Keith Tolk
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Keith Tolk.
Archive | 2007
Philip C. Durst; Ike Therios; Robert Bean; A. Dougan; Brian D Boyer; Rick L. Wallace; Michael H. Ehinger; Don N. Kovacic; Keith Tolk
U.S. efforts to promote the international expansion of nuclear energy through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) will result in a dramatic expansion of nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the United States. New demonstration facilities, such as the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF), the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR), and the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC) will use advanced nuclear and chemical process technologies that must incorporate increased proliferation resistance to enhance nuclear safeguards. The ASA-100 Project, “Advanced Safeguards Approaches for New Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities,” commissioned by the NA-243 Office of NNSA, has been tasked with reviewing and developing advanced safeguards approaches for these demonstration facilities. Because one goal of GNEP is developing and sharing proliferation-resistant nuclear technology and services with partner nations, the safeguards approaches considered are consistent with international safeguards as currently implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This first report reviews possible safeguards approaches for the new fuel reprocessing processes to be deployed at the AFCF and CFTC facilities. Similar analyses addressing the ABR and transuranic (TRU) fuel fabrication lines at AFCF and CFTC will be presented in subsequent reports.
Archive | 2007
Philip C. Durst; Michael H. Ehinger; Brian D Boyer; Ike Therios; Robert Bean; A. Dougan; Keith Tolk
This second report in a series of three reviews possible safeguards approaches for the new transuranic (TRU) fuel fabrication processes to be deployed at AFCF – specifically, the ceramic TRU (MOX) fuel fabrication line and the metallic (pyroprocessing) line. The most common TRU fuel has been fuel composed of mixed plutonium and uranium dioxide, referred to as “MOX”. However, under the Advanced Fuel Cycle projects custom-made fuels with higher contents of neptunium, americium, and curium may also be produced to evaluate if these “minor actinides” can be effectively burned and transmuted through irradiation in the ABR. A third and final report in this series will evaluate and review the advanced safeguards approach options for the ABR. In reviewing and developing the advanced safeguards approach for the new TRU fuel fabrication processes envisioned for AFCF, the existing international (IAEA) safeguards approach at the Plutonium Fuel Production Facility (PFPF) and the conceptual approach planned for the new J-MOX facility in Japan have been considered as a starting point of reference. The pyro-metallurgical reprocessing and fuel fabrication process at EBR-II near Idaho Falls also provided insight for safeguarding the additional metallic pyroprocessing fuel fabrication line planned for AFCF.
Archive | 2007
Philip C. Durst; Ike Therios; Robert Bean; A. Dougan; Brian D Boyer; Rick L. Wallace; Michael H. Ehinger; Don N. Kovacic; Keith Tolk
This third report in the series reviews possible safeguards approaches for new fast reactors in general, and the ABR in particular. Fast-neutron spectrum reactors have been used since the early 1960s on an experimental and developmental level, generally with fertile blanket fuels to “breed” nuclear fuel such as plutonium. Whether the reactor is designed to breed plutonium, or transmute and “burn” actinides depends mainly on the design of the reactor neutron reflector and the whether the blanket fuel is “fertile” or suitable for transmutation. However, the safeguards issues are very similar, since they pertain mainly to the receipt, shipment and storage of fresh and spent plutonium and actinide-bearing “TRU”-fuel. For these reasons, the design of existing fast reactors and details concerning how they have been safeguarded were studied in developing advanced safeguards approaches for the new fast reactors. In this regard, the design of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II “EBR-II” at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) was of interest, because it was designed as a collocated fast reactor with a pyrometallurgical reprocessing and fuel fabrication line – a design option being considered for the ABR. Similarly, the design of the Fast Flux Facility (FFTF) on the Hanford Site was studied, because it was a successful prototype fast reactor that ran for two decades to evaluate fuels and the design for commercial-scale fast reactors.
Archive | 2008
Leon E. Smith; A. Dougan; Stephen J. Tobin; B. Cipiti; Michael H. Ehinger; A. J. Bakel; Robert Bean; Jay W. Grate; Peter A. Santi; Steven Bryan; Matt Kinlaw; Jon M. Schwantes; Tom Burr; Scott A. Lehn; Keith Tolk; David Chichester; Howard O. Menlove; Duc Vo; Douglas C. Duckworth; P. Merkle; T. F. Wang; F. Duran; L. Nakae; Glen A. Warren; S. Friedrich; M. Rabin
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Safeguards Campaign aims to develop safeguards technologies and processes that will significantly reduce the risk of proliferation in the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle of tomorrow. The Safeguards Enhancement Study was chartered with identifying promising research and development (R&D) directions over timescales both near-term and long-term, and under safeguards oversight both domestic and international. This technology development roadmap documents recognized gaps and needs in the safeguarding of nuclear fuel cycles, and outlines corresponding performance targets for each of those needs. Drawing on the collective expertise of technologists and user-representatives, a list of over 30 technologies that have the potential to meet those needs was developed, along with brief summaries of each candidate technology. Each summary describes the potential impact of that technology, key research questions to be addressed, and prospective development milestones that could lead to a definitive viability or performance assessment. Important programmatic linkages between U.S. agencies and offices are also described, reflecting the emergence of several safeguards R&D programs in the U.S. and the reinvigoration of nuclear fuel cycles across the globe.
ESARDA Bulletin, 51:35-44 | 2014
Jennifer E. Tanner; Jacob M. Benz; Helen White; Sarah McOmish; Keir Allen; Keith Tolk; George Weeks
Archive | 2010
Frances M Keel; Steve Lamontagne; Chris A Pickett; Keith Tolk
Archive | 2015
Duncan Whittemore Macarthur; Jacob M. Benz; Keith Tolk; Tom Weber
Archive | 2014
Jacob M. Benz; Keith Tolk; Jennifer E. Tanner
Archive | 2012
Dianna Sue Blair; George Thomas Baldwin; Chris A Pickett; Robert Bean; Raymond Lawson; Keith Tolk
Journal of Nuclear Materials Management | 2012
Chris A Pickett; Nathan C Rowe; James R Younkin; Bernard Wishard; Robert Bean; Dianna Sue Blair; Ray Lawson; George Weeks; Keith Tolk