IMPROVING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
PROLIFERATION RISK OF NUCLEAR FUEL
CYCLES

Committee on Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of
Nuclear Fuel Cycles
Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board
Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
IMPRO I OVING THE ASSES G SSMEN OF THE NT PR ROLIF FERATI ISK OF NUCLEAR FUEL ION RI F CYYCLESS Committee on Impro C e oving the Assessment of the Pro A t oliferation Risk of Nuclea Fuel Cyc ar cles Nuclear and Ra udies Boar adiation Stu rd Div vision on Earth and L Studies Life s

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Award No. DE-PI0000010/DE-DT0002373 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13:978-0-309-28532-2 International Standard Book Number 10:0-309-28532-1 Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Ac N cademy of Sciences is a private, no S onprofit, sel lf-perpetuati society o ing of distin nguished sch holars engag in scien ged ntific and en ngineering reesearch, deddicated to th he furthe erance of sc cience and te echnology an to their u for the g nd use general welfa Upon th are. he authoority of the charter grante to it by th Congress in 1863, the Academy h a mandat c ed he e has te that requires it to advise the federal gov r o vernment on scientific a technical matters. D n and l Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is presiden of the Nati h e nt ional Academ of Scien my nces. The National Ac N cademy of Engineering was establis E shed in 1964 under the charter of th 4, he Natio onal Academ of Scienc as a par my ces, rallel organiz zation of ou ngineers. It is utstanding en auton nomous in it administration and in the selectio of its me ts n on embers, sha aring with thhe Natio onal Academ of Sciences the resp my ponsibility f advising the federal governmen for nt. The National Ac N cademy of Engineering also spons E g sors engineeering prograams aimed a at meeti national needs, enco ing ourages educ cation and r research, and recognizes the superio d s or achie evements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is p D M president of t National Academy o the l of Engin neering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 b the Nation Academ of Science I w by nal my es to sec cure the serv vices of emiinent membe of approp ers priate profes ssions in the examinatio e on of poolicy matter pertaining to the hea rs g alth of the p public. The Institute ac under th cts he respo onsibility giv to the National Acad ven N demy of Sci iences by its congressional charter t s to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon it own initia n t g ts ative, to iden ntify issues o of medical care, research, and education. Dr Harvey V. Fineberg is president o the Institut r. . s of te of Meedicine. The National Re N esearch Couuncil was org ganized by t National Academy o Sciences i the l of in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technol e logy with th Academy’s he purpo oses of furthhering knowwledge and advising the federal gov a vernment. Fu unctioning i in accor rdance with general policies determ mined by the Academy, the Council has becom e l me the principal op p perating agency of both the Natio h onal Academ of Scien my nces and th he Natio onal Academ of Engin my neering in pr roviding serv rvices to the governmen the public e nt, c, and the scientific and engine t c eering comm munities. Th Council is administer jointly b he s red by both Academies and the Institute of Med dicine. Dr. R Ralph J. Ciceerone and D Charles M Dr. M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively of the Nat d , y, tional Resea arch Council. www w.national-ac cademies.or rg

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Committee on Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles ROBERT C. DYNES, Chair, University of California, San Diego ALLEN G. CROFF, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired), St. Augustine, Florida BART EBBINGHAUS, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California B. JOHN GARRICK, Independent Consultant, Laguna Beach, California CAROL E. KESSLER, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York MILTON LEVENSON, Independent Consultant, Menlo Park, California NANCY JO NICHOLAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico ARIAN PREGRENZER, Sandia National Laboratories (retired), Albuquerque, New Mexico SCOTT D. SAGAN, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California AMY SANDS, Monterey Institute of International Studies, California WILLIAM H. TOBEY, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts CHRIS G. WHIPPLE, ENVIRON, Lafayette, California STAFF JENNIFER HEIMBERG, Study Director, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board BENJAMIN RUSEK, Senior Program Officer, Committee on International Security and Arms Control ERIN WINGO, Senior Program Assistant, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board v

OCR for page R1
Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board JAY C. DAVIS (chair), Hertz Foundation, Livermore, California BARBARA J. MCNEIL (vice-chair), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts JOHN S. APPLEGATE, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington DAVID J. BRENNER, Columbia University, New York MARGARET S.Y. CHU, M.S. Chu & Associates, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, University of Wisconsin, Madison PATRICIA J. CULLIGAN, Columbia University, New York ROBERT C. DYNES, University of California, San Diego HEDVIG HRICAK, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York THOMAS H. ISAACS, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California CAROL M. JANTZEN, Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina ANNIE B. KERSTING, Glen T. Seaborg Institute, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California MARTHA S. LINET, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland FRED A. METTLER, JR., New Mexico VA Health Care System, Albuquerque BORIS F. MYASOEDOV, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, PQR, LLC, La Jolla, California DANIEL O. STRAM, University of Southern California, Los Angeles RICHARD J. VETTER, Mayo Clinic (retired), Rochester, Minnesota Staff KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Director JENNIFER HEIMBERG, Senior Program Officer OURANIA KOSTI, Senior Program Officer TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative and Financial Associate LAURA D. LLANOS, Administrative and Financial Associate DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant SHAUNTEÉ WHETSTONE, Senior Program Assistant ERIN WINGO, Senior Program Assistant vi

OCR for page R1
PREFACE This study originated from a joint request from the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Nonproliferation and International Security to understand the extent to which technical analysis of proliferation risk could be improved for policy makers. Phase 1 of this two-phase study was a workshop that focused on the first task of the study charge: identifying key policy questions that were capable of being answered by a technical assessment of host-state proliferation risk and the utility of these questions for informing nonproliferation policy decisions. The workshop, summarized by a rapporteur-authored report, brought together nonproliferation policy decision makers and key technical developers of proliferation assessment tools. During our first committee meeting, we heard from DOE-NEa that it believed that the workshop adequately addressed the first task, whereas NNSA reported that the workshop did not.b This consensus report, which addresses the full statement of task, is the result of the second phase of the study. When the committee and I began working on this study, we had long discussions on the meaning and motivation of the statement of task. We tried to better understand the individual tasks by dissecting them into components, and then by looking at them in total. We set off to gather information on “how the U.S. government makes nonproliferation policy decisions” searching for a well-defined process. At the same time, we began the significant work of “assessing the assessments.” Specifically, we reconsidered what key policy decisions could be answered by technical analysis of proliferation risk. What we discovered throughout the study was that the task statement, although complex in its charge, can be reduced to asking how far technical analysis can go toward guiding nonproliferation policy-based decisions. How developed are the current technical methods? Do the policy makers need additional information that they are not getting? We realized that the U.S. government does not follow a scripted process for every nonproliferation policy decision but that there are well-developed pathways to address the technical analysis that supports these decisions. I gained respect for the complexities of the issues faced by policy makers and the impact of the decisions that they make. It is clear that nonproliferation policy makers do make use of technical analyses when making decisions but also weigh many other factors. a Griffith, A. 2012. DOE-NE Perspectives on the National Academies Proliferation Risk Assessment Project. Presentation to committee, January 16. b Lockwood, D. 2012. Proliferation Risk Assessments: A Policy-Maker’s Observations. Presentation to the committee, January 16. vii

OCR for page R1
viii PREFACE The committee had lively discussions on the current limits of science-based approaches toward guiding these decisions. Ultimately, we determined that at the current time, science-based approaches for quantifying aspects of proliferation risk are best limited to engineering-based assessments (e.g., an assessment of proliferation resistance as opposed to the proliferation risk of a future fuel cycle). We did see that decision makers from other organizations found value in these approaches but only when they were actively involved in the process. This complex study would not have been as interesting or enjoyable if not for the diverse and dedicated committee that supported it. The committee members came from different backgrounds and across many disciplines, spanning the usually vast chasm between technical and policy perspectives. For this committee, this division was not a problem. We all learned a great deal from each other and listened respectfully from divergent viewpoints on some issues. Robert C. Dynes, Chair

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of individuals and organizations contributed to the successful completion of this report. The committee received many briefings that were necessary for the study’s success. Its questions were nearly always answered with clarity and candor. This report could not have been written without the support of the people listed below who made presentations to the committee. The information and cooperation that the committee received from these organizations and individuals were critical to the success of this study. The committee would particularly like to acknowledge the excellent support it received from the project sponsors, the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of Nuclear Energy. The committee is especially grateful for the support it received from Dunbar Lockwood, Dan Vega, Karyn Durbin, Ed Wonder, and John Murphy. The committee gratefully acknowledges the following people who provided presentations at its information-gathering sessions: Robert Bari, Brookhaven National Laboratory Jeff Bedell, Los Alamos National Laboratory Kory Budlong-Sylvester, Los Alamos National Laboratory and current member of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation (SAGSI) Tod Caldwell, NNSA Office of Nuclear Controls William Charlton, Texas A&M University Joyce Connery, National Security Council Lisa Owens Davis, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Phillip Dolliff, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction, Department of State Chris Eldridge, IAEA Department of Safeguards Matthew Ferguson, IAEA Department of Safeguards Nancy Gallagher, University of Maryland Erik Gartzke, University of California San Diego Vladimir Georgevich, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Alex Glaser, Princeton University Richard Goorevich, Senior Policy Advisor, National Nuclear Security Administration Andrew Griffith, Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy John Herczeg, Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Hank Jenkins-Smith, University of Oklahoma David Johnson, ABS Consulting Jeff Kaplaw, University of California San Diego Donald Kerr, George Mason University ix

OCR for page R1
x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Susan Koch, Missouri State University Warren "Pete" Miller, Bipartisan Policy Center John Murphy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Mary Beth Nikitin, Congressional Research Service Gordon Oehler, Potomac Institute University Rafail Ostrovsky, University of California Los Angeles Jon Phillips, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Joe Pilat, Los Alamos National Laboratory M.V. Ramana, Princeton University William Rhodes, NNSA Office of Nuclear Controls Ray E. Richardson, Central Intelligence Agency Gary Rochau, Sandia National Laboratories Michael Rosenthal, past member of the IAEA’s SAGSI James Smith, Los Alamos National Laboratory James Sprinkle, IAEA Department of Safeguards Sharon Squassoni, Center for Strategic and International Studies John Steinbruner, University of Maryland Richard J. K. Stratford, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Safety and Security, Department of State Steven Streetman, Data Architecture Solutions, Inc. David Sweeney, Texas A&M University Lynn Timmons, NNSA, Office of Nuclear Controls (contractor) Michael Uzzle, NNSA Mary Beth Ward, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Christopher Way, Cornell University Anatoli Welihozkiy, NNSA Office of Nuclear Controls Ed Wonder, NNSA Office of International Regimes and Agreements The committee would also like to thank the individuals that assisted in the logistical preparation at the sites the committee visited. Their assistance greatly aided the committee in their task. These include: Reid Pauly, Stanford University Jessica Groom, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Suzanne Cordoza, Sandia National Laboratories Kathy Loeppky, Sandia National Laboratories Peggy Desko, Sandia National Laboratories Susan Washburn, Sandia National Laboratories The committee extends special thanks to the staff of the National Research Council for supporting this study. Staff members who contributed to this effort include Jenny Heimberg (study director), Benjamin Rusek (staff member of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control), Kevin Crowley (director of the Nuclear and

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi Radiation Studies Board), Erin Wingo (senior program assistant), and Toni Greenleaf (financial and program associate). This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Research Council in making its published report as sound as possible and will ensure that this report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Robert Bari, Brookhaven National Laboratory Steven Becker, Old Dominion University, School of Public Health Matthew Bunn, Harvard University Mona Dreicer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Steve Fetter, University of Maryland Alan Icenhour, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Thomas Isaacs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Sharon Squassoni, Center for Strategic and International Studies John Steinbruner, University of Maryland James Timbie, U.S. Department of State Larry Turnbull, Riverside Research Kevin Wood, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Michael Zentner, U.S. Department of Energy Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Richard Meserve, Carnegie Institution for Science, and Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University. Appointed by the National Research Council, Drs. Meserve and Morgan were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were considered carefully. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authorizing committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SUMMARY 5 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 15 2. KEY PROLIFERATION POLICY QUESTIONS 19 3. UTILITY OF PROLIFERATION ASSESSMENTS 26 4. APPLICATION OF OTHER RISK METHODOLOGIES 41 5. IDENTIFICATION OF R&D FOR IMPROVING ASSESSMENTS 48 6. COMMUNICATION OF PROLIFERATION RISK 51 REFERENCES 57 APPENDICES A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 62 B: Evaluation of Predefined Frameworks 68 C: Statement of Task 73 D: Presentations and Committee Meetings 74 E: Glossary and Acronyms 76 xiii

OCR for page R1