DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Russia. State and Prospects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IAEA-CN-114/48p The nuclear fuel cycle in russia. State and prospects V.M.Lebedev The State Central Institute for Continuing Education and Training, Obninsk, Russia Abstract. The paper looks at prerequisites for the nuclear fuel cycle, including the experience in the implementation of military nuclear programs for needs of nuclear power and summarizes the status of nuclear power fuel base following the disintegration of the USSR detailing the current status of Russian nuclear fuel cycle enterprises. A scheme of technological links of nuclear fuel cycle productions plants is provided. Russia's fuel resources for nuclear power plants, uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication and spent fuel reprocessing are examined in detail. The analysis of nuclear fuel cycle technologies suggests the development of international cooperation not only on nuclear materials supplies, but also on export of uranium enrichment and radiochemical spent fuel reprocessing technologies as well as universal hydrometallurgical technologies. The paper examines the prospects of conversion of nuclear technologies into industrial technologies. 1. Prerequisites for the nuclear fuel cycle 1.1. Creation, implementation and experience in the development of military nuclear programs On August 20, 1945, at the State Defense Committee of the USSR, the Special Interdepartmental Committee was set up to solve nuclear problems for military purposes and at that time, at the National Commissioners Council of the USSR, the First Chief Administration was set up to solve current problems concerning the nuclear weapon development. Coincident with the development, installation and commissioning of the first nuclear F-1 reactor, various technologies and equipment have been verified and the following plants have been designed and constructed: - plant for uranium fuel fabrication for industrial reactors; - reactor plant; - radiochemical plant; - metallurgical plant; - isotope separation plant; - large-scale hydrometallurgical plant. In 1948, first batches of industrial plutonium were produced, and in 1949, first batches of highly enriched uranium were produced. Thus, a full-scale production of weapons-grade nuclear materials was started. Implementation of military programs under conditions of the confrontation between social systems resulted in a large-scale production. Military plutonium was built up in 13 nuclear reactors, which were insignificantly used to produce heat and electricity. More than 100 GW (el) enriched uranium were produced. The world’s largest uranium industry was created, to produce weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. On June, 26, 1953, the First Chief Administration at the Council of Ministers of the USSR was transformed into the USSR Ministry of Medium-Scale Mechanical Engineering dealing with nuclear science and technology. A system was created comprising research institutes, design offices, industrial enterprises of different profiles which were rigidly subordinated to one administrative structure. After having implemented the first stage of the military program and having created a nuclear industrial complex, scientific and technical workers began to seek actively new fields of using nuclear energy. In 1949, they began to design the first nuclear power plant (NPP) with an uranium-graphite reactor of channel type using normal water as a coolant, making use of the experience in the development of the industrial reactor to produce plutonium. The first in the world NPP was commissioned on June 26, 1954 in the town of Obninsk. In 1958, the Siberian NPP of dual-purpose type was commissioned to produce weapons-grade plutonium and electricity and some later - municipal heat. In 1952, the Government signed the resolution to start works on the development of nuclear power reactors for nuclear submarines. The water-moderated water-cooled reactor was chosen. In 1954, construction of the first in the USSR nuclear submarine was started. On July, 4, 1958 the submarine left for running underwater tests using nuclear reactor energy. At the same time, works on nuclear icebreakers were performed. Designing of nuclear ice breakers began in 1953. The nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" commissioned in 1959 operated effectively for 30 years and in 1990, it was decommissioned . Successful works on reactors with water under pressure for shipping have suggested the development of that direction for nuclear power reactor construction. In 1954-1955, Terms of Reference were developed to design a reactor for the Novovoronezh NPP. In September 1964, the first pilot power reactor VVER-210 was put into operation. As the technical basis of NPPs served uranium-graphite plutonium reactors of the channel type and shell-type water-moderated ship reactors which had well mastered prototypes in the defense area. th In 1950 , work on the creation of nuclear reactors for planes, rocket engines and space applications began. Research nuclear reactors were developed for various purposes, including isotopes production for various needs. 1.2. The inheritance from military nuclear programs A large-scale military industrial complex was created to produce nuclear materials, including: - uranium fabrication; - uranium isotopes separation; - manufacturing weapons-grade plutonium. Specially for power engineering, fuel elements and fuel assemblies production enterprises, as well as radiochemical plants for reprocessing fuel from NPPs were created. Essentially, uranium production and isotope separation for military and civil purposes do not differ. It is not necessary to produce weapons-grade plutonium for civil nuclear power, where power- grade plutonium produced in NPP reactors is used. The uranium production and isotope separation plants had capacities and nuclear materials reserves which significantly exceeded demand of the domestic nuclear power for the next years. In this connection, the possibilities to export uranium and production services abroad were increased. 1.3. Status of the fuel basis of Russia’s nuclear power following the disintegration of the USSR Following the disintegration of the USSR Russia’s nuclear industry has lost: - 70% of identified uranium deposits; - zirconium deposits (zirconium is the basic constructional material for fuel fabrication for NPP); - identified fluorine deposits for manufacturing uranium hexafluoride; - 85% of UO2 pellets production; - niobium production, (niobium is an alloying element for nuclear zirconium alloys); - ion-exchange sorbents production for uranium hydrometallurgy, radiochemistry, recycling of waste products of practically all nuclear industries; - beryllium and tantalum production. In Russia, the following industries have remained: - limited uranium stocks, outputs correspond to the capacity of a NPP with the power of 15-20 GW (el); - uranium isotopes separation (the same output); - 15% of UO2 tablets fabrication (production extends); - production of zirconium alloys and products (without own identified raw-material deposits); - production of fuel element and fuel assemblies (the same output); - radiochemical plants reprocessing fuel from VVER-440 with the same output and providing centralized storage of fuel from VVER-1000; - all plants manufacturing weapons-grade nuclear materials; - basic stocks of nuclear materials accumulated during implementation of large-scale defense programs. The created large-scale nuclear complex enabled the accumulation of significant amounts of nuclear materials which are partly used for fuel fabrication for the Russian NPPs or sold on the world market but the greater part is stored for the future consumption in Russia. The basic uranium stocks are stored as ingots of metal uranium accumulated for operation of uranium-graphite reactors, as melt (uranyl nitrate) resulting from reprocessing of fuel from uranium-graphite reactors, as stockpiles of past gas-diffusion technology and they are economically suitable for reprocessing with gas-centrifugal technology into enriched uranium. Excessive weapons-grade uranium stocks are also rather significant. When that uranium is diluted up to power-grade concentration, its reserves are estimated to be enough to support the domestic NPP operation for at least 50-70 years taking into account, that for its dilution up to power-grade U-235 concentration natural uranium is needed in certain amounts to meet NPP requirements for 7-8 years. Uranium stocks are expected to be enough to supply modern Russian NPPs for more than 100 years. These reserves will enable the creation of large-scale nuclear power in Russia by the middle of the century. However, own uranium raw materials are not sufficient to support the nuclear industry in the next years. It will be necessary to involve also weapons- and power-grade plutonium as well as the uranium regenerated from fuel with high burnup. Much work in this field lies ahead. That is why realization of the closed fuel cycle of NPPs should not be postponed as it is necessary to solve long-term environmental problems. 2. Status of nuclear fuel cycle enterprises in Russia (The deposits at this mine should be sufficient for 25 years.[4,5] The Ingulskyi mine, on the outskirts of Kirovohrad, is located 40 km from the Novokostyantynivskyi mine and 150 km from the Smolino mine.[3] The deposits at this mine should last for approximately 15 years.[4,5] The Novokostyantynivskyi mine taps the largest known uranium deposit in Ukraine.[3] Reportedly, new deposits will be opened in early 1996, at which point Ukraine's uranium output will double.[6] This will allow Ukraine
Recommended publications
  • The Taming of “49” Big Science in Little Time

    The Taming of “49” Big Science in Little Time

    The Taming of “49” Big science in little time Recollections of Edward F. Hammel During the Manhattan Project, plutonium was often referred to, simply, as 49. Number 4 was for the last digit in 94 (the atomic number of plutonium) and 9 for the last digit in plutonium-239, the isotope of choice for nuclear weapons. The story that unfolds was adapted from Plutonium Metallurgy at Los Alamos, 1943–1945, as Edward F. Hammel remembers the events of those years. 48 Los Alamos Science Number 26 2000 The Taming of “49” he work in plutonium chemistry tion work was an inevitable conse- the metal could be fabricated into and metallurgy carried out at quence of the nuclear and physical satisfactory weapon components. TLos Alamos (Site Y) between research that was still to be conducted In addition, not until January 1944 1943 and 1945 had a somewhat contro- on the metal. It would clearly have did the first few milligrams of pile- versial history. The controversy was been inefficient and time consuming to produced plutonium arrive at Los about who was going to do what. ship small amounts of plutonium metal Alamos. The first 1-gram shipment At the time Los Alamos was being back to Chicago for repurification and arrived in February 1944, and quantity organized, most of the expertise in plu- refabrication into different sizes and shipments of plutonium did not begin to tonium chemistry resided at Berkeley, shapes for the next-scheduled nuclear arrive at Los Alamos until May 1945. where plutonium was discovered in physics experiment. From the outset, it was clear that the December 1940, and at the Met Lab in Minimizing the time spent to solve purification of plutonium was the most Chicago.

  • Laser Isotope Separation (LIS), Technical and Economic

    NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM A STATUS OF PROGRESS FOR THL LASER lsofopE SEPARATION (11 SI PROCESS +tear 1976 NASA George C. Mdr~bdlSpace Flight Center Marshdl Space Fb$t Center, Alabama lLSFC - Form 3190 (Rev June 1971) REPORT STANDARD TITLE PACE I nEPMTn0. 3. RECIPIENT*$ CATILOC NO. NASA TM X-73345 10 TITLE UO SUTlTLt IS. REPORT DATE I September A st.tUaof for Iaser isotOpe &paratian lS76 I Progress the (LIS) 6 PERFWYIIIG WGUIZATIO* CQOE George C. M8ralmll!3gam Flight Center I 1. COUTRUT OR am yo. I MarW Flight Center, Alabama 35812 Tecbnid Memormdum National Aemutics and Space Administration Washingtan, D.C. 20546 I I Prepared by Systems Aaalysis and Integration Iaboratory, Science and Engineering An overview of the various categories of the LE3 methodology is given together with illustrations showing a simplified version of the LIS tecbnique, an example of the two-phoiin photoionization category, and a diagram depicting how the energy levels of various isdope influence the LIS process. A&icatlons have been proposed for the LIS system which, in addition to the use to enrich uranium, could in themselves develop into programs of tremendous scope and breadth. Such applications as treatment of radioac '--ewastes from light-water nKzlear reactors, enriching the deuterlum isotope to make heavv-water, and enrlchhg tik light isotopes of such 17 KEt WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 5ECUQlTY CLASSIF. Ff thh PI*) 21 NO. OF PAbFS 22 PRICE Unclassified Unclassified I 20 NTIS PREFACE Since the publication of t& first Techid hiemomxitun (TM X-64947) on the Laser hotope Separation (LE)process in May 1975 [l], there bbeen a virtual explosion of available information on this process.
  • Extensive Interest in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technologies

    Extensive Interest in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technologies

    Institute for Science and International Security ISIS REPORT March 19, 2012 Department 70 and the Physics Research Center: Extensive Interest in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technologies By David Albright, Paul Brannan, Mark Gorwitz, and Andrew Ortendahl On February 23, 2012, ISIS released the report, The Physics Research Center and Iran’s Parallel Military Nuclear Program, in which ISIS evaluated a set of 1,600 telexes outlining a set of departments or buying centers of the former Physics Research Center (PHRC). These departments appeared to be purchasing a variety of goods for specific nuclear technologies, including gas centrifuges, uranium conversion, uranium exploration and perhaps mining, and heavy water production. Figure 1 is a list of the purposes of these departments. The telexes are evaluated in more depth in the February 23, 2012 ISIS report and support that, contrary to Iran’s statements to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the PHRC ran a parallel military nuclear program in the 1990s. In the telexes, ISIS identified a department called Department 70 that is linked to the PHRC. This department tried to procure or obtained technical publications and reports from a document center, relevant know-how from suppliers, catalogues from suppliers about particular goods, and a mini- computer from the Digital Equipment Corporation. Department 70 appears to have had personnel highly knowledgeable about the existing literature on a variety of fuel cycle technologies, particularly gas centrifuges. Orders to a British document center reveal many technical publications about gas centrifuges, atomic laser isotope enrichment, the production of uranium compounds including uranium tetrafluoride and uranium hexafluoride (and precursors such as hydrofluoric acid), nuclear grade graphite, and the production of heavy water.
  • State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Performance in 2018

    State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Performance in 2018

    State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Performance in 2018 State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Performance in 2018 PERFORMANCE OF STATE ATOMIC ENERGY CORPORATION ROSATOM IN 2018 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 7. Development of the Northern Sea Route 94 7.1. ROSATOM's Powers Related to the Development and Operation 97 Report Profile 4 of the Northern Sea Route 7.2. Performance of the Nuclear-Powered Icebreaker Fleet 97 and Development of the Northern Sea Route Chapter 1. Our Achievements 6 About ROSATOM 9 Chapter 8. Effective Management of Resources 100 Key Results in 2018 10 Key Events in 2018 11 8.1. Corporate Governance 102 Address by the Chairman of the Supervisory Board 12 8.2. Risk Management 109 Address by the Director General 13 8.3. Performance of Government Functions 116 Address by a Stakeholder Representative 14 8.4. Financial and Investment Management 119 Financial and Economic Results 15 8.5. ROSATOM's Production System 126 8.6. Procurement Management 128 8.7. Internal Control System 132 Chapter 2. Strategy for a Sustainable Future 16 8.8. Prevention of Corruption and Other Offences 134 2.1. Business Strategy until 2030 18 2.2. Sustainable Development Agenda 23 Chapter 9. Development of Human Potential 136 2.3. Value Creation and Business Model 27 and Infrastructure Chapter 3. Contribution to Global Development 32 9.1. Implementation of the HR Policy 138 9.2. Developing the Regions of Operation 150 3.1. Markets Served by ROSATOM 34 9.3. Stakeholder Engagement 158 3.2. International Cooperation 44 3.3. International Business 52 Chapter 10.
  • Development of a Viable Route for Lithium-6 Supply of DEMO and Future Fusion Power Plants T

    Development of a Viable Route for Lithium-6 Supply of DEMO and Future Fusion Power Plants T

    Fusion Engineering and Design 149 (2019) 111339 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fusion Engineering and Design journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes Development of a viable route for lithium-6 supply of DEMO and future fusion power plants T T. Giegerich⁎, K. Battes, J.C. Schwenzer, C. Day Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: In the European DEMO program, the design development of a demonstration power plant (DEMO) is currently in DEMO its pre-conceptual phase. In DEMO, breeding blankets will use large quantities of lithium, enriched in the isotope Lithium-6 lithium-6 (6Li), for breeding the tritium needed to feed the DT fusion reaction. Unfortunately, enriched lithium is Lithium enrichment commercially not available in the required quantities, which is threatening the success of future power plant ICOMAX process applications of nuclear fusion. Even if the manufacturing of the breeding blankets is still two decades ahead of Mercury us, it is now mandatory to address the topic of lithium-6 supply and to make sure that a viable supply (and HgLab reprocessing) route is available when needed. This paper presents an unbiased systems engineering approach assessing a number of available lithium iso- tope separation methods by defining requirements, rating them systematically and finally calculating a ranking number expressing the value of different methods. As a result, we suggest using a chemical exchange method based on a lithium amalgam system, but including some important improvements leading to a more efficient and ‘clean’ process (the ICOMAX process) in comparison with the formerly used COLEX process.
  • Energy in Russia's Foreign Policy Kari Liuhto

    Energy in Russia's Foreign Policy Kari Liuhto

    Kari Liuhto Energy in Russia’s foreign policy Electronic Publications of Pan-European Institute 10/2010 ISSN 1795 - 5076 Energy in Russia’s foreign policy Kari Liuhto 1 10/2010 Electronic Publications of Pan-European Institute www.tse.fi/pei 1 Kari Liuhto is Professor in International Business (specialisation Russia) and Director of the Pan- European Institute at the Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland. His research interests include EU-Russia economic relations, energy relations in particular, foreign investments into Russia and the investments of Russian firms abroad, and Russia’s economic policy measures of strategic significance. Liuhto has been involved in several Russia-related projects funded by Finnish institutions and foreign ones, such as the Prime Minister’s Office, various Finnish ministries and the Parliament of Finland, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the United Nations. Kari Liuhto PEI Electronic Publications 10/2010 www.tse.fi/pei Contents PROLOGUE 4 1 INTRODUCTION: HAVE GAS PIPES BECOME A MORE POWERFUL FOREIGN POLICY TOOL FOR RUSSIA THAN ITS ARMY? 5 2 RUSSIA’S ENERGETIC FOREIGN POLICY 8 2.1 Russia’s capability to use energy as a foreign policy instrument 8 2.2 Dependence of main consumers on Russian energy 22 2.3 Russia’s foreign energy policy arsenal 32 2.4 Strategic goals of Russia's foreign energy policy 43 3 CONCLUSION 49 EPILOGUE 54 REFERENCES 56 1 Kari Liuhto PEI Electronic Publications 10/2010 www.tse.fi/pei Tables Table 1 Russia’s energy reserves in the global scene (2008) 9 Table 2 The development of the EU’s energy import dependence 23 Table 3 The EU’s dependence on external energy suppliers 24 Table 4 Share of Russian gas in total primary energy consumption 26 Table 5 Natural gas storage of selected European countries 29 Table 6 Russia’s foreign policy toolbox 32 Table 7 Russia’s disputes with EU member states under Putin’s presidency 36 Table 8 Russia’s foreign energy policy toolbox 40 Table 9 Russia's potential leverage in the ex-USSR (excl.
  • Russian Analytical Digest No 101: Russia and the Nuclear Industry

    Russian Analytical Digest No 101: Russia and the Nuclear Industry

    No. 101 1 August 2011 russian analytical digest www.res.ethz.ch www.laender-analysen.de Russia and the nucleaR industRy ■■AnAlysis Russia and Fukushima 2 By Vladimir Slivyak, Moscow ■■AnAlysis The Russian Anti-Nuclear Movement 6 By Alisa Nikulina, Moscow ■■stAtistics Nuclear Energy in Russia 9 ■■OpiniOn Poll Russian Attitudes on Nuclear Energy 11 Institute for European, Research Centre Center for German Association for Russian, and Eurasian Studies Institute of History for East European Studies Security Studies East European Studies The George Washington University of Basel University University of Bremen ETH Zurich RUSSIAN ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 101, 1 August 2011 2 Analysis Russia and Fukushima By Vladimir Slivyak, Moscow summary Since the accident in Japan’s Fukushima power station, Russian officials have consistently reassured the pub- lic that Russian nuclear plants are safe. One reason for this position is Russia’s desire to export nuclear power technology. The events in Japan might have a detrimental effect on Russian exports. However, the nuclear industry is also experiencing severe problems on the domestic front. According to reports by the “Ekoza- shchita!” (EcoDefense!) environmental group, Russian nuclear plants have numerous defects. The security situation will not improve as long as the presidential administration and the government continue to try and convince the world that there are no problems in Russia’s nuclear power stations. Fukushima in Russia? eral times a year, leading government officials together In March this year, the nuclear power plant in Japan’s with Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko demonstrated their Fukushima prefecture experienced a disaster that is still complete support for nuclear energy as one of Russia’s underway at the time of writing.
  • Atomic Energy Je^K L'energie Atomique of Canada Umited Ksv Du Canada Li Mite E

    Atomic Energy Je^K L'energie Atomique of Canada Umited Ksv Du Canada Li Mite E

    AECL-7416 ATOMIC ENERGY JE^K L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE OF CANADA UMITED KSV DU CANADA LI MITE E PROGRESS REPORT CHEMISTRY AND MATERIALS DIVISION 1 April -30 June, 1981 PR-CMa-57 Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario August 1981 PREVIOUS REPORTS IN THIS SERIES PR-CMa-56 January 1 to March 31, 1981 AECL-7332 PR-CMa-55 October 1 to December 31, 1980 AECL-7242 PR-CHa-54 July 1 to September 30, 1980 AECL-7156 PR-CMa-53 April 1 to June 30, 1980 AECL-7094 PR-CMa-57 ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED PROGRESS REPORT April 1, 1981 - June 30, 1981 CHEMISTRY AND MATERIALS DIVISION The results and conclusions given here are not classified or restricted in any way; however, some of the information is of a preliminary nature. Readers interested in using the information in their own research are invited to consult with the contributors for further details. Copies of the AECL publications referred to in this report may be obtained by writing to the Scientific Document Distribution Offfee, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ 1J0. Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario 1981 August AECL-7416 PROGRESS REPORT April 1, 1981 - June 30, 1981 CHEMISTRY AND MATERIALS DIVISION Director - T. A. Eastwood Secretary - Ms. A. E. Goodale Contents Page HIGHLIGHTS T.A. Eastwood (i) 1. SOLID STATE SCIENCE BRANCH I.V. Mitchell 1 2. GENERAL CHEMISTRY BRANCH I.H. Crocker 27 3. PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY BRANCH D.R. Smith 53 4. MATERIALS SCIENCE BRANCH B. Cox 71 (i) CHEMISTRY AND MATERIALS DIVISION HIGHLIGHTS T.
  • Lithium Isotope Separation a Review of Possible Techniques

    Lithium Isotope Separation a Review of Possible Techniques

    Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project Lithium Isotope Separation A Review of Possible Techniques Authors E.A. Symons Atomic Energy of Canada Limited CFFTP GENERAL CFFTP Report Number s Cross R< Report Number February 1985 CFFTP-G-85036 f AECL-8 The Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project represents part of Canada's overall effort in fusion development. The focus for CFFTP is tritium and tritium technology. The project is funded by the governments of Canada and Ontario, and by Ontario Hydro. The Project is managed by Ontario Hydro. CFFTP will sponsor research, development and studies to extend existing experience and capability gained in handling tritium as part of the CANDU fission program. It is planned that this work will be in full collaboration and serve the needs of international fusion programs. LITHIUM ISOTOPE SEPARATION: A REVIEW OF POSSIBLE TECHNIQUES Report No. CFFTP-G-85036 Cross Ref. Report No. AECL-8708 February, 1985 by E.A. Symons CFFTP GENERAL •C - Copyright Ontario Hydro, Canada - (1985) Enquiries about Copyright and reproduction should be addressed to: Program Manager, CFFTP 2700 Lakeshore Road West Mississauga, Ontario L5J 1K3 LITHIUM ISOTOPE SEPARATION: A REVIEW OF POSSIBLE TECHNIQUES Report No. OFFTP-G-85036 Cross-Ref Report No. AECL-87O8 February, 1985 by E.A. Symons (x. Prepared by: 0 E.A. Symons Physical Chemistry Branch Chemistry and Materials Division Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Reviewed by: D.P. Dautovich Manager - Technology Development Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project Approved by: T.S. Drolet Project Manager Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report has been prepared under Element 4 (Lithium Compound Chemistry) of the Fusion Breeder Blanket Program, which is jointly funded by AECL and CFFTP.
  • Uranium Enrichment Plant Characteristics—A Training Manual for the IAEA

    Uranium Enrichment Plant Characteristics—A Training Manual for the IAEA

    ORNL/TM-2019/1311 ISPO-553 Uranium Enrichment Plant Characteristics—A Training Manual for the IAEA J. M. Whitaker October 2019 Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via US Department of Energy (DOE) SciTech Connect. Website www.osti.gov Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail [email protected] Website http://classic.ntis.gov/ Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange representatives, and International Nuclear Information System representatives from the following source: Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.
  • State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom

    State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom

    STATE ATOMIC ENERGY CORPORATION ROSATOM. STATE ATOMIC ENERGY CORPORATION ROSATOM. PERFORMANCE IN 2019 PERFORMANCE IN 2019 PERFORMANCE OF STATE ATOMIC ENERGY CORPORATION ROSATOM IN 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Profile 4 CHAPTER 7. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHERN SEA ROUTE 122 7.1. Escorting Vessels and Handling Cargo Traffic along the Northern Sea Route 127 CHAPTER 1. OUR ACHIEVEMENTS 6 7.2. Construction of New Icebreakers 128 History of the Russian Nuclear Industry 8 7.3. New Products 128 ROSATOM Today 10 7.4. Digitization of Operations 128 Key Results in 2019 14 7.5. Activities of FSUE Hydrographic Enterprise 129 Key Events in 2019 15 7.6. Plans for 2020 and for the Medium Term 130 Address by the Chairman of the Supervisory Board 16 Address by the Director General 17 CHAPTER 8. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES 132 Address by a Stakeholder Representative 18 8.1. Corporate Governance 135 Financial and Economic Results 20 8.2. Risk Management 141 8.3. Performance of Government Functions 155 CHAPTER 2. STRATEGY FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE 22 8.4. Financial and Investment Management 158 2.1. Business Strategy until 2030 24 8.5. ROSATOM Production System 164 2.2. Sustainable Development Management 28 8.6. Procurement Management 168 2.3. Value Creation and Business Model 34 8.7. Internal Control System 172 8.8. Prevention of Corruption and Other Offences 174 CHAPTER 3. CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT 40 3.1. Markets Served by ROSATOM 42 CHAPTER 9. DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN POTENTIAL 176 3.2. International Cooperation 55 AND INFRASTRUCTURE 3.3. International Business 63 9.1.
  • Economic Perspective for Uranium Enrichment

    Economic Perspective for Uranium Enrichment

    SIDEBAR 1: Economic Perspective for Uranium Enrichment he future demand for enriched are the customary measure of the effort uranium to fuel nuclear power required to produce, from a feed material plants is uncertain, Estimates of with a fried concentration of the desired T this demand depend on assump- isotope, a specified amount of product en- tions concerning projections of total electric riched to a specified concentration and tails, power demand, financial considerations, and or wastes, depleted to a specified concentra- government policies. The U.S. Department tion. For example, from feed material with a of Energy recently estimated that between uranium-235 concentration of 0.7 per cent now and the end of this century the gener- (the naturally occurring concentration), ation of nuclear power, and hence the need production of a kilogram of uranium enrich- for enriched uranium, will increase by a ed to about 3 per cent (the concentration factor of 2 to 3 both here and abroad. Sale of suitable for light-water reactor fuel) with tails enriched uranium to satisfy this increased depleted to 0.2 per cent requires about 4.3 demand can represent an important source SWU. of revenue for the United States, Through Gaseous diffusion is based on the greater fiscal year 1980 our cumulative revenues rate of diffusion through a porous barrier of from such sales amounted to over 7 billion the lighter component of a compressed dollars, and until recently foreign sales ac- gaseous mixture. For uranium enrichment counted for a major portion of this revenue. the gaseous mixture consists of uranium The sole source of enriched uranium until hexafluoride molecules containing 23$ 1974, the United States now supplies only uranium-235 ( UF6) or uranium-238 238 about 30 per cent of foreign demand, New ( UF6).