Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SAFEGUARDS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

Safeguards by Design in Nuclear Engineering Design Courses: Engaging Universities in Safeguards by Design

Engaging professionals across the breadth of the nuclear industry to educate them on international safeguards objectives and methodology is logistically challenging, especially in the United States, where individuals may not interact with the IAEA and are not as familiar with implementing international safeguards. However, incorporating international safeguards concepts into the mandatory curriculum of nuclear-related university degree programs around the world, complementary to nuclear safety and security concepts, could reach individuals who will go on to be professionals acting in a variety of roles across the nuclear industry (e.g., developing nuclear-related advanced technologies, designing or operating nuclear facilities, serving as State regulators). This would ultimately lead to more effective and efficient safeguards, including helping to move safeguards by design from a concept to a standard practice, as future designers, operators, and State regulators would be more familiar with international safeguards. This could also potentially address human resource challenges by creating a broader base of individuals knowledgeable about the IAEA mission from which to draw future inspectors and analysts. In order to implement this idea, the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in conjunction with the Center for Nuclear Security Science & Policy Initiatives (a research institute associated with Texas A&M University), targeted nuclear engineering undergraduate students taking the mandatory design course at Texas A&M and the University of Tennessee. The project objective was to introduce safeguards by design concepts to individuals who are planning to work in a broad range of nuclear-related careers. The paper describes the project methodology, which included the project leads creating and presenting lectures on safeguards to the design class and mentoring teams working on design team projects that incorporated safeguards. The paper also identifies lessons learned while incorporating safeguards topics into nuclear engineering university degree programs.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Brain Science and International Nuclear Safeguards: Implications from Cognitive Science and Human Factors Research on the Provision and Use of Safeguards-Relevant Information in the Field

Today’s international nuclear safeguards inspectors have access to an increasing volume of supplemental information about the facilities under their purview, including commercial satellite imagery, nuclear trade data, open source information, and results from previous safeguards activities. In addition to completing traditional in-field safeguards activities, inspectors are now responsible for being able to act upon this growing corpus of supplemental safeguards-relevant data and for maintaining situational awareness of unusual activities taking place in their environment. However, cognitive science research suggests that maintaining too much information can be detrimental to a user’s understanding, and externalizing information (for example, to a mobile device) to reduce cognitive burden can decrease cognitive function related to memory, navigation, and attention. Given this dichotomy, how can international nuclear safeguards inspectors better synthesize information to enhance situational awareness, decision making, and performance in the field? This paper examines literature from the fields of cognitive science and human factors in the areas of wayfinding, situational awareness, equipment and technical assistance, and knowledge transfer, and describes the implications for the provision of, and interaction with, safeguards-relevant information for international nuclear safeguards inspectors working in the field.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2018

Safeguards Challenges and Safeguards Technology Needs Assessment for Leading Thorium Fuel Cycles

Several thorium fuel cycle variants are currently being actively pursued by the global nuclear energy community. These variants have short-, medium-, and long-term deployment pathways in a variety of reactor types, including thorium-fueled molten salt reactors. Those pathways in turn give rise to a variety of fuel designs, fuel cycle facilities, and nuclear material processing requirements. These emerging fuel cycles will impact the technical implementation of safeguards, and they already raise questions about the applicability of current verification technologies. To address this issue, research is being performed to produce a detailed safeguards technology road map. It will include a needs assessment of the detection research and development (R&D;) necessary to transition the current safeguards technology toolkit to meet the verification needs of thorium fuel cycles, and to formulate the scientific basis for building new instrumentation to fill any potential capability gaps. The purpose of this technology road map is to define and inform on the safeguards technology needs for thorium fuel cycles, reflecting only the leading candidate thorium fuel cycles prioritized based on implementation timescales and the current direction of international programs. This work provides a guide to the priorities for future directed R&D; needed to bring the technology readiness levels (TRLs) of safeguards detection solutions in line with the higher TRLs of the most promising thorium fuel cycles. Herein, a summary is presented of thorium fuel cycle options and activities currently under way worldwide, which provides the technical basis for the needs evaluation. The key synergies and differences between these fuel cycles and current conventional uranium- and plutonium-based fuel cycles will be discussed from a nuclear material accountancy and detection standpoint. Reactor inventory calculations, fuel cycle simulations, and conclusions from the safeguards technology needs assessment will be presented, together with plans for experimental validation.

Worrall, Louise G.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear Safeguards; Evaluating Safeguards and Security Risks and Benefits for Advanced and Small Modular Reactor Deployments

Rapidly growing interest in advanced and small modular reactor (A/SMR) technologies presents challenges as well as opportunities for implementing international safeguards and security. A/SMR deployments are expected to be more numerous, more geographically dispersed, and more varied in their designs, placing new demands on the data systems and analytical tools used to support oversight (Alberti et al., 2023; Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission et al., 2024). Because of this variability, the importance and reliance on data systems for A/SMR deployments is expected to be higher than for previous reactor generations. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) offer potential capabilities to address the high variability inherent in A/SMR technology. The beneficiaries of AI-assisted tools include facility operators, government regulators, IAEA inspectors, and A/SMR vendors. This report analyzes how AI/ML-assisted technologies can strengthen the implementation of IAEA safeguards and security measures. It also identifies AI-assisted tools to strengthen operator, facility, and regulator knowledge management practices and examines the potential risks AI/ML-based tools may introduce to IAEA safeguards and security efforts. It concludes with a set of hypothetical, standards-style requirements for AI/ML systems used in safeguards contexts, grounded in an inspector-centric view of system verification. Despite the potential benefits of AI/ML systems, understanding potential intentional and unintentional failure modes is critical for ensuring adequate protection of nuclear materials and facilities. Unique features of A/SMRs including sealed cores, remote and novel paradigms of operation, off-site reactor fabrication, novel fuel forms, and varied refueling requirements, introduce challenges for traditional safeguards technological approaches (Pensado et al., 2024; Federation of American Scientists, 2025). AI/ML systems deployed to address these challenges may introduce new risks requiring systematic evaluation rooted in both AI-specific risk frameworks, such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (NIST AI RMF), and established cyber risk management standards such as NIST SP 800-30 (National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST], 2023; NIST, 2012).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2018

Optimising National WM Strategies through early consideration of Nuclear Safeguards - 18607

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards stand alongside safety and security as one of the three pillars for prudent management of all nuclear material, including nuclear waste. Although safety considerations, including public and environmental radiation protection, are the traditional drivers of waste management strategies, there is a requirement for nuclear safeguards in shaping and quantifying long-term solutions for special classes of radioactive waste. This is especially important when considering the disposal of nuclear material in a repository that could be released from regulatory oversight for radiation protection after a period of institutional control, as some safeguards oversight would still be required. Failure to consider nuclear safeguards at the early stages of planning may alternatively lead to excessive volumes for disposal or the need to recondition already treated wastes. At the very least, safeguards measures should be considered before countries seek to dispose of legacy nuclear materials, decommissioning wastes and other materials containing uranium, thorium or plutonium in an operating repository. Nuclear safeguards are the set of tools and techniques used by the IAEA to verify that countries comply with their international obligations not to divert nuclear materials to nuclear explosive devices. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nuclear safeguards apply to all uranium, thorium and plutonium held in non-weapons NPT states, with limited exceptions. In nuclear-weapon states, much of their material is likewise subject to IAEA safeguards through conditions in agreements with respective suppliers of the uranium. Under IAEA safeguards, such nuclear material must remain accounted for and accessible for periodic verification-analogous to the safety concepts of reversibility and retrievability. Nevertheless, safeguards requirements can be terminated - provided that the State and the [IAEA] agree that such nuclear material is practicably irrecoverable - through dilution or immobilisation in solid form (such as cement, glass or ceramic). This means candidate material can be disposed of as non- nuclear material, with no further safeguards requirements, provided this criterion is met. Unlike radiological wastes where repository design strongly influences pathways for radionuclide migration and overall safety performance, repository design is not a factor in considering the termination of safeguards on nuclear material. This paper looks at similarities and differences in the safety, security and safeguards regulatory requirements for the management of radioactive waste and nuclear material in Australia. In particular, it outlines recent experience gained from participation in Australia's waste acceptance criteria working group for a national low-level waste repository and intermediate-level waste store, as well as from Australia's overall waste management strategy. These items of work have coincided with the IAEA update of its internal policy on termination of safeguards on nuclear material. Australia's experience shows how inclusion of safeguards criteria in the planning process is leading to optimisations in choice of facility concepts, project sequencing and equitable distribution of economic risk. By considering the three pillars-safety, security and safeguards-early on in the planning process, Australia's waste management strategy will provide a benchmark for other states in establishing and updating their own waste acceptance criteria for the disposal of nuclear material. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Challenges and Technology-Driven Opportunities for Safeguarding Microreactors

Nuclear microreactors (MRs) represent a new class of reactors characterized by their compactness, portability, and low power output. These features enable MRs to supply electricity and process heat to remote areas like military bases; inaccessible locations; small grids, such as on islands; or disaster impacted areas. Compared to traditional light water reactors, MRs have a unique set of attributes that need to be considered for the implementation of safeguard strategies. Current safeguard methodologies are reactor technology specific and are employed on large, stationary reactors where there is easy access by safeguards inspectors and where safeguard equipment can be easily installed and retrofitted. While there are numerous benefits to MRs, their compact size, portability, scalability, and operational lifetime create challenges to the traditional safeguard approaches, thus needing novel safeguard strategies. Here, this paper addresses the unique challenges posed by MRs to the international nuclear safeguards regime, including limited human resources, and explores how technology advancements can help mitigate these challenges. Specifically, it examines novel technologies that could contribute to establishing a comprehensive safeguards framework for MRs. These safeguards-enabling technologies encompass safeguards by design, remote sensing and monitoring technologies, applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, utilization of digital twins, and system of systems assessments. While each of these safeguards-enabling technologies offers partial solutions to the challenges posed by MRs for the international safeguards regime, none of them alone can entirely address these challenges. Consequently, a combination of the safeguards-enabling technologies outlined in this paper is recommended to establish a robust safeguards regime for MRs.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2019

Safeguards Lessons Learned from the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant - 19502

Once operational, the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant (RRP) will have an operating throughput of 800 MT of uranium in irradiated LWR fuel per year. In order to establish effective and efficient safeguards at RRP, the safeguards discussion with the IAEA was initiated in 1988. However, at that time there were no available models or guidelines that could be used as a reference and multiple difficulties were recognized for the implementation of safeguards into a large scale reprocessing plant. Therefore, from 1988 to 1992, a multinational forum, referred to as LASCAR (Large Scale Reprocessing Plant Safeguards) [1], provided the recommendations on how an effective safeguards approach could be implemented into a large scale reprocessing plant while efficiently using existing resources. During the course of safeguards discussions between the IAEA, the State, and JNFL, the use of operator's equipment and measurement systems (by signal splitting with authentication) for inspections was studied. JNFL also examined incorporating inspection requirements into the process design: to reduce the costs associated with system installation and future system maintenance and to ensure effective, efficient, and credible safeguards implementation into the RRP (this approach has essentially become the 'Safeguards by Design (SBD)' process). From these studies and JNFL's experience of implementing safeguards into a new plant [2], JNFL established and applied signal splitting from operator's equipment as a means for providing inspectors required safeguards information. In addition, the LASCAR findings were utilized to establish the safeguards implemented into the RRP. Safeguards implementation into RRP commenced March 31, 2006. On June 4, 2008, the IAEA approved the 'integrated safeguards approach' for RRP. This paper provides a high level overview of the major safeguards implemented at RRP and the lessons learned from this implementation that can be applied to existing or future similar facilities. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Identify and Assess Technical Challenges in Safeguards Measurements of Spent Advanced Reactor Fuels

Advanced reactor (AR) designs use various nuclear fuel types that can be significantly different than conventional light-water reactor (LWR) fuels, including differences in sizes, compositions, and chemical forms (e.g., oxide, carbide, metal). Nearly all the proposed AR fuels use high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which will have higher enrichments (5–20 wt% 235 U) than LWR fuels (currently limited to <5 wt% 235 U). In advance of the wide use of these new fuel types around the world, international safeguards organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA]) are working with some of the AR vendors to formulate safeguards approaches for these AR fuel cycles. As part of the overall safeguards approach, it is important to identify the potential technical challenges in performing safeguards verification measurements of these AR fuels (both fresh and spent fuels) in advance of the widespread adoption of these new fuel types, because new safeguards technologies can take several years to develop, test, and approve for use. This report documents work performed in fiscal year 2024 based on modeling and simulation to assess the performance of the existing safeguards measurement technologies for irradiated or spent AR fuel elements or items. This work is a continuation of the work performed in fiscal year 2023 that focused on fresh AR fuels. Spent AR fuels have a distinct difference from their LWR counterparts: unlike the spent LWR fuels typically stored in a water-filled pool, some spent AR fuels—such as tristructural-isotropic (TRISO)-based fuels—will most likely be stored in air-filled hot cells. Because most safeguards measurements on spent fuel performed to date have been conducted under water, the air-filled hot cell environment could present unique challenges to safeguards measurements. Fork detector (FDET) and Cerenkov viewing device (CVD) systems have been the two primary instruments used by the IAEA for several decades to measure spent LWR fuel assemblies stored in pools for safeguards verification purposes. Because the lower refractive index of air causes Cerenkov light to be of lower intensity in air than in water, existing CVDs are likely unable to perform safeguards verification measurements for spent fuel stored in an air-filled hot cell, as is the case for the TRISO-based spent fuel elements (e.g., pebbles, graphite fuel blocks). Unlike FDET measurements, CVD measurements do not require fuel be moved, so they are a simpler and faster to take than FDET measurements. The inability to perform CVD measurements on the TRISO-based AR fuel types presents a major technical challenge in the effort to use existing technology to perform safeguards measurements on spent AR fuels. This study was mainly conducted through the modeling and simulation of an FDET or an FDET-like system on five spent AR fuel types, including one metallic fuel type and four TRISO-based fuel types in both pebble and graphite block forms in their respective storage configurations and environments. Because the various AR fuel types have significantly different dimensions, FDET systems must be adapted to accommodate them. Partial defect tests were also simulated in this study to assess the FDET’s ability to detect potential fuel diversions. The FDET measures the fuel’s total passive neutron and gamma emissions. The simulated FDET results from spent AR fuel items are compared against results from a typical spent pressurized water reactor (PWR) assembly. High-purity germanium (HPGe) gamma detector measurements were also simulated for the spent AR fuel types and the PWR assembly because the signature photopeaks have been used in LWR safeguards verifications, although HPGe is usually not used to detect diversions because of the fuel’s self-attenuation effects on those photopeaks. The results indicate that these detectors have significant challenges in performing safeguards measurements of the spent AR fuel items, including incompatibilities between AR fuel items and existing FDETs, lower neutron count rates, lower sensitivities to fuel diversions in certain AR fuel items, and significantly higher interference from a neighboring fuel item when the measurement is performed in air. These results suggest that an alternative technology or significant and timely technology development is needed to perform adequate safeguards measurements of some of these AR fuel items.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
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↗