DOCSLIB.ORG

US Fissile Material Initiatives: Implications for the IAEA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US Fissile Material Initiatives: Implications for the IAEA NATIONAL REPORTS US fissile material initiatives: Implications for the IAEA Under two US initiatives, the IAEA would play a greater role in safeguarding fissile material that can be used for nuclear weapons In a comprehensive statement of United States IAEA safeguards. However, in 1980 the US con- by non-proliferation policy on 27 September 1993, cluded a safeguards agreement with the IAEA Fred McGoidrick President Clinton proposed a number of major which makes eligible for safeguards all source new initiatives to help strengthen US policy and and fissionable materials in all its nuclear facili- practice in this area of vital importance to US and ties except only those facilities associated with global security and, more generally, to help rein- activities of direct national security significance. force the international nuclear non-proliferation Historically, the IAEA has typically selected for regime. Some of these initiatives can and will be safeguarding one to three of the some 230 nu- carried out by the United States acting on its clear facilities that the US has made eligible for own. Others must be a common effort by the inspections. It is the US intent to place excess United States and other countries if we are to highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium build a more secure future for all humankind. from the US defense program under this US- Many of the proposed initiatives have important IAEA voluntary safeguards agreement. implications for the IAEA, and especially for its The Nuclear Weapons Council — an inter- crucial role in applying international safeguards. agency US body charged with the responsibility Key among the initiatives proposed by Presi- of determining how much nuclear material is dent Clinton are several designed to mitigate the necessary to meet defense requirements — has continuing threat posed by weapons-usable fis- made some initial decisions on what nuclear ma- sile material. This article focuses on two initia- terials are excess and therefore eligible for safe- tives in particular: US policy to deal with exist- guards. This will be a continuing process, and it ing stockpiles of fissile materials including its is impossible to predict at this stage how long it intention to submit fissile material excess to US will take. defense needs to IAEA safeguards, and the pro- Nuclear materials excess to defense require- posed global treaty banning the production of ments are located in a variety of facilities, some fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nu- of which maintain a national security mission. clear explosives. Excess materials will need to be segregated from nuclear materials retained for defense purposes in order to permit IAEA inspection. They will Submitting excess fissile material from also be in a variety of different forms including US weapons to safeguards residues, spent fuel, HEU in metal form, and plutonium in oxide and metallic forms. Much of The United States has begun a process of the material resulting from the dismantlement of submitting US fissile material no longer needed nuclear weapons will be in the form of nuclear for the US deterrent or other defense purposes to weapons components since the US presently has inspection by the IAEA. As a nuclear-weapon no facilities for converting such components into State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation less sensitive forms. of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the United States is The US is proceeding in a step-by-step fash- not obligated to place its nuclear activities under ion. As a first step in September 1994, the United States placed approximately 10 tonnes in non- sensitive forms of HEU located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on the eligible list of the US-IAEA Mr. McGoidrick is the Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Affairs, US Department of State, safeguards agreement. The IAEA conducted its Washington, D.C. initial inspection the same month. The United IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1995 49 NATIONAL REPORTS States informed the Agency that it would not cluding only those associated with activities hav- remove such material from safeguards for nu- ing direct national security significance. clear explosive purposes. In furtherance of the Presidents' statement, The US has submitted several tonnes of plu- the US Department of Energy and the Russian tonium in oxide and metallic form located in Ministry of Atomic Energy announced on 16 Hanford, Washington, and expects to submit ad- March 1994 their intention to host reciprocal ditional quantities of plutonium at Rocky Flats, inspections to facilities containing plutonium re- Colorado in the near future. moved from nuclear weapons. The US and Rus- Submitting nuclear weapon components to sian sides also registered their intention to con- IAEA safeguards will pose particularly challeng- clude an agreement on the means of confirming ing and as yet unresolved issues. If nuclear weap- the plutonium and HEU inventories from nuclear ons components are to be inspected by the IAEA, disarmament. They also noted that these inspec- the US and the IAEA must devise an inspection tions would be an important step in the process approach which will provide the IAEA with the of establishing a worldwide control regime for opportunity for credible verification of the nu- fissile materials. clear material concerned while at the same time The United States and Russia have estab- protecting sensitive nuclear weapons design in- lished two working groups to address fissile ma- formation. terial issues. One is a working group on safe- The US is conducting two major reviews to guards, transparency, and irreversibility (STI) address the issue of component inspection. In the which is examining specific measures to im- first study, we are examining potential inspec- prove confidence in and increase the transpar- tion and measurement alternatives to those in- ency and irreversibility of the process of reduc- volved" in standard IAEA practices. Such ap- ing nuclear weapons. At their September 1994 proaches include verification of non-sensitive summit meeting, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin characteristics of weapons components, or con- agreed that their two governments should also firmation of sensitive information without such work together to: information being revealed to inspectors. At the • co-operate on a bilateral and multilateral ba- same time, a study is under way to examine sis, including through the exchange of appro- whether revealing certain information about nu- priate information, to prevent illegal trade in clear weapons components, such as mass, would nuclear materials and undertake measures to involve serious proliferation risks. strengthen the regime of control and physical The results of these studies will be closely protection of such materials; co-ordinated to identify inspection options that • exchange detailed information at the next result in a high level of verification while mini- meeting of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commis- mizing proliferation risk. The US intends to sion on aggregate stockpiles of nuclear war- work closely with the IAEA in assessing the heads, on stocks of fissile materials, and on inspection options and in designing procedures their safety and security; which will provide a high degree of assurance to • direct their joint working group on STI to the international community that material re- pursue by March 1995 further measures to moved from nuclear weapons and declared ex- improve confidence in and increase the trans- cess will not be returned to such use. parency and irreversibility of the process of US-Russian joint summit statement. In ad- reducing nuclear weapons; dition to this unilateral step, President Clinton • facilitate broad co-operation among appropri- and President Yeltsin issued a joint summit state- ate agencies in both countries to ensure effec- ment on non-proliferation on 14 January 1994, in tive control, accounting and physical protec- which tion of nuclear materials; " They agreed among other things to establish .• facilitate co-operative programmes between a joint working group to consider steps to ensure US and Russian national laboratories in the the transparency and irreversibility of the proc- areas of safety, physical protection, control ess of reduction of nuclear weapons, including and accounting of nuclear materials; the possibility of putting a portion of fissionable The US and Russian steps noted above can material under IAEA safeguards. Particular at- have only a salutary impact on arms control, tention would be given to materials released in non-proliferation, and international and regional the process of nuclear disarmament and steps to peace and security. Some of these initiatives ensure that these materials would not be used could also have a major impact on the IAEA as again for nuclear weapons." they will be the first cases in which the IAEA They also agreed to consider including in will play a role in verifying certain aspects of the their voluntary safeguards offers with the IAEA disarmament process. Over time they will also all source and special fissionable materials ex- have an important effect on the costs of IAEA 50 IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1995 NATIONAL REPORTS safeguards. Some argue that the benefits of safe- prohibiting the production of HEU or the separa- guards in nuclear-weapon States are not com- tion of plutonium for civil nuclear activities un- mensurate with the costs. Such safeguards are in der safeguards. Nor does the US see the conven- the security interests of all States. We must there- tion as requiring full-scope safeguards. It would, fore find the resources for the application of safe- however, have the important effect of imposing guards to nuclear materials excess to defense needs. a "cap" on the fissile material available to the treaty's members — both nuclear weapon States and non-nuclear weapon States — for nuclear Proposed treaty on the cut-off of explosives. production of fissile material It is particularly important that the ban on HEU production and plutonium separation for In his non-proliferation statement of 27 Sep- nuclear explosives be credibly verified.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 2.Iii.1. Fissionable Isotopes1
    FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES Charles P. Blair Last revised: 2012 “While several isotopes are theoretically fissionable, RANNSAD defines fissionable isotopes as either uranium-233 or 235; plutonium 238, 239, 240, 241, or 242, or Americium-241. See, Ackerman, Asal, Bale, Blair and Rethemeyer, Anatomizing Radiological and Nuclear Non-State Adversaries: Identifying the Adversary, p. 99-101, footnote #10, TABLE 2.III.1. FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES1 Isotope Availability Possible Fission Bare Critical Weapon-types mass2 Uranium-233 MEDIUM: DOE reportedly stores Gun-type or implosion-type 15 kg more than one metric ton of U- 233.3 Uranium-235 HIGH: As of 2007, 1700 metric Gun-type or implosion-type 50 kg tons of HEU existed globally, in both civilian and military stocks.4 Plutonium- HIGH: A separated global stock of Implosion 10 kg 238 plutonium, both civilian and military, of over 500 tons.5 Implosion 10 kg Plutonium- Produced in military and civilian 239 reactor fuels. Typically, reactor Plutonium- grade plutonium (RGP) consists Implosion 40 kg 240 of roughly 60 percent plutonium- Plutonium- 239, 25 percent plutonium-240, Implosion 10-13 kg nine percent plutonium-241, five 241 percent plutonium-242 and one Plutonium- percent plutonium-2386 (these Implosion 89 -100 kg 242 percentages are influenced by how long the fuel is irradiated in the reactor).7 1 This table is drawn, in part, from Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary A. Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, ed., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 196-197. See also, David Albright N 2 “Bare critical mass” refers to the absence of an initiator or a reflector.
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material Radioactive Other Traffickingand Illicit Nuclear Combating in 6 No
    8.8 mm IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 6 Technical Guidance Reference Manual IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 6 in Combating Nuclear Illicit and Trafficking other Radioactive Material Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and other Radioactive Material This publication is intended for individuals and organizations that may be called upon to deal with the detection of and response to criminal or unauthorized acts involving nuclear or other radioactive material. It will also be useful for legislators, law enforcement agencies, government officials, technical experts, lawyers, diplomats and users of nuclear technology. In addition, the manual emphasizes the international initiatives for improving the security of nuclear and other radioactive material, and considers a variety of elements that are recognized as being essential for dealing with incidents of criminal or unauthorized acts involving such material. Jointly sponsored by the EUROPOL WCO INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–109807–8 ISSN 1816–9317 07-45231_P1309_CovI+IV.indd 1 2008-01-16 16:03:26 COMBATING ILLICIT TRAFFICKING IN NUCLEAR AND OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL REFERENCE MANUAL The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’. IAEA NUCLEAR SECURITY SERIES No. 6 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE COMBATING ILLICIT TRAFFICKING IN NUCLEAR AND OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL REFERENCE MANUAL JOINTLY SPONSORED BY THE EUROPEAN POLICE OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL POLICE ORGANIZATION, AND WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, 2007 COPYRIGHT NOTICE All IAEA scientific and technical publications are protected by the terms of the Universal Copyright Convention as adopted in 1952 (Berne) and as revised in 1972 (Paris).
    [Show full text]
  • A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty N I T E D Understanding the Critical Issues N A
    U N I D I R A F i s s i l e M a A mandate to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material t e r i for nuclear weapons has been under discussion in the Conference of a l Disarmament (CD) in Geneva since 1994. On 29 May 2009 the Conference C u on Disarmament agreed a mandate to begin those negotiations. Shortly t - o afterwards, UNIDIR, with the support of the Government of Switzerland, f f T launched a project to support this process. r e a t This publication is a compilation of various products of the project, y : that hopefully will help to illuminate the critical issues that will need to U n be addressed in the negotiation of a treaty that stands to make a vital d e r contribution to the cause of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. s t a n d i n g t h e C r i t i c a l I s s u e s UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTE FOR DISARMAMENT RESEARCH U A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty N I T E D Understanding the Critical Issues N A Designed and printed by the Publishing Service, United Nations, Geneva T I GE.10-00850 – April 2010 – 2,400 O N UNIDIR/2010/4 S UNIDIR/2010/4 A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty Understanding the Critical Issues UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva, Switzerland New York and Geneva, 2010 Cover image courtesy of the Offi ce of Environmental Management, US Department of Energy.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Methodology for Determining Fissile Mass in Individual Accounting Items with the Use of Gamma-Ray Spectrometry*
    BNL-67176 A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING FISSILE MASS IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTING ITEMS WITH THE USE OF GAMMA-RAY SPECTROMETRY* Walter R. Kane, Peter E. Vanier, Peter B. Zuhoski, and James R. Lemley Brookhaven National Laboratory Building 197C, P. O. Box 5000, Upton, NY 11973-5000 USA 631/344-3841 FAX 631/344-7533 Abstract In the safeguards, arms control, and nonproliferation regimes measurements are required which give the quantity of fissile material in an accounting item, e.g., a standard container of plutonium or uranium oxide. Because of the complexity of modeling the absorption of gamma rays in high-Z materials, gamma-ray spectrometry is not customarily used for this purpose. Gamma-ray measurements can be used to determine the fissile mass when two conditions are met: 1. The material is in a standard container, and 2. The material is finely divided, or a solid item with a reproducible shape. The methodology consists of: A. Measurement of the emitted gamma rays, and B. Measurement of the transmission through the item of the high-energy gamma rays of Co-60 and Th-228. We have demonstrated that items containing nuclear materials possess a characteristic "fingerprint" of gamma rays which depends not only on the nuclear properties, but also on the mass, density, shape, etc.. The material's spectrum confirms its integrity, homogeneity, and volume as well. While there is attenuation of radiation from the interior, the residual radiation confirms the homogeneity of the material throughout the volume. Transmission measurements, where the attenuation depends almost entirely on Compton scattering, determine the material mass.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Fissile Material Report 2006 a Table of Contents
    IPF M Global Fis sile Material Report Developing the technical basis for policy initiatives to secure and irreversibly reduce stocks of nuclear weapons and fissile materials 2006 Over the past six decades, our understanding of the nuclear danger has expanded from the threat posed by the vast nuclear arsenals created by the super- powers in the Cold War to encompass the prolifera- tion of nuclear weapons to additional states and now also to terrorist groups. To reduce this danger, it is essential to secure and to sharply reduce all stocks of highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, the key materials in nuclear weapons, and to limit any further production. The mission of the IPFM is to advance the technical basis for cooperative international policy initiatives to achieve these goals. A report published by Global Fissile The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) www.fissilematerials.org Program on Science and Global Security Princeton University Material Report 2006 221 Nassau Street, 2nd Floor Princeton, NJ 08542, USA First report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials First report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials Developing the Technical Basis for Policy Initiatives to Secure and Irreversibly Reduce Stocks of Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Materials www.fissilematerials.org Global Fissile Material Report 2006 a Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Summary 2 I. Background 5 1 Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapons 6 2 Nuclear-Weapon and Fissile-Material Stocks 12 3 Production and Disposition of Fissile
    [Show full text]
  • 12Vac5-481 Virginia Radiation Protection Regulations
    12VAC5-481 VIRGINIA RADIATION PROTECTION REGULATIONS PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 10 Definitions Section 20 Scope Section 30 Deliberate misconduct Section 40 Reserved Section 50 Reserved Section 60 Reserved Section 70 Reserved Section 80 Reserved Section 90 Exemptions from regulatory requirements Section 100 Records Section 110 Inspections and enforcement Section 120 [Reserved] Section 130 Impounding Section 140 Prohibited uses Section 150 Communications Section 160 Effective date Section 170 Removal of notices posted by agency prohibited Section 180 Tests Section 190 Additional regulatory requirements Section 200 [Repealed] Section 210 Types of hearings Section 220 Hearing as a matter of right Section 230 Appeal Section 240 Units of exposure and dose Section 250 Units of radioactivity PART II REGISTRATION OF RADIATION MACHINE FACILITIES AND SERVICES Section 260 Purpose and scope Section 270 Exemptions Section 280 Shielding plan review Section 290 Registration of radiation machine facilities Section 300 Issuance of registration certificate Section 310 Renewal of registration and approval not implied Section 320 Expiration of registration certificate Section 330 Report of changes Section 340 Private inspector qualifications Section 350 Assembler or transfer obligation Section 360 Reciprocal recognition of out-of-state radiation machines Section 370 Certification of X-ray systems PART III LICENSING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL Section 380 Purpose and scope Section 390 Source material Section 400 Radioactive material other than source material
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Enriched Uranium: Striking a Balance
    OFFICIAL USE ONLY - DRAFT GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX F GLOSSARY OF TERMS Accountability: That part of the safeguards and security program that encompasses the measurement and inventory verification systems, records, and reports to account for nuclear materials. Assay: Measurement that establishes the total quantity of the isotope of an element and the total quantity of that element. Atom: The basic component of all matter. Atoms are the smallest part of an element that have all of the chemical properties of that element. Atoms consist of a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons. Atomic energy: All forms of energy released in the course of nuclear fission or nuclear transformation. Atomic weapon: Any device utilizing atomic energy, exclusive of the means for transportation or propelling the device (where such means is a separable and divisible part of the device), the principal purpose of which is for use as, or for development of, a weapon, a weapon prototype, or a weapon test device. Blending: The intentional mixing of two different assays of the same material in order to achieve a desired third assay. Book inventory: The quantity of nuclear material present at a given time as reflected by accounting records. Burnup: A measure of consumption of fissionable material in reactor fuel. Burnup can be expressed as (a) the percentage of fissionable atoms that have undergone fission or capture, or (b) the amount of energy produced per unit weight of fuel in the reactor. Chain reaction: A self-sustaining series of nuclear fission reactions. Neutrons produced by fission cause more fission. Chain reactions are essential to the functioning of nuclear reactors and weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Fissile Material Report 2015 Nuclear Weapon and Fissile Material Stockpiles and Production
    Global Fissile Material Report 2015 Nuclear Weapon and Fissile Material Stockpiles and Production Eighth annual report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials Eighth annual report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials Global Fissile Material Report 2015 Nuclear Weapon and Fissile Material Stockpiles and Production 2015 International Panel on Fissile Materials This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 On the cover: the map shows existing uranium enrichment and plutonium separation (reprocessing) facilities. Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Summary 2 Nuclear Weapons 4 Highly Enriched Uranium 10 Military HEU 13 Civilian Use of HEU 17 Civilian Uranium Enrichment Plants 19 Separated Plutonium 23 Weapons Plutonium 25 Civilian Plutonium 29 Nuclear Weapons, Fissile Materials and Transparency 34 Appendix 1. Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapons 40 Appendix 2. Uranium Enrichment Plants 48 Appendix 3. Reprocessing Plants 49 Appendix 4. Civilian Plutonium Stockpile Declarations 50 Endnotes 51 About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006. It is an independent group of arms-control and nonproliferation experts from seventeen countries, including both nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable policy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched urani- um and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is critical to nuclear disarmament, halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of Fusion – a Practical and Innovation-Friendly Approach
    The Regulation of Fusion – A Practical and Innovation-Friendly Approach February 2020 Amy C. Roma and Sachin S. Desai AUTHORS Amy C. Roma Sachin S. Desai Partner, Washington, D.C. Senior Associate, Washington, D.C. T +1 202 637 6831 T +1 202 637 3671 [email protected] [email protected] The authors want to sincerely thank the many stakeholders who provided feedback on this paper, and especially William Regan for his invaluable contributions and review of the technical discussion. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. THE STATE OF FUSION INNOVATION 3 A) An Introduction to Fusion Energy 3 B) A Rapid Growth in Private-Sector Fusion Innovation 4 III. U.S. REGULATION OF ATOMIC ENERGY - NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL 7 A) The Foundation of U.S. Nuclear Regulation - The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC 7 B) The Atomic Energy Act Embraces Different Regulations for Different Situations 7 1. NRC Frameworks for Different Safety Cases 8 2. Delegation of Regulatory Authority to States 9 IV. THE REGULATION OF FUSION - A PRACTICAL AND INNOVATION- FRIENDLY APPROACH 10 A) Fusion Regulation Comes to the Fore, Raising Key Questions 10 B) A Regulatory Proposal That Recognizes the Safety Case of Fusion and the Needs of Fusion Innovators 11 1. Near-Term: Regulation of Fusion Under the Part 30 Framework is Appropriate Through Development and Demonstration 11 2. Long-Term: The NRC Should Develop an Independent Regulatory Framework for Fusion at Commercial Scale, Not Adopt a Fission Framework 12 V. CONCLUSION 14 1 Hogan Lovells I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fusion, the process that powers the Sun, has long been seen Most fusion technologies are already regulated by the NRC as the “holy grail” of energy production.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fission-Fusion Hybrid Reactor in Steady-State L-Mode Tokamak Configuration with Natural Uranium
    PSFC/RR-11-1 A Fission-Fusion Hybrid Reactor in Steady-State L-Mode Tokamak Configuration with Natural Uranium Reed, M., Parker, R., Forget, B.* *MIT Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering January 2011 Plasma Science and Fusion Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA 02139 USA A Fission-Fusion Hybrid Reactor in Steady-State L-mode Tokamak Configuration with Natural Uranium Mark Reed, Ronald R. Parker, Benoit Forget Massachusetts Institute of Technology January 2011 Abstract The most prevalent criticism of fission-fusion hybrids is simply that they are too exotic - that they would exacerbate the challenges of both fission and fusion. This is not really true. Intriguingly, hybrids could actually be more viable than stand-alone fusion reactors while mitigating many challenges of fission. This work develops a conceptual design for a fission-fusion hybrid reactor in steady-state L-mode tokamak configuration with a subcritical natural or depleted uranium pebble bed blanket. A liquid lithium- lead alloy breeds enough tritium to replenish that consumed by the D-T fusion reaction. Subcritical operation could obviate the most challenging fuel cycle aspects of fission. The fission blanket augments the fusion power such that the fusion core itself need not have a high power gain, thus allowing for fully non-inductive (steady-state) low confinement mode (L-mode) operation at relatively small physical dimensions. A neutron transport Monte Carlo code models the natural uranium fission blanket. Maximizing the fission power while breeding sufficient tritium allows for the selection of an optimal set of blanket parameters, which yields a maximum prudent fission power gain of 7.7.
    [Show full text]
  • Curium in Space
    ROBIN JOHANSSON Curium in Space KTH Royal Institute of Technology Master Thesis 2013-05-05 Abstract New technology has shown the possibility to use a miniature satellite in conjunction with an electric driven engine to make a spiral trajectory into space from a low earth orbit. This report has done an investigation of the new technique to produce power sources replacing solar panels which cannot be used in missions out in deep space. It is in essence an alternative use of curium among the many proposals on how to handle the intermediate stored used nuclear fuel or once through nuclear fuel as some people prefer to call it. The idea of sending radioactive used nuclear fuel into outer space has been considered before. There was a proposal, for example, to load a space shuttle with radioactive material. This could have serious consequences to the nearby population in the event of a major malfunction to the shuttle. The improvement to this old idea is to use a small satellite with only a fraction of the spent fuel. With this method and other technological advances, it is possible to further reduce the risk of contamination in the event of a crash. This report has looked into the nuclear energy production of Sweden and the current production of transuranium elements (Pu, Np, Am and Cm). The report has also focused on the curium (Cm) part of the transuranium elements, which is the most difficult to recycle in a fast neutron spectra. The physical property of curium reduces many of the safety parameters in the reactor as it is easily transmutated into californium, which is a high neutron emitter.
    [Show full text]
  • Detection of Nuclear Weapons and Materials: Science, Technologies, Observations
    Detection of Nuclear Weapons and Materials: Science, Technologies, Observations Jonathan Medalia Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy June 4, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40154 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Detection of Nuclear Weapons and Materials: Science, Technologies, Observations Summary Detection of nuclear weapons and special nuclear material (SNM, plutonium, and certain types of uranium) is crucial to thwarting nuclear proliferation and terrorism and to securing weapons and materials worldwide. Congress has funded a portfolio of detection R&D and acquisition programs, and has mandated inspection at foreign ports of all U.S.-bound cargo containers using two types of detection equipment. Nuclear weapons contain SNM, which produces suspect signatures that can be detected. It emits radiation, notably gamma rays (high-energy photons) and neutrons. SNM is dense, so it produces a bright image on a radiograph (a picture like a medical x-ray) when x-rays or gamma rays are beamed through a container in which it is hidden. Using lead or other shielding to attenuate gamma rays would make that image larger. Nuclear weapons produce detectable signatures, such as radiation or a noticeable image on a radiograph. Other detection techniques are also available. Nine technologies illustrate the detection portfolio: (1) A new scintillator material to improve detector performance and lower cost. This project was terminated in January 2010. (2) GADRAS, an application using multiple algorithms to determine the materials in a container by analyzing gamma-ray spectra. If materials are the “eyes and ears” of detectors, algorithms are the “brains.” (3) A project to simulate large numbers of experiments to improve detection system performance.
    [Show full text]