Engineering topics

Moran, Bruce

Publications and source records attributed to Moran, Bruce.

4 records

DOE OSTI2021

Design Considerations for the Field Use of International Nuclear Safeguards Technology

The process of developing and deploying safeguards technology should be carried out in such a way that it supports the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) international safeguards verification mission, while also being efficient in terms of both cost and time. This process, however, may be hindered by a general lack of nuclear facility operating experience among the scientists or engineers designing safeguards technology, or the inability to interact with the IAEA inspector end user. As a result, equipment designers may have difficulty understanding inspector needs and the limitations of using safeguards technology in the field, often leading to inefficiencies (in the form of increased cost and time spent) in the safeguards technology design process. Here, to mitigate this knowledge gap, the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, has developed design considerations that should be incorporated into safeguards technologies, focusing on non-destructive assay equipment. Timelines for integration of these considerations into the design process are also discussed.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

DOE OSTI2018

Design Considerations for the Field Use of Safeguards Technology

The process of safeguards technology development, deployment, and use should be carried out in such a way that it supports the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) international safeguards verification mission, while also being efficient in terms of both cost and time. This process, however, may be hindered by a lack of communication between the scientists or engineers developing the technology and the safeguards inspectors who would be using the equipment, as well as by a general lack of facility experience among the scientists or engineers designing safeguards technology. The latter point is particularly true for new graduates and junior staff working at design laboratories, who typically have not had significant experience in an industrial facility setting or in working with or for the IAEA directly. As a result, junior safeguards staff may have difficulty understanding inspector needs and the limitations of using safeguards technology in the field, often leading to inefficiencies (in the form of increased cost and time spent) in the safeguards technology design process. To mitigate this knowledge gap, the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, has developed a list of design considerations that should be incorporated when developing safeguards technology. Project findings with respect to nondestructive assay technology are detailed in this paper.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2018

Assessment and Use of State-Specific Factors in the Implementation of Safeguards

The use of safeguards-relevant features and characteristics of a State in the implementation of safeguards has been a long-standing practice of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These ‘State-specific factors’ can affect the development of State-level safeguards approaches and the planning, conduct and evaluation of safeguards activities. The IAEA has identified six State-specific factors for systematic consideration and use in the application of the State-level concept. These factors are: (i) the type of safeguards agreement in force for the State and the nature of the safeguards conclusion drawn by the IAEA; (ii) the nuclear fuel cycle and related technical capabilities of the State; (iii) the technical capabilities of the State or regional system of accounting for and control of nuclear material; (iv) the ability of the IAEA to implement certain safeguards measures in the State; (v) the nature and scope of cooperation between the State and the IAEA in the implementation of safeguards; and (vi) the IAEA’s experience in implementing safeguards in the State. State-specific factors are not to be used for rating or grading a State’s safeguards credentials but to identify issues that could affect the effectiveness or efficiency of safeguards implementation for the State. IAEA reports and presentations on the State-level concept have described these factors and have given examples of information that could be considered in assessing each factor. This paper expands upon the IAEA examples and makes recommendations as to how State-specific factors could be assessed by the IAEA and how these factors might affect safeguards implementation. Although quantitative metrics were considered for assessing the State-specific factors, it was determined that the general State characteristics comprising the factors cannot be meaningfully quantified; however, performance indicators can be developed for some elements comprising some factors. The paper thus discusses ‘considerations’ that the IAEA should assess with respect to the State-specific factors (iii), (v), and (vi) and how those considerations could affect safeguards implementation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2018

Algorithm for Establishing Safeguards Termination Concentration Limits

This paper presents an algorithm for estimating the maximum concentration limits for terminating safeguards on nuclear materials. These limits are important because such material is no longer subject to accounting, reporting or inspections after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has approved the termination of safeguards on nuclear material declared by a State to be waste.Maximum concentration limits for different waste forms generated within nuclear fuel cycle facilities must be sufficiently conservative such that termination of safeguards does not become a weak link in the safeguards system. The concentration limits must also remain practical in order to ensure IAEA resources are used effectively and efficiently to implement safeguards in the State. These termination limits should be technically-based while remaining objective and reasonable to implement by the State. In support of the original IAEA guidance on concentration limits for termination of safeguards prepared in the early 1990s, the U.S. developed an algorithm to estimate concentrations that would make recovery of nuclear material from waste on which safeguards had been terminated at least as unattractive as undeclared production from uranium ore or diversion of similar nuclear material. In 2016, the IAEA sought technical advice from a meeting of experts from selected member States to support updating its internal guidance on termination of safeguards. Their recommendations included extending the guidance to consider additional waste forms. The experts in the 2016 meeting recommended that the IAEA limits should more clearly reflect the technical difficulty and level of effort required to recover nuclear material from the various waste forms. This paper identifies and assesses the most likely techniques a State might use to recover nuclear material from the waste forms identified by the experts and determines how the safeguards termination algorithm could be revised to more accurately reflect the difficulty of recovering one significant quantity of nuclear material from these waste forms.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗