I would have to agree--civillian HEU (highly enrinched uranium) reactors may be very difficult to do, but the benefits higher power-to-weight ratio outweigh the negatives of a natural uranium reactor. Not to say natural or low enrichment reactors won't have their places--I'm sure that large settlements on Mars, the Moon, and the asteroids (and beyond) will all benefit from nuclear power. Eventually when people begin to permanently settle these places, then the demand for a steady, independent power supply becomes necessary--and nuclear power will be ideal power source for all deep space settlements and missions.

Nearer term, it is my belief that serious consideration should be given to utilizing cargo variants of man-rated space boosters to transport fueled nuclear-reactors, such as the SP-100 and similar systems. Weight penalties asside, the advantages of utilizing a robust capsule with an independent reentry heat shield, parachute and launch escape system should not be ignored. Although the added complexities of ferrying up a nuclear power pack for docking with a JIMO vehicle, as an example, will definately be significant, the ability to safely recover an intact (and possibly even undamaged) reactor in the event of a launch abort or even in an abort-to-orbit scenario cannot be ignored. Thus I feel strongly that the added expense of robust, man rated or similar capsule hardware systems is justified when launching nuclear reactors into space.

Larger reactors, such as the Pratt and Whitney Triton could be ferried up using something like the now defunct Assured Crew Return Vehicle, a minishuttle. The ability to have flexible abort modes should be considered when transporting fueled reactor assemblies. If this route were chosen, then perhaps this could go a long way in addressing the Publics Fears regarding space nuclear power systems.

Anyways, food for thought.

Wow, thanks very much for the informative post. I always knew that you folks were busy--and with the potential flood of applicants for new reactor licenses, the NRC is definately going to have its work cut out for you. Thanks again for taking the time to post here!

So if I understand what you said correctly, then licensing of space power reactors and potential NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) reactors, atleast those flown by the United States, will fall under the NRC's licensing jurisdiction. No real surprise there, I suppose.

And if I also understand correctly, that with the potential work back log, then licensing of such reactors may be a problem because of their level of innovation and the relative unfamiliarity (or operating history might be more accurate) of the industry to such technology. I certainly understand that. Unfortunately, to demonstrate things like safety, failure modes, and gain operational experience, it will probably be necessary to build several such devices, and then test/demonstrate them--which of course requires licensing...

Is there a provision for licensing the testing of potentially cutting edge nuclear technology within the NRC? I understand that the NRC primarily deals with light water reactors--this is the world standard for civillian nuclear power production--but these are closed cycle units. Whereas an NTR would of course be an open cycle unit by definition, do you think that with proper fascilities (such as a large high-altitude-simulating NTR rocket test stand and exhaust scrubber fascility) that the NRC might grant a test license, if a detailed proposal were made?

10kBq Jaro,

I agree with you. However, who would license US nuclear propulsion reactors for use in civilian spacecraft if NOT the US NRC? While it's true that Commissioner Merrifield was primarily discussing the licensing of commercial reactors for electricity production, his words of advice would be equally true for licensing spacecraft propulsion reactors. Accident scenarios and environmental considerations would be totally different, but they would still exist. Indeed, both these things would be extremely important to certify public health and safety when lofting a reactor into orbit before it is first used. True, radiological release during propulsion operation in deep space is a non-issue, but crew radiation exposure from reactor operation is something to consider (but perhaps outweighed by the far greater exposure that occurs from ambient radiation fields in deep space, especially during sunspot activity).

I am no expert in this field, but licensing a spacecraft nuclear reactor would be a whole new field, whether for the US NRC or some other government body. But space craft nuclear reactors will indeed be licensed and regulated.

BTW, web page http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation.html states in part:

"NRC's primary mission is to protect public health and safety and the environment from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities."

Of course this will be an issue on reactor liftoff, and perhaps even a crew radiation exposure issue throughout reactor operation. (Some would argue that the crew is still a part of the public, even if separated by several AU from Earth.) This will sadly take big government years and years and lots of tax dollars to figure out (remember - the lure of spending tax dollars alone is sufficient justification to expand the powers of any government agency, even the US NRC and it is better than most).

Regards,

Paul P.

I apologize to all for posting four messages in one day, but I just realized that NRC Chairman Diaz before his appointment to the US NRC was the Director of the Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute (INSPI). Read his biography at:

http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/organization/commission/diaz.html

The INSPI web page is at:

http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/

I think he was involved in some 'original' work on nuclear-electric propulsion drives back in the early 1990s before Clinton appointed him. If anyone knows about licensing issues for spacecraft nuclear reactors, it'll be him.

10kBq Jaro,

NUREG 1537, Part 1 - "Guidelines for Preparing & Reviewing Applications for Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Format and Content" is NRC ADAMS Accession Number ML042430055.

NUREG-1537, Part 2 - "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Application for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors. Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria" is NRC ADAMS Accession Number ML042430048.

For some reason, the PDF files for both documents are currently unavailable. However, if you click on the links (shown below) just to the right of the PDF icons for the respective parts of the NUREG in the NRC ADAMS Library, then a text printout of the NUREG files will appear in a somewhat distorted shape, but all the relevant technical discussion should be present:

NUREG 1537, Part 1 - Guidelines for Preparing & Reviewing Applications for Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Format and Content.

NUREG-1537, Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Application for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors. Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria."

I have so far obtained no return hits for key words such as space craft, space ship, rocket, etc., in either document. I am continuing to look for NRC documents germane to licensing space craft nuclear propulsion systems, but because the field is so new and unique, I doubt I will find any. NASA's Project Prometheus will probably be the first (assuming that it is actually ever done and I think it got cancelled - but I may be wrong). I am at a loss as to explain how thermal isotopic generators got licensed, but perhaps some special dispensation was done to exempt them from NRC requirements given that only NASA and the military would be using them, or maybe I am looking at the wrong place in the NRC ADAMS Library. Rest assurred that any civilian use of special nuclear material (U-233, U-235, Pu-239) will indeed be regulated by the NRC, whether for space craft propulsion, electric generation, ship propulsion, etc.

BTW, a NUREG is NOT a regulation. NRC Regulations are only those that appear in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These are "Requirements binding on all persons and organizations who receive a license from NRC to use nuclear materials or operate nuclear facilities". See the following web page for links to the NRC CFR's:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/

NUREGs are "Reports or brochures on regulatory decisions, results of research, results of incident investigations, and other technical and administrative information."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/

There are more documents such as Reg. Guides. "The Regulatory Guide series provides guidance to licensees and applicants on implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques used by the NRC staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the staff in its review of applications for permits or licenses."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/

And there are Information Notices, Regulatory Information Summaries, Generic Letters, Bulletins, etc. which can be found at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/index.html

The list goes on: from web page http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policymaking.html

Commission Resources in the Electronic Reading Room

Recently Released Commission Documents: Daily listing of Commission documents released to the public.

Commission Papers (SECY): Written issue papers the NRC staff submits to the Commission for Commission decision and information about policy, rulemaking, and adjudicatory matters (1996 to present).

Commission Action Memoranda (COMs): COMs may be (1) written exchanges among Commissioners on issues before the agency or on matters a Commissioner wants to bring to the attention of his or her follow Commissioners or (2) memoranda from the NRC staff seeking guidance from the Commission. Using COMs allows Commissioners to develop preliminary views, explore options and propose direction to the staff, and to initiate activities before staff offices become involved (1996 to present).

Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRMs): After the Commission completes its vote on a written issue paper submitted by the NRC staff, the Office of the Secretary records the decision in a "Staff Requirements Memorandum" (SRM). The SRM includes a concise statement of the Commission's decision on the recommendation of the paper, noting specifically any approved modifications to the recommendations. The SRM also contains a clear statement of any additional requirements or tasks to be performed by the staff together with appropriate action due dates (1996 to present).

Commission Voting Record (CVR): After the Commission completes its vote on a written issue paper submitted by the NRC staff (SECY) and the SRM has been issued, the Office of the Secretary will issue a CVR that includes (a) an indication of affirmative votes, negative votes, abstentions, non-participation, and individual views of all Commissioners; (b) a copy of each Commissioner's vote sheet; (c) a comment resolution section indicating the extent to which differing views, if any, as expressed in the individual vote sheets, were accommodated, resolved, and reflected in the final decision; and (d) a copy of the final SRM (1997 to present).

Commission Meeting Transcripts: Transcripts of Commission meetings organized by date of meeting and associated SRM (1996 to present).

Combined Index of Related Commission Documents: This index contains SECY that have been publicly released and any associated SRM, CVR, or "Commission Meeting Transcript" (1996 to present).

Commission Orders: The Commission has supervisory authority over the conduct of adjudicatory proceedings of the Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel. In a Commission Order, the Commission may review a panel's memorandum and order, reverse a ruling of the panel, rule on a petitioner's request to intervene in a proceeding, grant a petitioner additional time to prepare for a proceeding, or review certain issues involved in a proceeding (1999 to present).

Commission Speeches: Speeches of individual Commissioners at various meetings and events in the United States and abroad (1997 to present).

Commission Correspondence: Important Commission correspondence to Congress and others concerning NRC activities.

Commission Responses to GAO Reports: Commission comments on Government Accountability Office (GAO) Reports concerning NRC activities.

Commission Policy Statements: Subject listing of all Commission Policy Statements.

-----

Licensing civilian space craft nuclear reactors will take decades of effort and billions of dollars should US private citizens or corporations (as is far more likely) ever be allowed to own and pilot such crafts. The documentation involved is momumental. For example, just to extend the operating license of a typical pressurized water reactor for electricity production such as Turkey Point in Florida, 7000 pages of public comments had to be resolved by the US NRC, and millions of dollars were spent by FP&L. I can't begin to imagine the comments that would be engendered by launching a privately owned space craft nuclear reactor into orbit. WISE, NIRS, NCI, Greenpeace, CAN and all the rest of the anti-nukes would be in an uproar, and the cost that would be incurred on the part of those seeking a license would be monumental. The licensing process allows the public to make comments and those comments have to be responded to - that's the 'curse' of living in a republic - but better that than North Korea.

Yeah....  and nothing in the NRC Title 10 CFRs on NAVY nukes either....

 

The licensing for KIWI and NERVA in the 1960s was done by the predecessor to the NRC which was the AEC. The AEC got broken up into DOE and the NRC in 1974. See the governing legislation at:

http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/governing-laws.html

"Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

"This Act established the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a single agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, had responsibility for the development and production of nuclear weapons and for both the development and the safety regulation of the civilian uses of nuclear materials. The Act of 1974 split these functions, assigning to one agency, now the Department of Energy, the responsibility for the development and production of nuclear weapons, promotion of nuclear power, and other energy-related work, and assigning to the NRC the regulatory work, which does not include regulation of defense nuclear facilities. The Act of 1974 gave the Commission its collegial structure and established its major offices. The later amendment to the Act also provided protections for employees who raise nuclear safety concerns."

The Office of Naval Reactors have always been exempt from NRC oversight. The NRC oversees civilian uses of special nuclear material, not military. If a nuclear powered military space craft were going to be built for the US Air Force (for example), then I would imagine that its regulation would be similar to what's done for the US Navy via Naval Reactors. See the following web page which explains that the National Nuclear Security Administration administers the Office of Naval Reactors:

http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/about_nr.asp

In like manner there would probably be an Office of Air Force Reactors, too. But this office would never provide oversight of civilian space craft reactors - that would still be done by the US NRC.

BTW, you can find the complete history of the US NRC and how it evolved at the following web page:

http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/history.html

All the answers are out there - but all the answers involves tons of tax dollars.

Lastly, I am aware of these things because between the US Navy and commercial nuclear power plants I have 29 years of nuclear-related experience. I started out as a submarine reactor operator, left the navy for a commercial pressurized water reactor after my six year hitch, became an I&C tech, then an I&C instructor, then a Radiation Monitoring System Engineer. I transferred to a Boiling Water Reactor where I worked as a digital design engineer. I am now in the Plant Process Computer Group. I have written 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations (also called Nuclear Safety Evaluations), developed major digital upgrade modifications, and worked on a variety of licensing issues to upgrade radiation monitoring, security computer, plant process computer, and miscellaneous instrument and control systems. I can tell you from personal experience that licensing issues for conventional nuclear power plants are exasperating enough and involve reams and reams of paperwork as well as hundreds of hours of mind-numbing analysis. I can't begin to imagine what licensing issues would be like for a space craft nuclear reactors.

P.S. From personal experience - The Office of Naval Reactors is tougher than the US NRC. But that's just my perception.

Regards,

Paul P.

10kBq Jaro,

You're welcome. It's not often I get to have an intelligent conversation about things nuclear with people outside the US nuclear industry who actually understand the issues.

The original question posed by Neutrino78x to this forum was, "Does anyone know if it would be legal to have a privately funded and controlled nuclear reactor in space? For example, if Burt Rutan were to construct a craft in orbit that was powered by a nuke, would there be anything illegal about it?"

The answer is that for United States civilians, there is no process to license the use of special nuclear material for space craft nuclear propulsion. The US government agency that regulates ALL civilian use of nuclear material (for example, this includes medical uses as well - see 10 CFR 35 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part035/) is the US NRC. It has developed no part to Title 10 (Energy) of the Code of Federal Regulations to license special nuclear material for use in space craft because there is no public demand for it. Therefore, without this part to Title 10 it is ILLEGAL for US civilians to have, own or use space craft nuclear reactors (but this is a moot point because no civilian has the money to design and build one - only the the US government does and it would do that in the same way that it does Naval Reactors - bypass the whole system).

As for your query, "How about the original question -- flying materials & components into orbit, and then assembling a reactor out in 'no man's land,' so to speak ? (assumes you'd have to do all your testing there too...", the special nuclear material and reactor assembly parts still have to be obtained, fabricated on and lifted off from Earth (presumably US territory). If so, then licensing by the US NRC still applies. Questions such as what prevents inadvertent criticality during lift-off, what prevent radiological release on a lift-off abort, what security provisions exist to prevent diversion of special nuclear material into the wrong hands, how is crew radiation exposure controlled / limited over time, what prevents radiological release on accidental re-entry, etc., etc., ad nauseam would have to be answered. Even flying the parts up into orbit and assembling them there engenders some risk (however miniscule) that licensing review would have to answer. Additionally, since orbital assembly can affect any area on Earth if accidental re-entry occurs, I could even see the IAEA getting involved from a licensing perspective. The IAEA's web page is at:

http://www.iaea.or.at/

The dice are stacked against civilian ownership of space craft nuclear reactors. Only a big corporation would have the financial resources to try. I sometimes think this is deliberate so that only government would have nuclear propulsion capability. But maybe I am a bit too paranoid.....

BTW, the CANDU is a smart design. For example, theoretically it can take spent fuel from US light water reactors and burn it up (so to speak) with minimal reprocessing, and make the whole Yucca Mountain issue another moot point. And on-line refueling is a very smart move. But two problems plague CANDUs: tritium (heavy water is an excellent moderator, but its use engenders a lot more tritium than evolves out of US light water reactors), and required maintenance / replacement of refueling machinery due to the deleterious effects of long term radiation exposure (that's a materials problem from neutron and gamma exposure).

Regards,

Paul P.

10kBq Jaro,

Yours are good questions. I would expect the licensing process for unmanned civilian nuclear powered space craft to be less rigorous than manned.

As you correctly pointed out, per unit mass U-235 is less radioactive (by far) than Pu-238; however, the issue of preventing inadvertent criticality on lift-off would still have to be addressed, and the obstructionist anti-nukes would get their turn in the necessary public comment period.

When I was in the US navy more than two decades ago, there were no unmanned nuclear powered subs or surface ships. This was an anathema (is that the right word?) to Naval philosophy which regarded the operator as the final line of defense against a reactor accident. I think this is still the case. There is still considerable distrust of computerized automation in today's civilian nuclear industry. I have had to do several analog to digital, microprocessor upgrades which literally filled four or five 4-inch thick notebooks apiece just analyzing all the nuances of the software code and performing the necessary Software Hazards and Failure Analysis (that didn't include the 10 CFR 50.59 nuclear safety evaluation). The Reg. Guides and IEEE standards on this are ugly. I can give the links if you want, but this is really beyond the scope of the topic.

That being said, I think licensing unmanned civilian nuclear powered space craft would be different - maybe not easier - than licensing manned civilian nuclear powered space craft. But I feel that if one is going to all the expense to license a space craft nuclear reactor, then let's go all the way and man the craft! The financial difference between licensing a manned and an unmanned craft may not be all that different, and it's always the money that talks! When all the costs are considered nuke spacecraft could be the best financial option - but I don't have the figures to back that supposition up.

Regards,

Paul P.

GoogleNaut,

You are sincerely welcome. Your explanation of the Konstanine Tsiokolvsky's Rocket Equation is precisely why without nuclear propulsion for space craft, mankind will never be able to expand beyond the Earth-Moon cradle. As far as recommendations for licensing goes, here is what I would do:

(1) Decide on one space craft reactor design to license. A good one would be nuclear electric propulsion via a Vapor Core Reactor / Magnetohydrodynamic System. A brochure is provided by INSPI at:

http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/gcr.pdf

I have an 8 page PDF paper entitled "Multimegawatt Nuclear Electric Propulsion with Gaseous and Vapor Core Reactors with MHD" written by Travis Knight, Samim Anghie, Blair Smith and Michaet Houts that I can e-mail on request (but I suspect you may have already read this paper).

(2) Contact the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). This is a civilian industry organization consisting of commercial nuclear power plant operators in the United States. While its focus has been the promotion the nuclear generated electricity, soliciting their help will be the only way to get the notice of the US NRC in creating a set of regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to deal with nuclear powered space craft for civilian use. NEI documents have often morphed into NRC NUREGs and Reg. Guides, and these in turn have often paved the way for revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations. In fact, the Maintenance Rule for commercial nuclear power plants under 10 CFR 50.56 and Nuclear Safety Evaluations (called "Changes, Tests and Experiments") under 10 CFR 50.59 have been implemented and revised specifically because of NEI initiatives. Without commercial support via NEI, civilian space craft nuclear reactors will go nowhere with the US NRC simply because without an industry demand, the US NRC has NO incentive (read $$$$) to do all the work it would need to do to formulate a licensing methodology for such reactors. The NEI web page is at:

http://www.nei.org/

The following web page summarizes NEI's profile (which currently does NOT address space craft reactors because there is NO demand for civilian ownership / operation of such equipment - but that has to change for the US NRC to get involved).

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=136

(3) Formulate a 20 year plan to design, license, build, loft into orbit and operate a good design (such as what I mentioned above - NEP with VCR/MHD). This will have to be done by a large corporation (ugh!) because private citizens (such as Burt Rutan) have neither the financial wherewithall nor the nuclear technical resources to get the job done. NEI is a professional organization. If one doesn't come off as professional, then the door will be shut in one's face.

(4) Do a lot more research into issues facing the commercial nuclear electric industry so that you don't make the same bone-headed mistakes we have made (e.g., Fermi, Calvert Cliffs, TMI, Millstone, Davis-Besse, etc.). After the Challenger and Columbia disasters, I don't think big government has the ability to maintain a SCWE (Safety Conscious Work Environment), and big corporations such as First Energy sometimes fail misaerably at this. Space craft nuclear reactors for civilian use will never be licensed with a strong SCWE ethic - period! Some good informal message boards to participate in to get a flavor of what's going on in nuclear matters include the following:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Safe_Clean_Nuclear_Power/

I also recommend studying all the available documents at the followoing professional organizations:

Internation Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.or.at/

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/

World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/

Nuclear Energy Agency: http://www.nea.fr/

Uranium Information Center: http://www.uic.com.au/

Idaho National Laboratory: http://www.inl.gov/

US DOE's Nuclear Energy Research Initiative: http://neri.ne.doe.gov/

Some non-professional sources of good information include:

Atomic Insights: http://www.atomicinsights.com/AEI_home.html

Atomic Insights Blog: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/

NEI Nuclear Notes Blog: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

Virtual Nuclear Tourist: http://www.nucleartourist.com/

The Energy Advocate: http://www.energyadvocate.com/index.htm

I can't list everything here, but researching all the information from these web pages will give the interested reader a flavor of what has to be done to license nuclear propulsion units for civilian space craft, and to promote the safety of their use in the public's eyes (whose acceptance is required before government grants its permission).

I remain an ardent nuclear power supporter (obviously) and hope that my son or daughter (or their offspring) will one day be able to pilot a nuclear powered space craft from here to Titan and back.

Regards,

Paul P.

-- Edited by iprimap at 00:03, 2005-08-20

-- Edited by iprimap at 00:05, 2005-08-20

As usual, excellent discussions. Thanks for the tips and the links, Paul. I will take a gander at them all.

I would just point out that the assembly of a reactor core in orbit is complicated by the fact that currently there are no fascilities to do this, in orbit. Would it not require the orbital equivalent of a a workshop to assemble the subcritical parts?

I do beleive that NASA has looked at safety devices to ensure that a fueled core cannot achieve criticality--the use of 'criticality suppression' devices, locked into place by removable pins, as well as having the control rods or drums locked into place by similar pins. This makes sense because this allows a reactor to be flown in 'safed' configuration, but still like a loaded gun with a round in the chamber, the only thing preventing it from 'switching on' are the safeties.

This is one reason why I am a proponent of using man rated boosters with a cargo verson of a crew capsule to ship the fueled core assemblies. While this is expensive, and not terribly efficient, the added protection of an extra reentry hull with its own abort/escape rocket makes sense. The weight and cost penalty of such a system more than makes up for the fact that a fully intact reactor could be recovered, probably undamaged, despite the total loss of a launch vehicle in a pad abort emergency all the way to possibly even an abort to orbit. A fully fueled core stranded in orbit could be safely deorbited and brought back to earth--without releasing a single microcurie of radioactive material. This is the kind of system which would allow the completely safe assembly of a NEP vehicle in low earth orbit.

Of course to mate the core with the rest of the vehicle will either require a space station with a crew to do the work, or clever robotic docking and manipulation systems--which isn't a bad capability to develop anyway!

Ty Moore

10kBq Jaro,

You bring up good points. However, there is a difference between 'unlicensed depleted uranium' used as large metal counterweights in aircraft and enriched uranium used in reactors. The very process of enriching uranium is regulated and controlled under 10 CFR 50 whose title is "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities". See web page http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/. Facilities that enrich uranium are production facilities. A brief description of such facilities in the United States may be obtained at the following web pages:

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html which states in part:

"The only gaseous diffusion plant in operation in the United States is in Paducah, Kentucky. A similar plant is near in Piketon, Ohio, but it was shut down in March 2001. Both plants are leased by the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) from the Department of Energy and have been regulated by the NRC since March 4, 1997."

"No gas centrifuge commercial production plants are operating in the United States, however, both Louisiana Energy Services (LES) and USEC Inc. have submitted license applications."

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=192

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=182

Once uranium has been enriched for civilian use, it will remain under US NRC regulation no matter what its intended use may be, and regardless of the level of enrichment. In this post-9/11 world, no exceptions will be made if only because of Representive Ed Markey of Massachusettes, Representative Nita Lowey of New York, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and several other liberal democrat politicians of noteriety. The importance of preventing diversion of special nuclear material from its intended use (space craft nuclear propulsion) to terrorist use has become paramount and will remain under the security regulations of 10 CFR 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials, which the interested reader may review at web page: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/.

In today's world of Islamic Jihaddists, stricter controls over the fabrication and use of special nuclear material for civilian purposes is even an international initiative. The interested reader may also want to review what IAEA Director ElBaradei said about this on May 2, 2005.

http://www.iaea.or.at/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/ebsp2005n006.html

"...Third, we need better control over proliferation sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle: activities that involve uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. As experience has shown, effective control of nuclear materials is the 'choke point' to preventing nuclear weapons development. Without question, improving control over facilities capable of producing weapon-usable material will go a long way towards establishing a better margin of security.

"We should be clear: there is no incompatibility between tightening controls over the nuclear fuel cycle and expanding the use of peaceful nuclear technology. In fact, by reducing the risks of proliferation, we could pave the way for more widespread use of peaceful nuclear applications..."

Yes, I realize that 20% enriched uranium used in a space craft reactor can't be used for a nuclear weapon, but that's NOT the IAEA Director's point - read on at the web link provided above....

In conclusion, licensing special nuclear material for civilian space craft propulsion regardless of the level of its enrichment will be a thorny issue indeed. No exceptions will be made on either the national or international level in a world threatened by Jihaddist fanaticism.

Regards,

Paul P.

10kBq Jaro,

I agree with you that licensing the civilian possession of special nuclear material for use outside Earth's orbit would likely be less onerous (by how much I don't know) than licensing the civilian possession of special nuclear material on Earth's surface.

I suspect, however, that licensing the civilian posession of special nuclear material for use within Earth's orbit would likely be as onerous as licensing the civilian possession of special nuclear material for use on Earth's surface, if only because an in-orbit accident could cause uncontrolled release of radioactive material on populated areas, or otherwise have a deleterious environmental impact once such release descends from orbit.

I can't begin to imagine what Representive Ed Markey of Massachusettes, Representative Nita Lowey of New York, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and several other liberal democrat politicians of noteriety would say once they learn that a private corporation intended to build a nuclear powered space craft in orbit. The stink they would raise would be quite odiferous. You Canadians fortunately don't have quite as many politicians as irrational as many of our US ones.

Excellent catch on 10 CFR 40.22 - I forgot all about that!

Regards,

Paul P.

10kBq Jaro,

The Nuclear News Flash you just quoted is exactly the type of thing to set Representive Ed Markey of Massachusettes, Representative Nita Lowey of New York, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and the other liberal democrat politicians in the US Congress in arms against the US NRC, crying and weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth over 'security' concerns.

I have (as I said before) worked in nuclear power for 29 years (i.e., all my adult life). While I can't speak to the integrity of research reactors as far as security goes, I can speak about commerical nuclear power plants. We ban all photography and television equipment on site (including PDAs and cell phones with cameras) because of the possibility however remote that sensitive information would be released. Yes, everyone is searched on site entry via bomb detectors and metal detectors, and all baggage is x-rayed. All access into the site and into any site vital area is monitored via television cameras, hand geomtery readers, card readers, infra-red sensors, microwave sensors, etc. While some of our equipment is old, all is being upgraded and not even a wild turkey or a rabbit can enter the site without being detected and monitored (yes, in upstate NY we have plenty of wild animals which just love to camp out on the plant's lawns - we're quite enviro-friendly, but the goose poop is worse than my one year old son's dirty diapers! )

For information about commercial nuclear power plant security, kindly read the following web pages and relevant web links thereon:

US NRC Nuclear Security and Safeguards: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/safeguards.html

US NRC NUREG/BR-0314, Protecting Our Nation - Since 9 - 11 - 01: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0314/br0314.pdf

NEI Safety and Security: http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=13

US NRC Letter to the Editor Time Magazine: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/for-the-record/2005/06-14-05-letter-to-editor.pdf

US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Securing Nuclear Power Plants: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=238840

US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Advancing Nuclear Power - Safety: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=238883

Sadly, entrepeneurs like Burt Rutan will likely never have a chance at licensing the use of special nuclear material for space craft propulsion if only because of the fear and hysteria spread by the enviro-leftists. Big corporations and big government will retain control because only they have the resources and the financial wherewithall to deal with the ever increasing burden of regulation. While I find much to praise with the US NRC (it perhaps is the single government agency that is actually trying to do a good job), nothing grows more powerful than 'appointed public servants'.

Regards,

Paul P.