National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 Communication of Proliferation Risk
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. & Husseiny, A.A. 1982. Risk Assessment of Alternative Proliferation Routes, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 56.

Amano, Y. 2013. Nuclear Power After Fukushima. Statement at the Institute for Security Studies, Johannesburg, South Africa, February 13. Available at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2013/amsp2013n02.html.

ANS (American Nuclear Society). 2012. Searching for a better safeguards assessment tool. Nuclear News April, p. 75.

Arms Control Association. 2012. Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) at a Glance. Available at http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/NSG.

Bari, R. 2012. Generation IV Working Group Methodology for PR&PP Assessment. Presentation to the NAS Committee on Improving the Assessment of Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles, May 23.

Bari, R., R. Bean, L. Cheng, V. Cleary, H. Ludeeig, G. Raitses, G. Rochau, I. Therios, M. Todosow, M. Yue, M. Zentner. 2008. Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection Evaluation of Grid-Appropriate Reactors. BNL-GAR-2008-001. Washington, DC. (OUO)

Bari, R., L. Cheng, J.S. Choi, J. Phillips, J. Pilat, G. Rochau, I. Therios, R. Wigeland, E. Wonder, M. Zentner. 2008. Proliferation Risk Reduction Study of Alternative Spent Fuel Processing Technologies. BNL-81505-2008. Washington, DC. (OUO)

Bari, R., Choi, J.S., Phillips, J., Pilat, J., Rochau, G., Wigeland, R., Budlong-Sylvester, K. 2007. UREX/COEX Proliferation Risk Reduction Study (OUO). Report No. BNL-PRR-2007-001. Upton, NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Barnard, C. A., J. R. Oppenheimer, C. A. Thomas, Harry A. Winne, D. E. Winne, and D. E. Lilienthal. 1946. A Report on the International Control of Atomic Energy. Department of State Publication 2498.U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.learnworld.com/ZNW/LWText.Acheson-Lilienthal.html.

Bathke, C., R. Wallace, J. Ireland, M. W. Johnson, G. Jarvinen, K. Hase, B. Ebbinghaus, B. Sleaford, B. Collins, M. Robel, K. Bradley, A. Prichard, and B. Smith. Report No. LAR-UR-09-03637.. Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory. Available at http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-09-03637.

Bedell, J. 2012. Technical Assessments of Proliferation Risk and the Nuclear Supplier’s Group Review of Dual Use Technology List. Presentation to committee, July 10. (OUO)

Blair, D., P. Rexroth, G. Rochau, T. Sype, and G. Wyss. 2002. A Risk-Based Methodology for Nuclear Proliferation Decisions. Report No. SAND2002-1579C. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, May.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×

BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory). 2009. Proliferation Risk Reduction Study of Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles. BNL-PRR-2009-003. Upton, NY: BNL.(OUO)

Budlong Sylvester, K., C. Ferguson, E. Garcia, G. Jarvinen, J. Pilat and J. Tape. 2006.Report of an Elicitation on an Example Sodium Fast Reactor (ESFR) System in Support of the Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection Evaluation Methodology. Nuclear Technology Vol. 179 Issue 1. July.

Charlton, W. 2012. Overview of Proliferation Risk Methodologies. Presentation to Committee. January 12.

Charlton, W., R. Lebouf, C. Beard, S. Landsberger, and M. Whitaker. 2007. Proliferation resistance assessment methodology for nuclear fuel cycles. Nuclear Technology 157:147–156.

Chirayath, S., W. Charlton, A. Stafford, C. Myers, B. Goddard, J. Alfred, M. Carroll, M. Sternat, E. Rauch. 2010. Risk Informed Safeguards Integration Studies for a Fast Reactor Fuel Cycle. Texas A&M University.

Coles, G. A., Z. N. Gastelum, A. J. Brothers, and S. E. Thompson. 2009. Utility of Social Modeling for Proliferation Assessment. Report No. PNNL-18438. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. Nonproliferation Assessment Methodology Functional Requirements. Washington, DC: DOE.

DOE 2008a. Draft Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0396, October.

DOE. 2008b. Nonproliferation Impact Assessment for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Programmatic Alternatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. 2010. Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Report to Congress, April . Washington, DC: Department of Energy.

Dolliff, P. 2012. Utilization of Prioritization Methodologies by Policymakers. Presentation to committee, September 12. (SECRET)

Eisenhower, D. D. 1953. Text of the Address Delivered by the President of the United States Before the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City Tuesday Afternoon, December 8, Available at http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/all_about_ike/speeches/atoms_for_peace.pdf

EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Expert Elicitation Task Force. Washington, DC: EPA.

Ford, D. G. 2010. A Brief Review of Proliferation Resistance Methodologies. Texas A&M University Nuclear Security Science and Policy Institute. Information Paper. Available online at: http://nsspi.tamu.edu/media/47471/prolif_res_bkg.pdf.

Garrick, B. J.2008. Analytical foundations of quantitative risk assessment. Pp 17–31 in Quantifying and Controlling Catastrophic Risks. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

Gartzke, E. 2012. Determinants of Nuclear Proliferation. Presentation to committee, May 11.

GENIV Forum. 2007. Addendum to Evaluation Methodology for Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. GIF-PRPPWG-2006-005-A, January 31.

GENIV Forum. 2009. PR&PP Evaluation: ESFR Full System Case Study Final Report. GIF-PRPPWG-2009-02.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×

GENIV Forum. 2011a. Evaluation Methodology for Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems: Revision 6. GIF-PRPPWG-2011-003, September 15.

GENIV Forum. 2011b. Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection of Six Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. GIF-PRPPWG-2011-002, July 15.

Giannangeli, D. D. J. III. 2007. Development of the Fundamental Attributes and Inputs for Proliferation Resistance Assessments of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University.

Goorevich, R. 2012. Private communication with Jennifer Heimberg and Benjamin Rusek, June 7.

Greneche, D., J. L. Rouyer, and J. C. Yazidjian. 2007. A Simplified Approach for Proliferation Resistance Assessment of Nuclear Systems. Report No. GTR3P Rev. 1. French Working Group on Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection.

Griffith, A. 2012. DOE/NE Perspectives on the National Academies Proliferation Risk Assessment Project. Presentation to committee, January 16.

Hase, K., C. Bathke, R. Wallace, B. Sleaford, and B. Ebbinghaus. 2012. Responses to Attractiveness Claims Table 2.0 (OUO). Report No. LA-CP-12-01026. Albuquerque, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Hassberger, J. A. 2001. Application of Proliferation Resistance Barriers to Various Existing and Proposed Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Report No. UCRL-ID-147001. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Available at https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244736.pdf.

Herczeg, J. 2012. Progress and Application of Proliferation Risk Reduction to the Design of a Reprocessing Facility. Presentation to Committee, March 26.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 2002. Proliferation Resistance Fundamentals for Future Nuclear Energy Systems. IAEA STR-332. Vienna, Austria: IAEA.

IAEA. 2008. Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems. IAEA-TECDOC-1575 Rev. 1, Volume 5.

IAEA. 2011. Proliferation Resistance: Acquisition/Diversion Pathway Analysis (PRADA). INPRO Collaborative Project Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/PROSA/PRADA_Fact_sheet_revised_19-09-2011.pdf.

Inoue, N. M., K. Hori, and H. Takeda. 2003. Methodologies of nuclear proliferation resistance assessment for nuclear fuel cycle options. In Proceedings of the 44th INMM Annual Meeting, Phonenix, AZ, July.

Inoue, N.M., J. Kurakami, and H. Takeda. 2004. Review of JNC’s study on Assessment Methodology of Nuclear Proliferation Resistance. In Proceedings of the 45th INMM Annual Meeting Orlando, FL, July.

IPFM (International Panel on Fissile Materials). 2011. Global Fissile Material Report 2011: Nuclear Weapon and Fissile Material Stockpiles and Production. Available at http://fissilematerials.org/library/gfmr11.pdf.

Jenkins-Smith, H. 2012. Risk and Scientific Data Communication. Presentation to committee, September 13.

Jo, D.-J., and Gartzke, E. 2007. Determinants of nuclear weapons proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution 51(1):167–194.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×

Kaplan, S., and B. J. Garrick. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1(1):11–27.

Kotra, J.P., M. P. Lee, N. A. Eisenberg, and A. R. DeWispelare. 1996. Branch Technical Position on the Use of Expert Elicitation in the High-Level Radioactive Waste Program. NUREG-1563. Rockville, MD: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Lee, Y., J. W. Lee, and J. H. Park. 2012. INPRO Studies of Proliferation Resistance for DUPIC Fuel Cycles. Nuclear Technology 179(1):97–105.

Lockwood, D. 2012. Proliferation Risk Assessments: A Policy-Maker’s Observations. Presentation to the committee, January 16.

Mendez, C. M. et al. 2006. Strengthening the Foundation of Proliferation Risk

Assessment Methodologies. Proceedings 47th INMM Annual Meeting. Nashville, Tennessee. July.

Mladineo, S. V., R. S. Denning, J. Roglans-Ribas, R. A. Bari, J. Eagle, C. T. Olinger, J. R. Phillips, G. Rochau, R. N. Schnock, and S. McGuire. 2003. Guidelines for the Performance of Nonproliferation Assessments. PNNL-14294. Available at http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-14294.pdf.

NERAC (Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee). 2000. Annex: Attributes of Proliferation Resistance for Civilian Nuclear Power Systems. October. Available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/FinalTOPSRptAnnex.pdf.

NERAC/CGSR (Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and Center for Global

Security Research). 2000. Report of the International Workshop on Technological Opportunities for Increasing the Proliferation Resistance of Global Civilian Nuclear Power Systems (TOPS), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, March 29-30. Available at http://prelas.nuclear.missouri.edu/ne401/tops.pdf

NERAC TOPS Task Force. 2001. Technical Opportunities to Increase the Proliferation resistance of Global Civilian Nuclear Power Systems (TOPS). Available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/FinalTOPSRpt.pdf.

NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration). 2001. Program Plan for the Development of a Nonproliferation Assessment Methodology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Department of Homeland Security Bioterrorism Risk Assessment: A Call for Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2009. Internationalization of the Fuel Cycle: Goals, Strategies, and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2010. Review of the Department of Homeland Security's Approach to Risk Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2011a. Proliferation Risk in Nuclear Fuel Cycles: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2011b. Understanding and Managing Risk in Security Systems for the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex. DC: The National Academies Press. (OUO)

NSSPI (Nuclear Security Science & Policy Institute). 2010. Workshop Report:

International Workshop for Users of Proliferation Assessment Tools. NSSPI-10-011. Available at http://nsspi.tamu.edu/media/47462/final_report.pdf.

Owens-Davis, L. 2012. LLNL Z-Division Host State Assessments for Government Decisions. Presentation to committee, May 23. (SECRET)

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×

Pilat, J. 2012. The proliferation resistance debate and the proliferation resistance and physical protection evaluation methodology. Nuclear Technology 179(1):31–34 .

Pomeroy, G., R. Bari, E. Wonder, M. Zentner, E. Haas, T. Killeen, G. Cojazzi, and J. Whitlock. 2008. Approaches to evaluation of proliferation resistance of nuclear energy systems. Proceedings 49th INMM Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, July.

Rochau, G. E., D. Blair, Y. McClellan, C. Morrow, P. E. Rexroth, T. T. Sype, and G. D. Wyss. 2002. Risk-Informed Proliferation Analysis. Report No. SAND2001-2020. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.

Rochau, G., D. Blair, Y. McClellan, C. Morrow, P. Rexroth, T. Sype, and G. Wyss. 2012. Risk-Informed Proliferation Analysis. Report No. SAND2012-7195. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, August.

Sagan, S. D. 2011. The causes of nuclear weapons proliferation. Annual Review of Political Science 14:225–244.

Savy, J. B., W. Foxall, N. Abrahamson, and D. Bemreuter. 2002. Guidance for Performing Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for a Nuclear Plant Site: Example Application, to the Southeastern United States. NUREG/CR-6607. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Singh, S., and C. Way. 2004. The correlates of nuclear proliferation: A quantitative test. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(6):859–885.

Stratford, R. 2012. Private communication with Jennifer Heimberg, Benjamin Rusek, and Robert Dynes, May 31.

Streetman, S. 2012. DNDO’s Global Nuclear Detection Architecture Adversary Risk Model. Presentation to the committee, July 9. (OUO)

Takakai, N., N. Inoue, M. Kikuchi, and T. Osabe. 2005. Comparative analysis of proliferation resistance assessment methodologies. Proceedings of Global 2005, Tsukuba, Japan, October 9–13.

Way, C. 2012. Host State Intentions: Political Science Perspectives. Presentation to committee, May 11.

Way, C., and J. Weeks. 2012. Making It Personal: Regime Type and Nuclear Proliferation. July draft. Available at http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/jlw338/WayWeeksNukes.pdf.

Welihozkiy, A. 2012a. Automated Dual-Use Licensing Systems. Powerpoint presentation sent to Jennifer Heimberg, May 11.

Welihozkiy, A. 2012b. Export Information System (EIS). Powerpoint presentation sent to Jennifer Heimberg, May 11.

Welihozkiy, A. 2012c. Interview by Jennifer Heimberg. May 4. Welihozkiy, A. 2012d. Laboratory Review Process. Powerpoint presentation sent to Jennifer Heimberg, May 11.

Wigeland, R. 2012. Relative Assessment of Proliferation Risk for Fuel Cycle Evaluation—Current Status. Presentation to committee, September 12.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2013. Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18335.
×
Page 61
Next: Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members »
Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00 Buy Ebook | $31.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The material that sustains the nuclear reactions that produce energy can also be used to make nuclear weapons—and therefore, the development of nuclear energy is one of multiple pathways to proliferation for a non-nuclear weapon state. There is a tension between the development of future nuclear fuel cycles and managing the risk of proliferation as the number of existing and future nuclear energy systems expands throughout the world. As the Department of Energy (DOE) and other parts of the government make decisions about future nuclear fuel cycles, DOE would like to improve proliferation assessments to better inform those decisions.

Improving the Assessment of the Proliferation Risk of Nuclear Fuel Cycles considers how the current methods of quantification of proliferation risk are being used and implemented, how other approaches to risk assessment can contribute to improving the utility of assessments for policy and decision makers. The study also seeks to understand the extent to which technical analysis of proliferation risk could be improved for policy makers through research and development.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!