Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “NUCLEAR MATERIALS MANAGEMENT”

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 37 records · Page 2

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 4, October-December 1992]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 499 Technical Note: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Examination Question Bank System, C. L Jensen and N. L. Skinner; 506 Report on the Specialists’ Meeting on Passive and Active Safety Features of Liquid-Metal Fast Breeder Reactors Organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency at Oarai Engineering Centre of Power Reactor and Nuclear Development Corporation, Japan, November 5-7,1991, S. R. Paranjpe; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 514 A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs, D. F. Fletcher, B. D. Turland, and S. P. A. Lawrence; 535 A Review of the U 3 0 8 -Al Reaction as a Potential Heat Source in Research and Test Reactor Accidents, J. L. Snelgrove; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 543 Multilevel Interfaces for Power Plant Control Rooms II: A Preliminary Design Space, K. J. Vicente; DESIGN FEATURES: 549 Twenty-Second DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First; 562 Book Review: Safety Assessment of Unit 5 (WWER-440/W-213) of the Greifswald Nuclear Power Station, M. H. Fontana; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 576 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 586 Analysis of Corrective Actions Applied to Nuclear Power Plant Operations, A. E. Cross; 593 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 596 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 609 Non-Commercial Power Operating Experience; 614 World Nuclear Performance, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 623 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 635 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 639 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 513 Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Waste Management RECOD '94; 585 International Topical Meeting on Advanced Reactors Safety; 622 International Workshop on Implementation of ALARA at Nuclear Power Plants; 648 Short Course on Nuclear Criticality Safety; 648 8th Topical Meeting on Problems in Reactor Physics MEPhi-VOLGA-93; 643 The Authors; 646 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 33

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 30, No. 3, July-September 1989]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 325 Safety of Framatome Advanced Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Designs by J. A. Charles and D. Lange, 333 Book Review of Nuclear Accidents: Intervention Levels for the Protection of the Public by H. B. Piper; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 335 Living PRA Computer Systems by S. C. Dinsmore and H.-P. Balfanz, 343 Summary of ICAP Assessments of RELAP5/MOD2 by W. E. Driskell and R. G. Hanson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 352 Thermal Performance Monitoring System at Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant by H.-J. Chao, Y.-P. Lin, G.-H. Jou, L.-Y. Liao, and Y.-B. Chen; DESIGN FEATURES: 358 Warning Systems for Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies by J. H. Sorensen and D. S. Mileti; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 371 Activities Related to Waste Management Compiled by E G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 382 Steam Generator Tube Performance: Experience with Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors During 1985 by O. S. Tatone and R. L. Tapping, 400 Systems Interaction Analyses: Concepts and Techniques (Part II) by M. D. Muhlheim and G. A. Murphy, 413 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 416 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 440 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 460 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 466 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 470 Proposed Rule Changes as of Mar. 31, 1989; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 334 Proceedings Published, 351 CEC Seminar on Methods and Codes for Assessing the Off-Site Consequences of Nuclear Accidents, 357 Short Course on Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer: Bases and Applications in A: The Nuclear Power Industry B: The Process Industries, 357 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 478 International Topical Meeting on the Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities, 475 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 30, No. 1, January-March 1989]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 International Conference on Thermal Reactor Safety: NUCSAFE 88 by A. P. Malinauskas and J. G. Pruett; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 18 Chernobyl Today: State of Research by A. Yu. Gagarinskii; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Problems Associated with Routine In-Plant Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Systems at U.S. Light-Water Reactors by Barry G. Wahlig, David M. Walker, Mahmoud R. Ghavi, and John M. Palms; DESIGN FEATURES: 34 Twentieth DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning Conference by R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First, 46 Design Options for the Core Support Structure for Liquid-Metal-Cooled Reactor Plants by J. P. Burelbach, W. J. Kann, J. G. Saiveau, and R. W. Seidensticker; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 53 The Radiological Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident by L. V. Konstantinov and A. J. González; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 70 Activities Related to Waste Management Compiled by E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 80 Fuel Performance Annual Report for 1986 by W. J. Bailey, 103 Safety Considerations Related to 12-Hour Shift Schedules by S. Gould, 105 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 108 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 130 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 140 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 145 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 153 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1988; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 69 Northwestern University Short Course on Radiation Safety, 79 International Seminar on Fission Product Transport Processes in Reactor Accidents, 129 Harvard School of Public Health Offers Short Courses, 152 MIT Offers Summer Short Courses on Reactor Safety and Nodal Analysis, 152 Seminar on Use of PCs in Probabilistic Safety Analysis, 157 The Authors, 160 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 29.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Management of Fissionable Equivalent Mass Materials at ORNL - 20146

The US DOE manages an inventory of materials that contains a range of long-lived radioactive isotopes that were produced from the 1960's through the 1980's by irradiating targets in production reactors to produce special heavy isotopes for US DOE programmatic use, scientific research, and industrial and medical applications. Since the production reactors and enrichment facilities that produced many of these materials have been shut down, they are considered unique materials that are not likely to be produced again. ORNL uses these materials in US DoE's center for production, storage, and distribution of TRU isotopes (plutonium through californium) and other related nuclear research programs. ORNL also operates the High Flux Isotope Reactor, which provides a high neutron source for production of isotopes for medical, industrial, and nuclear research programs. As a result, ORNL has an inventory of radioisotopes that are being managed for ongoing research programs and being held for reuse because they have potential intrinsic value to US DOE. An initiative is underway at ORNL to better manage these materials, particularly focusing on those with high fissionable equivalent mass that could impact the ability to perform ongoing or new research projects. This paper describes the actions ORNL is taking to manage these inventories, many of which consist of TRU materials, through reuse and disposal. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Use of Historical EM Practices and Policies for Management of Cleanup Program and Address GAO Concerns - 20222

As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Safe Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel

The aim for storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) either in wet or in dry storage systems is to ensure general safety objective s are met throughout a desired storage period. Staff at the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), in collaborations with partners at other national laboratories, industry research organizations, and the University of South Carolina (UofSC), have performed materials aging testing and analyses, and have established nuclear materials aging management programs to support extended periods of safe storage of research reactor (RR) SNF and of commercial power reactor (PR) SNF pending ultimate disposal. Several example challenges include susceptibility of aluminum SNF from research reactors to corrosion in poor quality water (wet storage). In dry storage, aluminum SNF can release hydrogen via radiolysis of the hydrated oxides on the aluminum cladding. Austenitic stainless steel canisters used for dry storage are susceptible to chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking (outside-in attack) that threaten the confinement boundary provided by the canister. This paper further describes these challenges, among others, and the formulated solutions to support extended safe storage of SNF.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Panel Session 98B: Treatment of Low-Activity Tank Waste at Hanford: Considering the Alternatives

This panel focused on alternative treatment of the Hanford Low-Activity Tank Waste. Currently, Tank Waste at the Hanford Site is to be separated into low-activity (LAW) and high-level waste (HLW) fractions, and then vitrified to produce immobilized LAW glass for onsite disposal, and HLW glass for ultimate geologic disposal. This panel discussed several commissioned studies by the National Laboratories, National Academies, and General Accountability Office to evaluate the risks, costs, and benefits associated with considering options for immobilizing portions of the Hanford LAW waste forms. Panelists with presentations: Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches for Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Overview and Conclusions (Michael Stone); Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches for Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Disposal Performance Evaluation (Tom Brouns); National Academies Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (Charles Ferguson); GAO Observations on Immobilizing Low-Activity Waste at DoE's Hanford Site (David Trimble)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Risk Model for EM Decision Support Toolsets

The Government Office of Accountability (GAO) has published several reports identifying the need for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) to address mounting costs for DoE's cleanup program. DOEEM could greatly benefit from independent decision tool-sets/models that would allow them to evaluate options and inform business decision at the enterprise level considering site-specific life cycle costs and system plans. Program goals: Develop a tool-set that enables EM to independently evaluate alternatives, assess outcomes from different contracting strategies, and inform critical decisions for the enterprise. Project goals: Adaption of a Risk Model for integration with complimentary tool-sets for project level decision making. Operational Events: Discrete event model that evaluates operational variables (e.g. capacity, throughput, maintenance constraints) and identify bottlenecks. Identifying and Bounding Project Risk: Identify risks that impact confidence in meeting goals (e.g. production). Life cycle Cost: Evaluate impacts of staffing levels, inventory, and capital investments on life cycle costs. Methods and approach: Monte Carlo Analysis is being executed to generate results: Input derives from Risk Register Data; Tied to Projected and Target Schedules; Incorporates float duration within the model. Assumes associated risk mitigation actions being completed within a timeline of five fiscal years. Metrics include: Confidence in Meeting Production Goal; Confidence in Safety Standards; Confidence in Continuous Operation; Other Metrics can be added as appropriate regarding specific site needs. The adapted risk model can be used as a stand alone decision tool or can be integrated complementary tool-sets (i.e. process and cost models) for project-specific decisions. These support tool-sets can then be integrated with others for site- and complex- level evaluations. Future work includes designing an adaptable and modular framework that would allow integration of multiple tool-sets for holistic and/or targeted evaluation of alternative strategies for decision making that could lead to risk and cost reduction across the enterprise.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Interaction of hydrogen with actinide dioxide (011) surfaces

The corrosion and oxidation of actinide metals, leading to the formation of metal-oxide surface layers with the catalytic evolution of hydrogen, impacts the management of nuclear materials. In this work, the interaction of hydrogen with actinide dioxide (AnO 2 , An = U, Np, or Pu) (011) surfaces by Hubbard corrected density functional theory (PBEsol+U) has been studied, including spin–orbit interactions and non-collinear 3k anti-ferromagnetic behavior. The actinide dioxides crystalize in the fluorite-type structure, and although the (111) surface dominates the crystal morphology, the (011) surface energetics may lead to more significant interaction with hydrogen. The dissociative adsorption of hydrogen on the UO 2 (0.44 eV), NpO 2 (-0.47 eV), and PuO 2 (-1.71 eV) (011) surfaces has been calculated. It is found that hydrogen dissociates on the PuO 2 (011) surface; however, UO 2 (011) and NpO 2 (011) surfaces are relatively inert. Recombination of hydrogen ions is likely to occur on the UO 2 (011) and NpO 2 (011) surfaces, whereas hydroxide formation is shown to occur on the PuO 2 (011) surface, which distorts the surface structure.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Accountable Nuclear Material Needs for Fusion Energy Commercialization

An activity is underway to engage the fusion energy community to understand and plan for management of accountable nuclear materials during the development and commercialization of fusion energy within the scope of DOE Order 410.2. It includes developing an initial assessment of the accountable nuclear materials needed to support fusion development and implementation, understanding the supply/production dynamics of these materials, identifying opportunities to engage with the fusion community to follow technology development efforts that will impact the need for these materials, and initiating engagement with the fusion community to consider DOE Order 410.2 requirements in a full fusion environment.

Robinson, Sharon [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000194204474)↗

ORNL Report of Analysis for the Verification of NRMP CRM U030A

In support of the Certified Reference Material (CRM) program managed by the Nuclear Reference Material Program (NRMP), the Material Signatures and Isotopic Standards (MSIS) group of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was asked to prepare a set of CRM U030A units for use as standards for isotopic analysis using multicollector thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) instruments. This report documents the results of the verification measurements performed on three randomly selected units by the MSIS group’s ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited operating procedure CSD-AM-CIMS-IN20, Determination of Uranium and Plutonium Isotopic Composition using Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry [1], and in accordance with the quality assurance plan as described in QAP-X-96-CSD/RML-001, Nuclear Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Section Quality Assurance Plan [2].

Mathew, Kattathu [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (O↗

DOE Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Accountable Nuclear Material Needs for Development and Commercialization of Fusion Nuclear Energy

Fusion energy represents a transformative opportunity to deliver a safe, plentiful, and carbon-free source of reliable primary power. In recent years, fusion research and development have accelerated significantly, particularly within the US, driven by decades of foundational public investment. Notably, in 2024 the US Department of Energy (DOE) established a comprehensive Fusion Energy Strategy aimed at collaborating with industry partners to enable the deployment of fusion power plants and grid integration by the 2030s. This strategy is chiefly implemented through the DOE Office of Science (SC) Fusion Energy Sciences program. This project was initiated to identify potential approaches for the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (NA-ESH-12) within DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration to begin engagement with the fusion community on future accountable material needs. The goal of the project is to inform and influence the supply of and demand for accountable nuclear materials as fusion energy is developed and commercialized. NA-ESH-12 must proactively engage with the fusion community regarding the production and management of accountable nuclear materials. Given the complexity and scale of materials required for research, pilot projects, and eventual commercial reactors, early coordination is vital. The project’s objective is to provide insights that will shape the supply and demand landscape for critical nuclear materials, ensuring that DOE is prepared to effectively support fusion energy development and commercialization. In FY 2025, an initial limited review was conducted to identify the status of the fusion energy community’s progress toward full-scale energy production and the need for accountable nuclear material. This included communications with SC, NA-ESH-12, Savannah River National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and attending the Rutgers University–sponsored Supply Chain Workshop: Scaling the Fusion Industry and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Ninth DEMO Programme Workshop. The review to date indicates that the amounts of tritium, lithium-6, and deuterium required by the fusion industry will be dependent on fuel type, breeding technology, blankets, and R&D improvements. One concern is that the commercial sector does not have a sufficient supply chain to meet the demand for development and commercialization for fusion energy production. The supply and demand estimates for these materials should be routinely reviewed as fusion technologies mature.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

The TRANSCEND University Consortium: Theme 4: Nuclear Materials - 20431

The safe and secure management of Pu is a matter of international concern, with ∼250 t of separated Pu currently stockpiled worldwide. The UK's civil inventory of nuclear materials contains significant stocks of separated Pu from the reprocessing of Magnox and AGR spent fuels. The preferred option for the 138.5 tonnes of Pu is re-use as mixed oxide (MOx) fuel, although 5% is not suitable for re-use and is recommended for direct disposal. However, it will take more than 15 years to implement re-use, requiring that the Pu be kept in interim storage in its current state for that period, i.e. as PuO{sub 2} powder within inert steel storage cans at Sellafield. The focus of the work presented here is thus plutonium storage and the direct disposal of plutonium. The Research and Development needs of both are now pressing: in the case of storage due to it being the current default; in the case of immobilization and disposal because of a comparative lack of Research and Development on Pu conditioning and packaging due to policy uncertainty as to whether it would be disposed of in a Geologic Disposal Facility (GDF). Addressing these needs is complicated by Pu's high radioactivity, decay heat and radiotoxicity, criticality, nuclear safeguard requirements and, for some UK Pu contaminated materials targeted for disposal, poor inventory. Thus, there is also a critical requirement for underpinning research on Pu bearing materials in these two contexts. In response to these needs, the TRANSCEND Consortium (Transformative Science and Engineering for Nuclear Decommissioning, a multi-disciplinary collaboration of 11 universities and 8 key industry partners from across the UK's civil nuclear sector) is seeking to provide technical underpinning to ongoing option development for the UK's civil Pu stockpile. Whilst understanding the behaviour of plutonium during its re-use as MOx is beyond the scope of the TRANSCEND Consortium work plan, the main objectives of the work are: (1) For interim storage: to understand how the surface structure and properties of pristine and radiation damaged PuO{sub 2} change with time in the absence and presence of water; and (2) For immobilization and disposal: to understand the mechanisms of incorporation of Pu into ceramic and glass-ceramic waste-forms, as well as the effect on these of self-induced radiation damage. Each objective is being addressed through separate work packages, the details of which are discussed in this paper. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Nondestructive Assay Technical Infrastructure Program Mission and Vision

The Nondestructive Assay Program (NDAP) mission and vision is achieved by identifying and accomplishing a set of programmatic goals that correspond with eight broad technical program elements. The NDAP was created as a result of Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board Recommendation 2007-1, entitled “Safety-Related In Situ Nondestructive Assay of Radioactive Materials,” which emphasized the need to improve in situ measurements of radioactive material at US Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities. An NDAP five-year plan will define tasks to accomplish specific goals identified in the NDAP mission and vision. This mission and vision is applicable for eight technical program elements: Hardware/Software Development, Algorithm Development and Nuclear Data, Uncertainty Quantification, Nuclear Materials, Staffing, Personnel, And Training, Data Management, Requirement and Standards, and Information Preservation and Dissemination. An additional program element is technical support, which provides daily execution management support for the NDAP, site scope, and deliverable tracking via site task managers, along with technical advisement and support from the technical support group. The NDAP mission and vision provides attributes with specific goals for each program element, and some goals benefit multiple program elements. The goals and attributes defined herein are implemented via an NDAP five-year execution plan that defines site work scope, budget, and deliverables, all of which are updated annually. The NDAP is designed to benefit nondestructive assay (NDA) needs to support DOE nuclear criticality safety programs, ensuring that NDA technology is sufficiently capable of guaranteeing the safety of those who handle, store, process, or transport fissionable materials in the complex. Especially important for the NDAP is to maximize capabilities to identify, characterize, and manage in situ fissile material deposits in process equipment to ensure nuclear criticality safety at processing facilities.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗