Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
DOE OSTI2017

Preliminary Analysis of Facility Design for Pyro-processing Safeguardability

The deployment of advanced nuclear energy systems can assure sustainable energy use worldwide. For some of these systems, nuclear fuel will be fabricated in remotely-handled facilities in which batch-type processing will occur in heavily-shielded hot cells. Because special nuclear material is in both different physical and chemical form than that of the contemporary fuel cycle, new challenges have arisen in terms of safeguards, safety, and security, integrated with facility design; i.e., safeguardability. There is a need to develop models that can quantitatively assess safeguardability from a design-driven perspective. Previously, the first build of a material throughput model was established using discrete event simulation (DES) for the fuel fabrication process. Results showed that the DES model potentially can detect diversion attempts. This paper continues the study by further developing the the model. We test the use of the probability of the false alarm; i.e., the Type I error, as a metric for safeguardability assessment. Initiating events leading to a false alarm arise from aspects of safeguards, safety, and security. Different conceptual facility designs could exhibit different frequencies for the Type I error, and this could provide a measure of the safeguardability of each design. A quantitative assessment for safeguardable facility designs has not been developed in this manner. Much of the research into safeguardability has been qualitative. Engineering design approaches for a safeguardable facility are now needed. As there are not accepted metrics for safeguardability assessment, our motivation is to develop this design facet of safeguardability further.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Safeguards Considerations for Thorium Fuel Cycles

We report that by around 2025, thorium-based fuel cycles are likely to be deployed internationally. States such as China and India are pursuing research, development, and deployment pathways toward a number of commercial-scale thorium fuel cycles, and they are already building test reactors and the associated fuel cycle infrastructure. In the future, the potential exists for these emerging programs to sell, export, and deploy thorium fuel cycle technology in other states. Without technically adequate international safeguards protocols and measures in place, any future potential clandestine misuse of these fuel cycles could go undetected, compromising the deterrent value of these protocols and measures. The development of safeguards approaches for thorium-based fuel cycles is therefore a matter of some urgency. Yet, the focus of the international safeguards community remains mainly on safeguarding conventional 235 U- and 239 Pu-based fuel cycles while the safeguards challenges of thorium-uranium fuel cycles remain largely uninvestigated. This raises the following question: Is the International Atomic Energy Agency and international safeguards system ready for thorium fuel cycles? Furthermore, is the safeguards technology of today sufficiently mature to meet the verification challenges posed by thorium-based fuel cycles? In defining these and other related research questions, the objectives of this paper are to identify key safeguards considerations for thorium-based fuel cycles and to call for an early dialogue between the international safeguards and the nuclear fuel cycle communities to prepare for the potential safeguards challenges associated with these fuel cycles. In this paper, it is concluded that directed research and development programs are required to meet the identified safeguards challenges and to take timely action in preparation for the international deployment of thorium fuel cycles.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Strengthening IAEA Safeguards for Research Reactors

During their December 10-11, 2013, workshop in Grenoble France, which focused on the history and future of safeguarding research reactors, the United States, France and the United Kingdom (UK) agreed to conduct a joint study exploring ways to strengthen the IAEA’s safeguards approach for declared research reactors. This decision was prompted by concerns about: 1) historical cases of non-compliance involving misuse (including the use of non-nuclear materials for production of neutron generators for weapons) and diversion that were discovered, in many cases, long after the violations took place and as part of broader pattern of undeclared activities in half a dozen countries; 2) the fact that, under the Safeguards Criteria, the IAEA inspects some reactors (e.g., those with power levels under 25 MWt) less than once per year; 3) the long-standing precedent of States using heavy water research reactors (HWRR) to produce plutonium for weapons programs; 4) the use of HEU fuel in some research reactors; and 5) various technical characteristics common to some types of research reactors that could provide an opportunity for potential proliferators to misuse the facility or divert material with low probability of detection by the IAEA. In some research reactors it is difficult to detect diversion or undeclared irradiation. In addition, infrastructure associated with research reactors could pose a safeguards challenge. To strengthen the effectiveness of safeguards at the State level, this paper advocates that the IAEA consider ways to focus additional attention and broaden its safeguards toolbox for research reactors. This increase in focus on the research reactors could begin with the recognition that the research reactor (of any size) could be a common path element on a large number of technically plausible pathways that must be considered when performing acquisition pathway analysis (APA) for developing a State Level Approach (SLA) and Annual Implementation Plan (AIP). To broaden the IAEA safeguards toolbox, the study recommends that the Agency consider closing potential gaps in safeguards coverage by, among other things: 1) adapting its safeguards measures based on a case-by-case assessment; 2) using more frequent and expanded/enhanced mailbox declarations (ideally with remote transmission of the data to IAEA Headquarters in Vienna) coupled with short-notice or unannounced inspections; 3) putting more emphasis on the collection and analysis of environmental samples at hot cells and waste storage tanks; 4) taking Safeguards by Design into account for the construction of new research reactors and best practices for existing research reactors; 5) utilizing fully all legal authorities to enhance inspection access (including a strengthened and continuing DIV process); and 6) utilizing new approaches to improve auditing activities, verify reactor operating data history, and track/monitor the movement and storage of spent fuel.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2021

Deep Learning Systems for Increased Safeguards Surveillance Review Productivity

Nuclear safeguards inspectors expend significant time and maintain intense focus in reviewing video surveillance for safeguards relevant events. To increase efficiency and reduce the time burden of safeguards inspectors performing surveillance data review, this paper presents a novel deep learning (DL) systems concept to integrate generalized DL models into the safeguards surveillance review workflow. The Agency is investigating several DL algorithms for object recognition, localization, tracking, and flagging relevant activities. The project team is working closely with nuclear safeguards inspectors to identify review use cases (based on specific safeguards objectives) and collect their associated requirements. We focused on CANDU and LWR Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) and their associated dry storage areas as these present a particularly heavy burden on the inspector surveillance review process due to the number of these facilities under safeguards worldwide. Initial DL algorithm results on safeguards data are promising. Using a convolutional neural network, the team attained a mean average precision (mAP) of 92.9% identifying and localizing spent fuel (SF) casks from a 475 surveillance image dataset. Further, the team had initial success in training a recurrent neural network to identify reactor area activities in video clips, successfully indicating when SF casks enter or exit a pool. We discuss how such DL algorithms would be integrated into the Next Generation Surveillance Review (NGSR) software application. Another issue impacting review productivity is the long time inspectors may have to wait when running these algorithms in NGSR. We present a concept to pre-process remotely collected surveillance data with DL models as the data arrives to IAEA headquarters so that results are already available when starting a new review in NGSR. The proposed DL system concept shows a pathway and workflow for increasing an inspector’s surveillance review productivity by quickly and accurately identifying declared and undeclared safeguards relevant objects and activities in large quantities of surveillance imagery data.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2020

Safeguards Technical Objectives for Thorium Molten Salt Reactor Fuel Cycles

China, Denmark, France, India, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among others, are exploring commercial thorium fuel cycles for domestic power production and/or international export. For any thorium fuel cycle facilities built and/or operated in a non-nuclear weapon State with a comprehensive safeguards agreement, those facilities and any associated nuclear material would be subject to international nuclear safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Thorium fuel cycle facilities offered for the application of safeguards under a voluntary offer agreement by a nuclear weapon State would also be subject to safeguards, if selected by the IAEA. Compared to uranium/plutonium fuel cycle facilities, thorium fuel cycle facilities are comparatively diverse from an inspection and accounting perspective, differing greatly in material type, form, and design from uranium/plutonium fuel cycle facilities and also from each other. Of these, the most complex thorium fuel cycles – and therefore likely the most challenging to the implementation of international nuclear safeguards – are those that include thorium molten salt reactors. With thorium fuel cycles approaching near-term commercial deployment timelines, it is imperative that the international nuclear safeguards community begins to think about how to adapt existing international nuclear safeguards concepts and approaches to thorium fuel cycles, as well as mitigate any gaps that may exist. This paper focuses on the development of recommended safeguards technical objectives for efficient and effective application of international nuclear safeguards measures (e.g., containment / surveillance, non-destructive assay, destructive assay, environmental sampling) to thorium molten salt reactors.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2022

Considerations for Safeguards Implementation in the Post-Operational Facility Life Cycle

Hundreds of facilities around the world under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards are currently permanently shutdown or undergoing decommissioning. For facilities in States with a comprehensive safeguards agreement (CSA) in force, safeguards obligations under the CSA extend until the IAEA has determined for safeguards purposes that a facility has been decommissioned (i.e., the IAEA has verified that the nuclear material has been removed and residual structures and equipment essential for its use have been removed or rendered inoperable). The IAEA Department of Safeguards recently issued a report providing high-level guidance to States on IAEA safeguards implementation throughout the post-operational life cycle phases of facilities and locations outside facilities. These phases include permanent shutdown, closed-down, and decommissioned for safeguards purposes. Additional consideration is needed for how post-operational facilities might be consistently evaluated when developing State-level safeguards approaches. This work presents ideas about how the IAEA might implement the State-level concept and associated elements (e.g., State-specific factors) throughout the post-operational life cycle, focusing on maintaining effectiveness and gaining efficiencies where appropriate. Considerations include whether State-specific factors should influence facility status, how a change in a facility’s post-operational status might impact a State’s acquisition path analysis, and how rendering inoperable/removal of essential equipment could affect resources expended on safeguards implementation.

Hogue, Karen↗
DOE OSTI2016

Enhancing Efficiency of Safeguards at Facilities that are Shutdown or Closed-Down, including those being Decommissioned

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards involves verification activities at a wide range of facilities in a variety of operational phases (e.g., under construction, start-up, operating, shutdown, closed-down, and decommissioned). Safeguards optimization for each different facility type and operational phase is essential for the effectiveness of safeguards implementation. The IAEA’s current guidance regarding safeguards for the different facility types in the various lifecycle phases is provided in its Design Information Examination (DIE) and Verification (DIV) procedure. 1 Greater efficiency in safeguarding facilities that are shut down or closed down, including those being decommissioned, could allow the IAEA to use a greater portion of its effort to conduct other verification activities. Consequently, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of International Nuclear Safeguards sponsored this study to evaluate whether there is an opportunity to optimize safeguards approaches for facilities that are shutdown or closed-down. The purpose of this paper is to examine existing safeguards approaches for shutdown and closed-down facilities, including facilities being decommissioned, and to seek to identify whether they may be optimized.

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

Bulk Handling Facility Modeling and Simulation for Safeguards Analysis

The Separation and Safeguards Performance Model (SSPM) uses MATLAB/Simulink to provide a tool for safeguards analysis of bulk handling nuclear processing facilities. Models of aqueous and electrochemical reprocessing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and molten salt reactor facilities have been developed to date. These models are used for designing the overall safeguards system, examining new safeguards approaches, virtually testing new measurement instrumentation, and analyzing diversion scenarios. The key metrics generated by the models include overall measurement uncertainty and detection probability for various material diversion or facility misuse scenarios. Safeguards modeling allows for rapid and cost-effective analysis for Safeguards by Design. The models are currently being used to explore alternative safeguards approaches, including more reliance on process monitoring data to reduce the need for destructive analysis that adds considerable burden to international safeguards. Machine learning techniques are being applied, but these techniques need large amounts of data for training and testing the algorithms. The SSPM can provide that training data. This paper will describe the SSPM and its use for applying both traditional nuclear material accountancy and newer machine learning options.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2020

The MPACT 2020 Milestone: Safeguards and Security by Design of Future Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities.

The Materials Protection, Accounting, and Control Technologies (MPACT) campaign, within the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, has developed a Virtual Facility Distributed Test Bed for safeguards and security design for future nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The purpose of the Virtual Test Bed is to bring together experimental and modeling capabilities across the U.S. national laboratory and university complex to provide a one-stop-shop for advanced Safeguards and Security by Design (SSBD). Experimental testing alone of safeguards and security technologies would be cost prohibitive, but testbeds and laboratory processing facilities with safeguards measurement opportunities, coupled with modeling and simulation, provide the ability to generate modern, efficient safeguards and security systems for new facilities. This Virtual Test Bed concept has been demonstrated using a generic electrochemical reprocessing facility as an example, but the concept can be extended to other facilities. While much of the recent work in the MPACT program has focused on electrochemical safeguards and security technologies, the laboratory capabilities have been applied to other facilities in the past (including aqueous reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and molten salt reactors as examples). This paper provides an overview of the Virtual Test Bed concept, a description of the design process, and a baseline safeguards and security design for the example facility. Parallel papers in this issue go into more detail on the various technologies, experimental testing, modeling capabilities, and performance testing.

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 OSTI2022

Outreach to Industry on Safeguards by Design Concept for Small Modular Reactors

"Safeguards by Design" (SBD) is the process of incorporating safeguards features into the design of a nuclear facility during the design stage. The goal of SBD is to increase the safeguardability of a facility, which is a qualitative measure of the degree of ease with which a nuclear energy system can be effectively and efficiently placed under international safeguards. During the past decade, the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Next Generation Safeguards Initiative funded the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Brookhaven National Laboratory, and several consultants to develop the Facility Safeguardability Assessment (FSA) process. FSA is a screening process used by a facility designer to focus attention on the aspects of their facility or process design that would most benefit from application of SBD principles and practices. The process identifies the most relevant guidance within the SBD tools for enhancing the safeguardability of the design. During FY 2014, NNSA sponsored BNL and LANL to introduce the FSA to Westinghouse designers of their small modular nuclear power plant design. This report documents the interactions with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC ("Westinghouse") staff. The report describes the Westinghouse safeguards design concept with a view towards eventual application of the FSA to their design.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Long-Term Information Management (LTIM) of Safeguards Data at Repositories: Phase II

One of the challenges of implementing safeguards for geological repositories will be the long-term preservation of safeguards-related data for 100 years or more. While most countries considering the construction and operation of such facilities agree that safeguards information should be preserved, there are gaps with respect to standardized requirements, guidelines, timescales, and approaches. This study analyzes those gaps and explores research to clarify stakeholder needs, identify current policies, approaches, best practices and international standards, and explores existing safeguards information management infrastructure. The study also attempts to clarify what a safeguards data classification system might look like, how long data should be retained, and how information should be exchanged between stakeholders at different phases of a repository’s life cycle. The analysis produced a variety of recommendations on what information to preserve, how to preserve it, where to store it, retention options and how to exchange information in the long term. Key findings include the use of the globally recognized international records management standard, ISO15489, for guidance on the development of information management systems, and the development of a Key Information File (KIF). The KIF could be used to identify only the most relevant, high-level safeguards information and the history of decision making about the repository. The study also suggests implementing on-site and off-site records storage in digital and physical form; developing a safeguards data classification system; long-term records retention with periodic reviews every 5 to 10 years during each phase of the repository life cycle; and establishing transition procedures well in advance so that data shepherds and records officers can transfer information with incoming facility managers effectively and efficiently. These and other recommendations are further analyzed in this study.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗