NUCLEAR ENERGY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 69
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 27, 2006
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 1, 1977
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Nuclear Energy
ER 77-10468
August 1977
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79BOO457AO00700040001-1
This publication is prepared for the use of U.S. Government
officials. The format, coverage and contents of the publication are
designed to meet the specific requirements of those users. U.S.
Government officials may obtain additional copies of this document
directly or through liaison channels from the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Non-U.S. Government users may obtain this along with similar
CIA publications on a subscription basis by addressing inquiries to:
Document Expediting (DOCEX) Project
Exchange and Gift Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540
Non-U.S. Government users not interested in the DOCEX
Project subscription service may purchase reproductions of specific
publications on an individual basis from:
Photoduplication Service
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79BOO457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Nuclear Energy
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Page
1. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Although fossil fuels generally require processing prior to their use
as fuel in electric generating stations, nuclear fuel must undergo a
greater number of more complex operations before its use in a
nuclear power plant.
2. Uranium Exploration, Mining, and Milling . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Uranium is mined by either open pit or underground methods
similar to those used for coal, and subsequent milling is not greatly
different from techniques used for other metallic minerals.
Uranium is distinguished by its radioactivity, its low concentration
in the ore, and its relatively high energy content.
3. Uranium Conversion to Hexafluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A hexafluoride conversion step prepares uranium for enrichment.
Six commercial conversion plants are operating in the Free World-
two in France, two in the US, and one each in Great Britain and
Canada.
4. Uranium Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Enrichment of uranium is the most technically difficult and costly
step in the nuclear fuel cycle. Physical differences of uranium
isotopes are extremely small and considerable effort is necessary to
achieve separation.
5. Nuclear Fuel Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
More than half of operating fuel fabrication capacity is in the US.
Present and planned Free World facilities will be adequate through
the 1980s.
6. Uranium Resources in the Free World . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Free World has enough uranium to supply all foreseeable needs
for nuclear energy production probably through the end of the
century. Three-fourths of Free World resources are in the US,
Canada, South Africa, and Australia.
7. Structure of the Uranium Industry in the Free World . . . . . . 25
The industry is more fragmented and complex than most other
resource industries. Joint ventures and participation arrangements
are very common, leading to increasing industrial concentration.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
8. The Uranium Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
During the last four years a complete turnaround has taken place,
with prices rising sixfold since 1973.
9. Supply and Demand for Uranium Enrichment Services . . . . . 36
The US now operates almost all of the world's enrichment capa-
city, but by the mid- 1980s its share will drop to less than 70
percent. The bulk of new capacity is being built in Western Europe.
10. Nuclear Energy Prospects in the Developed Countries in 1985 . . 39
Projections of nuclear electric generating capacity continue to be
revised downward, and are now 58 percent below those made seven
years ago. Ninety-three percent of projected nuclear capacity is
already in operation or under construction.
11. Market Outlook and International Competition . . . . . . . . 41
Only four nuclear power reactors for export were ordered from
international suppliers in 1976. No new orders have been placed in
1977, but prospects are brighter for the next twelve months.
12. Nuclear Plant Performance: Some Improvement in 1977 . . . . 49
The performance of nuclear plants already in operation continues
to fall well below expectations. The introduction of larger and
presumably more efficient nuclear units in recent years has failed
to improve overall performance averages.
13. A Nuclear Energy Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Although fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) generally require processing
prior to their use as fuel in electric generating stations, nuclear fuel must undergo
a greater number of more complex operations before its use in a nuclear powerplant.
The various operations collectively are referred to as the "nuclear fuel cycle." It
is divided into a "front end" segment made up of those processes involved in
the actual manufacture of nuclear fuel (uranium mining, milling, conversion,
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
(Light Water Reactor)
Uranium
Mining
Ore
Uranium
Milling
Article 4
Enrichment
I Enriched UF6
: Fuel
Article r-icon
Depleted
Uranium
Storage
Low-Level
---
Waste
Storage _
Spent
-Fuel
Storage
Plutonium
I High-Level
Waste
Storage
Slightly Enriched Uranium
L-----------------~ L-----------,
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
L
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
enrichment, and fuel fabrication) and a "back end" segment dealing with the
disposition of spent nuclear fuel after it is "burned" in a reactor. These operations
include fuel reprocessing, recycling of uranium and plutonium, and disposal of
radioactive wastes.
The steps in the nuclear fuel cycle discussed pertain to light water reactors
(either pressurized water or boiling water reactors). Other reactor types, such as the
pressurized heavy water reactor (CANDU), have slightly different fuel cycles. Fuel
for the CANDU reactor, for example, need not be enriched.
The Front End Segment
The initial step in the nuclear fuel cycle is uranium mining, either open pit
or underground. Following extraction, the uranium ore, normally containing 0.2
percent or less U308, is shipped to an ore concentration plant or mill, usually
located relatively close to the mine. The mill extracts uranium by mechanical and
chemical processing of the ore and produces a semifinished product commonly
called "yellowcake." To supply the annual fuel requirements of a typical
1,000-megawatt (MW) light water reactor, about 91,000 tons of ore must be mined,
which, when concentrated, yields 182 tons of U308 equivalent. Although this
process takes only a few months, the utility usually must contract for raw material
almost two years in advance of the time the finished fuel is needed because of
the lead times involved in the remaining front end operations.
Annual Material Flow for a 1,000-MW
Light Water Power Reactor
Fuel Cycle Operation
Output
Tons
Front end segment
Uranium mining
Uranium ore
91,000
Uranium concentration
Yellowcake-U308 equivalent
182
Hexafluroide conversion
UF6
270
Uranium enrichment
Enriched UF6
52
Depleted UF6
218
Fuel fabrication
Enriched U02
35
Spent fuel storage
Irradiated fuel (uranium +
plutonium + fission products)
35
Back end segment
Fuel reprocessing
Slightly enriched uranium
34
Plutonium
0.2
Radioactive waste disposal
and storage
Low-level wastes
230
High-level wastes
7
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Lead Times'
Front end segment
Uranium procurement and
conversion
6
3
Enrichment
6
3
Fuel fabrication
6
3
Reactor storage (prior to
commercial operation)
92
4'h
Back end segment
Spent fuel discharge to
reprocessing3
....
6
Reprocessing to re-use3
Uranium
....
6
Plutonium
....
3
1. Applicable to light water reactors only.
2. Including 6 months for preoperational fuel testing.
3. The lead times for these stages of the fuel cycle are estimated; at present, these processes are not
being used on a commercial scale.
The next stage is the conversion of yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride (UF6),
the feedstock for the enrichment plant. Uranium concentrate fed to a conversion
facility normally contains the equivalent of 75-85 percent U308. In the most
common conversion process, the uranium is first reduced to brown oxide (UO2),
then hydrofluorinated to uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) or green salt. Following
fluorination and distillation, a highly purified UF6 product results. The annual
output required for one 1,000-MW reactor is about 270 tons.
To be used as fuel in a light water reactor, uranium must be enriched in
the fissionable isotope, uranium-235. This isotope makes up only 0.71 percent of
naturally occurring uranium, most of which is heavier uranium-238. Several methods
are available for separating these isotopes and artifically increasing the uranium-235
concentration. The process most commonly used is gaseous diffusion; an
ultracentrifugation process is under development. Both methods depend on the
difference in mass of the two isotopes to achieve separation.
In the enrichment plant, the natural UF6 feed gas is divided into two
components: a product stream containing 2-4 percent uranium-235 and a waste
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
or "tails" stream, which normally has a 0.2-0.3 percent uranium-235 concentration.
With typical percentages of the fissionable isotope in the feed, product, and tails
components, the annual output of an enrichment plant necessary to support the
operation of a 1,000-MW power reactor is 52 tons of enriched UF6. In the process
of enrichment, 218 tons of UF6 depleted in uranium-235 are also produced.
Enrichment for annual reactor reloads must take place nearly one year before the
fuel is required.
The final operation in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle is the actual
manufacture of fuel elements. This step usually occurs about nine months prior
to the scheduled reloading date. Enriched UF6 is converted to UO2 fuel pellets,
which, following sintering to achieve the desired density, are inserted into rods
usually made of a zirconium alloy. This fuel "cladding" improves the corrosion
resistance, radiation stability, and temperature range of the fuel. The rods are
assembled into fuel elements, which are placed in the reactor core.
'Fuel Use
While in the reactor, enriched uranium fuel undergoes nuclear fission, the
splitting of the uranium-235 nucleus into two approximately equal parts
accompanied by the release of energy. This energy is the heat source used to
produce steam, which in turn is used to generate electricity in a nuclear powerplant.
As more uranium-235 fissions, the level of enrichment of the fuel declines, but,
at discharge, the fuel still contains a greater concentration of this isotope than
natural uranium and is thus worth recovering.
In addition, the fission process releases one or more neutrons that not only
sustain the nuclear chain reaction but are also captured by natural uranium-238,
thereby forming plutonium. As the principal isotope of plutonium is itself a
fissionable material, some plutonium can substitute for enriched uranium in nuclear
fuel. Not only can plutonium be used as fuel for breeder reactors, but the use
of "mixed oxide fuel" (enriched UO2 and recycled plutonium) in conventional
light water reactors can reduce the amount of natural uranium raw material and
enrichment required to produce an equivalent amount of nuclear fuel. The spent
fuel discharged annually from a 1,000-MW reactor will contain about 250 kilograms
of plutonium.
Each year, a 1,000-MW light water reactor requires a reload of about 35 tons
of nuclear fuel. At the same time that a fresh fuel load is inserted, a similar quantity
of irradiated or spent fuel is discharged from the reactor. Following withdrawal,
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
the spent fuel is placed in "cooling" ponds at the reactor to allow for some decay
of radioactivity. At present, the commercial nuclear fuel cycle ends here.
Back End Segment
Both industry and government officials have always assumed that the nuclear
fuel cycle would be "closed," i.e., that spent fuel would be chemically processed
to recover uranium and plutonium, thus conserving resources and improving the
economics of nuclear power. This closing of the fuel cycle involves back end
operations: fuel reprocessing, recycling or uranium and plutonium manufacture of
mixed oxide fuel, and disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. With the exception
of this last activity, the technology for each operation is available but has not
yet been demonstrated commercially. In most countries with large nuclear power
programs, the environmental, safety, regulatory, financial, and potential
proliferation problems associated with these operations have not been solved, and
the prospects for closing the fuel cycle remain uncertain.
The recovery of uranium and plutonium in spent fuel is accomplished by
reprocessing, the first step in the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. After cooling
for a period of about six months, spent fuel is shipped to a reprocessing plant.
The fuel elements are chopped into short sections and dissolved in acid. In a solvent
extraction process, the uranium, plutonium, and fission products are separated by
chemical means through countercurrent flow of aqueous and organic solutions. The
separated uranium and plutonium are purified, and radioactive waste products are
converted to a form compatible with their ultimate disposal. Almost all the uranium
originally present in the nuclear fuel can be recovered, and, in a closed fuel cycle,
it would be sent to a UF6 plant for conversion and subsequent reenrichment.
The plutonium would be shipped for fabrication into mixed oxide fuel.
The ultimate stage in the nuclear fuel cycle is the disposal of radioactive wastes.
Low-level waste products result at all points in the fuel cycle and are safely handled
and disposed of at commercial burial sites. High-level wastes from a reprocessing
facility, primarily liquids containing most of the separated fission products and
traces of uranium and plutonium, are extremely radioactive. Although procedures
have been developed for converting these liquids to solids for final burial in stable
geologic formations, most of the high-level wastes resulting from reprocessing-
principally those connected with separating plutonium for nuclear weapons-
remain in liquid form. After reprocessing one year's fuel supply for a 1,000-MW
reactor, about seven tons of high-level waste products would be produced.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
2. URANIUM EXPLORATION, MINING, AND MILLING
Uranium mining and milling methods are not unusual but exploration
techniques do take advantage of the radioactive properties of uranium. The principal
characteristics that distinguish uranium are its low concentration in the ore and
its relatively high energy content.
Average uranium concentration levels range from more than 6 percent U308
(original pitchblende deposit in Zaire) to only 0.003 parts per million (ppm) in
sea water. Typical deposits now being worked average about 0.15 percent -- roughly
1.5 kilograms of U308 per ton of ore. For exploitation of most minerals this would
be an unprofitable level of concentration. Uranium, however, as used in
conventional nuclear reactors, has roughly 100,000 times the energy content of
a similar quantity of coal and 65,000 times that of oil, making the mining of
low-grade uranium deposits economical.
Exploration
Although natural uranium is only slightly radioactive, airborne radiometric
surveys covering large areas can detect gamma emissions' from decaying uranium
atoms. The accuracy of results depends on the amount of vegetation and other
radioactivity-absorbing material overlying the deposit. Gamma spectrometry is a
more expensive, but not necessarily a more effective, technique that distinguishes
between differing radiation energies, helping to identify the nature of the deposit.
Most initial exploratory work is done by these methods, but verification requires
vehicle-borne instruments.
Once potential deposits are located, secondary ground checks are performed
using instruments which detect changes of less than two ppm U308 in underlying
strata. This is' supplemented by gamma spectrometry and chemical analyses of soil,
water, and vegetation. Test drillings may be made to specifically locate and evaluate
the deposit, but core sample examination is being replaced by radiation logging
equipment that evaluates deposits at greater depths. For example, logging has been
used effectively in South Africa to depths of 5,000 meters.
This entire exploration, evaluation, and confirmation process may take 5 years
or more and normally contributes 10-15 percent to the total cost of U308-
'Gamma rays are similar to X-rays but usually have more energy and are nuclear in origin.
6
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Exploration and Mining
Airborne
Radiometric Survey
Airborne Gamma
Spectrometry Survey
Lease Acquisition
Survey Verification (vehicle & foot)
I
Test Drilling & Logging
Mine Development
t
Open Pit Mining
u
Underground Mining
Uranium Ore
Ion-exchange
Precipitation
SIL
000
Dust Collection
40 4-0
0.10
Acid
Pregnant Liquor
Product Liquor
Separation (Thickener, Filter Dryer)
4UM +1
Yellow Cake Product U308
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Uranium Mill Process
4
Wash Water
I
,Tailings* d- f- Separation
Ammonia
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Mining and Milling
Uranium is mined by either open pit or underground methods similar to those
used in coal mining. Deposits located less than 120 meters from the surface are
generally strip-mined. Only about 30 percent of uranium mines are open pit, but
they supply some two-thirds of the ore produced. Because deep mining is more
costly, ore concentration must be greater than surface deposits to justify under-
ground operations.
Pregrading of the ore is often performed directly at the mine site using
radiometric sorters. Ores with U308 content less than 0.03 percent are generally
stockpiled either for later mixing with higher grade ores or for batch leaching.
The ore is then trucked to the mill for concentration.
In the Free World, mills may handle up to 7,000 tons per day (tpd) of ore, but
the average is about 2,000 tpd. Mills further sort and grind the ore, then mix it with
water to form an aqueous slurry. The uranium is leached from the slurry by either
acid or alkali, depending on the ore properties. The alkali leaching process is about
10 percent more costly than acid treatment and is used in only 20 percent of US
mills. The uranium solution is then separated from the waste pulp by settling or
filtration.
Processes using ion-exchange and anionic solvents -- which "pull" the uranium
from the solution -- have yielded cost savings. The uranium is stripped from the
solvent or resin, precipitated and dried in a kiln, and calcined in a furnace into
uranium concentrate containing about 80 percent U308 equivalent.
New Techniques
The uranium industry has greatly benefited from advances in mineral
extraction technology, although signs of diminishing returns are beginning to appear.
Some new techniques can slow the rise of uranium processing costs: for example,
better low-profile mining equipment that increases the efficiency of extraction in
deep mines. At the mill, better crushing machinery cuts costs. Strong acid leaching is
utilized for treating complex ores; bacterial leaching applied to bulk ore stocks may
make treatment of very low grade ores economical.
Responding to environmental concerns will offset some of these cost savings.
At present, reclamation of open pit mine sites -- regrading dumps, covering with
topsoil, and reseeding - adds about two cents per pound to U308 production costs.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Stiffer rules can add as much as 10 percent to costs where ore grade averages
0.15 percent -- the worldwide norm. In addition, pollution control at the mill
could increase production costs by another 2 percent. Nonetheless, the impact of
environmental restrictions on nuclear generating costs is small compared with that
of controls on mining and burning coal.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
3. URANIUM CONVERSION TO HEXAFLUORIDE
Following the concentration of uranium ore, the metal must be converted to a
form suitable for enrichment. The primary techniques now used to enrich uranium
require that the uranium be processed in a gaseous state. Because uranium
hexafluoride (UF6) is the only volatile compound of uranium, a hexafluoride
conversion step is needed in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Technique
Uranium concentrate (yellowcake) usually contains the equivalent of 80 percent
or more U308. In addition to converting the uranium to a gaseous feedstock (UF6)
for the enrichment plant, the conversion process removes almost all remaining
impurities from the product. Conversion and purification is accomplished by one of
two techniques. In the older, "wet" process, uranium is extracted by solvents from a
slurry formed from the uranium concentrate. The product, orange oxide (U03), is
calcined and passed on for conversion to UF6. The new hydrofluor or "dry" process
first converts the concentrate to UF6 and then purifies the product by fractional
distillation. Both purification processes produce the same product and are used
about equally in the United States. The wet process, however, produces more
wastes, mostly in liquid form, and is somewhat more costly. The dry process
produces mainly gaseous and solid wastes. Most new facilities will use the "dry"
process.
The fluoride conversion step, whether performed first or last, is almost
identical in the two processes. The uranium concentrate or the orange oxide product
of the wet purification process is reduced to uranium dioxide (U02) by reacting it
with hydrogen and nitrogen gases. Hydrogen fluoride gas is then introduced to
produce "green salt" (UF4).
In a final and generally separate step, the green salt is reacted with fluorine gas
to produce the volatile enrichment plant feedstock uranium hexafluoride. This last
process is sometimes accomplished at the enrichment plant site.
Free World Facilities
At present, six commercial uranium hexafluoride conversion plants are
operating in the Free World-two each in France and the United States and one each
10
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Hydrofluorination Processes
Solid Wastes
Buried
I
UF6 Product
HF J ydrofluonnati n~OOnden
sation
UFq Dilute HF-
to Recovery
Atmosphere
11
HNO3 Recovery
Treatment
Liquid Waste
Co1c1`rap
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
in Great Britain and Canada. The two French plants work together as a single
operation to perform the entire hexafluorination process.
The commercial plants in France are located at Malvesi and Pierrelatte. They
are run by Comurhex, a branch of Cogema, the public corporation created by the
French atomic energy commission to manage French nuclear fuel production. As
well as supplying French users, Comurhex processes uranium concentrate for foreign
customers on a toll basis. The first steps of the conversion process resulting in
production of green salt are performed at the Malvesi facility. Conversion to
hexafluoride is done at the Pierrelatte plant. The capacity of the two-plant system is
now 8,000tons annually and is scheduled for expansion to 11,000 tons in 1978.
The United Kingdom's only plant, run by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL), is
located at Springfields. Annual conversion capacity at present is 8,000 tons. Foreign
customers are served on a toll basis.
In Canada, Eldorado Nuclear, a federally owned company also involved in
uranium exploration and mining, runs a 5,000-ton-per-year plant at Port Hope,
Ontario. Plans call for expansion to 10,000 tons by 1980. The "dry" hydrofluor
process is used to produce green salt, which is then passed to two separate facilities
in the plant-one producing uranium metal and uranium hexafluoride, the other
making ceramic uranium dioxide fuel for use in Canada's CANDU reactors. (As
Canadian reactors use natural uranium fuel, Eldorado's UF6 conversion facilities
largely serve foreign customers, many of which have purchased Canadian uranium
concentrates.) Eldorado plans a second conversion plant and is now awaiting
approval by Canada's Atomic Energy Control Board.
In the United States, Allied Chemical runs a 14,000-ton-per-year facility in
Illinois and Kerr-McGee a 5,000-ton plant in Oklahoma. Kerr-McGee plans to
complete expansion of its plant to 10,000 tons by early 1978.
The present capacity of these six plants is sufficient to handle all the output
from Free World uranium mills-about 25,000 tons of U308 feedstock. Capacity
expansions either planned or under way will boost annual hexafluoride output by 24
percent, to 47,000 tons, by 1980-sufficient to absorb uranium mill output of about
32,000 tons per year of U308-
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
4. URANIUM ENRICHMENT
Enrichment of uranium is the most technically difficult and costly step in the
nuclear fuel cycle. Uranium as found in nature consists of several isotopes, the two
principal ones being uranium-238, which predominates, and uranium-235, the
isotope "burned" in conventional light-water reactors. Uranium enrichment
accomplishes a partial separation of these isotopes, resulting in uranium which has a
higher than natural concentration of fissionable uranium-235.
Enrichment processes are technically difficult because isotopes cannot be
separated by chemical means. The methods used must instead rely on physical
differences in mass or mass-related properties. In the case of uranium, such physical
differences are extremely small and considerable effort is necessary to achieve
separation.
Separative Work
An enrichment task can be described in terms of the physical quantities and
uranium-235 concentrations of each component of material flow in an enrichment
plant, that is, feed material, product, and waste (or tails). It is more common, and
much simpler, however, to combine this information into a single number-the
separative work unit (SWU)-by weighting the "importance" of each quantity and
assay involved. This is accomplished by the use of numerical weights that reflect the
"value" of uranium with varying concentrations of uranium-235; that is, more effort
must be expended to achieve higher levels of enrichment than lower levels.
The amount of separative work required per unit of product is determined
from the feed/product ratio (defined from the uranium-235 concentrations of each
of the material flow components involved) and the value weights described above.
The SWU, therefore, is not a unit of physical quantity but an indicator of the work
required to perform an enrichment job. The production of one kilogram (kg) of 3
percent enriched uranium (product assay: 3 percent by weight uranium-235) from
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
natural uranium feed (feed assay: 0.71 percent
uranium-235) in an enrichment plant operating at
a 0.3 percent tails assay requires 3.42 SWU, for
example. The same quantity of separative work
could also be used in the same plant to produce 2
kg of 2 percent enriched uranium or 0.65 kg of 4
percent product. Thus, the SWU can be used to
compare plant capacities or future demand for
enrichment services regardless of the uranium-235
concentrations involved.
Optimum Tails Assay
The tails assay at which the enrichment
plant operates is usually determined by the
Feed and Separative Work
Requirements for Production
of 1 Kilogram of 3 Percent
Enriched Uranium from
Natural Feed
Tails Assay
(Percent Feed
Uranium-235) (Kilograms) SWU
0.15
5.08
4.98
0.2
5.48
4.31
0.25
5.97
3.81
0.3
6.57
3.42
0.35
7.34
3.11
relationship between the cost of the uranium hexafluoride feed material and the cost
of uranium enrichment, expressed in dollars per SWU. The optimum concentration
of uranium-235 in the tails stream is based on this cost relationship. As the tails
assay
must
is lowered, less feed material is required, but the amount of separative work
be increased to achieve the same
Determination of Optimum Enrichment Plant Tails Assay
degree of product concentration. When
enrichment costs are high relative
to feed costs, more feed can be
supplied and the enrichment plant
can operate at a higher tails assay.
Conversely, if resource conserva-
tion is a goal, less feed need be
provided if the tails assay is lower.
The optimum tails concentration
is independent of the uranium-235
concentration in the product
being produced.
Technology
0.1 0.2 0.3
Optimum Tails Assay (Percent U-235)
Cost of Separative Work: $100 per SWU
Feed/Separative Work Cost Ratio; 0.5
Optimum Tails Assay: about 0.3%
uranium-235
Although numerous pro-
cesses to separate uranium iso-
topes have been proposed or dem-
onstrated, only gaseous diffusion
has so far been used on a commer-
cial scale. Ultracentrifugation, sev-
eral aerodynamic processes, and
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
laser isotope separation are under
development.
Uranium enrichment by the
gaseous diffusion process relies on
comp-=or the differences in molecular
weights of the two principal iso-
topic forms of gaseous uranium
hexafluoride. The lighter urani-
um-235 hexafluoride molecules
diffuse more rapidly through
porous membranes or "barriers"
than those of the heavier urani-
um-238 hexafluoride. The gas on
one side of the barrier that is more
heavily concentrated in urani-
um-235 is recompressed and sent
on to subsequent stages to in-
crease the uranium-235 concen-
tration. The depleted gas is recycled to extract some of the remaining uranium-235.
Plants of this type operate in the United States, the USSR, the United
Kingdom, France, and China. The three existing plants in the United States are now
being improved and uprated to a capacity of 27 million SWU per year. In Western
Europe, two small gaseous diffusion plants in the United Kingdom and France will
be supplemented by a large (10.8 million SWU per year) plant in southern France
under construction by the multinational consortium EURODIF.
Gaseous diffusion enrichment plants have huge power requirements. The three
upgraded US facilities, for example, will consume the output of 7,000 MW of
electric generating capacity annually. The EURODIF plant will have four 900-MW
nuclear reactors dedicated to supplying the plant's electricity needs. As a result of
improved designs and more efficient separation equipment, the practical limits of
efficiency are being reached. Most isotope separation research and development is
now concentrated on technologies other than gaseous diffusion.
The most technically advanced enrichment method other than gaseous
diffusion is ultracentrifugation. Considerable progress has been made in this
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
technology since its laboratory
demonstration in 1934. The prin-
cipal advantages of centrifuge en-
richment are relatively low energy
consumption (on the order of
one-tenth that of gaseous diffu-
sion) and the flexibility of plant
design. Complete centrifuge en-
richment facilities can be built on
a small scale and expanded as
necessary to meet demand,
whereas gaseous difusion plants
must have a minimum capacity for
economic operation.
and Damping
?? Assembly
In the centrifuge process,
UF6 gas is fed into thousands of Casing
interconnected cylindrical con-
tainers, each spinning at very high
speed. The centrifugal force gener-
ated by rotation forces the heavier = Rotating Battle
Bottom Scoop Armature
gas fraction, that is, that contain- Motor Winding
ing uranium-238, to the periphery
of the cylinder, while the lighter Needle and Bottom
513fi]S rn Damping Assembly
fraction remains nearer the axis.
Enriched gas moves through a
series of machines for further en-
richment. In a variation of the
basic process, countercurrent gas flow is introduced between the migrating fractions
to improve separation as the feed moves down the cylinder.
Research has concentrated on increasing the rotational speed and capacity of
machines under development. One of the interesting properties of the centrifuge
process is that separative work varies as the fourth power of rotational speed,.so a
doubling of speed theoretically would increase separation 16 times. Velocity is
limited by several factors, however, notably the mechanical strength of the materials
involved. Most development work to date has been devoted to improving machine
reliability.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Although several nations are developing centrifuges for uranium enrichment,
the only commercially operating plants are run by URENCO, a British - Dutch -
West German consortium. At present the group operates three pilot plants-German
and Dutch plants at Almelo (Netherlands) and a British plant at Capenhurst. Full
capacity of about 10 million SWU annually, equivalent to a large gaseous diffusion
plant, is planned for the mid-1980s. The United States will build an 8.8-million-SWU
centrifuge facility at Portsmouth (Ohio) in 1985.
Other uranium isotope separation processes, notably aerodynamic methods, are
also being studied. But the two of these that have reached pilot plant stage are
considered by US experts to have limited commercial potential at present because
they are large consumers of electricity. These processes include the jet nozzle
process under development in West Germany and a South African process called a
"high-performance stationary-walled centrifuge." The actual separation technique is
similar in both methods. Uranium hexafluoride in a "carrier" gas such as hydrogen is
forced to flow at high speed in a curved path creating centrifugal forces. The heavier
uranium-238 component is directed toward the outside of the curve while the lighter
fraction becomes more concentrated near the inside of the curve. The gas is then
split to form enriched and depleted streams by a "knife edge."
The most promising experimental enrichment technique is laser isotope
separation (LIS), which has large potential for energy and resource saving. In this
process laser light is used to selectively excite one isotope in uranium hexafluoride
gas or metallic uranium vapor; the excited isotope can then be separated by physical
or chemical means. Another technique uses laser light to deflect uranium-235 from a
feed stream into a collector. LIS promises to enable uranium enrichment to be
accomplished in one step. As large numbers of interconnected separations stages are
not required in this process, the concept of separative work does not apply.
However, several technical problems remain, and large-scale LIS plants are unlikely
for a least a decade.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
5. NUCLEAR FUEL FABRICATION
The final step in the processing of uranium prior to use in a nuclear reactor is
the fabrication of fuel elements, including conversion of enriched uranium
hexafluoride to uranium dioxide, mechanical processing, and final assembly. Most
Free World power reactors use slightly enriched uranium dioxide as fuel. At present,
about 30 plants in the Free World fabricate oxide fuels, of either natural or enriched
uranium.
More than one-half of operating fuel fabrication capacity is in the United
States: nine oxide plants and several others that make specialized fuels. All are
privately owned, most by reactor manufacturers rather than by uranium producers.
France, West Germany, and Italy each have four oxide fuel fabrication plants. The
German plants are privately operated, but in France and Italy, joint
government-private participation is the rule. Additional uranium oxide fabrication
capacity is located in Japan, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, India, and the United
Kingdom.
Present and planned
Free World fuel fabrication
facilities will be adequate to
meet expected demand
through the 1980s. Because
most plants are owned by
reactor manufacturers or gov-
ernment agencies, there will
be a natural tendency to keep
capacity abreast of power re-
actor expansion. In addition,
fabrication facilities are not as
expensive and construction
times are shorter than forother
processing plants, such as en-
richment facilities. The tech-
nology involved is also con-
siderably less complex.
Free World: LWR Fuel Fabrication Capacity'
Tons of Heavy Metal per Year
Planned
1975
1978
Total
5,410
7,110
United States
2,750
3,350
West Germany
670
1,000
France
200
220
Japan
910
910
Belgium
200
500
Spain
0
300
Italy
300
300
Sweden
250
400
Denmark
0
0
Netherlands
30
30
United Kingdom
100
100
Projected
1985
15,560
8,200
2,000
1,100
910
900
800
600
450
300
200
1Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1975.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
The process of making an enriched uranium oxide fuel element for a
conventional light water reactor (LWR) involves three principal steps. The enriched
uranium hexafluoride (UF6) is first converted from its gaseous state to uranium
dioxide (U02) powder. Current technology involves a single-stage dry process in
which UF6 is transformed directly to ceramic oxide by reaction with hydrogen and
steam in a kiln. The UF6-steam mixture produces uranyl fluoride that is reduced in
the kiln by hydrogen to U02 powder. The powder passes through a series of pressing
and sieving operations before being compressed into pellets. These pellets are finally
sintered to improve density and then ground to uniform size.
An older wet process, still widely used, converts UF6 into orange oxide (U03)
precipitate by reaction with water and ammonium hydroxide, prior to calcination.
The orange oxide is reduced to U02 by hydrogen. It is then dried, pelletized,
Typical Fuel Fabrication Process
Chemical Mechanical
I Reduction UO? Treatment
-Off
Gases
Hydrolysis
Vaporization
Liquid waste
treatment
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
sintered, and ground. This process is more expensive than the dry technique and will
likely be phased out as new facilities are built.
The uranium dioxide pellets are stacked in a thin-walled metallic sheath of
stainless steel or, more commonly, zircaloy as cladding material. Helium is then
introduced into the tubes to assure thermal conductivity, and the tube ends are
capped and welded shut. The tubes are arranged in a grid made to fit the reactor in
which the fuel will be used. Hundreds of such fuel elements held into position by
grid plates in the reactor vessel constitute the reactor core.
Despite the relatively simple processes used, fabrication of nuclear fuel is highly
precise. Cladding material must be of high grade not only to resist corrosion,
withstand extremely high temperatures, and contain radioactive fission products,
but it must be free of materials which could hinder the chain reaction by absorbing
neutrons. Precision machinery is also :required to produce uniformly thin tube walls
that allow efficient heat transfer without "hot spots." Tube arrangement in the grid
must also be exact to mate properly with the reactor and to ensure adequate coolant
flow through the core.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
6. URANIUM RESOURCES IN THE FREE WORLD
The Free world has more than enough uranium to supply all foreseeable needs
for nuclear energy production, probably at least through the end of this century.
Shortages of nuclear fuel are much more likely to result from insufficient capacity in
particular fuel cycle operations, such as ore concentration, uranium enrichment, or
fuel reprocessing than from inadequacy of the uranium resource base.
Uranium is one of the more abundant minerals in the earth's crust and is also
found in sea water. It occurs in about the same proportion as tungsten,
molybdenum, cobalt, and lead and is more plentiful than such industrially important
metals as cadmium, mercury, silver, and gold. Of known uranium reserves in the
Free World, about three-fourths is in the United States, Canada, South Africa, and
Australia. Large additional reserves may be found with more extensive exploration.
Uranium reserves are classified according to recovery cost categories. Prices for
uranium recently have moved up sharply enough to adequately cover exploitation of
all reported reserves. In the broadest reserve category - recoverable at $30 or less
per pound of U30 8 content - about 1.8 million tons of uranium metal is considered
reasonably assured, with an additional 1.7 million tons believed to exist in
surrounding strata or nearby areas.
Uranium exists in numerous compounds. The high solubility of uranium
compounds and ability of uranium to join with other elements result in its being
found in combination with as many as 200 other minerals - frequently gold,
copper, or vanadium. Thus, uranium is often a byproduct of the production of
other minerals. In South Africa, for example, most uranium is produced as a residual
in gold mining operations.
Because some uranium compounds are soluble, they migrate in ground water,
concentrate, and then reprecipitate. The precipitate uranium is deposited either
in veins within rock fractures - in which case it is commonly known as
pitchblende - or in tabular masses in porous rock such as sandstone. Many
uranium-bearing ores contain carbon substances into which the uranium has been
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
absorbed or finely scattered. The presence of certain clays, silica, sulfides, and
alkalis in rocks such as granite and sandstone helps concentrate uranium into
deposits.
In areas where ground water is present, existing uranium minerals are often
leached by the water. As water action is generally responsible for low concentration
of uranium in ore bodies, exploration and mining operations are often centered
in arid areas high in silica or alkali content where water leaching is not extensive.
Geographic Distribution
The distribution of uranium deposits relates to the nature of the mineralizing
solutions, the geologic structure through which the solutions move, and the type of
rock in which the ore is deposited.
The most important reserve areas include western Canada, where rich
pitchblende veins are found along faults and adjacent fracture zones of the Great
Bear and Athabasca lake regions. Additional uranium deposits in quartz beds are
located in Ontario. The principal uranium areas in the United States are the
Colorado Plateau, the Wyoming basin, and the Texas gulf coast. The most important
area - the Colorado Plateau -- covers more than 360,000 square kilometers. Here
uranium is found impregnated in sandstones and limestone, generally at depths
of less than 245 meters. Pitchblende veins occur throughout the area but constitute
only a small portion of total deposits.
Australia's richest deposits are found in the shale, slate, and adjacent granite
regions near Darwin, Northern Territory. Uranium is also located in the
iron-titanium veins of South Australia and in the granite area near Mt. Isa in western
Queensland.
In South Africa uranium is produced by leaching the hydrocarbon slime
residues from the gold mining of the Witwatersrand conglomerates near
Johannesburg. Namibia is gearing up to exploit uranium-bearing sandstone deposits,
which reportedly account for 5% of Free World reserves. Veins of pitchblende
he in overthrust faults in southern Zaire. Uranium is also found in the sandstone
areas of Gabon. Development of pitchblende veins in Zambia and the phosphate
beds of the Central African Empire could begin soon. Deposits also are found
in the sandstone and clay formations of north-central Niger and, together with
thorium, in high silica areas of southern Malagasy Republic.
European deposits are modest by comparison. Rich ores are located in vein
deposits of the Massif Central and Brittany in France. Uranium is also found in
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Free World: Uranium Resource Base'
at $30 or Less per Pound of U308
Thousand Tons of Recoverable Uranium Meta12
Reasonably
Assured
Resources
Estimated
Additional
Resources
Total
Total
1,787
1,663
3,450
United States3
523
8384
1,3614
Canada'
167
487
654
South Africa6
276
74
350
Sweden
300
0
300
Australia
237
42
279
France
55
40
95
Niger
50
30
80
Spain
23
42
65
Argentina
21
39
60
India
29
23
52
Gabon
20
10
30
Algeria
28
0
28
Other
58
38
96
1 Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1975, with re-
visions.
2One metric ton of uranium metal equals 1.3 short tons of U308.
3Excluding 70,000 tons of uranium as a possible byproduct of
phosphate and copper production.
Excluding "possible" and "speculative" resources of 1.2 million
tons.
'The category refers to price of $40 or less per lb of uranium rather
than cost of $30 or less per lb of uranium.
6Including Namibia.
1Excluding 145,000 tons uranium of additional resources in lignites
for which availability is uncertain.
the Vosges region. Veins of pitchblende occur in granite formations of the Sierra
Morena in south-central Spain as well in the Serra da Estrela in central Portugal.
Highly dispersed and less valuable shale deposits in Vastergotland and Narke
provinces in Sweden also hold uranium.
Ore Quality
Most of the known uranium reserves consist of high-quality ores. About 60%
of reserves in the Free World are considered relatively rich and extractable at costs
less than $15 per pound U308, Only in Sweden, Spain, and India are the bulk
of reserves of a lower grade.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Generally, a ton of average uranium ore yields only 1-2 kilograms of uranium
oxide (0.1%0.2% U308). A typical 1,000-MW nuclear reactor requires the uranium
from nearly 150,000 tons of such quality ore annually. Even so, comparable
coal-fired plants would consume 20 times as much coal, and overall fuel costs
for coal or oil are much greater.
Only recently has interest in the lower grade ores increased, mainly because
rapid jumps in uranium prices in the past three years have made their exploitation
justifiable. Even so, the full extent of lower grade deposits has not yet been
adequately established, because exploration has been concentrated in areas likely
to yield ore rich in uranium. Experts agree that future exploration efforts will
likely show a mix of rich and low-grade deposits similar to those already established.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
7. STRUCTURE OF THE URANIUM INDUSTRY IN THE FREE WORLD
The uranium industry - composed of exploration, mining, and milling
operations - is more fragmented and complex than most other resource industries.
Firms range from very large conglomerates, such as the United Kingdom's Rio
Tinto Zinc Corporation and South Africa's Anglo-American Corporation, with more
than 100 subsidiaries each, to small, closely held operations. Industrial
concentration is least in exploration and increases in downstream operations. Larger
firms are often vertically integrated.
Joint ventures and participation arrangements are very common in the
industry, leading to increasing industrial concentration. Smaller firms are being
linked together into larger joint projects, and large companies, by buying into several
joint projects, increase the degree of association among firms. Often this has been
necessary to provide sufficient capital for exploitation and processing. This type
of corporate behavior is most evident in Canada, Australia, and the United States.
Operations in other major producing countries are already highly centralized.
Many larger companies do not confine their operations to the country of
incorporation but are active in exploration abroad. The largest Free World
uranium-producing countries are the United States, Canada, South Africa, France,
Niger, and Gabon, which together account for 95% of total output. All of the
industrialized producing countries have domestic corporations in the field, while
developing countries rely heavily on foreign participation. In most producing nations
the government plays a role in the industry.
Private mining interests account for the bulk of production in Canada. At
least 35 companies are active in exploration. There are 13 major producing firms,
nine of which are foreign owned or controlled. All of the larger producers do
their own exploratory work. Spurred by recent uranium price increases, the industry
is expanding its exploration effort. Exploration spending this year will hit $50
million - about 40% of all expenditures for mineral exploration. Old mines and
mills are being reactivated and new ventures are being started. Many firms have
foreign participation, but government regulations may eventually limit foreign
ownership.
Among the largest mining firms are Rio Algom (a subsidiary of the
London-based Rio Tinto Zinc holding company), Denison mines, and federally
owned Eldorado Nuclear. These three companies are expected to have a production
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
capacity of about 60,000 tons of ore daily by 1985. In the mid-1960s, these were
the only uranium firms operating in Canada, and they still produce about 75%
of output.
Several other firms have entered the field in recent years. Three of the new
firms are wholly foreign owned or controlled. Amok, which has a rich reserve
in northern Saskatchewan, is jointly owned by French interests -- Motka, Pechiney,
and the Commissariat a 1'Energie Atomique. At nearby Rabbit Lake, the
Gulf-Uranerz (US-West German) joint venture operates. On the east coast, Brinex
(United Kingdom) has joined with Urangesellschaft (West Germany) to exploit
Labrador's Kitts/Michelin deposit.
Domestic companies new to the industry include Noranda Mines, a large Cana-
dian multinational, multimineral company that operates in northern Saskatchewan
as well as abroad. Noranda also controls Agnew Lake Mines (Ontario) through
Kerr Addison Mines Ltd. Also on Lake Huron is Madawaska Mines - a joint project
of Consolidated Canadian Faraday and Federal Resources (United States). The Key
Lakes deposits - perhaps Canada's richest find yet - are being exploited by
Saskatchewan Mining in conjunction with Uranerz (West Germany) and Inexco Oil
(United States).
The discoveries made by the new entrants and the scale of facilities planned
by them will probably end the older firms' domination of the industry in the
next decade. By the end of the 1980s, Canadian production could easily expand
by a factor of three, with the new firms increasing their share of the enlarged
market to 50%.
Uranium production in South Africa - the Free World's third largest
producer - is a byproduct of gold mining operations in the Transvaal and Orange
Free State. Although the state participates through lease arrangements, the industry
is privately owned. Concentration in the industry, as in all mining in South Africa,
is high and will likely remain so. Most uranium producers are organized into a
cooperative association known as the Transvaal and Orange Free State Chamber
of Mines. Among the largest companies are the Anglo-American Corporation of
South Africa, Anglo-Transvaal Consolidated, New Consolidated Goldfields, and
Rand Mines.
At present 27 mines produce uranium, which is fed to 17 ore processing plants.
The four largest mines produce nearly one-half of total output. Uranium ore is
taken to a central filtering, drying, and calcining facility at Zuurbekom from which
orange oxide (UO3) is shipped. This plant is operated by the Nuclear Fuels
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Free World: Uranium Production and Capacity'
Annual Capacity
Production
Existing
Projected
1980
Attainable
1985
19752
Free World
27,900
51,700
73,700
20,400
Australia
760
3,260
5,000
0
Canada
6,500
7,950
12,500
4,700
France
1,800
3,000
3,500
1,700
Gabon
800
1,200
1,200
800
Niger
1,200
4,000
6,000
1,200
South Africa
2,700
10,000
12,700
2,600
United States
13,500
20,000
30,000
9,000
Other
640
2,290
2,800
400
i Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1975, with revisions.
2Estimated.
Corporation of South Africa (NUFCOR), which is jointly owned by all South
African uranium producing gold mines and the seven principal mining finance
groups. NUFCOR also markets the product - 75% of which is exported - subject
to South African Atomic Energy Board controls. The remainder is stockpiled.
Neighboring Namibia is thought to have 100,000-200,000 tons of uranium
in deposits located west of Karibib. Limited mining operations have begun at Rio
Tinto's Rossing deposit - thought capable of yielding 5,000 tons of uranium
annually. A concentration plant being built by South African firms will have a
capacity of 40,000 tons of ore per day in 1978 and will be the world's largest.
The companies operating in Namibia are privately owned, but the government
retains all rights to minerals and controls licenses to mine and distribute the output.
Large South African mining conglomerates -- principally General Mining and
Finance, Johannesburg Consolidated Investment, and the Anglo-American
Corporation of South Africa - are active in the area.
Australia currently produces less than 500 tons of uranium annually. Mary
Kathleen Ltd. owns the country's only operating mine and treatment plant, in
northwestern Queensland. The firm is controlled by Conzinc Riotinto of Australia.
The mine is expected to be depleted by 1981.
The current Fraser government favors uranium development by the private
sector, including foreign participation up to 25 percent of equity. Under the
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
preceding Whitlam government (1972-75) uranium development foundered; restric-
tive energy policies banned uranium mining and exports and sought an eventual
100-percent government ownership of the industry. Soon after Fraser took office in
December 1975, the government permitted Mary Kathleen to resume mining and
instructed the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to sell off its equity holdings
in uranium projects.
The government recently approved the development of uranium projects. The
final go ahead had been delayed pending the outcome of a special environmental
inquiry. The inquiry commission's two reports, issued in October 1976 and May
1977, gave enough of a qualified okay to enable the government to decide in favor
of development.
The Northern Territory, which contains 80 percent of the country's reserves,
holds the greatest interest. The Ranger project, east of Darwin, is at a more advanced
stage of readiness than others. The developer is Ranger Uranium Mines Pty. Ltd., a
partnership between Peko Mines Ltd. and Electrolytic Zinc. Three other major
deposits have been found near the Ranger site: Koongarra, held by Noranda
Australia Ltd., a subsidiary of the Canadian firm Noranda Mines Ltd.; Jabiluka, held
by Pancontinental Mining and Getty Oil Development Co.; and Nabarlek, a
high-grade deposit held by Queensland Mines. Some of the other companies engaged
in exploration in the Northern Territory are Project Mining Corp. Ltd, Pechiney
(France), AGIP Nucleare (Italy), Magellan Petroleum (United States), and Urange-
sellschaft (German).
Exploration in other parts of the country is less intense. Queensland Mines, the
Getty-Central Coast Exploration joint venture, and the French affiliate Pechiney
Exploration are active in Queensland. Searches also are under way in South Australia
- primarily by Western Uranium - and in West Australia by Western Mining.
The Commissariat a 1'Energie Atomique (CEA), through the Compagnie
Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (Cogema) and affiliated firms, produces all
uranium in France. Cogema is a wholly owned government firm with private legal
status. Through its own departments and its principal affiliates -- Pechiney, Motka,
and Compagnie Francaise des Minerais d'Uranium (CFMU) - it controls the entire
French nuclear fuel industry. Cogema owns and operates mines in the districts
of La Crouzille, Vendee, and Forez and processing plants at Gueugnon, Bessines,
Forez, and L'Ecarpiere. Private mining operations controlled by the group are
located in the Massif-Central and Brittany. Pechiney also runs its own ore processing
facilities.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
The CEA, together with Pechiney, Motka, and CFMU, has joined the
Rothschild-controlled conglomerate Imetal and Minatome, a joint Pechiney-
Compagnie Francaise des Petroles enterprise, to control several operating companies
abroad such as Amefco in Australia and Amok in Canada.
The French group also has extensive operations in West Africa. In Niger there
are four large uranium mining consortia. The French group and the government
of Niger - which holds all mineral rights through its Bureau de Recherche et
Exploitation Miniere (BUREMI) - have major interests in all four consortia. US,
Japanese, Italian, West German, and private French companies have partial interests
in one or more of the groups. Somaire and Cominak, led by the French CEA
and its private affiliates, are the largest consortia. Through Pechiney they also
operate processing facilities. In addition to the French companies, Continental Oil
(United States), OURD (Japan), PNC (Japan), AGIP (Italy), and Urangesellschaft
(West Germany) are represented.
The government of Gabon has a 25% interest in another consortium -- the
Compagnie des Mines d'Uranium de Franceville (COMUF) - dominated by the
French CEA and the private Imetal and Minatome groups. Imetal, the Alusuisse
(Swiss) group, and the CEA together participate as majority partners with the state
in URBA - the uranium mining consortium in the Central African Empire.
By comparison, the structure of the uranium industry in the United States
is diffuse. All production is privately owned but large tracts of uranium mining
land are leased from the government. International oil companies and diversified
mining firms dominate the industry. Joint ventures are common, especially in
processing operations. Nearly half the firms are involved in domestic or foreign
joint projects.
All the major US companies operate in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,
and Utah. Of the 25 largest firms, only five have sizable domestic operations outside
this area - principally in Washington and Texas. The largest producers are
Kerr-McGee, Utah International, United Nuclear, Exxon, Phillips, Union Carbide,
and Gulf. These firms have a combined annual capacity of about 25 million pounds
U3O8 - 85% of the US total. The principal US firms with major foreign operations
are Getty (Australia), Gulf and Inexco (Saskatchewan), and Federal Resources
(Ontario).
The present diversified structure of the industry probably will continue, with
the major oil and mining companies remaining industry leaders. Recent increases in
uranium prices should benefit smaller firms in maintaining competitiveness.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Virtually all companies are heavily engaged in exploration, and most are planning
increases in production capacity through the next decade. US output is expected at
least to double by 1985.
As part of this expansion, foreign companies may intensify efforts to enter
the US industry to assure themselves a continued supply of nuclear fuel. Rio Algom,
a British-owned Canadian firm, Pechiney (France), and Urangesellschaft (West
Germany) are among those already active in the United States. Participation
agreements and joint ventures are the most likely avenues foreign firms will take
to enter the US industry.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
8. THE URANIUM MARKET
The price of nuclear fuel paid by the ultimate consumers -- the electric
utilities - is only partially determined by the price for uranium concentrate --
U308, commonly called yellowcake. About 40%-50% of "front end" nuclear fuel
cycle costs' are due to hexafluoride conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication
that transform yellowcake into finished fuel elements enriched in the fissionable
uranium isotope, uranium-235, ready for use in power reactors.
Typically, these procedures are performed or contracted for by a fuel
fabricator - often a subsidiary of a large conglomerate involved in other aspects
of the nuclear industry - or a government-owned firm. The fabricator is not usually
the agent of the utilities or mining interests but rather a separate operator filling
contracts with buyers. Conversion and enrichment of uranium concentrates are
performed on a toll basis by governmental agencies or private firms in their own
plants. With few exceptions - France being a notable one - complete vertical
integration in the nuclear fuel cycle does not exist. Likewise, no single production
stage has in the past exerted an overriding influence in determining final fuel prices.
During the last four years a complete turnaround has taken place in the market
for uranium. The buyers' market of 1973 became a sellers' market in the wake
of the OPEC price hikes. During this period prices rose sixfold. The transformation
resulted from restrictive uranium export policies, inflation, repeated changes in
terms for enrichment contracts, and intensified competition for uncertain uranium
supplies.
Prior to 1973, the price of uranium for immediate delivery was less than
$6 per pound of U3O8. Slack demand and continued drawdown of excess stocks
led to cutrate competition among producers with excess capacity. New supplies
from Namibia and Australia were expected to add to already plentiful and cheap
Canadian, South African, and French uranium. In this easy market, producer prices
barely covered costs.
The first upward pressure on prices came in 1973. The former US Atomic
Energy Commission (USAEC) announced that it would require long-term
2If estimated costs of a complete nuclear fuel cycle (spent fuel storage, transportation, fuel reprocessing, and
waste disposal) were included, uranium concentrates would represent only about 30% of total fuel costs.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
commitments for uranium enrichment services. Demand increased as large spot
purchases were made to comply with the new USAEC regulations. The supply
picture tightened further when the Whitlam government embargoed Australian
uranium exports and restricted uranium development. In South Africa, rising gold
prices made gold mining more profitable, and exports of uranium concentrates
fell off. Uranium producers, sensing the tighter market, hardened their price
demands. Concurrent with the OPEC oil embargo, prices climbed 18% to $7 per
pound.
The Price Spiral
The oil embargo and subsequent oil price hikes focused attention on the need
for alternative energy sources. Nuclear power programs were greatly expanded.
France and Canada severely restricted uranium exports to assure their own supplies.
The USAEC notified its domestic and foreign customers that tails assays would
be increased to reduce workloads on enrichment plants. Feedstocks therefore would
have to increase. It became apparent that fuel reprocessing would not be
commercially available for several years, thus eliminating the possible use of recycled
uranium and plutonium in nuclear fuel. Buyers scrambled for available supplies,
building stocks and placing long-term contracts at indexed or unspecified prices.
By yearend 1974, prices of yellowcake for immediate delivery had doubled to
more than $15 per pound.
In mid-1975, a major US firm announced to its customers (utilities in the
United States and Sweden) it could not deliver 65 million pounds of U308 covered
in existing contracts. Because a large percentage of deliveries were to be made
at the low prices quoted in these contracts rather than at higher spot prices, the
company claimed the average delivery price it would receive was not adequate
to make delivery profitable. Foreign firms have been similarly afflicted, but to
a lesser degree because of lower production costs. To obtain release from the low-
price contracts, fuel fabricators went to court, throwing the market into confusion.
The affected customers rushed to the market to secure new supplies. By December
1975, spot prices had again more than doubled to $35 per pound.
Since that time, uranium price increases have slowed, creeping to $40-$42
per pound. Average delivery prices -- as opposed to spot prices - have gradually
moved upwards as well. By 1980, most of the old low-price contracts will have
lapsed and average delivery prices will more closely follow spot prices. The growing
number of contracts at unspecified or indexed prices will ensure this.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
The uncertainties that provoked the 1973-76 uranium price spiral still persist.
The threat of potentially adverse effects of new OPEC price increases, the resurgence
of worldwide inflation, the increasing costs of mining low-grade uranium at greater
depths, and the realization that large-scale reprocessing is uncertain continue to
exert pressure on prices.
Several factors are now acting to stabilize the market. Sharp construction cost
increases for nuclear powerplants have led to cutbacks in nuclear power programs.
The new Australian government is gradually reversing restrictive policies. South
African uranium production has continued to strengthen, as gold prices have
stabilized. Output from neighboring Namibia is expected soon. Perhaps most
important is the beneficial effect higher uranium prices have had on producers,
placing them in a better position to increase production. Nevertheless, despite more
plentiful supplies and an easing of demand, expansion efforts will have to intensify
because of the long lead time (eight to 10 years) needed to bring new facilities on
line.
Need for Expansion
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that demand will rise to
80,000-100,000 tons of uranium metal per year by 1985 compared with
present production capacity of 25,000 tons per year. The recent severe cutbacks
in nuclear power programs, though, will probably hold 1985 demand to about
55,000-60,000 tons per year. Nevertheless, we estimate that expansion to this level
will require investment of $5-$6 billion (current prices) in uranium exploration,
mining, and milling. Additional funds will be needed to replace many outdated
existing facilities built in the 1950s.
Both uranium producers and consumers question whether such large
investment funds will be available. Producers frequently point to rising costs as
a major restraint on their ability to amass capital. Although yellowcake represents
only a fraction of total nuclear fuel costs, it is perhaps the most volatile component.
Yellowcake costs are mainly a function of ore quality. As ore quality drops,
production costs rise more than proportionally because larger quantities of ore
must be processed and excavation and exploration expenses involved in exploiting
low-grade, widely dispersed ores are higher. Over the last 10 years, average ore
grades in most producing nations have dropped about 40%. The resulting increased
production costs and the effect of worldwide inflation have been only partially
offset by technological improvements.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Typical Yellowcake (U3O8) Production Costs'
US $ per Pound of U308
Deep Mine
Open Pit
Deep Mine
Open Pit
Total
11.97
7.47
17.46
11.28
Exploration2
1.00
0.93
1.60
1.50
Amortization (mine and
mill-2,000 tons per day)
3.01
2.79
4.22
3.91
Mining
6.27
1.74
9.09
2.53
Milling
1.67
1.67
2.50
2.50
Reclamation3
0.02
0.34
0.05
0.84
1. Based on US experience (0.15% ore grade and 2,000 ton per day mill).
2. At 3 pounds of U308 per foot drilled;costs at 4 pounds per foot are 30 less and at 5 pounds per foot
are 40% less.
3. Moderate reclamation-severe costs are 80% higher, mild costs are 60% lower.
Effect of Ore Grade on Production Costs, 1976
US $ per Pound of U308
Operating Cost
Production Cost
Ore Grade
Percent U3O8
Deep Mine
Open Pit
Deep Mine
Open Pit
0.075
22.81
11.51
28.63
16.92
0.100
16.99
8.57
22.81
1398
0.125
13.74
6.93
19.56
12.34
0.150
11.64
5.87
17.46
11.28
0.200
8.85
4.46
14.67
9.87
0.250
7.33
3.70
13.15
9.11
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Our analysis indicates that uranium production is now becoming sufficiently
profitable to provide the funds needed for expansion. The current spot price for
uranium concentrate is about $42 per pound of U308, with delivered prices in 1976
averaging $16.10 per pound. Despite an estimated 50% increase since 1970, our
calculations indicate that production costs average less than $14 per pound' for
processing ore containing 0.15% U308.
The outlook is favorable during the next decade for increasing uranium supplies
while avoiding the massive price hikes of 1973-75. Existing producers will likely be
able to expand output without undue financial strain, and large-scale production
from new deposits in Namibia and Canada is expected by 1980. Australia is also
likely to become a major producer in the next decade. The present practice of
contracting for fuel supplies prior to nuclear powerplant construction should help
control any excess demand. If bottlenecks do occur, they will likely be at the
hexafluoride conversion or enrichment stages of the fuel cycle. Moreover, the impact
of anticipated uranium price increases on generating costs is likely to be small.
Though uranium may increase in price more rapidly than other fuels, nuclear fuel
accounts for a much smaller percentage of total generating costs than either coal or
oil.
3Assuming a 60%-40% distribution of open-pit and deep (underground) mining; this approximates the present
distribution in the United States.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
9. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR URANIUM ENRICHMENT SERVICES
World capacity to perform uranium enrichment services for nuclear power-
plants is currently about 22 million separative work units4 annually. By 1985,
capacity is slated to rise to nearly 45 million SWU per year. The United States now
operates almost all existing capacity, but by the mid-l 980s, its share will drop to less
than 70 percent of the total.
The bulk of the increase in production capacity over the next several years will
take place in Western Europe, where two multinational consortia are building
facilities. A French-led group, EURODIF, which involves Italian, Belgian, Spanish,
and Iranian participation, is constructing a 10.8 million-SWU-per-year
diffusion plant at Tricastin. This plant
is scheduled to reach full capacity by
1982. The technology is based on
improvements in equipment used by
France in its small Pierrelatte enrich-
ment plant-originally built for mili-
tary use-located adjacent to the
EURODIF facility. EURODIF, to-
gether with the French nuclear fuel
company, COGEMA, and the Atomic
Energy Organization of Iran, have
formed COREDIF, which is studying
the possibility of building another
large gaseous diffusion plant
Western Europe.
Projected 1985 Uranium
Enrichment Capacity'
Million SWU per Year
Total
44.7
United States
28.0
EURODIF (France, Italy, Belgium, Spain,
and Iran)
10.8
USSR'
3.0
United Kingdom
0,4
France
0,4
URENCO (United Kingdom, Netherlands,
and West Germany)
Excluding capacity still in planning stages.
'Capacity believed to be allocated for export sales to the
West. The capacity allocated for internal use of the USSR
and Eastern Europe is not included.
development of the ultracentrifuge process. The group involves equal participation
of the United Kingdom, West Germany, and the Netherlands. Currently operating
three pilot plants, URENCO plans an orderly expansion of its enrichment facilities
at Capenhurst (UK) and Almelo (Netherlands) including intermediate-sized
demonstration plants. The first increment of commercial enrichment capacity, about
two million SWU per year, will be available in the early 1980s. This capacity is
already fully committed by contracts, but further additions will be made as needed.
The second consortium,
URENCO, is concentrating on the
4 Excluding enrichment capacity in the USSR allocated to fulfilling internal Soviet and East
European power plant requirements.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Several other countries are planning uranium enrichment facilities, including
South Africa, Japan, and Brazil. Given the long lead time and the demand outlook,
it is unlikely that large increments of new capacity will be brought on stream before
1985. In addition to Free World suppliers, the Soviet Union apparently has allocated
a portion of its enrichment capacity-on the order of three million SWU
annually-to Western customers. The USSR already holds contracts totaling 38
million SWU, some of which run to 1990.
Because the demand for enrichment services is
closely linked to nuclear generating capacity, recent
developments in the nuclear industry have outdated
most enrichment demand projections. Financial con-
straints, reduced projections of electricity demand,
and environmental and safety concerns continue to
hamper nuclear power development. In December
1975, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the
International Atomic Energy Agency were forecasting
generating capacity in 1985 at about 500,000 MW
and projecting annual enrichment demand at 57
million to 65 million SWU. A March 1977 estimate of
the International Energy Agency projects world
nuclear capacity at only slightly more than 300,000
MW in 1985, with enrichment demand at 42.5 million
SWU. Present and planned enrichment capacity
should be adequate to meet requirements through the
mid-1980s, if all projects now under construction or
planned are completed on schedule.
By the early 1990s, however, demand for
enrichment services could approach 70 million SWU
Projected Nuclear
Electric Generating
Capacity, Yearend
Thousand MW
1976 88
1980 164
1985 312
Projected Supply and Demand
for Uranium Enrichment
Services
Million SWU
Supply
Demand
1976
21.9
12.4
1977
22.2
14.1
1978
25.1
16.1
1979
29.2
19.8
1980
36.6
21.6
1981
41.4
24.7
1982
42.3
27.3
1983
42.3
31.1
1984
42.3
35.1
1985
44.7
42.5
per year-roughly three times present capacity. A switch to higher enrichment plant
tails assays would reduce the amount of separative work required to produce the
equivalent amount of enriched uranium, but would increase the need for uranium
enrichment plant feed (concentrates), effectively transferring the pressure to that
part of the industry. Because of the lead time of five to 10 years needed to complete
new enrichment plants, the planning of additional capacity must begin fairly soon.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Even so, the uncertainty associated with nuclear power development will probably
continue to cloud the enrichment market picture. Many firms are reluctant to
commit themselves to plants that may not be needed or would be subject to
obsolescence by technological developments.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
10. NUCLEAR ENERGY PROSPECTS IN THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN 1985
Projections of nuclear electric generating capacity in the developed countries
continue to be revised downward. The International Energy Agency (lEA) now
places OECD nuclear capacity in 1985 at only 253,000 megawatts (MW), down
sharply from the OECD projection of 314,500 MW published in its World Energy
Outlook (January 1977). CIA now projects 233,500 MW, the annual equivalent of
6.2 million b/d of oil.
The latest estimates for the developed countries as a whole are 58 percent
below those made seven years ago and, more importantly, almost 100,000 MW
below last year's projections. Many countries now realize that earlier estimates were
unrealistic, and even "official" government targets have been cut. Japan, which had
projected 49,000 MW of capacity in 1985, has lowered its goal to 27,000 to 33,000
OECD Countries
Projections of 1985 Nuclear Generating Capacity by -
Date of Estimates
563
Other
Sap
1970
Aug
1973
Dec
1975
Aug
1976
Jan
1977
May
1977
Jun
1977
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
MW. In a recent meeting of European Community ministers, West Germany
projected its nuclear capability at 25,000 to 30,000 MW-down from 38,000 MW
projected in 1976. We estimate 1985 nuclear capacity in these countries at 23,000
MW and 20,000 MW, respectively.
As with previous downward revisions, explanatory factors include (a) lower
forecasts of total electricity demand and hence less need for electric power stations
of all types and (b) the inability of electric utilities to raise capital for new
construction, a situation aggravated by the rapidly increasing cost of nuclear plants.
These reductions, however, are increasingly attributable to noneconomic
factors, notably the growing public debate about the efficacy and desirability of
using nuclear energy on a large scale. The IEA's Nuclear Sub-Group of the Standing
Group on Long Term Cooperation, responsible for evaluating member countries'
nuclear goals, observed that the debate has now expanded from simply "questioning
the desirability of constructing nuclear power stations to questioning the
reprocessing and waste management aspects of the fuel cycle and has involved
political parties and governments to an even greater degree than in previous years."
This debate has delayed nuclear powerplant construction and the development of
fuel cycle policies. Indeed, several European countries may be faced with
government or parliamentary decisions to halt or prevent the start of nuclear energy
development.
We are apparently approaching an effective lower limit on capacity estimates.
In the past, most projection cutbacks occurred in capacity still in the planning stage.
Now, with 93 percent of projected nuclear capacity already in operation or under
construction, significant cutbacks are less likely. Nevertheless, further setbacks in
nuclear energy production having a variety of new causes are possible. For ex-
ample, a curtailment of planned fuel reprocessing could cause a shortage of spent
fuel storage capacity, and ensuing reactor shutdowns would have a potentially
greater impact upon nuclear power generation than delays in new plant
construction.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Only four nuclear power reactors for export were ordered from international
suppliers in 1976, a period of rising prices, declining forecasts of future electricity
demand, and increasing public debate over the safety and environmental impact of
nuclear plants. Although no new orders have been placed so far this year, prospects
are brighter for the next 12 months or so.
Since the first nuclear power reactors were sold outside supplying countries in
the mid-1950s, a total of 119 export orders or letters of intent have been placed
throughout the world, 67 of them with the US companies Westinghouse and
General Electric. These sales represent 76,000 megawatts-nearly equivalent to total
world nuclear generating capacity at yearend 1976. The US position in the market
has declined in recent years, with 59 percent of all orders placed during 1973-76
going to foreign firms. Prior to 1973, foreign suppliers were able to win only
one-third of all export orders.
Chronology of Nuclear Powerplant Export Orders
Before
Total
1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Total
119
43
4
12
9
13
19
15
4
Westinghouse
37
13
0
8
3
2
6
5
0
General Electric
30
14
2
2
4
3
2
2
1
Atomenergoexport
26
8
2
1
2
4
3
5
1
Kraftwerk Union
9
2
0
1
0
1
2
3
0
Framatome
6
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
AECL
4
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
ASEA-Atom
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Other
5
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
The Changing Market
The structure of the nuclear power plant export market has changed radically
since 1972. Several countries have developed the ability to compete with US firms
on a large scale, not only because of intensified domestic research and development
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
and transfers of US technology through licensing arrangements, but also because of
their ability in many cases to offer very favorable financing or package deals. In
several instances, both General Electric and Westinghouse lost contracts despite low
bids.
The large markets in Western Europe and Japan have largely been captured by
local suppliers, and, with the possible exceptions of Spain, Italy, and Scandinavia,
the nuclear export market is now confined to the less developed countries. Of the 25
export orders that may be awarded in the next year or so, more than half are
expected from LDCs.
Competing with US firms for business abroad are six companies: one each in
Canada, France, Sweden, and the USSR and two in West Germany. Only two are
licensees of US technology. Stagnation in domestic ordering is causing suppliers to
look more and more to the export market in order to maintain employment and
earnings.
Key International Suppliers
Framatome is the French licensee of Westinghouse and manufactures a
pressurized water reactor (PWR). The majority shareholder is the French steel
company, Creusot-Loire. Minority interests are held by the French Atomic Energy
Commission (30 percent), Westinghouse (15 percent), and the Empain-Schneider
group (4 percent). Framatome, the sole builder of conventional nuclear power plants
in France since the industry was reorganized in 1975, is aiming at the development
of a 1,300-megawatt PWR system of its own design when its license agreement with
Westinghouse runs out in 1982. Its most recent order, for two reactors in South
Africa, came in 1976 after intense competition with West Germany and a
US-Dutch-Swiss consortium. It is actively trying to sell more reactors abroad and
appears likely to gain orders for at least two units in South Korea and possibly one
in Pakistan in the near future.
Kraftwerk Union (KWU) began as a joint venture of the West German firms
Siemens and AEG-Telefunken. It was formed in 1969 for the purpose of marketing
complete fossil-fueled and nuclear power stations and associated components. In
January 1977, AEG dropped out of KWU with Siemens picking up its 50-percent
share. Although originally a Westinghouse licensee, KWU now sells PWR systems of
its own design. Since its formation-prior to 1969, Siemens sold a reactor to
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Nuclear Powerplant Export Orders'
Supplier
Unit Name and Type2
Capacity
(Megawatts
Electrical
Net)
Country
Ordered
Oper-
ation
Status
ASEA-Atom
Olkiluoto-1 (BWR)
660
Finland
1973
1979
U/C3
(Sweden)
Olkiluoto-2 (BWR)
660
Finland
1974
1980
U/C
Atomenergoexport
Rheinsberg (PWR)
70
East Germany
1956
1966
Oper. 4
(USSR)
Greifswald-1 (PWR)
408
East Germany
1965
1974
Oper.
Greifswald-2 (PWR)
408
East Germany
1965
1975
Oper.
Paks-1 (PWR)
408
Hungary
1967
1980
U/C
Paks-2 (PWR)
408
Hungary
1967
1981
U/C
Kozloduy-1 (PWR)
408
Bulgaria
1967
1974
Oper.
Kozloduy-2 (PWR)
408
Bulgaria
1967
1975
Oper.
Loviisa-l (PWR)
408
Finland
1969
1977
Oper.
Bohunice-1 (PWR)
408
Czechoslovakia
1970
1978
U/C
Bohunice-2 (PWR)
408
Czechoslovakia
1970
1979
U/C
Loviisa-2 (PWR)
408
Finland
1971
1979
U/C
Pukovany-1 (PWR)
408
Czechoslovakia
1972
1980
U/C
Dukovany-2 (PWR)
408
Czechoslovakia
1972
1981
U/C
Greifswald-3 (PWR)
408
East Germany
1973
1978
U/C
Greifswald4 (PWR)
408
East Germany
1973
1979
U/C
Kozloduy-3 (PWR)
408
Bulgaria
1973
1980
U/C
Kozloduy4 (PWR)
408
Bulgaria
1973
1980
U/C
Magdeburg-1 (PWR)
408
East Germany
1974
1980
U/C
Magdeburg-2 (PWR)
408
East Germany
1974
1980
U/C
Zarnowieckie-1 (PWR)
408
Poland
1974
NA'
Planned
Paks-3 (PWR)
408
Hungary
1975
NA
Planned
Paks-4 (PWR)
408
Hungary
1975
NA
Planned
Olt (PWR)
408
Romania
1975
NA
Planned
Cienfuegos-1 (PWR)
408
Cuba
1975
NA
Planned
Cienfuegos-2 (PWR)
408
Cuba
1975
NA
Planned
Zarnowieckie-2 (PWR)
408
Poland
1976
NA
Planned
Atomic Energy of
Rajasthan-1 (PHWR)
200
India
1963
1972
Oper.
Canada Limited
Rajasthan-2 (PHWR)
200
India
1967
1978
U/C
Wolsung-l (PHWR)
629
South Korea
1973
1982
U/C
Rio Tercero (PHWR)
600
Argentina
1973
1981
U/C
Babcock-Brown
Remerschen (PWR)
1,247
Luxembourg
1974
NA
Planned
Boveri Reaktor
(West Germany)
Canadian General
Kanupp (PHWR)
1965
1972
Oper.
Electric
Framatome
Tihange-2 (PWR)
910
Belgium
1974
1980
U/C
(France)
Doel-3 (PWR)
910
Belgium
1974
1980
U/C
Iran-3 (PWR)
900
Iran
1974
1983
U/C
Iran4 (PWR)
900
Iran
1974
1984
U/C
Koeburg-1 (PWR)
922
South Africa
1976
1982
U/C
Koeburg-2 (PWR)
922
South Africa
1976
1983
U/C
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Nuclear Powerplant Export Orders'
(Continued)
Supplier
Unit Name and Type2
Capacity
(Megawatts
Electrical
Net)
Country
Ordered
Oper-
ation
Status
The General
Tokai-1 (Magnox)
159
Japan
1960
1966
Oper.
Electric Co. (UK)
General Electric
Kahl VAK (BWR)
15
West Germany
1958
1960
Oper.
(US)
Tokai JDPR-2 (BWR)
10
Japan
NA
1963
Oper.
Garigliano (BWR)
150
Italy
1959
1964
Oper.
Gundremmingen (BWR)
237
West Germany
1962
1967
Oper.
Dodewaard (BWR)
52
Netherlands
1963
1969
Oper.
Tarapur-1 (BWR)
.190
India
1963
1969
Oper.
Tarapur-2 (BWR)
:190
India
1963
1969
Oper.
Garona (BWR)
440
Spain
1965
1971
Oper.
Tsuruga-1 (BWR)
340
Japan
1965
1970
Oper.
Fukushima-1 (BWR)
439
Japan
1966
1971
Oper.
Muehleberg (BWR)
306
Switzerland
1966
1972
Oper.
Fukushima-2 (BWR)
760
Japan
1967
1974
Oper.
Caorso (BWR)
800
Italy
1969
1977
U/C
Chin-shan-1 (BWR)
604
Taiwan
1969
1978
U/C
Chin-shan-2 (BWR)
604
Taiwan
1970
1979
U/C
Kaiseraugst (BWR)
925
Switzerland
1970
NA
Planned
Fukushima-6 (BWR)
1,100
Japan
1971
1979
U/C
Tokai-2 (BWR)
1,100
Japan
1971
1978
U/C
Laguna Verde-1 (BWR)
654
Mexico
1972
1982
U/C
Leibstadt (BWR)
942
Switzerland
1972
1982
U/C
Kuo-sheng-1 (BWR)
951
Taiwan
1972
1980
U/C
Kuo-sheng-2 (BWR)
951
Taiwan
1972
1981
U/C
Laguna Verde-2 (BWR)
654
Mexico
1973
1983
U/C
Cofrentes (BWR)
930
Spain
1973
1981
U/C
Montalto di Castro-I (BWR)
982
Italy
1973
1983
U/C
Montalto di Castro-2 (BWR)
982
Italy
1974
1984
U/C
Graben (BWR)
1,140
Switzerland
1974
NA
Planned
Valdecaballeros-1 (BWR)
977
Spain
1975
NA
Planned
Valdecaballeros-2 (BWR)
977
Spain
1975
NA
Planned
Santillan (BWR)
970
Spain
1976
NA
Planned
Groupement Con-
Vandellos-1 (GCR)
480
Spain
1967
1972
Oper.
structeurs
Francais
Kraftwerk Union
Atucha-1 (PHWR)
319
Argentina
1968
1974
Oper.
(West Germany)
Borssele (PWR)
450
Netherlands
1969
1973
Oper.
Tullnerfeld (BWR)
692
Austria
1971
1978
U/C
Goesgen-Daeniken (PWR)
920
Switzerland
1973
1979
U/C
Bushehr-I (PWR)
1,196
Iran
1974
1981
U/C
Bushehr-2 (PWR)
1,196
Iran
1974
1982
U/C
Angra-dos-Reis-2 (PWR)
1,245
Brazil
1975
1983
U/C
Angra-dos-Reis-3 (PWR)
1,245
Brazil
1975
1984
U/C
Trillo-1 (PWR)
990
Spain
1975
1982
U/C
The Nuclear Power
Latina (Magnox)
200
Italy
1958
1964
Oper.
Group (UK)
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Nuclear Powerplant Export Orders'
(Continued)
Capacity
(Megawatts
Electrical
Oper-
Supplier
Unit Name and Type2
Net)
Country
Ordered
ation
Status
Westinghouse (US)
Mol BR-3 (PWR)
10
Belgium
1956
1962
Oper.
Trino Vercellese (PWR)
247
Italy
1958
1965
Oper.
Chooz SENA (PWR)
270
France
1961
1967
Oper.
Jose Cabrera (PWR)
153
Spain
1964
1968
Oper.
Beznau-1 (PWR)
350
Switzerland
1965
1969
Oper.
Kori-1 (PWR)
564
South Korea
1965
1977
Oper.
Mihama-1 (PWR)
320
Japan
1966
1970
Oper.
Beznau-2 (PWR)
350
Switzerland
1967
1972
Oper.
Ringhals-2 (PWR)
822
Sweden
1968
1975
Oper.
Doel-1 (PWR)
390
Belgium
1969
1975
Oper.
Doel-2 (PWR)
390
Belgium
1969
1976
Oper.
Tihange-1 (PWR)
870
Belgium
1969
1975
Oper.
Takahama-1 (PWR)
781
Japan
1969
1974
Oper.
Angra-dos-Reis-1 (PWR)
626
Brazil
1971
1979
U/C
Ohi-1 (PWR)
1,122
Japan
1971
1978
U/C
Chi-2 (PWR)
1,122
Japan
1971
1978
U/C
Almaraz-1 (PWR)
902
Spain
1971
1977
U/C
Almaraz-2 (PWR)
902
Spain
1971
1979
U/C
Lemoniz-1 (PWR)
902
Spain
1971
1978
U/C
Lemoniz-2 (PWR)
902
Spain
1971
1980
U/C
Ringhals-3 (PWR)
900
Sweden
1971
1979
U/C
Ringhals-4 (PWR)
900
Sweden
1972
1979
U/C
Asco-1 (PWR)
902
Spain
1972
1979
U/C
Asco-2 (PWR)
902
Spain
1972
1980
U/C
Krsko (PWR)
615
Yugoslavia
1973
1980
U/C
ENEL-5 (PWR)
952
Italy
1973
NA
Planned
Doe1-4 (PWR)
1,006
Belgium
1974
NA
Planned
Tihange-3 (PWR)
1,006
Belgium
1974
1983
U/C
ENEL-7 (PWR)
952
Italy
1974
NA
Planned
Kori-2 (PWR)
605
South Korea
1974
1983
U/C
TPC-5 (PWR)
907
Taiwan
1974
1983
U/C
TPC-6 (PWR)
907
Taiwan
1974
1984
U/C
Bagac-1 (PWR)
626
Philippines
1975
1982
U/C
Vandellos-2 (PWR)
1,000
Spain
1975
1982
U/C
Sayago-1 (PWR)
1,000
Spain
1975
NA
Planned
Escatron-1 (PWR)
1,200
Spain
1975
NA
Planned
Escatron-2 (PWR)
1,200
Spain
1975
NA
Planned
' Firm orders or letters of intent.
2PWR (pressurized water reactor); BWR (boiling water reactor); PHWR (pressurized heavy water or CANDU reactor); and GCR (gas-cooled
reactor).
3U/C: under construction.
Oper.-operational.
5NA-not available or not applicable.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Argentina-KWU has built or is building reactors in West Germany, Austria, Brazil,
Iran, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland. Although it has been two years since
KWU has received a nuclear powerplant order, either domestic or export, the
company will provide six more units to Brazil as part of the comprehensive
agreement between Bonn and Brasilia. Largely as a result of the Brazilian orders and
the two plants KWU is now building in Iran, the company reported the first profit in
its eight-year history in 1976. KWU is bidding for additional orders in Spain and has
had extensive contacts with Nigeria and Portugal. For the foreign market, KWU has
developed standardized nuclear plant designs for 600-, 900-, and 1,300-megawatt
reactors and is developing a 100- to 300-megawatt, dual-purpose (water
desalinization and electricity production) system particularly suited to less
developed countries. In this regard, KWU is in an advantageous position, as no other
reactor manufacturer (US or foreign) has such a comprehensive capability at present.
Babcock-Brown Boveri Reaktor (BBR) was founded in 1971 to adapt the PWR
system of Babcock and Wilcox (US) to West German and European market
requirements. Babcock and Wilcox and its German subsidiary control 74 percent of
BBR, with the remainder belonging to Brown, Boveri, and Company of Switzerland.
With the exception of an order for a large PWR in Luxembourg, construction of
which has not yet begun, BBR's activities are concentrated in West Germany.
ASEA-Atom is jointly owned by the Swedish electrical firm Allmanna Svenska
Elektriska Aktiebolaget (ASEA) and the Swedish government. It markets boiling
water reactor (BWR) systems of its own design, and is, with KWU, one of only two
manufacturers of light water reactors in the Free World not under license by a US
company. In addition to five reactors in operation and two under construction in
Sweden, ASEA-Atom has landed export orders for two reactors in Finland and has
actively bid on plants elsewhere in Europe.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), wholly owned by the Canadian
government, formed its Nuclear Power Plant Division in 1958. Its principal activity
is the engineering and constructing of reactors of the CANDU (Canadian
deuterium-uranium) design which utilize natural uranium fuel. The technical
designation for the CANDU system is pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR)
because the reactor uses heavy water (deuterium oxide, D20) instead of ordinary or
light water as moderator and coolant. AECL is actively marketing overseas a
600-megawatt version of its CANDU reactor, several of which are now being built in
Canada. Despite its advantages (natural rather than enriched fuel, on-line reloading,
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
and high reliability), AECL is building only two reactors overseas, one each in
Argentina and South Korea. The firm lost the opportunity for a second unit in
South Korea because of lack of Canadian financing but may receive another order
from Argentina.
Atomenergoexport (AEE) is the export arm of the Soviet nuclear power
industry. Together with its predecessor, Technopromexport, it has sold 26 reactors
abroad, all but two to Communist countries. The standard product is the so-called
VVER-440 pressurized water reactor. Technical plans and major reactor components
are supplied by the USSR, with the receiving country providing additional
equipment such as turbine-generators. Although the Soviets want to market a
1,000-megawatt PWR, potential customers are waiting to see how this reactor
performs in the Soviet Union; the first is due on line at Novovoronezh in 1978. AEE
has never actually competed with Western reactor suppliers for orders either in
Eastern Europe or elsewhere, except with Sweden's ASEA-Atom for its Finnish
contracts.
Potential Near-Term Nuclear Powerplant Export Orders
Country
Unit Name and Type
Capacity
(Megawatts)
Likely
Suppliers
Argentina
Atucha-2 (PHWR)
AECL
Brazil
Undetermined (PWR)
1,200
Kraftwerk Union
Undetermined (PWR)
1,200
Kraftwerk Union
Egypt
Sidi Krier (PWR)
600
Westinghouse
Finland
Loviisa-3 (PWR)
1,000
Atomenergoexport
Greece
Undetermined (PWR/BWR)
600
Undetermined
Iran
Isfahan-1 (PWR)
1,200
Kraftwerk Union
Isfahan-2 (PWR)
Nitzamin-1 (PWRJBWR)
1,200
960
or US supplier
US supplier
Nitzamin-2 (PWR/BWR)
960
US supplier
Libya
Undetermined (PWR)
400-600
French or Soviet supplier
Nigeria
Undetermined (PWR)
600
Kraftwerk Union
Pakistan
Chasma (PWR)
600
Framatome
Philippines
Bagac-2 (PWR)
600
Westinghouse
Portugal
Ferrol (PWR)
600-1,000
Kraftwerk Union
South Korea
Wolsung-2 (PWR/PHWR)
600
Framatome or AECL
Kori-3 (PWR)
900
Framatome or Combustion
Kori-4 (PWR)
900
Engineering (US)
Regodola (PWR/BWR)
900
Undetermined
Trillo-2 (PWR)
1,000
Kraftwerk Union
Vandellos-3 (PWR)
1,000
Westinghouse
Sayago-2 (PWR)
1,000
Westinghouse
Thailand
Sri Racha (PWR/BWR)
600
Westinghouse or GE
Turkey
Akkuyu (PWR/BWR)
600
Undetermined
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
US firms may retain about half of the export market for nuclear powerplants
over the next several years, despite increased competition from foreign reactor
suppliers. Once agreements for cooperation are approved, US companies are virtually
assured of orders from Egypt and Israel. Westinghouse appears likely to sign more
contracts with Spain and possibly the Philippines. South Korea reportedly is
interested in picking up two units recently canceled by a US utility, and US firms
are in the running for first plants in Greece, Thailand, and Turkey. Nonetheless, the
US position as the major export supplier has been permanently eroded. In addition
to stronger competition, continued delays in the granting of export licenses for
nuclear reactors, components, and fuel have further weakened the position of US
firms.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
12. NUCLEAR PLANT PERFORMANCE: SOME IMPROVEMENT IN 1977
Not only are projections of future nuclear electric generating capacity being
revised downward, but the performance of nuclear plants already in operation
continues to fall well below expectations. During the first five months of 1977, the
average plant capacity factor for all Free World power reactors 200 MW and larger
was 63.5 an improvement from 59.6% in 1976 but considerably below the
70%-80% considered technically feasible on a sustained basis.
Plant capacity factor is the ratio of the average power load of an electric
powerplant to its rated capacity. A 1,000 MW plant could produce 8.76 billion
kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year if operated continuously, but refueling, repairs, and
the like rarely make this possible. If such a plant actually produced 5 billion kWh
during one year, its capacity factor would be 57.1%.
Capacity factors for the three major reactor types in operation and under
construction (pressurized water reactor, boiling water reactor, and CANDU or
pressurized heavy water reactor) have not been appreciably different in recent
years. Most of the variations can be explained by unusual circumstances at particular
plants, which have tended to distort individual reactor type averages. After a
relatively poor performance in 1975, the PHWR demonstrated a higher capacity
factor in 1976, primarily because of its on-line refueling capability but its record so
far in 1977 has not been as good. The time required for annual inspection,
maintenance, and refueling of a light water reactor (PWR or BWR) is normally about
six weeks and necessitates the shutdown of the plant. This action reduces the
theoretically attainable annual capacity factor for these plants to 88.5%.
Percent
Number
of Units
Percent
Number
of Units
Percent
Number
of Units
Percent
Number
of Units
1973
58.1
16
61.4
19
78.6
4
58.2
59
1974
56.2
24
50.3
20
73.9
5
56.1
69
1975
65.3
36
46.1
32
63.8
7
56.9
96
1976
60.5
46
56.1
35
82.4
7
59.6
109
19773
65.1
52
59.6
39
73.0
8
63.5
122
Including only reactors 200 MW and larger that were in commercial service for the entire year indicated.
2Including reactor types other than those shown.
3First five months only.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Nuclear powerplants continue to be plagued by a variety of problems, most
of which are also associated with conventional thermal power stations. Recent
problems include vibration and resulting damage in turbines; generator malfunctions;
leakage or corrosion in pumps, valves, and associated piping; and foreign objects
in cooling water supplies. Unusual factors, such as the fire at a large US plant
and the discovery of structural defects in a West German reactor, further exacerbate
the poor performance record of nuclear plants. Nontechnical problems also are
becoming more prevalent. Several reactors undergoing extensive modifications owing
to revisions in regulatory requirements are licensed for operation at only partial
power, and legal actions by environmental groups are restricting output from a
number of plants.
The introduction of larger and presumably more efficient nuclear units in
recent years has so far failed to improve overall performance averages. Although
Free World: Plant Capacity Factors
for Large Power Reactors'
Capacity
(MW Gross) 1974 1975 1976 19772
United States
Zion-1 (PWR) 1,0853
Zion-2 (PWR) 1,085 3
Browns Ferry-I (BWR)5 1,098
Browns Ferry-2 (BWR)s 1,098
Browns Ferry-3 (BWR) 1,098
Peach Bottom-2 (BWR) 1,098
Peach Bottom-3(BWR) 1,098
Cook-1 (PWR) 1,060
Indian Point-3 (PWR) 1,005
West Germany
Biblis-A (PWR)6
42.7
4 7
A
7
51,6 65.5
3Reactor power limited to 85% of rated capacity by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission because
-4 ?f 11
f
'Reacctors larger than 1,000 MW.
2First five months only.
is are_ ust-o
-a-kmd.
4 Reactor not in service for the entire year.
5 Reactor out of servicefor 17 months following a fire in the third unit under construction.
6Reactor out of service for four months following the discovery of structural problems in
plant
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
55.1 51.7 85.8
53.8 52.7 41.4
14.7 14.0 76.8
15.2 16.7 78.9
4 4 15.2
55.1 60.1 52.3
57.3 65.2 22.4
4 760
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
operating experience with large power reactors is extremely limited (only 10
reactors larger than 1,000 MW were in service for the period January-May 1977),
preliminary indications are that little improvement can be expected in the near
future. Moreover, the increase in plant performance as a result of "aging-in,"
i.e., improving capacity factor after several years' operation, has yet to be
demonstrated at most facilities. Between 1973 and 1975, only 19% of Free World
power reactors in service three years or longer showed a consistent improvement
in capacity factor.
A considerable loss in energy output results from operation well below maximum
attainable levels. If installed nuclear generating capacity in the Free World (about
73,000 MW at yearend 1976) had operated at a 75% plant capacity factor in 1976
rather than about 60%, the net addition to energy supply would have been equivalent
to 480,000 barrels per day (b/d) of oil. At projected capacity levels in 1980 (about
150,000 MW) the impact of poor performance would be much greater-nearly 1
million b/d of oil equivalent.
The arguments in favor of increased use of nuclear energy to reduce import
dependence of the major oil-consuming countries are becoming less convincing.
Construction delays, siting problems, inflation, and uncertainty over fuel
reprocessing and uranium/ plutonium recycling reduced nuclear power's competitive
edge over coal in most countries, and poor performance is contributing to shifts
in relative economics. Base-loaded coal-fired generating plants have consistently
achieved a higher level of performance than nuclear powerplants.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
13. A NUCLEAR ENERGY GLOSSARY
A layer of fertile material, such as uranium-238 or
thorium-232, placed around the fissionable material in a
nuclear reactor.
Boiling water A reactor in which water, used as both coolant and
reactor (BWR) moderator, is allowed to boil in the core. The resulting
steam can be used directly to drive a turbine.
Black oxide Uranous uranyl oxide (U308)-
Breeder A reactor that produces fissionable material as well as
consuming it, especially one that creates more than it
consumes. The new fissionable material is created by
capture in fertile materials of neutrons from fission.
Brown oxide Uranium dioxide ' (UO2).
Burnup
A measure of fuel consumption in a nuclear reactor. It
is usually expressed as the amount of energy produced
per unit weight of fuel in the reactor-for example,
megawatt-days (thermal) per ton (MWD/t).
CANDU reactor Canadian deuterium uranium reactor; a natural
uranium-fueled, heavy-water moderated and cooled,
pressure tube reactor of Canadian design.
Chain reaction A reaction that stimulates its own repetition. In a fission
chain reaction, a fissionable nucleus absorbs a neutron and
then fissions, releasing additional neutrons. These in turn
can be absorbed by other fissionable nuclei, releasing still
more neutrons. A fission chain reaction is self-sustaining
when the neutrons produced by each fissioning atom cause
at least one other atom to fission.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Cladding
Containment
Control rod
Coolant
Core
Criticality
A protective coating for reactor fuel materials to prevent
corrosion or erosion by the reactor coolant, to increase
the strength of the material, and to contain fission
products to prevent contamination of the coolant.
The provision of a gastight shell or other enclosure around
a reactor to confine fission products that otherwise might
be released to the atmosphere in the event of an accident.
A rod, plate, or tube containing a material that readily
absorbs neutrons which is used to control the power of
a nuclear reactor.
A substance circulated through a nuclear reactor to remove
or transfer heat. Common coolants are water, heavy water,
air, carbon dioxide, and liquid sodium.
The central portion of the nuclear reactor containing fuel
elements, and usually the moderator, but not the reflector.
The state of a nuclear reactor sustaining a chain reaction.
The date of criticality is an important milestone in the
commissioning of a nuclear power reactor.
Depleted uranium Uranium having a smaller percentage of uranium-235 than
the 0.71 percent found in natural uranium. It is obtained
from spent fuel or as byproduct tails of uranium
enrichment.
Deuterium An isotope of hydrogen (symbol D). Approximately twice
as heavy as normal hydrogen, deuterium occurs naturally
as one atom to 6,500 atoms of normal hydrogen.
Enriched uranium Uranium in which the percentage of the fissionable
isotope, uranium-235, has been artificially increased above
the naturally occurring percentage (0.71 percent). Most
light water reactors use uranium enriched to 2 to 4
percent as fuel.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Enrichment A process by which the relative abundances of the isotopes
of a given element are altered, thus producing a form of
the element which has been enriched in one particular
isotope. In the enrichment process, the natural feed is
separated into a product stream (enriched) and a tails or
waste stream (depleted).
Fertile material A material, not itself fissionable, which can be converted
into a fissile material by irradiation in a reactor. Two basic
fertile materials are uranium-238 and thorium-232, which
are converted into fissile plutonium-239 and uranium-233,
respectively, when these materials capture neutrons.
Fissile material Any material fissionable by neutrons, principally
uranium-233, uranium-235, and plutonium-239.
The splitting of a heavy nucleus into two approximately
equal parts (which are nuclei of lighter elements),
accompanied by the release of a relatively large amount
of energy and generally one or more neutrons.
Fission fragments The two nuclei formed by the fission of a nucleus. Fission
fragments are nuclei of elements of medium atomic weight
and are radioactive.
Fission products Fission fragments plus the material formed by their
radioactive decay.
Fuel Fissionable material used or usable to produce energy in
a nuclear reactor.
Fuel cycle The series of steps involved in supplying fuel for nuclear
power reactors. The "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle
includes uranium mining, concentration, conversion,
enrichment, and the original fabrication of fuel elements.
The "back end" of the fuel cycle includes the chemical
reprocessing to recover the fissionable material remaining
in spent fuel, re-enrichment of the fuel material,
refabrication into new fuel elements, and radioactive waste
disposal.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Fuel element A rod, tube, plate, or other mechanical form into which
nuclear fuel is fabricated for use in a reactor.
Fuel reprocessing The processing of spent (irradiated) reactor fuel to recover
unused fissionable material.
Gas centrifuge A method of isotope separation in which the heavier
process gaseous atoms or molecules are separated from lighter ones
by centrifugal force.
Gaseous diffusion A method of isotope separation based on the fact that
process gaseous atoms or molecules with different masses will
diffuse through a porous barrier (or membrane) at
different rates.
Green salt Uranium tetrafluoride (UF4).
Heavy water (Symbol D20). Water containing significantly more than
the natural proportion (one in 6,500) of deuterium to
normal hydrogen.
Isotope
One of two or more atoms with the same atomic number;
that is, the same chemical element, but with different
atomic weights. Uranium-235 and uranium-238 are
examples of isotopes. Isotopes usually have nearly
identical chemical properties, but somewhat different
physical properties.
Light water Ordinary water (H2O), as distinguished from heavy water
(D20)-
Light water A reactor cooled and moderated by light water; for
reactor (LWR) example, a boiling water reactor or a pressurized water
reactor.
Load factor The ratio of average load carried by an electric powerplant
or system during a specific period to its peak load during
that period.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Magnox reactor A gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor developed in the
United Kingdom and France. The first commercial reactors
of this type are known in the United Kingdom as magnox
reactors from the name of a magnesium alloy used as fuel
cladding material.
Moderator
Natural uranium
Neutron
A material, such as light water, heavy water, or graphite,
used in a reactor to slow down high velocity neutrons,
thus increasing the likelihood of further fission.
Uranium as found in nature, containing 99.28 percent
uranium-238, 0.71 percent uranium-235, and 0.01 percent
uranium-234.
An uncharged elementary particle found in the nucleus
of every atom heavier than hydrogen. Neutrons sustain
the fission chain reaction in a nuclear reactor.
Nuclear energy The energy liberated by a nuclear reaction (fission or
fusion) or by radioactive decay.
Nuclear reactor A device in which a fission chain reaction can be initiated,
maintained, and controlled. Its essential component is a
core with fissionable fuel. It usually has a moderator, a
reflector, shielding, coolant, and control mechanisms.
Nuclear steam That portion of a nuclear powerplant containing the
supply system nuclear reactor and its associated equipment, but
(NSSS) excluding such items as water supply and ventilation and
emergency power supply systems, as well as the
conventional electrical equipment such as turbines and
generators found in all powerplants. The NSSS plus related
equipment (excluding conventional equipment) is
sometimes called the "nuclear island."
Orange oxide Uranium trioxide (UO3).
Plant factor The ratio of the average power load of an electric
powerplant to its rated capacity, sometimes called
"capacity factor."
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Plutonium (Symbol, Pu). A heavy, radioactive, man-made, metallic
element whose most important isotope, plutonium-239, is
a primary fissile material and is produced by neutron
irradiation of uranium-238. Plutonium is used for reactor
fuel and in nuclear weapons.
Plutonium recycle A procedure whereby plutonium, recovered from spent
fuel by reprocessing, can be combined with uranium to
manufacture "mixed oxide" fuel elements for use in
nuclear reactors. The recycling of plutonium reduces the
amount of raw uranium and enrichment required to
produce an equivalent amount of nuclear fuel.
Pressure tube A reactor in which the fuel elements are located inside
reactor tubes containing coolant circulating at high pressure. The
tube assembly is surrounded by a tank containing the
moderator at low pressure.
Pressure vessel A strong-walled container housing the core of most types
of power reactors. It usually contains the moderator,
reflector, thermal shield, and control rods.
Pressurized water A power reactor in which heat is transferred from the
reactor (PWR) core to a heat exchanger (steam generator) by water kept
under high pressure to achieve high temperature without
boiling.
Radioactivity The spontaneous decay or disintegration of an unstable
atomic nucleus, usually accompanied by radiation.
A layer of material immediately surrounding a reactor core
which scatters back or reflects neutrons that otherwise
would escape. The returned neutrons can then cause more
fissions to occur. Common reflector materials are graphite,
beryllium, and natural uranium.
Separative work A measure of the effort required to separate uranium-235
unit (SWU) and uranium-238 isotopes in an enrichment plant. An
enrichment task may be described in terms of the physical
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
Separative work quantities and uranium-235 assays in each of three streams
unit (SWU) (feed, product, and tails). It is more useful, however, to
(Continued) combine this information into a single number, the
amount of separative work, by weighting the importance
of each quantity and assay involved. This is accomplished
by the use of weights which reflect the importance or
"value" of uranium with varying uranium-235
concentrations. The amount of separative work required
per unit of product is determined from the feed/product
ratio and the value weights. A SWU is not a unit of
quantity in physical terms, but is a useful measure for
comparisons of enrichment contracts, plant capacities, or
enrichment demand, as it is independent of the
uranium-235 concentrations involved.
Shielding A body of material used to reduce the passage of radiation.
Tails assay The uranium-235 concentration of the waste or tails from
a uranium enrichment plant, usually in the range of 0.2
percent to 0.3 percent. The lower the tails assay, the more
separative work must be performed to achieve the same
degree of enrichment, but, at the same time, the smaller
the amount of uranium feed required.
(Symbol, Th). A naturally radioactive element whose most
abundant isotope, thorium-232, can be transmuted into
fissile uranium-233 by neutron irradiation.
Toll enrichment A procedure whereby a customer supplies natural uranium
raw material to an enrichment facility and is charged a
"toll" (usually expressed in dollars per SWU) for having
his raw material enriched in the fissionable isotope,
uranium-235, for eventual use as nuclear fuel.
(Symbol, U). A naturally occurring radioactive element
whose principal isotopes are uranium-235 (0.71 percent
of natural uranium) and uranium-238 (99.28 percent).
Uranium-235 is fissionable and uranium-238 is fertile.
Natural uranium also includes a minute amount of
uranium-234. Uranium is the basic material of nuclear
energy.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Uranium The product of a uranium ore concentration plant.
concentrate Uranium concentrates typically assay 65-85 percent
uranium expressed as U308. They are usually in the form
of orange oxide (UO3), black oxide (U308), or sodium
or ammonium diuranate (yellowcake).
Uranium dioxide (Symbol, UO2). The most commonly used form of
uranium in nuclear fuel; also an intermediate product in
the production of uranium tetrafluoride from uranium
trioxide. Commonly called brown oxide.
Uranium (Symbol, UF6). A volatile compound of uranium and
hexafluoride fluorine, produced by fluorination of uranium
tetrafluoride. UF6 is the process gas in most uranium
enrichment processes.
Uranium reserves The quantity of uranium which analysis or geologic and
engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty
to be recoverable from the earth. Uranium reserves have
tended to be expressed in a more rigorous form than those
of other raw materials. Traditionally, uranium reserves
have been specified within various "cost categories," which
theoretically represent the cost to mine and concentrate
uranium from various deposits. These cost categories,
almost universally expressed in dollars per pound Of U308,
represent only those costs incurred after geologic
investigation, land acquisition, and exploration are
complete. No allowance for profit is included. The
categories are not "total" costs, nor do they represent
prices at which U308 will be marketed. In international
usage, the term reasonably assured resources refers to
uranium which occurs in known ore deposits of such
grade, quantity, and configuration that it could be
recovered within the given cost category with current
mining and processing technology. Estimated additional
resources consist of uranium believed to occur in
unexplored extensions of known deposits or in
undiscovered deposits in known areas of uranium
occurrence which could be produced in the given cost
range.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
Uranium (Symbol, UF4). A solid compound of uranium and
tetrafluoride fluorine commonly referred to as green salt. UF4 is an
intermediate product in the production of uranium
hexafluoride or of natural uranium metal. It is produced
by hydrofluorination of uranium dioxide.
Uranium trioxide (Symbol, UO3). An intermediate product in the refining
of uranium and in the treatment of uranium recovered
from fuel reprocessing operations. Also called orange
oxide.
Uranous uranyl (Symbol, U308). A mixed oxide (2UO3?UO2) of uranium
oxide known as black oxide. The uranium content of various
ores and concentrates is usually expressed, for
convenience, in terms of U308 equivalent.
Equipment, but usually more specifically, material from
nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further use. Waste is usually classified as
high-level waste requiring long-term storage and low-level
waste, which, under certain circumstances, can be safely
dispersed.
Yellowcake A term applied to certain products of uranium
concentration. plants; specifically, those in the form of
ammonium diuranate-(NH4)2U207-or sodium diura-
nate-Na2U207.
Zircaloy
Any of several alloys of zirconium most commonly used
as fuel cladding to improve the corrosion resistance,
radiation stability, and the temperature range of the fuel.
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 ApproveAfk R-t16 A0 /2.7I9TERO Q$ 7, Q( $0040001-1
29 August 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Distribution Section, P&PD/OL
FROM: Chief, Registry and Dissemination Branch, PPG
SUBJECT: Dissemination of OER Report, ER 77-10468
(Job 425-995-77), Nuclear Enem, UNCLASSIFIED
Attached is the dissemination list for subject report. One hundred
and sixty (160) copies will be picked up or forwarded to PPG/R&D,
Room 7G07, Hq. Please notify
receive the remaining copies for distribution.
when you
STAT
STAT
Attachment: a/s
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457A000700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
Because of your interest in the Soviet economy,
I am sending you our latest publications, Soviet
Commercial Operations in the West and Communist Aid
to the Less Developed Countries of the Free World,
1976.
You might also be interested in having a copy
of our recent paper entitled, Nuclear Energy.
We would appreciate any comments or suggestions
you might have about the content or format.
Maurice C. Ernst
Director
Economic Research
Enclosures: (3)
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
 . Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
Because of your interest in the Soviet economy,
I am sending you our latest publications, Soviet
Commercial Operations in the West and Communist Aid
to the Less Developed Countries of the Free World,
1976.
You might also be interested in having a copy
of our recent paper entitled, Nuclear Energy.
We would appreciate any comments or suggestions
you might have about the content or format.
Maurice C. Ernst
Director
Enclosures: (3)
Approved For Release 2006/11/27: CIA-RDP79B00457AO00700040001-1