Nuclear Safeguards Considerations For The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

High temperature reactors (HTRs) have been considered since the 1940s, and have been constructed and demonstrated in the United Kingdom (Dragon), United States (Peach Bottom and Fort Saint Vrain), Japan (HTTR), Germany (AVR and THTR-300), and have been the subject of conceptual studies in Russia (VGM). The attraction to these reactors is that they can use a variety of reactor fuels, including abundant thorium, which upon reprocessing of the spent fuel can produce fissile U-233. Hence, they could extend the stocks of available uranium, provided the fuel is reprocessed. Another attractive attribute is that HTRs typically operate at a much higher temperature than conventional light water reactors (LWRs), because of the use of pyrolytic carbon and silicon carbide coated (TRISO) fuel particles embedded in ceramic graphite. Rather than simply discharge most of the unused heat from the working fluid in the power plant to the environment, engineers have been designing reactors for 40 years to recover this heat and make it available for district heating or chemical conversion plants. Demonstrating high-temperature nuclear energy conversion was the purpose behind Fort Saint Vrain in the United States, THTR-300 in Germany, HTTR in Japan, and HTR-10 and HTR-PM, being built in China. Thismore » resulted in nuclear reactors at least 30% or more thermodynamically efficient than conventional LWRs, especially if the waste heat can be effectively utilized in chemical processing plants. A modern variant of high temperature reactors is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Originally developed in the United States and Germany, it is now being redesigned and marketed by the Republic of South Africa and China. The team examined historical high temperature and high temperature gas reactors (HTR and HTGR) and reviewed safeguards considerations for this reactor. The following is a preliminary report on this topic prepared under the ASA-100 Advanced Safeguards Project in support of the NNSA Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI).« less

[1]  Julie Braun,et al.  Historic American Engineering Record, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, Fuel Reprocessing Complex , 2006 .

[2]  Dominique Greneche,et al.  The Reprocessing Issue For HTR Spent Fuels , 2004 .

[3]  Robert Bean,et al.  INSTITUTIONALIZING SAFEGUARDS-BY-DESIGN: HIGH-LEVEL FRAMEWORK , 2009 .

[4]  T. Hertzler.  Technical and regulatory review of the Rover nuclear fuel process for use on Fort St. Vrain fuel , 1993 .

[5]  W. K. Terry,et al.  Direct Deterministic Method for Neutronics Analysis and Computation of Asymptotic Burnup Distribution in a Recirculating Pebble-Bed Reactor , 2002 .

[6]  Masato Hori,et al.  Nuclear Safeguards Challenges at Reactors Types That Defy Traditional Item Counting , 2007 .

[7]  Bonneville Dam,et al.  HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD , 1989 .

[8]  Bruno Pellaud,et al.  Proliferation aspects of plutonium recycling , 2002 .

[9]  Pierre Goldschmidt,et al.  Concrete Steps to Improve the Nonproliferation Regime , 2009 .

[10]  Alco Products.  Design and Feasibility Study of a Pebble Bed Reactor-Steam Power Plant , 1958 .

[11]  Charles W. Forsberg,et al.  Safeguards Challenges for Pebble-Bed Reactors (PBRs):Peoples Republic of China (PRC) , 2009 .

[12]  J. S. Herring,et al.  Fuel-Cycle and Nuclear Material Disposition Issues Associated with High-Temperature Gas Reactors , 2004 .

[13]  F. Daniels.  SUGGESTIONS FOR A HIGH TEMPERATURE PEBBLE PILE , 1944 .

[14]  Manson Benedict,et al.  Nuclear Chemical Engineering , 1981 .

[15]  Martin Robel,et al.  An Assessment of the Attractiveness of Material Associated with a MOX Fuel Cycle from a Safeguards Perspective , 2009 .