Plutonium immobilization form evaluation
The 1994 National Academy of Sciences study and the 1997 assessment by DOE`s Office of Nonproliferation and National Security have emphasized the importance of the overall objectives of the Plutonium Disposition Program of beginning disposition rapidly. President Clinton and other leaders of the G-7 plus one (`Political Eight`) group of states, at the Moscow Nuclear Safety And Security Summit in April 1996, agreed on the objectives of accomplishing disposition of excess fissile material as soon as practicable. To meet these objectives, DOE has laid out an aggressive schedule in which large-scale immobilization operations would begin in 2005. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the lead laboratory for the development of Pu immobilization technologies for the Department of Energy`s Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (MD), was requested by MD to recommend the preferred immobilization form and technology for the disposition of excess weapons-usable Pu. In a series of three separate evaluations, the technologies for the candidate glass and ceramic forms were compared against criteria and metrics that reflect programmatic and technical objectives: (1) Evaluation of the R&D and engineering data for the two forms against the decision criteria/metrics by a technical evaluation panel comprising experts from within the immobilization program. (2) Integrated assessment by LLNL immobilization management of the candidate technologies with respect to the weighted criteria and other programmatic objectives, leading to a recommendation to DOE/MD on the preferred technology based on technical factors. (3) Assessment of the decision process, evaluation, and recommendation by a peer review panel of independent experts. Criteria used to assess the relative merits of the immobilization technologies were a subset of the criteria previously used by MD to choose among disposition options leading to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials, January 1997. Criteria were: (1) resistance to Pu theft, diversion, and recovery by a terrorist organization or rogue nation; (2) resistance to recovery and reuse by host nation; (3) technical viability, including technical maturity, development risk, and acceptability for repository disposal; (4) environmental, safety, and health factors; (5) cost effectiveness; and (6) timeliness. On the basis of the technical evaluation and assessments, in September, 1997, LLNL recommended to DOE/MD that ceramic technologies be developed for deployment in the planned Pu immobilization plant.
- Research Organization:
- Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
- OSTI ID:
- 675094
- Report Number(s):
- UCRL-JC-129853; CONF-980307-; ON: DE98058718; BR: GA0102011; CNN: W-7405-Eng-48
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: Waste management `98, Tucson, AZ (United States), 1-5 Mar 1998; Other Information: PBD: 13 Feb 1998
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Technical evaluation panel summary report. Ceramic and glass immobilization options fissile materials disposition program
Integrated development and testing plan for the plutonium immobilization project