrating screens), washing -40+0 mm -80+40 mm -200+80 mm

X-ray radiometric separation

tailings

ore control (radiometric sorting)

main tailings disposal heap milling leaching operations

92 Appendix 2.1

Schematic view of PWR fuel assembly (Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel)

93 Appendix 2.2

Schematic view of BWR fuel assembly (Nucleartourist and GE)

BWR/6 fuel assemblies & control rod module

1. Top fuel guide 2. Channel fastener 3. Upper tie plate 4. Expansion spring 5. Locking tab 6. Channel 7. Control rod 8. Fuel rod 9. Spacer 10. Core plate assembly 11. Lower tie plate 12. Fuel support piece 13. Fuel pellets 14. End plug 15. Channel spacer 16. Plenum spring

94 Appendix 2.3

Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle facilities

Site Location Description Uranium mines Ardеkan, In operation. According to Iran’s data, known uranium ore reserves total 200 km 1,580,000 tons with uranium content of 0.05%, or 790 tons of uranium in from Isfahan the ore. The deposit development project, prepared for and delivered to the Iranian side by specialists from Russia’s Atomredmetzoloto, was based on assessments that the deposit held around 1.1 million tons, with 0.05% of uranium content, or 742 tons of uranium. Two shafts are reported to have been put down to date and drifts are being developed. The workforce employed to develop the deposit includes workers from China. Ore processing plant Ardеkan In operation. A leach plant for uranium ore processing and fabrication of triuranium octoxide was designed in 1997 by Atomredmetzoloto. The siting location was initially chosen at the Saghand uranium deposit, but then a decision was made to change the location in favor of a site near Ardekan. Projected production output was set at 50 tons of yellowcake a year. Yellowcake Ardеkan In operation. At a negotiations meeting in 1997, representatives of the production plant Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and Russia’s Atomredmetzoloto discussed the possibility of using a technology of extracting uranium from 55% phosphoric acid at the Razi Petrochemical Complex in Shiraz. The enterprise’s throughput is 100 m3/hour at a uranium content of 0.08- 0.085 kg/m3. Given the possibility to recover up to 90% uranium using this technology, 60-70 tons of uranium could be produced annually. Uranium conversion Isfahan In operation. This is a uranium conversion facility at the Isfahan Nuclear plant Technology Center. Work on the project started in 2000. Planned output:

280 tons of UF6 as well as other products, including uranium metal. According to the IAEA’s information, the enterprise started operations in August 2005. Uranium enrichment Natanz, In operation. In 2004, a pilot 164-centrifuge cascade was installed in plant 150 km Natanz at an underground facility with a total area of 100,000 m2, where from Isfahan parts were available for the assembly of between 1,000 and 5,000 additional centrifuges. In IAEA assessments, the design of the Natanz centrifuges coincided with that of first centrifuge models (SNOR, G-1) manufactured by URENCO based on design drawings that were later stolen by the founder of Pakistan’s WMD program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, in the early 1970s. The capacity of these supercritical centrifuges, taking into account the possibility that improvements may have been implemented by Iranian specialists on the original design, was assessed, in various estimates, to be between 0.9 and 5 SWU per year. Fuel fabrication plant Isfahan In operation. Fuel cladding plant Isfahan In operation.

95 Appendix 3.1

Safety related characteristics of MOX as compared to UO2

Characteristic Item Change from UO2 Effect Physical-chemical: Melting point Lowers by 20-40 °C Adverse effect Heat conductivity Decreases Adverse effect Fission gas release Increased release Adverse effect (Non-gaseous element release) (possible increase) (cesium and some others) Nuclear: Larger; strong resonance above Fission/ absorption cross-section Reduced control rod/ boron worth thermal energy Complicated MOX rod configuration Power peaking Increased peak ratio needed Reactivity coefficient Change of absolute value At low Pu enrichment: Doppler coefficient More negative More rapid reactivity change in Void coefficient More negative (BWR) case of transient; reduced reactor Moderator temperature coefficient More negative (PWR) shutdown margin Increased iodine, tritium, and Fission yield and actinide production Increased hazard in accident actinide production Negative effect on residual heat Decay heat Increased (moderately) control and long-term waste management Delayed neutron fraction Reduced fraction Difficulty in reactor control Prompt neutron Shorter life time Difficulty in reactor control

96 Appendix 5.1

Specific radioactivity of major fission products in VVER -1000 spent fuel, Bq/t U (×109 Bq/t)

Nuclide Half-life, in years SNF cooling period 1 year 10 years Kr85 10.74 542,000 303,000 Sr90 28.5 3,430,000 2,750,000 Ru106 1.0 1,190,000 24,600 Ag110m 0.686 69,200 7.78 Sb125 2.77 225,000 23,600 Cs134 2.062 3,300,000 160,000 Cs137 30.17 4,580,000 3,730,000 Ce144 0.778 22,400,000 7,430 Pm147 2.62 5,680,000 526,000 Eu154 8.5 454,000 218,000

97 Appendix 5.2

Actinide concentrations in power reactor spent nuclear fuel, g/t U

Nuclide VVER-440 VVER-1000 RBMK-1000 U235 12,700 12,300 2,940 U236 4,280 5,730 2,610 U238 942,000 929,000 962,000 Pu238 75.6 126 68.6 Pu239 5,490 5,530 2,630 Pu240 1,980 2,420 2,190 Cm244 14.8 31.7 5.66 Am241 517 616 293 Am243 69.3 120 73.8

98 Appendix 5.3

Swedish deep geological SNF repository concept (source: IPFM, adapted from SKB)

99 Appendix 5.4

Characteristics of VVER spent nuclear fuel

Characteristic VVER-1000 VVER-440 1. Average burnup, GWd/t 50 28 2. Fuel enrichment, U-235: Initial, wt% U-235 3.3-4.4 3.6 Residual, wt% U-235 1.3 0.75 3. Specific activity, Bq/t 3×1016 2.0-2.5×1016 4. Content by weight: Uranium 947 960 Fission products, kg/t 42 ~ 30 Pu (incl. 60-70% Pu-239), kg/t 9.9 8.5-9.5 Np, kg/t 0.7 0.3-0.5 Am (241, 243), kg/t 0.2 0.15 Cm (242, 244), kg/t 0.06 0.04 Pd, kg/t 0.8-1.5 0.3-1.4 Tc, kg/t 0.9-1 0.8-0.9 5. Decay heat (3 years cooling period), kW/t < 1.7 kW/SFA < 4.2 kW/t 2.8

100 Appendix 5.5

SNF accumulation at nuclear reactors in operation and under construction in Russia

U-235 SNF accumulation, Reactor type Power reactors enrichment, in spent fuel assemblies % (SFAs) VVER VVER-440 55.5-87.0 t/yr Novovoronezh NPP (Units 3-4), Kola NPP (Units 1-4) 1.6-4.4 (6 units) (~ 450-700 SFAs/yr) Novovoronezh NPP (Unit 5), Kalinin NPP (Units 1-3), VVER-1000 Balakovo NPP (Units 1-4), 190 t/yr 1.3-4.4 (10 units) Rostov NPP (Units 1-2), (~ 380 SFAs/yr) Kalinin NPP (Unit 4, construction), Rostov NPP (Units 3-4, construction) Novovoronezh NPP-2 (construction), VVER-1200 Leningrad NPP-2 (construction), Baltic NPP 2.4-3.9 (NPP-2006) (construction) RBMK RMBK-1000 Leningrad NPP (Units 1-4), Kursk NPP (Units 1-4, 390-450 t/yr 1.3-4.4 (11 units) Unit 5: construction*), Smolensk NPP (Units 1-3) (~ 3,500-4,000 SFAs/yr) BN BN-600 Beloyarsk NPP (Unit 3) 6.2 t/yr (~ 120 SFAs/yr) BN-800 Beloyarsk NPP-2 (construction) EGP in storage SNF > 164 t/yr EGP-6 Bilibino NPP (Units 1-4) 3.0-3.6 (~ 4,600 SFAs/yr) AMB Beloyarsk NPP (Units 1-2), 190 t (NPP), 76 t AMB-100, 200 1.5-21.0 under decommissioning (PA Mayak) Propulsion reactors Pressurized water reactors Nuclear-powered submarines, heavy nuclear- ~ 15-20 t/yr (2002- VM, OK-650, KN-3 21-45 powered guided-missile cruisers 2009) OK-900, KLT-40 ~ 0.5 t/yr

* According to a statement made by Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko in March 2012, construction of Kursk NPP’s Reactor Unit 5 will not be completed.

101 Appendix 5.6

General properties of spent nuclear fuel shipping casks

Purpose, Capacity, Shipping cask Weight, Dimensions, spent nuclear in number of spent Notation type in tons in millimeters fuel source fuel assemblies TUK-19 4 5 910×2,170 Transportation Research TUK-128 20 9 1,120×2,250 Transportation reactors SKODA VPVR/M 36 11 Transportation TUK-6 30 90 2,200×4,145 Transportation VVER-440 TUK-140 36/48 105 3,160×5,880 Transportation TUK-13 12 120 Transportation VVER-1000 TUK-141 20 125 2,770×6,130 Transportation, storage RBMK TUK-109 144 127 3,140×6,200 MBK*, transportation, storage AMB TUK-84 17 86 1,400×15,170 Transportation, storage BN-600 TUK-136 - 5 500×2,970 Transportation

Nuclear TUK-18 35/49 40 Transportation propulsion TUK-108 15/49 40 1,850×4,600 MBK*, transportation, storage reactors TUK-120 41/49 40 1,850×4,600 Storage

* Metal-concrete cask (for metallobetonny konteiner).

Design requirements: The following conditions must be met with regard to packaging in order to assure nuclear safety and prevent criticality: The total mass of fissile materials must not exceed 80% of critical mass, and the effective neutron multiplication factor must not exceed 0.95 both under normal and accident conditions. A range of requirements are set for the package design and content of the packages as well. Additionally, the finished products (transport casks, upon fabrication) are subjected to quite rigorous field testing to assess: integrity of containment (immersion in water); strength (filling with water, excessive pressure, free drop test from a 9-meter height onto a solid surface), and capacity to withstand open fire conditions (up to 800 °C).

102 Appendix 5.7

Classification of ships as per the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code)

Class Class description Class INF 1 Ships which are certified to carry INF cargo with an aggregate activity less than 1.1×105 Ci (4×1015 Bq) Ships which are certified to carry irradiated nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive wastes with an Class INF 2 aggregate activity less than 5.4×107 Ci (2×1018 Bq), and ships which are certified to carry plutonium with an aggregate activity less than 5.4×106 Ci (2×1017 Bq) Ships which are certified to carry irradiated nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive wastes Class INF 3 and ships which are certified to carry plutonium with no restriction of the maximum aggregate activity of the materials

103 Appendix 5.8

Characteristics of the general cargo ship Rossita

RS Class notation (as per the Register of Ships  of the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping): KM Arc4|2|Aut 1-C INF3

Displacement 3,731 t (2 cargo holds) Speed 12 knots Crew 23 Length OA 84 m Breadth OA 14 m Draught 4.15 m Carrying capacity 16 TUK-18 shipping casks

104 Appendix 5.9

Power reactor spent nuclear fuel reprocessing with aqueous solvent extraction method

SFA storage

SFA fragmentation

cladding dissolution off-gas treatment

solution Н3 waste HNO recycle 3 adjustment

first extraction cycle, HLW evaporation solvent washing scrubbing

reducing agent Pu re-extraction U re-extraction

ILW oxidizing agent

solvent solvent II, Pu cycleILW ILW II, U cycle washing washing

solvent solvent III, Pu cycleILW III, U cycle washing ILW washing

solutrion ILW silica gel concentration purification by evaporation

oxalate ILW reducing agent precipitation

plutonium ILW uranium product product

Note. ILW: intermediate-level waste; HLW: high-level waste.

105 REFERENCES

1. Андрюшин И. А. и др. Риски распространения 19. Кройш Ю., Нойманн В., Аппель Д., Диль П. и проблема энергетического плутония. Саров, (2006). Ядерный топливный цикл 2007. (публикация посвящена ядерным проблемам). 2. Андрюшин И. А. и др. Укрощение ядра. Саров, Heinrich Böll Foundation. 2006. № 3 2003. (http://www.boell.ru/downloads/ nuclear_myth3.pdf). 3. Бекман И. Н. Плутоний. Учеб. пособие. М.: Московский государственный университет 20. Кузнецов В. М. Использование оксидного им. М. В. Ломоносова, 2009. уран-плутониевого топлива для топливной загрузки российских энергетических реакторов 4. Бекман И. Н. Урановое производство. Учеб. типа ВВЭР-1000 // Материалы российско-аме- пособие. М.: Московский государственный риканских слушаний «Перспективы развития университет им. М. В. Ломоносова, 2009. безопасной энергетики в Ростовской области». 5. Бекман И. Н. Урановый топливный цикл. Учеб. Ростов-на-Дону, 2000. пособие. М.: Московский государственный 21. Кузнецов В. М. Настоящее и будущее быстрых университет им. М. В. Ломоносова, 2009. реакторов // Проблемы глобальной безопасно- 6. Березин А. Лазерное обогащение урана может сти. 2001. № 2. облегчить распространение ядерного оружия // 22. Кузнецов В. М. Основные проблемы и совре- Компьюлента. 2012. 5 июля (http://science. менное состояние безопасности предприятий compulenta.ru/691988). ядерного топливного цикла России // Матери- 7. Будущее ядерной энергетики. Междисципли- алы конференции «Оценка влияния радиаци- нарное исследование Массачусетского тех- онного загрязнения на здоровье человека». нологического института // Будущее атомной Новосибирск: АртИнфоДата, 2001. энергии: междисциплинарная работа. Массачу- 23. Кузнецов В. М. Основные проблемы и совре- сетс, 2008 (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower). менное состояние безопасности предприятий 8. В Иране наладили полный цикл производства ядерного топливного цикла России. РЗК. ЦЖВМ. ядерного топлива // Lenta.Ru. 2011. 9 января М.: Агентство Ракурс Продакшн, 2002. (http://lenta.ru/news/2011/01/09/plates). 24. Кузнецов В. М. Основные проблемы и совре- 9. Владимир Молчанов о российском топливе менное состояние безопасности предприятий для ВВЭР // AtomInfo.Ru. 2011. 6 сентября ядерного топливного цикла России. 2-е изд., (http://www.atominfo.ru/news7/g0176.htm). доп. и перераб. М.: Эпицентр, 2003. 10. Глазер А. и др. Запасы и производство расще- 25. Кузнецов В. М. Сравнительная потенциальная пляющихся материалов (http://www.sipri.org/ опасность предприятий ядерного топливного yearbook/2007/files/SIPRIYB0712C.pdf). цикла // Башкирский химический журнал. Уфа, 11. Годлевская Е. Урановая глобализация 2005. Т. 12. № 2. (http://www.rbcdaily.ru/2009/06/16/ 26. Кузнецов В. М., Назаров А. Г. Радиационное industry/419105). наследие холодной войны. Опыт историко-на- 12. Годовой отчет ОАО «ТВЭЛ». М., ГК «Росатом», учного исследования. М.: Ключ-С, 2006. 2010. 27. Кузнецов В. М., Никитин В. С., Хвостова М. С. 13. Добыча урана в мире (http://geo.1september.ru/ Радиоэкология и радиационная безопасность. articlef.php?ID=200602109). История, подходы, современное состояние. М.: Восход-А, 2011. 14. Добыча урана в России (http://www.armz.ru/media/File/facts/2011/ 28. Кузнецов В. М., Чеченов Х. Ж. Российская и investors/2011_07_04_Annual%20Report_final_ мировая атомная энергетика. М.: МГУ, 2008. final_finans.publish_2.pdf; http://www.rbcdaily. 29. Кузнецов В. М., Чеченов Х. Ж., Никитин В. С. ru/2009/06/16/industry/419105). Экологическая безопасность объектов исполь- 15. Добыча урана в странах мира зования атомной энергии. М.: Восход-А, 2010. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/uprod.html). 30. Кузнецов В. М., Чеченов Х. Ж., Никитин В. С. Вы- 16. Доклад МАГАТЭ «Безопасное обращение вод из эксплуатации объектов использования с плутонием и его хранение» атомной энергии. М.: Издательство МГУ, 2009. (docload.spb.ru. Basesdoc/47/47340/index.htm). 31. Материалы сайта Агентства атомных новостей 17. Задонский С. М. Программа исламской Респу- (http://www.atominfo.ru). блики Иран по созданию ядерного топливного 32. Материалы сайта Комиссии по ядерному уре- цикла и анализ ее экономической обоснован- гулированию США (the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ности (http://www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2006/ Commission, NRC, http://www.nrc.gov). 21-12-06.htm). 33. Материалы сайта компании Areva 18. Кабмин ликвидировал «Укратомпром» и создал (www.areva.com). «Ядерное топливо Украины» // NewsRu.Ua. 2008. 17 апреля 34. Материалы сайта компании Nuclear Fuel (http://rus.newsru.ua/finance/17apr2008/ Industries, Ltd. (NFI, http://www.nfi.co.jp/e/ imya.html). index.htm).

106 35. Материалы сайта «Мирный атом» 51. Проблемы ядерного наследия и пути их реше- (http://www.mirnyiatom.ru). ния. Т. 1. М., ГК «Росатом», 2010. 36. Материалы сайта Национальной атомной 52. Производство урана на фабриках компании «Казатомпром» (http://profbeckman.narod.ru/RH0.files/ (http://www.kazatomprom.kz). 21_5.pdf). 37. Материалы сайта холдинга «АРМЗ» 53. Развитие технологий, производительность (www.Armz.ru). электростанций на российском рынке атом- ной энергии / Иан Хор-Лейси, руководитель 38. Материалы сайта WISE Uranium Project, департамента общественных связей Все- World Information Service on Energy мирной ядерной организации (World Nuclear (http://www.wise-uranium.org). Association, WNA) // PowerTec Russia & CIS. 2010. 39. Материалы сайтов «Википедия», «Свободная 22 сентября (http://www.powertecrussia.com/ энциклопедия» (http://ru.wikipedia.org). ru-blog/world-nuclear-association-technology- developments-plant-efficiency). 40. Материалы сайтов Топливной компании «ТВЭЛ» (www.tvel.ru), ОКБ «Гидропресс» 54. Синев Н. М. Экономика ядерной энергетики. (http://www.gidropress.podolsk.ru), «Опыт- М.: Энергоатомиздат, 1987. ное конструкторское бюро машиностроения 55. Список атомных объектов России им. И. И. Африкантова» («ОКБМ Африкантов», (http://tzone.kulichki.com/anomal/atomobj.html). http://www.okbm.nnov.ru). 56. Уран – главный металл атомной энергетики // 41. Международное состояние и перспективы Атомная стратегия. 2005. № 18. ядерной энергетики. Материалы генеральной 57. Фабрикация ядерного топлива. Аналитиче- конференции IAEA, 2010 (http://www.iaea.org/ ский обзор. Инвестиционная компания «Велес About/Policy/GC/GC54/.../gc54genor-1_rus.pdf). Капитал». 2010, 7 декабря (http://www.fincake. 42. Национальный доклад Российской Федерации ru/stock/reviews/55560/download/53950). о выполнении обязательств, вытекающих из 58. Фридман А. А. Экономика истощаемых при- Объединенной конвенции о безопасности об- родных ресурсов. М.: Издательский дом Госу- ращения с отработавшим топливом и безопас- дарственного университета – Высшей школы ности обращения с радиоактивными отходами. экономики, 2010. М., 2009 (http://www.rosatom.ru/wps/wcm/ 59. Хранение отработавшего ядерного топлива connect/.../CNS_RF_NR-5_New_Rus.pdf). энергетических реакторов (препринт). Откры- 43. Обзор ядерных технологий – 2011. Материалы тое акционерное общество «Восточно-Евро- 55-й очередной сессии IAEA пейский головной научно-исследовательский (http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC55/.../ и проектный институт энергетических техно- Russian/gc55-23_rus.pdf). логий (ОАО «Головной институт «ВНИПИЭТ»), ГК «Росатом» / В. И. Калинкин, В. Г. Крицкий, 44. Обогащение урана: факты к содержательной А. И. Токаренко, Н. С. Тихонов, Н. В. Размашкин, дискуссии о ядерном распространении и А. Л. Серова, А. Н. Балицкая (http://www.twirpx. атомной энергии / Арджун Макхиджани, Луис com/files/tek/nuclear/?show=recent). Шалмерс и Брайс Смит. Институт исследований 60. Шеховцова И. Реферат на тему «Проблемы энергетики и окружающей среды (Institute for ядерных отходов». Национальный исследо- Energy and Environmental Research, IEER). 2005 вательский ядерный университет «МИФИ» (http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-31/no31russ/ (http://arma.mephi.ru/sites/arma.mephi.ru/ uenrich.html). files/research/2011/ISHehovtsova/problemy_ 45. Основные положения «Стратегии развития yadernyh_othodov.doc). заключительной стадии жизненного цикла 61. Эксплуатация ядерного топлива на Калинин- объектов и материалов использования атомной ской АЭС. Содержание курса о ТВЭЛах, хране- энергии до 2030 года». М., ГК «Росатом», 2011. нии и транспортировке (http://www.seu.ru/ 46. Переработка отработавшего ядерного топли- programs/atomsafe/B5-6_01/N5-6_01.pdf). ва на комплексе РТ-1: История, проблемы, 62. Эра CPR-1000 подошла к концу // AtomInfo.Ru. перспективы / Ю. В. Глаголенко, Е. Г. Дзекун, 2011. 11 июля (http://www.atominfo.ru/news7/ С. И. Ровный, В. К. Сажнов, В. П. Уфимцев g0571.htm). и др. // Вопросы радиационной безопасности. 63. Яблоков А. В. Чудище обло, озорно, огромно, 1997. № 2. стозевно и лайя… (http://www.baikalwave. 47. Плутоний в России. Экология, экономика, по- eu.org/filez/yablokov.pdf). литика. Центр экологической политики России, 64. Adelman M. A. My Education in Mineral МСОЭС, 1994. (Especially Oil). Economics, Center for Energy and 48. Плутоний. Фундаментальные проблемы // Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts Los Alamos Science. 2003 (http://www.netbook. Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139. perm.ru/book/fizika/Fizika028.html). Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1997. 22:13-46 (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/ 49. Правила безопасности при хранении и транс- annurev.energy.22.1.13). портировании ядерного топлива на объектах 65. Andrews C. B. Mineral Sector Technologies: использования атомной энергии. НП-061-05. Policy Implications for Developing Countries, 50. Правительство создаст госконцерн «Укратом- Industry and Energy Division, Note № 19. 1992 пром» // Информационно-аналитическое (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/ издание «Власть и деньги». 2006. 28 декабря WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1992/11/01/000009 (http://www.vid.org.ua/rus/news/page_2526/ 265_3980623151147/Rendered/PDF/ pravitelstvo-sozdast-goskoncern-ukratomprom). multi_page.pdf).

107 66. Ansolabehere S., Beckjord E. S., Deutch J., Driscoll 78. De Roo G., and Parsons J. E. Nuclear Fuel Recycling, M., Gray P. E., Holdren J. P., Joskow P. L., Lester the Value of the Separated Transuranics and the R. K., Moniz E. J., and N. E. Todreas. The Future Levelized Cost of Electricity. September, 2009. of Nuclear Power, an Interdisciplinary MIT Study. WP 09-008 (http://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology. July, 2003 spotlights/nuclear-fuel-cycle-deroo.pdf). (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower). 79. Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health 67. Assurance of Supply for Nuclear Fuel, IUEC and the effects, Executive summary, LEU Guaranteed Reserve, IAEA (http://www.iaea. World Health Organization, WHO. Geneva. 2001 org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/Assurance-of-Supply/ (WHO/SDE/PHE/01.1) iuec.html). (http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/ pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf). 68. Bibilashvili Yu. K. and Reshetnikov F. G. Russia’s nuclear fuel cycle: An industrial perspective, 80. Depleted Uranium, Press Release No. 133, World National Reports, IAEA Bulletin, 3/1993 Health Organization, WHO, International Agency (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/ for Research on Cancer. January, 2001 Bulletin/Bull353/35304892833.pdf). (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2001/ pr133.html). 69. The Boston Consulting Group. Economic Assessment of Used Nuclear Fuel Management in 81. Depres A. Les sources de plutonium dans the United States, Report. Prepared by the Boston l’environment. Rev. Gen. Nucl., Jan.-Fev. 1995. 24-29. Consulting Group for AREVA. July, 2006 (http:// 82. Diehl, P. Uranium Mining in Europe, The Impacts large.stanford.edu/courses/2009/ph204/bionta1/ on Man and Environment. WISE Amsterdam. 1995 docs/peters.pdf). (http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index. 70. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June, html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/439-440/ 2011 (http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/ chapter3.html). globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_ 83. Digges, Ch. Sellafield to close its MOX plant as publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/ post-Fukushima orders from Japan dry up. Bellona. STAGING/local_assets/pdf/statistical_review_of_ August 4, 2011 (http://www.bellona.org/articles/ world_energy_full_report_2011.pdf). articles_2011/sellafield_SNPcloses). 71. Bunn M., Fetter S., Holdren J. P., and B. van 84. Disposal of Weapon Plutonium – Approaches der Zwaan. The Economics of Reprocessing vs. and Prospects, edited by E.R. Merz, Carl Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Project on E. Walter. Springer. December 31, 1995 Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and (http://books.google.ru/books/about/ International Affairs. John F. Kennedy School Disposal_of_Weapon_Plutonium_Approaches. of Government Harvard University. 2003 html?id=mYDfilBgQhQC&redir_esc=y). (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/ repro-report.pdf). 85. DOE. Generation 4 Roadmap. Report of the Fuel Cycle Crosscut Group. 2009 72. Charpin J.-M., Dessus B., and Pellat R. Economic (http://www.gen-4.org/PDFs/GenIVRoadmap.pdf). Forecast Study of the Nuclear Power Option, Report to the Prime Minister. 2000 86. Domestic Uranium Production Report – Annual, (http://fire.pppl.gov/eu_fr_fission_plan.pdf). U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010 (http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing). 73. Communication received from the Russian Federation Concerning its Policies Regarding the 87. Du Y., and Parsons J. E. Update on the Cost Management of Plutonium, IAEA Information of Nuclear Power. 2009. WP 09-004 Circular, INFCIRC/549/Add.9/12. August 16, 2010 (http://web.mit.edu/ (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/ mitei/docs/spotlights/nuclear-fuel-cycle-du.pdf). Infcircs/2010/infcirc549a9-12.pdf). 88. Du Y., and Parsons J. E. Capacity Factor Risk At 74. Comparison among different decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. WP 10-016, Ernst & Young. funds methodologies for nuclear installations. Nuclear perspectives. 2010 Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment (http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ and Energy. 2007 (http://www.wupperinst. Nuclear_Perspectives_2010/$FILE/Nuclear_ org/uploads/tx_wiprojekt/EUDecommFunds_ perspectives.pdf). FinalReport.pdf). 89. Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapons. The 75. Craig B. Andrews. Mineral Sector Technologies: International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM). Policy Implications for Developing Countries. 2011 (http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/ Washington, DC: The World Bank. 1992 pages_us_en/about/about/about.php). (http://www.commdev.org/content/document/ 90. Frank von Hippel. The Uncertain Future of nuclear detail/1411). Energy. 2010 (http://www.fissilematerials.org/ 76. De Roo G. Economics of Nuclear Fuel blog/rr09.pdf). Cycles: Option Valuation and Neutronics 91. Ghannadi-Maragheh, M. Iranian Nuclear Fuel Simulation of Mixed Oxide Fuels. École Cycle Experience, World Nuclear Association Polytechnique. 2007 (http://18.7.29.232/ Annual Symposium. London, September 3-5, bitstream/handle/1721.1/57540/635981218. 2003 (http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/ pdf?sequence=1). ghannadi.htm). 77. De Roo G., and Parsons J. E. A Methodology for 92. Global Fissile Material Report 2011, Nuclear Calculating the Levelized Cost of Electricity in Weapon and Fissile Material Stockpiles and Nuclear Power Systems with Fuel Recycling, Energy Production, Sixth annual report of the Inter- Economics. March 4, 2011 (http://www.mit.edu/ national Panel on Fissile Materials. IPFM. 2011 ~jparsons/publications/FuelRecyclingReprint.pdf). (http://fissilematerials.org/library/gfmr11.pdf).

108 93. Hore-Lacy I. The World Nuclear Energy Picture, 109. Makhijani, A. Ph.D. and Smith, B.Ph. D. presentation. June, 2009 Costs and Risks of Management and Disposal (http://www.redcliffe.org/Portals/0/Content/ of Depleted Uranium from the National Documents/Centres/Encounters/37/Nuclear_ Enrichment Facility Proposed to be Built in Energy_PPT_Slides_37.pdf). Lea County New Mexico by LES. Institute for 94. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970- Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). 1979). 2010. The Gale Group, Inc. November 24, 2004 (http://www.nirs.org/les/ (at www.thefreedictionary.com). lesdureportredactedfeb2005.pdf). 95. Information from the website of Areva 110. Managing Spent Fuel from Nuclear Power (www.areva.com) Reactors. The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM). 2011 (http://www. 96. Information from the website of fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/rr10.pdf). Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) Holding (www.armz.ru/en). 111. Massive complex would turn weapons material into fuel, by Tim Smith, from the Greenville News. 97. Information from the website of Nuclear April 17, 2011 (http://www.ananuclear.org/ Engineering International Issues/NuclearWeapons/tabid/68/articleType/ (http://www.neimagazine.com/home.asp). ArticleView/articleId/380/Default.aspx). 98. Information from the website of Nuclear Fuel 112. Morichaud, Jean-Pierre. MOX Fuel Use in France Industries, Ltd. (NFI, http://www.nfi.co.jp/e/ and Belgium. Energy and Security, an IEER index.htm). publication, Institute for Energy and Environmental 99. Information from the websites of TVEL Fuel Research (IEER), No. 3, 1997 (http://ieer.org/wp/ Company (http://www.tvel.ru/wps/wcm/connect/ wp-content/uploads/1997/07/no-3.pdf). tvel/tvelsite.eng), OKB Gidropress 113. NDA Statement on future of the Sellafield Mox (http://www.gidropress.podolsk.ru/en), Afrikantov Plant, NDA press release. August 3, 2011 Experimental Design Bureau for Mechanical (http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/smp-future.cfm). Engineering (Afrikantov OKBM, http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/english). 114. Neĭkov O. D., Naboychenko S. S., Handbook of Non-Ferrous Metal Powders: Technologies and 100. Information from the website of USEC Applications. Elsevier. January 15, 2009 (http://www.usec.com). (http://books.google.ru/books?id=6aP3te2hGuQC). 101. Information from the website of the U.S. Nuclear 115. NIST Ionizing Radiation Safety Committee, Initial Regulatory Commission, NRC Report of Plutonium Contamination at NIST (http://www.nrc.gov). Boulder. National Institute of Standards and 102. Information from the website of the WISE Uranium Technology (NIST). July 30, 2008 Project, World Information Service on Energy (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ (http://www.wise-uranium.org). upload/IRSC_Pu_Report_Final.pdf). 103. Information from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 116. Nuclear Safety: The Safety of the Nuclear pages (http://en.wikipedia.org). Fuel Cycle – Third Edition, OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency. OECD Publishing. 104. Information from the website of the World Nuclear Association, WNA (http://www.world-nuclear.org). November 8, 2005 (http://books.google.ru/ books?id=P32nY6KHQgsC). 105. Issues in the Use of Weapons-Grade MOX Fuel in VVER-1000 Nuclear Reactors: Comparison 117. Nuclear Technology Review 2011, report by the Director General, IAEA General Conference, of UO2 and MOX Fuels, prepared by J. C. Gehin, J. J. Carbajo, R. J. Ellis. Oak Ridge National fifty-fifth regular session, Item 17 of the Laboratory. October, 2004 provisional agenda, GC(55)/INF/5. July 13, 2011 (http://www.survivalring.org/shane/ (http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC55/ bunker/JULY%2016TH%20NUCLEAR%20 GC55InfDocuments/English/gc55inf-5_en.pdf). EXPLOSION%20-%20PERMANENT%20EARTH%20 118. Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions, DISPLACEMENT%20%5BDECLASSIFIED%5D%20 Section 6.0 Nuclear Materials, by Carey Sublette. %28US%20AEC,%201945%29.PDF). February, 1999 (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ 106. Japan: Referendum says “No” to MOX use, Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html). WISE News Communique on June 1, 2001, 119. OECD/NEA. Accelerator-driven Systems WISE Amsterdam (http://www10.antenna.nl/ and Fast Reactors in Advanced Nuclear Fuel wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/ Cycles. 2002 (http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/ wise/549/5277.html). reports/2002/3109/nea3109ch4.pdf). 107. Makhijani, A. Plutonium as an Energy Source. 120. OECD/NEA. The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Energy & Security No. 1, Institute for Energy and Cycle. 1994 (http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/ Environmental Research (IEER). February, 1997 reports/efc). (http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/puuse.html). 121. OECD/NEA. Plutonium fuel, an assessment. 1989 108. Makhijani, A. Ph.D., Chalmers, L., Smith, B. Ph.D. (http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/1989/ Uranium Enrichment, Just Plain Facts to Fuel an nea6519-plutonium-fuel.pdf). Informed Debate on Nuclear Proliferation and 122. OECD/NEA. Projected Costs of Generating Nuclear Power, prepared by the Institute for Electricity. 2010 (http://www.iea.org/textbase/ Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) for the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and presented at nppdf/free/2010/projected_costs.pdf). the October 15, 2004 NPRI conference 123. OECD/NEA and IAEA. Uranium 2009: Resources, (http://ieer.org/resource/reports/uranium- Production and Demand. 2010 enrichment). (http://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/uranium2009).

109 124. Orszag P. R. Costs of Reprocessing Versus Directly 136. Status and trends in spent fuel reprocessing, Disposing of Spent Nuclear Fuel, CBO Testimony IAEA-TECDOC-1467. IAEA Nuclear Fuel Cycle and before the Committee on Energy and Natural Materials Section. IAEA, Vienna. September, 2005 Resources United States Senate. November (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/ 14, 2007 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/ PDF/te_1467_web.pdf). doc8808/11-14-NuclearFuel.pdf). 137. Sullivan D. E., Sznopek J. L., and Wagner L. A. 20th 125. PB Power. The Cost of Generating Electricity. Century U.S. Mineral Prices Decline in Constant A Study for the Royal Academy of Engineering. Dollars, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2004 (http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/ 00-389. Washington DC. 2003 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ publications/list/reports/Cost_Generation_ of/2000/of00-389/of00-389.pdf). Commentary.pdf). 138. Sutcliff W. G. et al. A Perspective on the Dangers 126. Proust E. Economic Competitiveness of New of Plutonium. Rep. UCRL-ID-118825, Lawrence (3rdGeneration) Nuclear Plants: A French and Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore, CA. 1995. European Perspective. Proceedings of ICAPP 2005/ 139. Takagi, J., Schneider, M., Barnaby, F., Hokimoto, I., Seoul, Korea. May 15-19, 2005 Hosokawa, K., Kamisawa, C., Nishio, B., Rossnagel, A., (http://pintassilgo2.ipen.br/biblioteca/cd/ Sailer, M. Comprehensive Social Impact unepapers/2004/pdf/10_Session_F/ Assessment of MOX Use in Light Water Reactors, IAEA-CN-114_G-10.pdf). Final Report of the International MOX Assessment, 127. Rapin M. Fast Breeder Reactor Economics. IMA Project, Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting November, 1997 (http://www.cnic.jp/english/ «The Fast-Neutron Breeder Fission Reactor». publications/pdffiles/ima_fin_e.pdf). London, UK. May 24-25, 1989. 140. Tarjanne R., and Luostarinen K. Competitiveness 128. Report: Iran says it can create its own nuclear fuel Comparison of the Electricity Production plates, rods, CNN Wire Staff. CNN. January 8, 2011 Alternatives, Lappeenranta University of (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-08/world/ Technology Research Report EN B-156. iran.nuclear_1_fuel-plates-fuel-rods-nuclear- 2003 (https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/ fuel?_s=PM:WORLD). handle/10024/31043/TMP.objres.617. 129. Role of Thorium to Supplement Fuel Cycles of pdf?sequence=1). Future Nuclear Energy Systems, IAEA Technical 141. Technical Meeting on Costs of Spent Fuel Reports, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-2.4. Management Options. IAEA. March 7-10, 2011 Vienna. 2012 (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/ (http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/ Publications/PDF/Pub1540_web.pdf). documents/Spentfuel/TM-COST-2011/COST_TM_ 130. Russia Inaugurates World’s First Low Enriched Information_Sheet.pdf). Uranium Reserve, Staff Report, by Peter Kaiser, 142. Technology Developments & Plant Efficiency for IAEA Division of Public Information. December the Russian Nuclear Power Generation Market, 17, 2010 (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/ Ian Hore-Lacy, Director of Public Communications, news/2010/leureserve.html). World Nuclear Association (WNA). PowerTec 131. Safe handling and storage of plutonium. Safety Russia & CIS. September 22, 2010 Reports Series, No. 9. IAEA, Vienna. 1998 (http://www.powertecrussia.com/blog/world- (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/ nuclear-association-technology-developments- PDF/P061_scr.pdf). plant-efficiency). 132. Schneider M., Froggatt A., and Thomas S. Nuclear 143. Tester J. W., Drake E. M., Golay M. W., Driscoll M. Power in a Post-Fukushima World, 25 Years After J., and Peters W. A. Sustainable Energy – Choosing the Chernobyl Accident. The World Nuclear Among Options. MIT Press. 2005. Industry Status Report 2010-2011. Worldwatch 144. Thorium fuel cycle – Potential benefits and Institute, Washington, DC. 2011 challenges, IAEA-TECDOC-1450. IAEA, Vienna. (http://download.www.arte.tv/permanent/ May, 2005 (http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/ u1/tchernobyl/report2011.pdf). publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf). 133. Sellafield MOX plant to close. 145. Todreas N. E. Nuclear Energy Systems Economic World Nuclear News. August 3, 2011 Evaluations: Capital Cost Operations & (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_ Maintenance Cost. Course 22.39, Lecture 18. Sellafield_MOX_plant_to_close_0308111.html). 2006 (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear- 134. Shropshire D. E., Williams K. A., Hoffman E. A., engineering/22-39-integration-of-reactor-design- Smith J. D., Hebditch D. J., Jacobson J. J., Morton operations-and-safety-fall-2006/lecture-notes/ J. D., Phillips A. M., and Taylor J. P. Advanced Fuel lec18_nt.pdf). Cycle Economic Analysis of Symbiotic Light-Water 146. Todreas N. E. Nuclear Energy Systems Economic Reactor and Fast Burner Reactor Systems. INL/ Evaluations: Uranium Resource Availability Fuel EXT-09-15254 Idaho National Laboratory. 2009 Cycle Cost. Course 22.39, Lecture 19. 2006 (http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/ (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/ Documents/4235622.pdf). 22-39-integration-of-reactor-design-operations- 135. Spent Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors, an and-safety-fall-2006/lecture-notes/lec19_nt.pdf). Overview of a New Study by the International 147. Todreas N. E. Perspectives on the Economics Panel on Fissile Materials, edited by Harold of Nuclear Power from the MIT Study, NE ANS Feiveson, Zia Mian, M.V.Ramana, and Frank von Symposium. Troy, NY. 2006 (http://ocw.mit.edu/ Hippel, Draft for Discussion. June, 2011 courses/nuclear-engineering/22-39-integration- (http://fissilematerials.org/library/ipfm-spent- of-reactor-design-operations-and-safety-fall-2006/ fuel-overview-june-2011.pdf). readings/todreasansslides.pdf).

110 148. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power, a study. 154. Weinberger Sh. Laser plant offers cheap way to University of Chicago. August, 2004 make nuclear fuel. Nature. July 4, 2012 (http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports/ (Nature 487, 16-17, July 5, 2012) NuclIndustryStudy-Summary.pdf). (http://www.nature.com/news/laser-plant-offers- 149. Uranium Extraction Technology, IAEA Technical cheap-way-to-make-nuclear-fuel-1.10945). Report Series 359. IAEA, Vienna. 1993 155. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/ and Energy. Comparison among different PDF/trs359_web.pdf). decommissioning funds methodologies for nuclear 150. Uranium Marketing Annual Report installations. Country Report Germany, Science (http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing). Centre, North Rhine-Westphalia. 2007 (http://www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_ 151. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2011), wiprojekt/EUDecommFunds_FinalReport.pdf). 2010 Uranium Marketing Annual Report (http://www.eia.gov/FTPROOT/nuclear/ 156. Yamanaka M., Areva to Build New Nuclear Fuel umar2010.pdf). Plant in Japan, Tapping Demand. Bloomberg. October 16, 2009 (http://www.bloomberg.co.jp/ 152. US DOE. Analysis of the Total Life Cycle Cost of the apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aphLWO01YX6M). Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. 2001 (http://www.gnpep.com/n64887/n65124/ 157. Yangbo Du and John E. Parsons, Capacity Factor n65244/n106577.files/n106576.pdf). Risk At Nuclear Power Plants, CEEPR Center for Energy and Environmental Policy research. 153. UxC. Uranium Production Cost Study – 2011. November, 2010 (http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/ Special Report. UX Consulting. 2011 www/publications/workingpapers/2010-016.pdf). (http://www.uxc.com/products/Flier-UPCS%20 2011-05.pdf).

111 113 www.bellona.org