Analysis of the Possibility of Using Fuel Based on Reclaimed Uranium in VVÉR Reactors

Proselkov, V. N.; Aleshin, S. S.; Popov, S. G.; Sidorenko, V.D.; Slavyagin, P.D.; Tataurov, A. L.; Milovanov, O.V.; Mikheev, E. N.; Anan'ev, Yu. A.; Pytkin, Yu. N.; Pimenov, Yu. V.

doi:10.1023/b:aten.0000018995.09337.b5

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, it should be noted that for LEU with an enrichment below 5 wt %, as is the case for the discharged LEU pebble, the criterion in the Footnote "a" to Table 1 of Reference [9] (namely, "0.042 critical mass/MT solids where the critical mass is calculated from a mixture of isotopes for the actinide element") is difficult to apply since the bare critical mass of LEU metal at 5 wt % enriched goes to infinity, implying an infinite limit (or in effect no limit) on the amount of LEU (< 5 wt % enriched) per metric ton. However, if, instead of applying the criterion to direct-use material as is done for plutonium, this criterion were applied to one significant quantity of 75 kg of indirect-use 235 U (less than 20 wt % enriched) from Table II of the IAEA Safeguards Glossary [47] at the discharge enrichment inferred from Appendix A (~3.8 wt %), the implied limit would be [(75,000 g/ 0.038) × 0.042] = 82,895 g/MT or 82,895 ppm, which is both much higher than the 7,635 ppm of uranium inferred above from the tables in STR-251 (Rev 2) [15] and would adequately cover the 41,015 ppm of diluted uranium in the pebble from the estimate in Appendix A.…”

Section: Analysis Of the Iaea Provisional Criteria For Termination Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Some additional enrichment is required as well as extensive blending with either LEU from natural uranium or natural uranium to reduce 236 U to the standard specification (ASTM C787) considered necessary for light-water reactors [7][8][9][10] to achieve the same burnup as when using LEU from natural uranium.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, Section 3.4 of Reference [4] states, without acknowledging, due to the reactivity penalty from 236 U, the need for blending with natural uranium and re-enrichment to the higher enrichments required to achieve the same burnup for current light water reactor fuel cycles [7][8][9][10].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Supplemental Report on Nuclear Safeguards Considerations for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

Moses¹,

Ehinger²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Analysis Of the Iaea Provisional Criteria For Termination Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supplemental Report on Nuclear Safeguards Considerations for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

Moses¹,

Ehinger²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…days), after which the cost of generating electricity over the entire run reaches its minimum value -the relative decrease of the production costs at the optimum point is about 1%. A promising direction for increasing the cost-effectiveness of electricity generation at nuclear power plants with VVÉR-1000 reactors is to re-use (recycle) the uranium present in the spent fuel [13]. It is proposed in [14] that the uranium and plutonium recovered from the fuel removed from thermal reactors, purified by removing other actinides and fission products, and mixed with enriched uranium be used in such reactors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuel utilization in VVÉR-1000: Status and prospects

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The status and prospects for increasing the fuel utilization efficiency of VVÉR-1000 reactors are reviewed. It is shown that the main trends in the development of water moderated and cooled reactors are reflected in an improved design with a four-year fuel run, different variants of which are now being implemented in nuclear power plants operating in Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria: weakly neutron-absorbing materials are used in the fuel assemblies, part of the excess reactivity of the core is compensated by an absorber (gadolinium) which is integrated with the fuel, the fuel load is designed with a reduced radial neutron leakage, and the number of refuelings is increased. Promising directions for improving fuel utilization are noted: increasing the energy content of the fuel load, operating the reactor with reduced values of the parameters at the end of a run after the reactivity excess has been exhausted on burnup, and reusing (recycling) the uranium and plutonium contained in the spent fuel.The nuclear fuel utilization regime of a reactor has changed greatly over the last 25 years from the moment the first VVÉR-1000 reactor was put into operation. The initial fuel-utilization design was intended for fuel assemblies operating for two reactor runs, each run lasting for about 300 eff. days with average makeup-fuel enrichment about ~3.3 mass% 235 U. The structural members of the fuel assemblies -the spacing lattices and guide channels, intended for moving the absorbing members of the mechanical control and safety system -were manufactured using corrosion-resistance steel, and the fuel was moved into the core primarily according to the periphery-center scheme (Fig. 1a). An absorber (boron in boric acid) dissolved in the coolant compensated the excess reactivity, so that safe conditions for starting up the reactor and increasing power (with respect to the sign of the temperature coefficient of reactivity) were achieved only because several groups of control-andsafety rods were lowered into the core. The fuel utilization efficiency was low according to current standards -the average burnup of the off-loaded fuel in a stationary refueling regime did not exceed 30 MW·days/kg and the specific consumption of natural uranium with 0.3% 235 U contained in the wastes was ~270 g/(MW·day). Until recently, it is these values that western specialists preferred to use as a way to characterize the fuel-utilization of VVÉR reactors.A three-year fuel run was adopted in the late 1980s in almost all power-generating units with VVÉR-1000 reactors. According to the design, the average and maximum admissible fuel burnup of the fuel assemblies were 41 and 49 MW·days/kg, respectively. A change in the fuel-pellet geometry made it possible to increase the admissible burnup-increasing the diameter of the central opening in a fuel pellet from 1.4 to 2.4 mm enlarged the gas cavity and created the conditions needed to decrease the gas pressure beneath the cladding and lower the temperature at the center of a fuel pellet. Since the mass of the fuel...

show abstract

“…In our country, the uranium separated from spent VVÉR-440 fuel is mixed with the uranium extracted from spent BN-600 fuel and then usud for fabricating RBMK-1000 fuel [2]. The same scheme is used to fabricate fuel for experimental-commercial operation of fuel elements with reprocessed uranium in VVÉR-440 and -1000 reactors [3]. Plutonium separated from spent PWR fuel is used abroad, mainly in France, as a component of mixed fuel (a mixture of reprocessed plutonium and depleted or natural uranium) which is loaded into 30% of the PWR core [4,5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neutron-physical characteristics of a VVÉR core with 100% load of reprocessed uranium and plutonium fuel

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of calculations of the neutron-physical characteristics of three variants of the fuel load in a VVÉR-1000 core are presented: a load consisting completely of enriched natural uranium (standard fuel) or reprocessed uranium-plutonium fuel from the first and second recycles. The calculations were performed for a stationary load of the core with a four-year fuel run. The difference between the neutronphysical characteristics of a core with a full load of uranium and reprocessed uranium-plutonium fuel is discussed. An analysis of the neutron-physical characteristics did not show any fundamental limitations for a possible 100% load of reprocessed uranium-plutonium fuel in a VVÉR-1000 core.Recirculating reprocessed uranium and plutonium in thermal reactors could increase the utilization efficiency of nuclear fuel and expand the resource base of nuclear power [1]. At the present time, experience has been gained in using reprocessed uranium and plutonium separately in thermal reactors. In our country, the uranium separated from spent VVÉR-440 fuel is mixed with the uranium extracted from spent BN-600 fuel and then usud for fabricating RBMK-1000 fuel [2]. The same scheme is used to fabricate fuel for experimental-commercial operation of fuel elements with reprocessed uranium in VVÉR-440 and -1000 reactors [3]. Plutonium separated from spent PWR fuel is used abroad, mainly in France, as a component of mixed fuel (a mixture of reprocessed plutonium and depleted or natural uranium) which is loaded into 30% of the PWR core [4,5].It has been proposed that fuel made from uranium and plutonium which are separated from the spent fuel of thermal reactors be used in these reactors as fuel after other actinides and fission products are removed and enriched natural uranium is added, taking account of the compensation of the even isotopes of uranium and plutonium [6,7]. It was supposed that because the content of plutonium in the reprocessed uranium-plutonium fuel is relatively low such fuel can make up 100% of the load of a VVÉR-1000 core.To check this assumption, the neutron-physical characteristics of three variants of a stationary load of a four-year run of fuel in a VVÉR-1000 reactor were analyzed. In the first variant, the load consisted entirely of fuel enriched with natural ura-UDC 621.039.516

show abstract

Analysis of the Possibility of Using Fuel Based on Reclaimed Uranium in VVÉR Reactors

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Supplemental Report on Nuclear Safeguards Considerations for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

Supplemental Report on Nuclear Safeguards Considerations for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

Fuel utilization in VVÉR-1000: Status and prospects

Neutron-physical characteristics of a VVÉR core with 100% load of reprocessed uranium and plutonium fuel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About