English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This report documents the results of a technical evaluation of the merits of ceramic and glass immobilization forms for the disposition of surplus weapons-useable plutonium. The evaluation was conducted by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), whose members were selected to cover a relevant range of scientific and technical expertise and represented each of the technical organizations involved in the Plutonium Immobilization Program. The TEP held a formal review at Lawrence Liver-more National Laboratory (LLNL) from July 2%August 1, 1997. Following this review, the TEP documented the review and its evaluation of the two immobilization technologies in this report to provide a technical basis for a recommendation by LLNL to the Department of Energy (DOE) for the preferred immobilization form. The comparison of the glass and ceramic forms and manufacturing processes was a tremendous challenge to the TEP. The two forms and their processes are similar in many ways. The TEP went to great effort to accurately assess what were, in many cases, fine details of the processes, unit operations, and the glass and ceramic forms themselves. The set of criteria used by the Fissile Materials Disposition Program (FMDP) in past screenings and down-selections was used to measure-the two options. One exception is that the TEP did not consider criteria that were largely nontechnical (namely international impact, public acceptance, and effects on other : DOE programs). The TEP s measures and assessments are documented in detail. Care was taken to ensure that the data used were well documented and traceable to their source. Although no final conclusion regarding the preferred form was reached or explicitly stated in this report (this was not within the TEP s charter), no show stoppers were identified for either form. Both forms appear capable of satisfying all the criteria, as interpreted by the TEP. The TEP identified a number of distinct and quantifiable differences between the forms for several of the criteria. These differences ranged from insignificant to moderate, depending on the specific criterion and the context in which it was applied. No summary statement regarding the overall superiority of either form is presented here, as that would imply a weighting of the various criteria, a judgment the TEP was instructed to avoid. This judgment is deferred to the assessment and peer review that will follow this evaluation. The decision to select one form over another will, of course, require the consideration of many additional factors beyond the technical criteria, including the nontechnical criteria, constraints, and policy issues, all of which were outside the scope of this review

Technical evaluation panel summary report. Ceramic and glass immobilization options fissile materials disposition program