Title: Assessment of the Risks and Uncertainties in Eliminating Nuclear Material Stockpiles
1Assessment of the Risks and Uncertainties in
Eliminating Nuclear Material Stockpiles
- F. STEINHÄUSLER
- Div. of Physics and Biophysics
- University of Salzburg
- A 5020 Salzburg
- Austria
- Email friedrich.steinhaeusler_at_sbg.ac.at
2Topics
- Source terms and policy issues
- The need to act
- Technical options
- Security aspects
- Conclusions recommendations
3SOURCE TERMS AND POLICY ISSUES
4SOURCES OF MILITARY HEU and Pu
- Operational weapons
- Weapon-grade material outside operational
weapons - Fuel- and thermal-grade Pu in store
5MILITARY INVENTORY HEU/Pu(central estimate (t)
in 2003, SIPRI)
- US 635/47.5
- Russia 470/100
- UK15/3.2
- France 24/5
- China 20/4
- India little/0.31
- Pakistan 0.69/0.005
- Israel ?/0.51
- Total 1 165/160
- Production rate up to 250 kg/GW(th), a
6MILITARY DECLARED SURPLUS HEU/Pu(central
estimate (t) in 2003, SIPRI)
- US 174/52.5
- Russia 500/34
- UK0/4.4
- France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel 0/0
- Total 674/91
7UNDER IAEA SAFEGUARDS HEU/Pu(central estimate
(t) in 2003, SIPRI)
- France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel0/0
- Total 10/2.1
- US 10/2
- Russia 0/0
- UK0/0.1
-
8DISPOSED HEU/Pu(central estimate (t) in 2003,
SIPRI)
- China, France, India, Pakistan,
- Israel, UK, US 0/0
- Total 96/0
9CIVILIAN Pu INVENTORY
- In spent nuclear fuel
- Separated in store
- In fast-reactor fuel cycle
- In thermal MOX fuel cycle
10Civilian Pu Production
- Typical annual Pu production rate in nuclear
power reactors 180 kg /GW(e) - Civilian facilities in UK and France can
reprocess fuel elements of all nuclear power
plants in EU and Japan -
- 6-10 kg Pu/t of spent fuel
11CIVILIAN OWNERSHIPHEU/Pu(central estimate (t)
in 2003, SIPRI)
- Pakistan /-
- Israel /-
- Others /59.4
- Total
- 16-22/195
- US 5-10/4-5
- Russia /30.3
- UK ca. 4/59.8
- France ca. 5/40.3
- China /0
- India /0.7
12Past, Present and Future Pu Stockpiles (central
estimates)
13Weapon-usability ofReactor Pu
- - Higher rate of spontaneous fission
- - Increased heat production
- - Higher probability for pre-detonation
- explosive yield 1 to several kt
- E. Kankeleit, C. Kuppers, U. Imkeller, Report
on the weapon-usability of reactor plutonium,
IANUS-Arbeitsbericht 1/1989 - Compacting speed of 2-4 km/s
14Theft of separated Pu, whether weapons-grade or
reactor-grade, is a major security risk
- US National Academy of Sciences,
- Management and Disposition of Excess Plutonium,
- Vol. 12, National Academy Press,
- Washington, D.C.,
- 1994 and 1995
152. THE NEED TO ACT
16Inadequate protection
- States can no longer claim to be able to protect
100 military nuclear material stockpiles - US Force-on-Force exercises (gt50 success rate)
- FSU several hundred illicit trafficking
incidents since 1991 (at least 27 cases involving
weapons-usable fissile material)
17Vulnerability of US DOE Pu Storage Sites
- Interim Pu storage (26 t) for 10 to 20 a
- Pu stored in 166 facilities at 35 sites 299
vulnerabilities identified at 13 sites - Inadequate facility conditions
- Incomplete safety analysis
- Degradation of Pu packaging, etc.
- Related to safety, environment and health (Nov.
1994) - Excluding Pantex Plant, Texas
18Imperfect state security networks
- States cannot rely exclusively on less than
perfect state security networks to protect
military and civilian Pu stockpiles - Corruption of security forces, customs and
politicians (www.transparency.org) - Politically/religiously/financially motivated
insider threat (extremism, blackmail) - Criminal nuclear supply networks
(Pakistan-Malaysia-Libya)
19Personnel performance and misuse of new
equipment at Russian nuclear facilities
- 9 sites investigated three of them had inter
alia the following deficiencies - Gate to central facility left open and unattended
- Nuclear material portal monitor not operational
- No access control at nuclear material storage
site - Security-related activities, February 2001
20Personnel performance and misuse of new
equipment at Russian nuclear facilities
- No response when metal detector was set off upon
entry - Wide spread drug and alcohol related problems
- Security-related activities, February 2001
21Potential for political instability
- Internal political stability of nuclear weapon
states is not guaranteed (Pakistan?) - Act of despair deployment of nuclear weapon as
the last resort (Israel?)
22Strong Man Policy
- Failed international crisis management, using the
Strong Man-Global Policeman Policy, e.g.,
identification of an external enemy, who will be
threatened or contained with a nuclear weapon
(DOD Nuclear Posture Review) - US Strategic Nuclear Forces (2003)
- 14 Trident Submarines, 450 Minuteman III ICBM,
- 66 B-52H bombers, 20 B-2 Stealth bombers
233. TECHNICAL OPTIONS
24Disposition Programme Short-term Objectives
- Make it harder for individuals to steal the
material - Increase the difficulty for rogue nations and
terrorists to reuse the material
25Disposition Programme Long-term Objectives
- Prevent contamination of the environment and
uncontrolled radiation exposure of man - Signal to others that there is a path to the
irreversible reduction of materials stockpiled - Progress towards nuclear arms reduction
26Disposition Principle(e.g., for surplus
weapon-grade Pu)
- Create a substantial barrier to the recovery of
the nuclear material
27Weapon-grade Pu
- Pu 238 0.01
- Pu 239 93.80
- Pu 240 5.80
- Pu 241 0.13
- Pu 242 0.02
- Am 241 0.22
- Age 20 years
- in percent (by weight)
284 Theoretical Disposition Options, only 2
Realistic Choices
- 1. Pu dilution in oceans (environmental risk?)
- 2. Pu transport into space (risk of major
accident?) -
- 3. Immobilization of Pu
- 4. Reactor/accelerator methods using Pu
2917 Evaluation criteria
- 1. Operational time scale
- 2. Material throughput
- 3. Physical security
- 4. Self-protection
- 5. Long-term stability
- 6. Criticality issues
- 7. Safeguards Proliferation resistance
- 8. Suitability for final depository
- 9. State of development
3017 Evaluation criteria
- 10.Costs for start up
- 11. Costs for routine operation
- 12. Long-term neutron stability
- 13. Long-term chemical durability
- 14. Environmental impact
- 15. Local acceptance
- 16. National acceptance
- 17. International acceptance
31Example for Open Issues Proliferation Resistance
- Are all the technical methods deployed
proliferation resistant? - Does the method allow the pursuit of
weapon-relevant technology options? - Is it possible to covertly divert nuclear
material?
32Example for Open Issues Operational time scale
- How long does the Pu have to remain in an interim
storage area? - When will the industrial-scale version of the
disposition method be available? - What is the time period required to totally
eliminate Pu?
33Example for Open Issues Costs
- Costs for R D?
- Investment costs for constructing the facilities
in US/Russia/EU? - Operational costs of facility?
- Costs for final deposition of resulting waste
products?
34IMMOBILIZATION OF Pu
35Immobilization technologies
- Direct glass vitrification
- Direct ceramic vitrification
- Can-in-canister vitrification
- Geologic disposal
- Electro-metallurgical treatment
36Direct glass vitrificationPrinciple
- Pu and n-absorbing material, mixed with molten
glass and high level radwaste - Pu concentration about 5 to 8 (by weight)
- Cooled into large logs (weight 2 t height 3 m)
- Large base of experience for industrial scale
vitrification (B, F, UK since 1986 or longer) - e.g., gadolinium lanthanide borosilicate
37Direct glass vitrificationOpen technical issues
- Optimal glass formulation for not immobilized Pu?
- Optimal level of solubility of Pu in glass?
- Prevention of accumulation of critical mass in
processing equipment? - Solubility of n absorber potentially higher than
that of Pu, i.e., criticality possible after 10³
years?
38Direct glass vitrificationOpen technical issues
- Radiation creates helium and oxygen bubbles in
glass, increasing the volume impact of
additional cracks? - There is no natural analog of glass containing
alpha-emitters long-term material behavior
expose to internal alpha radiation exposure?
39Direct glass vitrificationOpen security issues
- Is subsequent Pu recovery from glass feasible?
- Ground glass, dissolve in nitric acid, remove Pu
(PUREX process) - Bench-top solvent removal process extracts about
25 of Pu analog from a glass host - Covert operation requires little
additional equipment, no obvious new
activity noticeable
40Direct ceramic vitrificationPrinciple
- Pu and n-absorber mixed in ceramic material with
high level radwaste - Pu concentraion lt10 (by weight)
- Radioactive ceramic material placed inside steel
canister - Limited large-scale industrial experience
41Direct ceramic vitrificationOpen technical and
security issues
- Remaining technical and security issues
- Similar to glass vitrification
42Can-in-canister vitrificationPrinciple
- Pu and n-absorbing material mixed with molten
glass or ceramic material in steel cans (2.5 kg
of Pu/can) - 20 stainless steel cans loaded onto a rack within
a larger steel canister(3 m long) - Filled with molten, glassified high level
radwaste from reprocessing - Cooled (weight 2 t)
43Can-in-canister vitrificationOpen technical and
security issues
- Technical issues similar to glass vitrification
- Security issues
- - 1 spent fuel assembly from BWR/PWR
- 1.5/4.2 kg Pu
- - 1 canister (20 cans) 12.5 kg
Pu - canister contains 400 more Pu than spent
fuel assembly - Equivalent to 3 nuclear weapon pits
44Geologic DisposalPrinciple
- Deep borehole (several km)
- Enclose Pu or Pu mixed with high level radwaste
within physical barrier (e.g., glass, ceramics) - Transport enclosed pure Pu or mixture to borehole
- Close borehole to (a) minimize direct access (b)
allow defined access at a later stage
45Geologic DisposalOpen technical and security
issues
- Pu leaching models Pu solubility is low (10E-8
g/cm³) and glass surface area increases by a
factor of 5 due to fracturing - Fracturing due to quenching 10 times higher?
- Does crack growth continue throughout lifetime of
glass(water, tectonic stress)? - Intentional Pu Mining desirable at a later
stage? - B. Grambow (Materials Research Soc. Symp. Proc.
333, 167-180 (1994)
46Electrometallurgical treatmentPrinciple
- Pu mixed with monolithic mineral form
- Result glass-bonded zeolite (GBZ)
47Electrometallurgical treatmentOpen Technical
and Security Issues
- Less technically mature than other disposition
methods - Several key steps not demonstrated yet at
industrial scale - Political concerns due to its similarity to
nuclear fuel reprocessing
48REACTOR/ACCELERATOR TECHNOLOGIES USING Pu
49TransmutationPrinciple
- Origin in the 1970s
- Concept using high n fluxes, long-lived
isotopes, particularly transuranics, can be
transmuted - Product stable or relatively short-lived
radioactive substances
50TransmutationOpen technical and security issues
- High energy linear accelerator needed (p(GeV)
- High n flux required (gt10E16 n/cm²,s) over Pb or
Bi spallation target - High RD risk
- accelerator technology
- chemical separation methods
51TransmutationOpen technical and security issues
- High energy consumption
- Low throughput
- High cost
- Radioactive waste unavoidable
- Dual use option (Pu disposition Tritium
production) - Lack of industrial scale demonstration
52Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX )Principle
- Large industrial facility needed for multi-stage
MOX fuel production - metal Pu converted into Pu oxide powder
- grinding mixing with U
- sieving/sintering/cutting/polishing into pellets
- pellets filled into fuel elements
53Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX )Principle
- Mixture of natural U with Pu-Oxide, irradiated as
fuel in commercial reactors - MOX suitable reactors in Europe F(20), D(12),
CH(3), B(2)
54Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX ) Open technical and
security issues
- MOX fuel in fast breeder 15-35 Pu
- MOX fuel in LWR 3-5 Pu
- 1 GW(e) 25-30 t MOX fuel/a
- 1 Reactor only 1.2 to 1.5 t of Pu/a
-
- to meet schedule
- full MOX core is needed
55Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX)Open technical and
security issues
- Full core MOX operation
- difficult reactor safety controls
- safe and secure management of MOX fuel over
period of decades?
56Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX)Open technical and
security issues
- Once disposition campaign completed still 15 to
25 a remaining lifetime of facility left MOX as
the precursor for a Pu fuel cycle? - Use of military Pu in commercial reactors
undermining nonproliferation interests? - Use of MOX facility for fuel production of
military reactors?
57Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX)Open technical and
security issues
- Utilities expect higher operating costs
- Higher in-core n production rates
- Higher heat output
- Difficulties of using and storing MOX
- What incentives fees to be paid to
utilities? - Compared to ordinary reactor fuel
584. SECURITY ASPECTS
59Diversion due to measurement uncertainties?
- MUF at nuclear material processing site
- Plant holdup (tanks, pipes, drains, etc.)
- Wide variations of material matrix
- Statistical variations
- Accidental spills
- Recording, reporting, rounding errors
- Honey pot syndrome
60Uncertainties/Fraud
- Nuclear material storage site
- Statistical uncertainty of measurement during
non-destructive testing of container content - Covert faking of intactcontainer seals
- Checking of container presence only (without
verifying content)
61US Cumulative Pu Inventory Difference (1944-1994)
in kg
- Rocky Fl. 1 192
- Los Alamos 48
- Savannah R. 232
- Other sites 17
- - increase from book inventory
- Hanford 1 266
- Argonne West -3.4
- Lawrence L. 5.5
- Idaho NE -5.6
- decrease from book inventory
Total Difference 2 800 kg DOE Openness
Conference, Sept. 30, 1994
62Security Risks during Transport
- Transport moving target is generally at higher
security risk than stationary target - Rail/road transport 4 highly damaging attack
modes possible - Sea transport continuous navy escort required
- NATO Expert Group Terrorist attacks on nuclear
power plants and nuclear material transports,
Rep. SST.CLG.978964(July 2004)
63Countering Transport Security Risks
- Specially designed Super-containers necessary for
transport of nuclear warheads - Kevlar-based blankets needed to protect
containers with dismantled nuclear weapon
components - Heavy-duty manipulators required for remote
handling of nuclear warheads
64Spent Fuel Standard (SFS) adequate security?
- Radiation barrier decays with t½ 30 a minimal
deterrent after 300 a (Pu mining) - Cans embedded in radioactive glass or ceramic
technically feasible to remove cans from external
radiation barrier (re-start of reprocessing) - Suicide terrorist not incapacitated (max.
?-radiation dose rate 6 Sv/20 min)
655. CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
66Comparative assessment of Pu elimination methods
(1)
- MOX fuel, vitrification and geologic depository
can only delay reprocessing - MOX will require about 250 a of reactor
operation/100 t Pu - MOX require the operation of many installations
( extensive transport of Pu-fuel and radwaste)
67Comparative assessment of Pu elimination methods
(2)
- Pu storage in deep boreholes requires minimum
operations, easy to supervise (e.g., CCTV
satellite) - Vitrification simultaneous elimination of high
level radwaste and Pu
68Comparative assessment of Pu elimination methods
(3)
- Irreversible Pu destruction only by transmutation
- Supervision of spallation units depends on design
(e.g., operation as dual use facility feasible) - Transmutation requires assurance of proliferation
resistance - Transmutation requires the operation of many
installations ( extensive transport)
69Comparative assessment of Pu elimination methods
(4)
- RD requirements
- minimum Pu storage in deep boreholes
- maximum transmutation
- Cost estimates (for elimination of 400 t Pu)
- vitrification/borehole EURO 2-7 billion
- transmutation EURO 70 billion
- for comparison total cost US nuclear weapon
development programme EURO 3 000 billion
70Comparative assessment of Pu elimination methods
(5)
- Can-in-canister shortest start-up and completion
time of all Pu disposition methods 7a, resp.
18 a - MOX implementation 25 30 a
- except deep borehole storage
- assumption 5 t Pu/a
- assuming European MOX facilities as interim
solution
71Comparative assessment of Pu elimination methods
(6)
- SYNROC is superior to glass vitrification
- chemical stability
- n stability
- resistance to Pu recovery
72Recommendations
- 1. There is no single, perfect method of
eliminating nuclear material stockpiles each
method has its pros and cons - 2. Overall immobilization is superior to
reactor/accelerator approach - Nonproliferation
- Timing
- Cost
- Security
73Recommendations
- 3. Establish an international register of
inventories and production capabilities for all
relevant nuclear materials - 4. Demand detailed material balances
- 5. End discrimination between military and
civilian Pu stockpiles
74Recommendations
- 6. Strengthen the existing international
monitoring system - Kr 85 monitoring
- Tagging techniques
- Tamper-proof seals
75Excess weapon grade Pu poses a clear and present
danger to national and international security
- US National Academy of Sciences,
- Management and Disposition of Excess Plutonium,
- Vol. 12, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., - 1994 and 1995
76The fate of the Russian 130 to 160 t of Pu is not
only of interest with regard to disarmament, but
represents a global interest in survival, which
requires from us solutions, or at least a
minimization of risks.
- Joschka FISCHER,
- Minister of Foreign Affairs,
- Germany,
- Sept. 1, 2000
77Famous last words...
- Benefits of Pu disposition programmes should not
be exaggerated - US and Russia can reconstitute Cold War sized
arsenals with remaining, non-surplus Pu stocks - Disposition is only an important first step
toward a more comprehensive campaign
78There is no "small" nuclear bomb...
79(No Transcript)
80(No Transcript)
81(No Transcript)
82(No Transcript)
83Governmental leadership is needed in bringing
together the non-proliferation community,
industrial participants and the public on a
common agenda to rid the world of surplus weapons
material as soon as possible.
- Nuclear Energy Institute,
- March 11, 1998