Hubbry Logo
Reactor-grade plutoniumReactor-grade plutoniumMain
Open search
Reactor-grade plutonium
Community hub
Reactor-grade plutonium
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Reactor-grade plutonium
Reactor-grade plutonium
Reactor-grade plutonium
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Reactor-grade plutonium (RGPu)[1][2] is the isotopic grade of plutonium that is found in spent nuclear fuel after the uranium-235 primary fuel that a nuclear power reactor uses has burnt up. The uranium-238 from which most of the plutonium isotopes derive by neutron capture is found along with the U-235 in the low enriched uranium fuel of civilian reactors.

In contrast to the low burnup of weeks or months that is commonly required to produce weapons-grade plutonium (WGPu/239Pu), the long time in the reactor that produces reactor-grade plutonium leads to transmutation of much of the fissile, relatively long half-life isotope 239Pu into a number of other isotopes of plutonium that are less fissile or more radioactive. When 239
Pu absorbs a neutron, it does not always undergo nuclear fission. Sometimes neutron absorption will instead produce 240
Pu at the neutron temperatures and fuel compositions present in typical light water reactors, with the concentration of 240
Pu steadily rising with longer irradiation, producing lower and lower grade plutonium as time goes on.

Generation II thermal-neutron reactors (today's most numerous nuclear power stations) can reuse reactor-grade plutonium only to a limited degree as MOX fuel, and only for a second cycle. Fast-neutron reactors, of which there are a handful operating today with a half dozen under construction, can use reactor-grade plutonium fuel as a means to reduce the transuranium content of spent nuclear fuel/nuclear waste. Russia has also produced a new type of Remix fuel that directly recycles reactor grade plutonium at 1% or less concentration into fresh or re-enriched uranium fuel imitating the 1% plutonium level of high-burnup fuel.

Classification by isotopic composition

[edit]
<1976 >1976
<7% Weapons grade
7-19% Reactor grade Fuel grade
>19% Reactor grade

At the beginning of the industrial scale production of plutonium-239 in war era production reactors, trace contamination or co-production with plutonium-240 was initially observed, with these trace amounts resulting in the dropping of the Thin Man weapon-design as unworkable.[3] The difference in purity, of how much, continues to be important in assessing significance in the context of nuclear proliferation and weapons-usability.

Percentages are of each nuclide's total transmutation rate in a LWR, which is low for many nonfissile actinides. After leaving reactor only decay occurs.

The DOE definition of reactor grade plutonium changed in 1976. Before this, three grades were recognised. The change in the definition for reactor grade, from describing plutonium with greater than 7% Pu-240 content prior to 1976, to reactor grade being defined as containing 19% or more Pu-240, coincides with the 1977 release of information about a 1962 "reactor grade nuclear test". The question of which definition or designation applies, that of the old or new scheme, to the 1962 "reactor-grade" test, has not been officially disclosed.

From 1976, four grades were recognised:

  • Super weapons grade, less than 3% Pu-240
  • Weapons grade, less than 7% Pu-240,
  • Fuel grade, 7% to 19% Pu-240 and
  • Reactor grade, more than 19% Pu-240.[4]

Reprocessing or recycling of the spent fuel from the most common class of civilian-electricity-generating or power reactor design, the LWR, (with examples being the PWR or BWR) recovers reactor grade plutonium (as defined since 1976), not fuel grade.[5][6]

The physical mixture of isotopes in reactor-grade plutonium make it extremely difficult to handle and form and therefore explains its undesirability as a weapon-making substance, in contrast to weapons grade plutonium, which can be handled relatively safely with thick gloves.[4]

To produce weapons grade plutonium, the uranium nuclear fuel must spend no longer than several weeks in the reactor core before being removed, creating a low fuel burnup. For this to be carried out in a pressurized water reactor - the most common reactor design for electricity generation - the reactor would have to prematurely reach cold shut down after only recently being fueled, meaning that the reactor would need to cool decay heat and then have its reactor pressure vessel be depressurized, followed by a fuel rod defueling. If such an operation were to be conducted, it would be easily detectable,[4][1] and require prohibitively costly reactor modifications.[7]

One example of how this process could be detected in PWRs, is that during these periods, there would be a considerable amount of down time, that is, large stretches of time that the reactor is not producing electricity to the grid.[8] On the other hand, the modern definition of "reactor grade" plutonium is produced only when the reactor is run at high burnups and therefore producing a high electricity generating capacity factor. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2009 the capacity factor of US nuclear power stations was higher than all other forms of energy generation, with nuclear reactors producing power approximately 90.3% of the time and Coal thermal power plants at 63.8%, with down times being for simple routine maintenance and refuelling.[9]

An aerial photograph of the Trinity (nuclear test) crater shortly after the test. With an almost identical design to the Fat Man bomb used in Nagasaki, both used what now would be defined as super weapons grade plutonium,[10][11] It employed a natural uranium tamper that contributed approximately 1/4 of the final explosive energy and in total released an estimated energy of 22 kiloton or 22,000 tons of TNT equivalent.[note 1] The smaller crater in the southeast corner was from the earlier calibration test explosion, that used a conventional mass of high explosives of 0.1 kiloton or 108 tons of TNT (450 GJ).

The degree to which typical Generation II reactor high burn-up produced reactor-grade plutonium is less useful than weapons-grade plutonium for building nuclear weapons is somewhat debated, with many sources arguing that the maximum probable theoretical yield would be bordering on a fizzle explosion of the range 0.1 to 2 kiloton in a Fat Man type device. As computations state that the energy yield of a nuclear explosive decreases by one and two orders of magnitude if the 240 Pu content increases from 5% (nearly weapons-grade plutonium) to 15%( 2 kt) and 25%,(0.2 kt) respectively.[12] These computations are theoretical and assume the non-trivial issue of dealing with the heat generation from the higher content of non-weapons usable Pu-238 could be overcome.) As the premature initiation from the spontaneous fission of Pu-240 would ensure a low explosive yield in such a device, the surmounting of both issues in the construction of an Improvised nuclear device is described as presenting "daunting" hurdles for a Fat Man-era implosion design, and the possibility of terrorists achieving this fizzle yield being regarded as an "overblown" apprehension with the safeguards that are in place.[13][7][14][15][16][17]

Others disagree on theoretical grounds and state that while they would not be suitable for stockpiling or being emplaced on a missile for long periods of time, dependably high non-fizzle level yields can be achieved,[18][19][20][21][22][23] arguing that it would be "relatively easy" for a well funded entity with access to fusion boosting tritium and expertise to overcome the problem of pre-detonation created by the presence of Pu-240, and that a remote manipulation facility could be utilized in the assembly of the highly radioactive gamma ray emitting bomb components, coupled with a means of cooling the weapon pit during storage to prevent the plutonium charge contained in the pit from melting, and a design that kept the implosion mechanisms high explosives from being degraded by the pit's heat. However, with all these major design considerations included, this fusion boosted reactor grade plutonium primary will still fizzle if the fission component of the primary does not deliver more than 0.2 kilotons of yield, which is regarded as the minimum energy necessary to start a fusion burn.[24] The probability that a fission device would fail to achieve this threshold yield increases as the burnup value of the fuel increases.[18]

Tower of the Upshot–Knothole Ruth test. During the early development of nuclear explosive devices, available fissile material that differed from the conventional special nuclear material forms, were tested. Pictured, is the results of a uranium hydride device. Post-shot limited structural damage from the fizzle explosion, estimated as equivalent to the same nuclear energy emitted as 200 tons of the chemical energy in TNT(0.2 kilotons) failed to demolish the testing tower, only somewhat damaging it.

No information available in the public domain suggests that any well funded entity has ever seriously pursued creating a nuclear weapon with an isotopic composition similar to modern, high burnup, reactor grade plutonium. All nuclear weapon states have taken the more conventional path to nuclear weapons by either uranium enrichment or producing low burnup, "fuel-grade" and weapons-grade plutonium, in reactors capable of operating as production reactors, the isotopic content of reactor-grade plutonium, created by the most common commercial power reactor design, the pressurized water reactor, never directly being considered for weapons use.[25][26]

As of April 2012, there were thirty-one countries that have civil nuclear power plants,[27] of which nine have nuclear weapons, and almost every nuclear weapons state began producing weapons first instead of commercial nuclear power plants. The re-purposing of civilian nuclear industries for military purposes would be a breach of the Non-proliferation treaty.

As nuclear reactor designs come in a wide variety and are sometimes improved over time, the isotopic ratio of what is deemed "reactor grade plutonium" in one design, as it compares to another, can differ substantially. For example, the British Magnox reactor, a Generation I gas cooled reactor(GCR) design, can rarely produce a fuel burnup of more than 2-5 GWd/tU.[28][29] Therefore, the "reactor grade plutonium" and the purity of Pu-239 from discharged magnox reactors is approximately 80%, depending on the burn up value.[30] In contrast, the generic civilian Pressurized water reactor, routinely does (typical for 2015 Generation II reactor) 45 GWd/tU of burnup, resulting in the purity of Pu-239 being 50.5%, alongside a Pu-240 content of 25.2%,[5][6] The remaining portion includes much more of the heat generating Pu-238 and Pu-241 isotopes than are to be found in the "reactor grade plutonium" from a Magnox reactor.

"Reactor-grade" plutonium nuclear tests

[edit]

The reactor grade plutonium nuclear test was a "low-yield (under 20 kilotons)" underground nuclear test using non-weapons-grade plutonium conducted at the US Nevada Test Site in 1962.[31][32] Some information regarding this test was declassified in July 1977, under instructions from President Jimmy Carter, as background to his decision to prohibit nuclear reprocessing in the US.

The plutonium used for the 1962 test device was produced by the United Kingdom, and provided to the US under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement.[31]

The initial codename for the Magnox reactor design amongst the government agency which mandated it, the UKAEA, was the Pressurised Pile Producing Power and Plutonium (PIPPA) and as this codename suggests, the reactor was designed as both a power plant and, when operated with low fuel "burn-up"; as a producer of plutonium-239 for the nascent nuclear weapons program in Britain.[33] This intentional dual-use approach to building electric power-reactors that could operate as production reactors in the early Cold War era, was typical of many nations' Generation I reactors.[34] With these being designs all focused on giving access to fuel after a short burn-up, which is known as Online refuelling.

The 2006 North Korean nuclear test, the first by the DPRK, is also said to have had a Magnox reactor as the root source of its plutonium, operated in Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in North Korea. This test detonation resulted in the creation of a low-yield fizzle explosion, producing an estimated yield of approximately 0.48 kilotons,[35] from an undisclosed isotopic composition. The 2009 North Korean nuclear test likewise was based on plutonium.[36] Both produced a yield of 0.48 to 2.3 kiloton of TNT equivalent respectively and both were described as fizzle events due to their low yield, with some commentators even speculating whether, at the lower yield estimates for the 2006 test, the blast may have been the equivalent of US$100,000 worth of ammonium nitrate.[37][38]

The isotopic composition of the 1962 US-UK test has similarly not been disclosed, other than the description reactor grade, and it has not been disclosed which definition was used in describing the material for this test as reactor grade.[31] According to Alexander DeVolpi, the isotopic composition of the plutonium used in the US-UK 1962 test could not have been what we now consider to be reactor-grade, and the DOE now implies, but doesn't assert, that the plutonium was fuel grade.[14] Likewise, the World Nuclear Association suggests that the US-UK 1962 test had at least 85% plutonium-239, a much higher isotopic concentration than what is typically present in the spent fuel from the majority of operating civilian reactors.[39]

In 2002 former Deputy Director General of the IAEA, Bruno Pelaud, stated that the DoE statement was misleading and that the test would have the modern definition of fuel-grade with a Pu-240 content of only 12%[40]

In 1997 political analyst Matthew Bunn and presidential technology advisor John Holdren, both of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, cited a 1990s official U.S. assessment of programmatic alternatives for plutonium disposition. While it does not specify which RGPu definition is being referred to, it nonetheless states that "reactor-grade plutonium (with an unspecified isotopic composition) can be used to produce nuclear weapons at all levels of technical sophistication," and "advanced nuclear weapon states such as the United States and Russia, using modern designs, could produce weapons from "reactor-grade plutonium" having reliable explosive yields, weight, and other characteristics generally comparable to those of weapons made from weapon-grade plutonium"[41]

In a 2008 paper, Kessler et al. used a thermal analysis to conclude that a hypothetical nuclear explosive device was "technically unfeasible" using reactor grade plutonium from a reactor that had a burn up value of 30 GWd/t using "low technology" designs akin to Fat Man with spherical explosive lenses, or 55 GWd/t for "medium technology" designs.[42]

According to the Kessler et al. criteria, "high-technology" hypothetical nuclear explosive devices (HNEDs), that could be produced by the experienced nuclear weapons states (NWSs) would be technically unfeasible with reactor-grade plutonium containing more than approximately 9% of the heat generating Pu-238 isotope.[43][44]

Typical isotopic composition of reactor grade plutonium

[edit]

The British Magnox reactor, a Generation I gas cooled reactor (GCR) design, can rarely produce a fuel burnup of more than 2-5 GWd/tU.[45][29] The Magnox reactor design was codenamed PIPPA (Pressurised Pile Producing Power and Plutonium) by the UKAEA to denote the plant's dual commercial (power reactor) and military (production reactor) role. The purity of Pu-239 from discharged magnox reactors is approximately 80%, depending on the burn up value.[30]

In contrast, for example, a generic civilian Pressurized water reactor's spent nuclear fuel isotopic composition, following a typical Generation II reactor 45 GWd/tU of burnup, is 1.11% plutonium, of which 0.56% is Pu-239, and 0.28% is Pu-240, which corresponds to a Pu-239 content of 50.5% and a Pu-240 content of 25.2%.[46] For a lower generic burn-up rate of 43,000 MWd/t, as published in 1989, the plutonium-239 content was 53% of all plutonium isotopes in the reactor spent nuclear fuel.[6] The US NRC has stated that the commercial fleet of LWRs presently powering homes, had an average burnup of approximately 35 GWd/MTU in 1995, while in 2015, the average had improved to 45 GWd/MTU.[47]

The odd numbered fissile plutonium isotopes present in spent nuclear fuel, such as Pu-239, decrease significantly as a percentage of the total composition of all plutonium isotopes (which was 1.11% in the first example above) as higher and higher burnups take place, while the even numbered non-fissile plutonium isotopes (e.g. Pu-238, Pu-240 and Pu-242) increasingly accumulate in the fuel over time.[48]

As power reactor technology develops, one goal is to reduce the spent nuclear fuel volume by increasing fuel efficiency and simultaneously reducing down times as much as possible to increase the economic viability of electricity generated from fission-electric stations. To this end, the reactors in the U.S. have doubled their average burn-up rates from 20 to 25 GWd/MTU in the 1970s to over 45 GWd/MTU in the 2000s.[29][49] Generation III reactors under construction have a designed-for burnup rate in the 60 GWd/tU range and a need to refuel once every 2 years or so. For example, the European Pressurized Reactor has a designed-for 65 GWd/t,[50] and the AP1000 has a designed for average discharge burnup of 52.8 GWd/t and a maximum of 59.5 GWd/t.[50] In-design generation IV reactors will have burnup rates yet higher still.

Reuse in reactors

[edit]
See also: Nuclear fuel cycle, minor actinides, La Hague site, and Sellafield
Separation of uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel by the 1940s-1950s wet-chemical PUREX method.[51] This chemical process is controversial as it is likewise the path that produces chemically pure WGPu.
The 200+ GWd/TU of burnup fuel-cycle,[52] proposed in the 1990s Integral fast reactor(IFR) concept (color), an animation of the pyroprocessing technology is also available.[53] As opposed to the standard practice worldwide of PUREX separation, plutonium is not separated on its own in this pilot-scale, reprocessing cycle, rather all actinides are "electro-won" or "refined" from the "true waste" of fission products in spent fuel. The plutonium therefore instead comes over mixed with all the gamma and alpha emitting actinides, species that "self-protect" in numerous possible theft scenarios. For a reactor to operate on a full loading of this mixed actinide fuel, Fast neutron-spectrum reactors are without exception, the only variant considered possible.
IFR concept (Black and White with clearer text). The pyroprocessing cycle is not limited to sodium-fast-reactors such as the depicted IFR, many other conceptual reactors such as the Stable salt reactor are designed to rely on fuel from it, rather than PUREX.

Today's moderated/thermal reactors primarily run on the once-through fuel cycle though they can reuse once-through reactor-grade plutonium to a limited degree in the form of mixed-oxide or MOX fuel, which is a routine commercial practice in most countries outside the US as it increases the sustainability of nuclear fission and lowers the volume of high level nuclear waste.[54]

One third of the energy/fissions at the end of the practical fuel life in a thermal reactor are from plutonium, the end of cycle occurs when the U-235 percentage drops, the primary fuel that drives the neutron economy inside the reactor and the drop necessitates fresh fuel being required, so without design change, one third of the fissile fuel in a new fuel load can be fissile reactor-grade plutonium with one third less of Low enriched uranium needing to be added to continue the chain reactions anew, thus achieving a partial recycling.[55]

A typical 5.3% reactor-grade plutonium MOX fuel bundle, is transmutated when it itself is again burnt, a practice that is typical in French thermal reactors, to a twice-through reactor-grade plutonium, with an isotopic composition of 40.8% 239
Pu and 30.6% 240
Pu at the end of cycle (EOC).[56][note 2] MOX grade plutonium (MGPu) is generally defined as having more than 30% 240
Pu.[1]

A limitation in the number of recycles exists within thermal reactors, as opposed to the situation in fast reactors, as in the thermal neutron spectrum only the odd-mass isotopes of plutonium are fissile, the even-mass isotopes thus accumulate, in all high thermal-spectrum burnup scenarios. Plutonium-240, an even-mass isotope is, within the thermal neutron spectrum, a fertile material like uranium-238, becoming fissile plutonium-241 on neutron capture; however, the even-mass plutonium-242 not only has a low neutron capture cross section within the thermal spectrum, it also requires 3 neutron captures before becoming a fissile nuclide.[55]

While most thermal neutron reactors must limit MOX fuel to less than half of the total fuel load for nuclear stability reasons, due to the reactor design operating within the limitations of a thermal spectrum of neutrons, Fast neutron reactors on the other hand can use plutonium of any isotopic composition, operate on completely recycled plutonium and in the fast "burner" mode, or fuel cycle, fission and thereby eliminate all the plutonium present in the world stockpile of once-through spent fuel.[57] The modernized IFR design, known as the S-PRISM concept and the Stable salt reactor concept, are two such fast reactors that are proposed to burn-up/eliminate the plutonium stockpiles in Britain that was produced from operating its fleet of Magnox reactors generating the largest civilian stockpile of fuel-grade/"reactor-grade plutonium" in the world.[58]

In Bathke's equation on "attractiveness level" of Weapons-grade nuclear material, the Figure of Merit(FOM) the calculation generates, returns the suggestion that Sodium Fast Breeder Reactors are unlikely to reach the desired level of proliferation resistance, while Molten Salt breeder reactors are more likely to do so.[59]

In the fast breeder reactor cycle, or fast breeder mode, as opposed to the fast-burner, the French Phénix reactor uniquely demonstrated multi-recycling and reuses of its reactor grade plutonium.[60] Similar reactor concepts and fuel cycling, with the most well known being the Integral Fast Reactor are regarded as one of the few that can realistically achieve "planetary scale sustainability", powering a world of 10 billion, whilst still retaining a small environmental footprint.[61] In breeder mode, fast reactors are therefore often proposed as a form of renewable or sustainable nuclear energy. Though the "[reactor-grade]plutonium economy" it would generate, presently returns social distaste and varied arguments about proliferation-potential, in the public mindset.

As is typically found in civilian European thermal reactors, a 5.3% plutonium MOX fuel-bundle, produced by conventional wet-chemical/PUREX reprocessing of an initial fuel assembly that generated 33 GWd/t before becoming spent nuclear fuel, creates, when it itself is burnt in the thermal reactor, a spent nuclear fuel with a plutonium isotopic composition of 40.8% 239
Pu and 30.6% 240
Pu.[56][note 2]

A fresh nuclear fuel rod assembly bundle, being inspected before entering a reactor

Computations state that the energy yield of a nuclear explosive decreases by two orders of magnitude if the 240
Pu content increases to 25%,(0.2 kt).[12]

Reprocessing, which mainly takes the form of recycling reactor-grade plutonium back into the same or a more advanced fleet of reactors, was planned in the US in the 1960s. At that time the uranium market was anticipated to become crowded and supplies tight so together with recycling fuel, the more efficient fast breeder reactors were thereby seen as immediately needed to efficiently use the limited known uranium supplies. This became less urgent as time passed, with both reduced demand forecasts and increased uranium ore discoveries, for these economic reasons, fresh fuel and the reliance on solely fresh fuel remained cheaper in commercial terms than recycled.

In 1977 the Carter administration placed a ban on reprocessing spent fuel, in an effort to set an international example, as within the US, there is the perception that it would lead to nuclear weapons proliferation.[62] This decision has remained controversial and is viewed by many US physicists and engineers as fundamentally in error, having cost the US taxpayer and the fund generated by US reactor utility operators, with cancelled programs and the over 1 billion dollar investment into the proposed alternative, that of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository ending in protests, lawsuits and repeated stop-and-go decisions depending on the opinions of new incoming presidents.[63][64]

Following interim storage in a spent fuel pool, the bundles of used fuel assemblies of a typical nuclear power station are often stored on site in the likes of the eight dry cask storage vessels pictured above.[65] At Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station, which generated 44 billion kilowatt hours of electricity over its lifetime in the US, its complete spent fuel inventory is contained within sixteen casks.[66] They are now awaiting a shipment decision towards a geological repository or to a domestic/foreign reprocessing facility.

As the "undesirable" contaminant from a weapons manufacturing viewpoint, 240
Pu, decays faster than the 239
Pu, with half-lives of 6500 and 24,000 years respectively, the quality of the plutonium grade increases with time (although its total quantity decreases during that time as well). Thus, physicists and engineers have pointed out, as hundreds/thousands of years pass, the alternative to fast reactor "burning" or recycling of the plutonium from the world fleet of reactors until it is all burnt up, the alternative to burning most frequently proposed, that of deep geological repository, such as Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository, have the potential to become "plutonium mines", from which weapons-grade material for nuclear weapons could be acquired by simple PUREX extraction, in the centuries-to-millennia to come.[67][22][68]

Nuclear terrorism target

[edit]
See also: Nuclear terrorism

Aum Shinrikyo, who succeeded in developing Sarin and VX nerve gas is regarded to have lacked the technical expertise to develop, or steal, a nuclear weapon. Similarly, Al Qaeda was exposed to numerous scams involving the sale of radiological waste and other non-weapons-grade material. The RAND corporation suggested that their repeated experience of failure and being scammed has possibly led to terrorists concluding that nuclear acquisition is too difficult and too costly to be worth pursuing.[69]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Reactor-grade plutonium

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Reactor-grade plutonium is the isotopic mixture of plutonium isotopes recovered through reprocessing of from commercial light-water reactors, typically featuring a content exceeding 19% alongside elevated levels of and other even-numbered isotopes. This composition arises from higher in power reactors compared to production reactors designed for weapons material, resulting in greater and transmutation of fissile into less desirable isotopes. In contrast, weapons-grade plutonium maintains less than 7% to minimize and facilitate reliable implosion in nuclear explosives. Primarily utilized in mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies for recycling in thermal reactors, reactor-grade plutonium enables extension of uranium resources by substituting for while generating power. Its deployment in MOX form reduces volume and supports closed fuel cycles, though reprocessing infrastructure remains limited globally due to costs and policy constraints. A key characteristic is its elevated spontaneous fission from plutonium-240 and plutonium-242, producing predetonation risks, neutron emissions, and decay heat that complicate handling and weaponization relative to purer grades. Despite assertions of inherent proliferation resistance, empirical analysis and historical tests demonstrate feasibility of nuclear explosives using reactor-grade plutonium, albeit with technical hurdles like shielding needs and potential yield reductions manageable by advanced designs. This underscores that isotopic denaturing provides no absolute barrier to diversion for military purposes, informing debates on safeguards for civilian plutonium stocks.

Definition and Production

Isotopic Definition and Classification

Reactor-grade plutonium is classified based on its isotopic composition, specifically a plutonium-240 (Pu-240) content of greater than 19% by weight, which arises from extended neutron irradiation in commercial power reactors leading to successive captures that form higher isotopes. This contrasts with weapons-grade plutonium, produced in specialized low-burnup reactors for minimal higher isotope accumulation, featuring less than 7% Pu-240 and typically over 93% (Pu-239). An intermediate category, fuel-grade plutonium, spans 7% to 19% Pu-240 and is less common in standard classifications.
Plutonium GradePu-240 Content (% by weight)Typical Pu-239 Content
Weapons-grade<7>93
Fuel-grade7–19Variable
Reactor-grade>19<80
The terminology for these grades emerged in the post-World War II period alongside the startup of commercial nuclear power reactors in the 1950s and 1960s, which generated plutonium as a fission product byproduct rather than a dedicated output. Formalization occurred through international non-proliferation frameworks, including IAEA safeguards agreements in the 1970s, which adopted thresholds like >19% Pu-240 to delineate reactor-grade material for monitoring direct-use material under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Prior usages occasionally applied "reactor-grade" more broadly to >7% Pu-240, but the stricter >19% criterion prevails in contemporary technical and safeguards contexts to reflect high-burnup compositions. Isotopic profiles vary across reactor designs due to differences in neutron spectra and fuel residence times, with light-water reactors (LWRs) yielding higher Pu-240 fractions—often around 24% or more—owing to prolonged irradiation for energy extraction. In contrast, graphite-moderated reactors, such as early types, produce plutonium with lower Pu-240 (approximately 25%) and higher Pu-239 (about 65%), as their operational parameters historically involved shorter fuel cycles akin to production reactors. These variations underscore that reactor-grade classification hinges on empirical isotopic assays rather than reactor type alone, though high-burnup reactors predominate in generating the >19% Pu-240 benchmark.

Production Mechanisms in Commercial Reactors

In commercial nuclear reactors, primarily light-water reactors (LWRs) using low-enriched fuel, reactor-grade plutonium arises through and subsequent s on , which constitutes over 95% of the fuel's uranium content. The process initiates when a neutron is absorbed by a U-238 nucleus, yielding U-239, which rapidly beta-decays (half-life of 23.5 minutes) to neptunium-239; Np-239 then beta-decays (half-life of 2.36 days) to Pu-239. Neutrons primarily originate from the fission of U-235, with the reactor's moderator slowing them to thermal energies conducive to capture by U-238 rather than fission. During extended fuel irradiation, Pu-239 itself captures additional neutrons, forming Pu-240 via successive from Pu-240's precursor, with further captures yielding Pu-241 and higher isotopes; these reactions occur concurrently with Pu-239 fission, which contributes up to one-third of the reactor's energy output. The isotopic evolution and total plutonium yield depend critically on fuel burnup, measured in gigawatt-days per tonne of heavy metal (GWd/tHM), which quantifies the energy extracted per unit mass and thus the cumulative fluence. Typical commercial LWR discharge burnups range from 35-45 GWd/tHM for boiling water reactors (BWRs) and 40-50 GWd/tHM for pressurized water reactors (PWRs), reflecting operational cycles of 12-24 months before refueling. Higher burnups extend the time for captures on transuranic nuclides, preferentially building even-numbered isotopes like Pu-240 (which has a high spontaneous fission rate) over fissile Pu-239, thereby shifting the material toward reactor-grade characteristics unsuitable for low-spontaneous-fission applications. A standard 1 GWe-year LWR operation generates 200-250 kg of total in spent fuel, embedded within roughly 25-30 tonnes of annually discharged fuel assemblies. Globally, cumulative production has accumulated to hundreds of tons of separated reactor-grade plutonium since reprocessing programs began scaling in the , driven by nations pursuing closed fuel cycles; and , major operators, hold civilian separated stocks exceeding 140 tons combined as of 2023 declarations, derived from domestic and foreign spent fuel reprocessing. Annual worldwide generation in power reactors hovers around 70 tons, with separation volumes stable amid policy constraints on mixed-oxide fuel utilization and no substantial technological or operational shifts reported through 2025. This output remains incidental to , as commercial reactors prioritize high for over isotopic optimization.

Physical and Nuclear Properties

Key Isotopic Compositions and Variations

Reactor-grade , derived primarily from the reprocessing of spent commercial , features an isotopic composition with as the principal fissile but substantial admixtures of and higher isotopes that accumulate during extended irradiation. A typical profile from fuel discharged at 42 GWd/t consists of approximately 53% ^{239}Pu, 25% ^{240}Pu, 15% ^{241}Pu, 5% ^{242}Pu, and 2% ^{238}Pu. Another documented yields 54.3% ^{239}Pu, 25.8% ^{240}Pu, 9.7% ^{241}Pu, 7.6% ^{242}Pu, and 2.6% ^{238}Pu.
IsotopeTypical Fraction (%) in LWR Spent Fuel (42 GWd/t)Range Across Variations
^{238}Pu21–3
^{239}Pu5348–62
^{240}Pu2520–27
^{241}Pu154–15 (decays post-discharge)
^{242}Pu55–8
These fractions reflect equilibrium under thermal neutron spectra, with ^{240}Pu exceeding 18–19% serving as a hallmark of reactor-grade material. Compositional variations stem from fuel burnup, initial enrichment, and reactor type. Higher burnup reduces the ^{239}Pu fraction to 40–50% while elevating even isotopes like ^{240}Pu and ^{242}Pu due to successive captures. Lower-enrichment fuels or shorter times preserve higher ^{239}Pu shares, as seen in gas-cooled reactors yielding up to 68% ^{239}Pu and only 1.8% ^{241}Pu after decay. Fast reactors, employing unmoderated spectra, generate richer in ^{238}Pu (up to 5–10%) and depleted in ^{241}Pu relative to thermal systems. Isotopic assays rely on non-destructive gamma spectroscopy, which detects ^{241}Pu emissions at 208 keV and infers others via branching ratios, supplemented by destructive mass spectrometry (e.g., thermal ionization or ICP-MS) for certification. These methods underpin verification in safeguards programs, ensuring accuracy within 1–2% for major isotopes.

Thermal, Radiological, and Fissile Characteristics

Reactor-grade plutonium exhibits significantly higher decay heat than weapons-grade plutonium due to its elevated concentrations of isotopes such as Pu-238, Pu-240, and Pu-242, which undergo alpha decay and spontaneous fission. Typical decay heat generation ranges from 10 to 25 W/kg, primarily driven by alpha particles from Pu-240 (half-life 6,561 years) and spontaneous fission events, compared to less than 2 W/kg for weapons-grade material with Pu-240 content below 7%. This elevated thermal output arises from the isotopic composition resulting from high-burnup reactor irradiation, where neutron capture on Pu-239 produces higher-mass isotopes with shorter half-lives and greater energy release per decay. Radiologically, reactor-grade plutonium produces substantial spontaneous neutron emissions, on the order of 10^5 to 10^6 neutrons per second per kilogram, stemming from the spontaneous fission branches of Pu-240 (∼0.01% branching ratio) and Pu-242 (∼0.4% branching ratio). These rates are two to three orders of magnitude higher than in weapons-grade plutonium, where Pu-240 fractions are minimized, leading to a neutron background that influences neutron economy in fissile assemblies. Alpha decay also generates associated gamma rays, but the dominant radiological challenge is the neutron flux, which correlates directly with Pu-240 and Pu-242 content (typically 20-25% and 5-10%, respectively, in reactor-grade material). In terms of fissile characteristics, Pu-239 remains the primary driver of neutron-induced fission in reactor-grade plutonium, with a thermal fission cross-section of approximately 750 barns and fast fission capability above 1 MeV, enabling sustained chain reactions. However, the presence of even-mass isotopes (Pu-240, Pu-242) dilutes the effective fissile fraction (∼50-60% Pu-239), increases parasitic , and elevates the bare-sphere to about 13 kg, versus 10-11 kg for weapons-grade . These even isotopes exhibit lower fission probabilities per absorption compared to Pu-239, reducing overall reactivity predictability in unreflected configurations, though all isotopes contribute to fast- fission.

Applications in Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Reprocessing for Mixed Oxide Fuel

Reactor-grade is extracted from through aqueous reprocessing, primarily via the Plutonium Uranium Redox Extraction () process, which involves shearing fuel assemblies, dissolving the matrix in , and using solvent extraction to separate and with approximately 99% recovery efficiency for . This chemical pathway isolates as plutonium nitrate, which is then converted to plutonium dioxide (PuO₂) for storage or further use. Commercial-scale PUREX operations, such as at France's facility established in 1966 and processing oxide fuels since 1976, annually recover around 10 tonnes of from approximately 1,050 tonnes of spent fuel. The recovered PuO₂ is blended with depleted uranium dioxide (UO₂) to fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, typically containing 4-9% plutonium by weight, through processes like powder mixing, pressing into pellets, and sintering into fuel rods compatible with light-water reactors. This recycling closes the fuel cycle for plutonium, reducing the volume of high-level waste by reusing fissile material and decreasing natural uranium requirements by up to 30% over multiple cycles. As of recent data, MOX fuel is loaded in over 30 reactors worldwide, primarily in Europe and Japan, recycling a small but growing fraction—estimated at about 5%—of the plutonium in global spent fuel inventories. In France, where reprocessing and MOX use are integral to the nuclear fleet, recycled plutonium contributes to approximately 17% of the nation's electricity generation, demonstrating the economic viability of this pathway in reducing resource dependence and waste accumulation without relying on once-through fuel cycles.

Performance and Efficiency in Reactors

In light water reactors (LWRs), reactor-grade plutonium incorporated into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel—typically 7-11% PuO₂ blended with depleted UO₂—displays neutronic behavior shaped by its isotopic profile, including greater than 19% Pu-240, which features a high thermal neutron capture cross-section leading to parasitic absorption without fission. This reduces the neutron economy relative to low-enriched uranium oxide (UOX) fuel, resulting in slightly lower achievable burnups, often 40-50 GWd/tHM for MOX compared to 50-60 GWd/tHM for UOX in pressurized water reactors (PWRs). Nonetheless, European commercial experience with reactor-grade MOX in over 30 LWRs since the 1970s confirms equivalent cycle lengths, power outputs, and fuel reliability to UOX, with no significant efficiency penalties in steady-state operations. Fast spectrum reactors exploit the harder to diminish capture disadvantages of even-mass plutonium isotopes like Pu-240 and Pu-242, which have lower parasitic absorption relative to fission in such environments, thereby supporting higher fissile utilization and closed cycles. Russia's BN-800 , operational since 2016 and fully loaded with by 2022 using recycled from VVER spent , achieves breeding ratios exceeding 1.0 with axial breeding blankets, enabling net production while burning transuranics. This configuration sustains energy extraction efficiencies comparable to or exceeding LWR MOX cycles, with projected burnups up to 150 GWd/tHM. Challenges in reactor-grade plutonium use include elevated minor actinide generation—such as and isotopes—during , which amplifies spent fuel radiotoxicity over 10,000-100,000 year timescales by factors of 2-10 compared to UOX due to alpha-emitting decay chains. Operational data from MOX-fueled LWRs also indicate marginally higher fission gas release and cladding strain from plutonium's radiogenic production (e.g., from Pu-241 decay), necessitating design adjustments like increased plenum volumes, though these do not compromise overall safety margins.

Suitability for Nuclear Weapons

Technical Feasibility and Yield Potential

Reactor-grade plutonium, characterized by higher concentrations of isotopes such as Pu-240 (typically 20% or more), presents challenges for nuclear weaponization primarily due to elevated emissions, which increase the risk of predetonation during assembly. However, implosion-type designs, which rapidly compress the fissile core using symmetric high-explosive lenses, can mitigate this by achieving supercriticality faster than the (on the order of microseconds), thereby enabling reliable chain reactions before significant predetonation occurs. Sophisticated implosion systems, as developed by state actors with access to advanced computational modeling and precision manufacturing, further reduce predetonation probabilities to levels comparable with weapons-grade devices, often through optimized compression dynamics and optional boosting with deuterium-tritium fusion. Yield potential in such designs ranges from 10 to 20 kilotons for unboosted implosion weapons using reactor-grade , depending on isotopic composition and core optimization, with fizzle yields limited to approximately 0.5-1 kt in suboptimal cases but avoidable through refined . Compared to weapons-grade (with <7% Pu-240), reactor-grade material exhibits lower fission efficiency due to parasitic absorption by even isotopes and higher generation (up to 10.5 W/kg), necessitating design adjustments such as reduced core masses (e.g., ~5.8 kg for 5 kt yields) or enhanced reflectors to achieve equivalent outputs, potentially requiring 20-30% more for parity in full-yield scenarios. Boosted designs eliminate predetonation vulnerabilities entirely, allowing yields approaching those of weapons-grade pits while maintaining similar device size, weight, and reliability. Claims of inherent infeasibility for reactor-grade plutonium often stem from outdated assessments emphasizing gun-type assembly failures or simplistic fizzle predictions, but declassified physics models, including neutronics simulations and historical heuristics, demonstrate that high Pu-240 content complicates rather than precludes high-yield implosions, as core compression uniformity and assembly speed dominate over isotopic impurities in determining supercritical excursion. These models, validated against early implosion data (e.g., predetonation tolerances of 12-20% in designs scalable to modern speeds), affirm that state-level programs can produce deterrence-capable devices without specialized testing, countering narratives that dismiss proliferation risks based on yield degradation alone.

Historical Nuclear Tests with Reactor-Grade Material

In 1962, the conducted an underground nuclear test employing reactor-grade , characterized by a Pu-240 content of 19% or greater, which increases rates and complicates implosion symmetry due to predetonation risks. This test, declassified by the Department of Energy in 1977, yielded less than 20 kilotons and demonstrated a sustained fission , validating design adaptations such as enhanced assembly speeds to mitigate isotopic impurities. The composition included 20% to 23% Pu-240, akin to that from commercial power reactors with moderate to high fuel burn-up. This experiment provided direct empirical proof of reactor-grade plutonium's utility in fission primaries, achieved via physical diagnostics and subcritical assemblies rather than modern computational modeling of neutronics and hydrodynamics. While U.S. records confirm this as the declassified instance, related low-yield validations in the remain classified, underscoring historical efforts to quantify performance degradation from even-grade impurities. No foreign nuclear tests using reactor-grade material have been publicly verified, though nonproliferation assessments infer equivalent capabilities based on shared implosion physics. These outcomes affirm the material's causal potential for explosive yields, independent of weapons-grade purity assumptions prevalent in early proliferation analyses.

Proliferation and Security Concerns

Risks of Diversion by States or Non-State Actors

Reprocessing facilities in states pursuing nuclear capabilities provide pathways for the covert diversion and accumulation of reactor-grade (RGPu), as demonstrated by North Korea's operations at the Yongbyon complex, where spent fuel from the 5 MWe has yielded separated stocks since the early 1990s. Such programs exploit the inherent weapon-usability of RGPu, enabling the production of asymmetric arsenals with yields sufficient for strategic deterrence, despite isotopic impurities like higher Pu-240 content that complicate but do not preclude implosion-type designs. For non-state actors, approximately 8-10 kg of RGPu could suffice for a crude fission device yielding 1-10 kilotons, though high spontaneous fission from Pu-240 isotopes raises predetonation risks and requires sophisticated metallurgical handling to mitigate heat and neutron emissions during fabrication. Even suboptimal "fizzle" explosions, potentially in the sub-kiloton range, could inflict significant radiological and psychological damage, making RGPu attractive despite technical barriers exceeding those for highly . Diversion risks are amplified during transport of plutonium-bearing materials, such as mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel shipments across the Pacific, where vulnerabilities to interception by determined actors persist despite security measures, as evidenced by international concerns over Europe-to-Asia routes carrying multikilogram quantities. Historical precedents include over a dozen documented attempts to steal fissile materials from Russian facilities in the 1990s, including plutonium samples, highlighting systemic safeguards gaps in post-Soviet storage sites that exposed separated plutonium to insider threats and black-market trafficking. As of 2025, no non-state actor has successfully fabricated and detonated a nuclear device using diverted RGPu or any fissile material, underscoring the formidable expertise and infrastructure barriers, yet persistent theft vulnerabilities in reprocessing and storage underscore the material's high attractiveness for proliferation.

Mitigation through Safeguards and Denaturing

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) implements safeguards under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force on March 5, 1970, requiring non-nuclear-weapon states to accept verification measures for declared nuclear activities, including plutonium handling in reprocessing facilities. These protocols emphasize nuclear material accountancy to track plutonium inventories through measurements at key points like input, product, and waste streams; containment to maintain physical integrity of process areas; and surveillance via cameras, seals, and sensors to monitor activities and detect anomalies between accountancy points. In reprocessing plants, such measures focus on high-throughput plutonium streams, with design features like shielded process lines and tamper-indicating enclosures facilitating IAEA access for independent verification. Accountancy in reprocessing aims for timely detection of diversions approaching a significant quantity (SQ) of plutonium—defined as 8 kilograms of plutonium suitable for weapons use—through material balance evaluations that identify unaccounted-for material (MUF) with detection probabilities calibrated to facility throughput. Complementary non-destructive assay (NDA) techniques, such as gamma spectroscopy and neutron coincidence counting, enable verification of plutonium mass and isotopic composition to within percentages, while destructive analysis of samples supports precision down to kilogram scales over annual cycles, though real-time detection of sub-SQ amounts relies on cumulative discrepancies rather than instantaneous grams-level resolution. These approaches have been refined since the 1970s to address plutonium-specific challenges, including isotopic variations in reactor-grade material, but effectiveness depends on state cooperation for declarations and access. Denaturing reactor-grade plutonium involves isotopic spiking with plutonium-238 (Pu-238) to levels of 6-8% or higher, leveraging its high alpha-decay heat output—approximately 0.56 watts per gram—to generate self-heating that complicates covert handling, storage, and transport without specialized cooling, thereby acting as a physical deterrent to theft or diversion. This approach increases spontaneous neutron emissions and radiation levels from decay products, raising detection risks during processing, though it dilutes the fissile Pu-239 fraction, potentially reducing suitability for efficient reactor fuel while preserving overall energy value in moderated systems. Studies from the 1980s evaluated such spiking for light-water reactor fuel cycles as a proliferation-resistant measure, but implementation remains limited due to production costs of Pu-238 and the need for uniform mixing without separation feasibility. Safeguards face inherent limitations, including vulnerability to insider threats where colluding personnel could bypass accountancy or surveillance without triggering alarms, as historical analyses post-1991 inspections revealed gaps in detecting undeclared activities despite routine measures. Overwhelmed inspection regimes in states with multiple facilities or expanding programs can delay verification, with resource constraints limiting unannounced accesses, while fast reactors introduce complications like online reprocessing and dynamic fuel shuffling that challenge traditional material balances, necessitating advanced statistical methods for tracking. Causally, these measures deter routine diversions by raising costs and risks of detection but cannot preclude determined state-level withdrawal from the NPT, underscoring reliance on geopolitical enforcement over technical infallibility.

Debates and Policy Implications

Debunking Claims of Inherent Non-Weaponizability

Claims that reactor-grade plutonium (RGPu), characterized by greater than 19% Pu-240 content, is inherently unsuitable for nuclear weapons stem from assessments emphasizing its higher rate, which increases predetonation risks in implosion designs. These assertions gained traction in U.S. circles during the to support commercial reprocessing initiatives, despite internal recognition of its viability; for instance, a declassification acknowledged RGPu's weapon potential, contradicting public narratives minimizing risks to facilitate plutonium . Such framing overlooked foundational physics: all isotopes are fissionable, with Pu-240 and Pu-242 contributing to chain reactions despite non-fissile properties, enabling explosive yields via standard designs. Historical evidence directly refutes non-weaponizability. In 1962, the conducted a successful nuclear test using RGPu with 20-23% Pu-240, achieving a yield under 20 kilotons, as declassified in 1977; this device confirmed feasibility without requiring weapons-grade material. Independent analyses affirm that modern implosion weapons incorporating RGPu can reliably produce 1-20 kiloton yields, comparable to early fission devices like Nagasaki's, through optimized pit compression and reflectors that mitigate isotopic impurities. Proponents of "proliferation resistance" highlight predetonation from Pu-240's spontaneous neutrons, potentially fizzling low-yield attempts in simple assemblies, yet this overlooks engineering countermeasures available to sophisticated actors. Advanced manufacturing techniques, such as levitated pits or composite cores blending isotopes, achieve predetonation probabilities equivalent to weapons-grade plutonium, preserving device compactness and reliability. Gun-type designs, though suboptimal for plutonium due to assembly time, remain viable for crude yields exceeding 1 kiloton with RGPu, bypassing implosion complexities. The International Atomic Energy Agency's characterization of RGPu as "less attractive" for proliferation thus understates its utility, as empirical tests and simulations demonstrate yields sufficient for strategic deterrence or terror, undermining diplomatic assurances of inherent safeguards.

Balancing Energy Needs with Non-Proliferation Goals

Proponents of plutonium recycling argue that it extends resources by recycling into mixed oxide (, extracting up to 30% more energy from the original mined and thereby enhancing long-term for nations with limited domestic supplies. In , the implementation of reprocessing and MOX fabrication since the has recycled approximately 10 tons of annually, equivalent to substituting about 20% of requirements and reducing vulnerability to global fluctuations. This approach has sustained 's high nuclear share—around 70% of total generation—while minimizing volumes destined for geological disposal. Critics contend that civilian reprocessing programs facilitate proliferation by generating weapons-usable under the guise of energy production, potentially masking state pursuits of capabilities. India's three-stage nuclear program, which integrates utilization with reprocessing, exemplifies this dual-use dynamic, as civilian facilities have historically supplied for its arsenal of over 160 warheads amid international safeguards exemptions. Such entwinement raises doubts about the verifiability of peaceful intent, with separated stockpiles exceeding 10 tons globally from civilian sources, heightening diversion risks despite IAEA monitoring. Thorium-based fuel cycles offer a proliferation-resistant alternative, producing minimal plutonium—often less than 1% of uranium cycles' output—while leveraging abundant reserves for needs, as demonstrated in experimental Indian and international prototypes. The formation of in thorium irradiation introduces gamma-emitting contaminants, complicating weaponization and enhancing detectability, thus aligning better with non-proliferation objectives without sacrificing . Advocates prioritize such pathways to decouple expansion from fissile accumulation. As of 2025, U.S. policy continues to prohibit commercial reprocessing, a stance codified since 1977 to prioritize non-proliferation over recycling benefits, even as allies like and operate mature programs yielding energy gains. This divergence exposes realist frictions in frameworks like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, where idealistic safeguards constrain domestic energy strategies amid rising global demand, prompting recent U.S. reconsiderations via executive actions and bilateral talks with partners like . The tension underscores that unchecked reprocessing expansion could undermine export controls and verification regimes, yet forgoing it risks ceding technological leadership in low-carbon energy to less restrained actors.

References

  1. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium
  2. https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub52057.pdf
  3. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML9936/ML993620025.pdf
  4. https://npolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Reactor-Grade_Plutonium_and_Nuclear_Weapons-Appendix.pdf
  5. https://npolicy.org/reactor-grade-plutonium-and-nuclear-weapons-exploding-the-myths/
  6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10736700.2019.1603497
  7. https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/plutonium-isotopics-non-proliferation-and-safeguards-issues
  8. https://npolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Reactor-Grade_Plutonium_and_Nuclear_Weapons-Chapter_3.pdf
  9. https://inis.iaea.org/records/tyfks-2dv50/preview/31004165.pdf?include_deleted=0
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573318301724
  11. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors
  12. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/nea4451-plutonium.pdf
  13. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_699_web.pdf
  14. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/459313
  15. https://fissilematerials.org/blog/2025/03/civilian_plutonium_declar.html
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/grade-plutonium
  17. https://npolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Reactor-Grade_Plutonium_and_Nuclear_Weapons-Chapter_6.pdf
  18. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_24511.pdf
  19. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1984929
  20. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P061_scr.pdf
  21. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2006/05/56044.pdf
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/plutonium-240
  23. https://rlg.fas.org/980826-pu.htm
  24. https://ieer.org/resource/factsheets/plutonium-factsheet/
  25. https://nuclearpolicy101.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/Selden_Reactor-Plutonium_slides.pdf
  26. https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs04mark.pdf
  27. https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00418579.pdf
  28. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc52inf-3-att4_en.pdf
  29. https://www.orano.group/china/en/our-stories/orano-la-hague
  30. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel
  31. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/mixed-oxide-fuel-mox
  32. https://www.jnfl.co.jp/en/business/mox/
  33. https://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/mox/faq
  34. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26500/chapter/18
  35. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france
  36. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS415_web.pdf
  37. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/1999/05/physics-and-fuel-performance-of-reactor-based-plutonium-disposition_g1gh1cbb/9789264173385-en.pdf
  38. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors
  39. https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs22kutt.pdf
  40. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_0916_scr.pdf
  41. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0315/ML031550349.pdf
  42. https://npolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Reactor-Grade_Plutonium_and_Nuclear_Weapons-Chapter_4.pdf
  43. https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys280/sp2012/archive/Reactor-Grade%20and%20Weapons-Grade%20Plutonium%20in%20Nuclear%20Explosives.pdf
  44. https://courses.physics.[illinois](/page/Illinois).edu/phys280/sp2012/archive/Reactor-Grade%20and%20Weapons-Grade%20Plutonium%20in%20Nuclear%20Explosives.pdf
  45. https://npolicy.org/greg-jones-americas-1962-reactor-grade-plutonium-weapons-test-revisited/
  46. http://www.ccnr.org/plute_bomb.html
  47. https://sgp.fas.org/library/rdd-5.html
  48. https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/1994/12/north_korean_plutonium_product.html
  49. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/appendices/japanese-waste-and-mox-shipments-from-europe-appen
  50. https://irp.fas.org/congress/1996_hr/s960320c.htm
  51. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-312.pdf
  52. https://www.nci.org/k-m/makeab.htm
  53. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/NVS2_web.pdf
  54. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1866_web.pdf
  55. https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr06.pdf
  56. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-16674.pdf
  57. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/NVS1-2003_web.pdf
  58. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/pantheon_files/files/publication/how-iaea-safeguards-work.pdf
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319076556_Plutonium_Denaturing_by_238_Pu
  60. https://resources.inmm.org/annual-meeting-proceedings/plutonium-denaturing-how-effective-safeguards-deterrent
  61. https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9530/9530.PDF
  62. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-17168.pdf
  63. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull24-0/24003484043su.pdf
  64. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2018/07/08/reactor-grade-plutonium-and-nuclear-weapons-exploding-the-myths/
  65. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.13.110188.001323
  66. https://cscr.pk/explore/themes/defense-security/implications-of-western-complicity-in-indias-nuclear-deceit/
  67. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/risks-civilian-plutonium-programs/
  68. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf
  69. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium
  70. https://partnershipforglobalsecurity.org/reframing-nuclear-fuel-reprocessing-policy/
  71. https://www.powermag.com/policy-shift-private-sector-drive-put-nuclear-recycling-back-on-the-table/
  72. https://fedgov.womblebonddickinson.com/post/102l08j/fueling-americas-nuclear-renaissance-how-trumps-executive-orders-create-strate
  73. https://partnershipforglobalsecurity.org/nuclear-power-and-nuclear-proliferation/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.