Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Utility of Proliferation Assessments
3 Utility of Proliferation Assessments
Pages 26-40
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 26... ...
Within the area of nonproliferation policy, questions concerning technical analysis of host-state proliferation risk of a given nuclear fuel cycle represent a relatively small subset. Technical assessments of proliferation resistance address an even smaller subset because, as noted previously, proliferation resistance is contained within the 26
|
From page 27... ...
However, the committee did consider other analyses in Chapter 2, such as caseby-case analyses, and in Chapter 4 in which other methods for assessing risk are reviewed. BACKGROUND OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PREDEFINED FRAMEWORKS Numerous methods for analyzing technical aspects of proliferation risk of the nuclear fuel cycle have been developed over the decades (GENIV Forum 2011a; Charlton 2012)
|
From page 28... ...
OVERVIEW OF PREDEFINED FRAMEWORKS Predefined frameworks are methodologies designed to consistently and transparently evaluate proliferation resistance through a standardized set of predetermined attributes (or metrics) that are evaluated throughout the individual processing steps of a given fuel cycle (Mendez et al.
|
From page 29... ...
Perhaps noteworthy by its absence is the IAEA's International Project on Innovative Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycles (INPRO)
|
From page 30... ...
. The task force was charged "to identify near- and longterm technical opportunities to further increase the proliferation resistance of global civilian nuclear power systems." This included an R&D focus on methods for assessing proliferation resistance by evaluating "the relative proliferation resistance of specific fuel cycles in terms of a generic set of ‘attributes.' The attributes are derived by first defining the barriers to proliferation inherent in the design of the system, its materials and facilities, and its modes of operation" (NERAC TOPS Task Force 2001)
|
From page 31... ...
de y eveloped an assessment methodolog gy based primarily on the TOPS attributes methodology to provide a qualitative relative d o S m y e assessment of the proliferatio resistance of systems, processes, a nuclear facilities as e on e , and part of its strategy to commer o y rcialize fast -reactor techhnology. Two threats are considered: o e : a cov diversion by a state and theft by a subnationa group.
|
From page 32... ...
The methodology focuses the proliferation resistance assessment on the flow of material through the fuel cycle as a function of time -- from its initial input into the fuel cycle to its eventual disposal. The TAMU MAUA methodology limits the threat to diversion of nuclear material by a host state but does not address other threats such as theft or terrorism.
|
From page 33... ...
The form of the results includes best estimates from subject matter experts for numerical and linguistic descriptors that characterize the overall proliferation resistance of the fuel cycles (GENIV Forum 2007, 2011b)
|
From page 34... ...
. The mmethodologie es do asssess prolifer ration resista ance to allow for relative comparison between a set of given w e n n fuel cycles.
|
From page 35... ...
.. The committee judges this predefined framework approach to be sound in defining a set of steps in a complex system for analysis and organization of data to allow for comparisons between fuel cycles.
|
From page 36... ...
because experts are still solicited through a survey form, for example.17 Uncertainty Analysis In technical assessments utilizing expert knowledge, the aggregate uncertainty of the results to changes in assumptions and information is an important factor in determining the confidence level of the results. It is important to define the uncertainties at the expert elicitation phase and to properly account for the uncertainties through their aggregation to the final result.
|
From page 37... ...
To summarize, the committee considered a set of predefined frameworks and found the following: shortcomings in their execution because of poor and/or undocumented expert elicitation processes and lack of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses; inherent limitation of applicability because of unknown facility and host-state details for future fuel cycles and limited shelf life of assessments. UTILITY OF PREDEFINED FRAMEWORKS FOR DECISION MAKERS In addressing this task, the committee notes that the "utility" of a methodology is subjective and dependent on the individual and/or organization.
|
From page 38... ...
. Results highlighted strengths and weaknesses of the different fuel cycles and summarized the results as follows: "Because the alternatives present complementary risks and benefits, this assessment does not identify a preferred alternative or alternatives" (DOE 2008b, p.
|
From page 39... ...
They also have value as a way to consistently compare the attributes of potential future nuclear fuel cycles and for identifying where safeguards can be most effective in raising barriers to proliferation. They provide a common lexicon and structure for communicating with international partners about nuclear energy decisions.
|
From page 40... ...
However, these comparisons address a small subset of the wider range of issues faced by policy makers and the committee was able to determine that the frameworks have rarely been used to inform policy decisions. Additionally, there have been shortcomings in their execution.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.