Assessment of proliferation resistance of the Ukrainian

Section 4.5.4 to determine the level of proliferation resistance (PR) for all components of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system. To aggregate the results each judgment on the level of PR was given a numerical value between 0 and 1; the value of 0 was used in case of an evaluation parameter found to have a ‘very weak’ or ‘unacceptable’ level of PR and the value of 1 in case of a ‘very strong’ or ‘acceptable’ level. In case the evaluation parameter was assigned an intermediate level of PR, i.e. ‘weak’ or ‘moderate’ an intermediate number was chosen like 0.2 or 0.5.

In a first step INPRO user requirement UR1 of PR was evaluated that deals exclusively with the commitments, obligations and policies of the State. The assessor concluded that, practically, all evaluation parameters showed an acceptable level of PR¹⁶, i.e. they were given

16 As Ukraine is not part of a nuclear weapon free zone treaty, the assessor defined the INPRO evaluation parameter ‘participation in nuclear weapon free zone treaties’ as ‘non acceptable’. This is most probably a too

P2 P3 T4 D1 D2 D4 C1 C2 C3 C4

a value of 1. The evaluation results of UR1 are valid for all options of components of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system, i.e. this evaluation was not repeated for the different options again.

As a next step all options of the three components, i.e. the front end, the power generation part and the backend (see Section 3.10) of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system were assessed in regard to INPRO user requirement UR2 to UR5 and the corresponding evaluation parameters;

contrary to UR1, UR2 to UR5 user requirements are mostly related to the design of nuclear facilities and fuel cycles. For user requirements UR3, UR4 and UR5 also the maturity level of the design was taken into account.

PR assessment of front end options of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system

The normalized results of Front End Option-1 and 2¹⁷ of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system are shown in the following Figure 4.15. A higher value in Figure 4.15 indicates a higher level of PR. The Figure indicates that both front end options practically achieve the same aggregated level of PR, with Front End Option-2 (fuel fabrication from imported pellets) showing in total a slightly higher level of PR compared to Option-1 (fuel fabrication from enriched UF₆). The most favorable option of the front end is Option-3 the fuel leasing option because there is no national facility with a proliferation risk in the country.

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

1UR1

UR2

UR3 UR4

UR5

fuel fabrication from enriched UF6 fuel fabrication from imported pellets

Figure 4.15. Normalized results of the front end options of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system [9].

PR assessment of the options of power generation part of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system

The normalized results of the PR assessment of the two power generation options (Generation Option-1 includes AP1000 in the mix of new reactors to be built, and Generation Option-2 includes AES2006 instead of AP1000) are shown in the following Figure 4.16. Again there is practically no difference in the level of PR between the two options.

conservative approach; non applicability of this parameter might be a more appropriate solution.

17 Front End Option-3 with fuel leasing (no national facilities of the front end) is only treated within INPRO user requirement UR1 and therefore not shown in the Figure 4.15.

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

1UR1

UR2

UR3 UR4

UR5

VVER-1000, AP-1000, EPR-1500 VVER-1000, AES-2006, EPR-1500

Figure 4.16. Normalized results of the options of power generation part of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system [9].

PR assessment of the options of back end of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system

The normalized results of the PR assessment of the four back end options are shown in the following Figure 4.17. Back End Option-3 with fuel leasing shows the highest score. Again there are only small differences regarding the level of PR among the four back end options.

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

1UR1

UR2

UR3 UR4

UR5

SF storage in Ukraine, SF repository in Ukraine

SF storage in Ukraine, reprocessing in RF, HLV repository in Ukraine Leasing

Reprocessing in RF, HLV repository in Ukraine

Figure 4.17. Normalized results of the options of back end of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system [9].

Back End Option-2 and 4 have in total the lowest score of PR primarily to the use of a national repository of high level waste in their fuel cycle. As in the case of the front end also for the back end the fuel leasing options shows the most favorable results due to the absence of any back end facility in the country.

PR assessment of the fourteen variants of the complete Ukrainian nuclear energy system Finally the assessment results of all three components (front end, power generation, backend) were combined to the fourteen possible variants of the future Ukrainian nuclear energy system (see Table 3.1 of Section 3.10) as shown in the following Figure 4.18. A special scale has been chosen to emphasize the rather small differences between the variants in regard to PR.

Variant No.13 and No.4 (both with fuel leasing) show the highest score primarily due to the absence of fuel cycle facilities in the country.

0.66 0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

number of variant

sum of the scores / number of indicators

Figure 4.18. Aggregated results of the proliferation resistance assessment of the 14 variants of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system [9].

It is to be emphasized that all variants of nuclear energy system considered were found to be acceptable in regard to proliferation resistance based on the INPRO methodology.

4.4.6. Assessment of proliferation resistance of fast reactors with a closed fuel cycle in the