Herman M., Paver N. (Eds) - Nuclear Reaction Data and Nuclear Reactors - Physics, Design and Safety

ICTP Lecture Notes
WORKSHOP ON
NUCLEAR REACTION DATA AND
NUCLEAR REACTORS:
PHYSICS, DESIGN AND SAFETY
25 February - 28 March 2002
Editors
M. Herman
National Nuclear Data Center, New York, USA
N. Paver
University of Trieste and INFN, Trieste, Italy
NUCLEAR REACTION DATA AND NUCLEAR REACTORS
– First edition
Copyright
c 2005 by The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics
The ICTP has the irrevocable and indefinite authorization to reproduce and disseminate these
Lecture Notes, in printed and/or computer readable form, from each author.
ISBN 92-95003-30-6
Printed in Trieste by the ICTP Publications & Printing Section

iii
PREFACE
One of the main missions of the Abdus Salam International Centre for
Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, founded in 1964, is to foster the growth
of advanced studies and scientific research in developing countries. To this
end, the Centre organizes a number of schools and workshops in a variety of
physical and mathematical disciplines.
Since unpublished material presented at the meetings might prove to be
of interest also to scientists who did not take part in the schools and work-
shops, the Centre has decided to make it available through a new publication
series entitled ICTP Lecture Notes. It is hoped that this formally structured
pedagogical material on advanced topics will be helpful to young students
and seasoned researchers alike.
The Centre is grateful to all lecturers and editors who kindly authorize
the ICTP to publish their notes in this series.
Since the initiative is new, comments and suggestions are most welcome
and greatly appreciated. Information regarding this series can be obtained
from the Publications Section or by e-mail to “pub− off@ictp.it”. The
series is published in-house and is also made available on-line via the ICTP
web site: “http://www.ictp.it/~pub−off/lectures/”.
Katepalli R. Sreenivasan, Director

Abdus Salam Honorary Professor
v
Contents
H.M. Hofmann
Refined Resonating Group Model and Standard Neutron Cross Sections . . . 1
M. Herman
Parameters for Nuclear Reaction Calculations - Reference Input
Parameter Library (RIPL-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A.L. Nichols
Nuclear Data Requirements for Decay Heat Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
D. Majumdar
Nuclear Power in the 21st Century: Status & Trends in Advanced
Nuclear Technology Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
D. Majumdar
Desalination and Other Non-electric Applications of Nuclear Energy . . . 233
M. Cumo
Experiences and Techniques in the Decommissioning of Old Nuclear
Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
vii
Introduction
This volume contains a partial collection of lectures delivered at the

workshop on “Nuclear Reaction Data and Nuclear Reactors: Physics, Design
and Safety”, held at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical
Physics in February-March 2002.
The aim of the Workshop was to present extensive, and up-to-date infor-
mation on the whole scientific field underlying nuclear reactor calculations,
from the theory of nuclear reactions and nuclear data production and valida-
tion down to the applications to nuclear reactor physics, design and safety.
In particular, the collection of lecture notes included in this volume
presents techniques for modelling microscopic calculations of light nuclei
reactions, the use of a database of parameters for calculations of nuclear
reactions and the nuclear data requirements for the calculation of the de-
cay heat in nuclear reactors. As far as the nuclear reactors themselves are
concerned, the fields of advanced nuclear technology developments for power
production, of non-electric applications of nuclear energy and of the safety
procedures for decommissioning old nuclear power plants are covered. We
hope that, although limited to these few topics, the volume will nevertheless
represent a useful reference for researchers interested in the field of nuclear
data and nuclear reactors. For the benefit of potential readers who could
not participate in the Workshop, these lecture notes are also available on-line
at: http://www.ictp.it/ pub− off/lectures/ for free access and consul-
tation.
The Workshop was organized by ICTP and IAEA. The editors are grate-
ful to these Institutions for their support and sponsorship. They thank the
authors for their excellent presentations of the lecture notes, and the ICTP
staff for their invaluable help in successfully running the Workshop and for
the professional preparation of this volume.
M. Herman
N. Paver
Trieste, April 2005
Refined Resonating Group Model and Standard
Neutron Cross Sections
Hartmut M. Hofmann∗
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg,

Erlangen, Germany
Lectures given at the

Workshop on Nuclear Reaction Data and
Nuclear Reactors: Physics, Design and Safety
Trieste, 25 February - 28 March 2002
LNS0520001
∗
hmh@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de
Abstract
We describe in some detail the refined resonating group model and
its application to light nuclei. Microscopic calculations employing real-
istic nuclear forces are given for the reaction 3 He(n,p). The extension
to heavier nuclei is briefly discussed.
Refined Resonating Group Model & Standard Neutron Cross Sections 3
1 Introduction
The neutron standard cross sections cover a wide range of target masses from
hydrogen to uranium. The high mass range is characterized by many over-
lapping resonances, which cannot be understood individually. In contrast,
the few-nucleon regime is dominated by well-developed, in general, broad
resonances. The interpolation and to less extend extrapolation of data re-
lies heavily on R-matrix analysis. This analysis has to fit a large number
of parameters related to position and decay properties of resonances. Due
to the limited number of data and their experimental errors, any additional
input is highly welcome. Except for neutron scattering on the proton any
of the standard cross sections involve few to many nucleon bound states.
These many body systems can no more be treated exactly. The best model
to treat scattering reactions of such systems proved the resonating group
model (RGM) in its various modifications. Therefore we begin with a dis-
cussion of the RGM.
The solution of the many-body problem is a long standing problem. The

few-body community developed methods, which allow an exact solution of
few-body problems, via sets of integral equations. In this way the 3-body
problem is well under control, whereas the 4-body problem is still in its
infancy. Hence, for systems containing four or more particles one has to rely
on approximations or purely numerical methods. One of the most successful
methods is the resonating group model (RGM), invented by Wheeler [1]
more than 50 years ago in molecular physics. The basic idea was a resonant
jump of a group of electrons from one (group of) atom(s) to another one.
This seminal idea sets already the framework for present day calculations:
Starting from the known wave function of the fragments, the relative wave
function between the fragments has to be determined e.g. via a variational
principle. The basic idea, however, also sets the minimal scale for the cal-
culation: a jump of a group of electrons needs at least two different states
per fragment leading to coupled channels. Hence, an RGM calculation is
basically a multi-channel calculation, which renders immediately the tech-
nicality problem. This essential point of any RGM calculation is the key
to an understanding of the various realisations of the basic idea. Besides
the most simple cases, for which even exact solutions are possible, the RGM
is always plagued with necessary, huge numerical efforts. Therefore, a dis-
cussion about the various approaches has to be given. In most applications
4 H.M. Hofmann
of the RGM till now, the evaluation of the many-body r-space integrals is
the largest obstacle. It can only be overcome by using special functions,
essentially Gaussians, for the internal wave functions of the fragments. Two
basically different methods are well developed: One uses shell model tech-
niques to perform the integration over the coordinates of the known internal
wave functions leading to systems of integro-differential equations, whose
kernels have to be calculated analytically. The other expands essentially all
wave functions in terms of Gaussian functions and integrates over all Ja-
cobian coordinates leading to systems of linear equations, whose matrices
can be calculated via Fortran-programs. Since the latter is more suited for
few-body systems and I’m more familiar with it, I will concentrate on this
so-called refined resonanting group model (RRGM) introduced by Hacken-
broich [2]. As detailed descriptions of the first method exist [3], I will not
discuss it. I will, however, compare the advantages and disadvantages of
both methods at various stages.
In order to allow the reader to find further applications of the RRGM, I will
try to generalize the formal part from the nuclear physics examples I will
give later on. Therefore I will first discuss the variational principle for the
determination of the relative motion wave function. I will then demonstrate
how the r-space integrals are calculated in the RRGM. The next two chapters
deal with the treatment of the antisymmetriser and the evaluation of spin-
isospin matrix elements. The last chapter, dealing with formal developments,
demonstrates how the wave function itself is used by the evaluation of matrix
elements of electric transition operators.
A chapter on various results from nuclear physics illustrates various points
of the formal part and helps to understand the final part on possible exten-
sions and also on the limitations of the model. Part of the work is already
described previously [4]. Some repetition cannot be avoided in order to keep
this article self-contained, so I will refer sometimes to ref. [4] for details.
2 Variational principle for scattering functions

Whereas the Ritz variational principle for bound states is a standard text-
book example, variational principles for scattering wave functions are still
under discussion, especially for composite systems, see the review by Ger-
juoy [5]. I will therefore repeat the essential points and refer to [4] for
some details. With respect to bound state wave functions of fragments, the
RRGM is nothing but a standard Ritz variation with an ansatz for the wave
functions in terms of Gaussian functions, see eqs. (2.33 - 2.36) below. That
this expansion converges pretty fast was shown in [4] and is also discussed
in chapter 5.1.
2.1 Potential scattering

In this section I briefly review potential scattering following along the lines
of ref. [4]. Let us consider for simplicity first the scattering of a spinless
particle off a fixed potential. The wave function ψ can then be expanded in
partial waves
ul (r)
ψ(r) = Ylm (r̂) (2.1)
r
lm
Here, as everywhere vectors are bold faced and unit vectors carry addition-
ally a hat. We use for the asymptotic scattering wave function ul (r) a linear
combination of regular fl (r) and irregular gl (r) solutions of the free Hamil-
tonian, so that all wave functions are real, thus simplifying the numerical
calculations. The wavefunction ul is normalized to a δ-function in the energy
by using the ansatz

M
ul (r) = fl (r) + al g̃l (r) + bνl χνl (r) (2.2)
h̄2 k ν
Here M denotes the mass of the particle. The momentum k is related to

the energy by E = h̄2 k2 /2M . For the variational principle ul (r) has to be
regular at the origin, therefore g̃l (r) is the irregular solution gl regularized
via
g̃l (r) = Tl (r)gl (r) with Tl (r) −−→ r 2l+1 −−−→ 1

and Tl (r) r→∞ (2.3)
r→0
The regularisation factor Tl should approach 1 just outside the interaction

region. A convenient choice is
∞
2l
(β0 r)n
(β0 r) n −β0 r
Tl (r) = e =1− e−β0 r (2.4)
n! n!
n=2l+1 n=0
where the limiting values are apparent in the different representations. A

typical value for β0 is 1.1f m−1 . The calculation is rather insensitive to this
parameter, see, however, the discussion below eq. (4.6).
6 H.M. Hofmann
The last term in eq. (2.2) accounts for the difference of the true solution
of the scattering problem and the asymptotic form. Furthermore, in the
region where Tl differs from this term one has to compensate the difference
between g̃l (r) and gl (r). Since this term is different from zero only in a
finite region, just somewhat larger than the interaction region, it can be well
approximated by a finite number of square integrable terms. We will choose
the terms in the form
2
χνl (r) = r l+1 e−βν r (2.5)
where βν is an appropriately chosen set of parameters (see discussions in

chapters 4.2 and 4.3).
Since fl and g̃l are not square integrable, we have to use Kohn’s variational
principle [6] to determine the variational parameters al and bνl via

1
δ d r ul (r)(Hl − E)ul (r) − al = 0 (2.6)
2
where Hl denotes the Hamiltonian for the partial wave of angular momentum
l. It is easy to show [2], that all integrals in eq. (2.6) are well behaved if
and only if the functions fl and gl are solutions of the free Hamiltonian to
the energy E. See also the discussion in [5].
2.2 Scattering of composite fragments

The RGM, however, usually deals with the much more complex case of
the scattering of composite particles on each other. We will assume in the
following, that the constituents interact via two-body forces, e.g. a short
ranged nuclear force and the Coulomb force. An extension to three-body
forces is straightforward and effects essentially only the treatment of the
spin-isospin matrix elements. As alluded to in ref. [5], three body break-up
channels pose a serious formal problem. Since for break-up channels the
asymptotic wave function is not of the form of eq. (2.2), we have to neglect
such channels. How they can be approximated is discussed in chapter 5.1.
With two-body forces alone, the Hamiltonian of an N-particle system can
be split into

N
1
H(1, . . . , N ) = Ti + Vij (2.7)
2
i=1 i=j
where the centre of mass kinetic energy can be separated off by

N
1
N
Ti = TCM + (pi − pj )2 (2.8)
n=1
2mN
i<j
Here we assumed equal masses m for all the constituents, a restriction which
can be removed, see ref. [7].
Due to our restriction we can decompose the translationally invariant part H
of the Hamiltonian into the internal Hamiltonians of the two fragments, the
relative motion one, and the interaction between nucleons being in different
fragments

H (1, . . . , N ) = H1 (1, . . . , N1 ) + H2 (N1 + 1, . . . , N ) + Trel + Vij
i∈{1,...,N1 }
j∈{N1 +1,...,N}
(2.9)
By adding and subtracting the point Coulomb interaction between the two
fragments Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel the potential term becomes short ranged.
H (1, . . . , N ) = H1 (1, . . . , N1 ) + H2 (N1 + 1, . . . N ) + Trel + Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel

+ Vij − Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel (2.10)
i∈{1,...,N1 }
j∈{N1 +1,...,N}
Here Rrel denotes the relative coordinate between the centres of mass of the
two fragments. This decomposition of the Hamiltonian directs to an ansatz
for the wave function in terms of an internal function of H1 and one of H2
and a relative motion function of type eq. (2.2). The total wave function
is then a sum over channels formed out of the above functions properly
antisymmetrised.

Nk
ψm = A n mn
ψch ψrel (2.11)
n=1
where A denotes the antisymmetriser, Nk the number of channels with chan-

nel wave functions ψch described below and the relative motion wave function

mn
ψrel (Rrel ) = δmn fm (Rrel ) + amn g̃n (Rrel ) + bmnν χnν (Rrel ) (2.12)
ν
The subscript m on ψm indicates the boundary condition that only in channel

m regular waves exist. The functions f and g̃ are now regular and regularised
8 H.M. Hofmann
irregular Coulomb wavefunctions. How to use in- and outgoing waves and
calculate the S-matrix directly is described in [8]. The sum n runs over
physical channels, open or closed, and ”distortion channels” without the
standing wave terms. Such ”distortion channels” allow to take the distortion
of the fragments in the interaction region into account, see the discussion in
chapter 5.1. Sometimes they are called ”pseudo-inelastic” channels [3]. The
coefficients amn and bmnν are variational parameters to be determined from
1
δ(< ψm |H − E|ψm > − amm ) = 0 (2.13)
2
To simplify the notation we combine the channel functions and the relative
motion part into one symbol and write in the obvious notation

ψm = A δmn Fn + amn G̃n + bmnν χnν (2.14)
n ν
The Hamiltonian H can be diagonalised in the space spanned by all the

χnν . Let us assume this diagonalisation to be done, then we can switch to
new square integrable functions Γν with
< Γν |AΓµ >= δνµ and (2.15)
< Γν |H |AΓµ >= ν δνµ (2.16)
Since H commutes with the antisymmetrizer A it suffices to apply A on one

side, see also chapter 3.2.
In eq. (2.14) the eigenfunctions Γ of the Hamiltonian can be used as

ψm = A δmn Fn + amn G̃ + dmν Γν (2.17)
n ν
where now the variational parameters amn and dmν have to be determined
from the set of variational equations

< G̃n |Ĥ|AFm > + < G̃n |Ĥ|AG̃n > amn
n

+ < G̃n |Ĥ|AΓν > dmν = 0 (2.18)
ν

< Γν |Ĥ|AFm > + < Γν |Ĥ|AG̃n > amn
n

+ < Γν |Ĥ|AΓν > dmν = 0 (2.19)
ν
with Ĥ = H − E. Since we prediagonalised the Hamiltonian only one term

survives in the sum in eq. (2.19). Solving for dmν and taking eqs. (2.15,
2.16) into account we find

1
dmν = < Γν |Ĥ|AFm > + < Γν |Ĥ|AG̃n > amn (2.20)
E − ν n
Defining the operator H̃ as

Ĥ|AΓν >< Γν |Ĥ
H̃ = Ĥ − (2.21)
ν
ν − E
and inserting eq. (2.20) into eq. (2.18) yields

< G̃n |H̃|AG̃n > amn = − < G̃n |H̃|AFm > (2.22)
n
or in the obvious matrix notation
< G̃|H̃|G̃ > aT = − < G̃|H̃|F > (2.23)

where aT denotes the transposed matrix a. This equation can easily be
solved for a
a = − < G̃|H̃|F >T < G̃|H̃|G̃ >−1 (2.24)
For known matrix elements of H̃, amn is known and via eq. (2.20) also
dmν and hence the total wave function. Note that for a complete knowl-
edge of the matrix a and the coefficients dmν the boundary condition of
the total wavefunction ψm has to run over all channels Nk . The expression
for H̃ (eq. (2.21)) indicates the close relationship of this approach to the
quasiparticle method of Weinberg [9].
In general the reactance matrix amn in eq. (2.24) is not symmetric, therefore
also the S-matrix given by the Caley transform
S = (1 + ia)(1 − ia)−1 (2.25)

10 H.M. Hofmann
is not symmetric thus violating time-reversal invariance, even unitarity is

not guaranteed. To enforce unitarity we have to have a symmetric reactance
matrix a, which can be achieved by the so-called Kato correction [10]. In po-
tential scattering the condition of stationarity leads to the same results [5].
For the scattering of composite systems, however, some integrals might di-
verge, see the discussion below, so the more rigorous derivation [5] cannot
be applied.
If we choose instead of eq. (2.17) another boundary condition as

ψm =A (bmn Fn + δmn G̃n ) + dmν Γν (2.26)
n ν
then following along the lines of eqs. (2.17 - 2.24) we find
b = − < F |H̃|G̃ >T < F |H̃|F >−1 (2.27)
again with an obviously unsymmetric matrix b. Since the boundary condi-

tion should not affect observables, we should have
a = b−1 (2.28)
Therefore we can judge the quality of the calculation, by comparing the

results of the two calculations. On the other hand we can follow the ideas
of John [11] and insert the relation
1
< F |H̃|G̃ >=< G̃|H̃|F >T + 1 (2.29)
2
into eq. (2.28)
−1
−1 1
− < G̃|H̃|F > < G̃|H̃|G̃ > = − < F |H̃|F > < G̃|H̃|F > + 1
T
2
(2.30)
Multiplying by the transpose of the r.h.s of eq. (2.29) leads to [4]
a = −2(< F |H̃|F > − < G̃|H̃|F >T < G̃|H̃|G̃ >−1 < G̃|H̃|F >) (2.31)
which is obviously symmetric. This expression has been derived as a second

order correction in [2] and also in [5]. Analogously we find
b = −2(< G̃|H̃|G̃ > − < F |H̃|G̃ >T < F |H|F >−1 < F |H̃|G̃ >) (2.32)
Again from the comparison of the results for a and b we can judge the
quality of the calculation. The most direct criterion of a · b being the unit
matrix can easily fail near poles of a (resonances) or b without affecting
physical observables. What remains to be done is the calculation of the
matrix elements of H̃ between F and G̃. For this purpose we need the
channel wave function in eq. (2.11).
The ansatz for the internal wave functions is the most critical input. Because
of the antisymmetrizer only two cases are realised in complicated systems:
expansion in terms of harmonic oscillator wave functions or Gaussian func-
tions and powers of r 2 , which can again be combined to harmonic oscillator
functions. The difference of both expansions lies in the choice of parameters,
a single oscillator frequency in one case, which allows to use the orthogonality
of different functions, and a set of Gaussian width parameters, which allows
to adjust the wave functions to different sizes of the fragments more easily.
Therefore the harmonic oscillator expansion is well suited for the description
of scattering of identical particles, or of the scattering of large nuclei on each
other. In this case even algebraic methods can be used [12], [13]. Whereas
the expansion in terms of Gaussians and powers of r 2 can, in principle, be
converted to harmonic oscillator functions, it becomes technically glumpy in
more complicated cases, see the discussion in chapter 3. Since the sizes of
light nuclei are quite different, we consider it, however, an advantage that
different width parameters can be used.
To clarify our ansatz we consider just one term in eq. (2.11). Here the
channel function has the structure
J
Yl (R̂rel ) J1 J2 Sc
ψch = φ1 φ2 (2.33)
Rrel
where the square brackets indicate angular momentum coupling of the trans-
lationally invariant wave functions φJi
i of the two fragments to channel spin
Sc and the coupling of the orbital angular momentum l and the channel spin
Sc to the total angular momentum J. In case of a bound state calculation
the coupling to good channel spin is usually omitted. Since all the latter
examples are nuclear physics ones, I will consider in the sequel wave func-
tions of light nuclei for the fragment wave functions, but we could also use
the technique described below for describing electron scattering off atomic
or molecular systems [14].
The individual fragment wave function consists of a spatial part and a spin
12 H.M. Hofmann
(-isospin)-part, which may contain an arbitrary number of clusters. We

use the expression ”cluster” only for groups of particles without internal
orbital angular momenta, that means that in nuclear physics a cluster can,
at most, contain 4 nucleons, two protons and two neutrons with opposite
spin projections. In hadron physics, a typical cluster would be a baryon
containing 3 quarks or a meson containing a quark-antiquark pair.
The spatial wave function of a cluster h consists of a single Gaussian function
 
βh nh
χh,int = exp − (ri − rj )2  (2.34)
nh
i<j
with nh the number of particles inside the cluster h and the width parameter
βh . Clusters containing only one particle are described by χh ≡ 1. In hadron
physics the spin-isospin function is coupled to good total spin and isospin,
in nuclear physics this coupling is not necessary in most cases, because the
antisymmetriser projects onto total singlet states anyhow. The cluster rel-
ative functions χlk,rel
k
contain, in addition to the Gaussian function, a solid
spherical harmonic Ylk of angular momentum lk
χlk,rel
k
= exp(−γk ρ2k )Ylk (ρk ) (2.35)
where ρk denotes the Jacobi coordinate between the center-of-mass of cluster

k + 1 and the center-of-mass of the clusters 1 to k, see fig. 1. The total wave
function of a fragment is now a superposition of various combinations of
internal and relative functions, e.g.
n n −1 J
c
c
φJ = CαlI S χα,h,int χlα,k,rel

k
ΞS,(T ) (2.36)
lI ,S,α h=1 n=1
The spin-(-isospin) function ΞS,(T ) is, in general, coupled to good spin (and
may be coupled to good isospin). The set {lk } of orbital angular momenta
between the clusters is denoted by lI , including the intermediate couplings.
The sum α may run over different fragmentations, different sets of orbital
angular momenta, e.g. D-state admixtures, and different sets of width pa-
rameters βh and γk . The parameters βαh and γαk are determined from the
Ritz variational principle together with the coefficients CαlI S once the model
space has been chosen. For this purpose one chooses the fragmentations and
the set {lk } of angular momenta and the number of radial functions and asks
for
Cluster 2
Cluster 1
ρ1
ρ2
Cluster 3
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the intercluster coordinates ρ used in eq. (2.35).
δ < φJ1 |H (1, . . . , N1 ) − E|A1 φJ1 >= 0 (2.37)
where A1 is the antisymmetriser of the N1 particles in fragment 1. Therefore,

we assume in the following, that φJ1 and φJ2 are bound states in the chosen
model space and fulfill the equations
Hi |Ai φi >= Ei |Ai φi > i = 1, 2 (2.38)
φi can be the lowest state but also an excited one, see the example below.
We can now demonstrate that the functional of eq. (2.13) exists and that all
integrals exist in a Riemannian sense. Let us consider a fragmentation into
N1 particles in fragment 1 and the rest in fragment 2. Then we can write
the total antisymmetriser A in the form

A = A3 A1 A2 = signP3 P3 A1 A2 (2.39)
P3
where P3 permutes particles across the fragment boundaries including P3 =

id. Choosing the kinetic energy Ek in the channel k to be
Ek = E − E1,k − E2,k (2.40)

14 H.M. Hofmann
with Ei,k from eq. (2.38), we can then decompose the operator in eq. (2.10)
as
H (1, . . . , N ) − E = (H1 (1, . . . , N1 ) − E1,k ) + (H2 (N1 + 1, . . . , N ) − E2,k )

+ Vij − Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel
i∈{1,...,N}
j∈{N1 +1,...,N}
+ Trel + Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel − Ek (2.41)
All the integrals necessary for evaluating eqs. (2.18 - 2.19) are now well
behaved, terms containing only square integrable functions in bra or ket
cannot lead to divergent integrals. Because of the exponential fall off of the
bound state functions, the same is true for all terms in which channels of
different fragmentations are connected. Again, due to the properties of the
bound state functions, integrals containing identical fragmentations but a
genuine exchange of particles between the fragments, i.e. P3 = id, are of
short range. Hence, the only possibly critical terms involve channels with
identical fragmentations in bra and ket of eq. (2.13) with no exchange across
the fragment boundaries.
In this case the first line of eq. (2.41) contributes zero, because according to
eq. (2.38) the internal functions are solutions of the internal Hamiltonian Hi
to just that energy Ei,k . The potential in the second line of eq. (2.41) is by
construction short ranged, hence also this integral is short ranged. The re-
maining line in eq. (2.41) is the (point-Coulomb) Hamiltonian of relative mo-
tion Hrel whose solutions are the well-known Coulomb wave functions [15].
If and only if the functions Fk and Gk in eq. (2.12) are eigenfunctions of
Hrel to the energy Ek , the related integrals are finite, to be precise they are
zero. This choice, however, implies that the threshold energies are fixed by
the energies of the fragments Ei,k . Besides choosing a different potential,
the only possibility to vary the threshold energies is to modify the model
space for the Ritz variation.
Since we have now shown that all integrals in eq. (2.13) and therefore also
in eqs. (2.18, 2.19) are short ranged, we expand the regular and regularised
irregular (Coulomb) functions in terms of square integrable functions, for
simplicity those chosen in eq. (2.12). Hence, we have to calculate matrix
elements of the Hamiltonian, or just overlap matrix elements, between anti-
symmetrized translationally invariant wavefunctions where the spatial part
consists of a superposition of multi-dimensional Gaussian functions and solid
spherical harmonics. In the next chapter we will describe how to calculate

a typical matrix element.
3 Evaluation of the matrix elements

From the ansatz of our wave function eq. (2.36) we see that the calculation
of the necessary matrix elements can be performed in several steps, after
decomposing the antisymmetrizer into a sum over all permutations acting
on spatial and spin-isospin coordinates: Since the potential terms in the
Hamiltonian can be written as a product of operators acting in coordinate
space and spin-isospin space separately

O ST
wij = (−1)q wij (k, −q)wij (k, q) (3.1)
i<j i<j kq
we can also calculate the respective matrix elements of each operator sepa-
rately. The rank of the interaction is denoted by k, e.g. k = 1 for the spin
orbit force. Since the multi-dimensional integration in coordinate space is
usually by far the most elaborate part of the calculation, we first describe
the essential parts of this calculation.
3.1 Calculation of the spatial matrix elements

The spatial part of our wave function eq. (2.36) consists of Gaussian func-
tions and products of solid spherical harmonics. To keep the notation as
simple as possible, we disregard in this section the coupling of the various
angular momenta. Therefore a single term on the right-hand side of the
matrix elements (marked by the index r) is of the structure
−1 ncr −1

N
e−βi si ·si
r r
|Lr α >= Ylj mj (srN −ncr +j ) (3.2)
i=1 j=1
where we have converted the single particle coordinates ri in eq. (2.34)

into Jacobian coordination si via an orthogonal matrix. The numbering
of the Jacobians starts with the internal ones, see fig. 2. The number of
clusters on the right-hand side is denoted by ncr . Note that sN , proportional
to the coordinate of the center-of-mass, is absent in eq. (3.2) due to the
translational invariance of our wave function. The index |Lr α > is just a
reminder of the fragmentation and the angular momentum structure of the
16 H.M. Hofmann
2 5
s1 s4
1
6
s2 s6 s5
s3
7
3
4
Cluster 2
Cluster 1
s7 R CM
Figure 2: Schematic diagram illustrating the numbering of the Jacobi coordinates of

eq. (3.2) for a cluster decomposition into 4 and 3 particles. Note that the arrows shown
are only proportional to the Jacobi vectors.
ket wave function. The function on the left-hand side of the matrix element
|Ll α > can be expressed in an analogous way by the Jacobian coordinates
sl on the left-hand side, which differ in general from those on the right-hand
side. So the general spatial matrix element is of the form
JLijl α Lr α (P ) ≡< Ll α |P wij

O
|Lr α > (3.3)
The orbital operators wij O contain the coordinates in the form of eq. (3.2),
but in addition to that also differential operators may occur, like in the spin-
orbit force. We have put the permutation P to the left of the symmetric
interaction for convenience, see the discussion below. Since the evaluation of
all interactions can be reduced to the calculation of certain overlap matrix
elements [16], [17], [4], see also section 3.4, we restrict our considerations
to the norm, because there all the essential steps become apparent. We
can express the norm matrix element of eq. (3.3) by choosing the Jacobian
coordinates on the left-hand side as independent variables in the form
 

N −1
J ij (P ) =
Ll α Lr α ds1 . . . dsN −1 exp − ρµµ (P )sµ · sµ 
µµ

z
Yln mn (Qn ) ≡ Γl1 m1 ...lz mz (3.4)
n=1
Since we used an orthogonal transformation from the single particle coor-

dinates r to the Jacobian coordinates s, whose index l we suppressed for
simplicity, no determinant appears in the integral. The matrix ρ in the ex-
ponent results from applying the permutation P to the coordinates on the
right-hand side and then expressing these coordinates by those on the left-
hand side. The vectors Qn are the intercluster coordinates ρk , see eq. (2.35)
and fig. 1, on the left- and right-hand sides, after applying the permutation
P onto the latter. Again these can be expressed as linear combinations of
Jacobi coordinates s, the former are just some of these coordinates.
In case of a genuine interaction its radial dependence in Gaussian form is also
included into ρ and its angular dependence is then an additional spherical
harmonic in eq. (3.4). For treating explicitly other radial dependencies, e.g.
the Coulomb interaction, see ref. [4] and the discussion below. The number
of angular momenta z is thus the sum of relative coordinates on the left-hand
side and those on the right-hand side plus possibly one from the interaction.
Except for the solid spherical harmonics the matrix element eq. (3.4) is just
a multi-dimensional Gaussian integral, which can be evaluated by bringing
the matrix ρ into diagonal form. For treating the solid spherical harmonics
we use their generating function [18]

L
(b · r)L = bL CLm b−m YLm (r) (3.5)
m=−L
with the vector b = (1 − b2 , i(1+ b2 ), −2b) being a null vector with respect
to a real scalar product, i.e. b · b = 0 and the scalar product of two vectors
given by
bn · bn = 4bn bn − 2(b2n + b2n ) (3.6)
The coefficients CLm are given by [18]

4π
CLm = (−2)L L! . (3.7)
(2L + 1)(L − m)!(L + m)!
To evaluate the matrix element eq. (3.4) we now consider the generating
integral
 

z
I(a1 b1 . . . az bz ) = ds1 . . . dsN −1 exp − ρµµ sµ · sµ + an bn · Qn  .
µµ n=1
(3.8)
18 H.M. Hofmann

Expanding the expression exp( αn bn · Qn ) into a power series in an and
bn we find
z
Cl m
I(a1 b1 . . . az bz ) = n n
aln bln −mn · Γl1 m1 ...lz mz (3.9)
ln !
l1 m1 ...lz mz n=1
taking into account eq. (3.5).

Since the generating integral eq. (3.8) is just a Gaussian integral it can be
done explicitly and the result can again be expanded in a power series in an
and bn to find the desired integrals via eq. (3.9). The transformation

N −1
sµ = Tµ,λ tλ µ = 1, . . . , N − 1 (3.10)
λ=µ
with Tλλ = 1 and Tλλ = 0 for λ > λ brings the matrix ρ into diagonal form.
This transformation results in

z
2
I(a1 b1 . . . az bz ) = dt1 . . . dtN −1 exp − βλ tλ − pnλ an bn · tλ
λ n
(3.11)
where we expressed the vector Qn as

N −1
Qn = pnµ tµ (3.12)
µ=1
and used the properties of the transformation eq. (3.10). Employing the
method of completing squares the integral yields
−1 3

N
π 2 1
z
I(a1 b1 . . . az bz ) = exp σnn an an bn · bn
βλ 4
λ=1 n>n
−1 3 z
π 2
N
= exp(σnn an an bn bn )
βλ
λ=1 n>n

−σnn 2 −σnn 2
exp an an bn exp an an bn (3.13)
2 2
with the abbreviation pnλ pn λ
σnn = 2 (3.14)
βλ
λ
and taking into account eq. (3.6). Expanding the exponentials into a power
series and ordering the terms in the form of eq. (3.9) yields the final re-
sult [16], [4]
N −1 3  z 
π 2 lj !
Γl1 m1 ...lz mz =  ·
βλ Clj mj
λ=1 j=1

z gnn +hnn +knn
1 σnn
· (− )hnn +knn (3.15)
.
2
gnn !hnn !knn !
gnn hnn ,knn n>n
The sums over gnn , hnn , knn run over all possible combinations of nonneg-
ative integers, which fulfill the following relations for n = 1, . . . , z

(gnn + hnn + knn + gn n + hn n + kn n ) = ln (3.16a)
n
and
(hnn − hn n + kn n − knn ) = mn . (3.16b)
n
Eq. (3.16 a) results from comparing the exponent of an in eq. (3.13) and
eq. (3.9), whereas eq. (3.16 b) results from that of bn . In these relations
gnn = hnn = knn = 0 if n ≤ n . If there are more than two angular mo-
menta different from zero, e.g. more than 2 clusters, eqs. (3.16) allow many
solutions, which have to be found by trial and error. Starting from group
theoretical considerations, Stöwe [19] developed a general scheme to find all
solutions, which is realized in a very efficient Fortran program. Since the
solution of eqs. (3.16) is independent of the permutation and the width pa-
rameters used to describe cluster internal and cluster relative wave functions,
it need only be done once.
With this formalism we can now calculate each individual overlap matrix
element from eq. (3.15) using eqs. (3.7, 3.10 - 3.12, 3.14 and 3.16). Straight-
forward extensions cover potentials, whose spatial form is a linear combina-
tion of products of Gaussian functions, solid spherical harmonics and powers
of r 2 . In case of a Gaussian radial dependence, this dependence has to be
put into the construction of the matrix ρµµ in eq. (3.4), which then modifies
the transformation Tµλ in eq. (3.10) and hence also the diagonal elements βλ
(eq. (3.11)) and the final coefficients σnn (eq. (3.14)). Forces containing ex-
plicitly a solid spherical harmonic, like the tensor force, are taken care of by
20 H.M. Hofmann
increasing the number of angular momenta by one by adding an additional

vector Qn . With the relation [20]
4π
l
r 2l = (−1)m Ylm (r)Yl−m (r) (3.17)
2l + 1
m=−l
We can treat even powers of r 2 by just increasing the number of angular

momenta by two. Obviously all three radial dependencies can be treated
simultaneously by modifying the matrix ρ and the number of angular mo-
menta accordingly. The results are always of the form of eq. (3.14), i.e. of
the type norm integral.
The Coulomb potential Z1 Z2 /r is apparently not of the above form, but it
can be written as

1 β ∞
=2 dk exp(−k2 β r 2 ) (3.18)
r π 0
yielding again a Gaussian radial dependency and an additional integration

over k. The explicit reduction of the matrix elements of the Coulomb inte-
gration in terms of overlap integrals is given in ref. [4]. Other negative powers
of r are easily obtained by modifying the integral in eq. (3.18) by the appro-
priate monomial in k2 . For the tensor potential in the non-relativistic quark
model, which contains an r13 term, an explicit expression is given in [21].
For potentials containing differential operators, like the spin orbit interac-
tion, the differential operators are applied to the wave function on the right-
hand side, resulting in additional polynomials in vectors ri − rj , which can
be treated by the method described above. For an explicit calculation of the
kinetic energy, see [16]. All the potential terms are finally reduced to linear
combinations of certain norm-type matrix elements. Each of these integrals
can be evaluated explicitly by hand, the sheer number of matrix elements,
however, necessitates the use of a computer program. As will be shown
below, we need between 15 and 20 different Gaussian width parameters in
order to facilitate the expansion of the Coulomb functions in the interaction
region. So for one permutation we have typically 200 - 400 different ma-
trix elements per structure taken into account (neglecting the symmetry of
entrance and exit channel). On the other side the number of terms in the
antisymmetriser grows rapidly with the increasing number of particles and
furthermore in general the number of important configurations grows too.
Therefore one is forced to avoid multiple calculations of the same matrix

elements. For this purpose the symmetry of the ansatz for the internal wave
function, eq. (2.36), can be utilized. Permutations inside a cluster will not
modify the wave function eq. (2.36). Furthermore, interactions between
different pairs of particles might yield identical spatial matrix elements.
Let us consider 12 C as an illustrative example. Without any symmetry the
12-nucleon antisymmetrizer contains 12! = 479 001 600 terms. Since protons
with spin up are distinguishable from protons with spin down, we can reduce
the huge number to (3!)4 = 1296 terms. If we group the nucleons in 12 C
together into three alpha-particles, then only 120 terms survive. Allowing
for a two-body interaction, each of the above numbers has to be multiplied
by 12 · 13/2 = 78, the number of possible interactions. Realizing that each
of the two interacting particles can be in one of the 3 clusters initially and
after interaction (and permutation) in some other one yields 9 · 10/2 = 45
possibilities, where we assumed a spatially symmetric interaction and did
not check if this combination is possible for the permutation considered, thus
arriving at 120 · 45 = 5400 possible interaction terms. The actual calculation
yields 2601 different terms under the assumption that the 3 clusters have
different width parameters.
What was shown here by an example is a quite general decomposition of a
finite group into double cosets of appropriate subgroups [22]. Here we comply
with the cluster symmetry of the wave function eq. (2.36) by considering

subgroups Sn1 × Sn2 × . . . of the symmetric group SN with ni = N .
Each double coset can be characterized uniquely by one permutation. It is
easy to convince one-self [22] that the overlap matrix elements eq. (3.15)
for all permutations belonging to one double coset are identical because the
matrix ρµµ is unchanged. In the above example we consider the subgroup
S4 × S4 × S4 , yielding 120 double cosets. Also the interacting particles can
be easily marked within the double coset expansion, which is described in
some detail in the following section.
3.2 Calculation of the spin-(isospin) matrix elements

As we have seen in the previous section, the calculation of the spatial matrix
elements might be quite involved, therefore we try to reduce the number of
spatial matrix elements to be calculated as far as possible but still keeping
the procedure so general that different systems can be calculated by the same
program without any necessary modifications, i.e. just a new input. With
22 H.M. Hofmann
respect to example 12 C we consider only a cluster decomposition into three

clusters of four nucleons each, but do not take into account their identity.
The first step is to go from the general matrix element
J M
ψ |A wij |ψ JM (3.19)
i<j
to the reduced one. Here ψ JM denotes a single term in the total wave
function eq. (2.12) allowing for the various fragmentations, the possible
different components of the internal wave function eq. (2.36) and the various
square integrable functions ψ in eq. (2.12). The wave function ψ JM consists
of spatial and spin (-isospin) part according to

ψ JM = (LmSσ|JM )ψ Lm (space)ψ Sσ (spin − isospin) (3.20)
mσ
where the coupling of the total orbital angular momentum L and the total
spin S of the nucleons is explicitly given by the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient
(LmSσ|JM ). Using Racah algebra the matrix elements eq. (3.19) can be
expressed in terms of reduced matrix elements for fixed interacting particles
i and j and a given rank of the interaction k [20]

Mijk = < ψ J M (−1)P (−1)q P wij O ST
(kq)wij (k, −q) ψ JM >
q
P

S L J
= δJJ δM M (−1)L+2S+S −J · (−1)P
L S k
P

<L O
P wij (k) L >< S ST
P wij (k) S> (3.21)

where LS LS Jk is a 6j-coefficient. Equation (3.21) has to be evaluated for
all permutations by employing the symmetry of the orbital wave function.
We will sum the spin-isospin matrix elements over all permutations, which
yield the same orbital matrix.
In nuclear physics the spin-isospin operators wij ST are products of the isospin
operators 1 = identity resp. τi ·τj with the spin operators 1 (norm and central
potential), σi · σj (central potential), (σi + σj )q the spherical component
q (spin-orbit potential), and σiq σjq (tensor potential). According to eq.
(3.21), we have to calculate the reduced spin-isospin matrix element. Using
Wigner-Eckhart’s theorem we find [20]

√
2S + 1
< S P wij (k) S > =
ST
< S S |P wij ST
(k, S − S)|SS >
(SSkS − S|S S )
(3.22)
By using maximal projections of the spin functions the matrix element is
guaranteed to be different from zero, if the triangular conditions are ful-
filled. The easiest way to calculate the r.h.s. of eq. (3.22) is to decompose
the coupled spin functions |SS > into linear combinations of products of
elementary single particle spin functions by using again Clebsch-Gordan co-
efficients. Then the operators acting on the product wave functions yield
(linear combinations of) product wave functions. The permutation P can
be easily applied to a product and the matrix element is straightforward to
evaluate. Since usually many of these matrix elements vanish, it is more eco-
nomic to start from the product functions in bra and ket and determine all
permutations P with non-vanishing matrix element, for details see [16], [17].
The reduced matrix element itself requires only the sum over the known
Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. Restricting our considerations for the moment
to the overlap matrix element, where wij ≡ 1, we can sum all spin-isospin
matrix elements belonging to one double coset including the sign of the per-
mutation. Thus eq. (3.21) reduces to

L+2S+S −J S L J
Mijk = δJJ δM M (−1) ·
L S k

SS
· < L Pdc wij
O
(k) L > Cij (dc) (3.23)
dc
SS (dc)
where Pdc is any permutation representing the double coset dc and Cij
contains the sum over spin matrix elements. In case of an interaction wij = 1
one has to extend the double coset decomposition and mark the interacting
particles i and j. In the following we will not review the decomposition into
double cosets in general, this can be found in [22], [23], but rather discuss an
illustrative example, which shows all the complexity but is still transparent.
Let us consider the 7 Li nucleus, which can be described very well by a
fragmentation into 4 He and 3 H. A small admixture of 6 Li and neutron,
however, improves the description of excited states appreciably, see [24]. To
be specific, let us decompose a matrix element eq. (3.19) into double cosets
where the r.h.s. is the 4 He−3 H fragmentation and the l.h.s. the 6 Li − n
configuration. This corresponds to a matrix element of the standard reaction
6 Li(n,t).
24 H.M. Hofmann
In general the decomposition into double cosets can be illustrated by sym-

bols in matrix form, which are called dc-symbols [22]. In our example we
decompose into S4 × S3 for the r.h.s. and into S4 × S2 × S1 , for the l.h.s.,
because the 6 Li containing 6 nucleons has to be described by 2 clusters at
least, the main component being 4 He − d. Therefore we have a dc-symbol
containing 3 rows and 2 columns:
S4 S3
S4 2 2
(3.24)
S2 1 1
S1 1
where the decompostion into clusters reflects the symmetry of the spatial
wave functions in bra and ket. In the example of a dc-symbol given above, the
fact that particle numbers are conserved so that they can just be exchanged
from a cluster in the bra (ket) into all clusters in the ket (bra) is taken care
of by the sum of the entries in a row (column) being equal to the number of
nucleons in that cluster. There is a one-to-one correspondence of dc-symbols
and double cosets [22], therefore we can use the dc-symbol to construct a
permutation characteristic of the double coset. For this we write the digits
1 to N row-wise into the dc-symbol, as many digits as indicated per site,
and then read this scheme column-wise. Writing the digits found in this
procedure below the digits 1 to N in natural order we find a permutation
representing the double coset. In our example this will read
S4 S3

S4 12 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
=⇒ = Pdc (3.25)
S2 5 6 1 2 5 7 3 4 6
S1 7
We can now interpret this result: There is at least one permutation in the
double coset, maybe the one given, which maps the spin functions in the ket
onto those of the bra. The entries in (3.24) indicate how many of the particles
are exchanged from the cluster given on the left side into the cluster started
above by the permutation. Note that exchanging particles and permuting
wave functions are inverse operations to each other. To construct the dc-
symbol from the permutation, we write the digits 1 to N in natural order
and group them according to S4 × S2 × S1 , i.e. 1234 56 7 and then group
the second line of the Pdc in (3.25) according to S4 × S3 , i.e. 1257 346 and
ask how many digits in the various combinations of clusters in bra and ket
agree. For example the 7 in cluster 3 of the bra agrees with the 7 in cluster
1 of the ket.
If we consider an interaction, we have to mark the interacting particles either

before or after applying the permutation. We have put the permutation after
the interaction, because the potential could contain an exchange operator,
therefore it is more convenient to mark the permuted digit of the interacting
particles with a point. For a two-body interaction we find for interacting
particles 4 and 5 in our example:
7(= Pdc (4)) and 3(= Pdc (5))
 •   • 
12 3 4 2 2
   
 5 6  ≡  1 1  (3.26)
• •
7 1
where we have omitted the group configurations for convenience. The above
−1
example shows that also interacting particles 6(= Pdc (4)) and 4 would yield
the same orbital matrix element. We sum the spin matrix elements belonging
to these two terms. Thus we arrived at a classification scheme for matrix
elements of any two body interaction in terms of 2-point dc-symbols, over
which the sum in eq. (3.23) runs. The above classification scheme can be
extended easily to one-body or three-body interactions.
3.3 Electromagnetic Transitions

Electromagnetic transitions are a reliable tool to study the structure of nu-
clear systems, because of the weakness of the electromagnetic interaction
compared to the strong one. Such transitions, however, cannot be calcu-
lated by the techniques developed so far, because the transition operators
contain besides spin operators and operators treated in chapter 3.1 also a
plane wave in one of the particle coordinates measured from the center-of-
mass, for details see [25].
A possibility is to expand the plane wave in a power series, keeping only the
lowest orders, which is the so-called long wavelength limit, and then pro-
ceed along the lines of chapter 3.1, as given in [26]. This procedure allows
to describe radiative capture reactions quite well, see e.g. [27], however, in
(e, e )- or (e, e x)-reactions the momentum transfer is usually much too large
for this approximation to be a reasonable one. Therefore, we are not allowed
26 H.M. Hofmann
to make the long wavelength approximation, when describing electron scat-

tering experiments. In order to illustrate the essential points, we follow [28]
and strip the various electromagnetic transition operators, see [25], of all its
parts, which can be treated by the methods described so far and consider in
the following only the essential spatial part in a multipole expansion
wj (LM ) = jL (krj )YLM (r̂j ) (3.27)
where jL (kr) is a spherical Bessel function [15] and rj denotes the coordinate
of the particle j with respect to the center-of-mass. Expanding the plane
wave into spherical harmonics [20] we convert the operator wj (LM ) into

1
wj (LM ) = L
YLM (k̂)eik·rj dk̂ (3.28)
4πi
It is now straightforward to define matrix elements analogous to eq. (3.4)

N −1
Γ̃jl1 m1 ...lz mz = ds1 . . . dsN −1 exp(− µµ (P )sµ · sµ )
µµ

z
· eik·Q0
Yln mn (QN ) (3.29)
n=1
with Q0 = r P (j) being the coordinate of the interacting particle, after the
permutation P has been applied. The generating integral eq. (3.8) is easily
generalized to
˜ 1 b1 . . . az bz ) =
I(a
 

z
ds1 . . . dsN −1 exp − µµ sµ sµ + an bn · Qn + ikQ0  (3.30)
µµ n=1
yielding by expansion again the expression (3.9). Now the generating integral
I˜ can be calculated directly and comparing like terms we find the desired
integrals Γ̃. Following along the lines of eqs. (3.10 - 3.12) we find
˜ 1 b1 . . . az bz ) =
I(a
z

2
dt1 . . . dtN −1 exp − βλ tλ − tλ · pnλ an bn + ikwoλ
λ n=1
(3.31)
with the relation

Q0 = woλ tλ . (3.32)
λ
The integral is solved in the usual way by completing squares. Since the
function e−z is holomorphic the path of integration can be chosen arbitrarily,
yielding
 2 

N −1 3
N −1
z
π 2 1
˜ 1 b1 . . . az bz ) =
I(a exp  an bn pnλ + iwoλ k  .
βλ 4βλ n=1
λ=1 λ=1
(3.33)
Expanding the square in the exponent, we find a result analogous to eq.
(3.13)
N −1
3
2 2
˜ 1 b1 . . . az bz ) = & π 2 exp − woλ k ·
I(a βλ 4βλ
λ=1
&
z
σnn 2 σnn 2
exp(σnn an an bn bn ) exp(− 2 an an bn ) exp(− 2 an an bn )
· (3.34)
n>n
&z
exp(iar γr br · k)
r=1
with the abbreviation

N −1
woλ prλ
γr = (3.35)
2βλ
λ=1
All the exponents in eq. (3.34) are again expanded in a power series. For
the terms (br · k)dr eq. (3.5) is used, yielding
−1
N& 3
2 2
2 woλ k
˜ 1 b1 . . . az bz ) =
I(a π
exp − 4β · g
βλ λ nn hnn knn dr er
λ=1
& & +h +k dr ' (h +k

z z g
nn nn nn
σnn (3.36)

gnn !hnn !knn ! idr γdrr ! − 12 nn nn Cdr er Ydr er (k)·
n>n r=1
g +hnn +knn dr gnn +hnn +knn g +2hnn dr −er gnn +2knn

annn ar an bnnn br bn
Comparing like terms in both power series analogous to eq. (3.9) yields the
28 H.M. Hofmann
final result.

−1
N& 3
2 k2
&
z
2 woλ lj !
Γ̃l1 m1 ...lz mz = π
βλ exp − 4β λ Clj mj
λ=1 j=1
& z σgnn +hnn +knn '

z & (hnn +knn γrdr
· nn
gnn !hnn !knn ! − 12 · idr dr ! Cdr er Ydr er (k)
g
nn nn nn
h k n>n r
dr er
(3.37)
The summations run over all possible combinations of gnn , hnn , knn , dr , and
er with the former being non-negative integers fulfilling now the relations

ln = dn + (gnn + hnn + knn + gn n + hn n + kn n ) (3.38a)
n

mn = en + (hnn − hn n + kn n − knn ) (3.38b)
n
and
−dr ≤ er ≤ dr (3.38c)
Introducing Ln = ln −dn and Mn = mn −en reduces eqs. (3.38) to eqs. (3.16)

and hence can be solved as before. What remains to be done is to determine
all combinations (dn , en ) for given (ln , nn ). Since g, h and k are non-negative,
dn is restricted to
0 ≤ dn ≤ ln n = 1, . . . , z (3.39)
and an obvious solution of eqs. (3.38) is
dn = ln ,
en = mn ,
gnn = hnn = knn = 0 for n, n = 1, . . . z . (3.40)
Summing eqs. (3.38a) and (3.38b) over n yields two other equations, re-
stricting the choice for dn and en :

ln = dn + 2 (gnn + hnn + knn ) (3.41a)
n n nn

mn = en (3.41b)
n n
To solve eqs. (3.38) we now start from the solution (3.40) and look for
all combinations of en , which fulfill eq. (3.38c) and (3.41b). For each
such combination (dn en ) we solve (3.38a) and (3.38b) like eqs. (3.16) and
then start with a new dn combination till all combinations (d1 , d2 , . . . dz ) ∈
(0, . . . , l1 )⊗· · ·⊗(0, . . . , lz ) have been tried. Some further conditions allow to
restrict the choice of (dn , en ) combinations appreciably, e.g. from eq. (3.41a)
we deduce that the sum of all dn is even (odd) if the sum ln is even (odd).
What remains to be done is to integrate over the angles of the vector k
according to eq. (3.28) leading to integrals of the form

z
1
τ= dk̂YLM (k̂) idr Ydr er (k) (3.42)
4πiL r=1
Because of the above condition these integrals are always real. By combining
successively two spherical harmonics to one [20], the integrals can be reduced
to Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and trivial factors yielding
&
P P
m (2dm + 1)
τ = (−1)M i r dr −L k j dj
(2L + 1)(4π)z−1

z−1
· (ds es ps−1 µs−1 |ps µs )(ds 0ps−1 0|ps 0)
p1 ,...,pz−1 s=2
· (dz ez pz−1 µz−1 |L − M )(dz 0pz−1 0|L0) (3.43)
where p1 = d1 , µ1 = e1 and µs = es + µs−1 , s = 2, . . . z − 1. The symmetry

properties of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients lead to the following conditions
for a non-vanishing τ
dj + L = even
j
and  

z 
z
max 2dk − dj , 0 ≤ L ≤ dj . (3.44)
k{1,...,z}  
j=1 j=1
With this expression we have now a complete prescription how to calculate

matrix elements of electromagnetic transition operators, like eq. (3.42). Ad-
ditional differential operators can be treated as described in chapter 3.1. An
extension to meson-exchange-currents is given in [29].
30 H.M. Hofmann
In summary, all matrix elements, be it overlap, or potential, or electromag-

netic transitions ones, can be calculated by using the methods described in
this chapter, provided the radial dependencies are in the form of Gaussian,
positive and negative powers in r, solid spherical harmonic, powers of the
differential operator, and plane waves. Since combinations of these depen-
dencies are possible, a wide variety of operators can be treated, so that the
above restriction is no practical restriction. In addition it/is possible to deal
with special operators, like the relativistic kinetic energy p2 + m2 and find
analytic expressions for arbitrary number of clusters [30].
4 Determination of physical quantities

With the methods described in the previous chapter, we can now calculate
all matrix elements of the Hamiltonian H or the norm matrix N in a basis,
where the radial dependence of the relative wave function of two fragments
is given by r Lrel exp(−βr 2 ) for an relative orbital angular momentum Lrel .
Choosing a model space and solving the generalized eigenvalue problem de-
termines the eigenfunctions Γν of eqs. (2.15) and (2.16). In case of a bound
state calculation, these wave functions, given as an expansion in terms of
Gaussians, are a variational solution. For a scattering calculation more has
to be done.
4.1 Construction of physical channels

The wave functions considered so far have a definite total spin S and a
definite total orbital angular momentum L, since only reduced matrix ele-
ments in spin-space and orbital space were calculated, see eq. (3.21). If one
wants to describe scattering, the various clusters have to be combined to
two fragments with angular momentum j1 and j2 . This leads to new quan-
tum numbers, the relative orbital angular momentum between the fragments
Lrel , the channel spin Sc = j1 + j2 , and the total angular momentum J =
Lrel + Sc . Hence, a physical channel is characterized by the two fragments;
their internal energy if one takes excited states into account, their spin j1
and j2 , Sc , Lrel , and J.
So far the wave functions have been characterized by the spins of the frag-
ments s1 and s2 , the total spin S = s1 + s2 , the internal orbital angular
momenta l1 and l2 and their coupling to L3 = l1 + l2 , and finally the total
orbital angular momentum L = L3 + Lrel . This means till now we have
worked in an LS-coupling scheme, by calculating spin and orbital matrix el-

ements separately, but for scattering reactions we have to use the jj-coupling
scheme. This change requires a recoupling via standard procedures. In an
obvious notation we find

|[Lrel [[l1 s1 ]j1 [l2 s2 ]j2 ]Sc ]J >= SL3 L ĵ1 ĵ2 L̂3 Ŝ Ŝc2 L̂2 (−1)Sc −Lrel −J
  
 l1 l2 L3   J S L 
∗ s1 s2 S L L3 L | [ [ [ l1 l2 ]L3 Lrel ]L[s1 s2 ]S]J >
   rel 
j1 j2 Sc Sc Sc 0
(4.1)
√
where ĵ = 2j + 1 and the curly bracket symbols are 9 j-symbols [20].
If a fragment contains different orbital angular momenta, like the S- and
D-wave component in the deuteron, then this linear combination can also
be performed in eq. (4.1) with the appropriate coefficients. This is another
meaning of the index α in eq. (3.3).
The generalized eigenvalue problem is then solved on the basis of physical
channels, eq. (4.1). An essential point is that during solution no states ap-
pear which have norm equal to zero, be they Pauli-forbidden states or states
which cannot be coupled to the required quantum numbers. This is in con-
trast to the treatment of ref. [3] where the Pauli-forbidden states are used
as a test for a correct calculation. Here another test can be performed: Col-
lecting all diagonal overlap matrix elements (and those of the Hamiltonian),
which do not have permutation across fragment boundaries (nor interaction
across fragment boundaries), the calculated norm is just the product of the
internal norm of the fragments times the norm of the Gaussian function on
the relative coordinate, which can easily be calculated. Hence, dividing by
the norm of the relative motion, the calculated internal norms have to be
independent of the width used for the relative motion. A further test are
the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian described above, they contain all
interactions of the fragments times the relative norm. Hence dividing these
matrix elements by the corresponding norm matrix elements yields the in-
ternal energy of the two fragments, the threshold energy, which again has
to be independent of the width parameters used for the radial motion. In
most cases these two checks are a very stringent test on the correctness of
the calculation.
In order to calculate the reactance matrix amn eq. (2.31), the matrix elements
for regular and irregular Coulomb functions are still missing.
32 H.M. Hofmann
4.2 Numerical procedure for the Coulomb functions

As discussed below eq. (2.41), all integrals are of short range, therefore the
Coulomb functions, fl (r) and g̃l (r), see eq. (2.3), can be expanded in terms of
the functions χν , eq. (2.5), or Γν , eq. (2.15), in an appropriately chosen finite
interval ∆. Since fl and gl are solutions to the point Coulomb Hamiltonian,
∆ has to cover the range of the interactions folded with the size of the
fragments. In addition to that, the range where g̃l (r) deviates from gl (r)
due to the regularisation factor Tl (r), eq. (2.3), has to be considered.
The starting point is to minimize the integral
∞
2
fL (x) − ck χkL (x) WL (x)dx (4.2)
0 k
The function fL is calculated numerically according to ref. [15]. The ex-

pansion functions χkL are given in eq. (2.5). Two sets of width parameters
βk are given in [26]. The variational parameters ck are determined from a
system of linear equations. The weight function Wl (x) is chosen in such a
way that the internal region dominates and the total interval becomes finite.
A typical expression is
2
WL (x) = x−(L+1) e−x (4.3)
with ≈ 0.01f m−2 .

Thus a typical expansion interval is of the order of 20 - 50 fm. The parameter
is numerically very critical: If it is chosen too large the interval will become
too small and the small width parameter βk are strongly suppressed. On the
other hand if is too small, then the expansion interval will become larger
and it gets numerically very difficult to reproduce the oscillating function fL
by a finite number of Gaussians centered around the origin. Increasing the
number of Gaussian width parameters may lead to numerical dependencies,
due to the non-orthogonality of these functions, especially as one set of
parameters is used irrespective of the orbital angular momentum L.
The expansion can be improved, if in addition to the functional eq. (4.2) also
the derivative of fL is included in an obvious way. Outside the interval de-
termined by the weight function WL the values of the sum must not become
too large. Modifications of this type are discussed in [31]. An analogous
procedure is used for g̃l .
Depending on the kinetic energy of the fragments we found up to 100 MeV
15 to 20 width parameters sufficient to obtain a good representation of the

Coulomb functions. The choice of parameters βk is not critical to scattering
calculations. We can easily omit some of them without changing the results.
Changing the parameter β0 of the regularisation factor, eq. (2.4), in a wide
range does not modify the final results either, as long as TL approaches unity
outside the interaction range.
4.3 Asymptotic contributions of the Hamiltonian
In order to determine the reaction matrix amn from eq. (2.24) and eq. (2.31)
we need the matrix elements of H̃ between regular and irregular Coulomb
functions. Hence, we need matrix elements of Ĥ, eq. (2.18 - 2.19) between
FL , G̃L and Γν , respectively. Since FL and GL are not square-integrable
functions, some care is necessary. In the discussion below eq. (2.41), FL and
GL , but obviously not G̃L , had to be solutions to the point-Coulomb Hamil-
tonian, or to the total Hamiltonian for large separation of the fragments
so that the identity operator from the antisymmetrizer between fragments
could not lead to infinite contributions. Hence, one has to correct for the
fact that G̃L is not a solution in just this case.
All matrix elements of Ĥ, containing FL in the ket can be calculated using
the expansion coefficients determined from eq. (4.2). Using eq. (2.29) the
only critical matrix elements are < G̃|Ĥ|G̃ > and < Γk |Ĥ|G̃ >. Operating
with the r.h.s. of eq. (2.41) onto G̃L we find that the regularisation factor TL
can be factored out from all terms except the kinetic energy of the relative
motion. Hence, it suffices to consider this term in detail.
Since there are no permutations across fragment boundaries we can restrict

the discussion to just the relative coordinate. Omitting all unnecessary fac-
tors we arrive at
∞
d2 d2
< g̃| |g̃ > = dr g(r)T (r) [g(r)T (r)] =
dr 2 dr 2
0 ∞
0 1
= dr g(r)T 2 (r)g (r) − (g(r)T (r))2 (4.4)
0
where the first term is already taken care of by g being a solution to the
point-Coulomb Hamiltonian and the ’ denotes derivation with respect to r.
34 H.M. Hofmann
Taking into account eq. (4.2) we can write in the obvious notation

< G̃|H|G̃ > = gm gn < χm |Ĥ|χn > −
mn
∞
−C (GT )2 dr (4.5)
0
here gm denote the expansion coefficients of G̃ and the constant C contains

essentially the internal norm of the fragments.
In an analogous way we find

< χm |Ĥ|G̃ > = gn < χm |Ĥ|χn > −
n
∞

− C χm (2G T + GT ) dr (4.6)
0
Note that the point Coulomb contribution has to be taken out of < χm |Ĥ|χn >.
The correction terms of eqs. (4.5) and (4.6) sometimes exceed the expansion
terms appreciably.
Now we have all the necessary ingredients to calculate the reactance ma-
trix amn according to eq. (2.31). Since the Hamiltonian is symmetric, the
eigenvalues ν , eq. (2.16), are real and therefore depending on the number of
expansion functions χν there are certain energies E for which the denomina-
tor in eq. (2.21) or (2.31) vanishes. It is easy to convince oneself, that this
factor is cancelled against a corresponding one in the numerator, see also
ref. [2]. There could be a slight numerical problem, if the energy E is too
close to one of the eigenvalues ν , due to division by a very small number or
even zero. This difficulty can, however, be overcome quite easily by omitting
the corresponding eigenvector Γν , or by reducing the number of expansion
functions just by one, so changing the eigenvalues ν slightly.
It can, however, not be excluded that accidentally the denominator in eqs.
(2.21) or (2.31) becomes zero, without the existence of a physical resonance.
Therefore it is argued [32, 33] that using a variational principle for e.g. the S-
matrix, i.e. using complex scattering functions, this problem can be avoided.
This might be true in practice, but there exist counter examples [34].
Since the position of the pole depends also on the regularization parameter
β0 , these accidental poles can always be avoided by changing β0 , a procedure
which needs only a small amount of computing time, compared to the calcu-
lation of the matrix elements as described in chapter 3.1. Also the measures
taken to avoid division by a small number, discussed above, can be used.
Following along the general lines discussed in [5] it is possible to construct
various variational principles, out of which the described K-matrix, K −1 -
matrix or the S-matrix, are just certain limiting cases. One can show that
for all these different cases the matrix elements calculated so far suffice and
it is only necessary to form the proper linear combinations [35]. So one could
just use different methods to avoid spurious resonances. How to calculate
the S-matrix and search for the complex energy poles of the S-matrix is
described in [8].
5 Application to Neutron Standard Cross Sections

The region of light nuclei houses some of the neutron standards [36]. Starting
from proton-neutron scattering below 20 MeV up to carbon-neutron scat-
tering, all cross sections can be calculated by the methods described above,
at least in principle, in case suitable nucleon-nucleon potentials are given.
In the form of the RGM n-p scattering is just potential scattering, hence,
any calculation just reflects how well the extracted potential was fitted to
the original data.
The next simplest reaction is 3 He (n,p)3 H, which has 4 He as compound
nucleus. For this A = 4 system realistic nucleon-nucleon forces are feasi-
ble, whereas for all heavier systems one has to rely on simplified, so-called
effective forces. To demonstrate the differences, advantages and disadvan-
tages I discuss in some detail in the following the 4 He-system and the 7 Li-
system, which contains another standard reaction 6 Li (n,t)4 He. The reaction
10 B(n,α) closes this section.
5.1 The 4 He-System

The 4 He atomic nucleus is one of the best studied few-body systems, both
experimentally and theoretically, as summarized in the recent A = 4 com-
pilation [37]. Besides the many textbook examples of gross structure, there
are subtle points yielding large effects that are only qualitatively understood.
Except for [38] none of the existing calculations aims at a complete under-
standing of the many features of 4 He, which is not surprising in view of the
number of different phenomena studied so far [37]. Here we are interested
36 H.M. Hofmann
potential E bin E thres

3H 3 He 3 He-p d-d
av18 -7.068 -6.370 0.698 3.227
av18, large -7.413 - 6.588 0.725 3.572
av18+UIX -7.586 -6.875 0.710 3.745
av18+UIX, large -8.241 -7.493 0.748 4.400
exp. -8.481 -7.718 0.763 4.033
Table 1: Comparison of experimental and calculated total binding energies and relative
thresholds (in MeV) for the various potential models used.
in the 3 He (n,p) reaction, which connects the two lowest fragmentations in

energy.
To use the above described techniques, the potentials must also be given in
terms of Gaussians. Here we use realistic nucleon-nucleon forces, suitably
parametrized, the Bonn [40] and the Argonne AV18 potential [39] and even
a three-nucleon interaction (TNI) Urbana IX [41]. The inclusion of the
additional TN1 requires almost two orders of magnitude more computing
power than the realistic NN-forces alone.
In the 4 He system we use a model space with six two-fragment channels,
namely the p-3 H, the n-3 He, the 2 H-2 H, the singlet deuteron and deuteron
d- -2 H, the d- − d-, and the (nn)- (pp) channels. The last three are an ap-
proximation to the three- and four-body breakup channels that cannot in
practice be treated within the RGM. The 4 He is taken as four clusters in
the framework of the RGM to allow for the required internal orbital angular
momenta of 3 He, 3 H or 2 H.
For the scattering calculation we include S, P, and D wave contributions
to the Jπ = 0+ , 1+ , 2+ , 0− , 1− , 2− channels. From the R-matrix analysis
these channels are known to give essentially the experimental data. The full
wave-functions for these channels contain over 200 different spin and orbital
angular momentum configurations, hence, they are too complicated to be
given in detail. For the deuteron we use a type similar to that given in [38]
100000
ENDF
av18
av18n
av18-l
av18n-l
mb
10000
1000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 keV
Figure 3: Comparison of the ENDF/B 3 He(n,p) cross section and calculations employing
AV18 in the small model space (av18), adding negative parity distortion channels (av18n),
for the large model space (av18-l) and adding negative parity distortion channels (av18n-l).
yielding the binding energy of - 1.921 MeV, whereas for 3 He and triton,
we use an analogue to [42] for two model spaces, 29 and 35 dimensional,
called small and large, respectively. For the triton AV18 yields -7.068 and
-7.413 MeV binding energy, respectively, falling short of the experimental
datum of -8.481 MeV. Adding the TNI improves the binding energies to
-7.586 MeV and -8.241 MeV respectively, see table 1. The binding energy
of the deuteron could be easily improved, but then the threshold energies
deteriorate and thus yield worse results. All the Gaussian width parameters
were obtained by a non-linear optimization using a genetic algorithm [43] for
the combination of AV18 and Urbana IX. The model space described above
(consisting of four to ten physical scattering channels for each Jπ ) is by no
means sufficient to find reasonable results. So-called distortion or pseudo-
inelastic channels [3] have to be added to improve the description of the wave
function within the interaction region. Accordingly, the distortion channels
have no asymptotic part. For practical purposes it is obvious to re-use some
of the already calculated matrix elements as additional distortion channels.
In that way we include all the positive parity states of the three-nucleon
subsystems with Jπ3 ≤ 5/2+ in our calculation. However, it was recently
pointed out by A. Fonseca [44] that states having a negative parity J− 3 in the
38 H.M. Hofmann
three-nucleon fragment increase the n-3 H cross section noteably. Therefore

we also added the appropriate distortion channels in a similar complexity as
in the J+
3 case to our calculation, thereby roughly doubling the size of the
model space.
In fig. 3 we compare the standard 3 He(n,p) cross section as given in the
ENDF/B-VI evaluation [36] with various calculations using the AV18 po-
tential alone. The calculation using the smallest model space reproduces
the data surprisingly well. (The kink in the calculated curves below 10 keV
is due to a loss in precision of the energy.) Since the threshold energy is
almost 70 keV too low, this result should not be overestimated. Especially
as the calculated 0+ triton-proton phase shifts close to threshold and be-
low demonstrate large differencies between themselves and to the R-matrix
analysis, see fig. 4.
120
Rmat
degrees
av18
av18n
av18-l
90 av18n-l
60
30
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 MeV
Figure 4: Comparison of the 0+ triton-proton phase shifts from the R-matrix analysis
(crosses) and calculations employing AV18 in the small model space (av18), adding neg-
ative parity distortion channels (av18n), for the large model space (av18-l) and adding
negative parity distortion channels (av18n-l).
The corresponding figure 5 including three-nucleon forces reveals a much

better agreement, also for the threshold energies, see table 1. Unfortunately
the 3 He(n,p) cross sections including TNI are not yet available, due to the
large amount of CPU time necessary.
120
Rmat
degrees
av18
av18u
av18uv
90
60
30
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 MeV
Figure 5: As fig. 4, but R-matrix results (crosses) are compared to the full NN-calculation
(av18), adding UIX (av18u) and adding V∗3 (av18uv).
Since the 3 He(n,p) data at higher energy are usually deduced via detailed
balance from the more easily accessible 3 H(p,n) reaction we display in the
following the results of a few calculations. In fig. 6 the results for the Bonn
potential and a semi-realistic one, which will be used later on on the 6 Li(n,t)
reaction, are compared to data and the R-matrix analysis. At forward and
backward angles large discrepancies between data and calculation are visible.
In fig. 7 we change from using the Bonn potential to the Argonne AV18.
Obviously the calculations reproduce the data much better. Again the cal-
culation employing the smallest model space is by far the best, missing the
data only close to the minimum around 90 degrees. Additional three-nucleon
forces do not improve the situation. Considering the fact that the calcula-
tions start ab initio from NN- and NNN-potentials the agreement between
data, R-matrix analysis, and microscopic calculation is remarkably good. At
the time being, any extension to heavier nuclei using the above forces fails
due to lack of computing power.
5.2 The 7 Li System

The 6 Li(n,t) reaction is a standard neutron cross section from thermal en-
−
ergies to 1 MeV [36]. In this energy range is a well developed 52 resonance
40 H.M. Hofmann
150
dσ
dΩ[mb]
100 3 3
H(p,n) He
50
0
0 90 180
Θc.m.
Figure 6: Differential cross section of the reaction 3 H(p,n)3 He calculated for Ecm = 3.0
MeV. The data are for 4.101 MeV protons from Perry. The full line represents the R-matrix
analysis, the dashed one the full calculation using the Bonn potential, the dot-dashed one
the small calculation, and the dotted one the semi-realistic calculation. The open circles
denote the full calculation with the 3 P2 matrix element replaced by the corresponding
R-matrix one, for details see [38].
around 2.40 MeV neutron energy [45]. An RGM calculation using realistic
NN-forces is no more feasible. Even a calculation using a semi-realistic poten-
tial form [26] poses a major task, due to the many possible fragmentations,
like 4 He-3 H and 6 Li-n for the standard reaction, but additional fragmen-
tations 6 Li (excited)-n, 5 He-d and 5 Li-(nn) [45] are necessary to reproduce
−
the position of the 52 -resonance reasonably well [46, 26]. The the first task
is to determine the internal wave functions of all fragments together with
the excited states such that the many thresholds are reproduced reasonably
well. As all effective forces share a reduced core, they tend to overbind, in
case the model space is increased by using more and more width parame-
ters or configurations with internal orbital angular momenta. Therefore any
such calculation is a compromise between reproducing the size of the various
fragments, the relative threshold energies and the total binding energy of the
− −
system, in this case the 7 Li ground state 32 and first excited state 12 , well
below the 4 He - 3 H threshold. Increasing the model space too far, leads to
overbinding and to tiny fragments, reducing the binding energy might yield
too large fragments and then too strong interactions at low energies. Typ-
140 perry
R-mat
av18
120 av18n
av18-l
100 av18n-l
80
60
40
20
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Figure 7: As fig. 6, but data and R-matrix results (crosses) are compared and calcula-
tions employing AV18 in the small model space (av18), adding negative parity distortion
channels (av18n), for the large model space (av18-1) and adding negative parity distortion
channels (av18n-1).
ical examples for the charge conjugate system 7 Be are given in [47]. The
potential is described in [26]. What can be achieved for the corresponding
elastic scattering 6 Li(n,n) is displayed in fig. 8, taken from [48].
It should be noted, however, that this effective potential overbinds neutron
halo nuclei, like 6 He and 8 He [49].
To cure this problem a realistic NN interaction has to be used for the NN-
P-wave configurations, see [49], whereas for the positive parities still the
effective force [26] with the reduced core is taken. A calculation using this
potential also in the 7 Li-system is under way, see [50].
11
5.3 The B System
The next heavier standard neutron cross sections are 10 B(n,α)7 Li and
10 B(n,α, γ)7 Li from thermal energies to 250 keV. As can be seen from the
energies of light nuclei [51] there are many resonances in the compound
system 11 B close to the 10 B-n threshold. There are already many channels
open, like 10 Be-p, 8 Be - 3 H, and 7 Li - 4 He together with the first excited state,
and furthermore the 11 B nucleus has many particle stable states below the
42 H.M. Hofmann
Figure 8: Comparison of a microscopic multi-channel calculations with data for elastic

neutron scattering off 6 Li.
lowest break-up threshold. Therefore describing the reactions 10 B (n,α0,1 )

microscopically poses a major problem. For the potential described in the
previous section this task seems to be feasible, but the outcome is unknown.
6 Limitations of the method and conclusion

In the previous chapter various examples demonstrated the great flexibility
of the resonating group method. Finally I will discuss some limitations of
the method. Of a principle nature are breakup channels into three or more
fragments. If the direct coupling to such channels is indeed strong, then the
recipe of approximating these channels by effective two fragment channels
will not yield good results. Attempts [52] to connect the resonating group
method with Faddeev type approaches face the very complex interacting
potentials between the fragments. A straightforward approach by expanding
the wave function is not possible, because the boundary condition depends
on the coordinates. Fortunately, however, most strong breakup channels
proceed via sequential decay and thus can be well approximated.
The technical limitations fall into several classes. The most obvious one
is the number of particles. Depending on the cluster structure the double
coset classification of chapter 3 is feasible on modern workstations up to 12 or
even 16 particles, as long as only the highest orbital symmetry is considered.
In case of lower symmetries playing an essential role, which means that the
number of clusters is increased, the maximum number is around 12. A typical
example for such cases are the neutron-halo nuclei like 11 Li and 11 Be, which
can be described by α−3 H−n − n − (nn) and α − α − n − n − n configurations
respectively. Larger nuclei can be much better described in the framework of
the Generator coordinate method [53, 3], where shell-model techniques can
be utilised to reduce the calculation of A-body matrix elements to 2-body
matrix elements.
Another obvious limitation is the expansion of the bound state wave func-
tion in terms of Gaussians. Even though the number of width parameters
may be chosen quite high, the asymptotic behaviour is never that of an ex-
ponential function. Hence, if the bound state wave function is needed far
beyond the root-mean-square radius, like in the radiative capture at very low
energies, approaches where the asymptotic form of the wave function can be
utilised [54, 55] are preferable. These methods, however, have to solve the
integro-differential equations and therefore have to calculate the kernels, so
far by hand or computer algebra and are therefore restricted to mostly 2-,
at most 3-cluster systems.
A further limitation lies in the expansion of the scattering wave function in
the interaction region in terms of Gaussian functions. Since the Gaussians
are all centered at the origin, they will become numerically dependent if too
many of them are used. On the other side if the kinetic energy becomes
higher and higher more and more zeros of the relative motion wave function
move into the interaction region, thus requiring more and more Gaussians. In
model studies we found numerically stable sets of Gaussians for up to three
zeros. In principle one could use eq. (3.17) and multiply the Gaussians
by even powers of r. In model studies this procedure works quite well in
practical calculations, however, the following limitations do not allow to
reach such an energy range.
With increasing energy usually the number of open channels increases rapidly.
The diagonalisation of the resulting large matrices can be done easily. The
threshold energies, however, are no more well reproduced, introducing some
uncertainties. Furthermore, near thresholds the numerical procedures tend
44 H.M. Hofmann
to be less stable, thus increasing the uncertainties. A typical example on this

limit is the reaction 4 He (2 H, 3 He) 3 H studied in [56]. By carefully choosing
the Gaussian parameters and the weight function, eq. (4.2), the situation
can be improved appreciably.
The most serious limitation in energy is, however, related to the potential
used. Since one wants to utilise the symmetry of the dominant structures,
one needs simple wave functions for the lightest nuclei, i.e. deuteron, triton,
3 He and 4 He. In practice these light nuclei are just described by pure S-
waves, using linear combinations of some Gaussian functions of the internal

coordinates. For a nucleon-nucleon potential such wave functions only yield
binding, if the short-ranged repulsive core is reduced appreciably. This pro-
cedure on the other hand does not yield enough repulsion at higher energies,
where the short range behaviour of the potential is tested more closely. The
potential we usually employ [26] gives reasonable cross sections up to 35
till 50 MeV centre-of-mass energy above the lowest threshold, depending on
the system. The simple cure of using a realistic nucleon-nucleon potential,
like [39, 40], leads to such complicated bound state wave functions, that any
calculation beyond A = 5 seems to be no more technically feasible [38].
In conclusion, the resonating group model provides the means to study a
wide range of few body problems, if an interaction exists which allows to
describe the systems with sufficient accuracy. So far nuclear systems have
been studied predominantly, but also atomic [14] or molecular problems may
be investigated.
Acknowledgments
This work would not have been possible without the dedicated effort of many
diploma and Ph.D. students, contributing in various ways. The financial
support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the BMBF is greatfully
acknowledged.
References
[1] J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 52 (1937) 1083-1106 and 1107-1122
[2] H. H. Hackenbroich, in: The Nuclear Many Body Problem, (F. Calogero
and C. Cioffi degli Atti, eds.) pp 706-747, Editrice Compositori, Bologna
(1973)
[3] Y. C. Tang, in: Topics in Nuclear Physics, (T. T. S. Kuo and S. S. M.

Wong, eds.) Lect. Notes in Physics 145, pp 572-693, Springer, Heidel-
berg (1981)
[4] H. M. Hofmann, in: Models and Methods in Few-Body Physics, (L. S.

Ferreira, A. C. Fonseca and L. Streit) Lect. Notes in Physics 273,
pp 241-282, Springer, Heidelberg (1987)
[5] E. Gerjuoy, A. R. P. Rau, and L. Spruch, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55 (1983)

725-774
[6] W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 74 (1948) 1763-1772
[7] O. Flebbe, Hadronen mit Strangeness im Quark Cluster Modell,

diploma thesis, Erlangen 1989, unpublished
[8] A. Thielmann, Bestimmung der S-Matrix Pole in der komplexen En-

ergieebene, diploma thesis, Erlangen 2001, unpublished
[9] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 131 (1963) 440-460
[10] T. Kato, Prog. Theor. Phys. (Japan) 6 (1951) 394-407
[11] G. John, Anwendung der Theorie der symmetrischen Gruppe auf

Zustände und Reaktionen der leichtesten Kerne, BMBW-FB K 71-20,
ZAED, Leopoldshafen (1971)
[12] K. T. Hecht, E. J. Reske, T. H. Seligman, and W. Zahn, Nucl. Phys.

A 356 (1981) 146-222
[13] K. T. Hecht, H. M. Hofmann, and W. Zahn, Phys. Lett. 103 B (1981)

92-98
[14] H. Aulenkamp, Eine mikroskopische Behandlung der niederenergetis-

chen Elektron-Atom-Streuung, Burg Monographs in Science, Vol.10,
Burg Verlag, Basel (1978)
46 H.M. Hofmann
[15] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (eds.) Handbook of Mathematical

Functions, National Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C. (1964)
[16] H. H. Hackenbroich, Z. Phys. 231 (1970) 216-224
[17] H. M. Hofmann and T. Mertelmeier, Die Berechnung von Matrixele-

menten im Refined Resonating Group Modell, Internal report, Erlangen
1984 (unpublished)
[18] M. E. Rose, Elementary Theory of Angular Momentum, Wiley, New

York (1957)
[19] H. Stöwe, Radien und Übergangswahrscheinlichkeiten von 6 Li im ver-

allgemeinerten Clustermodell, Diploma thesis, Cologne (1970) unpub-
lished
[20] A. R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics, Princeton

University Press (1960)
[21] J. Burger, Nukleon-Nukleon Streuung in einem nichtrelativistischen

Quarkmodell, Ph.D. thesis Erlangen (1985) unpublished
[22] T. H. Seligman, Double Coset Decomposition of Finite Groups and the

Many Body Problem, Burg Monographs in Science, Vol.1, Burg Verlag,
Basel (1975)
[23] A. Ludwig, Gruppentheoretische Methoden im Clustermodell der Atom-

kerne - allgmeine Prinzipien und deren Anwendung bei der Berechnung
spektroskopischer Faktoren, Diploma thesis Erlangen (1981) unpub-
lished
[24] M. Unkelbach and H. M. Hofmann, Phys. Lett. 261 B (1991) 211-216
[25] J. Eisenberg and W. Greiner, Excitation Mechanism of the Nucleons,

Vol. 2 North Holland, Amsterdam (1970)
[26] T. Mertelmeier and H. M. Hofmann, Nucl. Phys. A 459 (1986) 387-416
[27] B. Wachter, T. Mertelmeier, and H. M. Hofmann, Phys. Rev.C 38

(1988) 1139-1144
[28] T. Schmeidl, Mikroskopische Beschreibung photonuklearer Prozesse in

leichten Kernen, diploma thesis, Erlangen (1987) unpublished
[29] M. Unkelbach and H. M. Hofmann, Nucl. Phys. A 549 (1992) 550-576
[30] T. Schmeidl, Ein konsistentes Quark Potentialmodell und seine Anwen-

dung auf die Meson-Meson Streuung, Ph. D. thesis, Erlangen (1990)
unpublished
[31] W. Schütte, Eine mikroskopische 6 Li-Streurechnung zur Untersuchung

der Ladungsenergieeigenschaft der Reaktion 4 He + d → 3 He + 3 H, Ph.
D. thesis, Cologne (1977) unpublished
[32] W. H. Miller, Comments At. Mol. Phys.22 (1988) 115-131
[33] J. Z. H. Zhang, S.-I. Chu, and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 88 (1988)

6233-6239
[34] R. L. Lucchese, Phys. Rev. A 40 (1989) 6879-6885
[35] C. Winkler, Vergleich von Kohnschen Variationsprinzipien, diploma

thesis, Erlangen (1994) unpublished
[36] A. D. Carlson, W. P. Poenitz, G. M. Hale, R. W. Peelle, D. C. Dod-

der, C. Y. Fu, and W. Mannhart, the ENDF/B-VI Neutron Cross Sec-
tion Measurement Standards, Nistir 5177, US Department of Commerce
(1993)
[37] D. R. Tilley, H. R. Weller, and G. M. Hale, Nucl. Phys. A 541 (1992)

1
[38] H. M. Hofmann and G. M. Hale , Nucl. Phys. A 613 (1997) 69-106
[39] R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stokes, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51

(1995) 38
[40] H. Kellermann, H. M. Hofmann, and Ch. Elster, Few Body Syst. 7

(1989) 31-53
[41] B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R.

B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 1720
[42] B. Pfitzinger, H. M. Hofmann and G. M. Hale, Phys. Rev. C 64 (2001)

044003
[43] C. Winkler, H. M. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 684

48 H.M. Hofmann
[44] A. C. Fonseca, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4021
[45] F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl. Physik A 490 (1988) 1
[46] H. M. Hofmann, Nucl. Phys. A 416 (1984) 363
[47] H. M. Hofmann, T. Mertelmeier and W. Zahn, Nucl. Phys. A 410

(1983) 202
[48] M. Herman, unpublished 1985, and H. M. Hofmann in ”Use of the

Optical Model for the Calculation of Neutron Cross Sections below 20
MeV”, NEADC-222 ’U’, page 77, OECD Paris 1986
[49] J. Wurzer and H. M. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 688
[50] T. Michler, diploma thesis, Erlangen 2002
[51] F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl. Phys. A 506 (1990) 1
[52] K. Hahn, Beobachtbare off-shell-Effekte und das Pauli-Prinzip in den

Reaktionen 4 He + Deuteron → 4 He + Deuteron und 4 He + Deuteron →
4 He + Neutron + Proton, Ph.D. thesis, Tübingen (1983) unpublished
[53] D. Baye and P. Descouvemont, Nucl. Phys. A 407 (1983) 77-97
[54] T. Kajino and A. Arima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 739-742
[55] Q. K. K. Liu, H. Kanada, and Y. C. Tang, Phys. Rev. C 23 (1981)

645-656
[56] M. Bruno, F. Cannata, M. D’Agostino, M. L. Fiandri, M. Herman,

and H. M. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. C 41 (1990) 2435-2437 and reference
therein
Parameters for Nuclear Reaction Calculations -
Reference Input Parameter Library (RIPL-2)
M. Herman∗
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria

Trieste, 25 February - 28 March 2002
LNS0520002
∗
mwherman@bnl.gov
Abstract
The status and contents of the Reference Input Parameter Library
(RIPL) are summarised. This input library provides an extensive
database of model parameters for theoretical calculations of nuclear
reactions. It was developed to facilitate use of reaction codes and in-
crease the accuracy of theoretical predictions.
Parameters for Nuclear Reaction Calculations – (RIPL-2) 51
1 Introduction
Increased use of nuclear reaction theory for predicting cross sections, spectra,
and angular distributions, as required for a large variety of applications, is
an important trend in the evaluation of neutron and charged-particle nuclear
data. The model codes offer important advantages such as ensuring internal
consistency of the data by preserving the energy balance and the coherence of
the partial cross sections with the total or the reaction cross sections. These
features are essential for transport calculations. In addition, theoretical cal-
culations represent the only approach that can fill gaps in the experimental
results and predict data for unstable nuclei. Nuclear astrophysics and the
design of Accelerator Driven Systems are typical applications that depend
strongly on theoretical calculations.
With recent formulation of nuclear reaction models (triple-integral form
of the statistical model [1], quantum mechanical Multistep Direct and Mul-
tistep Compound [2, 3, 4]) and existing approaches to direct reactions, nu-
clear reaction theory is believed to be in a position to meet most of the
requirements for practical applications. The major sources of uncertainty
are, the input parameters needed to perform theoretical calculations, in-
cluding nuclear masses, deformations, nuclear levels and their decay charac-
teristics, γ-strength functions, neutron resonances and level densities, optical
model parameters, and fission barriers. The IAEA has addressed these needs
through a Coordinated Research Project on the Reference Input Parameter
Library (RIPL), which involves the difficult task of collecting, evaluating
and recommending the vast amounts of various nuclear parameters. RIPL is
targeted at users of nuclear reaction codes and, in particular, at nuclear data
evaluators. The first phase of the project was completed in 1999, with the
production of a Starter File and related documentation [5]. A second phase
of the project was initiated in 1999 to test the RIPL-1 database and produce
interfaces between RIPL and commonly used nuclear reaction codes.
Substantial improvements and extensions to the original database have
been made, resulting in a more accurate and reliable library. All files se-
lected for RIPL-2 have been prepared in the unified RIPL-2 format, which
facilitates their use in the reaction codes. The RIPL-2 library is expected
to be released in July 2002. The contents of the RIPL-2 library are out-
lined below, with possible improvements that could be made to the current
database through new measurements at the SNS.
52 M. Herman
2 Contents of RIPL-2
2.1 Segment 1: MASSES
The mass segment contains basic ground state properties of nuclei, along
with two theoretical predictions of masses and deformations. On the basis
of the Hartree-Fock-Bogolubov (HFB) theory, a 10-parameter Skyrme force,
along with a 4-parameter delta-function pairing force (with blocking for odd
nuclei) and a 3-parameter Wigner term, was fitted to all 1888 measured
masses of nuclei with N and Z ≥ 8. The second file contains predictions
obtained within the Finite Range Droplet Model (FRDM) [6]. The atomic
mass excesses and nuclear ground-state deformations are tabulated for 8979
nuclei ranging from 16 O to A=339. These calculations are based on the
finite-range droplet macroscopic model and the folded-Yukawa single-particle
microscopic model. The most recent evaluated experimental masses by Audi
and Wapstra [7] are included as a separate column. A third possibility is
provided by a subroutine implementing the Duflo-Zuker formula [8] for nu-
clear masses in which, the nuclear Hamiltonian is separated into a monopole
term and a residual multipole term. The monopole term is responsible for
saturation and single-particle properties, and is fitted phenomenologically
while the multipole part is derived from realistic interactions. The latest
version of the mass formula made of 10 free parameters reproduces the 1950
experimental masses above 4 He with an rms error of 574 keV.
RIPL-2 also provides natural abundancies according to the Wallet Cards
and HFB matter densities. The data are necessary for calculation of optical
model parameters within the semi-microscopic approach (code MOM) in
segment 4.
2.2 Segment 2: LEVELS

This segment contains 110 files (one for each element) with all known level
schemes available from ENSDF in 1998. These files are arranged and pre-
processed into an easy-to-read format for nuclear reaction codes. During
preprocessing all missing spins were inferred uniquely for each level from
spin distributions extracted from the existing data. Electromagnetic and
γ-ray decay probabilities were estimated. Missing internal conversion coeffi-
cients (ICC) were calculated using the inferred or existing spin information,
in which existing multipole mixing ratios were also taken into account. Par-
ticle decay modes are also given whenever measured. In all cases, the total
decay probability was normalized to unity, including particle decay channels.

This segment also contains the results of constant temperature fit of
nuclear level schemes. The main purpose of this file is to provide cut-off
energies Umax and Uc for completeness of levels and spins in each level
scheme. Furthermore, the nuclear temperature inferred from the discrete
levels and intended for use in the level density estimation is provided.
2.3 Segment 3: RESONANCES

The average resonance parameters recommended for RIPL-2 were prepared
on the basis of the evaluations performed by the Obninsk group, taking into
account the analysis of discrepancies between similar evaluations of other
groups. Good agreement was found for Γγ among the three RIPL-1 files
(Obninsk, Mughabghab and Beijing) [5]. However, the comparison is less fa-
vorable for the neutron strength functions, especially for those cases with a
large number of resonances. The revised average resonance parameters were
obtained for 20 additional nuclei for which the data on resolved resonance
parameters are available in the Sukhoruchkin compilation [9], bringing the
total number of Dobs in RIPL-2 to 301. Generally, the accuracy of these
additional data is rather poor due to the low number of resonances available
for analysis. New evaluations of the average parameters for p-wave neutron
resonances, prepared by the Obninsk group, have been included in the up-
dated version of the RIPL-2 file. These resonances provide a good check of
consistency since they are known to be about a factor of 3 smaller than the
s-wave spacings, which is particularly relevant for magic nuclei.
Careful attention was paid to the estimation of uncertainties for the
recommended parameters, based on experienced guesswork of systematic
errors beside statistical uncertainties.
2.4 Segment 4: OPTICAL

The optical model parameter (OMP) segment is provided in two forms: full
library (archival form) and shorter library with all single-energy potentials
removed (user file). Currently, the user (archival) file contains 258 (258) po-
tentials for incident neutrons, 98 (143) potentials for incident protons, 8 (11)
for deuterons, 1 (26) for tritons, 3 (53) for 3 He particles, and 10 (10) for in-
cident α-particles. Of the neutron potentials, 229 are spherical potentials,
28 are coupled-channels potentials, and 1 is a vibrational model. There are
6 coupled-channels and 92 spherical potentials for incident protons in the
54 M. Herman
user library, and a total of 5 dispersive optical potentials for incident neu-
trons. Additions to the OMP library were made including new potentials
from JENDL and from the Chinese Nuclear Data Center, as well as several
new potentials from Bruyeres and Los Alamos. The new global potential for
neutrons and protons from Koning and Delaroche [10] was incorporated, as
were the new dispersive potentials from Capote. Where there are not enough
experimental data to define phenomenological OM parameters, one has to
resort either to global parameterizations or to new microscopic approaches.
The semi-microscopic model developed at Bruyeres is now part of the OM
segment, incorporating a revised version of the MOM code which relies on
the Jeukenne, Lejeune, and Mahaux nuclear matter approach.
A compilation of 1708 deformation parameters (β 2 and β 3 ) for collective
levels has been retrieved from the JENDL-3.2 evaluations, ENSDF and lit-
erature to be used in direct reaction calculations. These deformations are in
addition to those provided explicitly for the Coupled-Channels potentials in
the OMP library.
2.5 Segment 5: LEVEL DENSITIES
2.5.1 Total level density
A revised version of the Back Shifted Fermi Gas (BSFG) model parameters
was prepared by the Obninsk group to be consistent with both the recom-
mended RIPL-2 neutron resonance parameters and the evaluated parameters
of the recommended low-lying levels. The new BSFG systematics developed
by the Brussels group is consistent with the recommended RIPL-2 neutron
resonance parameters, and will be included in the RIPL-2 TECDOC. The
Gilbert-Cameron (GC) and Generalized Super-fluid Model (GSM) parame-
ters were revised by the Obninsk group in accordance with changes in the
RIPL-2 resonance segment. The microscopic HF-BCS calculations of the nu-
clear level densities are based on the realistic microscopic single-particle level
scheme [11] determined within the HF-BCS mass model obtained with the
MSk7 Skyrme force, and were supplied by Goriely and made available from
the RIPL-2 library. Also, the single-particle schemes used in the HF-BCS
calculations were provided by the Brussels group. In addition, the FRDM
single-particle schemes are included as corresponding to the accepted FRDM
mass table.
2.5.2 Partial level densities

A critical review was undertaken of the methods for calculating partial level
densities to be used in pre-equilibrium model calculations. A code for a com-
binatorial calculation of particle-hole state densities, based on a convolution
of shell-model single particle-states with BCS pairing, is included in RIPL-2
along with the corresponding tools for retrieving single-particle levels from
Segment I. The most useful analytical approaches in the frame of the equidis-
tant single-particle model are implemented in the revised AVRIGEANU
code [12]. The finite hole-depth and binding energy restrictions are taken
into account in these calculations.
2.6 Segment 6: GAMMA

This segment contains parameters that quantify Giant Resonances, experi-
mental γ-strength functions and methods for calculating γ-emission in sta-
tistical model codes.
The experimental Giant Dipole Resonance parameters were provided by
the Chinese group, as represented by Lorentzian fits to the total photo-
neutron cross sections for 102 nuclides ranging from 51 V to 239 Pu as compiled
by Dietrich and Berman [13]. Additional data for 12 C, 14 N, 16 O, 27 Al and
28 Si were estimated by Liu Jianfeng and Su Zongdi in 1995 [14].
New compilations of calculated GDR widths and energies for about

6000 nuclei with 14 ≤ Z ≤ 110 lying between the proton and the neutron
driplines have been provided by Goriely. The table gives the predicted GDR
energies [15] with a renormalized np-interaction of strength derived from
a least-square fit to the experimental GDR energies [16]. The expression
for the shell-dependent GDR width is taken from [17] using the newly-
determined GDR energies and the ETFSI shell correction energies. Such
predictions include the shell-dependent GDR broadening due to the cou-
pling between the dipole oscillations and the quadrupole surface vibrations.
Theoretical predictions of the E1-strength functions for 3317 nuclei with
8≤Z≤84 lying between the proton and the neutron drip-lines have been sup-
plied by Goriely [18, 19]. These strength functions were determined within
the QRPA model based on the SLy4 Skyrme force. The ground state was
consistently calculated within the Hartree-Fock+BCS model based on the
same SLy4 force. QRPA equations were solved in the configuration space
so as to exhaust the energy weighted sum rule. All QRPA calculations are
performed in the spherical approximation. A folding procedure is applied to
56 M. Herman
the QRPA strength distribution to take the damping of the collective motion
into account. In the case of deformed nuclei, a phenomenological splitting
of the QRPA resonance strength is performed in the folding procedure. The
resulting E1-strength function is found to be in close agreement with photo-
absorption data as well as the available experimental E1 strength at low
energies.
A theory-supported practical approach, based on a micro-canonical de-
scription of initial states (modified Lorentzian (MLO)) for the calculation
of the dipole radiative strength function, was compared with experimental
data as well as with the SLO end EGLO models, and included in the library.
The strength functions for other multi-polarities will be carried over from
RIPL-1.
2.7 Segment 7: FISSION

Fission is a new RIPL-2 segment, which retains the RIPL-1 recommendation
and, in addition, includes global prescription for barriers and nuclear level
densities at saddle points.
Fission barrier parameters for the trans-thorium nuclei were recommended
by Maslov [5] and for the preactinides by Smirenkin [20]. The fission bar-
rier parameters are strongly correlated with the corresponding level density
description and the symmetry of the fission barriers should always be taken
into account for the consistent description of the fission cross sections. For
nuclei with Z¡80 the liquid drop barriers described by Sierk’s code [21] are
recommended with the addition of the ground-state shell corrections esti-
mated by the Moeller-Nix (Segment 1) or the Mayer-Swiatecki (Segment 5)
mass formulae. Sierk’s code provides fits to the fission barriers calculated
using Yukawa-plus-exponential double folded nuclear energy, exact Coulomb
diffuseness corrections, and diffuse-matter moments of inertia.
Another option is to predict the fission barriers and saddle point deforma-
tions obtained within the Extended Thomas-Fermi plus Strutinsky Integral
(ETFSI) method of Goriely. The ETFSI approach is a semi-classical ap-
proximation to the Hartree-Fock method in which the shell corrections are
calculated with the ’integral’ version of the Strutinsky theorem. BCS cor-
rections are added with a delta-pairing force. Fission barriers are derived
in terms of the SkSC4 Skyrme force on which the ETFSI-1 mass formula is
based. Experimental primary barriers can be reproduced within plus or mi-
nus 1.5 MeV (except for elements with Z < 87 which have barriers above 10
MeV). The present ETFSI compilation includes 2301 nuclei with 78≤Z≤120.
Their masses range from slightly neutron deficient to very neutron rich nuclei
(close to the calculated neutron drip line) up to A = 318. For each nucleus
a maximum of two barriers are given (”inner” and ”outer”). In addition to
these calculated barriers, the deformation parameters at the corresponding
saddle points are also included. The nuclear shapes are limited to axially
symmetrical deformations.
The ETFSI fission barriers are complemented with nuclear level densities
(NLD) at the fission saddle points [22] for some 2300 nuclei with 78≤Z≤120.
At each saddle point, the NLD is estimated within the statistical partition
function approach. The NLD calculation is based on the realistic microscopic
single-particle level scheme [11] determined by means of the HF-BCS mass
model obtained with the MSk7 Skyrme force. For each saddle point, the
single-particle level scheme is calculated consistently by the HF-BCS model
constrained on the corresponding quadrupole, octupole and hexadecapole
moments. The same pairing strength (within the constant-G approxima-
tion) is used as for the NLD calculation at the ground-state equilibrium
deformation (segment 5). No damping of the collective effects at increas-
ing excitation energies is considered. The NLD for nuclei with left-right
asymmetric fission barriers is increased by a factor of 2.
3 Testing
Tests have been performed on the optical, resonance and levels segments. A
number of misprints and erroneous coding have been detected and corrected.
Several RIPL participants tested the preliminary version of the levels
database by using the data in calculations. A new simple test was worked
out for checking nuclear temperature (T) derived from the analysis of cumu-
lative plots of discrete levels, yielding temperature values which are remark-
ably similar to the T(A) function obtained in the global fitting procedure.
Ignatyuk tested the performance of the T(A) function by comparing the
results with the temperature obtained by Gilbert and Cameron; he found
reasonable agreement and recommended the use of T(A) in cases for which
no direct estimation is possible. Herman has extensively tested Nmax values
for nearly 500 nuclei using the Gilbert-Cameron procedure and level densi-
ties specific to the EMPIRE code. Perfect fits were obtained for about 50%
of all analyzed cases, fair agreement was found for about 25%, and poor for
the remaining 25%. The quality of the fit depends on the model used for
58 M. Herman
level densities. No formatting errors were detected while reading files with
discrete levels.
Global testing of the RIPL-2 database has been performed in three sep-
arate exercises. Large numbers of nuclear reaction cross sections were calcu-
lated by means of the nuclear model codes EMPIRE-II, UNF and TALYS.
Herman performed calculations for the most important neutron-induced re-
actions on 22 targets from 40 Ca up to 208 Pb in the energy range from 1 keV
up to 20 MeV. The 2-17-beta version of the statistical model code EMPIRE-
II has been used with all default parameters except those differentiating the
3 series of runs. In all cases TUL MSD and Heidelberg MSC models were
used for pre-equilibrium emission of neutrons, and exciton model (DEGAS)
for pre-equilibrium emission of protons and γs. These studies were comple-
mented with Hauser-Feshbach calculations including widths fluctuations at
incident energies below 5 MeV (HRTW model). The results were converted
into ENDF-6 format and compared with experimental data available from
the EXFOR library. Three sets of calculations were performed in order to
test new levels segment, Koning’s global optical potential and HF-BCS level
densities. No problems were encountered while processing the new RIPL-2
files, which indicates that the files are formally correct. Comparison with
experimental data shows reasonable overall agreement for most of the calcu-
lations. There is a clear indication that calculations using the new RIPL-2
files fit experimental data better than those with default EMPIRE-II param-
eters, which demonstrates the improvements brought about by RIPL-2. The
HF-BCS microscopic level densities were found to perform comparably to the
phenomenological level densities and in some cases even better. However,
significant discrepancies among the results of the three sets of calculations
were observed in a number of cases. These findings illustrate the importance
of the model parameters and prove the practical usefulness of the RIPL-2
library for basic research and applications. The second exercise was carried
out by the Beijing group, using the recently developed UNF code to study
103 nuclei from the mass region 69-160 in the incident energy range from
0.1 to 20 MeV. All input parameters were taken from the RIPL database.
Agreement with the experimental data was found to be very good for total
and elastic cross sections (within 3%). For other main reaction channels,
calculations reproduced the shape, but some parameter adjustments were
necessary in order to fit the absolute cross sections. TALYS calculations
were performed for various neutron-induced reactions on 5 isotopes from
52 Cr to 208 Pb. Default input parameters originated from RIPL-2. This
exercise concentrated on the comparison of Ignatyuk-type and microscopic

level densities and provided very reasonable agreement with experimental
data for both formulations.
4 Code Interfaces
The work on interfaces between selected nuclear model codes and RIPL-
2 segments has been facilitated by the standard RIPL-2 format. The two
optical model codes (ECIS and SCAT2) and two statistical model codes
(EMPIRE-II and UNF) use RIPL-2 library to a significant extent. Interface
codes preparing inputs for ECIS and SCAT2 have been written by Young
and is available in the optical segment.
The statistical model code UNF (PR China) makes use of RIPL optical
potentials, masses, levels, level densities and GDR parameters. EMPIRE-II
accesses RIPL-2 database directly and retrieves optical model parameters,
discrete levels and microscopic level densities (HF-BCS). Built-in system-
atics for GDR parameters and prescriptions for γ-strength functions follow
RIPL-2 recommendations. EMPIRE-II library of masses and ground state
deformations is numerically identical to the mass-frdm.dat in the mass seg-
ment of RIPL-2. TALYS uses a dedicated format for the input parameter
library but numerical data are based on RIPL-2.
An interface code (OM-RETRIEVE) is provided to generate input files
for SCAT2000 and ECIS96 from the OMP library. Utility codes for editing
and summarizing the OMP library content are also available.
5 Conclusions
The RIPL-2 library is close to completion, with public release expected in
July 2002. Users of reaction codes will benefit considerably from the gener-
ation of a complete and consistent set of starting parameters to give sensible
results for cross sections and spectra. However, RIPL-2 should be further ex-
tended and continuously updated in order to retain the relevance and value
of the library to the users. At the recent co-ordination meeting in Vienna,
December 2001, the CRP participants discussed possible improvements of
the current project and formulated recommendations for further activities.
These finding are summarized below:
60 M. Herman
• RIPL-2 provides valid sets of parameters for spherical and near-spherical

nuclei. On the other hand, data for the deformed nuclei are scarce and
less accurate. In particular there is a need for more Coupled-Channels
potentials and γ-ray strength functions for the deformed nuclei.
• Special techniques should be applied for the determination of parame-

ters for nuclei far from the stability line for which there are usually no
experimental data available. These nuclei are important for ADS and
astrophysics.
• New experimental data from the recently initiated projects (HINDAS

and N-TOF at CERN) should become available within a year or two,
offering possibilities for testing RIPL-2 parameters. The same is true
for the SNS facility at Oak Ridge at a somewhat longer time scale.
• RIPL-2 library should be complemented with a set of routines for the

calculation of certain input parameters (such as level densities, binding
energies, γ-strength functions, etc.) in order to facilitate user access
to the database and to avoid misuse of the parameters.
• More attention should be dedicated to the use of microscopic models

for producing parameters. Parameters related to the fission channel
contained in RIPL-2 need more accurate analysis and improvement.
• The problem of collective enhancement of level densities should be

addressed in more detail in order to provide a reliable prescription
for calculating level densities in deformed nuclei. The latter are often
needed for ADS and new reactor concepts.
• RIPL-2 studies focused on incident energies below 20 MeV, a typical

limit for standard nuclear data files. However, new applications such
as ADS, medical radioisotope production and radiation treatment re-
quire reliable data at much higher energies (up to 1.5 GeV in the case
of ADS). Most of the parameters available from RIPL-2 cannot be ex-
trapolated to such high energies (e.g., temperature dependence of the
GDR width). In particular, there should be consistency between statis-
tical model calculations at low energies and the intra-nuclear cascade
model commonly used at high energies.
• Use of the results obtained in heavy ion induced reactions could be

helpful in determining model parameters, especially for nuclei far from
the stability line.
• Medical applications require charged particle reactions, which could be

better represented in the parameter library.
6 Participants
The following scientists contributed to the RIPL-2 library: T. Belgya (IIS-
CCR, Budapest, Hungary), O. Bersillon (Bruyres-le-Chtel, France), R. Capote
(NCEADNC, Havana , Cuba), T. Fukahori (JAERI, Tokai-mura, Japan),
S. Goriely (Univ. of Brussels, Belgium), M. Herman (IAEA, Vienna, Aus-
tria), A. V. Ignatyuk (IPPE, Obninsk, Russia), S. Kailas (Bhabha, Trombay-
Mumbai, India), A. Koning (Petten, Holland), P. Oblozinsk (BNL, Brookhaven,
USA), V. Plujko (Univ. of Kiev, Ukraine), P. G. Young (LANL, Los Alamos,
USA), Ge Zhigang (CNDC, Beijing, China).
62 M. Herman
References
[1] J. J. M. Verbaarschot, H. A. Weidenmueller, and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys.
Rep. 129, 367 (1985).
[2] H. Feshbach, A. Kerman, and S. Koonin, Ann. Phys. 125, 429 (1980).
[3] T. Tamura, T. Udagawa, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C26, 379 (1982).
[4] H. Nishioka, J. J. M. Verbaarschot, H. A. Weidenmüller, and S. Yoshida,

Ann. Phys. 172, 67 (1986).
[5] Handbook for calculations of nuclear reaction data: reference input pa-
rameter library (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria,
1998, http://www-nds.iaea.or.at/ripl), No. IAEA-TECDOC-1034.
[6] P. Moller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Swiatecki, At. Data Nucl.

Data Tables 59, 185 (1995).
[7] G. Audi and A. H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. A595, 409 (1995).
[8] J. Duflo and A. Zuker, Phys. Rev. C52, 23 (1995).
[9] S. Sukhoruchkin, Z. N. Soroko, and V. V. Deriglazov, in Low Energy

Neutrons Physics, Tables of Neutron Resonance Parameters, edited by
H. Schopper (Springer-Verlag, Darmstadt, 2000), Vol. 16B.
[10] A. Koning and J. Delaroche, to be published (2002).
[11] S. Goriely, F. Tondeur, and J. Pearson, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 77,
311 (2001).
[12] M. Avrigeanu and V. Avrigeanu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 112, 191

(1998).
[13] S. S. Dietrich and B. L. Berman, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables 38,
199 (1988).
[14] Liu Jianfeng and Su Zongdi, Chinese J. Nucl. Phys. 17, 336 (1995).
[15] P. Van Isacker et al., Phys. Rev. C45, R13 (1992).
[16] S. Goriely, Phys. Lett. B436, 10 (1998).

[17] F.-K. Thielemann and M. Arnould, in Conf. on Nuclear Data for Sci-
ence and Technology, Antwerp, 6-10 September, 1982, edited by K.
Bockhoff (Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1983), p. 762.
[18] S. Goriely and E. Khan, Nucl. Phys. A submitted for publication (2002).
[19] E. Khan et al., Nucl. Phys. A694, 103 (2001).
[20] G. Smirenkin, Report INDC(CCP)-359, IAEA, Vienna (unpublished).
[21] A. J. Sierk, BARMOM, no.967 ed., National Energy Software Center

(Argonne National Laboratory, IL60439).
[22] A. Mamdouh, J. Pearson, M. Rayet, and F. Tondeur, Nucl. Phys. A679,

337 (2001).
Nuclear Data Requirements for
Decay Heat Calculations
A.L. Nichols∗
International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Data Section,

Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications,
Vienna, Austria

Trieste, 25 February – 28 March 2002
LNS0520003
∗
A.Nichols@iaea.org
Abstract
A sound knowledge of the time-dependent energy release resulting from the

decay of the radioactive nuclides formed in the reactor core is extremely important in
formulating safe procedures for the operation of nuclear facilities and the handling of
irradiated fuel. Accurate estimates of this resulting decay heat are needed for a wide
range of applications, including safety assessments of all types of nuclear plant, the
handling of fuel discharges, the design and transport of fuel-storage flasks, and the
management of the resulting radioactive waste. More specifically, the nuclear power
community must ensure accurate and reliable calculations of the decay heat of
irradiated fuel in order to maintain credibility and confidence in the safe and reliable
performance of the various nuclear fuel cycles.
Neutron cross sections, fission yields and radionuclidic decay data represent the
input to the summation calculations used to determine the release of decay heat over
an extended period of time after reactor shutdown (i.e., following termination of
neutron-induced fission). Nuclear data requirements for these summation
calculations have been assessed, and a summary is given of their status. Associated
uncertainties are examined, and specific inadequacies explored.
Nuclear Data Requirements for Decay Heat Calculations 67
1. INTRODUCTION
Neutron-induced fission within the fuel of a reactor core, and the subsequent
conversion of mass to energy constitutes a principal means of generating power. The
resulting energy arises from the following phenomena:
kinetic energies of the fission products and neutrons;

prompt gamma radiation from highly-excited fission fragments, including
short-lived isomeric states;
gamma and beta energy released through the delayed natural decay of the
various radioactive products, particularly the fission products.
The last energy source contributes approximately 8% to 12% of the total energy
generated through the fission process, and is commonly referred to as “decay heat”.
The author has focused on the decay heat that continues to be generated after the
fission process has been terminated; the fission process is not considered directly,
and the reader is referred to a number of dedicated publications on this phenomenon
(Gönnenwein, 1991; Wagemans, 1991; Denschlag, 1997). The prompt sources of
energy decline rapidly when a reactor is shutdown, but radioactive decay continues to
heat the reactor core. Hence, coolant operation needs to be maintained after
termination of the fission process, on the basis of reliable decay-heat calculations.
Decay heat varies as a function of cooling time, and can be determined in theory
from known nuclear data, based on computations of the inventory of the resulting
radionuclides (primarily fission products, and actinides) created during the fission
process and after reactor shutdown, and their radioactive decay characteristics.
Decay heat has been reviewed in detail by others from a technical perspective and
also through the use of decay-heat equations as standards (ANS, 1979; Tobias, 1980;
GNS, 1990; Dickens et al, 1991; Tasaka et al, 1991); the reader is referred to these
publications for authorative assessments of the analytical procedures. Rather, the
author has focused on the basic nuclear data of relevance to the decay heat generated
in fission power-reactor systems, including the means of defining the initial
radioactive inventory of controlled nuclear fission and other modes of decay within
the core.
Cross-section, fission-yield and decay-data libraries are maintained for national and
international usage. While this article avoids recommending specific sources of such
data, Appendix A provides the reader with a brief summary of the means of
accessing the most relevant data files via the acquisition of CD-ROMs or through the
Internet. The latter method has become increasingly powerful, and provides the user
with an extremely rapid route to virtually all of the highest quality nuclear data.
68 A.L. Nichols
2. IRRADIATED FUEL INVENTORY
Several computer programs are commonly used to compute the changing inventory of
nuclides during reactor operation and at any time after shutdown (for example,
ORIGEN (Bell, 1973), FISP (Clarke, 1972; Tobias, 1978) and FISPIN (Burstall and
Thornton, 1977; Burstall, 1979). Fission-product yields for each fissioning nuclide
are used in conjunction with the effective group-averaged fission cross sections,
decay constants and mean alpha, beta and gamma energy releases to calculate decay
heat. Thus, substantial quantities of data are required to determine core inventories
and define their decay characteristics. The nuclides listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3
represent the fission products, structurally-based activation products and actinides
(and their decay-chain nuclides) respectively, that would normally be included within
inventory calculations.
The resulting fission products can undergo transformation by several modes of

radioactive decay, neutron absorption, or a combination of these processes. A series
of linear decay chains can be defined that include a number of short-lived fission
products that have not been experimentally observed or adequately characterised;
theoretical data can be adopted (half-lives denoted in parentheses in Appendix B. 1,
which also provides a reasonable summary of the fission products associated with
decay-heat calculations). All such data are subject to significant modifications
throughout future years.
The effective yield of fission product i (α) is given by the equation:
N
αi = ∑ ∑σ
a k =1
F
a ,k φ k N a (t ) Yai, k
where σ a,F k is the effective group-averaged fission cross section of actinide a in the kth
neutron group (of N groups i), φk is the neutron flux in the kth neutron group, Na(t) is
the number of atoms of fissile actinide a at time t of irradiation, and Yai,k represent
the independent yields for fission product i. A period of reactor operation may be
represented as a series of time steps in which time-dependent quantities are constant
for an individual step, but vary between steps.
Consider a linear decay chain
N1 → N2 → N3 → ….... Ni → ……
with effective fission yields αi, decay constants λi per sec, and effective neutron-
capture cross sections σi cm2. The number of atoms Ni as a function of time is given
by
d
dt
( ) ( )
N 1 = − λ1 + σ 1 φ N 1 + α 1 F
where φ (n cm-2 s-1) is the effective neutron flux, and F is the fission rate (s-1)
d
( N 2 ) = − (λ 2 + σ 2 φ ) N 2 + α 2 F + γ 1 N 1
dt
and
d
dt
( )
( N i ) = − λi + σ i φ N i + α i F + γ i −1 N i −1
in which γi-1 = (ki-1)(λi-1) or (ki-1)(σi-1)φ, depending on the coupling between (i-1) and
i, and ki-1 is the relevant branching fraction. The set of equations represented by
d
(Ni) can be solved by either an analytical method or numerical integration.
dt
Actinide inventories can be calculated in a similar manner on the basis of the

following processes:
(a) radioactive decay,
(b) total neutron absorption and production from (n, γ) and (n, 2n) reactions,
(c) production from alpha and beta decay of parent nuclides.
Appendix B. 2 outlines the formation of these actinides in irradiated fuel

(particularly Pu, Am and Cm radionuclides) and their decay-chain products. The
number of atoms NZ,A of nuclide of atomic number Z and mass number A is given by
the equation:
d
dt
( )
N Z , A = − λTZ , A N Z , A − N Z , A × σ ZA, A ( E ) φ ( E ) dE
∫
+ N Z , A−1 × ∫ σ Zn ,,γA−1 ( E ) φ ( E ) dE
+ N Z , A+1 × ∫ σ Zn,2, An+1 ( E ) φ ( E ) dE
+ kα λαZ − 2, A+ 4 × N Z + 2, A+ 4
− +
+ k β − λ βZ −1, A N Z +1, A + k β + λ βZ +1, A N Z +1, A
70 A.L. Nichols
where σ i,Aj (E), σ i(,nj,γ ) (E) and σ i(,nj, 2 n ) (E) are the total neutron absorption, (n, γ) and
(n, 2n) cross sections respectively, at neutron energy E for a nuclide of atomic
− +
number i and mass number j; λαi, j , λi,β j , λi,β j , λTi, j are the alpha, negatron, positron
and total decay constants for the nuclide of atomic number i and mass number j; kα ,
k β − and k β + are the branching fractions for α, β - and β+ decay to nuclide Z, A; and
φ(E) is the neutron flux at neutron energy E. The coupling of the linear system of
first-order differential equations is complex, and they are normally solved by means
of numerical integration.
After reactor shutdown, the fission products and actinides formed during reactor
operation will undergo radioactive decay. The number of atoms at time t following
shutdown can be expressed as a series of equations:
d
N i = − λi N i + λi −1 N i −1
dt
that are coupled in a much less complex manner after shutdown than for reactor
operation.
When the actinide and fission-product inventories have been calculated for the
specified conditions of reactor operation and subsequent cooling period, the decay
heat can be derived by summing the products of the nuclear activities in terms of the
mean alpha, beta and gamma energy releases per disintegration of that nuclide:
M
H α (t ) = ∑λ T
i N i (t ) Eαi
i =1
M
H β (t ) = ∑λ T
i N i (t ) E βi
i =1
M
H γ (t ) = ∑λ T
i N i (t ) Eγi
i =1
where Eαi , E βi and Eγi are the mean alpha, beta and gamma energy releases
respectively per disintegration of nuclide i; λTi is the total decay constant of nuclide i,
and Hα(t), Hβ(t) and Hγ(t) are the total alpha, beta and gamma decay heat respectively
at time t after reactor shutdown.
The nuclear data requirements for decay-heat calculations can be determined from
the information given above:
σ a,F k - effective group-averaged fission cross section of actinide a in

the kth neutron group,
σ i,Aj - total neutron absorption cross section of fission product i,
σ i(,nj,γ ) - (n, γ) cross section of fission product i,
σ i(,nj, 2n ) - (n, 2n) cross section of fission product i,
Yai,k - independent yields for fission product i,
λi - decay constant(s) of fission product i,
kα , k β − , k β + - branching fractions for α, β - and β + decay to nuclide Z, A,
Eαi , E βi , Eγi - mean alpha, beta and gamma energy releases per disintegration
of nuclide i.
72 A.L. Nichols
Table 1: Fission products (1038 nuclides) – representative listing for inventory calculations
1-H-1, H-2, H-3;
2-He-3, He-4, He-6, He-8;
3-Li-6, Li-7, Li-8, Li-9;
4-Be-7, Be-9, Be-10, Be-11, Be-12;
5-B-11, B-12;
6-C-12, C-14, C-15;
7-N-14, N-15;
10-Ne-21;
21-Sc-50, Sc-51;
22-Ti-50, Ti-51, Ti-52, Ti-53;
23-V-51, V-52, V-53, V-54, V-55;
24-Cr-52, Cr-53, Cr-54, Cr-55, Cr-56, Cr-57;
25-Mn-55, Mn-56, Mn-57, Mn-58, Mn-58m, Mn-59, Mn-60;
26-Fe-56, Fe-57, Fe-58, Fe-59, Fe-60, Fe-61, Fe-62, Fe-63;
27-Co-59, Co-60, Co-60m, Co-61, Co-62, Co-62m, Co-63, Co-64, Co-65, Co-66;
28-Ni-60, Ni-61, Ni-62, Ni-63, Ni-64, Ni-65, Ni-66, Ni-67, Ni-68, Ni-69;
29-Cu-63, Cu-64, Cu-65, Cu-66, Cu-67, Cu-68, Cu-68m, Cu-69, Cu-70, Cu-70m, Cu-71, Cu-
72, Cu-73, Cu-74, Cu-75, Cu-76, Cu-78;
30-Zn-64, Zn-65, Zn-66, Zn-67, Zn-68, Zn-69, Zn-69m, Zn-70, Zn-71, Zn-71m, Zn-72, Zn-
73, Zn-73m, Zn-74, Zn-75, Zn-76, Zn-77, Zn-77m, Zn-78, Zn-79, Zn-80;
31-Ga-67, Ga-68, Ga-69, Ga-70, Ga-71, Ga-72, Ga-72m, Ga-73, Ga-74, Ga-74m, Ga-75, Ga-
76, Ga-77, Ga-78, Ga-79, Ga-80, Ga-81, Ga-82, Ga-83, Ga-84;
32-Ge-70, Ge-71, Ge-71m, Ge-72, Ge-73, Ge-73m, Ge-74, Ge-75, Ge-75m, Ge-76, Ge-77,
Ge-77m, Ge-78, Ge-79, Ge-79m, Ge-80, Ge-81, Ge-81m, Ge-82, Ge-83, Ge-84, Ge-85, Ge-
86;
33-As-72, As-73, As-74, As-75, As-75m, As-76, As-77, As-78, As-79, As-80, As-81, As-82,
As-82m, As-83, As-84, As-85, As-86, As-87, As-88;
34-Se-74, Se-75, Se-76, Se-77, Se-77m, Se-78, Se-79, Se-79m, Se-80, Se-81, Se-81m, Se-82,
Se-83, Se-83m, Se-84, Se-85, Se-86, Se-87, Se-88, Se-89, Se-90, Se-91, Se-92;
35-Br-77, Br-77m, Br-78, Br-79, Br-79m, Br-80, Br-80m, Br-81, Br-82, Br-82m, Br-83, Br-
84, Br-84m, Br-85, Br-86, Br-87, Br-88, Br-89, Br-90, Br-91, Br-92, Br-93, Br-94;
36-Kr-79, Kr-80, Kr-81, Kr-81m, Kr-82, Kr-83, Kr-83m, Kr-84, Kr-85, Kr-85m, Kr-86, Kr-
87, Kr-88, Kr-89, Kr-90, Kr-91, Kr-92, Kr-93, Kr-94, Kr-95;
37-Rb-82, Rb-82m, Rb-83, Rb-84, Rb-84m, Rb-85, Rb-86, Rb-86m, Rb-87, Rb-88, Rb-89,
Rb-90, Rb-90m, Rb-91, Rb-92, Rb-93, Rb-94, Rb-95, Rb-96, Rb-97, Rb-98, Rb-99, Rb-100,
Rb-101, Rb-102;
38-Sr-84, Sr-85, Sr-85m, Sr-86, Sr-87, Sr-87m, Sr-88, Sr-89, Sr-90, Sr-91, Sr-92, Sr-93, Sr-
94, Sr-95, Sr-96, Sr-97, Sr-98, Sr-99, Sr-100, Sr-101, Sr-102;
39-Y-86, Y-86m, Y-87, Y-87m, Y-88, Y-89, Y-89m, Y-90, Y-90m, Y-91, Y-91m, Y-92, Y-
93, Y-93m, Y-94, Y-95, Y-96, Y-96m, Y-97, Y-97m, Y-98, Y-98m, Y-99, Y-100, Y-100m,
Y-101, Y-102, Y-103;
40-Zr-88, Zr-89, Zr-89m, Zr-90, Zr-90m, Zr-91, Zr-92, Zr-93, Zr-94, Zr-95, Zr-96, Zr-97,
Zr-98, Zr-99, Zr-100, Zr-101, Zr-102, Zr-103, Zr-104;
41-Nb-91, Nb-91m, Nb-92, Nb-92m, Nb-93, Nb-93m, Nb-94, Nb-94m, Nb-95, Nb-95m, Nb-
96, Nb-97, Nb-97m, Nb-98, Nb-98m, Nb-99, Nb-99m, Nb-100, Nb-100m, Nb-101, Nb-102,
Nb-102m, Nb-103, Nb-104, Nb-104m, Nb-105, Nb-106, Nb-107, Nb-108;
42-Mo-93, Mo-93m, Mo-94, Mo-95, Mo-96, Mo-97, Mo-98, Mo-99, Mo-100, Mo-101, Mo-
102, Mo-103, Mo-104, Mo-105, Mo-106, Mo-107, Mo-108, Mo-110;
43-Tc-96, Tc-96m, Tc-97, Tc-97m, Tc-98, Tc-99, Tc-99m, Tc-100, Tc-101, Tc-102, Tc-
102m, Tc-103, Tc-104, Tc-105, Tc-106, Tc-107, Tc-108, Tc-109, Tc-110, Tc-111, Tc-112;
44-Ru-98, Ru-99, Ru-100, Ru-101, Ru-102, Ru-103, Ru-103m, Ru-104, Ru-105, Ru-106,
Ru-107, Ru-108, Ru-109, Ru-109m, Ru-110, Ru-111, Ru-112, Ru-113, Ru-114;
45-Rh-101, Rh-101m, Rh-102, Rh-102m, Rh-103, Rh-103m, Rh-104, Rh-104m, Rh-105, Rh-
105m, Rh-106, Rh-106m, Rh-107, Rh-108, Rh-108m, Rh-109, Rh-110, Rh-110m, Rh-111,
Rh-112, Rh-113, Rh-114, Rh-114m, Rh-115, Rh-116, Rh-116m, Rh-117, Rh-119;
46-Pd-102, Pd-103, Pd-104, Pd-105, Pd-106, Pd-107, Pd-107m, Pd-108, Pd-109, Pd-109m,
Pd-110, Pd-111, Pd-111m, Pd-112, Pd-113, Pd-113m, Pd-114, Pd-115, Pd-116, Pd-117, Pd-
118, Pd-119, Pd-120, Pd-122;
47-Ag-106, Ag-106m, Ag-107, Ag-107m, Ag-108, Ag-108m, Ag-109, Ag-109m, Ag-110, Ag-
110m, Ag-111, Ag-111m, Ag-112, Ag-113, Ag-113m, Ag-114, Ag-114m, Ag-115, Ag-115m,
Ag-116, Ag-116m, Ag-117, Ag-117m, Ag-118, Ag-118m, Ag-119, Ag-120, Ag-120m, Ag-
121, Ag-122, Ag-122m, Ag-123, Ag-124, Ag-125;
74 A.L. Nichols
48-Cd-108, Cd-109, Cd-110, Cd-111, Cd-111m, Cd-112, Cd-113, Cd-113m, Cd-114, Cd-
115, Cd-115m, Cd-116, Cd-117, Cd-117m, Cd-118, Cd-119, Cd-119m, Cd-120, Cd-121, Cd-
121m, Cd-122, Cd-123, Cd-124, Cd-125, Cd-126, Cd-127, Cd-128, Cd-130;
49-In-111, In-111m, In-112, In-112m, In-113, In-113m, In-114, In-114m, In-115, In-115m,
In-116, In-116m, In-116n, In-117, In-117m, In-118, In-118m, In-118n, In-119, In-119m, In-
120, In-120m, In-121, In-121m, In-122, In-122m, In-123, In-123m, In-124, In-124m, In-125,
In-125m, In-126, In-126m, In-127, In-127m, In-128, In-128m, In-129, In-129m, In-130, In-
131, In-131m, In-132, In-133;
50-Sn-112, Sn-114, Sn-115, Sn-116, Sn-117, Sn-117m, Sn-118, Sn-119, Sn-119m, Sn-120,
Sn-121, Sn-121m, Sn-122, Sn-123, Sn-123m, Sn-124, Sn-125, Sn-125m, Sn-126, Sn-127, Sn-
127m, Sn-128, Sn-128m, Sn-129, Sn-129m, Sn-130, Sn-130m, Sn-131, Sn-131m, Sn-132, Sn-
133, Sn-134, Sn-135, Sn-136;
51-Sb-118, Sb-118m, Sb-119, Sb-120, Sb-120m, Sb-121, Sb-122, Sb-122m, Sb-123, Sb-124,
Sb-124m, Sb-124n, Sb-125, Sb-126, Sb-126m, Sb-126n, Sb-127, Sb-128, Sb-128m, Sb-129,
Sb-129m, Sb-130, Sb-130m, Sb-131, Sb-132, Sb-132m, Sb-133, Sb-134, Sb-134m, Sb-135,
Sb-136, Sb-137, Sb-138;
52-Te-118, Te-119, Te-119m, Te-120, Te-121, Te-121m, Te-122, Te-123, Te-123m, Te-124,
Te-125, Te-125m, Te-126, Te-127, Te-127m, Te-128, Te-129, Te-129m, Te-130, Te-131, Te-
131m, Te-132, Te-133, Te-133m, Te-134, Te-135, Te-136, Te-137, Te-138, Te-139, Te-140,
Te-141;
53-I-121, I-123, I-124, I-125, I-126, I-127, I-128, I-129, I-130, I-130m, I-131, I-132, I-132m,
I-133, I-133m, I-134, I-134m, I-135, I-136, I-136m, I-137, I-138, I-139, I-140, I-141, I-142;
54-Xe-126, Xe-128, Xe-129, Xe-129m, Xe-130, Xe-131, Xe-131m, Xe-132, Xe-133, Xe-
133m, Xe-134, Xe-134m, Xe-135, Xe-135m, Xe-136, Xe-137, Xe-138, Xe-139, Xe-140, Xe-
141, Xe-142, Xe-143, Xe-144, Xe-145, Xe-147;
55-Cs-130, Cs-131, Cs-132, Cs-133, Cs-134, Cs-134m, Cs-135, Cs-135m, Cs-136, Cs-136m,
Cs-137, Cs-138, Cs-138m, Cs-139, Cs-140, Cs-141, Cs-142, Cs-143, Cs-144, Cs-145, Cs-146,
Cs-147, Cs-148;
56-Ba-132, Ba-133, Ba-133m, Ba-134, Ba-135, Ba-135m, Ba-136, Ba-136m, Ba-137, Ba-
137m, Ba-138, Ba-139, Ba-140, Ba-141, Ba-142, Ba-143, Ba-144, Ba-145, Ba-146, Ba-147,
Ba-148, Ba-149;
57-La-135, La-136, La-136m, La-137, La-138, La-139, La-140, La-141, La-142, La-143, La-
144, La-145, La-146, La-146m, La-147, La-148, La-149, La-150, La-151;
58-Ce-137, Ce-137m, Ce-138, Ce-138m, Ce-139, Ce-139m, Ce-140, Ce-141, Ce-142, Ce-
143, Ce-144, Ce-145, Ce-146, Ce-147, Ce-148, Ce-149, Ce-150, Ce-151, Ce-152;
59-Pr-139, Pr-140, Pr-141, Pr-142, Pr-142m, Pr-143, Pr-144, Pr-144m, Pr-145, Pr-146, Pr-
147, Pr-148, Pr-148m, Pr-149, Pr-150, Pr-151, Pr-152, Pr-153, Pr-154, Pr-155;
60-Nd-142, Nd-143, Nd-144, Nd-145, Nd-146, Nd-147, Nd-148, Nd-149, Nd-150, Nd-151,
Nd-152, Nd-153, Nd-154, Nd-155, Nd-156;
61-Pm-144, Pm-145, Pm-146, Pm-147, Pm-148, Pm-148m, Pm-149, Pm-150, Pm-151, Pm-
152, Pm-152m, Pm-153, Pm-154, Pm-154m, Pm-155, Pm-156, Pm-157, Pm-158;
62-Sm-146, Sm-147, Sm-148, Sm-149, Sm-150, Sm-151, Sm-152, Sm-153, Sm-153m, Sm-
154, Sm-155, Sm-156, Sm-157, Sm-158, Sm-159, Sm-160;
63-Eu-149, Eu-150, Eu-150m, Eu-151, Eu-152, Eu-152m, Eu-152n, Eu-153, Eu-154, Eu-
154m, Eu-155, Eu-156, Eu-157, Eu-158, Eu-159, Eu-160, Eu-161, Eu-162;
64-Gd-150, Gd-152, Gd-153, Gd-154, Gd-155, Gd-155m, Gd-156, Gd-157, Gd-158, Gd-
159, Gd-160, Gd-161, Gd-162, Gd-163, Gd-164;
65-Tb-155, Tb-156, Tb-157, Tb-158, Tb-158m, Tb-159, Tb-160, Tb-161, Tb-162, Tb-163,
Tb-164, Tb-165, Tb-166;
66-Dy-157, Dy-157m, Dy-158, Dy-159, Dy-160, Dy-161, Dy-162, Dy-163, Dy-164, Dy-165,
Dy-165m, Dy-166, Dy-167, Dy-168, Dy-169, Dy-170;
67-Ho-161, Ho-161m, Ho-162, Ho-162m, Ho-163, Ho-163m, Ho-164, Ho-164m, Ho-165,

Ho-166, Ho-166m, Ho-167, Ho-168, Ho-169, Ho-170, Ho-170m;
68-Er-163, Er-164, Er-165, Er-166, Er-167, Er-167m, Er-168, Er-169, Er-170, Er-171, Er-
172, Er-173;
69-Tm-167, Tm-168, Tm-169, Tm-170, Tm-171, Tm-172, Tm-173, Tm-174, Tm-175, Tm-
176;
70-Yb-169, Yb-170, Yb-171, Yb-172, Yb-173, Yb-174, Yb-175, Yb-176, Yb-176m, Yb-177,
Yb-177m, Yb-178, Yb-179;
71-Lu-172, Lu-173, Lu-174, Lu-174m, Lu-175, Lu-176, Lu-176m, Lu-177, Lu-177m, Lu-178,
Lu-178m, Lu-179, Lu-180, Lu-181, Lu-182, Lu-183;
72-Hf-176, Hf-177, Hf-178, Hf-179, Hf-180, Hf-180m, Hf-181, Hf-182, Hf-182m, Hf-183,
Hf-184;
73-Ta-181, Ta-182, Ta-183, Ta-184, Ta-185, Ta-186;
74-W-182, W-183, W-183m, W-184, W-185, W-186, W-187;
75-Re-185, Re-187;
Naturally-occurring nuclides are listed in bold type.

76 A.L. Nichols
Table 2: Structural materials and decay products on irradiation (708 nuclides) –

representative listing for inventory calculations
1-H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4;
2-He-3, He-4, He-6;
3-Li-6, Li-7, Li-8;
4-Be-8, Be-9, Be-10, Be-11;
5-B-10, B-11, B-12;
6-C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15;
7-N-13, N-14, N-15, N-16;
8-O-16, O-17, O-18, O-19;
9-F-19, F-20;
10-Ne-20, Ne-21, Ne-22, Ne-23;
11-Na-22, Na-23, Na-24, Na-24m, Na-25;
12-Mg-24, Mg-25, Mg-26, Mg-27, Mg-28;
13-Al-27, Al-28, Al-29, Al-30;
14-Si-28, Si-29, Si-30, Si-31, Si-32;
15-P-31, P-32, P-33, P-34;
16-S-32, S-33, S-34, S-35, S-36, S-37;
17-Cl-35, Cl-36, Cl-37, Cl-38, Cl-38m;
18-Ar-36, Ar-37, Ar-38, Ar-39, Ar-40, Ar-41, Ar-42;
19-K-39, K-40, K-41, K-42, K-43, K-44;
20-Ca-40, Ca-41, Ca-42, Ca-43, Ca-44, Ca-45, Ca-46, Ca-47, Ca-48, Ca-49;
21-Sc-45, Sc-46, Sc-46m, Sc-47, Sc-48, Sc-49, Sc-50;
22-Ti-46, Ti-47, Ti-48, Ti-49, Ti-50, Ti-51;
23-V-49, V-50, V-51, V-52, V-53, V-54;

24-Cr-50, Cr-51, Cr-52, Cr-53, Cr-54, Cr-55;
25-Mn-53, Mn-54, Mn-55, Mn-56, Mn-57, Mn-58;
26-Fe-54, Fe-55, Fe-56, Fe-57, Fe-58, Fe-59, Fe-60;
27-Co-55, Co-56, Co-57, Co-58, Co-58m, Co-59, Co-60, Co-60m, Co-61, Co-62;
28-Ni-58, Ni-59, Ni-60, Ni-61, Ni-62, Ni-63, Ni-64, Ni-65, Ni-66;
29-Cu-62, Cu-63, Cu-64, Cu-65, Cu-66, Cu-67;
30-Zn-63, Zn-64, Zn-65, Zn-66, Zn-67, Zn-68, Zn-69, Zn-69m, Zn-70, Zn-71, Zn-71m;
31-Ga-69, Ga-70, Ga-71, Ga-72, Ga-72m;
32-Ge-70, Ge-71, Ge-71m, Ge-72, Ge-73, Ge-74, Ge-75, Ge-75m, Ge-76, Ge-77, Ge-77m;
33-As-75, As-76, As-77;
34-Se-74, Se-75, Se-76, Se-77, Se-77m, Se-78, Se-79, Se-79m, Se-80, Se-81, Se-81m, Se-82,
Se-83, Se-83m;
35-Br-79, Br-80, Br-80m, Br-81, Br-82, Br-82m, Br-83;
36-Kr-78, Kr-79, Kr-79m, Kr-80, Kr-81, Kr-81m, Kr-82, Kr-83, Kr-83m, Kr-84, Kr-85,
Kr-85m, Kr-86, Kr-87, Kr-88;
37-Rb-85, Rb-86, Rb-86m, Rb-87, Rb-88, Rb-89;
38-Sr-84, Sr-85, Sr-85m, Sr-86, Sr-87, Sr-87m, Sr-88, Sr-89, Sr-90, Sr-91, Sr-93;
39-Y-89, Y-89m, Y-90, Y-90m, Y-91, Y-92, Y-93, Y-94, Y-96;
40-Zr-89, Zr-90, Zr-91, Zr-92, Zr-93, Zr-94, Zr-95, Zr-96, Zr-97;
41-Nb-91, Nb-92, Nb-93, Nb-93m, Nb-94, Nb-94m, Nb-95, Nb-95m, Nb-96, Nb-97,
Nb-97m, Nb-98, Nb-100;
42-Mo-92, Mo-93, Mo-93m, Mo-94, Mo-95, Mo-96, Mo-97, Mo-98, Mo-99, Mo-100,
Mo-101;
43-Tc-97, Tc-97m, Tc-98, Tc-99, Tc-100, Tc-101;
44-Ru-96, Ru-97, Ru-98, Ru-99, Ru-100, Ru-101, Ru-102, Ru-103, Ru-104, Ru-105,
Ru-106, Ru-107;
45-Rh-102, Rh-103, Rh-104, Rh-104m, Rh-105, Rh-105m, Rh-106, Rh-106m, Rh-107;

78 A.L. Nichols
46-Pd-102, Pd-103, Pd-104, Pd-105, Pd-106, Pd-107, Pd-107m, Pd-108, Pd-109, Pd-109m,
Pd-110, Pd-111, Pd-111m;
47-Ag-106, Ag-107, Ag-108, Ag-108m, Ag-109, Ag-109m, Ag-110, Ag-110m, Ag-111,

Ag-111m, Ag-112;
48-Cd-106, Cd-107, Cd-108, Cd-109, Cd-110, Cd-111, Cd-111m, Cd-112, Cd-113,

Cd-113m, Cd-114, Cd-115, Cd-115m, Cd-116, Cd-117, Cd-117m, Cd-119, Cd-121;
49-In-113, In-113m, In-114, In-114m, In-115, In-116, In-116m, In-117, In-117m, In-118,
In-119, In-119m, In-120, In-120m, In-121;
50-Sn-112, Sn-113, Sn-113m, Sn-114, Sn-115, Sn-116, Sn-117, Sn-117m, Sn-118, Sn-119,
Sn-119m, Sn-120, Sn-121, Sn-121m, Sn-122, Sn-123, Sn-123m, Sn-124, Sn-125, Sn-125m,
Sn-126;
51-Sb-121, Sb-122, Sb-122m, Sb-123, Sb-124, Sb-124m, Sb-125, Sb-126, Sb-126m;
52-Te-120, Te-121, Te-121m, Te-122, Te-123, Te-123m, Te-124, Te-125, Te-125m, Te-126,
Te-127, Te-127m, Te-128, Te-129, Te-129m, Te-130, Te-131, Te-131m;
53-I-125, I-126, I-127, I-128, I-129, I-130, I-130m, I-131, I-132, I-135;
54-Xe-124, Xe-125, Xe-125m, Xe-126, Xe-127, Xe-127m, Xe-128, Xe-129, Xe-129m,

Xe-130, Xe-131, Xe-131m, Xe-132, Xe-133, Xe-133m, Xe-134, Xe-135, Xe-135m, Xe-136,
Xe-137;
55-Cs-131, Cs-132, Cs-133, Cs-134, Cs-134m, Cs-135, Cs-136, Cs-137, Cs-138;
56-Ba-130, Ba-131, Ba-131m, Ba-132, Ba-133, Ba-133m, Ba-134, Ba-135, Ba-135m,

Ba-136, Ba-136m, Ba-137, Ba-137m, Ba-138, Ba-139, Ba-140, Ba-141;
57-La-137, La-138, La-139, La-140, La-141;
58-Ce-136, Ce-137, Ce-137m, Ce-138, Ce-139, Ce-139m, Ce-140, Ce-141, Ce-142, Ce-143,
Ce-144, Ce-145;
59-Pr-141, Pr-142, Pr-142m, Pr-143, Pr-144, Pr-145;
60-Nd-142, Nd-143, Nd-144, Nd-145, Nd-146, Nd-147, Nd-148, Nd-149, Nd-150, Nd-151;
61-Pm-145, Pm-146, Pm-147, Pm-148, Pm-148m, Pm-149, Pm-150, Pm-151, Pm-152;
62-Sm-144, Sm-145, Sm-146, Sm-147, Sm-148, Sm-149, Sm-150, Sm-151, Sm-152,

Sm-153, Sm-154, Sm-155, Sm-156;
63-Eu-151, Eu-152, Eu-152m, Eu-153, Eu-154, Eu-155, Eu-156, Eu-157;

64-Gd-152, Gd-153, Gd-154, Gd-155, Gd-155m, Gd-156, Gd-157, Gd-158, Gd-159,

Gd-160, Gd-161, Gd-162;
65-Tb-157, Tb-158, Tb-159, Tb-160, Tb-161, Tb-162;
66-Dy-156, Dy-157, Dy-158, Dy-159, Dy-160, Dy-161, Dy-162, Dy-163, Dy-164, Dy-165,
Dy-165m, Dy-166;
67-Ho-163, Ho-165, Ho-166, Ho-166m;
68-Er-162, Er-163, Er-164, Er-165, Er-166, Er-167, Er-167m, Er-168, Er-169, Er-170,
Er-171, Er-172;
69-Tm-169, Tm-170, Tm-170m, Tm-171, Tm-172, Tm-173;
70-Yb-168, Yb-169, Yb-170, Yb-171, Yb-172, Yb-173, Yb-174, Yb-175, Yb-175m,

Yb-176, Yb-177;
71-Lu-175, Lu-176, Lu-176m, Lu-177, Lu-177m;
72-Hf-174, Hf-175, Hf-176, Hf-177, Hf-178, Hf-178m, Hf-179, Hf-179m, Hf-180, Hf-180m,
Hf-181, Hf-182;
73-Ta-180, Ta-181, Ta-182, Ta-182m, Ta-183;
74-W-180, W-181, W-182, W-183, W-183m, W-184, W-185, W-185m, W-186, W-187,
W-188, W-189;
75-Re-185, Re-186, Re-187, Re-188, Re-188m, Re-189;
76-Os-184, Os-185, Os-186, Os-187, Os-188, Os-189, Os-190, Os-190m, Os-191, Os-191m,
Os-192, Os-193, Os-194;
77-Ir-191, Ir-192, Ir-192m, Ir-193, Ir-194, Ir-194m;
78-Pt-190, Pt-191, Pt-192, Pt-193, Pt-193m, Pt-194, Pt-195, Pt-195m, Pt-196, Pt-197,
Pt-197m, Pt-198, Pt-199, Pt-199m;
79-Au-197, Au-198, Au-199, Au-200;
80-Hg-196, Hg-197, Hg-197m, Hg-198, Hg-199, Hg-199m, Hg-200, Hg-201, Hg-202,

Hg-203, Hg-204, Hg-205;
81-Tl-203, Tl-204, Tl-205, Tl-206;
82-Pb-204, Pb-205, Pb-206, Pb-207, Pb-208, Pb-209, Pb-210;
83-Bi-208, Bi-209, Bi-210, Bi-210m, Bi-211;

80 A.L. Nichols
84-Po-210, Po-211, Po-211m;
92-U-234, U-235, U-236, U-238, U-239;
93-Np-239;

Table 3: Actinides and heavy elements (129 nuclides) – representative listing for inventory
calculations
80-Hg-206;
81-Tl-206, Tl-206m, Tl-207, Tl-207m, Tl-208, Tl-209, Tl-210;
82-Pb-205, Pb-206, Pb-207, Pb-208, Pb-209, Pb-210, Pb-211, Pb-212, Pb-214;
83-Bi-209, Bi-210, Bi-210m, Bi-211, Bi-212, Bi-212m, Bi-212n, Bi-213, Bi-214, Bi-215;
84-Po-209, Po-210, Po-211, Po-211m, Po-212, Po-212m, Po-213, Po-214, Po-215, Po-216,
Po-218;
85-At-215, At-217, At-218, At-219;
86-Rn-217, Rn-218, Rn-219, Rn-220, Rn-222;
87-Fr-221, Fr-223;
88-Ra-223, Ra-224, Ra-225, Ra-226, Ra-228;
89-Ac-225, Ac-227, Ac-228;
90-Th-227, Th-228, Th-229, Th-230, Th-231, Th-232, Th-233, Th-234, Th-235;
91-Pa-231, Pa-232, Pa-233, Pa-234, Pa-234m, Pa-235;
92-U-232, U-233, U-234, U-235, U-235m, U-236, U-237, U-238, U-239, U-240;
93-Np-236, Np-236m, Np-237, Np-238, Np-239, Np-240, Np-240m, Np-241;
94-Pu-236, Pu-237, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241, Pu-242, Pu-243, Pu-244, Pu-245,
Pu-246;
95-Am-240, Am-241, Am-242, Am-242m, Am-243, Am-244, Am-244m, Am-245, Am-246,

Am-246m;
96-Cm-241, Cm-242, Cm-243, Cm-244, Cm-245, Cm-246, Cm-247, Cm-248, Cm-249,

Cm-250;
97-Bk-249, Bk-250;
98-Cf-249, Cf-250, Cf-251, Cf-252, Cf-253;
99-Es-253;

82 A.L. Nichols
3. DECAY HEAT CALCULATIONS: DATA UNCERTAINTIES
Nuclear data files are normally based on statistical analyses and evaluations of all
relevant measured data reported in the open literature. Unfortunately, there may be
omissions in the resulting data libraries that need to be filled to avoid serious impact
on the ability to undertake the desired calculations with confidence. Setting this
issue aside until Sections 4 and 5, some consideration is given below to data
uncertainties and the value of sensitivity studies in identifying the main parameters to
be improved in order to increase the accuracy and reliability of decay-heat
calculations.
3.1. Neutron Cross Sections
Uncertainties in the neutron-absorption cross sections of the fission products have

only a marginal effect on decay-heat predictions for cooling times < 104 sec.
Changes in decay heat at longer cooling times are dependent on the flux level and
irradiation time, and no simple estimate can be made of the uncertainty in decay heat
at these cooling times that arises from uncertainties in the cross-section data.
Nevertheless, the conservative assumption is normally made that the desired
accuracy of decay-heat calculations can be achieved with uncertainties in the cross
sections of 10-30% for the important capture products over long decay times (leading
up to 108 sec).
3.2. Fission Yields
There are extensive gaps in the charge distribution data for fission, and in the chain
yields for the more important fission reactions; there are also significant
discrepancies between chain-yield measurements. Many fission products of
importance in decay-heat calculations are short-lived, and their decay characteristics
are either poorly defined or entirely unknown because of the difficulties associated
with their direct study. Under such circumstances, sound theoretical extrapolation
procedures and modelling techniques have been adopted to generate comprehensive
fission-yield data sets, while various methods have been successfully explored to
derive beta-strength functions and use these approximations to estimate half-lives
and mean beta and gamma energies.
Isomeric states are normally low-lying metastable states (< 1 MeV) that occur when
the angular momentum differences between this nuclear level and all lower levels are
large. Electromagnetic transition probabilities are significantly reduced under such
circumstances, and the lifetimes of the states are long (i.e., metastable). The half-
lives of both the ground and metastable states can span many orders of magnitude
(~1015 sec) due to variations in the form of β - decay (end-point energies and beta-
strength functions). Over 150 of the fission products formed in the thermal-neutron
fission of 233U, 235U and 239Pu have known isomeric states with half-lives ≥ 0.1 sec.
These isomeric states play an important role in decay-energy release, since this time-
dependent phenomenon depends on the relative populations between the ground and
metastable states. Madland and England (1977) have developed a simple model to
calculate the independent yield branching ratios between the ground and metastable
states, and this approach has been extended by Rudstam et al (IAEA-CRP, 2000).
3.3. Decay Data
Most experimental measurements of nuclear structure and decay-scheme data focus

on the emission of discrete gamma-rays. This type of spectral measurement
dominates fission-product decay-scheme studies because of the difficulties and
scarcity of facilities throughout the world to measure the corresponding beta-
transition energies and emission probabilities accurately. However, the inability to
detect weak high-energy gamma-ray emissions satisfactorily has been noted by Hardy
et al (1977), and this problem impacts on the β - decay data calculated from such
measurements. A generalised assessment was made of a radionuclide with a complex
decay scheme (labelled “pandemonium”): approximately 20% of the gamma-ray
emissions above 1.7 MeV were estimated to remain undetected within the
background, and would be omitted from the proposed decay scheme. Under these
conditions, every complex β - decay scheme derived through gamma-ray studies must
be regarded with some doubt – the recommended β --decay scheme may be inaccurate
(Fig. 1), and might explain anomalies that sometimes occur between calculated and
measured decay heat.
Fig. 1. Effect of missing nuclear levels: loss of γ-ray energy release (Eiγ)
The β - decay of 87Br represents a good example of the problems faced by evaluators
of complex decay schemes (Reich, 1987). This nuclide has a half-life of 55.7 sec,
and an extremely thorough study by Raman et al (1983) has revealed the existence of
126 bound levels and 12 levels in the unbound region. Approximately 220 gamma
rays were detected in a series of singles and coincidence measurements, and β -
84 A.L. Nichols
emission probabilities were calculated from the measured gamma-ray intensities: 160
beta branches were defined, with evidence of broad resonance-like structure in the
overall beta-strength distribution. These measurements have resulted in significant
changes in the mean beta and gamma energies for this radionuclide. Unfortunately,
few short-lived fission products with such complex decay schemes are likely to be
studied in such a comprehensive manner. Many short-lived fission products are very
poorly characterised because their gamma-ray spectra have been incompletely
measured or remain undetermined; under these circumstances, theoretical models
have been adopted to calculate mean beta and gamma energies (and half-lives).
3.4. Sensitivity Studies
3.4.1. Fission products
Schmittroth (1976) studied the impact of the uncertainties in fission-product yields,

half-lives, decay energies and the assignment of isomeric states. Thermal-neutron
fission of 235U was considered in detail, and this assessment indicated that decay heat
can be calculated to an accuracy of 7% or better for cooling times > 10 sec. The
major sources of uncertainty at cooling times < 1000 sec arise from ill-defined decay
energies and fission-product charge distributions. This work was extended further by
Schmittroth and Schenter (1977) who undertook a sensitivity analysis of the
calculated decay heat associated with the thermal fission of 235U and the fast fission
of 238U and 239Pu. Both burst and 107 sec exposures were considered (Figs. 2 and 3).
Burst exposure 116-day exposure

TOTAL TOTAL
DECAY ENERGIES DECAY ENERGIES
FISSION YIELDS FISSION YIELDS
HALF-LIVES HALF-LIVES
Fig. 2. Total decay-heat uncertainties for thermal fission of 235U (Schmittroth and Schenter,
1977)
239
Fig. 3. Total decay-heat uncertainties for fast fission of Pu (Schmittroth and Schenter,
1977)
Schmittroth and Schenter were able to attribute the main sources of uncertainty in
decay-heat summation calculations to existing uncertainties in the fission-product
yields and decay energies. Uncertainties in fission-product half-lives were judged to
be relatively unimportant for most cooling times in decay-heat calculations. Overall,
decay energies were found to be the major source of decay-heat uncertainties,
especially for short cooling times (< 100 sec). These studies underline the sensitivity
of decay heat to the mean energies of decay; various efforts have been made to
improve these data by measurement and theoretical modelling, as outlined in Section
5.
A similar sensitivity analysis has been made of the uncertainties in decay heat when
using the nuclear data contained within the JEF-2.2 library (Storrer, 1994). The
calculated decay heat is dominated by radionuclides with well-defined decay
schemes for cooling times > 3 x 106 sec, while the largest contributions come from
poorly-defined nuclides for cooling times < 3 x 105 sec. Finally, at cooling times less
than ~10 sec, fission products based completely on theoretical data contribute
approximately 25% to the resulting decay heat.
Developments of the gross theory of beta decay form the main source of decay data
for poorly-defined radionuclides in the JNDC-FP and US ENDF/B-VI libraries (see
Sections 5.3 and 5.5). Oyamatsu et al (1997) have undertaken extensive studies of
the suitability of these data libraries in decay-heat calculations. Their sensitivity
analyses were extremely detailed, and highlighted a series of specific inadequacies.
86 A.L. Nichols
For example, Fig. 4 shows the variation in uncertainty of the total β +γ decay heat as
a function of cooling time, following the thermal-neutron fission of 235U:
(a) at short cooling times, the uncertainty in decay heat is dominated by

uncertainties in specific independent yields and decay constants, although there
is also a increasingly significant contribution from uncertainties in the decay
energies up to 1000 sec cooling time;
(b) particular peaks in the uncertainty profile contain significant contributions from
the uncertainties of specific parameters (see Table 4) – for example, peak 4
contains significant contributions from uncertainties in the decay energies of
93
Sr and 102Tc, and peak 7 is dominated by uncertainties in the independent
fission yields of 97,97mY.
These analyses are extremely informative for a wide range of fissioning nuclides, and
a further example is given in Fig. 5 and Table 5, for the fast fission of 238Pu.
Particular nuclear parameters appear regularly in the assessments (e.g., independent
yields of 97Sr and 97mY in peak 1, decay constant for 101Zr in peaks 1 and 2, decay
energies of 103Mo and 103Tc in peak 3, and cumulative yields for 102,102mNb in peak 4).
The main contributors to the decay-heat uncertainties are highlighted in the tables
with respect to each numbered peak, providing clear indications of the specific needs
for improved fission-product data.
3.4.2. Actinides
Actinide decay contributes a maximum of approximately 20-30% of the total decay

heat for a wide range of irradiation conditions up to cooling times of ~ 108 sec. (Fig.
6). The most significant contributions to actinide decay heat arise from 239U and
239
Np for cooling times < 106 sec, while the α decay of 238Pu, 241Am, 242Cm and 244Cm
become more important at much longer times (Fig. 7). Assuming a decay-heat
contribution of 30% by 239U and 239Np gives rise to a maximum uncertainty in the
total decay-heat predictions of 2% for uranium-based thermal reactors at cooling
times up to 106 sec. At longer cooling times, the actinide contribution to decay heat
is dominated by 242Cm, and the contribution to the overall uncertainty in decay heat
ranges from 0.5% to 6% over the cooling time 108 to 3 x 109 sec. Overall, there
would appear to be no serious problems associated with the actinides in decay-heat
calculations.
Fig. 4. Uncertainties in total decay heat for 235U(T) without taking correlation effects
into account
Table 4: Main parameters contributing to the uncertainties in

total decay heat for 235U(T)
88 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 5. Uncertainties in total decay heat for 238Pu(F) without taking correlation effects
into account
Table 5: Main parameters contributing to the uncertainties in total

decay heat for 238Pu(F)
Fig. 6. Percentage contribution of actinides to total decay heat from typical fuel of different
reactor systems
Fig. 7. Percentage contribution from individual actinides to total decay energy release rates
[5 MW/Te(U) end of life rating 30 GWd/Te(U)] for gas-cooled reactor fuel (AGR)
90 A.L. Nichols
3.4.3. Activation products
A few comments are merited concerning the impact of activation products on decay-
heat calculations for fission-based reactors. The radioactive decay of the activation
products generated from the structural materials of a thermal-reactor core represents
an extremely minor contribution to the resulting decay heat. This source is more
significant following shutdown of a fast reactor, with the formation of 22Na and 24Na
by activation of the sodium coolant, and 58Co and 60Co from the activation of the
nickel content of the steel structures in the reactor core:
58
Ni(n, p)58Co(n, γ)59Co(n, γ)60Co
Up to ~ 10% of the decay heat at 5 years cooling time arises primarily from 60Co.
However, the production cross sections and decay data of all the main contributors
are sufficiently well known that uncertainties in these parameters pose no problems
in summation calculations. Hence, the activation products will be considered no
further.
4. FISSION YIELDS
Complete fission product inventories need to be known as accurately as possible, and

yield distributions are required as input to the summation calculations of decay heat.
Emphasis is placed on the methods adopted to derive comprehensive yield data for
the various fission processes – this requirement involves a significant amount of
modelling, as discussed below. Ternary fission is only mentioned briefly, although
this particular process has been extensively studied to improve the fundamental
understanding of scission – the impact on decay heat of producing a third light
fragment (such as 3H and 4He) is negligible.
The fission process is complex, and different definitions of fission yield are used
(IAEA-CRP, 2000):
(a) Independent fission yield [Y(A, Z, I)] – number of atoms of a specific nuclide
formed directly in fission (excludes radioactive decay of precursors)
Y ( A, Z , I ) = Y ( A) × f ( A, Z ) × R( A, Z , I )
where Y(A) is the total sum of independent yields (before delayed-neutron

emission) of all fission products of mass number A,
f(A, Z) is the fractional independent yield of all isomers of A, Z,
R(A, Z, I) is the fraction of A, Z produced directly as isomer I (i.e., isomeric
yield ratio).
(b) Cumulative fission yield [Cu(A, Z, I)] – total number of atoms of a specific
nuclide that accumulate from fission, the decay of precursor(s), and via
delayed-neutron emission (but excluding neutron reactions on fission
products)
Cu ( A, Z , I ) = Y ( A, Z , I ) + ∑ b( A′, Z ′, I ′ → A, Z , I ) . Cu ( A′, Z ′, I ′)
A′, Z ′, I ′
The majority of fission products undergo β - and IT decay, and therefore

A′ = A . However, difficulties arise in the determination of Cu ( A, Z , I ) for β -
n decay, when A′ = A + 1 and Z ′ = Z − 1.
(c) Chain yield [Ch(A)] – sum of the cumulative yields of the last (stable or long-
lived) members of a chain.
(d) Mass yield – sum of all independent yields of a particular mass chain.
Although the sum of the independent yields cannot be determined in most measured
yield distributions, this parameter is important in the development of fission yield
systematics. The accepted procedure for recommending each yield set (combination
of fissionable nucleus and neutron energy) is to evaluate measured relative and
absolute independent and cumulative yields. These data are combined with
estimated yields (when no measurements are available), and the complete yield
distributions are adjusted by applying physical constraints (conservation of mass and
charge in fission). This method of evaluation produces comprehensive yield
distributions (Fig. 8).
92 A.L. Nichols
229
Fig. 8. Mass distribution curves in the thermal-neutron induced fission of Th,
233
U, 235U, and 239Pu
Until the mid-1970s, several fission yield evaluations had been undertaken on only a
limited number of yield sets. Crouch (1977), and Meek and Rider (1972, 1974 and
1978)/Rider (1981) produced their UK and US fission yield libraries in the late
1970s, and the Chinese began fission yield compilation and evaluation efforts in
1976. These files have been extended as the requirements for evaluated fission yield
data have increased dramatically in recent years:
• number of yield sets has increased significantly,
• addition of isomeric yields for decay heat calculations,
• energy dependence of fission yields to permit more accurate burn-up

calculations for fast reactor neutron spectra,
• development of new techniques for fission yield measurements (for

example, on-line mass spectrometry), and incorporation of these data in
new evaluations,
• models and calculation methods were developed to determine charge and

mass distributions and isomeric yield ratios for unmeasured yields.
Much of this work was reviewed in detail during the course of an IAEA Coordinated
Research Programme on the Compilation and Evaluation of Fission Yield Nuclear
Data (IAEA-CRP, 2000). Furthermore, these commendable studies have continued
under the auspices of another IAEA Coordinated Research Programme on Fission
Yield Data Required for Transmutation of Minor Actinide Nuclear Waste (1997 to
date).
4.1. Modelling
Various equations and model parameters have been derived from studies of the
systematic trends in measured yield distributions. Although these theoretical data are
not sufficiently reliable for applied purposes, they have been used to obtain
numerical values where no yields have been measured, or to check and adjust
experimental data to the expected distribution. Wahl (1987 and 1988) has carried out
a thorough evaluation of independent fission yields in order to obtain best values for
a set of empirical model parameters. These model parameters have been
subsequently used by fission-yield evaluators to calculate charge distributions and
estimate unmeasured yields.
4.1.1. Mass distribution
Mass distributions are normally obtained from measurements, but models can be
used to fill gaps that are too large for linear interpolation. A variable number of
94 A.L. Nichols
Gaussian functions can be used to represent the mass distributions of different fission
reactions and neutron energies, from Th to Es (Z = 90–99) and for excitation energies
< 20 MeV (e.g., Figs. 9 and 10). Thus, the sum of 2 to 5 Gaussian functions can be
fitted to the experimental chain yield data [Y(A)] of products from the fission of
these nuclei, using the method of least squares. The Gaussian functions can then be
characterised against mathematical functions of the atomic numbers (ZF), mass
numbers (AF), and excitation energies (E*) of the fissioning nuclei. Reciprocal
variance weighting is used in both types of calculation, and the resulting functions
provide a means of determining complete mass distributions for fissioning nuclei.
The central Gaussian curve is not needed to represent chain yields from spontaneous
fission reactions (SF), in agreement with experimental observations that show the
valley yields from spontaneous fission to be more than an order-of-magnitude less
than those from thermal-neutron induced fission reactions. Furthermore, one
Gaussian curve per peak can be adopted to represent the chain-yield data reasonably
well for both 14 MeV neutron-induced fission and thermal-neutron induced fission of
the heavier actinides (ZF > 94). Other modifications can be made to improve the
chain-yield representations: for example, fission of heavier actinides - modify the
peak Gaussian functions to include an exponential drop in Y(A) for AH < 130 and in
the complementary range for the light peak (these modified peak functions are then
renormalized to achieve a 200% sum for all yields).
Equations have also been developed to calculate the uncertainties in fission yields
obtained from these model estimates. Uncertainties in the calculated yields can be
estimated from the following empirical equation proposed for the percentage
uncertainty (PER):
PER = (25) exp{−0.25[lnY(A)]}
with an estimated range of uncertainty of Y(A)/(l + PER/100) to Y(A)(l + PER/100).
Most experimental chain yields fall within the estimated range of uncertainties,
implying that most of the calculated chain yields should be reliable.
Many of the measured chain yields have fine structure that cannot be fully
reproduced by summing smooth Gaussian functions (Figs. 9 and 10), although
complementary single Gaussian curves can represent the experimental data
reasonably well for high excitation energies and ZF > 94. Thus, an empirical multi-
Gaussian model has been successfully developed to calculate the chain yields [Y(A)]
of fission reactions, with a nuclear charge [ZF ] from 90 to 99 and excitation energy
E* ≤ 20 MeV. There are many other features of these mass distribution curves that
will not be considered in any further detail within this review.
Fig. 9. Various Gaussian curves fitted to mass distributions of fission processes: thermal-neutron
fission of 239Pu, 242mAm and 249Cf, and spontaneous fission of 252Cf
96 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 10. Various Gaussian curves fitted to mass distributions of fission processes:
thermal-neutron fission of 249Cf, and spontaneous fission of 252Cf
4.1.2. Nuclear-charge distribution
Nuclear-charge distributions describe the dispersion of yields with mass and atomic
numbers (A and Z) of ~1000 primary fission products from each of the many fission
reactions (yields are for the fission products after prompt-neutron emission and
before beta decay). However, only a small fraction of the yields have been
measured, and theoretical models are not sufficiently advanced to give reliable yield
estimates. Therefore, two empirical models have been proposed that include
mathematical functions derived from the available experimental data (Wahl, 1988).
While the ZP and A'P models give different perspectives on the nuclear-charge
distribution from fission, comparisons of the results have been helpful in improving
both models. The ZP model treats the dispersion of fractional independent yields [FI]
with Z for each A of primary fission products; the A'P model considers the dispersion
of independent yields [IN] with A' for each Z of primary fission products, where A' is
the average mass number of the precursor primary fragments that give products with
A by prompt-neutron emission (A' = A+ ν A ).
Experimental independent yields can be supplemented by yields calculated from the

ZP or A'P models for the fission reaction of interest, prior to dividing amongst the
isomeric states (Madland and England, 1977). The spins of the states need to be
defined for both treatments, and the isomeric cumulative yields can be calculated by
summation of the independent yields based on the spins and branching fractions to
the isomeric states.
(a) Zp model
The ZP model has been used for charge distribution calculations in the two major
fission yield evaluations (US ENDF/B-VI and UKFY2 (and UKFY3)). ZP-model
parameters are defined as FZ , FN , σ Z and ∆Z , and are either constant or linear
functions of A' in each of the regions considered (as shown in Fig. 11). Fractional
independent yields are expressed in terms of these parameters:
FI ( A, Z ) = (0.5) [ F ( A)] [ N ( A)] [erf (V ) − erf (W )]
Z ( A) − Z P ( A) + 0.5
where V =
2 [σ Z ( A')]
Z ( A) − Z p ( A) − 0.5
and W =
2 [σ Z ( A')]
in which Z p ( AH ) = A'H [ Z F / AF ] + ∆Z ( A'H )

10.Fig. 10 Various Gaussian curves fitted to mass distributions of fission processes:
thermal-neutron fission of 249Cf, and spontaneous fission of 252Cf
98 A.L. Nichols
and Z p ( AL ) = A'L [ Z F / AF ] − ∆Z ( A'Hc )
where ZF and AF are the atomic number and mass number of the fissioning
nuclide, AH and AL are the mass numbers for the heavy and light fission peaks
respectively, A'Hc = AF − A'L , and
for Z for N
F ( A) = [ FZ ( A′)][ FN ( A′)] even even
F ( A) = [ FZ ( A′) / [ FN ( A′)] even odd
F ( A) = [ FN ( A′)] / [ FZ ( A′)] odd even
1
F ( A) = odd odd
[ FZ ( A′)][ FN ( A′)]
F ( A) = 1.00 near symmetry
N(A) is the normalisation factor to achieve Σ(FI) = 1.00 for each A, which has to be
implemented because F(A) destroys the inherent normalisation of the Gaussian
distributions; values of N(A) seldom deviate by more than 10% from unity.
All of the parameters ∆Z ( A′), σ Z ( A′), FZ ( A′) and FN ( A′) depend on A′ , and the
region in which A′ falls. Apart from distributions close to symmetry, all of the
parameters are constant except ∆Ζ, which has a small negative slope (∆Ζ is the
displacement of ZP from an unchanged charge distribution):
∆Ζ = {ZP – A'[ZF /AF]}H = {A'[ZF /AF] − ZP}L
Near to symmetry, the width parameter [σz] changes abruptly twice to a lower value,
the even-odd proton and neutron factors [FZ and FN] equal 1.0, and the ∆Ζ function
undergoes a zig-zag transition from positive values for light fission products to
negative values for heavy fission products. The ZP model has been modified to
include parameter slopes vs. A' and slope changes in the wing regions.
Values of the ZP-model parameters have been determined for each of twelve fission
reactions (229Th thermal, 232Th fast, 233U thermal, 235U thermal, 238U fast, 238U 14
MeV neutrons, 238Np thermal, 239Pu thermal, 241Pu thermal, 242Am thermal, 249Cf
thermal, and 252Cf sf) by the method of least squares. However, all of the model
parameters can only be determined by this method for the thermal fission of 235U.
Other fission reactions require the following equation to estimate ZP-model
parameter values [PM]:
PM = P(1) + P(2)(ZF − 92) + P(3)(AF − 236) + P(4)(E* − 6.551)

Nuclear Data Requirements for Decay Heat Calculations
Fig. 11. Zp functions for thermal fission of 235U

Solid lines calculated by L.S., red. χ2 = 3.6(0.7)
99
Dashed lines from systematics, red. χ2 = 6.6(0.6)

100 A.L. Nichols
where E* is the excitation energy above the ground state of the fissioning nuclide.
P(i) values were calculated by the method of least squares from the PM values that
could be determined by least squares for individual fission reactions. Fig. 12 shows
the adopted parameter values as points and the derived functions as lines.
Checks have been made on the validity and usefulness of the ZP-model parameters
obtained from the PM calculations for each of the 12 fission reactions investigated.
The reduced χ2 values were within a factor of approximately 2 of those determined
by the method of least squares with variation of as many parameters as possible.
Further details of these studies can be found in IAEA-CRP (2000).
b) A'p model
Studies are underway to determine whether a simplified A'P model can be used with
only five Gaussian functions to represent the element yields, rather than the many
needed for the association of one model parameter with each element yield (IAEA-
CRP, 2000). Fig. 13 shows the results of calculations for the thermal-neutron fission
of 235U close to symmetry (Z = 42–50).
The data include independent yields for individual elements or for complementary
element pairs when the data are available from radiochemical and on-line mass-
separator measurements. Solid-black symbols represent 43Tc yields, while open
symbols represent the yields for heavy fission products. The Gaussian width
parameters [σ = σA'] are close to the average global parameter of 1.50 for 47Ag and
the 50Sn–42Mo pair. However, the values of σ are considerably larger for 48Cd and
43Tc-49In pair, implying that these radionuclides could be formed by more than one
process. The data for 48Cd and the 43Tc–49In pair can be represented better by two
Gaussian functions (symmetric and asymmetric), each with a σ value of 1.50 and
peak separation of about 4 A' (Fig. 14). Significant deviations occur for the curve of
the 43Tc–49In pair, underlining the need for a re-evaluation of these data.
4.1.3. Isomeric fission yields
The independent fission yields of isomeric states are important in the definition of
inventories for decay-heat calculations. However, these data are sparse for all fission
processes apart from the thermal fission of 235U. Modelling calculations are normally
used to derive values, based on the partition of the independent fission yields of
nuclides among their isomeric states using the spin distributions of the fission
fragments and nuclear levels as fitting parameters.
Fig. 12. Peak parameters for A'(140)

102 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 13. Thermal fission of 235U - A'p model near symmetry: single Gaussian curve
Fig. 14. Thermal fission of 235U - A'p model near symmetry: two Gaussian curves
104 A.L. Nichols
Madland and England (1977) assumed that the spin distribution of the fission
fragments after prompt-neutron emission could be represented by the equation:
P( J ) = C × (2 J + 1)e −[( J +1 / 2 ) / Jrms ] ,

2
in which Jrms defines the state of the spin distribution, and C is a constant. Fragments
with J nearer the spin of a particular isomer state are defined as feeding that state.
This model has been developed further by Rudstam and co-workers (IAEA-CRP,
2000): the probability that the spin will decrease by one unit is proportional to the
density of nuclear states of spin J-1, while the probability that the spin will increase
is proportional to the density of nuclear states of spin J+1. The ratio between the
number of nuclear states of spin J-1 and those of spin J+1 is given by Z(J):
(2 J − 1) ( 4 J + 2 ) / J nuc
2
Z (J ) = e
( 2 J + 3)
in which Jnuc is another spin parameter (defined effectively by the above equation).
This approach results in a relative probability of Z/(1+Z) to decrease the spin by one
unit, and a relative probability of 1/(1+Z) to increase the spin by one unit. Erroneous
results will occur when the isomeric state is at a much higher energy than the ground
state.
Equations have been derived to calculate the fractional independent isomeric yields
(fiiy), and they can be modified to accommodate reductions in the excitation energy
caused by the gamma-ray emissions. The available experimental data have been
compared with the calculated fiiy values, particularly for the thermal fission of 235U.
Various combinations of Jrms and Jnuc were adopted, and the best combinations were
found to be:
Jrms of 6.50, and Jnuc of 6.00 for odd-mass nuclides;
Jrms of 6.00, and Jnuc of 1.00 to 2.00 for even-mass nuclides.
A value of 6.25 has been adopted for Jrms, and values of 6.00 (odd mass) and 2.00
(even mass) for Jnuc in comparing the fiiy data for the high-spin isomers listed in
Table 6. Agreement between experimental and calculated values is judged to be
satisfactory, although some nuclides exhibit significant discrepancies (e.g., 82As,
99
Nb, 119Cd, 128Sb and 146La).
Table 6: Experimental and calculated fractional independent yields of the high-spin isomers
of nuclides formed in the thermal-fission of 235U
Nuclide fiiy(high) Nuclide fiiy(high)

experimental calculated experimental calculated
79 127
Ge 1.00 ± 0.11 0.829 In 0.87 ± 0.06 0.814
81 127
Ge 0.70 ± 0.06 0.835 Sn 0.90 ± 0.11 0.626
82 128
As 0.17 ± 0.07 0.597 In 0.30 ± 0.07 0.190
83 128
Se 0.89 ± 0.07 0.816 Sn 0.11 ± 0.07 0.209
84 128
Br 0.30 ± 0.04 0.504 Sb 0.61 ± 0.06 0.192
84 129
Br 0.38 ± 0.04 0.504 In 0.76 ± 0.07 0.815
90 129
Rb 0.58 ± 0.05 0.659 Sn 0.43 ± 0.06 0.621
90 130
Rb 0.90 ± 0.01 0.659 Sn 0.13 ± 0.02 0.212
99 130
Nb 0.06 ± 0.14 0.819 Sb 0.45 ± 0.11 0.190
113 132
Ag ~1.00 0.847 Sb 0.20 ± 0.02 0.190
115 132
Ag ~1.00 0.846 Sb 0.19 ± 0.03 0.190
116 133
Ag ~1.00 0.391 Te 0.78 ± 0.04 0.590
117 133
Ag ~1.00 0.848 Te 0.57 ± 0.04 0.590
118 133
Ag 0.44 ± 0.10 0.388 Te 0.61 ± 0.08 0.590
119 133
Cd 0.39 ± 0.20 0.724 I 0.07 ± 0.02 0.140
120 133
Ag 0.85 ± 0.15 0.382 Xe 0.75 ± 0.04 0.603
121 134
Cd 0.89 ± 0.11 0.730 Sb 0.19 ± 0.05 0.279
123 134
Cd 0.68 ± 0.02 0.614 I 0.20 ± 0.02 0.183
123 135
In 0.94 ± 0.11 0.817 Xe 0.65 ± 0.04 0.575
123 136
Sn 1.00 ± 0.28 0.627 I 0.79 ± 0.14 0.391
124 138
In 0.86 ± 0.80 0.215 Cs 0.58 ± 0.08 0.392
125 146
Cd 0.66 ± 0.08 0.614 La 0.06 ± 0.03 0.391
125 148
In 0.88 ± 0.08 0.813 Pr 0.12 ± 0.03 0.660
126 148
In 0.42 ± 0.17 0.215 Pm 0.71 ± 0.06 0.388
4.2. Evaluated Fission Yield Libraries
The fission-yield data sets in the most recent evaluations are listed in Table 7.
Thermal (T) yields cover all measurements at 0.025 eV, or in well-moderated
thermal reactor spectra. Fast (F) yields include all measurements in fast reactor
spectra (mean neutron energies of 150–500 keV) and fission neutron spectra (mean
energies around 1 MeV and above). H means neutron energies around 14–15 MeV,
while S stands for spontaneous fission.
Measurements of the energy dependence of fission yields are too scarce to derive
systematic trends and develop a semi-empirical model for obtaining reliable
predictions; many more systematic measurements are required before a reliable
model can be developed. Therefore, ‘thermal’, ‘fast’ and ‘high’ (around 14 MeV)
yields continue to be evaluated for data files and are used in applied calculations.
106 A.L. Nichols
(a) The US evaluation has increased from 10 to 60 yield sets, each yield set
consisting of cumulative and independent yields (total of about 132,000 yield values
and their uncertainties). Corrections have been applied, models have been used to
estimate unmeasured yields, and adjustments have been made to all yield sets in
ENDF-6 format (England and Rider, 1994).
(b) UKFY2 includes 39 yield sets (UKFY3 is in the process of being assembled, and
also contains 39 sets of cumulative and independent yields). Both UKFY2 and
UKFY3 are in ENDF-6 format (James et al, 1991a, 1991b and 1991c; Mills, 1995),
and have been adopted as the fission yield files for different versions of the NEA-
OECD Joint Evaluated File (NEA-OECD, 2000). A number of important short-lived
fission products are absent from the decay data files (with greater than 10% of the
yield in some mass chains of specific fissioning systems) – while assembling this
library for JEF-2.2, correction terms were applied to adjust the independent yields for
each mass, so that calculations gave the recommended chain yield values. An
improved method of calculation of the correction terms has subsequently been
developed for UKFY3, and decay-data evaluations have been undertaken for the
most significant missing fission products in order to avoid this problem.
(c) The Chinese fission yield file was released in 1987 as part of the CENDL library
(Wang Dao and Zhang Dongming, 1987); a new evaluation is in progress that will be
converted into ENDF-6 format.
Fission yields adopted in other applications files have been taken from these sources
(for example, the Japanese JENDL library and the French files have adopted US
ENDF/B-VI fission yields).
The facilitating role of a recent IAEA-CRP on the compilation and evaluation of

fission yield nuclear data should be noted and acknowledged (IAEA-CRP, 2000);
specific facets of this work are described below. Co-operation has been established
between internationally-respected fission yield experts, and resulted in considerable
improvements to the evaluation process (e.g., cleanup of data bases, analyses of
experimental data, model development, and evaluation procedures). A PC-based
program has also been written and made available through the Internet to calculate
mass yields, fractional independent and cumulative yields for 12 fission reactions
[YCALC (Gromes, Kling and Denschlag), based on the studies of Wahl, 1988; see
also IAEA-CRP, 2000]:
252
Cf(sf), 229Th(T), 233U(T), 235U(T), 238Np(T), 239Pu(T), 241Pu(T), 242Am(T),
249
Cf(T), 232Th(F), 238U(F) and 238U(H);
sf, T, F and H refer to spontaneous fission, thermal, fast and 14 MeV neutron-
induced fission, respectively. Results can be displayed and down-loaded in graphic
and tabulated forms via LINKS on the University of Mainz Website
http://www.kernchemie.uni-mainz.de
Empirical models are available for mass and charge distributions and for ternary
fission yields that allow the reliable derivation of fission yields for neutron energies
from thermal to 15 MeV. Computer programs have also been developed for the
introduction of correlations and covariance matrices in future fission yield
evaluations.
Table 7: Evaluated fission yield libraries, 2000

Fissioning US ENDF/B-VI UKFY2 (JEF-2.2) CENDL
Nuclide S T F H S T F H T F H
227
Th x
229
Th x
232
Th x x x x x
231
Pa x
232
U x
233
U x x x x x x x
234
U x x x
235
U x x x x x x x x x
236
U x x x
237
U x
238
U x x x x x x
237
Np x x x x x x
238
Np x x x
238
Pu x x x
239
Pu x x x x x x x
240
Pu x x x x
241
Pu x x x x x
242
Pu x x x x
241
Am x x x x x
242m
Am x x x
243
Am x x x
242
Cm x x
243
Cm x x x x
244
Cm x x x x x
245
Cm x x x
246
Cm x x
248
Cm x x
249
Cf x
250
Cf x
251
Cf x
252
Cf x x
253
Es x
254
Es x
254
Fm x
255
Fm x
256
Fm x
108 A.L. Nichols
5. DECAY DATA
5.1. Decay Parameters

Decay data are defined in this review as those parameters relating to the normal
radioactive decay modes of a nuclide, and include:
half-life,
total decay energies (Q-values) and branching fractions,
alpha-particle energies and emission probabilities,
beta-particle energies, emission probabilities, and transition types,
electron-capture (and positron) energies, transition probabilities, and
transition types,
gamma-ray energies, emission probabilities and internal conversion
coefficients,
Auger and conversion-electron energies and emission probabilities,
x-ray energies and emission probabilities,
characteristics of spontaneous fission (branching fraction(s) and recoil
energies, while setting aside the physics associated with the mass and
nuclear-charge distributions of the resulting fragments),
delayed-neutron energies and emission probabilities,
delayed-proton energies and emission probabilities.
Over recent years, more exotic modes of decay have been detected with increasing
regularity, specifically the emission of nuclear clusters (such as Ne and Mg nuclei
from 234U, and 30Mg nuclei from 236U) and double beta decay. These more complex
and low-probability entities are not addressed in this review, which focuses on α, β -
and gamma-ray decay. Electron capture (and positron) decay occurs when the
nucleus is neutron deficient, and is not normally observed in the decay of neutron-
rich fission-products and the actinides.
5.1.1. Half-life
Radioactive decay is largely insensitive to conditions outside the nucleus (although
not always so), and the resulting behaviour can be characterised by fixed modes of
decay, transition energies and probabilities. The number of atoms decaying per unit
time is the activity (A) given by the equation:
- dN
A = Nλ =
dt
where N is the number of atoms at time t, λ is the decay constant (probability that an
atom will decay in unit time), and dN is the number of spontaneous nuclear
transitions from that energy state in time interval dt. Activity is expressed in
Becquerels (Bq) in which 1 Bq is one disintegration per second (dps). Integration of
the above equation and substitution results in the expression:
N = N0e-λt
where N0 is the number of atoms at time t = 0. Each radionuclide has a characteristic

decay constant that is related to the half-life (t½), the time taken for the number of
original radionuclides to reduce by a factor of two:
ln 2
t½ =
λ
The half-life of a radionuclide is a primary parameter in any radioactive decay
process.
5.1.2. Decay Modes
Nuclides with high N/Z ratios are neutron rich, and undergo radioactive decay to
reduce this value by the emission of an electron (representing the conversion of a
neutron to a proton within the nucleus). Conversely, nuclides with low N/Z ratios
will decay by the emission of a positron (representing the conversion of a proton to a
neutron); electron capture decay is an alternative process to positron emission, in
which the unstable nucleus captures an orbiting electron to produce the same
daughter nuclide.
Alpha decay becomes a dominant process above Z = 80, with the emission of an
alpha particle (helium nucleus). Other relatively common modes of decay include
isomeric transition (gamma-ray decay from a well-defined energy state of a
radionuclide to a lower energy state in the same nuclide), spontaneous fission and
delayed-neutron emission.
(a) Beta Decay

The mass number remains unchanged, and the atomic number Z increases by one unit
when a radionuclide undergoes β - decay. An electron and an antineutrino are
emitted, as a neutron in the nucleus is transformed into a proton:
110 A.L. Nichols
n→ p+ β− + ν
A
Z X→ A
Z+1 Y +β− +ν
The maximum β-energy is represented by the equation:
E β − = Q − − El
max
where Q − is the overall disintegration energy, equal to the difference in atomic

masses between the ground states of the parent and daughter, and El is the energy
level to which the decay occurs. Similarly, β + decay is described by:
p → n + β + +ν
A
Z X → Y + β+ +ν
A
Z −1
and E β + = Q + − 2m0 c 2 − E l
max
where ν is a neutrino, Q + is the overall disintegration energy, and
2m0 c 2 = 1.021998 MeV
in which m0 is the mass of an electron at rest.
β + emission occurs when
Q + − Ei > 2m0 c 2
The β transition energy is shared between the electron (or positron) and antineutrino
(or neutrino), as a continuous distribution for the two particles extending from 0 up
to E β max
˙
(b) Alpha decay
A nucleus of atomic number Z and mass number A disintegrates by the emission of
an α particle to give a daughter nucleus with atomic number Z – 2 and mass number
A – 4:
A− 4
A
Z XN → Y
Z −2 N −2 + 24He2
The α disintegration energy can be represented by the equation:
Qα = Eα l + El + E rl
where Eα l is the energy of the emitted α particle, E l is the nuclear-level energy of

the daughter nuclide, and E rl is the recoil energy:
Mα
Erl = ( Qα − El )
M N + Mα
in which MN is the mass of the recoiling daughter nucleus, and Mα is the mass of the
α particle. The α particle is held within the nucleus by the Coulomb potential
barrier, and escapes from the nucleus by means of a tunnelling mechanism.
(c) Gamma transitions
A gamma transition occurs when a nucleus in an excited state de-excites to a lower
energy level, leading to the emission of a γ ray and conversion electron (and an
electron-positron pair when energy conditions permit). The gamma transition
probability is defined as:
PTP = Pγ + Pce + Pe±
where Pγ , Pce and Pe ± are the γ -ray, conversion-electron and electron-positron pair
emission probabilities, respectively.
The energy of the emitted γ-ray can be represented by the equation:
Eγ = (E i − Ef ) − Er
where Ei − E f is the energy difference between the initial and final levels of the
γ transition, and Er is the recoil energy of the nucleus in the final state:
(E )
γ
2
Er =
2 M N c2
where MN is the mass of the recoiling daughter nucleus. The recoil energy is
negligible, except for high γ energies and nuclei with low atomic number.
Gamma transitions can be classified in terms of multipole order, which is a function

of the orbital angular momentum and quantum number L carried by the photon: L =
0, monopole; L = 1, dipole; L = 2, quadrupole, etc… If Ji and Jf are the total angular
momenta quantum numbers of the initial and final levels connected by the γ
transition, the vectorial relationship between the angular momenta is given by the
formulation:
112 A.L. Nichols
Ji − J f ≤ L ≤ Ji + J f
Moreover, the angular momentum carried off by the photon cannot be zero, and
consequently a 0 → 0 transition cannot occur except by internal conversion or
internal-pair creation.
Gamma transitions are divided into electric and magnetic radiations:

electric radiation (emitted by the oscillation of electrical charges), with a
parity change of (-1)L;
magnetic radiation (caused by the magnetic moment of the nucleus), with a
parity change of (-1)(L+1).
A gamma transition can be a mixture of two (or sometimes three) multipole
transitions. Two transitions in competition will have multipole order 2L and 2L+1, one
electric and the other magnetic (e.g., mixture of M1 + E2).
The de-excitation energy of the nucleus can also be transferred directly to an electron
(K, L, M..) which is ejected from the atom in preference to a gamma-ray emission:
E ceX = Eγ − E x
where E x is the binding energy of the electron in the X shell.

The internal conversion coefficient of the electron in the K shell is defined as:
PceK
αK =
Pγ
where Pce K and Pγ are the K conversion-electron and γ-ray emission probabilities,
respectively; similar terms are also defined for the L, M, N … shells.
The total conversion coefficient is:
Pce
αtotal = αK + αL + αM + … =
Pγ
where Pce is the total conversion-electron emission probability of the related

transition.
5.2. Decay Data Requirements
Decay-data requirements for decay-heat calculations are parametrically limited to

half-lives (through the decay constants, λi (t½ = ln2/λ)) and the mean alpha, beta and
gamma energy releases per disintegration of the nuclides ( E α , E β and E γ ) .
Ideally, the mean energies are systematically determined from the discrete alpha, beta
and gamma transitions and other relevant emissions, which extends the decay-data
needs dramatically.
(a) The mean alpha energy is the mean energy of all heavy particles (alpha particles,
recoil nuclei, protons, neutrons, and spontaneous fission fragments):
all α all recoil all protons all neutrons fission frag

Eα = ∑ i
E α i Pα i + ∑ j
E Rj PR j + ∑k
E p k Pp k + ∑ l
E nl Pnl + ∑E
m
Fm PFm
where E α i , E R j , E pk , E nl and E Fm are the mean alpha, recoil nucleus, proton,

neutron and fission fragment energies of the ith, jth, kth, lth and mth component of
each type respectively, and Pα i , PR j , Ppk , Pnl and PFm are the corresponding
absolute emission probabilities per disintegration.
(b) The mean beta energy is the mean energy of all electron emissions:
all β − all β + all Auger all conversion

Eβ = ∑ i
E βi− Pβ − +
i
∑ j
E β +j Pβ + +
j
∑ k
E A k PA k + ∑E l
ce l Pce
l
where E β i− , E β +j , E Ak , and E cel are the mean negatron, positron, Auger

electron and conversion-electron energies of the ith, jth, kth and lth transition of
each type respectively, and Pβ − , Pβ + , PAk and Pcel are the corresponding
i j
absolute emission probabilities per disintegration.
(c) The mean gamma energy includes all the electromagnetic radiation such as
gamma rays, x-rays, annihilation radiation and bremsstrahlung:
all γ all X − rays all β + all β + β −

Eγ = ∑ i
E γ i Pγ i + ∑ j
E X j PX j + ∑k
1.022 Pβ + +
k
∑Eβ P
l
l βl
where E γ i and E X j are the mean gamma and x-ray energies of the ith and jth
transition of each type respectively, and Pγ i and PX j are the corresponding
114 A.L. Nichols
emission probabilities per disintegration; E βl is the mean internal

bremsstrahlung energy of the lth beta transition with absolute emission
probability Pβl , and Pβ + is the absolute emission probability of positron
k
transition k.
Data files containing these nuclear parameters have been assembled over many years
to assist analysts and spectroscopists to identify and quantify radionuclides. As the
emissions from nuclides have been characterised in greater detail and their decay-
scheme data defined with increased confidence, extended libraries of nuclear data
have been compiled in agreed formats for use by the nuclear industry. These
libraries are also used in decay-heat calculations, and are updated at regular intervals
through either international consensus, or more localised efforts based on specific
national needs.
The contents of a decay-data library need to be complete and consistent in order to

model decay heat with confidence. The normal procedure would be to evaluate and
prepare individual files of decay data that have been internally tested for consistency
between the various decay-scheme parameters (i.e., α, β and γ transitions), and to
validate the complete library against benchmark experiments.
Evaluated decay-data libraries are used for many different purposes, as well as
decay-heat calculations. Files of discrete decay data can aid in the measurement and
quantification of the radionuclidic composition of a sample, and provide
spectroscopists with the necessary high-quality standards data for detector efficiency
calibration. Ideally, a comprehensive set of such data files should encompass all of
the important fission products, actinides and their decay-chain nuclides, and provide
the user with the necessary half-lives, mean energies and isomeric branching ratios to
carry out decay-heat calculations with confidence. Unfortunately, this requirement
cannot be realised because of the difficulty of measuring comprehensively the
discrete data for the many short-lived fission products, along with the added
complications that occur when studying some of the more complex decay schemes
(pandemonium (Hardy et al, 1977)).
5.3. Modelling β - Decay
A serious lack of suitable decay data for many of the short-lived fission products has
necessitated the adoption of theoretical half-lives and mean energies, based on a
number of modelling methods that focus on the derivation of beta-strength functions.
These models are outlined below.
(a) Gross theory: smooth beta-strength functions
The gross theory of β - decay has been used by Takahashi et al (1973) to predict beta-
strength functions, and calculate the half-lives and other relevant decay parameters
averaged over the final daughter states. The decay constant and average beta and
gamma energies per disintegration can be expressed in terms of the sum of each
partial decay to the ith final state of energy εi:
n
λ = ∑ λi ,
i =0
n
λi
Eβ = ∑ i =0 λ
(Q − ε i ) Ci ,
n
λi
Eγ = ∑i =0 λ
εi ,
in which Ci is the ratio of the average kinetic energy of the beta emission to the ith
state to the maximum kinetic energy of the beta decay (Q – εi).
The equation for λ can be reformulated to include the beta-transition matrix element
(ψi, Ωψ):
1 n
∑∑
g Ω . (ψ i , Ωψ ) f (Ei ) ,
2
λ=
2
2π i =0 Ω
3
where f is the integrated Fermi function, and Ei is the maximum energy available for
the emitted electron; Ω represents the transition operator, and gΩ is the coupling
constant. A major assumption in the evolution of the gross theory is that the density
of the final levels is sufficiently high to replace this summation with an integration
function:
0
λ=
1
∫∑ g Ω
2
. M Ω Eg ( ) 2
( )
f − E g + 1 dE g ,
2π 3
−Q Ω
in which |MΩ(Eg)|2 is the product of the square of the transition matrix and the level
density of the final states (also referred to as the beta-strength function, and
sometimes denoted by the term Sβ(E)). Similar manipulations can lead to gross
theory expressions for the mean beta and gamma energies:
0 − E g +1
Eβ =
1
∫∑ gΩ 2
. M Ω Eg ( ) 2
∫ mc
2
(
( E − 1) p E − E g + 1 − E ) 2
F ( E ) dE dE g ,
2π 3 λ −Q Ω 1
0 − E g +1
Eγ =
1
∫∑ gΩ 2
. M Ω Eg ( ) 2
(
mc 2 Q + E g ) ∫ p E (− E +1− E ) 2
F ( E ) dE dE g ,
2π 3 λ
g
−Q Ω 1
116 A.L. Nichols
where F is the Fermi function, and p is the momentum of the electron. The beta-
strength function is assumed to be smooth in this model; any structural features are
deemed to be unimportant in deriving half-lives and mean energies.
The gross theory has been systematically applied to calculate β - decay half-lives, and
these data compared with known experimental values (Table 8). Half-lives were
predicted within a factor of 5 for 70% of 100 fission products with half-lives less
than 1 min, and within a factor of 10 for 90% of the same set of fission products
(Yoshida, 1977). Good agreement was also obtained for the mean beta and gamma
energies, although the theory failed to predict these decay parameters for 82As and
92
Rb (odd-odd nuclei).
Table 8: Mean beta-particle and gamma-ray energies for nuclides with Q > 4.5 MeV:
comparison of gross theory calculations with evaluated measurements (Yoshida,
1977)
Nuclide Mean beta-particle energy (MeV) Mean gamma-ray energy (MeV) Half-life
UK US Gross UK US Gross (sec)
evaluation evaluation theory evaluation evaluation theory
(1973) (1975) (1973) (1975)
74
Ga 1.072 1.070 1.350 3.043 3.040 2.471 500
76
Ga 1.675 1.680 1.832 2.808 2.810 2.136 27
80
As 2.468 2.523 2.584 0.554 0.606 0.347 17
82
As 3.137 3.211 1.888 0.336 0.288 2.909 23
86
Br 1.765 1.775 1.946 3.296 3.318 2.936 59
87
Br 2.087 2.136 1.757 1.727 1.726 2.387 56
88
Rb 2.000 2.083 1.156 0.677 0.674 2.463 1100
90
Rb 1.789 1.659 1.673 2.560 2.660 2.814 150
91
Rb 1.320 1.334 1.533 2.871 2.733 2.533 59
92
Rb 3.714 3.459 2.526 0.260 0.261 2.696 4.5
94
Y 1.193 1.717 1.039 1.043 0.986 2.417 1100
95
Y 1.713 1.745 0.968 0.523 0.488 2.111 650
97
Y 1.612 2.162 2.294 0.935 0.935 1.055 1.1
99
Zr 1.586 1.621 1.651 0.794 0.794 0.719 2.4
Yoshida and Nakasima (1981) have used the gross theory to determine mean beta and
gamma energies for fission products that undergo high-energy β - decay.
Approximately 170 radionuclides with known half-lives and decay schemes were
assessed in this manner (Q-values ≥ 3 MeV), and the calculated mean energies were
compared with available experimental data. There was a reasonable degree of
overlap between theory and experiment for the mean beta energy data, but the mean
gamma energies exhibited much less satisfactory agreement. This same approach
was also adopted for a significant number of poorly-defined nuclides:
(i) measured half-lives, but unknown decay schemes;

(ii) unknown half-lives and decay schemes (as defined in 1980).
Nuclides in category (i) include some radionuclides that contribute significantly to

decay heat at short cooling times (e.g., 89Br, 94Rb, 101Nb, 102Zr, 102Nb, 103Mo, 145Ba
and 145La). Yoshida and Katakura (1986) combined a cascade gamma transition
model with the gross theory of beta decay in a further attempt to improve predictions
of the mean gamma energy data for short-lived fission products.
When all of the theoretical decay data were incorporated into decay-heat
assessments, good agreement was observed between experiments and calculation
(Figs. 15 and 16). Decay-heat measurements of Dickens et al (1980) have been
compared with summation calculations in which theoretical mean energies were
included. The original JNDC-FP decay-data library overestimated
Fig. 15. Beta energy emission rate after instantaneous pulse of thermal-neutron fission of 235U
118 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 16. Photon energy emission rate after instantaneous pulse of thermal-neutron fission of
235
U
the beta energy release and underestimated the gamma energy release; when the
theoretical data were introduced, the decay-heat calculations reproduced the
measurements extremely well.
Tachibana et al (1990) extended the gross theory by modifying the one-particle

strength function and introducing the ∆Q0 term. When the Q-value is relatively
small, the β - decay is sensitive to the forbiddenness of the transitions to the low-lying
states, and the ∆Q0 term was used to modify the resulting strength functions of these
nuclides (and others). Nakata et al (1995) have also refined the gross theory further
for odd-odd nuclei, taking into account the selection rule for the beta transition to the
ground state. This refined approach gives half-lives in better agreement with the
experimental data than the values obtained by the unmodified gross theory (except
for parents with a spin and parity of 1-). Furthermore, Nakata et al (1997) have taken
the shell effects of the parent nuclei into consideration to produce the semi-gross
theory of β - decay; the one-particle strength functions are dependent on the principal
quantum numbers and spin-parity of the initial state of the decaying nuclide. This
modification also involves raising the beta strengths to a level defined by the ∆Q0
term (subsequently referred to as Q00) when the transitions to low-lying levels are
highly forbidden.
Yoshida and Tachibana (2000) adopted the concept of Q00 to reproduce experimental
half-lives:
 0.25 MeV for even − even parent


Q00 =  1.0 MeV for odd − A parent
 1.75 MeV for odd − odd parent

in which these Q00-values were subsequently multiplied by a parameter that depends

on the even/odd properties of each nuclide to give the Q00-factor. The ratio between
the calculated and experimental half-lives is given in Fig. 17 on a logarithmic scale;
the best agreement is observed when the Q00-factor is unity. Similar analyses of the
beta and gamma decay components indicate that a Q00-factor of approximately 0.4 is
most appropriate for the calculation of the mean beta and gamma energies (Figs. 18
and 19).
(b) Structural beta-strength functions
Klapdor (1983) has argued that the neglect of any structure within beta-strength
functions is an oversimplification that is inconsistent with experimental observations.
Structure is found at high-level densities, and can significantly affect the half-lives
and branching ratios of β --delayed processes. Klapdor and Metzinger (1982a and
1982b) included this structure when determining the electron and antineutrino
spectra generated after the fission process. Their method involved microscopic
calculations of Sβ(E) for all fission products:
S β ( E ) dE = ∑ Bi ( Ei ) dE / D
i
where B(E) is the reduced beta transition probability to a state at excitation energy Ei
in the daughter nucleus, and D is the vector coupling constant. However, a major
source of uncertainty in the calculation of the electron and antineutrino spectra is the
effect the fission products with unknown or poorly-defined decay schemes will have
on the shape of the beta-strength function.
120 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 17. Ratios of the half-lives between gross theory calculations and experimental
results (Yoshida and Tachibana, 2000)
Fig. 18. Calculated β-and γ-ray components of 235U decay heat compared with
experiments at very short cooling times (Yoshida and Tachibana, 2000)
122 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 19. Calculated β- and γ-ray components of 238U decay heat compared with
experiments at very short cooling times (Yoshida and Tachibana, 2000)
Despite a lack of reliable decay-scheme data for a significant number of fission-

product nuclides, β --spectra have been calculated by Davis et al (1979), Avignone
and Greenwood (1980), Kopeykin (1980) and Vogel et al (1981) on the assumption
that the resulting beta-strength function is smooth. These particular calculations do
not reproduce the precise β-spectrum measurements of the fission products from 235U
fission (Schreckenbach et al, 1981). Klapdor and Metzinger (1982b) undertook a
microscopic analysis of Sβ(E) for all fission products with unknown and uncertain
decay schemes: considerable improvement was obtained against the measurements,
with a deviation from experiments of less than 4%. Figs. 20 and 21 compare the
electron and antineutrino spectra obtained from the various methods of calculating
Sβ(E), normalised against the equivalent measurements of Schreckenbach et al
(1981); calculation/experiment ratio (C/E = R) for method 4 (i.e., Klapdor and
Metzinger, 1982b) is much closer to unity over the full energy range. Table 9 lists
the different sets of data as a function of electron and antineutrino energy. Studies
have also been made of the thermal fission of 239Pu, with similar results (Klapdor and
Metzinger, 1982a).
Further microscopic modelling studies by Hirsch et al (1992) have resulted in the

successful use of the proton-neutron quasiparticle random phase approximation (pn-
QRPA) to calculate the beta-strength functions. Single particle energies are
calculated, taking into account nuclear deformation and pairing interaction;
subsequent RPA calculations include proton-neutron residual interactions. The
resulting theoretical half-lives and mean beta and gamma energies are in good
agreement with experimental measurements across the full range of Z, and these data
have been adopted to extend the range of radionuclidic coverage of a number of
decay-data libraries.
(c) Simplified statistical definition
Mann et al (1982) have advocated that accurate predictions can be made of β-decay
properties using a statistical model with only one free parameter (implying that any
intrinsic structure is not important). The beta-strength function for a transition to a
daughter level at energy E via a multipole λ is given by the equation:
S βλ ( E ) dE = ∑π ρ ( E, J , π ) β λ ( E ) dE / D
J,
where ρ(E,J,π) is the density of levels with spin J and parity π at excitation energy E,
β λ is the average reduced transition probability per level for moment λ in the interval
(E, E+dE), and D is the vector coupling constant.
The half-life can be expressed by the following equation:

Qβ
t1
2
= 1/ ∑λ ∫ S βλ ( E ) f λ (Z , Qβ − E ) dE
0
where f contains the kinematic factors and Fermi function. Similar integrals can be
derived for the mean beta and gamma energies. Energy-dependent β λ values were
found for all of the allowed transitions in the β-decay of the fission products (log ft
values of 4.3 to 5.6), while β λ corresponded to log ft of 7.1 for first forbidden
transitions. Beta rates were calculated by multiplying the level density parameter by
N/(N+Z), where N is the number of neutrons and Z is the number of protons in the
daughter nucleus; this factor represents the only free global parameter in this model.
124 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 20. Electron spectrum from thermal fission of 235U

(Klapdor, 1983) R is ratio C/E:
1 Sβ(E) Avignone and Greenwood (1980)
2 Sβ(E) Kopeykin (1980)
3 Sβ(E) Vogel et al (1981)
4 Sβ(E) Klapdor and Metzinger (1982b)
Fig. 21. Antineutrino from thermal fission of 235U

(Klapdor and Metzinger, 1982b) R is ratio C/E:
1 Sβ(E) Avignone and Greenwood (1980)
2 Sβ((E) Kopeykin (1980)
3 Sβ((E) Vogel et al (1981)
4 Sβ((E) Klapdor and Metzinger (1982b)
Table 9: Calculated electron and antineutrino spectra from the thermal fission of 235U in
secular equilibrium compared with measurements of Schreckenbach et al, 1981
(Klapdor and Metzinger, 1982b; Klapdor, 1983).
Nβ (per fission per MeV)
Ekin Experiment, Davis et Avignone Kopeykin Vogel et al Klapdor and
(MeV) Schreckenbach al (1979)b and (1980)c (1981)c Metzinger
et al (1981)a Greenwood (1982b)c
(1980)c
1.00 1.91 1.92 - - 2.01 1.98
1.50 1.31 1.28 1.31 1.37 1.35 1.36
2.00 0.88 0.867 - 0.925 0.880 0.923
2.50 0.587 0.595 0.689 - 0.586 0.612
3.00 0.399 - - 0.449 0.396 0.400
3.50 0.252 0.256 0.303 - 0.265 0.253
4.00 0.154 - - 0.178 0.172 0.155
4.50 0.091 0.0946 0.119 - 0.108 0.0925
5.00 0.0550 - - 0.0659 0.0655 0.0561
5.50 0.0314 0.0318 0.0424 - 0.0369 0.0321
6.00 0.0172 - - 0.0221 0.0192 0.0175
6.50 0.0088 0.00904 0.0121 - 0.00966 0.00909
7.00 0.00380 - - 0.00652 0.00468 0.00389
7.50 0.00132 0.00171 0.0027 - 0.00205 0.00132
8.00 0.000260 - - 0.00147 - 0.000296
8.50 0.000043 - 0.000482 - - 0.000131
9.00 < 0.000030 - - 0.000242 - 0.0000365
N ν (per fission per MeV)
Ekin Deduced from Davis Avignone Kopeykin Vogel et al Klapdor and
(MeV) experiment, et al and (1980)c (1981)c Metzinger
Schreckenbach (1979)b Greenwood (1982b)c
et al (1981)a (1980)c
1.00 - 2.38 2.12 - 2.44 2.36
1.50 - 1.65 1.62 1.70 1.73 1.71
2.00 1.18 1.21 1.35 1.35 1.28 1.31
2.50 0.86 0.842 1.04 - 0.860 0.888
3.00 0.60 0.595 0.769 0.669 0.580 0.613
3.50 0.406 - 0.526 - 0.410 0.412
4.00 0.265 0.273 0.349 0.321 0.282 0.268
4.50 0.163 - 0.212 - 0.181 0.160
5.00 0.099 0.103 0.139 0.121 0.118 0.0970
5.50 0.060 - 0.0857 - 0.0720 0.0596
6.00 0.0345 0.0350 0.0493 0.0442 0.0408 0.0346
6.50 0.0192 - 0.0287 - 0.0195 0.0189
7.00 0.0099 0.0101 0.0150 0.0141 0.0104 0.0100
7.50 0.00432 - 0.00693 - 0.00506 0.00399
8.00 - 0.00187 0.00310 0.00400 0.00204 0.00131
8.50 - - - - - 0.000312
9.00 - - - - - 0.000141
a
Exposure time of 1.5 d.
b
Exposure time of 3 y.
c
Infinite exposure time.
126 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 22 shows the experimental data compared with the predicted half-lives of a
series of Rb nuclides:
(i) calculated by gross theory (Takahashi et al, 1973);

(ii) determined on the basis of the microscopic structure of the beta-
strength function (Klapdor, 1983);
(iii) from statistical analysis (Mann et al, 1982).
The simple statistical method can be seen to generate data in closer agreement with
the measurements than the more rigorous theoretical approaches.
Fig. 22. Half-lives of Rb nuclides (Mann et al, 1982)
5.4. Spectral Measurements of Short-lived Fission Products
(a) Continuous beta and gamma spectra
The detailed decay data required to construct a complex decay scheme that is correct,
and the difficulties experienced in obtaining the discrete decay data of short-lived
fission products represent considerable challenges when producing decay-data files
for decay-heat summation calculations. However, the OSIRIS and ISOLDE facilities
have been used in tandem to address the problem of recommending adequate decay
data for such nuclides (Rudstam et al, 1990). Radionuclides of interest with high β --
decay rates and sufficiently significant fission yields have been studied, focusing on
nuclides with half-lives in the range from a fraction of a second to 1 hour.
The gamma-ray measurements were carried out by means of a low-resolution

detection system (NaI(Tl)) and a high-resolution Ge(Li) detector. Mass-separated
beams from OSIRIS impinged on an aluminised Mylar tape located directly in front
of the NaI(Tl) spectrometer, which was well characterised up to an energy of 4.5
MeV (an extrapolation process was adopted for higher energies, although there is
considerable doubt about the accuracy of this approach). These samples could also
be monitored by the Ge(Li) detector. A large range of fission products was
simultaneously released from the target-ion source, and the resulting mass-separated
beam contained several isobars (also non-isobaric nuclides formed through the
delayed-neutron emission from isobar components).
The cyclic procedure involved a background measurement, sample collection,

waiting period, and sample measurement in a chosen manner that allowed a
particular component to be favourably studied and quantified. This process was
repeated several hundred times for each nuclide of interest in order to generate good
statistics.
The number of decays of each fission-product nuclide was determined by means of

the Ge(Li) detector, using the most prominent gamma rays. Pulse spectra measured
by the NaI(Tl) detector can be defined by the following equation:
N kj = ∑D
i
ki Pij
where Nkj is the number of counts in energy channel j for experiment k, Dki is the
number of decays of component i during experiment k, and Pij is the pulse spectrum
of component i. This equation is a linear combination of contributions from
components i for each channel j. Hence, with k equations, Pij can be solved exactly
for k = i, and can be determined by the least squares method for k > i. Individual
pulse spectra (Pij) can be converted to gamma-ray spectra from the response function
of the spectrometer. Integration produces the mean gamma energy per decay, and the
mean number of gamma rays per decay. The overall uncertainties are quantified in
terms of three components: statistics (number of counts), uncertainties in the absolute
branching ratios (sometimes large), and the absolute calibration of the two
spectrometers.
Beta spectra were measured in a similar manner on the OSIRIS and ISOLDE
facilities, using high-purity Ge and Si(Li) detectors. Both sets of spectra can be used
to check the validity of the recommended decay schemes constructed from detailed
gamma-ray measurements. Examples are given in Figs. 23 - 25 of a number of
important fission-product nuclides that have complex decay schemes. Whenever
possible, the gamma-ray data have been compared with equivalent decay data from
the ENSDF files (see Section 5.5.1); the regular “shortfall” of the ENSDF solid line
in many of the figures demonstrates the inadequacies in these discrete decay-data
128 A.L. Nichols
files (particularly with respect to high-energy gamma rays). This observation

underlines the assessment of Hardy et al (1977) concerning the incomplete nature of
complex decay schemes derived from gamma-ray measurements (pandemonium).
Rudstam et al (1990) and Johansson et al (1994) have generated an extremely
important set of mean-energy data for fission-product nuclides that contribute ~70%
of the beta decay heat for short irradiations, and between 60% and 25% for long
irradiations followed by cooling times of 0 to 1000 sec. These radionuclides have a
similar impact as major contributors to the gamma decay heat at short cooling times.
Examples of the resulting data for a limited set of these nuclides are given in Table
10. The mean beta and gamma data for over 100 nuclides determined by this method
have been incorporated into many of the decay-data files used for decay-heat
calculations in order to address the problem of recommending suitable data for those
nuclides with high-energy β - decay and incomplete decay schemes. Such gross
adjustments to the mean energies may result in the creation of inconsistencies with
the discrete spectral data.
The OSIRIS on-line mass separator has also been used to prepare sources of short-
lived fission products for the measurement of their half-lives and delayed-neutron
branching fractions by means of a neutron counter and beta detector (Rudstam et al,
1993). Over 60 radionuclides in the mass range 70 to 150 have been studied, and the
branching fractions for a significant number of these nuclides were reported for the
first time. Improved half-lives were determined for many of these radionuclides,
including 84Ge, 84As, 85As, 86As, 87As, 133Sn, 134Sn, 135Sb, 136Sb, 137Te, 138I, 147Ba, 148Cs,
148
La and 150La.
87
Fig. 23. Beta and gamma spectra of short-lived fission product Br (Rudstam et al, 1990)
Fig. 24. Beta and gamma spectra of short-lived fission product 88Br (Rudstam et
al, 1990)
Fig. 25. Beta and gamma spectra of short-lived fission product 94Rb (Rudstam et al,
1990)
130 A.L. Nichols
Table 10: Mean beta, gamma and antineutino energies compared with known Qβ-values
(Rudstam et al, 1990)
Nuclide Mean Eγ Mean Eβ Mean Eν Neutron Sum Qβ

(keV) (keV) (keV) (keV) (keV) (keV)a
85
As 920(280) 2600(140) 3140(220) 3210(580) 9870(690) 8910(410)
87
Br 3560(130) 1410(10) 1820(50) 153(1) 6940(140) 6830(120)
88
Br 4290(180) 1680(10) 2120(50) 460(4) 8550(190) 8970(130)
89
Br 3220(260) 2180(40) 2680(140) 720(17) 8800(300) 8300(400)
90
Br - 2500(50) 3030(50) - - 10700(400)
93
Rb 1920(100) 2630(30) 3140(60) 76(1) 7690(120) 7443(13)
94
Rb 4120(250) 2830(70) 3370(160) 718(4) 11040(320) 10307(27)
95
Rb 3370(220) 2850(150) 3300(180) 383(6) 9900(320) 9280(60)
98
Y 870(90) 2540(80) 3080(170) 16(1) 6510(210) 8890(70)
99
Y 1340(150) 2480(70) 3030(130) 94(2) 6950(210) 7610(80)
135
Sb 1600(200) 2290(60) 2900(110) 578(35) 7370(230) 7540(220)
137
I 1230(150) 2050(40) 2620(30) 309(2) 6210(160) 5880(80)
138
I 1560(90) 2510(40) 3150(40) 332(4) 7550(100) 7820(70)
139
I 1400(150) 2430(40) 3040(60) 340(13) 7210(170) 6820(100)
a
Qβ values from Firestone et al (1996), ENSDF (NNDC, 1987), and earlier versions of these two
sources of data.
Uncertainties are given in parentheses (for example, 920(280) means 920 ± 280)
(b) Total absorption gamma-ray spectrometry
Greenwood and co-workers have developed total absorption gamma-ray spectrometry

(TAGS) in order to determine the intensity distributions of a wide range of β --
emitting radionuclides (Greenwood et al, 1994; Helmer et al, 1994; Greenwood et al,
1996; Greenwood et al, 1997). The TAGS system consists of a NaI(Tl) detector with
a deep axial counting well to allow almost complete summing of the gamma-ray
cascades from the source. A Si detector is also located in the well so that β --particle-
gated coincidence gamma rays can be measured in addition to singles gamma-ray
spectra. Spontaneous fission of 252Cf generated the fission-product radionuclides,
and a He gas-jet transported these nuclides to a mass separator. The selected fission-
product mass fraction was collected on a tape for a pre-set time, before moving to the
Si detector in the well of the TAGS system. Although only relative β --intensity
distributions are obtained from the TAGS gamma-ray cascade-summed spectral data,
the detector system can be used in 4πγ-β - coincidence mode to obtain the β --
branching intensity to the ground state; the measurement of this key parameter
provides a simple means of converting the relative β --intensity distributions to
absolute values.
The resulting singles spectra were compared with simulated spectra derived from the
evaluated decay data to be found in Nuclear Data Sheets (Bhat, 1992): examples are
shown in Figs. 26 and 27 for 138gCs and 138mCs, respectively. Measured and
calculated spectra for 138gCs are in good agreement below ~3200 keV, but the
simulated spectrum exhibits serious deficiencies in the postulation of beta-particle
emission probabilities above this energy. Additional pseudolevels have been
introduced to the decay scheme in order to achieve the good fit shown in Fig. 28 (see
also Table 11); these additions and increased populations to other high-energy levels
increase the beta-particle emission probabilities above 3200 keV from 2.65% to
5.9%. Similar procedures can be applied to the spectrum of 138mCs (Fig. 29), with
the addition of a considerable number of pseudolevels above 2500 keV as listed in
Table 12.
The TAGS method of spectral measurement and analysis would appear to be an

extremely powerful means of modifying inadequate decay-scheme data in a
quantitative manner. This approach is very welcome, and should be encouraged
further in order to eliminate serious gaps in our detailed knowledge of the discrete
decay data of many important short-lived fission products.
Fig. 26. Comparison of measured singles spectrum for 138g Cs with the simulated spectrum for
the evaluated decay scheme (Greenwood et al, 1994)
132 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 27. Comparison of measured singles spectrum for 138mCs with the simulated spectrum for
the evaluated decay scheme (Greenwood et al, 1994)
Fig. 28. Comparison of measured singles spectrum for 138gCs with the simulated spectrum
for the re-adjusted decay scheme (Greenwood et al, 1994)
Table 11: 138gCs β- emission probabilities, Pβ (Greenwood et al, 1997)
Level energy Pβ (%)

(keV)
NDS TAGS
0.0 0.0 0.0
1435.9 4.3 3.76
1898.7 13.7 13.94
2217.9 13.0 13.23
2307.6 7.3 6.10
2415.5 0.63 0.64
2445.7 44.0 44.76
2583.1 1.67 1.42
2639.5 8.80 7.32
2779.5 1.59 0.81
2851.6 0.20 0.20
2880.9 0.54 0.55
2931.5 0.21 0.21
2991.2 0.64 0.61
3049.9 0.17 0.17
3163.6 0.34 0.35
3242.6 0.27 0.54
3257.7 0.06 0.33
3339.0 0.17 0.33
3352.6 0.035 0.036
3367.0 0.23 0.23
3437.4 0.011 0.011
3442.3 0.011 0.011
3510 P - 0.25
3647.0 0.43 0.66
3652.6 0.005 0.005
3694.0 0.30 0.46
3825 P - 0.15
3922.6 0.21 0.25
3935.2 0.47 0.61
4012.3 0.08 0.08
4080.1 0.18 0.18
4242.5 0.10 0.28
4370 P - 0.10
4508.1 0.16 0.41
4629.8 0.26 0.72
4850 P - 0.20
5080 P - 0.046
NDS: Nuclear Data Sheets, 69(1993)69.
P: placement of pseudolevel.
134 A.L. Nichols
Table 12: 138mCs β- emission probabilities, Pβ (Greenwood et al, 1997)
Level energy Pβ (%)a

(keV)
NDS TAGS
0.0 0.0 0.0
1436.0 0.0 0.0
1899.0 0.0 3.63
2090.7 75.3 64.69
2203.2 10.3 8.89
2307.8 0.0 0.0
2415.2 14.4 15.88
2600 P - 0.272
2730 P - 0.59
2800 P - 0.59
2900 P - 0.45
3300 P - 0.41
3400 P - 0.82
3500 P - 0.82
3600 P - 0.64
3800 P - 0.59
3900 P - 1.00
4100 P - 0.073
4200 P - 0.073
4300 P - 0.073
4400 P - 0.136
4500 P - 0.109
4600 P - 0.109
4700 P - 0.064
4800 P - 0.054
4900 P - 0.032
5000 P - 0.018
a
Contribution to the total 138mCs decay is obtained by multiplying Pβ by 0.19.
NDS: Nuclear Data Sheets, 69(1993)69.
P: placement of pseudolevel.
Fig. 29. Comparison of measured singles spectrum for 138mCs with the simulated spectrum
for the re-adjusted decay scheme (Greenwood et al, 1994)
(c) Endpoint energies (Qβ-values)
Accurate measurements of Qβ aid considerably the determination of the energies of

individual β - emissions, and in the derivation of the mean beta energies (and gamma
energies) of short-lived fission products. Rapid mass-separation techniques are used
to alter the isobaric composition of the ion beams after their emission from fission
targets, and high-purity Ge detectors measure the β -γ coincidence and β singles
spectra of the resulting sample (Wünsch et al, 1978; Przewloka et al, 1992a and
1992b; Ikuta et al, 1994).
The beta endpoints are determined from Fermi-Kurie plots of the measured β -
spectrum (Fermi-Kurie plot with good statistics is shown in Fig. 30 for 92Rb
(Przewloka et al, 1992a)). Equivalent data for a number of neutron-rich nuclides are
listed in Table 13 (Ikuta et al, 1994), and are compared with the recommended values
of Audi and Wapstra (1995). Discrepancies do occur (147La, 147,149,150Ce and 150Pr),
and underline the need to refine theoretical calculations in this particular region.
136 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 30. β-endpoint spectrum of 92Rb (Przewloka et al, 1992a)
Table 13: Qβ values of neutron-rich nuclei in the mass region 147≤A≤152 (Ikuta et al,
1994)
Nuclide Half-life Measured Qβ Qβ (keV)

(keV) Audi and Wapstra, 1995
147
La 4.015 s 5130(80) 4945(55)
147
Ce 56.4 s 3426(28) 3290(40)
147
Pr 13.3 m 2710(50) 2686(37)
148
Ce 56 s 2140(30) 2060(75)
148
Pr 2.27 m 4880(50) 4932(89)
149
Ce 5.2 s 4386(27) 4190(75)
149
Pr 2.26 m 3430(90) 3397(10)
150
Ce 4.0 s 3470(60) 3010(90)
150
Pr 6.19 s 5390(30) 5690(80)
151
Pr 18.90 s 4200(40) 4101(35)
151
Nd 12.44 m 2460(100) 2442(4)
152
Pr 3.24 s 6340(120) 6444(300)
152
Nd 11.6 m 1100(40) 1110(78)
152
Pm 4.1 m 3520(60) 3504(72)
Uncertainties are given in parentheses (for example, 4945(55) means 4945 ± 55).
5.5. Decay Data Libraries
5.5.1. Nuclear structure
A number of teams around the world are engaged in the co-ordinated evaluation and
compilation of nuclear structure data, under the auspices of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. This International Network for Nuclear Structure Data Evaluation
generates updated Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data Files (ENSDF), and is
responsible for the evaluation of all the mass-chains on a regular basis (NNDC, 1987;
Bhat, 1992). The resulting files are maintained by the National Nuclear Data Centre
at Brookhaven National Laboratory, along with other services (Dunford, 1994;
Kinsey et al, 1994). Available databases include ENSDF, atomic masses, NuDat
(basic nuclear data extracted from ENSDF, including radionuclidic decay data),
RADLST (calculated decay parameters from ENSDF), CSISRS (experimental cross-
section data) and ENDF-6 (evaluated nuclear reaction and decay data in ENDF-6
format for applications in the nuclear industry). Details of the methods of data
retrieval from NNDC are given in Appendix A, including access to the ENDF-6 files
(Dunford, 1992). Theoretical decay data have been incorporated into this library for
a number of important short-lived fission products, including delayed-neutron data
and continuum spectra (Brady and England, 1989).
NUBASE is a database that contains the main nuclear and decay properties of
nuclides in their ground and isomeric states (Audi et al, 1996 and 1997). These data
have been primarily derived from ENSDF and the atomic mass evaluation of Audi
and Wapstra (1995). Experimentally-measured nuclear parameters have been
compiled for virtually all known nuclides, with some values estimated by systematic
extrapolation. Recommended data are listed for mass excess, excitation energy of
isomeric states, half-life, spin and parity, decay modes and branching fractions, as
well as isotopic abundances for the stable nuclei and a list of relevant references.
The Table of Isotopes has a long and respected history, culminating in the release of
the eighth edition in 1996 (Firestone et al, 1996). A CD-ROM is also included that
contains all of the recommended decay-scheme data, and this vehicle will be
preferentially used to communicate updates (Firestone et al, 1998). The main table is
initially ordered by mass number and then by atomic number, with abbreviated mass-
chain decay schemes that give the adopted half-lives, spin-parity and Q-values. Data
are listed for each ground state and isomer with half-lives > 1 sec. ENSDF
evaluations have been adopted whenever the authors judged this data source to be
appropriate. Significant amounts of nuclear data are contained within this immense
document/file, and the reader is referred to the original publication for greater detail.
Other specialised decay-data compilations have been published (e.g., Reus and
Westmeier, 1983; Westmeier and Merklin, 1985; Rytz, 1991; Nichols, 1996), but few
appear to have been maintained in the same rigorous manner as ENSDF and the
Table of Isotopes. Both are comprehensive and contain decay data for approximately
138 A.L. Nichols
2500 radionuclides, effectively covering all nuclides that have been observed and
characterised to some degree. The ability to inspect and use these data via a CD-
ROM and the World Wide Web adds considerable strength to their commonality of
use.
5.5.2. Nuclear applications
The US ENDF/B-VI nuclear data library was released to the international community
in the early 1990s (Dunford, 1992). An initial point of note is the development over
many years of an internationally-accepted data format (ENDF-6), including the
potential to accommodate uncertainties in the form of covariance matrices. Specific
aims included the production of a self-consistent set of evaluated neutron cross
sections, updated decay-data files (extracted from the ENSDF files, and
supplemented with new measurements and theory), and the addition of charged-
particle and high-energy reaction files. Many of the neutron-reaction cross sections
were completely re-evaluated, including 238U(n, f), 239Pu(n, f) and the resonance
parameters for 235,238U and 239,241Pu. Adjustments were also made to the neutron-
capture cross sections of 151,153Eu, 165Ho and 197Au (latter as standard). Both the
decay-data and fission-yield files of ENDF/B-VI have been supplemented with the
beta and gamma energies and Pn values of Rudstam et al (1990 and 1993) and the
chain yields derived by Wahl (1988). This resulting data base was tested in a series
of decay-heat calculations and shown to reproduce the experimental results in a
satisfactory manner (Rudstam and England, 1990). ENDF/B-VI gamma-ray data for
the short-lived fission products were also augmented by spectra calculated from the
gross theory for beta-strength functions to form mixed files of discrete and
theoretical decay data (Katakura and England, 1991).
The Joint Evaluated File (JEF) is a collaborative project between member states of
the NEA-OECD to produce a nuclear data library for industrial applications and
research (Nordborg et al, 1992; Nordborg and Salvatores, 1994). Various decay-data
files have been assembled by staff at the NEA Data Bank from other sources
(particularly ENSDF, UKPADD-2 (Nichols, 1993) and UKHEDD-2 (Nichols,
1991)). This JEF-2.2 library consists of a general purpose file, radioactive decay-
data files and fission-yield files. A number of adjustments were made to the JEF-2.2
decay-data starter files:
(a) mean beta and gamma energies of 109 short-lived fission products
measured by Rudstam et al (1990) were added to the files;
(b) theoretical data were based on the p-n QRPA model of Hirsch et al
(1992): 16 half-lives, 101 mean beta and gamma energies, and 32 Pn
values.
The contents of the JEF-2.2 files have been summarised in hardcopy, and represent a
definitive data set for nuclear applications (NEA-OECD, 1994 and 2000).
Efforts are underway to amalgamate the NEA fission (JEF) and fusion (EAF) data
libraries, and to improve and expand the contents of the resulting files (Finck et al,
1997; Jacqmin et al, 2001; Bersillon et al, 2001). A Joint Evaluated Fission and
Fusion project has been formulated to combine JEF and EAF database activities.
Other sources of updated decay-data for JEFF-3 include NUBASE, ENSDF,
UKPADD and UKHEDD. Various studies are also underway or completed to
improve the contents of specific decay data files judged to be inadequate for fission
and fusion reactor applications (e.g., Backhouse and Nichols, 1998; Nichols et al,
1999a and 1999b).
Other libraries have been developed for nuclear power applications that contain
decay-data files. Staff at the Chinese Nuclear Data Centre, have assembled files of
basic nuclear data and model parameters (Su Zongdi et al, 1994 and 1997). This
nuclear parameter library (CENPL) contains atomic masses and constants for ground
states, nuclear level properties and gamma-ray data extracted from ENSDF.
The JNDC-FP (Japanese Nuclear Data Committee - Fission Product) library contains
decay and fission yield data for 1087 unstable and 142 stable fission products, and
neutron cross-section data for 166 nuclides (Tasaka et al, 1990; Katakura et al,
2001). Recommended decay data include half-lives, branching ratios, and total beta
and gamma-ray energies released per decay of every radionuclide. Significant
emphasis has been placed on producing a comprehensive set of fission-product decay
data, with the introduction of theoretical half-lives and mean energies for over 500
radionuclides with no known discrete decay data.
The contents of the various national and international decay-data files are difficult to
summarise with respect to their technical origins (i.e., discrete decay-data or mean
beta-decay measurements; file supplemented with calculated decay data from gross
theory of β decay, microscopic analyses or p-n QRPA). Table 14 focuses on the
fission-product nuclides to be found in the US ENDF/B-VI, JENDL-FP and JEF-2.2
libraries.
“Estimated decay energies” refers to a combination of data that originate from

Rudstam et al (1990), Hirsch et al (1992) and others. The inclusion of estimated and
theoretical decay data is considerably more extensive in US ENDF/B-VI and
JENDL-FP than in JEF-2.2 (latter includes more recommended data based on direct
measurements (with the concomitant problem of pandemonium (Hardy et al, 1977)).
140 A.L. Nichols
Table 14: Evaluated decay-data libraries, 2000/2001: contents and origins of fission-product
decay energies (NEA-OECD, 2000; Katakura et al, 2001)
Fission products ENDF/B-VI JENDL-FP JEF-2.2
Evaluated nuclides 891 1229 860
Radioactive nuclides 764 1087 730
Stable nuclides 127 142 130
Evaluated decay energiesa 443c 536d 611
Estimated decay energiesb 384c 551d 119
a
Evaluations of discrete decay data.
b
Mean decay energies from gross measurements and theory.
c
Some files contain both evaluated discrete data and estimated theoretical data (including
continuum spectra).
d
Uncertain - defined by number balance only.
5.5.3. Electronic access
The advent of personal computers (leading to the emergence of the CD-ROM and the
World Wide Web) has revolutionised the ability to communicate with and access
large data bases rapidly and efficiently. Examples of the provision of CD-ROMs and
the implementation of the Web are listed in Appendix A (ENSDF, NUBASE and the
Table of Isotopes). A significant number of these data bases have been adapted so
that PCs can interrogate, extract, compare and use their contents. Both the Internet
and the utilisation of CD-ROMs have given users world-wide access to all of the
most recently evaluated nuclear data libraries via a number of routes including the
IAEA Network of Nuclear Data Centres. Communications between laboratories have
improved beyond all recognition over the previous 10 years, and have revolutionised
the speed with which data can be provided for various calculations (including decay-
heat analyses).
5.6. Inadequate and Discrepant Decay Data
The evolution of the various decay-data libraries for nuclear applications has resulted
in programmes of intensive testing to re-assure users that the recommended data sets
are reliable and comprehensive. During the course of these benchmark exercises,
errors and inadequacies have inevitably been discovered. Many can be dealt with
rapidly, but some problems have proved more difficult to overcome without a
significant amount of additional work. Although the assessments given below are
not comprehensive, a number of important discrepancies are noted, along with
known efforts to improve the contents of the decay-data libraries. Sometimes the
analyses required to highlight and identify the culprit radionuclide(s) can be as taxing
as subsequent attempts to correct the problematic data. Furthermore, attempts to
improve the quality of the recommended decay data in this manner may be seriously
undermined by the increasing lack of expertise available to undertake such work.
After much consultation and debate in the mid-1990s, a number of important

radionuclides were judged to be inadequately characterised for various applications
(ranging from estimates of radiotoxicity and input data for reprocessing flowsheets,
to nuclides that undergo delayed-neutron emission). A set of 27 fission products
(plus short-lived daughters and related metastable/ground states) was identified as
important for various thermal reactor studies, including decay-heat calculations
(Table 15). The majority of these radionuclides are short-lived fission products with
half-lives significantly less than 3 hours. Considerable improvements were made in
their recommended decay data as a consequence of including a number of relatively
recent measurements in the evaluations, although the complexity of many of the
decay schemes may still pose mean energy problems (Nichols, 1998; Nichols et al,
1999a).
Various decay parameters and continuum spectra have also been theoretically
derived for 35 neuton-rich nuclides deemed to be important at short cooling times in
decay-heat calculations (Table 16). While each of these fission products contributes
significantly to the decay heat of irradiated fuel (>0.01 of the fractional cumulative
yield), they have proved extremely difficult (if not impossible) to prepare, isolate and
study experimentally, and are not included in the JEF-2.2 decay-data library. The
US ENDF/B-VI decay-data library contains files of theoretical data for 33 of these
nuclides, and they were considered as possible candidates for incorporation into the
JEFF library, with supportive data from Takahashi et al (1973) and Audi et al (1997).
The precise content of any data library for decay-heat calculations is based on
subjective judgements, although the desire for completeness can overcome many
constraints. While the nuclides contained within Appendix B provide a reasonably
comprehensive set of fission products and actinides for this type of study, changes
can always be made to improve and expand the data base (Storrer, 1994). The
addition of further isomeric states is a particular good example of this form of
improvement; recent experimental studies have furnished evaluators with evidence
for further short-lived radionuclides of this type that could be incorporated into the
decay-data (and fission yield) libraries:
81m 84m
Ge; As; 96mRb; 97nY; 103mRu, 109mRu; 112mRh, 114mRh, 116mRh; 113mPd, 115mPd,
117m 107m
Pd; Ag, 119mAg, 120nAg, 122mAg; 123mCd, 125mCd; 120nIn, 122nIn, 126mIn, 130m,130nIn,
131m,131n 114m
In; Sn, 128mSn; 129mSb; 132mI; 132mXe; 144mCs; 146mLa; 148mPr; 153mSm; 155mGd.
While the postulated decay schemes for many of these radionuclides are simple (e.g.,
107m
Ag, 113mPd and 128mSn), others are relatively complex (e.g., 112mRh, 122nIn, 125mCd
and 146mLa). Their decay data can be found in ENSDF, and could be assessed and
transferred to nuclear applications libraries.
142 A.L. Nichols
Table 15: Evaluation of discrete decay data - consistency of data sets requested for JEFF-3
Radionuclide Consistency Radionuclide Consistency

(% Deviation) (% Deviation)
33-As-85 0.0988* (51-Sb-126) -0.0653

34-Se-79 0.0000 (51-Sb-126m) -0.1714
(34-Se-79m) -0.0962 (51-Sb-126n) -0.3560
*
35-Br-87 -0.1976 51-Sb-127 -0.0431
*
35-Br-88 0.2554 51-Sb-135 -0.0198*
35-Br-89 0.0534* (52-Te-127) -0.0037
*
35-Br-90 0.1331 (52-Te-127m) -0.0908
*
35-Br-91 0.0274 52-Te-132 0.1077
*
37-Rb-93 -0.0182 53-I-132 -0.0832
*
37-Rb-94 -0.0527 (53-I-132m) -0.3723
*
37-Rb-95 -0.2394 53-I-137 0.1276*
(39-Y-98) -0.0432* 53-I-138 -0.1955*
39-Y-98m -0.2944* 53-I-139 -0.0552*
39-Y-99 -0.0741* 57-La-140 -0.0108
40-Zr-93 1.2384 59-Pr-143 0.0000
(41-Nb-93m) -0.3678 59-Pr-144 0.0382
45-Rh-106 -0.0243 (59-Pr-144m) -0.0860
(45-Rh-106m) -0.0487 62-Sm-147 -0.0023
50-Sn-126 0.0293 65-Tb-161 -0.0324
Additional short-lived daughter and related metastable/ground state radionuclides are in

parentheses, and were also evaluated.
*
Beta-decay mode only.
Table 16: Short-lived fission products requested for JEFF-3 - US ENDF/B-VI decay data
adopted or modified unless stated otherwise
Continuum Spectra - Energy Range (keV)*
‡
Radionuclide Half-life (sec)
Gamma Beta Neutron
39-Y-104 0.13(2) 0(500) - 12730 0 - 12690 0 - 5510
39-Y-105 0.15(2) 0(500) - 10820 0 - 10790 0 - 6840
40-Zr-105 0.6(2) 0(500) - 8290 0 - 8260 0 - 2260
40-Zr-106 0.9(2) 0(500) - 6380 0 - 6350 0 - 2570
40-Zr-107 0.24(4) 0(500) - 9230 0 - 9200 0 - 3950
41-Nb-109 0.19(6) 0(500) - 8760 0 - 8730 0 - 5300
42-Mo-109 0.5(2) 0(500) - 6700 0 - 6670 0 - 1200Ψ
42-Mo-111 0.5(2) 0(500) - 8020 0 - 7990 0 - 2210
42-Mo-112 1.0(2) 0(500) - 6020 0 - 5990 0 - 2720
43-Tc-113 0.13(4) 0(500) - 7540 0 - 7510 0 - 4080
43-Tc-114 0 20(4) 0(500) - 10610 0 - 10580 0 - 4790
43-Tc-115 0.27(5) 0(500) - 8870 0 - 8840 0 - 5910
43-Tc-116 0.12(2) 0(500) - 11860 0 - 11830 0 - 6650
44-Ru-115 0.7(2) 0(500) - 7250 0 - 7220 0 - 1400
44-Ru-116 1.7(3) 0(500) - 5510 0 - 5480 0 - 2150
44-Ru-117 0.34(7) 0(500) -8500 0 - 8470 0 - 3180
44-Ru-118 0.7(2) 0(500) - 6530 0 - 6500 0 - 3680
44-Ru-119 0.19(4) 0(500) - 9290 0 - 9260 0 - 4440
45-Rh-118 0.32(6) 0(500) - 9970 0 - 9940 0 - 3410
45-Rh-120 0.17(3) 0(500) - 10770 0 - 10730 0 - 4830
45-Rh-121 0.25(5) 0(500) - 8790 0 - 8760 0 - 5990
46-Pd-121 0.6(1) 0(500) - 7560 0 - 7530 0 - 1520
51-Sb-141 0.3(1) No entry in US ENDF/B-VI; other theoretical data adopted
57-La-152 0.28(6) 0(500) - 8810 0 - 8770 0 - 3980
58-Ce-153 1.5(3) 0(500) - 5820 0 - 5790 0 - 1620
58-Ce-154 2.0(4) 0(500) - 5010 0 - 4970 0 - 1640
58-Ce-158 1.0(2) No entry in US ENDF/B-VI; other theoretical data adopted
59-Pr-156 0.5(1) 0(500) - 8690 0 - 8660 0 - 2790
59-Pr-157 0.30(6) 0(500) - 8130 0 - 8100 0 - 3590
60-Nd-157 2.5(5) 0(500) - 5560 0 - 5520 None
60-Nd-158 0.7(2) 0(500) - 5000 0 - 4970 0 - 320
60-Nd-159 0.5(1) 0(500) - 7150 0 - 7120 0 - 1230
60-Nd-160 0.30(6) 0(500) - 6350 0 - 6320 0 - 1830
61-Pm-159 3.0(6) 0(500) - 5650 0 - 5620 0 - 410
61-Pm-160 2.0(4) 0(500) - 7800 0 - 7770 0 - 1130
‡
Adopted from a combination of Audi et al (1997), Takahashi et al (1973) and US
ENDF/B-VI (Dunford, 1992); uncertainties are given in parentheses (for example,
0.13(2) means 0.13 ± 0.02).
*
Expressed in terms of incremental units of 10 keV starting from zero (first incremental
energy step of continuum gamma spectra is from zero to 500 keV, as noted in
parentheses).

Neutron spectrum adjusted to 0-1794 keV.
Ψ
Neutron spectrum adjusted to 0-620 keV.
144 A.L. Nichols
An interesting piece of detective work has been carried out by Yoshida et al (1997
and 1999) to offer some explanation for the discrepancy between experiments and
calculations of the gamma component of decay heat over cooling times between 300
and 3000 sec (Fig. 31, instantaneous fission burst for 239Pu). Experimental data
measured by Dickens et al (1980 and 1981), Akiyama and An (1983), and Nguyen et
al (1997) were combined and compared with decay-heat calculations using the
JNDC-FP-V2 library (adoption of either fast-neutron or thermal-neutron fission
yields had little impact on the resulting curves). Yoshida et al introduced a gamma-
ray emission that is effectively missing from the decay-data files, and was postulated
to belong to an ill-defined fission product (half-life of ~1000 sec). An additional β -
decay chain was artificially added to the JNDC data base (as two radionuclides) on
the basis of this proposed omission.
An energy release of 1.5 MeV per decay was assumed to occur (e.g., 104Mo (half-life
of 60 sec) → 104Tc (half-life of 1092 sec) represents a suitable candidate for such an
emission). The results of these artificial calculations are shown in Fig. 32 for
233,235,238
U and 239Pu in comparison with the measurements of Akiyama and An
(1983): the discrepancies between 300 and 3000 sec disappeared for all four sets of
data. Fig. 33 shows the impact on the beta-energy component for the fission burst of
239
Pu; there is some decrease against the original calculation, but this change falls
well within the error bars of the measurements. Re-assessments have been made of
beta-strength functions to identify possible candidates, including 102Tc, 104Tc and
105
Tc. Overall, the proposal of Yoshida et al would appear to be a reasonable
suggestion.
Fig. 31. Gamma-ray discrepancies seen in 239Pu decay heat after a fission burst (Yoshida et
al, 1999)
The incorrect assignments of ground and metastable states may also play an
important role in explaining some of the discrepancy in the gamma component
between 300 to 3000 sec. Fig. 34 compares experimental data with decay-heat
calculations for 239Pu; improvements can be achieved by adjusting the decay data for
108
Rh. The ground and metastable states of 108Rh are assigned half-lives of 17 sec
and 6 min respectively in JNDC-V2 (labelled ‘JNDC-V2 original’ in Fig. 34), while
these assignments are reversed in JEF-2.2 (labelled ‘Rh108-JEF2.2’ in Fig. 34).
Adoption of the JEF-2.2 data increases the half-life of 108gRh by a factor of ~ 20,
leading to a considerable rise in decay heat around 1000 sec. Another feature is
worthy of note: a lack of gamma-ray transition energy in the 102Tc decay-data file of
JEF-2.2 gives rise to a collapse in the gamma energy component (labelled ‘Tc102-
JEF2.2’ in Fig. 34), implying that this radionuclide represents a suitable candidate for
the missing gamma energy (as noted earlier). These studies demonstrate that
adjustments to the decay-data of only one nuclide can dramatically change the decay-
heat predictions, and that beta branching ratios to the ground and metastable states
need to be measured with good accuracy in order to define the situation correctly.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Estimates of decay heat can only be calculated with confidence if the neutron cross
sections, fission yields and radionuclidic decay data are known with confidence, and
extensive data libraries have been assembled at both the national and international
levels in an agreed format (ENDF-6) to achieve this objective. All data in these
libraries are subjected to comprehensive checking procedures and some form of
validation before they are released for general use. Their adoption in decay-heat
calculations has shown measurement-based files to be inadequate, and therefore
efforts continue to improve and extend their contents (particularly isomeric fission
yields and the decay data of short-lived fission products), as requested by users.
Systematic fitting procedures, gross energy measurements and theoretical data have
played important roles in addressing the problem of non-existent (unmeasured)
fission-yield and decay data. Along with evaluations of measured discrete data, these
approaches will continue to be used in order to extend the contents of the data
libraries, and so improve decay-heat calculations and increase operational confidence
in the results.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the following for their assistance in formulating specific
features of this article:
C.J. Dean (AEA Technology, Winfrith),
M.A. Kellett (NEA Data Bank),
M. Lammer (IAEA Nuclear Data Section),
F. Storrer (CEN Cadarache),
E.B. Webster (AEA Technology, Winfrith).
146 A.L. Nichols
Fig. 32. Removal of γ-ray discrepancy by including 1.5 MeV γ-ray emitter
(Yoshida et al, 1999)
Fig. 33. Beta-ray component of 239Pu decay heat after a burst fission: addition of 1.5
MeV γ-ray emitter (Yoshida et al, 1999)
239 102
Fig. 34. Pu γ-decay heat after a fission burst: Tc and 108Rh data adjusted in JEF-
2.2 (Yoshida et al, 1999)
148 A.L. Nichols
References
Akiyama, M. and An, S. (1983) Measurements of fission-product decay heat for fast
reactors, pp 237-244 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology,
Editor: Böckhoff, K. H., D Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland.
ANS (1979) American National Standard: for decay heat power in light water
reactors, ANSI/ANS-5.1-1979, American Nuclear Society, USA.
Audi, G. and Wapstra, A.H. (1995) The 1995 update to the atomic mass evaluation,
Nucl. Phys., A595, 409-480.
Audi, G., Bersillon, O., Blachot, J. and Wapstra, A.H. (1996) NUBASE: a database
of nuclear and decay properties, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res., A369, 511-515.
Audi, G., Bersillon, O., Blachot, J. and Wapstra, A.H. (1997) The NUBASE
evaluation of nuclear and decay properties, Nucl. Phys., A624, 1-124.
Avignone, F.T. and Greenwood, Z.D. (1980) Calculated spectra of antineutrinos from
the fission products of 235U, 238U and 239Pu, and antineutrino-induced reactions, Phys.
Rev., C22, 594-605.
Backhouse, J.S. and Nichols, A.L. (1998) Assessment and evaluation of decay data
for nuclear reactor applications, Appl. Radiat. Isot., 49, 1393-1396.
Bell, M.J. (1973) Calculated radiation properties of spent plutonium fuels, Nucl.
Technol., 18, 5-14.
Bersillon, O., Blachot, J., Dean, C.J., Mills, R.W., Nichols, A.L. and Nouri, A.
(2001) JEFF-3T: decay data and fission yield libraries, ND2001 Int. Conf. Nucl.
Data for Science and Technology, 7-12 October 2001, Tsukuba, Japan.
Bhat, M.R. (1992) Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENDSF), pp 817-821 in
Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Editor: Qaim, S.M.,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany; also Nuclear Data Sheets, Academic Press Inc.,
New York, USA.
Brady, M.C. and England, T.R. (1989) Delayed neutron data and group parameters
for 43 fissioning systems, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 103, 129-149.
Burstall, R.F. (1979) FISPIN – a computer code for nuclide inventory calculations,
UK Atomic Energy Authority Report ND-R-328(R).
Burstall, R.F. and Thornton, D.E.J. (1977) Production of fission product and actinide
levels in irradiated fuel and cladding, pp 416-424 in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Reactor
Shielding, Science Press, Princeton, USA.
Clarke, R.H. (1972) FISP, a comprehensive computer program for generating fission
product inventories, Health Physics, 23, 565-572.
Crouch, E.A.C. (1977) Fission-product yields from neutron-induced fission, At. Data
Nucl. Data Tables, 19(5), 417–532.
Davis, B.R., Vogel, P., Mann, F.M. and Schenter, R.E. (1979) Reactor antineutrino
spectra and their application to antineutrino-induced reactions, Phys. Rev., C19,
2259-2266.
Denschlag, H.O. (1997) Fission Fragment Mass, Charge and Energy Distributions,
Chapter 15 in “Experimental Techniques in Nuclear Physics”, Editors: Poenaru D.N.
and Greiner, W., W. de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, ISBN 3-11-014467-0.
Dickens, J.K., Love, T.A., McConnell, J.W. and Peelle, R.W. (1980) Fission-product
energy release for times following thermal-neutron fission of 235U between 2 and
14000 s, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 74, 106-129.
Dickens, J.K., Love, T.A., McConnell, J.W. and Peelle, R.W. (1981) Fission-product
energy release for times following thermal-neutron fission of 239Pu and 241Pu between
2 and 14000 s, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 78, 126-146.
Dickens, J.K., England, T.R. and Schenter, R.E. (1991) Current status and proposed
improvements to the ANSI/ANS-5.1 American National Standard for decay heat
power in light water reactors, Nucl. Safety, 32(2), 209-221.
Dunford, C.L. (1992) Evaluated Nuclear Data File ENDF/B-VI, pp 788-792 in Proc.
Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Editor: Qaim, S.M., Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Dunford, C.L. (1994) Future directions in nuclear data dissemination, pp 25-30 in

Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol. 1, Editor: Dickens,
J.K., American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange Park, USA.
England, T.R. and Rider, B.F. (1994) Evaluation and compilation of fission product
yields 1993, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-94-3106, ENDF-349.
Finck, Ph., Gruppelaar, H., Konieczny, M., Nordborg, C. and Rowlands, J. (1997)
The JEFF project and the JEFF-3 nuclear data library, pp 1002-1007 in Proc. Int.
150 A.L. Nichols
Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol 59, Editors: Reffo, G., Ventura,
A. and Grandi, C., SIF, Bologna, Italy.
Firestone, R.B., Shirley, V.S., Baglin, C.M., Chu, S.Y.F. and Zipkin, J. (1996) Table
of Isotopes, 8th Edition, Vols I and II (includes CD-ROM), John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
New York, USA, ISBN 0-471-14918-7.
Firestone, R.B., Baglin, C.M. and Chu, S.Y.F. (1998) Table of Isotopes, 8th Edition,
1998 Update with CD-ROM, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, USA, ISBN 0-
471-24699-9.
GNS (1990) German National Standard, decay heat power in nuclear fuels of light
water reactors, DIN 25463, Beuth, Berlin, Germany.
Gönnenwein, F. (1991) Mass, Charge and Kinetic Energy of Fission Fragments,

Chapter 8 in “The Nuclear Fission Process”, Editor: Wagemans, C., CRC Press, Boca
Raton, USA, ISBN 0-8493-5434-X.
Greenwood, R.C., Helmer, R.G., Putnam, M.H. and Watts, K.D. (1994) Beta-decay
intensity distributions of fission-product isotopes measured using a total absorption
gamma-ray spectrometer, pp 327-330 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and
Technology, Vol. 1, Editor: Dickens, J.K., American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange
Park, USA.
Greenwood, R.C., Putnam, M.H. and Watts, K.D. (1996) Ground-state β --branching
intensities of several fission-product isotopes measured using a total absorption γ-ray
spectrometer, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res., A378, 312-320.
Greenwood, R.C., Helmer, R.G., Putnam, M.H. and Watts, K.D. (1997)
Measurement of β --decay intensity distributions of several fission-product isotopes
using a total absorption γ-ray spectrometer, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res., A390,
95-154.
Hardy, J.C., Carraz, L.C., Jonson, B. and Hansen, P.G. (1977) The essential decay of
pandemonium: a demonstration of errors in complex beta-decay schemes, Phys.
Letts., 71B(2), 307-310.
Helmer, R.G., Putnam, M.H., Greenwood, R.C. and Willmes, H. (1994)

Methodology for the measurement of β --decay intensity distributions from the
analysis of total absorption γ-ray spectra, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res., A351,
406-422; Erratum, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res., A361 (1995) 628.
Hirsch, M., Staudt, A., Muto, K. and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V. (1992) New

calculations of beta-decay data of nuclei far from stability, pp 539-541 in Proc. Int.
Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Editor: Qaim, S.M., Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Germany.
IAEA-CRP (2000) Compilation and evaluation of fission yield nuclear data, final
report of a Co-ordinated Research Project, 1991-1996, IAEA-TECDOC-1168, IAEA
Vienna.
Ikuta, T., Taniguchi, A., Yamamoto, H., Kawade, K. and Kawase, Y. (1994) Qβ
measurements of neutron-rich isotopes in the mass region 147≤A≤152, pp 331-333 in
Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol. 1, Editor: Dickens,
J.K., American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange Park, USA.
Jacqmin, R., Rowlands, J., Nouri, A. and Kellett, M. (2001) Status of the JEFF-3
project, ND2001 Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, 7-12 October
2001, Tsukuba, Japan.
James, M.F., Mills, R.W. and Weaver, D.R. (1991a) A new evaluation of fission
product yields and the production of a new library (UKFY2) of independent and
cumulative yields, Part I: methods and outline of evaluation, AEA Technology
Report AEA-TRS-1015.
James, M.F., Mills, R.W. and Weaver, D.R. (1991b) A new evaluation of fission
cumulative yields, Part II: tables of measured and recommended fission yields, AEA
Technology Report AEA-TRS-1018.
James, M.F., Mills, R.W. and Weaver, D.R. (1991c) A new evaluation of fission
cumulative yields, Part III: tables of fission yields with discrepant or sparse data,
AEA Technology Report AEA-TRS-1019.
Johansson, P.I., Rudstam, G., Eriksen, J., Faust, H.R., Blachot, J. and Wulff, J.
(1994) Average beta and gamma energies of fission products in the mass range 98-
108, pp 321-323 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol 1,
Editor: Dickens, J.K., American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange Park, USA.
Katakura, J. and England, T.R. (1991) Augmentation of ENDF/B fission product

gamma-ray spectra by calculated spectra, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report
LA-12125-MS, ENDF-352.
Katakura, J., Yoshida, T., Oyamatsu, K. and Tachibana, T. (2001) Development of

JENDL FP decay data file 2000, ND2001 Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and
Technology, 7-12 October 2001, Tsukuba, Japan.
152 A.L. Nichols
Kinsey, R.R., McLane, V. and Burrows, T.W. (1994) Nuclear data services in the
90s: responding to expanding technologies and shrinking budgets, pp 745-747 in
Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol 2, Editor: Dickens, J.K.,
American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange Park, USA.
Klapdor, H.V. (1983) The shape of the beta strength function and consequences for
nuclear physics and astrophysics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 10, 131-225.
Klapdor, H.V. and Metzinger, J. (1982a) Antineutrino spectrum from the fission
products of 239Pu, Phys. Rev. Letts., 48(3), 127-131.
Klapdor, H.V. and Metzinger, J. (1982b) Calculation of the antineutrino spectrum

from thermal fission of 235U, Phys. Letts., 112B(1), 22-26.
Kopeykin, V.I. (1980) Electron and antineutrino spectra from fragments of fission of
235
U, 239Pu, 241Pu induced by thermal neutrons and fission of 238U induced by fast
neutrons, Yad. Fiz., 32(6), 1507-1513 (English translation, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.,
32(6), 780-783).
Madland, D.G. and England, T.R. (1977) The influence of isomeric states on
independent fission product yields, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 64, 859-865.
Mann, F.M., Dunn, C. and Schenter, R.E. (1982) Beta decay properties using a
statistical model, Phys. Rev., C25, 524-526.
Meek, M.E. and Rider, B.F. (1972, 1974, and 1978) Compilation of fission product
yields, Vallecitos Nuclear Center Reports NEDO-12154 (1972), NEDO-12154-1
(1974), NEDO-12154-2E (1978), General Electric Co., USA.
Mills, R.W. (1995) Fission product yield evaluation, PhD thesis, University of
Birmingham, UK.
Nakata, H., Tachibana, T. and Yamada, M. (1995) Refinement of the gross theory of
β -decay for odd-odd nuclei, Nucl. Phys., A594, 27-44.
Nakata, H., Tachibana, T. and Yamada, M. (1997) Semi-gross theory of nuclear β -

decay, Nucl. Phys., A625, 521-553.
NEA-OECD (1994) JEF-2.2 radioactive decay data, NEA Data Bank JEF Report 13,
OECD Publications, Paris, France.
NEA-OECD (2000) The JEF-2.2 nuclear data library, NEA Data Bank JEFF Report
17, OECD Publications, Paris, France, ISBN 92-64-17686-1.
Nguyen, H.V., Li, S., Campbell, J.M., Couchell, G. P., Pullen, D.J., Schier, W.A.,
Seabury, E.H., Tipnis, S.V. and England, T.R. (1997) Decay heat measurements
following neutron fission of 235U and 239Pu, pp 835-838 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data
for Science and Technology, Vol 59, Editors: Reffo, G., Ventura, A. and Grandi, C.,
SIF, Bologna, Italy.
Nichols, A.L. (1991) Heavy element and actinide decay data: UKHEDD-2 data files,
AEA Technology Report AEA-RS-5219.
Nichols, A.L. (1993) Activation product decay data: UKPADD-2 data files, AEA
Technology Report AEA-RS-5449.
Nichols, A.L. (1996) Tables of alpha-particle emitters: energies and emission

probabilities, pp 237-247 in Handbook of Nuclear Properties, Editors: Poenaru, D.N.
and Greiner, W., Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Nichols, A.L. (1998) Recommended decay data for short-lived fission products:
status and needs, pp 100-115 in AIP Conf. Proc. Nuclear Fission and Fission-product
Spectroscopy, Second International Workshop, Seyssins, France, April 1998, Editors:
Fioni, G., Faust, H., Oberstedt, S. and Hambsch, F-J., American Institute of Physics,
Woodbury, USA.
Nichols, A.L., Dean, C.J. and Neill, A.P. (1999a) Extension and maintenance of
evaluated decay data files: UKPADD-6, AEA Technology Report AEA-5226.
Nichols, A.L., Dean, C.J., Neill, A.P. and Perry, R.J. (1999b) UKPADD-6: evaluated
decay data library, AEA Technology Report AEA-5281.
NNDC (1987) ENDSF: the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File, Brookhaven
National Laboratory Report BNL-NCS-51655.
Nordborg, C., Gruppelaar, H. and Salvatores, M. (1992) Status of the JEF and EFF
projects, pp 782-787 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology,
Editor: Qaim, S. M., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Nordborg, C. and Salvatores, M. (1994) Status of the JEF evaluated data library, pp
680-684 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol. 2, Editor:
Dickens, J.K., American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange Park, USA.
Oyamatsu, K., Ohta, H., Miyazono, T. and Sagisaka, M. (1997) Uncertainties in

summation calculations of aggregate decay heat and delayed neutron emission with
ENDF/B-VI, pp 756-758 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology,
Vol 59, Editors: Reffo, G., Ventura, A. and Grandi, C., SIF, Bologna, Italy.
154 A.L. Nichols
Przewloka, M., Przewloka, A., Wächter, P. and Wollnik, H. (1992a) Measurements

of β -endpoint-energies using a magnetic electron separator, Z. Phys. A – Hadrons
and Nuclei, 342, 23-26.
Przewloka, M., Przewloka, A., Wächter, P. and Wollnik, H. (1992b) New Qβ-values
of 139-146Cs, Z. Phys. A – Hadrons and Nuclei, 342, 27-29.
Raman, S., Fogelberg, B., Harvey, J.A., Macklin, R.L., Stelson, P.H., Schröder, A.
and Kratz, K-L. (1983) Overlapping β decay and resonance neutron spectroscopy of
levels in 87Kr, Phys. Rev., C28, 602-622; Erratum, Phys. Rev., C29 (1984) 344.
Reich, C.W. (1987) Review of nuclear data of relevance for the decay heat problem,
pp 107-118 in Proc. Specialists’ Meeting on Data for Decay Heat Calculations,
Studsvik, Sweden, 7-10 September 1987, NEACRP-302L, NEANDC-245U, NEA-
OECD, Paris, France.
Reus, U. and Westmeier, W. (1983) Catalog of gamma rays from radioactive decay,
At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 29(1, 2), 1-406.
Rider, B.F. (1981) Compilation of fission product yields, Vallecitos Nuclear Center
Report NEDO-12154-3C, General Electric Co., USA.
Rudstam, G. and England, T.R. (1990) Test of pre-ENDF/B-VI decay data and
fission yields, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-11909-MS.
Rudstam, G., Johansson, P.I., Tengblad, O., Aagaard, P. and Eriksen, J. (1990) Beta
and gamma spectra of short-lived fission products, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 45(2),
239-320.
Rudstam, G., Aleklett, K. and Sihver, L. (1993) Delayed-neutron branching ratios of

precursors in the fission product region, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 53(1), 1-22.
Rytz, A. (1991) Recommended energy and intensity values of alpha particles from
radioactive decay, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 47(2), 205-239.
Schmittroth, F. (1976) Uncertainty analysis of fission-product decay-heat summation

methods, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 59, 117-139.
Schmittroth, F. and Schenter, R.E. (1977) Uncertainties in fission product decay-heat

calculations, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 63, 276-291.
Schreckenbach, K., Faust, H.R., von Feilitzsch, F., Hahn, A.A., Hawerkamp, K. and
Vuilleumier, J.L. (1981) Absolute measurement of the beta spectrum from 235U
fission as a basis for reactor antineutrino experiments, Phys. Letts., 99B(3), 251-256.
Storrer, F. (1994) Test of JEF-2 decay data and fission yields by means of decay heat
calculations, pp 819-821 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology,
Vol 2, Editor: Dickens, J.K., American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange Park, USA.
Su Zongdi, Ge Zhigang, Zhang Limin, Yu Ziqiang, Zuo Yixin, Huang Zhongfu and
Liu Jianfeng (1994) Chinese evaluated nuclear parameter library (CENPL), pp 712-
714 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol 2, Editor:
Dickens, J.K., American Nuclear Society Inc., La Grange Park, USA.
Su Zongdi, Ge Zhigang, Sun Zhengjun, Zhang Limin, Huang Zhongfu, Dong

Liaoyuan, Liu Jianfeng, Zuo Yixin, Yu Ziqiang, Zhang Xiaocheng, Chen Zhenpeng
and Ma Gonggui (1997) Chinese evaluated nuclear parameter library (CENPL) and
studies on corresponding model parameters, pp 907-909 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl.
Data for Science and Technology, Vol 59, Editors: Reffo, G., Ventura, A. and
Grandi, C., SIF, Bologna, Italy.
Tachibana, T., Yamada, M. and Yoshida, Y. (1990) Improvement of the gross theory
of β -decay, II: one-particle strength function, Prog. Theor. Phys., 84(4), 641-657.
Takahashi, K., Yamada, M. and Kondoh, T. (1973) Beta-decay half-lives calculated

on the gross theory, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 12(1), 101-142.
Tasaka, K., Katakura, J., Ihara, H., Yoshida, T., Iijima, S., Nakasima, R., Nakagawa,
T. and Takano, H. (1990) JNDC nuclear data library of fission products - second
version, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Report JAERI 1320.
Tasaka, K., Katoh, T., Katakura, J., Yoshida, T., Iijima, S., Nakasima, R. and
Nagayama, S. (1991) Recommendation on decay heat power in nuclear reactors, J.
Nucl. Sci. Technol., 28(12), 1134-1142.
Tobias, A. (1978) FISP5 – an extended and improved version of the fission product
inventory code FISP, Central Electricity Generating Board Report RD/B/N4303.
Tobias, A. (1980) Decay heat, Prog. Nucl. Energy, 5, 1-93.
Vogel, P., Schenter, G.K., Mann, F.M. and Schenter, R.E. (1981) Reactor
antineutrino spectra and their application to antineutrino-induced reactions, Phys.
Rev., C24, 1543-1553.
Wagemans, C. (1991) Ternary Fission, Chapter 12 in “The Nuclear Fission Process”,

Editor: Wagemans, C., CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA, ISBN 0-8493-5434-X.
Wahl, A.C. (1987) Nuclear-charge distribution and delayed-neutron yields for

thermal-neutron-induced fission of 235U, 233U, 239Pu and 241Pu, and the fast-neutron-
156 A.L. Nichols
induced fission of 238U, pp 9-19 in Proc. Specialists’ Meeting on Data for Decay Heat
Calculations, Studsvik, Sweden, 7-10 September 1987, NEACRP-302L, NEANDC-
245U, NEA-OECD, Paris, France.
Wahl, A.C. (1988) Nuclear-charge distribution and delayed-neutron yields for

thermal-neutron-induced fission of 235U, 233U and 239Pu, and for spontaneous fission
of 252Cf, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 39(1), 1–156.
Wang Dao and Zhang Dongming (1987) Evaluation of fission product yields, pp 37-
68 in Proc. Specialists’ Meeting on Data for Decay Heat Calculations, Studsvik,
Sweden, 7-10 September 1987, NEACRP-302L, NEANDC-245U, NEA-OECD,
Paris, France.
Westmeier, W. and Merklin, A. (1985) Catalog of alpha particles from radioactive

decay, Physik Daten/Physics Data, 29-1, Fachinformationszentrum Energie, Physik-
Mathematik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Wünsch, K.D., Decker, R., Wollnik, H., Münzel, J., Siegert, G., Jung, G. and Koglin,
E. (1978) Precision beta endpoint energy measurements of rubidium and caesium
fission products with an intrinsic Ge-detector, Z. Phys., A288, 105-106.
Yoshida, T. (1977) Estimation of nuclear decay heat for short-lived fission products,
Nucl. Sci. Eng., 63, 376-390.
Yoshida, T. and Katakura, J. (1986) Calculation of the delayed gamma-ray energy

spectra from aggregate fission product nuclides, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 93, 193-203.
Yoshida, T. and Nakasima, R. (1981) Decay heat calculations based on theoretical

estimation of average beta- and gamma-energies released from short-lived fission
products, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 18(6), 393-407.
Yoshida, T. and Tachibana, T. (2000) Theoretical treatment of the asymptotic

behavior of fission product decay heat toward very short cooling time, J. Nucl. Sci.
Technol., 37(6), 491-497.
Yoshida, T., Oyamatsu, K. and Katakura, J. (1997) On a possible level missing in

aggregate fission products from the point of decay heat calculations, pp 829-831 in
Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol 59, Editors: Reffo, G.,
Ventura, A. and Grandi, C., SIF, Bologna, Italy.
Yoshida, T., Tachibana, T., Storrer, F., Oyamatsu, K. and Katakura, J. (1999)
Possible origin of the gamma-ray discrepancy in the summation calculations of
fission product decay heat, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 36(2), 135-142.
Appendix A 157
APPENDIX A
NUCLEAR DATA: COMPUTERISED INFORMATION SYSTEMS
1. INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
1.1 Network of Nuclear Data Centres
The Nuclear Data Centres Network is a world-wide co-operation of nuclear data

centres established under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to co-ordinate the collection, compilation and dissemination of nuclear data
at an international level. Nearly all nuclear data required for energy, non-energy
nuclear applications and basic science are covered, including nuclear cross sections,
fission yields and decay data. The Network consists of four ‘core’ Nuclear Data
Centres, and a group of regional, national and/or specialised data centres (second
group compiles data from a restricted geographical region and/or for special data
types (e.g., nuclear structure data, charged particle or photon induced reactions)).
Essential links have been forged through the Network to establish communications
between the producers and users of nuclear data. A brief summary is given below of
the various communication links for nuclear data users, with listings of standard and
Internet addresses.
1.1.1 Data centres
The four main data centres compile and exchange data in the CINDA and EXFOR
systems, and maintain and exchange evaluated data files for nuclear reaction,
structure and decay data. Evaluated data files include general purpose files as well as
specialised data files (e.g., for fission products, activation, thermonuclear fusion, and
dosimetry). These data centres compile and disseminate data to customers over a
defined geographical area:
National Nuclear Data Centre: United States of America, and Canada;

Nuclear Energy Agency Data Bank: OECD countries in Western Europe and
Japan;
Russian Nuclear Data Centre: former Soviet countries in Europe and Asia;
IAEA Nuclear Data Section: all remaining countries in Eastern Europe, South
and Central America, Asia, Africa and Australasia.
The reader can contact the responsible data centre (in their relevant geographical
area) for further information, or retrieve data directly via the Internet using one of the
addresses given below:
158 A.L. Nichols
Centre name: National Nuclear Data Centre Nuclear Energy Agency Data Bank
Contact: P. Oblozinsky C. Nordborg
Address: Bldg. 197D Le Seine St-Germain
Brookhaven National 12, boulevard des Iles
Laboratory 92130 Issy-les Moulineaux
PO Box 5000 France
Upton, NY 11973-5000
USA
Telephone: +1 516 344 2902 +33 1 4524 1090

Fax: +1 516 344 2806 +33 1 4524 1110
E-mail: nndc@bnl.gov nea@nea.fr
World Wide Web: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov http://www/nea.fr
FTP file transfer: bnlnd2.dne.bnl.gov FTP file transfer
username: bnlndc Username: open
(no password required) Password: neadb
Centre name: Nuclear Data Section Russian Nuclear Data Centre

Contact: A.L. Nichols V.N. Manokhin
Address: IAEA Leipunsky Institute of Physics and
Wagramer Strasse 5, PO Box Power Engineering
100 Centr Jadernykh Dannykh
A-1400 Vienna Ploschad Bondarenko
Austria 249 020 Obninsk
Kaluga Region
Russia
Telephone: +43 1 2600 21709 +7 084 399 8982

Fax: +43 1 26007 +7 095 883 3112/7 095 230 2326
E-mail: services@iaeand.iaea.org manokhin@ippe.rssi.ru
World Wide Web: http://www-nds.iaea.org http://rndc.ippe.obninsk.ru
FTP file transfer username: ndsopen acjd.ippe.rssi.ru
username: cjd
1.2 EXFOR
EXFOR is the EXchange FORmat used by the Data Centres to exchange compiled
experimental data. Designed initially for neutron reaction data, the format is flexible
enough to be extended to the compilation of a great variety of data types: neutron,
charged-particle and photon-induced reactions, as well as spontaneous fission data.
More details can be obtained in brochures from the Data Centres or directly from the
appropriate Web pages.
Appendix A 159
The flexibility of the format as well as the possibility to store all experimental details
for evaluator access make EXFOR ideal for the worldwide compilation of
experimental data. Furthermore, all the fission yield data from the Meek and Rider
files that were missing in EXFOR have been converted and added to the EXFOR data
base, which makes the latter almost complete with regard to fission yields.
1.3 CINDA
The Computer Index of Neutron DAta (CINDA) contains bibliographic references to

measurements, calculations, reviews and evaluations of neutron reaction and
spontaneous fission data. Proposed extensions include charged-particle and photon-
induced reaction data. CINDA is also the index for EXFOR entries and the evaluated
data libraries available from the Data Centres. Information contained in the CINDA
file is available as annually-updated books, and by direct retrievals through the
Internet.
1.4 INIS
The International Nuclear Information System (INIS) is a co-operative, decentralised

information system which contains bibliographical information on the peaceful uses
of nuclear science and technology, as well as on economic, environmental and health
aspects of nuclear and other energy sources. An entry into the INIS data base consists
of several pieces of information: title of publication, author(s) and reference citation,
an abstract, if available, and sets of descriptors, plus some information on the origin
and availability of the published information. Searches of the data base can be made
either by bibliographic information (author, reference) or by keywords (to be found in
title, abstract or descriptors). The information is provided by INIS Liaison Officers in
several international organisations as well as to the IAEA Member States, who also
have the right to disseminate that information within their restricted areas (as laid
down in agreements).
All of the collected information is published by the IAEA on a regular basis in the
INIS Atomindex, which is available as hard copy, microfiche, magnetic tapes and
cartridges, and CD-ROM (INIS services are not cost-free). Further information can
be obtained from:
IAEA INIS Section

PO Box 100
A-1400 Vienna
Austria
Telephone: +43 (1) 2600 22842

Fax: +43 (1) 26007 22882
E-mail: INIS.CentralServicesUnit@iaea.org
Web Home Page: http://www.iaea.org/inis/inis.htm
subscription to INIS Database: http://www.iaea.org/inis/inisdbm.htm
160 A.L. Nichols
2. OTHER SYSTEMS AND RETRIEVAL PROGRAMS
A brief summary is given of some of the on-line services (mainly in Europe and the
USA), user-friendly PC programs and CD ROMs available to search for, display and
retrieve nuclear data:
- evaluated nuclear data files - include fission yields, nuclear structure, mass,
radioactive decay and cross-section data,
- scientific works published recently in the literature – e.g., NSR (Nuclear

Science References, a computer file of indexed references maintained by
NNDC, Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA); INIS (International Nuclear
Information System) operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria; references system for the NUBASE evaluation (Atomic
Mass Data Centre, Orsay, France), with regular updates accessible through
the Internet.
Each of these tools may be rapidly used by reactor physicists to access evaluated data
(e.g., ENSDF, AME, NUBASE, ENDF/B and JEF), and by nuclear data evaluators as
a source of information on new measurements. Such on-line services and PC
programs are also extremely useful for research and educational purposes.
The list of accessible data libraries outlined below is not complete – there are
numerous special purpose files dedicated to more specific applications that have not
been included (e.g., NUCLÉIDE - CD-ROM reference files of decay data for
radiometrology (Bé et al, 1996); BANDRRI - CD-ROM reference files of decay data
for dosimetry applications (Los Arcos et al, 2000); CD-ROM containing gamma-ray
spectrum catalogues based on the studies of Heath (1974), and expanded by Helmer
et al (2000)). Many of these specialised data files can be applied to the needs of
nuclear medicine, dosimetry and detector calibration, and are accessible through the
Internet.
2.1 Software to Display Nuclear Data
Some of the software described below is available on CD-ROM or floppy disk, as

well as through the Internet:
2.1.1 US Nuclear Data Network
• CD-ROM version 1.0 of the 8th Edition of the Table of Isotopes (TOI), with
Adobe Acrobat viewer to display the hypertext data - released in March 1996
by Richard B. Firestone (LBL), CD-ROM Editor: S.Y. Frank Chu, Editor:
Virginia S. Shirley, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (ISBN 0-471-14918-7 Volume
set, ISBN 0-471-16405-5 CD-ROM). Updated in 1998:ISBN 0-471-24699-9
Volume set,ISBN 0-471-29090-4.
Appendix A 161
Five folders are available on this CD-ROM corresponding to the following:
Table of Isotopes,
Table of Superdeformed Nuclear Bands and Fission Isomers,
Tables of Atoms, Atomic nuclei and Subatomic Particles,
Description of Nuclear Structure and Decay Data Bases,
ENSDF Manual.
• CD-ROM entitled: Nuclear Data and References, PC Applications for

Nuclear Science, PCNudat and PapyrusTM NSR by L. P. Ekström, R. R.
Kinsey and E. Browne.
For further information:
a) contact in the USA:

Edgardo Browne (email: ebrowne@lbl.gov)
contact for PCNudat:

Robert Kinsey (email: kinsey@bnl.gov)
b) US Nuclear Data Network (USNDN) Home Page via Internet:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/usndp
• EXFOR CD-ROM, see Website: http://www-nds.iaea.or.at/
• MacNuclide project at the San Jose State University.
2.1.2 University of Lund, Sweden
Lund Nuclear Data WWW Service at:

http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/nucleardata/
As well as the normal data services, the Lund Website includes the Isotope Explorer
2.0 program, which can interactively access and display nuclear data and search for
literature references. Developed by:
S. Y. F. Chua, H. Nordbergb, R. B. Firestonea, and L. P. Ekströmb

a
Isotopes Project, LBNL, Berkeley
b
Department of Physics, University of Lund
For further information on the Isotope Explorer:

http://ie.lbl.gov/isoexpl/isoexpl.htm
162 A.L. Nichols
For further information on the Lund Nuclear Data Centre and Services:
Contact: Peter Ekström

Address: Department of Physics
University of Lund
Box 118, Office: B201
SE-221 00 Lund
Sweden
Telephone: +46 46 22 27647

Mobile phone: +46 073 995 7984
Fax: +46 46 22 24709
E-mail: peter.ekstrom@nuclear.lu.se
Visiting address: Professorsgatan 1, Internal post: Hämtställe 14
2.1.3 Atomic Mass Data Centre, Paris - Orsay
Website of the Atomic Mass Data Centre (AMDC): http://csnwww.in2p3.fr/amdc
AMDC is devoted to nuclear and mass spectroscopic data. The Centre produces a
newsletter that describes on-going experimental, theoretical and evaluation work on
the atomic masses, and feedback on important conferences. Furthermore, the 1995
update of the atomic mass evaluation by G. Audi and A. H. Wapstra (1995), and the
NUBASE data evaluation by G. Audi et al. (1997) can be displayed by the
NUCLEUS PC program or by the ‘jvNubase JAVA applet’ on the Web. NUBASE
contains the main nuclear and decay properties of the known nuclides in their ground
and isomeric states as derived from ENSDF, the Atomic Mass Evaluation, and a
critical compilation of recent literature.
For further information, contact Georges Audi:
Address: Atomic Mass Data Centre, CSNSM (IN2P3-CNRS)

Batiment 108
91405 Orsay Campus
France
Telephone: +33 1 6915 5223

Fax: +33 1 6915 5268
E-mail: audi@csnsm.in2p3.fr
Appendix A 163
2.1.4 OECD/NEA Data Bank, Paris
NEA Data Bank has developed and released the JEF-PC program, in co-operation
with CSNSM-Orsay and the University of Birmingham. This jointly-developed
program generates a “Chart of the Nuclides” format for the display of data from a
number of evaluated libraries, including the Joint Evaluated File (JEF-2.2), ENDF/B-
VI.4 and JENDL-3.2 supplied on CD-ROM as part of the package. Three internal
modules are devoted to radioactive decay, fission product yields and cross-section
data (Konieczny et al., 1997). Evaluated and experimental cross-section data can also
be plotted and compared.
JANIS (JAva Nuclear data Information System) is in the process of being developed
by the NEA Data Bank on the basis of user feed-back from JEF-PC. All earlier
features of JEF-PC have been reproduced, along with several others (e.g., energy and
angular distribution, and display of resonance parameters). This new software is
more flexible and user-friendly, and is undergoing preliminary tests (Nouri et al.,
2001).
Contact the NEA Nuclear Data Service Section for further information:
Mark A Kellett or Ali Nouri:

Address: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
Le Seine St-Germain
12, boulevard des Iles
92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux
France
Tel: +33 1 4524 1085 +33 1 4524 1084

Fax: +33 1 4524 1110 +33 1 4524 1110
E-mail: kellett@nea.fr nouri@nea.fr
NEA Data Bank Website: http://www.nea.fr/html/databank/
More information on JANIS is available on the Web at:

http://www.nea.fr/html/dbdata/
2.1.5 Institute for Transuranium Elements (ITU), Karlsruhe, Germany
‘Nuclides 2000: an Electronic Chart of the Nuclides’ has been developed and released
as a CD-ROM by ITU, Karlsruhe. The Nuclide explorer gives access to the
radionuclide decay data from JEF-2.2, using either a “Chart of the Nuclides’ or Segrè
display (Magill, 1999). Derived data include activities, gamma dose rates and annual
limits of intake. There are additional features to this package, including background
articles that describe various aspects of decay data and related historical publications.
164 A.L. Nichols
‘Nuclides 2000’ allows the user to carry out decay calculations: starting from an
initial mass or activity, the user can determine the masses, activities, radiotoxicities,
gamma dose rates etc for all daughters at any time.
Contact ITU, Karlsruhe for further information:
Joseph Magill
Address: Institute for Transuranium Elements
Postfach 2340
D-76125 Karlsruhe
Germany
Tel: +49 7247 951366

Fax: +49 7247 951591
E-mail: magill@itu.fzk.de
More information on ‘Nuclides 2000’ is available on the Web (including

direct purchase): http://www.nuclides.net/
3. NUCLEAR DATA CENTRES IN EUROPE AND THE USA
3.1 National Nuclear Data Centre (NNDC), Brookhaven National

Laboratory (BNL), USA:
• Anonymous FTP server

Address: ftp.nndc.bnl.gov
User name: anonymous
Password: your E-mail address
• Terminal Access (using Telnet)

Address: telnet.nndc.bnl.gov (IP address: 130.199.112.132)
User name: NNDC (no password)
Enter the code when prompted for assigned authorization code. New users
may adopt the user name GUEST for a time-limited trial, and can apply for
registration by using an electronic form which appears on exiting from the
system.
• Home Page through the World Wide Web: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/
Nuclear Data and Programs:

NSR, ENSDF, NUDAT, MIRD, PHYSCO, CINDA, CSISRS/EXFOR and
ENDF.
E-mail for further information: services@bnlnd2.dne.bnl.gov

Appendix A 165
NNDC Web effort co-ordinator: Thomas W. Burrows

NNDC On-line service co-ordinator: Victoria McLane
Address: On-line Data Service

National Nuclear Data Centre
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973
USA
Tel: +1 516-344-2901
Fax: +1 516-344-2806
E-mail: NNDC@BNL.GOV
3.2 IAEA Nuclear Data Section (NDS), Austria
• Services are available through the Web at: http://www-nds.iaea.org
• Telnet access (NDIS - Nuclear Data Information System):

Address: iaeand.iaea.or.at
User name: iaeands (no password).
Enter the code, at the prompt for an assigned authorization code. New users
may adopt the user-name GUEST for a time-limited trial, and can apply for
registration using an electronic form which appears on exiting from the
system.
Nuclear Data and Programs are basically the same as for US NNDC (see
above).
• FTP server:
Address: iaeand.iaea.or.at
User names: ANONYMOUS for FTP file transfer
FENDL2 for FENDL-2.0 files
RIPL for RIPL files
For further information: Nuclear Data Section

International Atomic Energy Agency
PO Box 100
A-1400 Vienna
Austria
Tel: +43-1 2600-21710

Fax: +43-1 26007
E-mail: services@iaeand.iaea.org
166 A.L. Nichols
3.3 Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Data Bank
NEA On-line Services are open to registered scientific users in the seventeen member
states of the NEA Data Bank. New users register via the on-line form at Web address
www.nea.fr The site offers access to a wide range of databases (ENSDF, NSR,
NUDAT, as well as experimental data (EXFOR), bibliographic reference to neutron
induced reactions (CINDA), evaluated data files (including JEF, ENDF/B and
JENDL) and the NEA Thermochemical Data Base (TDB)). All data libraries have
on-line search and download facilities.
On-line services can be accessed through the Web at the following address:
http://www.nea.fr/
For further information, contact: Pierre Nagel - Network & On-line-services

Telephone: +33 1 4524 1082
E-mail: nagel@nea.fr
References
Audi, G. and Wapstra, A. H. (1995) The 1995 update to the atomic mass evaluation, Nucl.
Phys., A595, 409-480.
Audi, G., Bersillon, O., Blachot, J. and Wapstra, A. H. (1997) The NUBASE evaluation of
nuclear and decay properties, Nucl. Phys., A624, 1-124.
Bé, M. M., Duchemin, B. and Lamé, J. (1996) An interactive database for decay data, Nucl.
Instrum. Meth. Phys Res., A369, 523-526.
Heath, R. L. (1974) Gamma-ray spectrum catalogue, AEC Report ANC-1000-2.
Helmer, R. G., Gehrke, R. J., Davidson, J. R. and Mandler, J. W. (2000) Scientists,

spectrometry and gamma-ray spectrum catalogues, 1957-2007, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem.,
243, 109-117.
Konieczny, M., Weaver, D. R., Hale, D., Baynham, I., Tagziria, H. and Weaver, R. A. (1997)
JEF-PC Version 2.0: a PC program for viewing evaluated and experimental data, pp 1063-
1065 in Proc. Int. Conf. Nucl. Data for Science and Technology, Vol. 59, Editors: Reffo, G.,
Ventura, A. and Grandi, C., SIF, Bologna, Italy.
Los Arcos, J. M., Bailador, A., Gonzalez, A., Gonzalez, C., Gorostiza, C., Ortoz, F., Sanchez,
E., Shaw, M. and Williart, A. (2000) The Spanish National Reference Database for Ionizing
Radiations (BANDRRI), Appl. Radiat. Isot., 52, 335-340.
Magill, J. (1999) Nuclides 2000: an electronic Chart of the Nuclides – user’s guide, EUR
18737 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, ISBN
92-828-6512-6.
Nouri, A., Nagel, P., Amah, F. Le C., Cunin, C., Patrouix, J., Rioland, O., Soppera, N. and
Taton, B. (2001) JANIS: new software for nuclear data services, ND2001 Int. Conf. Nucl.
Data for Science and Technology, 7-12 October 2001, Tsukuba, Japan.
Appendix B 167
APPENDIX B
B. 1 FISSION PRODUCTS AND DECAY CHAINS
B. 2 ACTINIDES AND DECAY CHAINS
Health warning: all data within this review (and particularly

Appendix B) are subject to change.
Appendix B 169
170 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 171
172 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 173
174 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 175
176 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 177
178 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 179
180 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 181
182 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 183
184 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 185
186 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 187
188 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 189
1.02s 18.9s 90 y
13.8m 1.6h
(0.28s) 3.63s 11.4m 7.52m
4.12m 9.31h
(1.5s) 4.28s 31.6s 5.25m 1.93d 240.4d
1.73m
(2.0s) 2.3s 25.9s
2.68m
190 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 191
192 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 193
194 A.L. Nichols
Appendix B 195
Nuclear Power in the 21st Century: Status & Trends
in Advanced Nuclear Technology Development
Debu Majumdar∗
Nuclear Power Technology Development Section,
Division of Nuclear Power, Department of Nuclear Energy,
IAEA, Vienna, Austria

LNS0520004
∗
D.Majumdar@iaea.org
Abstract
Global demand for energy is going to keep on increasing, especially in

developing countries where per capita energy use is only a small fraction of
that in industrialized countries. In this regard nuclear energy could play an
important role, as it is an essentially unlimited source of energy. However, the
nuclear option faces the challenges of increasingly demanding safety
requirements, economic competitiveness and public acceptance. Worldwide, a
significant amount of experience has been accumulated during development,
licensing, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors. This
experience forms a sound basis for further improvements. Nuclear programs in
many countries are addressing the development of advanced reactors, which
are intended to have better economics, higher reliability, improved safety, and
proliferation-resistant characteristics in order to overcome the current concerns
about nuclear power. Advanced reactors, now being developed, could help to
meet the demand for power in developed and developing countries, not only
for electricity generation, but also for district heating, desalination and for
process heat.
This paper reviews the status and trends in advanced nuclear power
technology development around the world, discusses the challenges it faces,
and summarizes the international approach and technical advances made with
examples of new designs of reactors.
Nuclear Power in the 21st Century 199
1. INTRODUCTION
An examination of the global energy use shows that fossil fuels account for
nearly 80%, and nuclear power provides only 7%, of our current energy supply.
Additionally, around 83% of nuclear power is produced only in a dozen industrialized
countries out of 30 nuclear power producing countries. The demand for an increase of
standard of living and population growth in developing countries are asking for a
considerable increase of this energy supply. However, many factors come into play in
specific countries in providing energy to the people - economics, infrastructure, and
government policy being the most important factors. The effect on the environment is
another crucial factor whose importance, however, has not yet received adequate
attention in the energy mix.
The population of the earth, the prime reason for energy use, is increasing
although the birth rate has decelerated since the early 1990s. Present trends suggest
that total population may not exceed 8 billion people around 2050 and may start to
decline shortly thereafter1. This is still a large increase from today’s population of 6
billion, and energy for these people must be provided. It is important to note that
virtually all of this growth will occur in developing countries. Industrialized country
populations have peaked or will do so shortly. Moreover, the greater part of the
population increase will be urban. The proportion of people living in rural areas has
already peaked and will decline in future. An indication of urbanization is that today
there are five mega cities of more than 15 million habitants (Tokyo, Mexico City,
Mumbai, Sao Paulo and New York), but in 20 years there will be 15, mostly located
in developing countries1. In energy terms, already we have nearly 2 billion people
without access to a regular electricity supply. Even with lower population projections,
the challenge to achieve access to energy for all is clearly substantial. An issue here is
that concentration of people requires large sources of energy nearby; this needs to be
solved in a way that does not create an environmental problem for the city dwellers.
The environmental issues have received prominence since the 1990s,

particularly with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, climate change possibilities
and their effect on our living conditions. The Third Assessment Report of the Inter-
Governmental Panel on Climate Change (February 2001)2 presented the strongest
evidence yet that climate change is occurring (for example, temperatures have risen in
the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere, snow and ice cover have decreased, and the sea
level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 meters in the last century). The report also finds
that concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have continued to increase as a
result of human activities. However, the nations of the world have not unified in their
response to this phenomenon.
Nuclear energy is one way to provide bulk electricity supply without

greenhouse gas emissions; it is supported by ample uranium resources worldwide and
can be made to last almost forever by using the breeder option. The nuclear industry
accumulated 10,000 reactor years of operating experience. But nuclear is not without
200 D. Majumdar
its problems. The challenges facing nuclear power include (1) continuing to assure
the highest level of safe operation of current plants, (2) implementing disposal of high
level waste, (3) establishing and convincing the public of a sound basis for nuclear
power for sustainable development, (4) achieving further technological advances to
assure that future nuclear plants will be economically competitive with fossil
alternatives, especially in deregulated and privatized electricity markets, and (5)
developing economical and non-proliferating small and medium sized reactors to
provide nuclear power to countries with small electricity grids and also for non-
electric applications such as seawater desalination.
This paper will discuss the status and trends of advanced nuclear reactors,
which could help in the solution of the energy problem of the world and, at the same
time, address the issues raised by the nuclear critics.
2. CURRENT STATUS
There are only 30 nuclear electricity-generating countries. Table I below shows

the total electricity generating capacity in various countries in the world. Note that
only 8 countries have total capacity of more than 100 GWe, and of these two of the
largest population countries, China and India, have only a few percentage of nuclear
to share. However, China and India currently have solid programs for nuclear power.
The important part of the table is that there are many dozens of countries with a total
capacity of 2 GWe and less, who need the power most. Because of their grid size,
these countries cannot add a large plant of the size of 1GWe; plants for these
countries would have to be smaller and more cost-effective (and hence more
innovative) than existing large plants.
The worldwide operating experience of power reactors is tremendous. Overall

438 reactors were in operation in 2002. The breakdown of these reactors by types and
generating capacity are shown in Table II.
TABLE I. TOTAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING CAPACITY (2002)3
Total No. of Nuclear Share

Countries
Capacity (GWe) Countries (%)
USA, Japan, China, Russia,
More than 100 8 1 – 80
India, Canada, Germany, France
UK, Brazil, Spain, ROK, Ukraine,
50 – 100 6 2 - 39
Mexico
50 – 100 Italy 1 None
S. Africa, Sweden, Argentina, Romania,
10 – 50
Netherlands, Pakistan, Switzerland, 11 2 – 45
Finland, Belgium, Czech Rep., Bulgaria
Australia, Austria, Denmark, Egypt,
10 – 50 Greece, Iran, Indonesia, Poland, Turkey,
23 None
Kazakhstan,…
Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Armenia,

2–9 5 31 – 65
Slovenia
New Zealand, Croatia†, Vietnam,
2–9 38 None
Bangladesh, …
Algeria, Albania, Bolivia, Panama,
1–2 18 None
Ghana, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Iceland, …
Less than 1 Many small countries ~ 80 None
As shown in Figure 1, there are currently 32 nuclear power plants under

construction in 12 countries; 8 in China, 4 each in Ukraine and Republic of Korea, 3
in Japan, 2 each in India, Slovakia, Russia, Iran, and Taiwan, China, and 1 each in
Romania, Czech Republic and Argentina. China is building six PWRs in the range of
640 to 1000 MWe from Framatome, Russia and their own design, and two 730 MWe
PHWRs from Canada. Two 500 MWe PHWRs are under construction in India. India
has also announced that four more 220 MWe PHWRs and 2 1000 MWe WWERs and
a 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor will be under construction soon. In Ukraine
Khmelnitski Units 2, 3 and 4 and Rovno Unit 4, all 1000 MWe WWERs, are under
construction since 1985 through 1987. Large advanced PWRs and BWRs are being
built in Republic of Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Mohovce Units 3 and 4 in Slovakia,
WWER 440 plants, are under construction since 1985 and are currently on hold.
Atucha Unit 2 in Argentia, 700 MWe Siemens PHWR, is under construction since
1981 but currently on hold. Cernavoda Unit 2, CANDU 700 MWe PHWR, is under
construction since 1983. Bushehr Units 1 and 2 in Iran, WWER 1000, are currently
replacing the original reactor designs. Temelin Unit 2 in Czech Republic, WWER
†
Croatia owns 50% of the Krsko 676 MWe Westinghouse PWR plant located in Slovenia.
202 D. Majumdar
1000 further modernized by Westinghouse, is currently under startup testing. Figure 2

gives their size breakdown. It is important to note that primarily large size reactors
are being built: 22 in the range of 900 – 1350 MWe. Then there are 6 in 600 – 700
MWe range, and 4 between 300- 500 MWe. Thus it is apparent that the utilities will
build power plants as large as the grid size will tolerate because that is most
economical. However, there is a need for both small and large reactors for flexibility
in power management, to suit the grid size and investment capitals, and for remote or
special situations such as small localities in Siberia.
TABLE II. REACTOR TYPES AND GENERATING CAPACITY IN THE WORLD AS OF

JUNE 2002
PWR BWR HWR LWGR WWER GCR LMR TOTAL
No of
reactors in 208 92 35 17 51 32 3 438
operation
No. of 17 10 6 2 8 1 3
countries Belgium Finland, Argentina Lithuania Armenia UK France
Brazil Germany Canada Russia Bulgaria Japan
China India India, ROK Czech R Russia
France Japan Pakistan Finland
Germany Mexico Romania Hungary
Japan, ROK Spain Russia
Netherlands Sweden Slovakia
31
Pakistan Switzerland Ukraine
S. Africa Taiwan
Slovenia USA
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
UK, USA.
Generating
capacity, 198 80 16 13 33 12 1 353
Gwe
Operating
experience
of all
4351 2291 761 469 999 1460 151 10,482
reactors,
Reactor-
years
Number of NPP under construction

(January 2002)
2002
China 8
Ukraine 4
Korea Rep.
Rep. 4
Japan 3
Slovakia 2
Russia 2
Iran 2
India 2
Romania 1
Czech 1
Argentina 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Note: there are two additional NPP under construction in Taiwan
Department of Nuclear Energy

Fig. 1 Number of nuclear power plants under construction around the world4
Number of NPP under Construction

by Size (MWe)
25
20
15
22
10
5
6
0
4 0
900 – 1350 MW 600-
600-700 MW 300 – 500 MW Less than 300 MW
Department of Nuclear Energy

Fig. 2 Size breakdowns of nuclear power plants under construction around the world4
204 D. Majumdar
3. BASIC POWER NUCLEAR REACTOR DESIGNS
The main types of nuclear power reactors are shown in Table III. They are
categorized by the material used to moderate the neutrons generated in nuclear fission
and the coolants used for the transport of heat.
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR): Primary water pressurized to about 160

bar act as both the moderator and the coolant. The fuel is up to 5% enriched uranium
dioxide in Zircaloy tubes. The primary water heats water in a secondary circuit to
produce steam. The reactor is housed in a containment building. The thermal
efficiency is about 32%.
Boiling water Reactor (BWR): It is essentially a PWR without the steam

generator and the secondary circuit. Water at a pressure of about 70 bar is pumped
through the core and, since it is at a lower pressure compared to the PWR, steam is
generated in the primary circuit. About 10% of the water is converted to steam and
goes to the steam turbine. After condensing it is pressurized and returned to the
coolant. The power density of a BWR is about half that of a PWR with lower
temperature and pressure, but the efficiency is similar.
CANadian DeUterium Reactor (CANDU): Heavy water is used as both the

moderator and the coolant with natural uranium oxide in Zircaloy tubes as the fuel.
The fuel tubes pass through a tank of heavy water. Heavy water is pumped through
the fuel tubes at about 90 bar pressure and then to a steam generator as in a PWR. The
power density is about 1/10th of that of a PWR.
High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR): These are graphite

moderated, helium cooled reactors. The fuel is a coated particle to contain the fission
products. Water has been used in the secondary circuit to generate steam. Recently a
direct cycle (single loop) gas turbine concept has been developed.
Liquid Metal Fast Reactor (LMFR): Liquid metal transports heat very
efficiently and only lightly moderates the neutrons from fission. LMFRs consequently
need more fissile material to keep the chain reaction going. The core may also contain
fertile material to produce new fuel. Since they can breed fuel, they are also known as
breeder reactors. Sodium has been used as the most common form of liquid metal for
these reactors. Enriched uranium and Plutonium dioxide and metals have been used
as fuel. They operate at a much lower pressure compared to the common light water
reactors.
TABLE III: CHARACTERISTICS OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS RELEVANT

TODAY
Coolant and its
Reactor Fuel Moderator pressure in bars Steam
type (normal atmospheric generation
pressure is about
1 bar)
PWR uranium dioxide ordinary water pressurized ordinary separate
(~ 3.2% U-235) water (160 bars) circuit
CANDU Natural heavy water Heavy water (90 separate

uranium dioxide bars) circuit
(0.7% U-235)
BWR uranium dioxide ordinary water pressurized ordinary water which boils
(2.6% U-235) and produces steam directly (70 bars)
HTGR uranium dioxide in graphite helium (~ 60 bars) separate

coated particle fuel circuit
(approx. 8-19%) (or direct
helium cycle)
LMFR uranium/plutonium none liquid sodium at low separate
oxide pressure (~5 bar) circuit
(~ 16-20%), high
power density
Other Reactor Types: There are two reactor types developed and built only in
the UK, Magnox and AGR, which are still operating. Magnox is a carbon-dioxide
cooled (at about 20 bar pressure), graphite moderated reactor. It has natural uranium
fuel in a Magnesium alloy cladding. Overall thermal efficiency is about 30%. The
AGR, Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor, is a gas-cooled reactor with graphite
moderation and carbon-dioxide as the coolant at a pressure of about 40 bar. The fuel
is 3% enriched uranium-dioxide and clad in Stainless Steel. Its thermal efficiency is
about 40%. It is a unique UK design. Similarly, the Graphite Moderated Boiling
Water Reactor (RBMK) is an older Russian design and built only in the former Soviet
Union. The RBMK core is an assembly of graphite blocks through which runs the
pressure tubes containing the fuel. Water is pumped through these tubes where it boils
to steam. The fuel is 2% enriched uranium dioxide in Zircaloy tubes.
An older concept that is receiving new attention is the Molten Salt Reactor
(MSR), which can generate energy and at the same time considerably burn the long-
lived radioactive wastes. It is a circulating, molten salt homogeneous reactor. The fuel
is a mixture of fluorides of Li-7, Be, Th, and U-233, U-235 or Pu-239 fissile material.
Graphite is used as moderator although some moderation is achieved by the Li, Be
206 D. Majumdar
and F used in the fuel. Heat is transferred from the fuel leaving the core by an
intermediate heat exchanger. Fuel processing is an integral part of the reactor
operation. The fuel and the fuel composition can be changed without shutting down
the reactor. One 8 MWt Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) facility was
operated for four years at Oak Ridge, USA, from 1965 – 69.
4. ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
A lot of work has been done around the world to improve the existing reactor
designs. The large base of experience with the current nuclear plants has been used to
guide development of the new designs on the basis of User Requirements Documents
(URDs) such as the Electric Power Research Institute URD5 and the European Utility
Requirements6. Common goals are simplification, larger margins to limit system
challenges, longer grace periods for response to emergency situations, high
availability, competitive economics and compliance with internationally recognized
safety objectives. The new designs are also incorporating features to meet more
stringent safety objectives by improving severe accident prevention and mitigation.
Several of these designs have reached a high degree of maturity, and some
have been certified by nuclear regulatory authorities. Some are entering a design
optimization phase to reduce capital cost. Many of the new design features have been
tested to demonstrate technological readiness.
The full spectrum of these advanced nuclear power plants covers different
types of reactors with different coolants. They are referred to as evolutionary or
innovative designs. An evolutionary design is a design that achieves improvements
over existing designs through small to moderate modifications with a strong emphasis
on maintaining proven design features to minimize technological risks. It requires at
most engineering and confirmatory testing. An innovative design is one, which
incorporates radical conceptual changes in design approaches or system configuration
in comparison with existing practices. They could have new types of coolant,
moderator or fuel. Consequently, substantial R&D, and feasibility tests are required,
and a prototype or demonstration plant may be necessary to bring the concept to
commercial maturity. Figure 3 gives a relative standing of efforts and costs needed
for development of advanced reactors7.
Fig.3 Relative indication of cost of development of advanced reactor designs
For new plants, the basis for achieving high performance is also being laid
down during the design phase8. These include design for on-line maintenance and
short outages. Many other aspects such as better man-machine interface using
computers and improved information displays, and better operator qualification and
simulator training, which have been applied at current plants, will contribute to high
performance of future plants. The advanced designs also desire plant lifetimes of 60
years.
A new terminology is being used for the advanced reactors. Bill Magwood first
introduced this from the US Department of Energy9 and is shown in Table IV, which
also describes the evolution of reactor designs. First generation reactors (Generation
I) were those introduced early in the prototype stage of nuclear power. Generation II
reactors were the commercial PWR, BWR, HWR, and WWER reactors built in the
70s and 80s. Generation III are the evolutionary advanced reactors. These could be
divided into two categories: (1) those whose designs have been completed such as
AP600/1000, SWR 1000, and the EPR, and (2) those which have been built such as
ABWR, System 80+, KSNP. The next generation or Generation IV reactors are those
designs that are beyond the current advanced designs and are “revolutionary” in
nature. However, no Generation IV reactors have been built or even demonstrated,
and so from a utility perspective, we may think of the next generation reactors as
those just beyond the near term deployment designs. In other words, those are
reactors that still need demonstration or some significant tests before commercial
operation.
208 D. Majumdar
TABLE IV. EVOLUTION OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
Evolution Example
Generation I Early Prototypes

Early 1950s to late 1960s . Shippingport
. Dresden, Fermi I
. Magnox
. VK-50, BiNPP
Generation II Commercial power reactors

(1970 – 90) . LWR – PWR & BWR
. CANDU
. RBMK/WWER
Generation III Evolutionary and Advanced designs

Improvements of designs started in . ABWR
late 1980s . APWR
. WWER 1000
. AP 600/1000
. GT-MHR, PBMR
Generation IV Innovative designs

21st century .Molten salt reactors; supercritical water-cooled
reactors; lead alloy, sodium and gas-cooled fast
reactor systems; and very high temperature
reactors.
4.1. Light Water-cooled Advanced Reactors
Worldwide, LWRs (PWRs, BWRs and WWERs) are the major types of nuclear
power plants. They represent approximately 88% of today’s global nuclear power
capacity, and evolutionary designs, based on this experience base, are being
developed in several countries. The major evolutionary LWR designs are shown in
Table V.
TABLE V. MAJOR EVOLUTIONARY LWR DESIGNS

Power
Reactor Organization Status/Significant Features
(MWe)
Westinghouse
System 80+ (formerly ABB Design certified by US NRC.
1350
PWR Combustion
Engineering)
Mitsubishi, Japan
First unit planned at Tsuruga site in
APWR 1530 Westinghouse,
Japan.
USA
Upgraded from AP-600; under licensing
AP 1000 1000 Westinghouse
review
Framatome ANP, Design complete; meets European Utility
EPR 1545
France/Germany Requirements
Several planned in Russia, China, India
1000 Gidropress & and Iran. Design of WWER 640 with
WWER Atomenergoproject, passive safety features is complete and 2
640 Russia construction sites in Russia have been
located.
Korea Electric
Power Co., Six operating in ROK and two under
KSNP 1000
Republic of Korea construction.
(ROK)
KEPCO and Based on System 80+ design; has
APR-1400 1400 Korean industry, received design certification and is
Republic Of Korea expected to be built by 2010.
AC- Similar to AP-600/1000 designs;
600/1000 NPIC, China
600/1000 expected in 2010.
General Electric, 2 operating and 10 planned in Japan;
ABWR 1360 Hitachi-and design based on well- proven active
Toshiba safety systems.
Japanese utilities
Economy of scale design under
ABWR-II 1700 and GE-Hitachi-
consideration
Toshiba
Incorporates economy of scale with
General Electric,
ESBWR 1380 passive safety, design based on earlier
USA
SBWR effort.
Design complete, based on German utility
Framatome ANP,
SWR-1000 1000 experience; active and passive safety
Germany
systems.
Westinghouse Evolutionary version of earlier ABB
BWR 90+ 1500
Atom, Sweden Atom designs.
210 D. Majumdar
The evolutionary LWR activities in different countries are briefly described in

the following10:
In the USA, designs for a large sized advanced PWR (the Combustion
Engineering System 80+) and a large sized BWR (General Electric’s ABWR) were
certified by the U.S. NRC in May 1997. Westinghouse’s mid-size AP-600 design
with passive safety systems was certified in December 1999. Efforts are currently
underway by Westinghouse on a 1090 MWe plant called the “AP-1000,” applying the
passive safety technology developed for the AP-600 with the goal to reduce the
capital costs through economies-of-scale. A certification application for the AP-1000
design has been made to the US NRC this year. General Electric is also designing a
1380 MWe ESBWR applying economies-of-scale together with modular passive
safety systems. The design draws on technology features from General Electric’s
ABWR and from their earlier 670 MWe simplified BWR with passive systems.
In France and Germany, Framatome ANP completed the basic design for a
1545 MW(e) European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) in 1998, which meets
European utility requirements. The EPR design includes the mitigation of core melt
and vessel penetration accident scenarios ensuring the avoidance of evacuation of
people in the vicinity of the plant. Accidents with molten core material outside the
reactor pressure vessel are handled via a spreading concept in the basement of the
containment. The EPR’s higher power level relative to the latest series of PWRs
operating in France (the N4 series) and Germany (the Konvoi series) has been
selected to capture economies of scale. Framatome ANP’s SWR 1000 is based on
German BWR experience with added features to increase safety. It is an advanced
BWR with active and passive safety features which allows for extended grace period
for accident control and consequences of a core melt accident is limited to the
immediate vicinity of the plant. This has been achieved by providing cooling of the
reactor pressure vessel exterior. The essential elements of the SWR safety concepts
are shown in figure 4.
SW R 1000
Safety C oncept D rye r-s e p a ra to r s to ra g e
pool
Containm ent cooling

condensers for 3 M a in s te a m
containm ent heat rem oval lin e s
SRV for reactor pressure C o re

flo o d in g 2 Fe e d w a te r
relief and reactor pool lin e s
depressurization
R e ac t o r w a t e r
c le a n -u p s ys te m
Em ergency condensers for
heat rem oval from the RPV 2 8 .7 m P re s s u re
s u p p re s s io n p o o l
C o re
1 6 Ve n t p ip e s
Flooding lines for passive

core flooding in the event
of LOCA
LPCI and RHR
Drywell flooding line (event C o n tro l ro d d rive s system s
of a core m elt accident)
Re s id u a l h e a t re m o va l s ys te m
ø 3 2 .0 m
Fig. 4. A schematic drawing of SWR 1000 safety features
In Sweden, Westinghouse Atom is also developing the 1500 MWe BWR 90+,
an advanced boiling water reactor with improved safety and operability. This is an
upgraded version of the BWR operating in Sweden and Finland.
The first two ABWRs in Japan, the 1360 MWe Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 and 7
units, have been in commercial operation since 1996 and 1997, respectively. ABWR
plants are under construction at Hamaoka Unit no. 5 and Shika Unit no. 2, and under
licensing at Ohma Unit no. 1. Another eight ABWR plants are in the planning stage
in Japan. The benefits of standardization and construction in series are being realized
with the ABWR units. Expectations are that future ABWRs will achieve a significant
reduction in generation cost due to standardization, design improvements and better
project management. In addition, a development programme was started in 1991 for
1700 MWe ABWR-II, aiming to further improve and evolve the ABWR, with the
goal of significant reduction in power generation cost. Commissioning of the first
ABWR-II is foreseen in the late 2010s. Also in Japan, the basic design of a 1530
MWe advanced PWR has been completed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and
Westinghouse for the Japan Atomic Power Company’s Tsuruga-3 and –4 units.
In the Republic of Korea, the benefits of standardization and construction in

series are also being realized with the 1000 MWe Korean Standard Nuclear Plant
(KSNP). The first two KSNPs, Ulchin 3 and 4, have been in commercial operation
212 D. Majumdar
since 1998 and 1999, respectively, and four more units (Yonggwang 5 and 6 and
Ulchin 5 and 6) were under construction in 2001, with Yonggwang 5 and 6 scheduled
to begin commercial operation in 2002. In addition, ROK is developing the Korean
Next Generation Reactor, now named the Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR-
1400), which is focusing on improving availability and reducing costs. It has received
design certification and is expected to be constructed by 2010.
In the Russian Federation, efforts continue on evolutionary versions of the

currently operating WWER-1000 (V-320) plants. This includes the WWER-1000 (V-
392) design, of which two units are planned at the Novovoronezh site, and WWER-
1000 units are also planned in China, India and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Development of a WWER-1500 design has been initiated. Development is also
ongoing on a mid-size WWER-640 with passive safety systems, and on an integral
design with the steam generator system inside the reactor pressure vessel.
In China, the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) is developing the

CNP-1000 plant. China is pursuing self-reliance both in designing the plant to meet
Chinese safety requirements, and in fostering local equipment manufacture with the
objective of reducing construction and operation costs. Lessons learned from the
design, construction and operation of the Qinshan and Daya Bay NPPs are being
incorporated. Two ABWRs are under construction in Taiwan.
4.2. Heavy Water Advanced Reactors
Heavy water reactors (HWRs) at the beginning of 2001 represented about 8%

by number and 4.7% by capacity of all operating power reactors. With many years of
operating experience Canada has developed the 700 MWe CANDU-6, which has
been built in several countries outside Canada. India has also built a series of 220
MWe HWRs. Work on evolutionary HWRs is ongoing in Canada, India and Russia
and is briefly described below.
The new Canadian evolutionary Heavy Water Reactor11 is the 935 MWe
CANDU-9. Canada is also working on a 400 – 650 MWe Next Generation CANDU.
The NG CANDU design features major improvements in economics, inherent safety
characteristics and performance. It optimises the design by utilizing SEU fuel to
reduce the reactor core size, which minimizes the amount of heavy water required for
moderation, and allows light water to be used as the reactor coolant. It is expected
that the potential for offsite releases of radioactive material in NG CANDU will be
sufficiently low that a target of “no evacuation” can be achieved. In June 2002,
Atomic Energy of Canada renamed the NG as Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR) and
announced that the ACR-700 will be “market-ready” by 2005.
In India, a continuing process of evolution of HWR design has been carried

out. In 2002 construction began on two 500 MWe units at Tarapur which incorporate
feedback from several indigenously designed and built 220 MWe units. The
Advanced HWR (AHWR), under development in India, is a 235 MW heavy water
moderated, boiling light water cooled, vertical pressure tube reactor with its design
optimised for utilization of thorium for power generation. The conceptual design and
the design feasibility studies for this reactor have been completed and the detailed
design is in progress. The design incorporates a number of passive systems and the
overall design philosophy includes achievement of simplification to the maximum
extent.
A reactor design concept for an ‘Ultimate Safe’ reactor with 1000 MW output
is being developed by the Russian Institute ITEP, in conjunction with other Russian
organizations12. The prototype for this conceptual design is the KS150 reactor in
Bohunice in the Slovak Republic. Low temperature heavy water is used as the
moderator, and the design incorporates gaseous coolant, either CO2 or a mixture of
CO2 and helium, and low fissile content fuel. The entire primary system, including
main gas-circulators, steam generators and intermediate heat exchangers are
contained within a multi-cavity, pre-stressed concrete pressure vessel. The design is
said to be super safe, for example, accidental withdrawal of all control rods will add a
relatively small amount of reactivity to the system compensated by the negative
reactor power coefficient.
4.3. Gas-cooled Reactors
South Africa, Japan, China and a consortium of US, Russia, France and Japan
are developing small gas-cooled reactor designs and technologies. Coated fuel
particles are used in these reactors and they retain fission gases even under accident
conditions. Modularization, inherent safety characteristics, direct cycle, and high
temperature applications have generated renewed interest in High Temperature Gas-
cooled Reactors (HTGR). Japan and China have made the most recent progress in the
technology development as they have already constructed and are operating two
research reactors; South Africa and the above-mentioned consortium are developing
innovative power reactor designs with direct cycle gas turbine for power conversion.
China: The 10 MWe helium-cooled, pebble bed reactor (HTR-10) reached

criticality in December 2000. It will initially have steam turbine for phase 1 and later
helium turbine for phase 2. Preliminary design of the helium turbine is in progress. It
will deliver He at 950 C for electricity generation and for heat applications for coal
gasification/liquefaction.
Japan: A High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) with prismatic

fuel elements has reached full power this year. This 30 MWth reactor will be the first
of its kind to be connected to a high temperature process heat utilization system with
an outlet temperature of 850 C. The system will operate as a test and irradiation
facility, and be utilized to establish the basic technology for advanced HTGR designs
for nuclear process heat applications.
Russian Federation: MINATOM, General Atomics, Framatome and Fuji

Electric have combined their efforts to develop the Gas Turbine Modular Helium
214 D. Majumdar
Reactor (GT-MHR). This plant features a 600 MW(th) helium cooled reactor as the
energy source coupled to a closed cycle gas turbine power conversion system. This is
under consideration for the purposes of burning weapon grade plutonium and for
commercial deployment. The net efficiency of this advanced nuclear power concept is
expected to be 47%. Substantial progress in the development of components such as
magnetic bearings and fin-plate recuperators makes this type of HTGR plant a
feasible alternative for commercial production of electricity.
South Africa: S. Africa is developing a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

based on technology developed in Germany. The design is a single loop direct gas
cycle system that utilizes a helium cooled and graphite-moderated nuclear core as a
heat source. The coolant gas transfers heat from the core directly to the power
conversion system consisting of gas turbo-machinery, a generator, gas coolers and
heat exchangers. The reactor has a thermal power of 268 MW with an electrical
output of 110 MW. Improvements of the design are underway to increase the
electrical output. The inlet and outlet Helium coolant temperatures are approximately
500 ºC and 900 ºC, respectively. The important design feature of PBMR is its tennis ball
sized pebbles containing the silicon carbide coated HTGR fuel particles, which is
expected to contain all fission products for the PBMR13 during all accident conditions,
and hence requires no separate containment building.
4.4. Liquid Metal-cooled Reactors
There has been renewed interest in recent years in liquid metal cooled reactors
particularly for smaller sized designs and from a sustainable development point of
view. They are significant because they can breed new fissile material and extend the
potential of nuclear energy. Because of their fast neutron spectrum, which can be
used as a burner or a breeder, they have also received recent attention for incinerating
weapons plutonium, thorium utilization, partitioning and transmutation of actinides
and burning nuclear waste. First used in Russian submarines, liquid lead and lead-
bismuth have received worldwide attention in the last few years for power reactors
and also for accelerator driven transmutation systems. Russia, India, and Japan have
remained most active in recent years in liquid metal power reactor development14.
The Republic of Korea is developing a pool-type sodium-cooled 150 MWe
KALIMER plant with metal fuel and a passive safety decay heat removal system.
India: India’s sodium-cooled Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR), has been
operating in Kalpakkam for several years. It has a unique mixed uranium carbide-
plutonium carbide fuel. It was designed for 40 MWt but has only recently reached a
power level of 17.4 MWt. It has achieved a fuel burnup of 90 GWd/t. Thorium
blankets have been used in the breeder reactor in Kalpakkam. A 500 MWe sodium-
cooled pool type Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) design is under
development, also for the Kalpakkam site. It will use U-Pu MOX fuel. The
Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for this reactor is nearing completion.
Japan: The two sodium-cooled fast reactors, the Experimental Fast Reactor
“Joyo” and the prototype fast breeder reactor “Monju” are not operating at this time.
Joyo will start operation in 2003 with a new high-flux core, and Monju is waiting for
governmental approval for improvement work for sodium leaks, leading to its
eventual startup in 3 more years. However, several small and medium size designs are
being developed in Japan, the most prominent one being the 50 – 100 MWe sodium-
cooled fast reactor design known as Super Safe, Small and Simple (4S)15. In this
reactor, Burnup of the core is controlled by the annular reflector surrounding the core,
and a long life is achieved by the long length of the core and upward movement of the
reflector. The Modular Double Pool (MDP) is another concept of 325 MWe sodium-
cooled fast reactor, which has steam generator and secondary pumps in the sodium
filled annular space between the primary and the secondary vessel thereby reducing
the secondary piping system. Metallic fuel is used for both of these two designs. MDP
has been designed to reduce the construction cost and improve reliability by factory
manufacture of most components, and 4S has been designed to obtain a long life core.
A concept of Multipurpose Fast Reactor (MPFR) has also been proposed which has
liquid plutonium-Uranium metallic fueled core. It has 300MW thermal power and
does not require fuel reloading16.
A Pb-Bi cooled Long-life, Safe, Simple, Small, Portable, proliferation-resistant

reactor (LSPR)17 has also been proposed. This is a 35 MWe (150 MWt) integral type
design where the steam generators are installed within the reactor vessel. Nitride fuel
is used. Natural or depleted Uranium fuel assemblies are placed at the center of the
core and Pu fuel assemblies at the outside. In this composition, the burnup will
progress from the outer core into the inner blanket region.
Russian Federation: Russia's experience in the construction and operation of

sodium-cooled experimental and prototype fast reactors (the BR-10, BOR-60, BN-
350 in Kazakhstan and BN-600 with hybrid core) has been very good. Efforts have
been directed towards further improving safety and reliability, and making the Liquid
Metal Fast Reactors (LMFRs) economically competitive to other energy sources.
While these efforts would take some time, LMFRs are being considered to burn
weapons plutonium and minor actinides. The current main efforts in sodium cooled
fast reactors in Russia have been the lifetime extension for BOR-60 and BN-600,
decommissioning of BR-10 and designing BN-800. By 2010, Russia wants to
complete construction of the BN-800 fast reactor at Beloyarsk. Russia has also
developed three small sodium-cooled reactor designs: MBRU-1.5, MBRU-12 and
BMN-170 for production of 1.5, 12 and 170 MWe of electricity18.
The design from Russia that has received the most recent attention is the
BREST reactor, which uses lead coolant, uranium-plutonium mono-nitride fuel and
indirect cycle for heat removal to a supercritical steam turbine. Owing to unique
combination of the thermo-physical properties of the lead coolant and mono-nitride
fuel, BREST can boast of a very high level of natural safety. Two conceptual designs
have been developed for the 300 MWe and 1200 MWe BREST reactors. Figure 5
216 D. Majumdar
Fig. 5. BREST-300 reactor. Vertical section

gives the schematic details of the 300 MWe BREST design. Russian fast reactor
R&D activities are concentrating on advanced concepts with enhanced safety features
and designs with alternative coolants, as well as on the development of the basic
design, and experimental confirmation, of the lead cooled BREST-300 demonstration
reactor with on-site closed fuel cycle19.
Studies of small fast spectrum reactor modules cooled by lead-bismuth eutectic

are also being pursued. These designs, called SVBR-75/100, are based on the reactor
operation experience with nuclear submarines. The designs could be used for
electricity production, seawater desalination, or the utilization and transmutation of
actinides. The SVBR-75 is a Pb-Bi cooled 75 MWe (268 MWt) fast reactor with two-
circuits, the primary Pb-Bi circuit and the steam-water secondary loop20. Two other
heat removal systems are provided for both scheduled and emergency cooling. The
reactor operates for 8 years without refueling. Average fuel enrichment is 15.6%.
USA: Although the U.S. had a strong sodium cooled reactor program for many
years, it has essentially halted. Recently, however, because of impetus in research
for new generation of reactors, one innovative liquid metal cooled design called the
Encapsulated Nuclear Heat Source (ENHS) has been proposed21. The ENHS is a Pb-
Bi natural circulation cooled, 50 MWe (125 MWt), modular, fast reactor concept. It
is designed that the fuel is installed sealed into the reactor module at the factory and
transported to the site to be inserted into a secondary pool of Pb-Bi that contains the
steam generators. Major components, such as the pool vessel and steam generators,
are permanent and remain at the site while the reactor module is replaced every 15 or
20 years. The heat generated in the core is transferred through the primary coolant
vessel wall to the secondary pool. The natural circulation avoids the need for active
components but it requires a tall 19m primary vessel. A design with a lift pump
reduces the height to 10m and reduces the coolant mass. The fuel considered is
metallic Pu-U-Zr fuel with 11-12% of Pu. The peak fuel Burnup is approximately
105,000 MWD/t. The autonomous control and no fuel handling reduce the nuclear
operations onsite to a minimum. Figure 6 gives a schematic description of ENHS.
218 D. Majumdar
Water/Steam Connections
Steam Generators Primary Pb-Bi

Secondary Pb-Bi
Support Structure
On Seismic
Isolators Pbor
PbBi
Primary
Vessel of
ENHS
Water/Steam Connections Module
Reactor Pool
Core Vessel
Fig. 6. A Schematic Vertical View of a Single ENHS (Not to Scale)
4.5. Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)
No molten salt reactor is operating now but a considerable interest has been
generated among several investigators in the US, Japan and Russia for this concept.
This is primarily due to the good operating record of the MSRE in Oak Ridge and to
find innovative ways to (1) eliminate fissile material from dismantled nuclear
weapons, (2) burn actinides and help in the solution of the nuclear high level waste
problem, (3) utilize its inherent safety features, (4) flexibility of using any fissile fuel
in continuous mode, (5) higher thermal efficiency from higher temperature operation,
and (6) improve non-proliferation. Two types of designs are being pursued: one with
fuel mixed with the molten salt coolant (Fig. 7) and the other where molten salt is
used only as a coolant (Fig. 8). In the latter case prismatic or pebble bed type HTGR
fuel has been advocated. Table VI describes22 the list of currently known MSRs.
TABLE VI. SOME MSR DESIGNS
Country Design Power Primary circuit Secondary Status

Circuit
(MWt) Coolant & Inlet/Outlet
Structure Temp C
USA Aircraft 2.5 NaF 655/800 Helium Operated in
Reactor ZrF4UF4 1954 at
Experiment ~750 C
(ARE) Inconel
USA Molten Salt 8.0 LiFBeF2 632/654 LiFBeF2 Operated
Reactor ZrF4UF4 during 1965-
Experiment Hastalloy-N 69
(MSRE) Hastalloy-
NM
USA Molten Salt 2250 LiFBeF2 566/705 NaFNaBF4 Th-233 U
Breeder ThF4UF4 fuel cycle.
Reactor Hastalloy- NM Design
(MSBR) Hastalloy- effort
NM discontinued
in 1976
Japan Fuji-II23 350 LiFBeF2 566/705 NaFNaBF4 Conceptual
ThF4UF4 design
Hastalloy- NM
Hastalloy-
NM
Russian High 300 LiFBeF2 600/750 Air Conceptual
Federation Temperature Design
Molten Salt
Reactor
(MARS)
Russian Gas-cooled 2000 LiFBeF2 600/750 NaFNaBF4 Designed
Federation Molten Salt ThF4UF4 especially
Reactor for industrial
applications
France CCDP 2000 LiFBeF2 550/700 Plumbum Conceptual
ThF4UF4 Design
China MSGR 2250 NaFBeF2 566/705 NaFNaBF4 Conceptual
design
Hastalloy-
NM
220 D. Majumdar
Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of a molten salt reactor such as the MSRE21
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of a molten salt cooled reactor such as MARS24

4.6. Small and Medium Sized Reactors
Although a considerable progress has been made in the evolutionary designs of

LWRs, these are large reactors and many believe25 that development and
demonstration of new, smaller, innovative designs with short construction and start-
up times and low capital costs are necessary to usher a new era of nuclear power.
Since the early 1990s, the interest of developing countries, mainly in Asia, has
resulted in increased efforts on the design of small and medium sized power reactors.
This is because in the next 50 years, electric demand is expected to be tripled, most of
which will come from developing countries with small grid capacities. Also, in
industrialized countries, electricity market deregulation is calling for power
generation flexibility that smaller reactors may offer. Small and medium reactors
(SMRs) are also of particular interest for non-electric applications such as seawater
desalination and district heating, fuel synthesis, and, in the future, hydrogen
production.
Small and medium sized reactors are, however, not new. We have currently
150 SMRs operational in the world, 41 of these with power levels less than 300 MWe
and 109 having power levels between 300 and 700 MWe. The detailed breakdown
show 32 gas cooled reactors in UK (AGR and GCR), 32 PWR, 24 BWR, 29 WWER
and 27 HWRs.
Recent major drive for innovation in light water reactors has been toward
integral reactors, where the core, pumps, pressurizers, and steam generators are
contained inside a single reactor pressure vessel (RPV). They are of enhanced safety
because there is no large break LOCA; they also endure less fluence on the reactor
pressure vessel and employ passive safety systems. Three primary examples of these
reactors are CAREM (Argentina), IRIS (USA), and SMART (Republic of Korea).
Being small, they allow more shop-fabrication and hence improved quality. These are
being designed primarily for sizes up to 700 MWe due to easy constructability of
Reactor Pressure Vessels and to better match smaller electric grids.
SMR designs are also attempting to increase the fuel core life to enhance
proliferation-resistant features and also to reduce the O&M costs. Eight to even 20
years of single core life has been envisioned. Another idea in this regard is to have
refueling services provided by a central refueling organization, with crew dedicated to
refueling, visiting each site as required. This would also improve efficiency.
Similarly, barge mounted reactors could be returned to a central location for
refueling.
Some designs have proposed to make extensive use of modularization, in

which a significant portion of the plant is built as modules, which are fabricated
outside of the principal buildings of the nuclear power plant. In some cases, the
modules are fabricated off-site, to take advantage of existing fabrication facilities.
Modularization serves to transfer a significant portion of the construction labor from
222 D. Majumdar
the nuclear power plant to more easily controlled manufacturing environment. This
reduces the site construction infrastructure and shortens the construction schedule,
and hence the capital cost.
In order to improve economics, small reactor designs strive to minimize the

manpower costs associated with the operation of the reactors. The inherent reactor
shutdown and passive decay heat removal capability of some designs, in combination
with modern advanced communication systems, may even facilitate remote operation
with fewer operators, or even unattended, for some applications.
New research is underway to utilize the unique thermo-physical properties of

supercritical water to enhance nuclear plant thermal efficiency to 40 – 45% from the
current 33 –34%. This will also lead to considerable plant simplification. Because
there will be no change of phase in the core, the need for steam separators and dryers
as well as for BWR-type recirculation pumps is eliminated, which will lead to smaller
reactor vessels. In a direct cycle steam generators are not needed. However, to make
this possible, advances are required in high temperature materials to improve
corrosion, stress corrosion cracking, and wear resistance.
Major innovative reactors in the world26 are tabulated in Table VII. Key
features of SMRs include simplification and streamlining of designs as well as
emphasis placed on safety features avoiding off-site impacts in case of accident. Such
characteristics should facilitate their acceptability by local communities. However,
none of these reactors have been built; only recently announcements have been made
for beginning the preparatory phase for construction of KLT-40 in Severodvinsk in
Russia and of a 65 MWt pilot version of SMART in KAERI, Republic of Korea. Two
KLT-40 nuclear submarine reactors will be built on a floating barge with a
displacement capacity of 20,000 tonnes. It is expected that the floating nuclear plant
in Russia will produce power in 2006 and the pilot plant in Korea in 2008.
TABLE VII. MAJOR INNOVATIVE REACTOR DESIGNS UNDER DEVELOPMENT

AROUND THE WORLD
Reactor Power (MWe) Country of origin Status/imp. features

A. Light Water Reactors
IRIS 100 – 300 USA-led multinational Integral, 8-year core;
under design.
Triga Power System 64 USA, General Atomic Commercial design
CAREM-25 27 Argentina Integral, self-pressurized;
Regulatory approval
received.
SMART 300 MWt Republic of Korea Integral. 65 MWt pilot
plant to be built.
KLT-40 35 Russian Federation Floating NPP, ready for
construction
UNITHERM 15 MWt Russian Federation Based on marine reactor;
20 years core life, dual
purpose.
RUTA-55 55 MWt Russian Federation Low-temp, Pool type at
atm. pressure
VK-300 250 Russian Federation Based 0n VK-50 BWR.
Dual use possible.
ABV-6 6 Russian Federation Compact, based on
marine reactor; land or
sea use.
ATU-2 40 Russian Federation Water-graphite reactor.
MRX-based designs Various Japan Integral; 8 year core life
for PSRD. Some for heat
only.
IMR <300 Mitsubishi, Japan Integral PWR
HABWR 600 Hitachi, Japan Forced circulation BWR
HSBWR 300 – 600 Hitachi, Japan Natural Circulation BWR
SSBWR 150 Hitachi, Japan Small BWR with natural
circulation
LSBWR 100 – 300 Toshiba, Japan Long life core.
NHR-200 200 MWt China Upgrade from NHR-5;
designed for non-electric.
B. Other Reactors
PBMR 110 ESKOM, S. Africa Pebble Bed Gas-cooled
Reactor
GT-MHR 286 US, Japan, France, Gas-cooled prismatic
Russia reactor with direct gas
turbine
4S 50 –100 Japan Sodium-cooled fast
reactor
Brest 300 Russian Federation Lead-cooled, mono
nitride fuel.
ENHS 50 USA Lead-Bismuth-cooled,
modular fast reactor.
224 D. Majumdar
5. UTILIZATION OF THORIUM FUEL
There has been a recent renewed interest in thorium fuel cycles. The reasons
for this are to (1) burn excess weapons Pu without creating more, (2) generate less
long-lived radioactive waste, (3) design reactors to operate in a safer mode, (4) reduce
U-235 enrichment, (5) go to higher temperatures, and finally having large thorium
deposits.
Thorium-232 is three times more abundant than uranium and available in India,
Brazil, USA, Turkey and China. It is not a fissile material but it can produce U-233 in
a reactor, which, from a neutronic standpoint, is an excellent nuclear fuel among the
three nuclear fuels – U-235, Pu-239 and U-233. It also produces much less minor
actinides from fission. Thorium dioxide is the only stable oxide of thorium, which
accounts for its greater stability compared to uranium dioxide. It is also much more
resistant to chemical interactions and has a high thermal conductivity. The melting
point of thorium dioxide is 3050 degree centigrade. Thorium contains naturally up to
about 100 ppm of Th-230; this and other neutron reactions of Th-232 and U-233
produces U-232, which decays with emission of hard gamma rays. Thorium fuel
fabrication is similar to U-fuel but it requires remote operation because of the gamma
emission from U-232 decay chains. In addition high chemical inertness of thorium
dioxide makes it very difficult to be dissolved and reprocessed. Because of these
drawbacks the thorium fuel cycle is considered a more proliferation-resistant fuel.
Thorium fuel cycles have been studied in the past in several countries on a
smaller scale but its importance has increased in recent years as a non-proliferating
fuel and also for reducing the inventory of Pu. Germany had used Thorium fuels for
several years on the AVR, a pebble-bed high temperature research reactor, and on the
THTR, Thorium High Temerature Reactor. Both in Germany and the US the fuel
fabrication technology has been developed under high temperature reactor programs
to a well proven, industrial process. The coated fuel particles for the HTGRs have
shown excellent performance under irradiation and reactor operation. In Russia also
tests of thorium-based fuels for WWER and LMFBRs have shown an excellent
irradiation behavior.
The US has shown new interest in thorium fuel and has initiated four projects
under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. Their primary motive is to develop an
advanced proliferation-resistant, low cost uranium-thorium dioxide fuel. The
Radkowski Thorium Reactor (RTR), being investigated in the US, Russia and Israel,
revives the seed-blanket concept of the US Light Water Breeder Reactor design that
operated in Shippingport in the late 50s. The concept assumes a once-through fuel
cycle with no reprocessing; U-233 is bred and mostly burned in the reactor.
Most prominently, India has been pursuing a strong program on thorium fuel
cycle activities. India has a closed fuel cycle strategy, which calls for using U-Pu fuel
cycle for fast breeder reactors and a closed Th-U-233 fuel cycle in the next stage with
advanced heavy water reactors. The Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR),
currently under design, plans to use thorium for 75% of the power. Utilization of
thorium is their focal point for development. All aspects of the fuel cycle including
the back end are being studied in India. Activities for Thorium fuel development in
India include studying: (1) dissolution of irradiated thorium fuel, (2) effective
utilization of recovered fissile and fertile material, and (3) thorium fuel fabrication.
6. PARTITIONING AND TRANSMUTATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
A lot of attention has been given in recent years on the subject of partitioning
and transmutation of the actinides and some long-lived fission products contained in
the spent fuel as it has the potential of easing operational and safety requirements of a
repository. Some would even like this to become an important alternative to direct
disposal of spent fuel. Separation of the long-lived isotopes and transmutation of
these into less hazardous materials have several advantages. It allows a reduction of
the volume, toxicity, and fissile content of waste and supports a simpler repository.
The issues related to long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel is attributable to only
~1% of its content, namely plutonium, neptunium, americium, and curium (the
transuranic elements) and long-lived isotopes of iodine and technetium. When
transuranics are removed, the toxic nature of the spent fuel drops below that of
natural uranium ore within a period of several hundred years. The removal of
neptunium, technetium, and iodine also makes the waste safer for the biosphere.
Removal of plutonium eliminates the relevance of the waste from the point of view of
nuclear proliferation. Thus if the nuclear waste can be partitioned and transmuted
economically to more benign materials, the waste can be disposed of in controlled
environments having time scales of a few centuries rather than millenniums.
Partitioning and transmutation requires advanced reactor and fuel cycle

technologies, including multiple recycle strategies. That is the spent fuel must be
reprocessed. Partitioning of waste can be accomplished by both aqueous and non-
aqueous methods. The Argonne National laboratory in the US has developed an
electrometallurgical non-aqueous process that can separate fissile material from
fission products. This process can be used for both metallic and oxide fuels. For
transmutation, both accelerator driven systems (ADS) and fast reactors are being
considered for actinide burning. The ADS has the potential of providing both
plutonium and minor actinide utilization, and enhanced safety of sub-critical
operation. It has been recognized that a pure accelerator driven system for
transmutation of waste is too costly, and hence a dual concept of power production
and transmutation is being envisioned. This option combines the accelerator and
fission reactor technologies; neutrons are generated by directing a beam of high-
energy protons from an accelerator against a heavy target such as lead or lead-
bismuth eutectic and these neutrons are then used in a surrounding blanket to fission
the actinides and transmute the long-lived fission products. Unlike a conventional
reactor the blanket is sub-critical and cannot sustain a chain reaction without the
226 D. Majumdar
accelerator generated neutrons. Power is generated from this sub-critical facility

while transmuting the waste.
Fig. 9. A schematic diagram of an Accelerator Driven System to incinerate waste and produce
electricity.27
Various ADS schemes are being studied in several countries: the OMEGA
(Option Making Extra Gain from Actinides) project in Japan, Advanced Accelerator
Applications (AAA) program in the US, HYPER (Hybrid Power Extraction Reactor)
project in the Republic of Korea, European Industrial Partnership and other projects
at CERN, and CEA, France, and China. Russia is also participating in international
collaboration activities. Carlo Rubbia’s “Energy Amplifier” is one ADS design that
provided a strong, early impetus in developing a system to generate more energy than
needed for the accelerator.
There are many technical problems to be solved; ADS is only at the beginning
stage of investigation. It is very likely that the best results in terms of high level waste
radio-toxicity reduction will be achieved by symbiotic systems, including critical fast
reactors and hybrid systems (e.g., accelerator driven concepts).
7. CURRENT ISSUES
Although fuel diversity and energy security are important items for a country,
economic competitiveness with alternate sources of electricity has been recognized as
the critical element for the survival of nuclear power. Hence consorted efforts are
being made with design, construction, operation and maintenance of new nuclear
power plants to reduce its capital and operation costs. Currently nuclear production
costs (fuel and O&M) of existing plants are low, approaching 1 cent/KW-hr; hence
the critical issue is capital cost for new plants. Also, investors expect a short-term
payback of capital costs such as within 20 years of operation. It appears that capital
costs in the range of $1000 – 1200 per KWe are needed for competition with natural
gas. In this regard, construction of large nuclear power plants, if allowed by the
infrastructure of a country, provides an advantage. At the same time, new generation
of small, innovative plants are needed for specific markets and especially for
developing countries.
Non-proliferation and physical protection have become more important for

nuclear power plants since the September 11, 2001 terrorist event in New York. In
spite of the demonstrated effectiveness of the international safeguards regime, the risk
of proliferation of nuclear weapons remains a social and political concern. A
significant deployment of nuclear power would lead to building a large number of
reactors in many different countries and sites, and there may not be sufficient
resources to safeguard all reactors. Therefore, gaining acceptance will require specific
efforts of designers to enhance the proliferation resistance characteristics, particularly
for the SMRs. It has also been argued that since no country has made nuclear
weapons from the civilian nuclear power program and we surely have the
international, scientific and regulatory mechanisms to handle the proliferation
question, we should move forward as rapidly as possible to build nuclear power
where it can meet human and environmental needs. In any case, the world must
remain vigilant and the suppliers, verifiers, and buyers must assure safeguarding of
nuclear materials.
The September 11, 2001 event has highlighted the importance of protecting
nuclear facilities from sabotage and stealing of nuclear material by terrorist
organizations. Even if the actual impact of a potential terrorist activity is very
minimal, the occurrence of such an event will create havoc from the public perception
point of view; hence nuclear facilities including spent fuel storage facilities must be
secured. An issue here is how to achieve this in a cost-effective manner and how
much security effort is good enough.
Disposition of spent fuel is a challenge and a roadblock for nuclear power.

However, great progress has been made this year when the governments of Finland
and USA have approved the construction of geologic repositories in Olkiluoto in
Eurajoki, Finland and at Yucca Mountain, Utah, USA. Finland is now set to become
the first country in the world to build a final repository for spent fuel from nuclear
power plants. Sweden and the US are also well ahead with similar plans.
8. INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
Several countries and groups are working on innovative reactor technology

development. However, to develop a cost-effective innovative reactor design a large
228 D. Majumdar
amount of research is required, particularly for the design and testing of new fuel and
other materials and the final demonstration. In the deregulated market no one
company or even a country can afford to or willing to allocate the expenses necessary
to bring a design to the market place. Hence international development and
partnership may be required. From this perspective two efforts are already underway
– the US-initiated Generation IV International Forum (GIF) and the IAEA-initiated
International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO).
The time frame of interest to the GIF is two or three decades from now, and
their goal is development of suitable technology for nuclear power (reliable and safe,
sustainable, and economic). They also want to increase the assurance that the reactor
system is a very unattractive and undesirable route for diversion or theft of weapons-
usable materials. The US DOE has conducted wide-ranging discussions on the
development of next-generation nuclear energy systems, engaging governments,
industry and the research community of several countries. Ten countries have joined
in this effort; they are Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea,
South Africa, Switzerland, UK and the US. After long deliberations, the GIF has
selected six areas for further research and collaboration among interested countries.
These are gas-cooled fast reactor, molten salt reactor, liquid sodium metal-cooled
reactor, lead alloy-cooled reactor, supercritical water-cooled reactor and very high
temperature reactor systems.
The objective of INPRO is to support the safe, sustainable, economic and

proliferation-resistant use of nuclear technology to meet the global energy needs of
the 21st century. INPRO is mainly focusing on developing user’s requirements for
nuclear power for the long term – fifty years time frame. As of January 2002, there
were 13 members in INPRO: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India,
Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey
and the European Commission. The INPRO is developing a report to identify global
user requirements for economics, safety, spent fuel and waste, non-proliferation and
the environment, and establishing the criteria and methodologies for examination of
nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies. The INPRO developed criteria are
expected to be used by individual countries to assess their situation with respect to
nuclear power introduction or expansion.
Conclusion
The global energy market is rapidly increasing and is expected to triple in

about 50 years. Nuclear energy is free from greenhouse gas emissions and is excellent
from an environmental perspective. In a closed cycle mode of operation, nuclear
energy is almost an infinite source of energy; it could help improve the standard of
living of all countries in the world. So nuclear power should expand, especially in
developing countries, and could contribute to sustainable energy development for the
world. With this in mind, many evolutionary designs of nuclear power plants have
been developed to meet the high performance and the safety goals. The efficiency and
economics of these new plants are excellent and are beginning to compete with other
base load alternatives. These larger plants are currently being constructed in Japan,
Republic of Korea and Taiwan, China. New small and medium sized designs are
underway. They are of interest to many countries for many reasons. Due to
population growth and demand for a higher standard of living, they are of primary
importance to countries with a shortage of electric power and low grid capacity. Work
is progressing on several innovative reactor and fuel cycle designs in several
countries. However, these innovative, smaller reactor designs must be demonstrated
in the near future because the time frame for the availability of commercial SMRs is
very important as most developing countries can not wait for another two or three
decades to increase their installed electricity generation capacities.
Many challenges remain for nuclear power to become an acceptable source of

energy throughout the world. Notable among these are (1) implementing the disposal
of high level waste, (2) making nuclear generated power economically competitive
with fossil fuel alternatives in the deregulated market place, (3) continuing to assure
non-proliferation and physical safety of nuclear plants, (4) developing economic
reactors for small electricity grids and non-electric applications, and finally (5)
continuing to assure the safety of nuclear reactors. The new evolutionary and
innovative designs are responding to these challenges. Let us hope that the new surge
of interest in nuclear power and the new activities that have been initiated in several
countries will lead to a solution of the nuclear issues and provide adequate energy for
all humanity.
230 D. Majumdar
References
1
J. Murray “Global Energy Supply and Demand and the Potential Role of Nuclear
Power,” Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small
and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
2
IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, Watson, R.T. and the Core
Writing Team (Eds.), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
3
IAEA EEDB and PRIS data base, 2002.
4
IAEA PRIS data base, Nuclear Power Reactors in the world, April 2002.
5
Advanced light water reactor utility requirements document, Electric Power
Research Institute.
6
European utility requirements for LWR nuclear power plants (revision B),
November, 1995.
7
International Atomic Energy Agency, Terms for Describing New, Advanced Nuclear
Power Plants, IAEA-TECDOC-936, IAEA, Vienna (1997). Also see Projected costs of
generating electricity - Update 1998, OECD-NEA.
8
J. Kupitz, “Status and trends in advanced nuclear power plants development and
applications,” presented in Workshop on Nuclear Reaction Data and Nuclear
Reactors: Physics, Design and Safety, 13 March – 14 April 2000, Trieste, Italy.
9
W. D. Magwood, “Looking Toward Generation Four: Considerations for a New
Generation R&D Agenda,” American Nuclear Society Proceedings, June 7, 1999.
10
Nuclear Reactor technology Review 2001, IAEA report.
11
International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘Heavy Water Reactors: Status and Projected
Development’ TRS 407 IAEA 2002
12
IAEA Technical report series no. 407, Heavy Water Reactors: Status and Projected
Development, Vienna 2002.
13
J.F.M. Slabber, “Non-proliferation aspects of the PBMR fuel cycle,” Proceedings
of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small and Medium Sized
reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
14
P.E. Juhn and Y.I. Kim, “Fast reactor technology development and IAEA’s
activities.”
15
I. Kinoshita and A. Minato, “Liquid metal cooled small reactors (MDP & 4S) in
Criepi,” Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small
and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
16
T. Swada, A. Netchaev, H. Endo, H.Ninokata, “Long life multipurpose small size
fast reactor with liquid metallic-fuelled core,” Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31
May 2001.
17
H. Sekimoto, S. makino, K. Nakamura, Y. Kamishima, and T. Kawakita, “A long-
life small reactor for developing countries, LSPR,” Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31
May 2001.
18
A. I. Kiryushin, B.A. Vasilev, V. Yu, Sedakov, and V. Polunichev, “Small power
sodium cooled fast nuclear reactors,” Proceedings of the International Seminar on
Status and Prospects for Small and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
19
E. Adamov, V. Orlov, et. al., “Conceptual Design of BREST-300 Lead-Cooled Fast
Reactors”, Proc. of ARS’94 International Topical Meeting on Advanced Reactor
Safety, Volume 2, Pittsburgh, April, 1994.
20
B. F. Gromov, O.G. Grigoriev, A.V. Dedoul, A.V. Zrodnikov, G.I. Toshinsky, et.
Al., “Nuclear power complex based on SVBR-75 small reactors cooled by lead-
bismuth liquid metal coolant, competitiveness, simplified life cycle, safety, non-
proliferation,” Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for
Small and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
21
D. Wade, J. Sienichi, N. Brown, Q. Hossain, M. Carelli, et. al., “The Encapsulated
nuclear heat source reactor for low-waste proliferation-resistant nuclear energy,”
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small and
Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
22
P.N. Alekseev, I.A. Belov, N.N.Ponomarev-Stepnoy, S.A. Subbotin, Y.N.
Udjansky, A.V. Chibinjaev, T.D. Schepetina, and P.A. Fomichenko, “Micro-particles
fuel autonomous melted salt reactor (MARS),” Russian Research Centre, Kurchatov
Institute, IAE-6216/4
23
K. Furukawa, K.Mitachi, and Y. Kato, “Small molten-salt reactors with a rational
thorium fuel cycle,” Nucl. Eng. and Design 136, 157-165, 1992.
24
Figure taken from GIF presentation at the Winter ANS meeting in Reno, Nevada,
2001.
25
D. Majumdar, J. Kupitz, H. Rogner, T. Shea, F. Niehaus and F. Fukuda,
“Development of Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles: The need for innovation,” IAEA
Bulletin, Vol 42, No. 2, 2000.
26
D. Majumdar and J. Kupitz, “A Global perspective on small and medium reactor
designs,” paper presented at the 4th International Conference on nuclear option in
232 D. Majumdar
countries with small and medium electricity grids, Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 16 – 20,
2002.
27
H. Conde, “Introduction to ADS for waste incineration and energy production,”
Uppsala University, Sweden.
Desalination and Other Non-electric Applications
of Nuclear Energy
Debu Majumdar*
Nuclear Power Technology Development Section,

Division of Nuclear Power, Department of Nuclear Energy,
IAEA, Vienna, Austria

LNS0520005
*
D.Majumdar@iaea.org
Abstract
As the standard of living increases globally, the need for fresh water and
industrial products is also increasing; they require energy for production and hence,
the demand for energy – both electric and non-electric, is also increasing. Nuclear
energy provides now only about 7% of global energy use; fossil fuels which degrade
the environment provide the rest. Nuclear energy has the potential to provide an
abundance of greenhouse-gas-free energy for mankind. Currently, nuclear energy is
mainly used for electricity production. This paper discusses non-electric applications
of nuclear energy, summarizing the global status and enumerating the areas where it
could be used.
Desalination & Other Non-electric Applications of Nuclear Energy 235
1. INTRODUCTION
Some of the first civilian reactors in the world were used to supply heat, e.g.,
Calder Hall in UK (1956) and Agesta in Sweden (1963). Calder Hall provided
electricity to the grid and heat to a fuel reprocessing plant, and Agesta provided hot
water for district heating of a suburb of Stockholm. The first nuclear power station in
Russia (1954) was also a multi-purpose facility providing electricity and heat to the
closed city of Obninsk in Kaluja region, near Moscow. Currently less than 1% of the
heat generated in nuclear reactors is used for non-electric applications1. Direct use of
heat energy is more desirable from an energy efficiency point of view and nuclear
energy is an enormous source of greenhouse-gas-free energy. However, nuclear
power has remained primarily a source for electricity generation. Presently about 30%
of the world’s primary energy is used for electricity production, and approximately
2/3 of this energy is thrown away as waste heat. Yet despite past and current use
models, it is possible to optimise the use of nuclear heat for both electric and non-
electric applications, thereby making more efficient use of nuclear energy. Experience
in co-generation of nuclear electricity and heat has been gained in Bulgaria, Canada,
China, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine2. This paper examines the
scope of non-electric applications of nuclear energy3 .
There are four areas where nuclear heat can be utilized: for desalination of salty
and waste water, district heating of residence and commercial buildings in cold
countries, industrial process heat supply, and fuel synthesis. Primary experience of
non-electric applications of nuclear energy is in the first two categories. There are
more than 150 reactor-years of operating experience with nuclear desalination,
particularly in Japan and Kazakhstan. District heating systems from nuclear power
plants have operated reliably in many countries, particularly in Eastern Europe. Fuel
synthesis has evolved in recent years because nuclear energy can generate high
temperature heat; this heat can be used for hydrogen production, coal gasification and
production of other fuels. The heating requirements of different industrial processes
vary. The temperature requirements for the principal applications are shown in Table
I. They vary from low temperature applications for hot water to high temperature
industrial processes.
236 D. Majumdar
TABLE I. TEMPERATURE NEEDS OF VARIOUS TYPES

OF INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
Approximate Temperature Range

Industrial Process
(Centigrade)
Home and building heating 100 – 170
Desalination 100 – 130
Vinyl Chloride production 100 – 200
Urea synthesis 180 – 280
Process Steam 200 – 400
Paper and pulp production 200 – 400
Oil refining 200 – 600
Oil shale and oil sand processing 300 – 600
Crude oil desulphurisation 300 – 500
Petroleum refineries 450 –550
Production of synthetic gas and Hydrogen from
400 – 800
natural gas or naphtha
Steel making via direct reduction 500 – 1000
Iron industry 600 – 1600
Production of styrene from ethyl-benzene 600 – 800
Production of ethylene from naphtha or ethane 700 – 900
Hydrogen production by thermo-chemical reaction 600 – 1000
Coal processing 400 – 1000
Coal gasification 800 –1000
Various types of reactors are designed with different ranges of inlet and outlet
coolant temperatures, and hence will be useful for different applications. Table II
shows the range of coolant temperatures for different reactor types. A nuclear plant
can provide steam or process heat from about 100 C for district heating or
desalination to about 1000 C for very high temperature industrial applications. Table
III shows the characteristic parameters of steam that could be produced by various
reactor types4. Water reactors can provide steam in the range of 250 to 300 C at about
5 to 7 Mpa pressure, while liquid metal and gas cooled reactors can generate steam at
higher temperature and pressure. LMFBRs can provide steam at approximately 500 C
and gas cooled reactors at somewhat higher temperatures.
TABLE II. TEMPERATURE CAPABILITIES OF REACTOR TYPES
Typical Primary Coolant Inlet & Outlet

Reactor Type
Temperatures (Centigrade)
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) 280 – 320
Water Reactor (BWR) 278 – 288
Heavy Water Reactor (HWR) 250 – 295
Liquid Metal-cooled Reactor (LMCR) 390 – 540
High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor
500 – 950
(HTGR)
TABLE III. TYPICAL STEAM PRODUCTION BY DIFFERENT REACTOR TYPES
Steam Parameters
Nuclear Power Plant
Pressure (Mpa) Temperature (C)
PWR (U-tube SG) 6.5 280
PWR (Once-through SG) 6.9 312
BWR 5.5 270
PHWR 5.6 271
CANDU PHWR 4.7 260
Phenix LMFBR 16.3 510
THTR-300 18.1 530
Fort St.Vrain HTGR 17.3 541
2. DESALINATION
Water is essential for living but over a billion people, approximately 20% of the
world’s population, lack safe drinking water, and three billion lack access to adequate
sanitation5 for lack of water. Unfortunately, 94% of the world’s water is salt water
and only 6% is fresh6, and less than 1% of the fresh water is easily accessible (27%
being in the glaciers and 72% underground). As the standard of living increases all
over the globe, the demand for both energy and water is also increasing. In this
regard, the development and use of water desalination technologies7 are helping
tremendously. Desalination of water requires energy but, as shown in Table I, it can
be done at relatively low temperatures. Waste heat from power plants is sufficient for
this purpose. Nuclear power can play a significant role, particularly in a dual capacity,
238 D. Majumdar
by providing water in addition to greenhouse-gas-free energy. Many years of

successful operation have proved the technical feasibility and reliability of nuclear
plants for producing fresh water†.
Desalination technologies have evolved over the past 50 years to large-scale

commercial processes. The major commercially available processes are of two kinds:
(a) thermal processes, where heat is used to vaporize and distill fresh water from
saline water; these are multi-stage flash distillation (MSF), multiple-effect distillation
(MED), and vapor compression (VC), and (b) membrane processes where suitable
membranes are used for the separation of salts such as the mechanism of reverse
osmosis (RO). There are also other minor processes such as freezing and solar
evaporation. Globally about 26 million m3/d of fresh water is produced by
desalination (including both brackish and seawater plants). The maximum is
produced in Saudi Arabia, about 21%. The U.S. produces approximately 17%, 80%
of which is achieved by membrane processes.
The possibility of using nuclear energy for desalination of seawater was

realized as early as the 1960s. Experience with nuclear desalination now exceeds 150
reactor-years. Table IV gives a list of the nuclear plants, which have been used for
desalination of water; it also provides information about the reactor types,
desalination technologies employed and the fresh water capacity of the plant8. The
Kazakhstan nuclear plant was shut down in 1999 and was the only power reactor in
the world supplying heat for industrial-scale desalination9. It produced 80,000 m3/d of
potable water for municipal use. The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in the U.S.
also produces 4500 m3/d of fresh water from the sea for in-plant use; they use RO
membrane technology10. Table V gives details of operating experience of LWRs in
Japan, a PHWR in Pakistan, and the LMR in Kazakhstan. It should particularly be
noted that there was no incidence of radioactive contamination of the water produced.
†
Nuclear desalination can be described as production of potable water from seawater or brackish water
in a facility in which a nuclear reactor is used as the source of energy for the desalination process.
TABLE IV. EXPERIENCE IN NUCLEAR DESALINATION PLANTS

Gross Power Desalination Water Capacity
Plant Name Reactor Type
(MWe) Process M3/d
Ikata-1,2 (Japan) PWR 2x566 MSF 200
Ikata-3 (Japan) PWR 890 RO 2000
Ohi-1,2 (Japan) PWR 2x1175 MSF 3900
Ohi-3,4 (Japan) PWR 2x1180 RO 2600
Genkai-4 (Japan) PWR 1180 RO 1000
Genkai-3,4 (Japan) PWR 2x1180 MED 1000
Takahama-3,4 (Japan) PWR 2x870 MED 1000
Kashiwazaki (Japan) BWR 1100 MSF 1000
KANUPP (Pakistan) PHWR 137 RO 454
150
BN-350 (Kazakhstan) LMR MSF & MED 80000
(till 1999)
TABLE V. NUCLEAR DESALINATION OPERATING EXPERIENCE
Japan Kazakhstan Pakistan

Starting Year 1978 1973 2000
Reactor Type LWR LMR PHWR
3
Capacity (m /day) 100-3900 80,000 (design 120,000) 454
Average salinity of 24,000
35,000 13,500
intake water (mg/l)
Average temperature
17 2-24
(C)
Radioactive leak None None None
Water Production Halted, no need for
Continued by a fossil
during NPP water. No backup None
boiler
shutdown source
Corrosion and erosion of
Failures and types Nothing reported
tubes and pump blades Not reported
~50%
Availability Not operated once the 85%
storage tank is filled.
In plant use for steam In plant & municipal use, In plant use
Product water use
cycle including drinking water
240 D. Majumdar
An example of how nuclear heat is used for desalination is shown in figure 1.

In this example steam is produced in a secondary loop for generation of electricity
and then another tertiary loop is used to heat the seawater for desalination. The salt
water is in the 4th loop. This makes the production of fresh water far removed from
the radioactive isotopes of the first, primary loop.
Nuclear power reactor + MSF
2002 IAEA 25
FIG. 1 Schematic presentation of nuclear desalination circuits
Economic studies performed at the IAEA indicate that nuclear energy can be
competitive for desalination compared with fossil-fuelled energy sources11. The
desalination costs range from $0.40 to $1.90 per m3 of fresh water produced. It was
generally found that (a) MSF processes cost higher than RO and MED processes, (b)
RO and MED processes costs are in general comparable, (c) RO is economically
more favourable for less stringent drinking standards, and (d) desalination costs are
higher for smaller reactors.
Various research and construction project studies are being performed in

several countries for nuclear desalination. Currently major activities are taking place
in India, Pakistan, Russia, and China; Canada, Republic of Korea and France are also
involved in nuclear desalination research. India12 is constructing a 6300 m3/d
combined MSF-RO nuclear desalination demonstration plant connected to two 170
MWe PHWR units at Kalpakkam. Installation of the RO section has been completed
and the MSF section is expected to be done in 2003. Pakistan has initiated a
feasibility study for coupling a 4500m3/d desalination plant with the 137 MWe
PHWR KANUPP. Russia has investigated various coupling schemes for 35 MWe
KLT-40, 55 MWt RUTA, and 70 MWe NIKA reactors. Russia and Canada are
working on a floating nuclear desalination plant with the KLT-40 reactor and an
optimised Canadian desalination system involving reverse osmosis. The construction
of the KLT-40 on a barge is expected to be completed in 2006. China is investigating
a nuclear desalination project in Shandong peninsula with a 200 MWt nuclear heating
reactor (NHR-200). Their plan is couple it to an MED process to produce 160,000
m3/d of potable water. The study was finalized in 2001, and Tsinghua University is
setting up a test system to verify the design performance of the MED process.
Candesal Technologies in Canada is developing a unique approach to the design and
operation of RO system to improve energy efficiency and reduce the life cycle cost of
potable water. The Republic of Korea (ROK) is developing an integrated desalination
plant with the SMART reactor for dual purpose application. They aim to provide 90
MWe and 40,000 m3/d of fresh water. A 65 MWt pilot version of the SMART reactor
is expected to be built in the ROK by 2008. ROK and Indonesia are also investigating
the feasibility of nuclear desalination in Madura Island, Indonesia. France is working
with Tunisia for a site-specific desalination study for La Skhira in Tunisia.
Nuclear desalination is thus a matured technology and can be installed in many

nuclear plants to provide fresh water to solve regional water shortage problems. The
desalination capacities of the world have been doubling each decade and hence there
is a tremendous potential for nuclear desalination. Efforts are now primarily directed
towards reducing production cost of desalinated water through innovations and
technological enhancements.
3. DISTRICT HEATING
District heating is residential and commercial building heating. District heating

systems use hot water or steam in the temperature range of 70 – 150 C with steam-
water and water-water heat exchangers as needed. Usually steam is extracted from
low pressure turbines in the nuclear power plant to provide the base heating load and
steam from the high pressure turbine is used for the peak heat demand. Development
of a heat distribution system is required but, due to heat losses in the heat distribution
system, the source must be nearby, usually within a few kilometres at most. The
longest known delivery distance is 24 km in Slovakia. Also, the demand for heat
fluctuates with the season, being very high in cold winters and low in summer, and
the source must be able to accommodate this fluctuation.
District heating has been used in some countries for decades. District heating
networks exist in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Belarus, Russia and
Ukraine. Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland also have developed heating
networks. The power capacity of heat networks is estimated to be about 600 – 1200
242 D. Majumdar
MWt in large cities and 10 –50 MWt in small communities2. At present nuclear
district heating appears to be most promising in countries which already have heat
distribution networks.
The concern of leakage of radioactivity into the heating network has been taken
care of by intermediate heat transfer loops operating at higher pressures than the
steam loop from the turbines, and by constant monitoring. The safe and reliable
operation of several district heating networks (e.g., in Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia,
Russia, Ukraine and Switzerland) has proved their effectiveness.
Table VI from IAEA Tecdoc 1056 (1998), as improved in ref 2, shows the
world experience of nuclear reactors in commercial district heating. Out of these 46
reactors, only two in China and Russia were used for the sole purpose of district
heating. Over twenty plants in Russia and the Bruce CANDU plants in Canada were
used for electricity generation and to provide heat for both process heat and district
heating. Steam from Bruce A plant was used for the heavy water production plant and
for the nearby agricultural and industrial complex. One also notes that of the many
existing and proposed designs of nuclear power systems for district heating, the
majority are based on the use of water reactor technology.
TABLE VI. OPERATING NUCLEAR REACTORS WITH HEAT APPLICATIONS‡

Heat
Plant type or Start of Power
Country Location Application output
name operation (Mwe net)
(MWth)
Bulgaria WWER-1000 Kozloduy 5 - 6 E, DH 1987,91 2x953 2x20
Bruce Energy Centre§,
Canada CANDU E, P, DH 1977-87 750-860 79
Ontario
China NHR-5 Beijing DH 1989 0 5
Hungary WWER Paks 2, 3, 4 E, DH 1984-87 3x433 3x30

Research
Russia Obninsk DH 1954 0 10-20
reactor
Russia RBMK Bilibino 1 - 4 E, DH 1974-81 4x11 4x25
Russia WWER Novovoronezh – 3,4** E, P, DH 1971, 72 2x385 2x32.5
Russia WWER-1000 Novovoronezh – 5 E, P 1980 950
Russia WWER-1000 Balakovo 1-4 E, DH 1986-93 4x950 4x200
Russia WWER-1000 Kalinin 1-2 E, P, DH 1984 –86 2x950 2x80
Russia WWER-440 Kola 1 - 4 E, P, DH 1973-84 4x411 55
Russia BN-600 Belojarsk-3 E, P, DH 1981 560 170
Russia RBMK-1000 Leningrad 1 -4 E, P, DH 1974-81 4x925 4x25

127.5,
Russia RBMK-1000 Kursk 1- 4 E, P, DH 1977-86 4x925
3x175
1983-
Russia RBMK-1000 Smolensk E, P, DH 3x925 3x173
1990
1984
Slovakia WWER Bohunice-3, 4 E, DH 2x408 2x240
1985
Switzerland PWR Beznau 1, 2 E, DH 1969-71 2x365 2x80
Ukraine WWER Rovno 1, 2 E, DH 1980-81 381, 376 2x58
Ukraine WWER Rovno 3 E, DH 1987 950 233

2x151
Ukraine WWER-1000 South Ukraine 1-3 E, DH 1983-89 3x950
1x232
‡
E, P and DH stand for electricity, process heat and district heating.
§
Bruce A reactors are currently laid up; it is expected to start up in 2003.
**
Unit 1 was taken out of operation in 1988, unit 2 in 1990.
244 D. Majumdar
The market potential for district heating has been estimated2 to be between
340GWt and 7600GWt. Table VI shows that nuclear power provides only about 4.4
GWt. Since there are various sources for heat such as oil, coal and natural gas, unless
nuclear power is economical in the open market, it cannot make a big dent in
commercialising nuclear district heating. The scaling effect is also important for
nuclear district heating as it is more expensive at lower power. At 500 MWt and
above the nuclear option shows good chances to be competitive even at higher
discount rates2. Perhaps as nuclear power receives more acceptance from the public
and nuclear electricity becomes competitive with other sources of electricity, nuclear
district heating will also become more common.
4. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS HEAT APPLICATIONS
There are five primary areas of industrial heat applications: food processing,
paper industry, chemical industry, petroleum and coal processing, and primary metal
industries. Relative use of process heat in these industries is shown in Table VII for
two developed countries, the U.S. (1994) and Germany (1989).
TABLE VII. INDUSTRIAL USE OF PROCESS HEAT IN THE U.S. AND GERMANY2
Industry Percentage use of process heat in

Germany USA
Food and products 19 5
Paper and products 18 12
Chemical 33 25
Petroleum and coal 8 33
processing
Primary metal industries 10 12
Other 12 13
Industrial process heat is mainly used in the form of steam at appropriate

temperature and pressure conditions. The demand is usually steady and there is no
seasonal variation and hence quite suitable for supply by nuclear power. The only
problem is that the source must be nearby as heat loss in transit is considerable.
There are three cases of commercial use of nuclear process heat in Canada,
Germany and Switzerland. This is shown in Table VIII. The application to the heavy
water production facility in Bruce, Canada was the largest use of nuclear process heat
and it has operated very successfully for over 20 years. The six other industries the
Bruce complex provided process heat were plastic film manufacturing, ethanol plant,
apple juice concentration plant, alfalfa dehydration, cubing and pelletizing plant, a
greenhouse, and an agricultural research facility.
TABLE VIII. NUCLEAR PLANTS PROVIDING COMMERCIAL PROCESS HEAT1
Country Plant Start of Operation Power Heat Interface Distance to Application

Name MWe Delivery Temp C Industry
MWt Feed/ Km
Reactor Heat
Return
Switzerland Goesgen 1979 1979 970 25 220/100 1.75 Cardboard

PWR factory
a
Canada Bruce-A 1977-87 1981 4x848 5350 Nearby Heavy
CANDU 4x860 industrial water
complex production
and 6 other
industries
Germany Stade 1983 640 30 190/100 1.5 Salt
PWR refinery
a
Unit 2 of Bruce A was taken out of service in 1995, units 1,3 and 4 were taken out of
service in 1998. They are expected to start up in 2003.
The total potential market of industrial process heat is large and of the same
order of magnitude as district heating. It is estimated to be between 240 GWt and
2900 GWt2. However, the demand in terms of size varies; some 50% of the users
need less than 10 MWt, 40% need sizes from 10 to 50 MWt, and only 10% need sizes
greater than 50 MWt3. Very few need a large amount of process heat as in the Bruce
example in Canada. The market is also very competitive as small fossil fuel units can
provide the needed steam.
5. HIGH TEMPERATURE APPLICATIONS: FUEL SYNTHESIS
As shown in Table II, liquid metal and gas-cooled reactors can generate very
high temperatures, which could be used to create new synthetic fuels for energy. This
will be an innovative application of nuclear energy and can considerably expand its
use. This is because the transportation sector is responsible for about a quarter of the
total energy use and almost 99% of this is currently supplied by organic fuel. Nuclear
power can penetrate this large market through use of electric cars and production of
synthetic fuels such as methanol, ethanol and their derivatives; nuclear power can
also be used for coal gasification, oil extraction and hydrogen production. All of these
are being seriously considered in the 21st century. However, the infrastructure for use
of these fuels needs to be created first, particularly in the case of environmentally
ideal hydrogen fuel.
246 D. Majumdar
Coal gasification (i.e., conversion of solid coal into a gaseous fuel like the
natural gas) requires very high temperatures but could be practical because the
infrastructure for use of natural gas already exists, and there are vast deposits of coal
in the world and this conversion can remove environmental pollutants such as
particulates like sulphur-dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The efficiency of coal fire
plants will also be improved by coal gasification. The process of coal gasification is,
however, quite energy intensive; one unit of gasified coal may require about 1.7 units
of energy in solid coal13. High temperature gas-cooled reactors can play a role here.
Another possible use of nuclear energy is for oil extraction from tar and oil
sands and for enhanced oil recovery operations, particularly from depleted oil
deposits. Canada and Venezuela have large resources of oil and tar sands. Steam
injection is used for these extraction applications and steam can also be used for
processing the oil after the extraction.
The feasibility of nuclear application for production of more organic fuel really
depends on the economics. So long as fossil fuel, particularly oil and gas, are
available at low prices, nuclear will not be a preferable option. Only dual use, where
nuclear electricity can compete in the market, could make these applications
worthwhile.
Hydrogen economy has received renewed interest because of new

developments in HTGR technologies. Several paths to hydrogen production are being
considered: decomposition and gasification of fossil fuel such as steam reforming of
methane and carbon dioxide reforming of methane; and decomposition of water,
namely, low-temperature electrolysis, and combination of electricity and heat for high
temperature electrolysis. These are briefly described below.
A. Steam Reforming of Methane
In this method Methane (CH4), a main component of natural gas, and water
react at temperatures of 600 – 800 C to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide and
dioxide. The steam reforming system can be easily coupled to a HTGR, which can
provide the necessary heat and high temperature. Considerable R&D work has been
carried out in Germany for the steam reforming of methane including performing
experiments in a pilot plant, EVA-I and EVA-II. Currently work is in progress in
JAERI for the HTTR14, in China for the HTR-1015 and in Russia.
B. CO2 Reforming of Methane
The basic CH4 and CO2 reaction for this process (with no addition of steam)
produces CO and hydrogen. The reforming process requires high temperature (800 –
900 C) and high energy input, both of which can be provided by HTGRs. The
generated CO and H2 mixture (syngas) can be used directly as fuel for electricity
generation (e.g., by fuel cells).
C. Thermo-chemical Water Splitting
One mechanism that is being considered seriously for hydrogen production is

thermo-chemical water splitting by the Iodine-Sulfur (IS) process. The IS process was
originally proposed by the General Atomic Company in early 1970’s and is very
promising because it involves only a few reaction steps. In this process Hydrogen-
Iodide (HI) is produced by a cyclic chemical reaction chain utilizing Iodine, sulfur-
dioxide and water; HI is then decomposed to produce hydrogen, releasing Iodine to
the chemical reaction chain. Sulfuric acid, H2SO4, is generated in the process, which
is vaporised and decomposed at a temperature of about 800 to 900 C to sulfur-
dioxide, water and oxygen. The oxygen is released and sulfur-dioxide and water is
returned to the reaction cycle. Laboratory scale experiments at Japan Atomic Energy
Research Institute have demonstrated the feasibility of the IS process with continuous
generation of hydrogen from water with recycling of the process material. An energy
efficiency of 47% has been achieved in this process16.
D. Electrolysis
Water electrolysis at ambient pressure and temperature of 70 – 90 C is a

common method for production of high purity hydrogen. However, it has been found
that the demand for electricity decreases with increase of temperature. That is the
electric energy required is much reduced for the electrolysis of steam at higher
temperatures (800 C and above). High temperature electrolysis is a reverse reaction of
the Solid-oxide Fuel Cell, where water is decomposed in the solid polymer electrolyte
to hydrogen and oxygen. This method is at an early stage of development14.
Conclusion
There are several possibilities for direct utilization of heat from nuclear
reactors. Nuclear desalination, district heating and industrial process heat are
examples where this has been done, and these non-electric applications of nuclear
power can be expanded in the future. It is also important to note that a wide range of
temperatures, for low to high temperature applications, can be tailored for specific
uses by different reactor types. Table IX shows the status of projects in several
countries for non-electric applications of nuclear energy. The proposed applications
are primarily for dual-purpose use but dedicated heating reactors are also being
developed in China and Russia. Innovative applications are being explored with gas-
cooled reactors because of their high temperatures. High temperature applications of
nuclear energy, particularly for production of new fuel such as hydrogen, are in the
laboratory stage now but have a great potential for the future3.
248 D. Majumdar
Cost-effectiveness is in general a crucial issue for non-electric applications of

nuclear power. As nuclear power captures a larger share of the electricity market, the
non-electric applications will also flourish. Until now, the non-electric applications
are only a very small part of power production. For some applications, however, close
proximity of the power plant to a population centre is needed (to reduce energy and/or
product transmission losses) and this requires further public acceptance. Some large
applications also require the development of infrastructure - heat-distribution
networks for district heating and water distribution systems (water pipes and pumps)
for fresh water. Many countries are exploring these possibilities of nuclear power. As
mentioned in the text, there is a large market for non-electric applications of nuclear
energy and it is hoped that someday this potential will be realized.
TABLE IX. PROSPECTIVE NUCLEAR PROJECTS FOR

NON-ELECTRIC APPLICATIONS
Plant type Power, Heat output,
Country Location Application†† Project status
or site MW(e) MW(th)
Bulgaria WWER Belene E, DH Design 2x1000 400
China NHR-200 Daqing City DH Dormant 0 200

Tsinghua Electricity/ Achieved
China HTR-10 University, high temp. criticality in 10
Beijing applications Dec. 2000
Oarai High temp.
Japan HTTR Operating 0 30
(JAERI) process heat
DH / Air
Russia RUTA Apatity Design 0 4x55
conditioning
Russia RUTA Obninsk DH Design 0 55
ATEC-
Russia - E, DH Design 50-180 70-40
200
VGM ./
Russia - P Design - 600
GT-MHR
Regulatory
E, DH &
Russia KLT-40 Floating process 35 150
Desalination
completed
Construction
Russia AST-500 Voronez DH 0 500
suspended
Completed
feasibility
study, approval
of the project
Russia AST-500 Seversk DH by State 0 500
regulatory
authority is
nearing
completion
††
E: Electricity (Power), P: Steam supply for process heat, DH: Steam/Hot water supply for heating.
250 D. Majumdar
References
1
IAEA-Tecdoc 1056, “Nuclear heat applications: design aspects and operating
experience”, November 1998.
2
B.J. Csik and J. Kupitz, “Nuclear power applications: supplying heat for home and
industries”, IAEA Bulletin, Vol 39, No. 2, IAEA, Vienna, 1997.
3
IAEA-TRS-410, “Market potential for non-electric applications of nuclear energy”,
to be published.
4
IAEA-Tecdoc-1085, “Hydrogen as an energy carrier and its production by nuclear
power”, May 1999.
5
World Water Vision Commission Report: A Water Secure World, World Water
Forum, The Hague, Netherlands, 2000.
6
O.K. Buros, “The ABCs of Desalting”, International Desalination Association,
USA, February 2000.
7
Introduction of nuclear desalination – a guidebook, IAEA Technical Reports Series
No. 400, Vienna 2000.
8
T. Konishi, R.S. Faibish, and M. Gasparini, “Application of nuclear energy for
seawater desalination – design concepts of nuclear desalination plants”, Proc. of tenth
Int. Conf. On nuclear engineering, April 14 – 18, 2002, Arlington, VA, USA.
9
Y. Kupitz and T. Konishi, Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources,
EOSS publications, Oxford, 2000.
10
Ted Prato et al., “Successful use of membranes at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant”,
The International Desalination and Water Reuse Quarterly, 27, vol 10/4, Feb/March
2001.
11
IAEA-Tecdoc-1186, “Examining the economics of seawater desalination using the
DEEP code”, December 2000.
12
P.K. Tewari and B.M. Misra, “Emerging trends in R&D on desalination in India”,
Desalination and Water Reuse, 46,vol.12/1, 2001.
13
Energy and nuclear power planning in developing countries, Technical Reports
Series No. 245, IAEA, Vienna, 1985.
14
S. Shiozawa, Y. Tachibana. O. Baba and M. Ogawa, “Present status and
perspective of HTGR in Japan”, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status
and Prospects for Small and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
15
Zongxin Wu and Yuliang Sun, “The technical design and safety features of the 10
MW HTGR test reactor”, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and
Prospects for Small and Medium Sized reactors, Cairo, 27 – 31 May 2001.
16
IAEA-Tecdoc-1236, “Design and evaluation of heat utilization systems for the high
temperature engineering test reactor”, August 2001.
Experiences and Techniques in the Decommissioning
of Old Nuclear Power Plants
Maurizio Cumo1
University of Rome "La Sapienza,"

Department of Nuclear Engineering and Energy Conversion, Rome, Italy

LNS0520006
1
maurizio.cumo@uniroma1.it
Experiences & Techniques in the Decommissioning of Old Nuclear Power Plants 255
1. Introduction
Decommissioning of a nuclear power plant or other nuclear installations can be

defined as the cessation of operations and the withdrawal of the facility from service,
followed by its transformation into an out-of-service state and eventually, its
complete removal, the so-called "green field" status, which, in principle, restores the
site to the conditions existing before the construction of the plant. Alternative end
conditions may include a situation in which the buildings, free of any radioactive
contamination, are left for future conventional demolition, or situations in which
these buildings, or the site itself, are used for other industrial purposes.
We will discuss the decommissioning activities starting from a situation in which

spent fuel is not present any more on-site, or at least, in a completely independent
storage facility. This removes from the plant more than 99,99% of the radioactivity
present in the plant at the time of operation.
The main goal for the decommissioning activities is to place the facility in a condition
that eliminate any risk for the health and safety of the general public and the
environment, removing, in particular, from systems and structures any radioactivity
that may have been accumulated during plant operations. Of course, all the
decommissioning activities shall be carried out with great attention to assure the
minimization of the risks to both the public and the workers involved in the process.
Decommissioning is a complex, long lasting and highly technological activity that

presents smaller challenges, but similar to the plant construction activities. In some
countries, in fact, it is called de-construction. Activities include use of technological
tools, control of industrial safety, environmental impact minimization, licensing,
safety analysis, structural analysis, etc. Other aspects very relevant are the activity
planning, the calculation of related cash flow and anticipation of the funds needed to
perform the activities. Aspects related to waste disposal and spent fuel strategy shall
be covered as well.
2. Current decommissioning activities in the world
All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it is no longer
economical to operate them. Generally speaking, Nuclear Power Plants (NPP's) were
designed for a life of about 30 years, though some have proved capable of continuing
well beyond this term. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 years operating life.
To date, 70 commercial power reactors, over 250 research reactors and a number of
fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation. Some of these have been fully
dismantled. Assuming an average of about 25-years lifespan, almost 300 nuclear
power plants would have to be decommissioned by the year 2010. By appropriate
refurbishment, replacement or upgrading of some equipment, operations at many of
these plants can probably be extended well beyond this conservative estimate.
256 M. Cumo
However, ultimately it becomes either technically or economically advantageous to

retire a facility from operation and, if necessary, replace it with a new plant.
In Italy 4 Nuclear Power Plants have been

prematurely definitely shutdown and are now in
different stages of decommissioning. They were
Caorso operated by the National Electrical Utility ENEL,
now partially privatized. In figure 1, the names and
Trino
location of these plants are reported. The
responsibility of carrying out the decommissioning
projects and to manage the spent fuel has passed in
Latina the 1999 to SOGIN Company (which includes all
Garigliano
nuclear competences of ENEL), which is now
completely owned by the Italian Government
(Ministry of Treasury). In Table 1 the main
characteristics of these plants are summarized.
Figure 1 – Location of Italian

NPP’s in decommissioning
Table 1 - Italian NPP's main data
Commercial Plant
Plant Type Designer Mwe
operations shutdown
Latina Magnox TNPG 200 1963 1986
Garigliano BWR Dual cycle General Electric 150 1964 1978
Trino PWR Westinghouse 260 1964 1987
Caorso BWR AMN - GETSCO 860 1978 1986
3. Possible decommissioning strategies
Possible approaches to decommissioning a Nuclear Power Plant may be widely

varied and the optimal choice is made on the bases of a number of parameters which,
in most cases, are site specific or, at least, country specific. Therefore there is no
single optimal approach for all facilities. Decommissioning process could be
subdivided, in somewhat schematic way, into stages. There is no official definition of
the different stages, each country using its own definitions which vary slightly to suit
each case. We could mention, as an example, the IAEA Technical Reports Series N°
375, ‘’Safe Enclosure of Shut Down Nuclear Installations’’, 1995, which provides the
following definitions:
"According to the definition of IAEA stages of decommissioning, the nuclear fuel or

radioactive materials in the process systems as well as radioactive waters produced
in normal operation is first removed by routine operation. Each of the three
decommissioning stages of a nuclear plant can be defined by:
¾ the physical state of the plant and its equipment ;

¾ the surveillance, inspections and tests necessitated by that state.
Stage 1
a) The first contamination barrier is kept as it was during operation but the
mechanical opening systems are permanently blocked and sealed (valves, plugs
etc.). The containment building is kept in a state appropriate to the remaining
hazard. The atmosphere inside the containment building is subject to appropriate
control. Access to the inside of the containment building is subject to monitoring
and surveillance procedures.
b) The unit is under surveillance and the equipment necessary for monitoring
radioactivity both inside the plant and in the area around it is kept in good
condition and used when necessary and in accordance with national legal
requirements. Inspections are carried out to check that the plant remains in good
condition. If necessary, checks are carried out to see that there are no leaks in
the first contamination barrier and the containment building.
Stage 2
a) The first contamination barrier is reduced to a minimum size (all parts easily
dismantled are removed). The sealing of that barrier is reinforced by physical means
and the biological shield is extended if necessary so that it completely surrounds the
barrier. After decontamination to acceptable levels, the containment building and the
nuclear ventilation systems may be modified or removed if they no longer play a role
in radiological safety and, depending on the extent to which other equipment is
removed decontaminated, access to the former containment building, if it is left
standing, can be permitted. The non-radioactive parts of the plant (buildings or
equipment) may be converted for new purposes.
b) Surveillance around the barrier can be relaxed but is desirable for periodic spot
checks to be continued, as well as surveillance of the environment. External
inspections of the sealed parts should be performed. Checks for leaks are no longer
necessary on any remaining containment buildings.
Stage 3
All materials, equipment and part of the plant, the activity of which remains
significant despite decontamination procedures are removed. In all remaining parts
contamination has been reduced to acceptable levels. The plant is decommissioned
258 M. Cumo
(released) without restrictions. From the viewpoint of radiological protection, no

further surveillance, inspection or tests are necessary.’’
Other terms that are widely used to describe the strategy adopted for the
decommissioning are those that have been introduced in USA by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (US NRC):
DECON (or one step dismantling):

In this strategy, all components and structures that are radioactive are cleaned or
dismantled, packaged and transported to a low-level waste disposal site (if available)
or stored temporarily on site. Once this task is completed, the facility can be used for
another power plant or other purposes, without restrictions.
SAFSTOR (or Safe Storage):

In SAFSTOR, the nuclear plant is kept intact and placed in protective storage for a
very long time (up to 60 years2), and afterwards it is dismantled. This method, which
involves locking that part of the plant containing radioactive materials and monitoring
it with an on-site security force, uses time as a decontaminating agent—that is, the
radioactive atoms "decay" by emitting their extra energy to become non-radioactive
or stable atoms. 3Once radioactivity has decayed to low levels, the activity is the same
as the one described above as DECON. All building structures and systems which are
necessary for workers and public safety shall be maintained in service during the safe
storage period. A pre-condition to reach the safe storage condition is that the fuel has
been removed from the plant and that radioactive liquids have been drained from
systems and components and then processed.
ENTOMBMENT:
The radioactive inventory is enclosed in a monolithic structure, e.g. concrete, to
secure the public safety. The monolithic structure should ensure integrity for about
100 years to derive benefit from the decay of the nuclides. After the entombment
period, all enclosed components are very low radioactive and the assumption should
be that dismantling at that time can be performed in a “conventional” way. During
entombment the plant remains under a nuclear license.
The 3 categories presented above are a crude schematization of various situations.

The DECON strategy for example may imply a really “quick” decommissioning and
dismantling, or a longer process, that might optimize the use of plant personnel and
reduce costs associated with engulfing activities on site.
2
60 years is a limitation existing in the USA. In other countries this condition may last longer up to 100
years and more
3
If a plant is allowed to sit idle for 30 years, for example, only about 1/50th of its original radioactivity
from cobalt-60 will remain; after 50 years, some 1/1,000th will remain.
On the other side, the SAFSTOR option may really imply a simple “close and seal the
door”, or a combination of immediate dismantling and safe store. In the latter case it
may be considered the immediate dismantling of systems and buildings which are
not, or only slightly, contaminated and a SAFSTOR strategy for the most radioactive
portion of the plant. Also the safe storage period may range from 30 to more than 100
years, depending on a number of parameters and conditions that will be discussed
later.
The third strategy (ENTOMBMENT) has never been applied yet to a NPP. There are
several reasons for that. The first one is that the size of a NPP is too large to be
simply entombed. A second reason is related to the fact that most power reactors will
have radionuclides in concentrations exceeding the limits for unrestricted use even
after 100 years and more and therefore this strategy cannot be successful.
ENTOMBMENT is, however, a possible strategy for smaller reactors and for other
small nuclear facilities.
4. Main decommissioning activities
The complete decommissioning process involves a number of stages (or activities)

that shall be performed, even if the logical sequence may be changed according to the
specific strategy.
Decommissioning Planning – The decommissioning planning is usually started

while the plant is still operating. Some decision making process and some planning,
associated with some cost evaluation shall be started well on time, since it is needed
also for fund accumulation, that usually is performed during plant operation.
Post-Operation – It is the sum of the activities that are needed to maintain the safety
of the plant even after the plant has been definitely shutdown. These activities are
more relevant while the spent fuel is still present in the plant.
Characterization – The knowledge of the radioactive inventory in the systems,

components and structures before start of decommissioning is a fundamental
information to define strategy, costs, technologies and so on. Characterization is also
an important process during plant dismantling in order to know exactly the content of
the produced wastes. Finally, characterization is also an important, and complex
activity to demonstrate that structures and systems, that have not been dismantled
because no radioactive, are actually in this condition. In Table 2 a typical list of
radioactive isotopes relevant to the decommissioning of NPP’s is reported.
Decontamination – It is an activity that is oriented to remove radioactivity from

systems and structures, in order to release components, to reduce doses to workers
and to reduce the volume of wastes. It is applied to floors, walls, piping, etc. and may
be performed essentially with mechanical or chemical means.
260 M. Cumo
Dismantling – It is the real demolition activity. It may be a rather simple and quick
activity, using conventional tools, but it may also be a very complex activity in the
case of highly radioactive parts, using remote cutting and other sophisticated tools.
Safe Storage – It is the period in which the plant is left in dormancy, waiting
for the radioactive decay. The plant is not left without controls, but a number
of activities are still needed and, in some cases, some maintenance and even
construction activities are necessary to maintain the safety for the workers and
the public.
Table 2 – Major radionuclides identified in facility characterization
Isotope Half-life
Principal Associated Materials
(years)decay γ energy where isotopes
mode (MeV) can be found
NEUTRON ACTIVATION PRODUCTS FOUND IN NUCLEAR REACTORS4
H3 5 12,3 β- - C,O,S2
C14 5730 β- - G, M, S
Na22 2 2,6 EC, β + 0,51 - 1,28 O
Cl36 3,1 108 β -, EC - C
Ar39 2 269 β- - C
41 5
Ca 1 10 EC - C
Ca45 0,4 β- - C
V49 2 0,9 EC - S2
Mn54 0,9 EC, γ 0,83 A, M, S
Fe55 2 2,7 EC - C, M, O, S2
Co57 2 0,7 EC, γ 0,12 - 0,14 S2
β, γ
60 2 -
Co 5,3 1,2 – 1,3 C, M, O, S, Z
Ni59 7,5 104 EC - C, M, O, S, Z
β
63 2
Ni 100 -
- C, M, O, S2
Zn65 0,7 β +, γ, EC 0,51 – 1,12 A
Zr93 1,5 106 β- - O, Z
Nb94 2 104 β -, γ 0,70 – 0,87 M, O, S, Z
EC, γ -
93 3
Mo 3,5 10 0,3 M
Ag108m 130 EC, γ 0,4 – 0,6 – M, O, S
0,7
Ag110m 0,7 β -, γ 0,6 – 0,9 M, O, S
EC, γ
133 2
Ba 10,7 0,08 – 0,36 C
Sm151 93 β -, γ 0,02 C
Eu152 13,4 β -, γ EC 0,1 C, G
Eu154 8,2 β-, γ 0,1 – 1,3 C, G
4
Fission products are also often found in nuclear reactors as a result of defects in the fuel
cladding
5
Important in fusion devices also
5. Major factors relevant to the decommissioning strategy and planning
Optimization of a decommissioning strategy is a rather complex process. The

parameters to be considered can be grouped in 3 categories: technical, economical,
socio-political.
In the first group it is possible to list the following aspects:
• Radioactive inventory – Depending on the amount and characteristics of the

radioactive inventory the strategy can change. For example, plants which
experienced accidents with radioactive release or incidental spilling on the
floors, or contamination of insulation, may require special attention. On the
other side plants which have been prematurely shutdown may have a lower
total inventory and a long Safe Storage period may not be justified.
• Presence of other operating units on the same site or in the country –
This situation may imply the maintenance of a high level of nuclear
technology that will be available for a longer time. To have them on the same
site means also that the site cannot be released anyway and that work force
can be easily re-employed. Therefore, generally, it is convenient to wait some
time before dismantling.
• Availability of a national waste repository – Decommissioning and
dismantling means essentially to cut in pieces a NPP and to concentrate and
package the radioactivity. This is of little advantage if all the radioactive
material shall remain on-site. In addition, if a repository does not exist,
uncertainties are present on the specification of packaging that will be finally
required by the repository, once it will made available.
• Clearance levels and waste disposal costs– Clearance levels are of
fundamental importance to decide which strategy and which technologies
shall be used. Since clearance levels can vary even by one order of magnitude
and more, correspondingly the amount of radioactive wastes to be generated,
classified as such, can vary by even more than one order of magnitude. This,
in connection with the cost of waste final disposal, can force the decision in
favor or against the preliminary decontamination of systems and structures.
• Plant layout – Difficulties in the dismantling process due to very compact
layouts may lead to decisions about preliminary decontamination and
different cutting strategies
• Safety conditions of structures and systems – Costs of maintaining the safe
storage condition for decades shall be low to make the SAFSTOR strategy
convenient. This means that structural conditions and corrosion conditions of
all components shall be good and capable to withstand the expected
conditions for several decades, without any need for major refurbishment.
262 M. Cumo
• Expectations about development of licensing rules and of technologies

for decommissioning – Licensing rules and available technologies change
usually more quickly than expected. This is the experience of the last years.
Extrapolations of the situation in 50 or 100 years are extremely difficult to be
made and, more important, extremely uncertain. This means that in the case
of the safe storage strategy it is wise to use contingencies in cost calculations
and to leave open the introduction to new technologies.
• Connections between conventional and nuclear safety – In a NPP there are
also some conventional safety issues and a production of conventional waste
(such as asbestos). Complications may arise when the same waste is at the
same time radioactive and toxic, such as in the case of contaminated asbestos.
The extent of such situation may lead to the use of special techniques of
dismantling and waste packaging.
• Status of plant configuration documentation - In the lack of a good
documentation about plant design bases, plant modifications and plant
conditions, the knowledge of the plant staff might lead to the decision to
perform as many as possible activities, while the people are still available.
Worker doses are not included in the previous list, since it is assumed that with
proper preparation and the use of proper tools, including remote operations and
decontamination activities, the worker dose can always be reduced to acceptable
levels. Also environment and public health impact levels have not been included in
this list, since they are generally so low that do not present any serious concern. Of
course also these elements have to be taken into account in a complete strategy
evaluation.
In the second group, the following elements have to be considered:
• Availability of funding - Generally the fund accumulation during plant operation

is based on a cost evaluation, which, in turn, is based on a specific strategy. Any
change of the strategy would imply the identification of different fund sources.
• Expectations about cost evolutions - Calculated costs are affected by a certain
level of uncertainties. Uncertainties grow with the extension of calculation
extrapolation, because of the uncertainties in the evolution of technologies and
the evolution in the safety rules and in the costs of waste disposal. The need to
reduce uncertainties implies a reduction of decommissioning duration
• Expectations in terms of inflation rate - Funds tend to grow, because, with
proper investments, they will produce a net interest. Assumptions about this net
interest (that usually range from 2% to 5 %) are very sensitive for the definition
of the convenience of different strategies
• Assumptions in terms of contingencies - Excessive contingencies intended as
provisional funds to cover unexpected situations may tend to increase the needed
funds. In general, the amount of contingencies may be reduced, obviously, when

the decommissioning time is shortened.
In the third group, the following aspects can be listed:
• Work force policy - In general at the time of final plant shutdown of one unit the
work force is between 200 and 500 people. If the unit is isolated on the site and if
the utility has no other nuclear operating plant, the social situation may become
acute, also in areas industrially developed. Therefore the worker decrease curve
shall be carefully studied and their useful employment in the decommissioning
process shall be planned, even considering their requalification.
• Pressures by central or local authorities - Pressures may exist from local and
central authorities to clean up the site as soon as possible to solve the
occupational issue mentioned above, to improve the "image" of a certain area
with touristic or agricultural objectives, and so on.
Detailed planning of the decommissioning activity is also a difficult task. Very few
activities are routine activities and some last for years.
Dismantling can be approached in several ways, depending on the specific

circumstances. For example the process can be followed “room by room”,
dismantling everything present in a specific room of the plant, possibly starting from
the most contaminated components to reduce the overall doses, or from the easiest
components, in order to facilitate the remaining operations. Or it may proceed, system
by system, keeping operating some support systems that may be still useful in the
operations. In the general case the solution is a combination of the two strategies, to
be decided on a case by case basis.
It is also necessary to mention that planning is also difficult because the plant
configuration is different day by day. To keep under control the status of the plant
and its configuration is an heavy task, addressed generally with complex and specific
planning tools.
6. Waste management
Wastes related to plant decommissioning come only from the structures of the plant
which have been either irradiated or contaminated with radioactive isotopes.
Criteria for waste classification are not standardized worldwide and therefore a
consensus classification is not possible. Criteria may be related to the type of
isotopes, to their concentration and/or to the total amount of radioactivity in a
package. However, in general, 3 categories of wastes are identified:
264 M. Cumo
1. Low level radwaste – these are waste that would not be radioactive (i.e. their
radioactivity will be below the clearance level6) in a period that can last from few
days to some decades. This type of waste is not the waste that concern most in the
decommissioning. In the cases in which also concentration is important, then it
becomes a very important issue for decommissioning. In fact, one of the isotopes
that may influence the entire decommissioning process is Cobalt-60, which has
an half-life of 5,3 years. Since it is present in significant quantities in all plants
and since it is dangerous to workers, because it decays with a strong gamma, it
may lead to very large quantities of waste. Therefore the need for concentration
of radioactivity, the appropriate treatment and the waste form is strictly related to
the country regulations, definitions and disposal costs for such a type of waste.
2. Intermediate level radwaste – this is the waste which needs up to some centuries
to decay below the clearance threshold level
3. High level radwaste – All other radioactive waste, that do not fit in the 2 previous
categories are classified as high level waste. This category may include activated
materials, components contaminated with transuranic isotopes, Carbon-14
isotopes, such as graphite blocks of Magnox reactors, etc. Vitrified residues of
reprocessing certainly fall into this category.
The need for proper processing indeed exists. However, in many cases the required
technologies and the goals are the same as those for operational wastes. In particular,
the goals to be achieved and optimized should be minimization of the quantities and
volumes at the origin, stabilization, concentration, conditioning, sorting and
packaging. Among the technologies used for waste conditioning we may recall:
nitrification, bitumization, polymerization, cementation, super-compaction,
incineration, vitrification, etc.
In fig.2 below a flow diagram is depicted to show the process of producing, treating,
characterizing and packaging of decommissioning wastes.
6
The clearance ‘’is the removal of material from a system of regulatory control provided that
the radiological impact of these sources after removal from the system is sufficiently low as
not to warrant any further control’’
Figure 2 - Decommissioning waste processing
7. Decontamination technologies
The decontamination process is defined as the removal of contamination from the

surfaces of installation structures and from internal and external surfaces of piping
and equipment.
The major categories of techniques are washing, heating, chemical action,

electrochemical action and mechanical action
The objectives of a decontamination process are:
• Reduce worker doses

• Reuse of materials and equipment
• Reduce the amount and volume of radioactive wastes to be disposed
• Remove radiological restraints in all or part of the plant
• Eliminate removable contamination and fix the other one
• Reduce the time after which a material can be freely released
266 M. Cumo
Decontamination objectives can vary according to the specific strategy chosen and
according to the specific phase of the decommissioning process. For example in the
SAFSTOR strategy the decontamination can be reduced to eliminate the easy
removable contamination and to minimize the doses to workers at the end of the safe
store period.
In the definition of the most appropriate decontamination strategy considerations of

cost-benefit must be applied. Decontamination itself causes doses to the operators and
produces secondary wastes to be evaluated in terms of quantity and typology. This
“cost” shall be compared with the corresponding savings expected as a consequence
of the activity.
In the choice of a specific technology attention must be given to the specific

geometry, surface characteristics and materials of the parts to be decontaminated.
Chemical techniques use diluted or concentrated solvents which come in contact with
the radioactive substances to be dissolved. The dissolution may imply also the
dissolution of part of the base material or simply of the radioactive deposit film on the
surface. This last way is adopted when there is an interest in maintaining the integrity
of the base metal such as in the case of operating plants, where the decontamination is
applied only to reduce worker doses during maintenance activities. Chemical
decontamination is applied by a continuous flushing in intact piping, creating a closed
loop, and it is preferred for areas where access is difficult and for decontaminating the
internal surfaces of piping. Chemical decontamination can be also successfully used
for large areas such as floors and walls.
Mechanical decontamination (automatic or manual, locally or remotely controlled) is

based on purely physical processes. It includes washing, flushing in closed loops,
pipe swabbing, foaming agents and latex-peelable coatings. Most aggressive
mechanical processes include wet or dry abrasive blasting, surface grinding, concrete
spalling.
8. Dismantling technologies
The dismantling of a nuclear installation requires the cutting and segmenting of

equipment and structures with varying sizes, dimensions, and materials. To assume a
final decision it is necessary to take into account the acceptance specification of the
national disposal site, where these wastes will be sent. In the USA, for example, some
plants have disposed the entire reactor vessel, without any fine cutting. In other
countries the vessel shall be segmented, generally with remote control techniques
under water.
The conditions under which the cutting operations are carried out depend on the
location and space of the working area, on the qualification and experiences of the
personnel, on the available tools and technologies as well as on the environmental

conditions under which the operations will be performed: under water, in the air,
under radioactive radiation, under contaminated atmosphere, etc.
There is a great diversity in existing cutting tools, which are useful and available
under industrial conditions or in the R&D phase, each tool having its own
performances, conditions and field of application.
The following techniques are presently available:

• thermal cutting
• hydraulic cutting
• laser cutting
• mechanical dismantling
• microwave spalling
• explosive cutting
When choosing cutting techniques the following factors should be taken into account:
• the technique (tool) should be used in practice, so that experience exists and a
safety in furnish, spare parts and handling is available
• the technique (tool) should only generate a minimum of secondary waste, e.g.
dust, particles, smokes, aerosols with controlled dispersion, liquid effluents
• low risk of contamination for personnel on site
• the technique (tool) has to be compatible to the working-environment.
In thermal cutting techniques, the solid material is melted and then blown away.
Since molten states of material are present, the net amount of force needed is much
smaller than for the techniques which use strain energy. Hence the contribution of
mechanical force is only a minor part of thermal cutting processes.
It is possible to subdivide the thermal cutting techniques, according to the type of heat
source, in:
• gas processes
• arc processes
• plasma arc processes
• a composition of the above processes
The energy density of the heat source increases from the gas flame over the arc and
the plasma arc to the laser beam.
268 M. Cumo
The abrasive water jet cutting technique is based on the application of plain water
jets. Abrasive particles are accelerated by a high speed water jet and cause the
removal of the material. Instead of an erosion process as in case of plain water jets,
abrasive water jets cut by micro-chipping the material by the sharp-edged particles.
When using the correct abrasive material, which has to be harder than the work piece
material, any material can be cut - metals as well as ceramics, glass and concrete.
With abrasive water jets, severance cutting as well as gouging, is possible. To
generate abrasive water jets two different methods are currently available. The
abrasive can be added to a plain water jet in a special mixing head (injection jet), or a
premixed and pressurised abrasive water suspension can be released to the nozzle to
form the abrasive jet (suspension jet). Sharp-edged mineral particles such as silicon
sand, corundum or garnet sand are used as abrasives. The increasing number of
cutting applications has helped the abrasive water suspension jet (AWSJ) to become
more important despite the high consumption of water and abrasives.
The last groups of techniques are the mechanical cutting techniques. A limited list of
such techniques is reported below as an example of the available alternatives to be
optimized on a case by case basis:
• Grinder
• Hacksaw and Guillotine Saw
• Shears
• Milling Cutters and Orbital Cutters
• Knurl Tube Cutter (rotary disk knife or cutting wheel or plumber's pipe cutter)
• Diamond Saws and Cables
9. Health and safety aspects
The issue of health and safety aspects and the broader one of the environmental
impact of the decommissioning process is far reaching and it may only be
summarized.
It is convenient to distinguish at least three aspects:
1. Occupational safety, or safety of the workers directly involved in the

decommissioning activities
2. Public safety, or the safety of the population surrounding the plant in
decommissioning, excluding therefore those who may be affected by the waste
disposal process
3. Environmental protection, including those aspects that are not directly related to
human health
The first aspect is probably the most significant. Decommissioning is a very labour
intensive activity and workers will be in contact with radioactive and other toxic
wastes. However, all the means of the plant are still available to reduce the worker
doses to the minimum and, while individual doses will always be below acceptable
levels, an ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) analysis of single activities
and process could reduce the cumulative occupational doses to values below a few
years of plant operation for the entire decommissioning process (few hundreds of
man-Sv).
Risks to the public are extremely low in comparison with those associated with plant
operation. Radioactive inventory available for release to atmosphere or water bodies
is a very small fraction of the previous ones. In general the most dangerous situations
are associated with large fires in contaminated areas, breaks in tanks with large
inventories of liquid radwaste, drop of contaminated loads. All these situations,
however, in general would not even require the activation of an emergency plan.
The environmental issues, finally, are treated in a Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA), which is now required in Europe by a Directive of the European Union.
Currently a lot of work is undergoing for a better harmonization of such assessments
among the member countries. It is also needed to discuss the interaction between the
EIA, presented generally to the Ministry of Environment, and the safety assessments
that are presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Bodies. As in other EIA, the assessment
would present an overall broad view on all interactions of the decommissioning with
various environmental matrixes, and would include aspects not included in the Safety
Report such as, for example, those related to site restoration, impact of material
(radioactive and non radioactive) transports, disturbance to the local flora and fauna,
etc.
10. Economic and financial aspects
Decommissioning is a costly activity. Therefore it is needed to calculate its cost well

in advance and accumulate the funds during plant operation as an assurance for being
able to close the existence cycle of the plant. Therefore both aspects of cost
calculations and funding will be briefly addressed.
The total cost of decommissioning is dependent on the sequence and timing of the
various stages of the program. Deferment of a stage tends to reduce its cost, due to
decreasing radioactivity, but this may be offset by increased storage and surveillance
costs.
Even allowing for uncertainties in cost estimates and applicable discount rates,
decommissioning contributes less than 5% to total electricity generation costs. In
USA many utilities have revised their cost projections downwards in the light of
experience, and estimates now average 325 million dollars per reactor all-up.
270 M. Cumo
The cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants is based on the following factors:
• The sequence of decommissioning stages chosen;

• The timing of each decommissioning stage;
• The decommissioning activities accomplished in each stage.
In addition, costs depend on such country- and site-specific factors as the type of
reactor, waste management and disposal practices and labor rates. The importance of
the last item is due to the fact that decommissioning is a labour intensive activity and,
therefore, its cost is strongly connected with labour practices, working hours and, of
course, labor rates.
Total decommissioning costs include all costs from the start of decommissioning until
the site is released for unrestricted use.
The cost estimates are based on previous decommissioning and decontamination

experience, on the cost of maintenance, surveillance and component replacements,
and on the cost of similar non-nuclear work. Estimates for large NPPs. have been
made by several European countries as well as Japan, Canada and the United States.
The results, which include a 25 per cent contingency factor, showed a range of costs
for an immediate Stage 3 decommissioning of between 97 and 173 million U.S.
dollars (1984). Costs for combining Stages 1 and 3 ranged from 117 to 181 million
dollars. Only the United States estimated the costs of combining Stages 2 and 3, from
158 to 186 million dollars. While these figures cannot be absolutely precise, due to
differences in the original contingency factors and definitions of decommissioning
stages among countries, they nevertheless show what order of magnitude actual
decommissioning costs are likely to be for large power plants.
Various methodologies are available for the calculation of decommissioning costs,

which present different levels of reliability and precision and are used according to
the different objectives of the evaluations. The major reasons that usually lead to the
need of a cost evaluation are the following:
• To provide an input for the decommissioning funding during plant operational

life
• To compare costs associated with different strategies for the decision making
process
• To prepare long term budgeting and cash flow
• To provide a tool for project control
According to the above objectives, the methods include:

• Scaling up or down from similar plant evaluations or experiences according to

plant power, or to the total plant activity or to the waste masses, or to other
criteria
• Simple calculations based on unit costs for a number of overall parameters like
mass of activated metals, mass of contaminated concrete, mass of contaminated
metals. This method can be used also for a generic power plant (not site specific)
• Detailed site specific calculations based on a very detailed bottom-up approach,
separating each elementary work package
In the last case a detailed database and a computer code treating a large number of
information are needed.
For example, one of these computer codes (STILLKO) has been developed in
Germany by NIS Company and has been extensively used not only in Germany, but
also in many European countries, including Italy. The STILLKO Cost Breakdown
Structure (CBS) includes all decommissioning activities that are necessary for the
successful completion of the decommissioning project, beginning with the licensing
procedure up to the green field status at the end. The CBS is organized into different
levels in a hierarchical structure as described in fig. 3.
Figure 3 - Decommissioning Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) Organization
On the first level the division of a decommissioning project is effected according to

decommissioning phases which are separated according to time and obtained or
necessary permits.
272 M. Cumo
On the second level, the decommissioning phases are divided into the following cost
categories:
• Project management and project administration
• Planning and licensing
• Plant operation and security
• Plant technical activities for Safe Enclosure
• Preparations for Dismantling
• Dismantling activated and contaminated components
• Decontamination
• Conventional dismantling
• Waste management
• Radiological and conventional worker protection
These cost categories have been created according to functional points of view and
represent the volume of the decommissioning activities. The cost categories may
occur in every decommissioning phase, with suitable contents of the cost categories
regarding the respective phase.
The third level is used to allocate the decommissioning activities to the buildings and
areas on site. Using this level in the cost structure it is possible to assign the work
directly to the place where it arises but also to determine the sequence of the activities
and their schedule in relation to the specific building.
On the fourth level, individual tasks are defined which allow a room by room or
system by system planning, regarding to the situation on site. The execution of the
tasks may be done parallel in different buildings, building levels or rooms.
On the fifth, the lowest level, the decommissioning tasks are divided into activities.
These activities are formed in a way that each of them can be individually calculated.
It is useful to mention that a standardization of cost items has been developed in the
framework of OECD and European Union and that it can be a useful reference for the
future.
About financing methods, several alternatives can be used depending on the

circumstances of each utility and the country in which it operates. In several
countries, a fund of some type has been established, or proposed, to assure the
availability of financing. This is usually done by an early estimation of the cost of
decommissioning at the end of the normal plant lifetime and requiring payments,
either annually or on a charge per kilowatt-hour basis, to ensure that this sum is in
place. This estimate is updated regularly and the charge adjusted accordingly.
The drawback to this system is that the amount estimated would not be in place if the
plant were to be shut down before the end of its normal lifetime. To avoid this, a fund
could be established at the start of the plant's operation which would cover the cost of
decommissioning whenever it became necessary. However, this represents a heavy
burden for the utility at the moment when construction and start-up costs are already
high, and thus, although it may be imposed by law, this solution is clearly not
favoured by utilities.
Financing methods vary from country to country. Among the most common are:
• External sinking fund (Nuclear Power Levy): This is built up over the years from
a percentage of the electricity rates charged to consumers. Proceeds are placed in
a trust fund outside the utility’s control. This is the main US system, where
sufficient funds are set aside during the reactor’s operating lifetime to cover the
cost of decommissioning.
• Prepayment, where money is deposited in a separate account to cover
decommissioning costs even before the plant begins operation. This may be done
in a number of ways, but the funds cannot be withdrawn other than for
decommissioning purposes.
• Surety fund, letter of credit, or insurance purchased by the utility to guarantee
that decommissioning costs will be covered even if the utility defaults.
However, the uncertainties in cost calculations are among the issues in

decommissioning that shall be further developed.
In Italy a fund has been established to enable the decommissioning of Italian NPPs
and the closure of the nuclear fuel cycle. These special provisions are included in the
Financial Statement of the SOGIN Company.
11. The need for R&D
From what has been seen, NPP's decommissioning appears to be a mature

technology. However, while it is certainly true that we have today available all or
most technologies needed to dismantle a NPP and return the site to essentially the
initial, undisturbed condition, large margins exist for the process optimization in
terms of efficiency, waste generation, occupational doses and especially costs.
Specific areas that can be mentioned are:
- decontamination technologies : chemical, electrical, mechanical, ultrasonic …

- dismantling technologies;
- improvement of waste volume minimisation ;
- non-metallic material recycling ;
- control and measurement techniques ;
- remote operations.
274 M. Cumo
In this field the role of the universities may be limited, since the matter is more
related to an industrial development in many cases at competitive levels among
suppliers, but it is anyway important, in the advanced and high technology fields
(advanced chemical decontamination, waste treatment such as vitrification,
robotization, waste stream characterization), as well as in computer codes for dose or
environmental impact calculations.
12. The Italian experiences in decommissioning
First ENEL and then SOGIN have carried out a number of activities in the framework
of the general decommissioning programs. They are both in-field activities and
planning and designing activities. The current situation at the four NPP's is the
following:
Garigliano
• Reactor defuelling and off-site shipment of spent fuel: 1985 - 1987
• Radiological characterisation of plant systems, components and structures:
1990
• Safe Enclosure of Reactor building: 1990 - 1998
• Safe Enclosure of Turbine building: 1994 - 1995
• Treatment of low-level waste and retrieval/conditioning of intermediate-
level and high-level waste: 1988 - 1999
• Dismantling and safe enclosure of existing Radwaste system, demolition of
Off-gas stack and Safe Enclosure condition to be reached within the year
2003
Latina
• Reactor defuelling and off-site shipment of spent fuel: 1988 - 1991
1992
• Decontamination and dismantling of systems and components: 1992 - 1996
• Decontamination of the spent fuel pool: 1996 - 1999
• Treatment of radioactive waste, dismantling of primary circuit ducts and
components and Safe Enclosure condition to be reached within the year
2006
Trino
1992 - 1994
• Reactor defuelling: 1991
• Temporary dry storage of spent fuel at plant site within the year 2003
• Safe Enclosure condition to be reached in the year 2007
Caorso
1992 - 1995
• Reactor defuelling: 1998

• Temporary dry storage of spent fuel at plant site within the year 2004
• Safe Enclosure condition to be reached in the year 2009
Most of the above mentioned decommissioning activities (in particular at Garigliano

and Latina sites) were carried out using experience and skill gained by Company
personnel during plant operation, in particular:
headquarters personnel were involved in the design and licensing activities,

plant personnel, who operated the plant, were involved in the activities for
plant operation termination and decontamination/dismantling activities.
Engineering and R&D Departments of ENEL were also involved in the development
and design of special equipments and tools, used for waste retrieval and
decontamination of structures.
After plants shutdown the plant staff were significantly reduced; part of the personnel
were transferred to fossil power plants, and retired personnel were not replaced.
13. Conclusions
Some broad conclusions can be drawn from the issues that have been briefly
discussed.
The first point is that decommissioning is mainly a management challenge. It is a

complex and multi-faceted problem, whose optimum solution requires a
multidisciplinary approach. Nuclear experts, therefore, should be highly interested in
being involved in it without living this experience as a kind of tedious and dirty job
that somebody else has to do.
From a technical standpoint it is a substantially mature technology, which may have,

however, important margins of improvement. Application of new advanced
technologies may lead to reduced doses to workers and reduced amount of wastes to
be disposed, with consequential important economic advantages. It is also clear that
the sooner the decommissioning is prepared (even during plant operation) the better it
is. We might also say that decommissioning is something that should be addressed as
early as in the plant design process, as currently imposed by utility requirements as
EUR (European Utility Requirements) for advanced NPP's. And it should be
understood that the proof that decommissioning can be completed in reasonable time
and economically may be a prerequisite for building new NPP’s.
From the financial standpoint, decommissioning is also a challenge, because it is a

cost intensive activity without any important direct investment return, if we exclude
site reuse and returns in terms of image for the utility or the region. Therefore, a
276 M. Cumo
correct funding scheme is very important to provide for all necessary funds at the end
of the plant operating life.
International consensus and harmonization are needed in several areas. This need has
been recognized only recently, in the last years, when a greater number of NPP's have
terminated their service life.
A decision making process transparent both to the politicians and to the public, who
deserve the information they want in an activity that is finally for their assurance, is
undoubtedly useful.
Finally, let me introduce an example of design of a modular inherently safe reactor,

called MARS, developed since 1983 at the University “La Sapienza” of Rome, in
which the decommissioning aspects have been taken into account since the
beginning.
This design has been aimed at strongly simplifying the plant layout, the components
construction and assembling on the site in order to reduce construction times and
costs.
This effort has produced, as a parallel significant result, a huge simplification of all
decommissioning activities. In particular, the basic design choices of the MARS
plant affecting decommissioning are shown in Table 3. These choices produce the
results shown in Table 4.
A quick sequence of pictures (figs. 4 to 6) is self-explaining of the decommissioning

phases for this reactor.
Table 3 - MARS main design choices affecting decommissioning
The selected plant characteristics (specific power, temperature, pressure, thermal inertia, etc.) have
allowed to simplify all non safety-related auxiliary systems thanks to reduced performances.
The extensive use of passive systems to assure plant safety has allowed to eliminate some traditional
safety-related auxiliary systems (e.g. injection systems) or to strongly simplify other ones, reducing
the number of redundant components (e.g. boron emergency shutdown).
The selected plant power has allowed to reduce the size of main components, making them easily
transportable.
The selected process parameters, even if reducing the plant global efficiency, guarantee a great
retention of fission products inside the fuel matrix, that, together with low stressed fuel cladding,
strongly reduce the amount of fission products dispersed within the primary coolant.
The selected structural materials (extensive use of stainless steel, elimination of cobalt alloys, etc.)
have allowed to reduce the materials activation.
The adoption of metal structures to support components, to build the working floors and the
biological screen, have allowed to limit the amount of concrete in the plant, simplifying and
speeding the construction phase.
The adoption of flanged connections between components and piping (also for the primary loop)
has allowed the easy mounting and dismounting of all components.
The adoption of an innovative design for all big components has allowed the possibility of their
easy and fast construction, assembling and disassembling.
Table 4 - MARS decommissioning characteristics
The disassembling of flanged connections allows the easy and fast removal of all primary loop
components (the biggest components may be also disassembled in transportable sub-components)
with no needs for special equipment or complex activities to disassembly activated components
inside the reactor building.
The general plant simplification allows a huge reduction, up to 50% in comparison with a same size
traditional plant, of the number of contaminated or activated components (pumps, valves, tanks,
etc.), with the correspondent reduction of the amount of radioactive materials.
The limited size, as well as the possibility of disassembling of components allows their easy
transportability.
The use of a "clean" primary coolant and the reduced number of components allows the reduction of
total and specific contamination of all materials facing the primary coolant.
The exclusive use of metallic structures allows the strong reduction, up to 50% in comparison with a
same size traditional plant, of the volume of concrete buildings potentially contaminated.
The reduced number of components to be removed, their limited size and the presence of flanged
connections make the decommissioning operations faster and faster than in traditional plants
(usually characterized by a lot of big components welded to piping).
The short and easy decommissioning phase allows a strong reduction of doses to personnel.
The short and easy decommissioning phase allows a strong reduction of decommissioning cost.
278 M. Cumo
Figure 4 - MARS reactor design (Multipurpose Advanced Reactor inherently Safe)

Figure 5 - Phases of decommisioning of MARS reactor

280 M. Cumo
Figure 6 - Phases of decommisioning of MARS reactor

Herman M., Paver N. (Eds) - Nuclear Reaction Data and Nuclear Reactors - Physics, Design and Safety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herman M., Paver N. (Eds) - Nuclear Reaction Data and Nuclear Reactors - Physics, Design and Safety

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herman M., Paver N. (Eds) - Nuclear Reaction Data and Nuclear Reactors - Physics, Design and Safety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICTP Lecture Notes

25 February - 28 March 2002

Printed in Trieste by the ICTP Publications & Printing Section

Katepalli R. Sreenivasan, Director

This volume contains a partial collection of lectures delivered at the

Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg,

Lectures given at the

The solution of the many-body problem is a long standing problem. The

2 Variational principle for scattering functions

2.1 Potential scattering

Here M denotes the mass of the particle. The momentum k is related to

g̃l (r) = Tl (r)gl (r) with Tl (r) −−→ r 2l+1 −−−→ 1

The regularisation factor Tl should approach 1 just outside the interaction

where the limiting values are apparent in the diﬀerent representations. A

where βν is an appropriately chosen set of parameters (see discussions in

2.2 Scattering of composite fragments

where the centre of mass kinetic energy can be separated oﬀ by

H  (1, . . . , N ) = H1 (1, . . . , N1 ) + H2 (N1 + 1, . . . N ) + Trel + Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel

where A denotes the antisymmetriser, Nk the number of channels with chan-

The subscript m on ψm indicates the boundary condition that only in channel

The Hamiltonian H  can be diagonalised in the space spanned by all the

< Γν |AΓµ >= δνµ and (2.15)

< Γν |H  |AΓµ >= ν δνµ (2.16)

Since H  commutes with the antisymmetrizer A it suﬃces to apply A on one

with Ĥ = H  − E. Since we prediagonalised the Hamiltonian only one term

Deﬁning the operator H̃ as

and inserting eq. (2.20) into eq. (2.18) yields

< G̃|H̃|G̃ > aT = − < G̃|H̃|F > (2.23)

S = (1 + ia)(1 − ia)−1 (2.25)

is not symmetric thus violating time-reversal invariance, even unitarity is

then following along the lines of eqs. (2.17 - 2.24) we ﬁnd

b = − < F |H̃|G̃ >T < F |H̃|F >−1 (2.27)

again with an obviously unsymmetric matrix b. Since the boundary condi-

Therefore we can judge the quality of the calculation, by comparing the

which is obviously symmetric. This expression has been derived as a second

(-isospin)-part, which may contain an arbitrary number of clusters. We

where ρk denotes the Jacobi coordinate between the center-of-mass of cluster

φJ = CαlI S χα,h,int χlα,k,rel

δ < φJ1 |H  (1, . . . , N1 ) − E|A1 φJ1 >= 0 (2.37)

where A1 is the antisymmetriser of the N1 particles in fragment 1. Therefore,

Hi |Ai φi >= Ei |Ai φi > i = 1, 2 (2.38)

where P3 permutes particles across the fragment boundaries including P3 =

Ek = E − E1,k − E2,k (2.40)

H  (1, . . . , N ) − E = (H1 (1, . . . , N1 ) − E1,k ) + (H2 (N1 + 1, . . . , N ) − E2,k )

+ Trel + Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel − Ek (2.41)

spherical harmonics. In the next chapter we will describe how to calculate

3 Evaluation of the matrix elements

3.1 Calculation of the spatial matrix elements

where we have converted the single particle coordinates ri in eq. (2.34)

Figure 2: Schematic diagram illustrating the numbering of the Jacobi coordinates of

JLijl α Lr α (P ) ≡< Ll α |P wij

Since we used an orthogonal transformation from the single particle coor-

taking into account eq. (3.5).

increasing the number of angular momenta by one by adding an additional

We can treat even powers of r 2 by just increasing the number of angular

yielding again a Gaussian radial dependency and an additional integration

Therefore one is forced to avoid multiple calculations of the same matrix

3.2 Calculation of the spin-(isospin) matrix elements

respect to example 12 C we consider only a cluster decomposition into three

H (1, . . . , N ) = H1 (1, . . . , N1 ) + H2 (N1 + 1, . . . N ) + Trel + Z1 Z2 e2 /Rrel

The Hamiltonian H can be diagonalised in the space spanned by all the

< Γν |H |AΓµ >= ν δνµ (2.16)

Since H commutes with the antisymmetrizer A it suﬃces to apply A on one

with Ĥ = H − E. Since we prediagonalised the Hamiltonian only one term

δ < φJ1 |H (1, . . . , N1 ) − E|A1 φJ1 >= 0 (2.37)

H (1, . . . , N ) − E = (H1 (1, . . . , N1 ) − E1,k ) + (H2 (N1 + 1, . . . , N ) − E2,k )

JLijl α Lr α (P ) ≡< Ll α |P wij

wj (LM ) = jL (krj )YLM (r̂j ) (3.27)

& z σgnn +hnn +knn '

with ≈ 0.01f m−2 .