 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
2/6/12 |
 |
||||||||
|
 |
Home / Publications / News |
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
RANSAC Nuclear News, February 27, 2003 Compiled by Lauren Arestie A. Russia-U.S.
 A. Russia-U.S. 1. Putin And Bush Talk Iraq And North Korea RIA NovostiFebruary 27, 2003(for personal use only) MOSCOW - Vladimir Putin and George Bush had a telephone conversation on Thursday on the initiative of the American side. The Russian presidential press service has reported that the two leaders discussed the Iraqi problem and expressed their intention to step up work at the UN Security Council to work out a scheme of action that would safeguard the interests of the entire international community. Moreover, Putin and Bush, when discussing the so-called North Korean nuclear problem, expressed their support for the drawing up of diplomatic measures to improve the situation. The Russian and US presidents, when talking about Russo-US relations in general, stressed their firm policy to maintain and develop the positive program of bilateral co-operation. return to menu 2. US Congress Holds Meeting with Top Russian Lawmaker Over Cooperation WASHINGTON - U.S. lawmakers want Russia to do more to support the United States on possible military action against Iraq, and to address Washington's concerns about Russian nuclear assistance to Iran. Lawmakers expressed concerns to a top Russian lawmaker, Mikhail Margelov, who testified Wednesday before the House of Representatives International Relations Committee. Committee chairman Congressman Henry Hyde called Russian policies on Iraq and Iran, in his words, a troubling exception to President Putin's realignment of Moscow's foreign policy toward the United States, in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks. But the sharpest criticism came from California Congressman Tom Lantos, who spoke of what he called "very questionable" Russian trading relations with Iraq and Iran. "It is incomprehensible to the rational mind that Iran would need developments in the nuclear field for energy purposes, and it is self-evident to a child that Iran's determination to develop its nuclear technology is military-oriented," Mr. Lantos said. Mr. Margelov defended Russian economic interests with Iran and Iraq, denying Moscow is playing an "ambivalent game" in its relations with the United Sates regarding Iraq. Russia, he said, is concerned about the lack of strategic planning for events in Iraq after a possible U.S. led attack, saying the United States does not appear to have "done its homework." "If we do not preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, the whole region can explode. If the Kurds get the wrong signals that they can get independence as a result of military conflict, that can explode Iran, it can explode Turkey, it can explode Syria. And I don't think the international community is ready to re-draw the post-British, post-French, post-colonial map of the Middle East," Mr. Margelov said. Mr. Margelov called U.S. concerns about Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran unfounded. Describing Iran's nuclear program as being in the early stages, he said Moscow does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but the health of Russia's nuclear industrial sector makes such cooperation necessary. "Our nuclear sector needs contracts. If the United States, if other Russian partners in the anti-terrorist coalition, can offer such contracts, that can be good for our nuclear industry, that will, I think, limit its cooperation with Iran. They [Russia's nuclear sector] have to survive," he said. Several lawmakers, including California's Dana Rohrabacher, said the United States needs to offer Russia alternatives so its nuclear sector would not have to rely on contracts with countries such as Iran. "I think our government, the U.S. government, has been remiss in trying to make demands on Russia without offering positive alternatives," Representative Rohrabacher said. In other testimony, Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, said Russia's credibility as a U.S. strategic partner in the war on terrorism, and bilateral relations, are threatened by the Iranian nuclear issue. He said, "A nuclear-armed Iran may trigger an international crisis, in comparison with which North Korea will look like a school picnic." Wednesday's testimony by Mr. Margelov, who heads the foreign affairs committee of the council of the Russian federation, coincided with a flurry of diplomatic activity over resolutions at the United Nations, and ongoing consultations in Washington by a representative of Russian President Putin. return to menu 3. Russian Senator: Russia's Relations With Iraq, Iran And North Korea Do Not Contradict Its International Obligations WASHINGTON - Russia's relations with Iraq, Iran and North Koreas "are in no way contrary to our international obligations, including within the framework of the antiterrorist coalition", the RIA Novosti correspondent quotes Mikhail Margelov as saying. Margelov is the chairman of the Federation Council's international committee. Appearing at the Wednesday hearings on the policy of Russia regarding what is called the "axis-of-evil" countries, now under way at the international relations committee of the House of Representatives of the American Congress, Margelov stressed that in the situation around Iraq the international community "stands a unique chance of resolving in a co-ordinated manner the poignant international problem by the political means in strict abidance by the United Nations Charter". "The use of force can be resorted to only in case all other means have been exhausted", said the Russian senator. return to menu B. Russia-Iran 1. IAEA Officials Return from Iran WASHINGTON - Officials from the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency return from Iran Thursday after examining a nuclear facility at Natanz that some fear could be used to make material for atomic bombs. Iran's nuclear activities raise fear the country is working on nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency officials viewed centrifuges used to make enriched uranium, the main fuel for both nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. While the facility is still a long way from producing useful amounts of the atomic material, an expert familiar with the findings says it is closer to completion than the IAEA had expected. An Iranian resistance group first drew public attention to the Natanz facility and other suspected nuclear sites last August. Iran says its nuclear program is intended for civilian power generation, not bomb-making. But experts say Iran could generate electricity from its abundant oil and natural gas reserves, for a fraction of the cost of nuclear power. Weapons expert Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "There simply is no economic case that Iran can make that it needs these reactors for civil purposes," he says. Iran is building a nuclear power plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast with help from Russia. The used nuclear fuel, which could be used to make weapons, will remain under Russia's control. But Iran announced earlier this month that it intends to produce its own reactor fuel. Nuclear nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, author of "Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction," says there are serious concerns about why Iran wants to produce its own nuclear material. "The reactors it's building with Russia don't require it to have this capability," he says. "So it confirms people's worst fears that what Iran is about is really not pursuing a civilian nuclear program, but acquiring the techniques and the technology for a nuclear weapons program." Experts say Iran is complying with the IAEA. It voluntarily opened the Natanz site, and it has agreed to notify the agency before it builds more nuclear facilities. But Anthony Cordesman says the agency's visit this week may have done more harm than good. "Having visits by the IAEA are virtually meaningless. If anything, they can be terribly misleading because the end result for many people is to assume that somehow the IAEA has carried out an inspection. And it hasn't." The IAEA says the trip was not an inspection. And Iran has not signed on to a protocol that would authorize the agency to conduct surprise inspections. Experts say without that authority, the IAEA's power to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons is limited. return to menu 2. USA Not To Accuse Russia Of Passing Military Nuke Technologies To Iran MOSCOW - The USA are not accusing Russia of passing military nuclear technologies to Iran, the Russian Nuclear Ministry reported to RBC after Nuclear Minister Alexander Rumyantsev had met with US Under Secretary of State John Bolton. The participants of the meeting discussed Russian-Iranian collaboration regarding nuclear technologies. The Ministry pointed out that during the negotiations, the parties had come to a common opinion that "Iran should continue cooperation with the IAEA, all nuclear sites of the country should be opened and be guaranteed by the IAEA without exceptions". It is worth mentioning that Russia is currently constructing a nuclear power plant in Bushehr (Iran), the power station is to be put in operation in 2004. return to menu C. Russia-DPRK 1. North Korea Restarts Reactor, Neighbors Urge Calm (excerpted) SEOUL/WASHINGTON - North Korea has restarted the reactor at the heart of its suspected drive for nuclear weapons, further raising the stakes in its diplomatic showdown with the United States, U.S. officials said. Activating the small research reactor at Yongbyon, the communist North's latest provocative step in a crisis that erupted last year, comes as the United States prepares for war with Iraq and South Korea forms a new government. "I think this is another example of the regime of North Korea taking escalatory actions in order to gain concessions," said Sean McCormack, the White House National Security Council spokesman. "We seek a peaceful diplomatic solution, but all options remain on the table." U.S. officials said there was no sign North Korea had reactivated its nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, which would be of even greater concern because it would take the North a step closer to adding to the two nuclear bombs it is believed to have. "Part of this demonstrates their desire to continue their nuclear weapons program and it's another effort to apply pressure on the United States," another U.S. official said. Analysts in Seoul saw the move as yet another North Korean attempt to shake new President Roh Moo-hyun, who has been at odds with Washington over how to deal with the crisis. The North upstaged Roh's inauguration on Tuesday by firing a short-range missile into international waters off its east coast. In Beijing, China and Russia -- friends of North Korea and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- issued a joint communique promising to push for dialogue between the United States and North Korea to resolve the nuclear crisis. "China and Russia will try their best to push for dialogue between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the United States," the communique said. Asked about the reactor, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said: "We believe the main thing at the moment is that each side keeps calm and exercises restraint and avoids taking action that will escalate the situation." [...] North Korea demands bilateral talks with the United States. That stance is backed by China, Russia and South Korea -- although Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also endorsed multilateral talks. Bush administration officials have seemed increasingly convinced Pyongyang is determined to launch full-scale production of nuclear weapons. North Korea restarting its reactor did not automatically mean it would next start reprocessing nuclear fuel, but such a move would not be surprising, another U.S. official said. An even more significant step would be movement of 8,000 spent fuel rods, that have already gone through the reactor, from a holding pond where they have been stored under the 1994 agreement. Plutonium can be extracted by reprocessing the rods. return to menu 2. China and Russia Call for Nuclear Free Peninsula BEIJING - The Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported on Thursday that China and Russia announced a joint declaration emphasizing a peaceful solution to the North Korea nuclear issue and stressing de-nuclearization on the Korean peninsula. Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan and visiting Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov emphasized that they are in accord with the common aspiration of the international community to maintain the nuclear-free status of the Korean peninsula, safeguard the system of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and ensure peace, security and stability in the region. They also said that North and South Korea should continue their positive dialogue and continue to cooperate with each other, adding that the process was a substantial contribution to guaranteeing the healthy development of the situation in Northeast Asia. They placed great significance in normalizing relations between North Korea and the United States, and hoped that the two countries would pursue constructive and equal talks. return to menu 3. Russia And China Back North Korea's Call For Direct Talks With U.S. BEIJING - Russia and China appealed Thursday for direct talks between the United States and North Korea to settle tensions over the North's nuclear program. A joint statement issued during a visit by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also called for normalization of relations between Washington and Pyongyang. U.S. President George W. Bush's administration has pushed for multilateral talks with Pyongyang, saying the crisis must be solved with participation of other governments. North Korea has rejected that, demanding direct talks with Washington. The two governments have no formal diplomatic ties. China and Russia will "actively push for a political resolution of North Korea's nuclear issue through both bilateral and multilateral measures,'' China's official Xinhua News Agency said, paraphrasing the joint statement. Ivanov said the two sides had discussed the Korean Peninsula and other "crucial international issues.'' On North Korea, "I have to state that the position of our countries mostly coincide,'' he told The Associated Press. Moscow and Beijing are North Korea's closest major allies and have been courted by Washington to help convince the isolated Stalinist regime not to restart its nuclear program. China earlier this week rebuffed an appeal by visiting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to support a proposal for regional talks. Instead, Chinese officials supported North Korea's appeal for direct talks with Washington. Ivanov and Chinese officials also agreed that a war against Iraq "can and should be avoided,'' according to a separate statement also released by Xinhua. "Both sides reiterate their determination to render their full efforts for promoting a political solution to the Iraqi issue,'' Xinhua said. Russia and China, both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council with power to veto U.N. actions, have been united in their push for continued weapons inspections in Iraq. Both say they see no need for a new U.N. resolution that could clear the way for an attack on Iraq over its alleged refusal to give up weapons of mass destruction. Ivanov also met with Vice President Hu Jintao and his Chinese counterpart, Tang Jiaxuan, and was to meet with Chinese President Jiang Zemin later Thursday. return to menu D. Nuclear Terrorism 1. Fuel For Nuclear Weapons Is More Widely Available (excerpted) WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials have insisted for a decade that getting plutonium or highly enriched uranium is the big hurdle for rogue states or terrorists trying to build nuclear weapons. But for much of that time, they've known a secret: Other materials can be used to make atomic bombs, and they're a lot easier to get. Now, officials believe the bad guys know the secret too. Classified nuclear threat reports warn that rogue countries and terrorists have learned it is possible to make atomic bombs using low-enriched uranium, a common fuel for nuclear reactors used to conduct research and generate power. The reports, described to USA TODAY by top federal officials, also conclude that it would be easier than previously believed for enemies of the United States to make such weapons using spent nuclear fuel, the waste generated by reactors. Neither of those substances is listed as ''weapons usable'' under U.S. or international security protocols. As a result, they get little protection from theft at civilian nuclear reactors worldwide. That includes reactors in former Soviet states and nations such as Indonesia, where public sympathy runs high for Iraq and al-Qaeda. And the threats are real. Five years ago, U.S. scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory secretly designed an atomic bomb with low-enriched uranium, USA TODAY has learned. The bomb, which could have fit easily in a small pickup, was weak in nuclear terms but strong enough to destroy a square mile of a city. U.S. scientists also have proved in experiments that it is possible to create nuclear weapons using several elements that could be extracted from spent fuel by a rogue state or perhaps even a well-organized terrorist organization. Officials stress that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda or any other terror group has the skills or tools to build an atomic bomb using low-enriched uranium or spent fuel. There's a big gap, they say, between knowing such things are possible and being able to do them. Rogue states are a bigger concern: U.S. officials believe that Iran and North Korea are trying to develop the capability to make nuclear weapons using spent fuel. Yet U.S. efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons still focus almost exclusively on protecting plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the traditional ''weapons usable'' nuclear materials. That atomic bombs can be made with little or none of those substances reveals significant gaps in current programs to keep rogue states and terrorists from developing a nuclear capability. Under U.S. and international protocols for protecting nuclear materials, facilities handling low-enriched uranium or spent fuel are not obliged to have armed guards or security systems to stop break-ins or insider thefts. Such measures are expected of nuclear installations holding plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Accounting and inventory rules also are far less stringent for material not deemed ''weapons usable.'' Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the arm of the United Nations that monitors nuclear stocks worldwide, say such distinctions are appropriate because plutonium and highly enriched uranium remain the most effective and easy-to-use materials for making nuclear weapons. ''We work on the assumption that rogue states, or terrorists for that matter, know how to make (nuclear) weapons with small amounts of material and different types and combinations of material. But we've been advised by experts with the nuclear weapons states that it would be very difficult,'' says Davis Hurt, a senior safeguards expert at the agency. The agency, based in Vienna, has to focus its oversight on the biggest threats, Hurt says. Expanded monitoring of other materials, such as low-enriched uranium, wouldn't be possible unless the agency's member states provided money to boost its budget, he says. [...] There's debate among U.S. officials over the gravity of the nuclear threat terrorists or rogue states could pose without significant amounts of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. In August, the debate clouded a much-touted mission by U.S., Russian and international officials to remove more than 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium from a closed and poorly secured Serbian research reactor. With Serbia's blessing, the material was taken under heavy guard to a Russian site where security had been improved with U.S. help. Officials never revealed in news briefings that they left behind a cache of spent fuel laced with at least 10 pounds of plutonium that could be extracted for weapons. The material remains at the site. ''Some people wanted to take it -- there was a lot of debate,'' says a U.S. official involved in the mission. ''It would have been a lot of work -- more than two tons of additional material in a lot of containers. But our understanding is that the plutonium may be concentrated in certain containers, so if a bad guy got the right ones, he could get some good stuff.'' Assessing the risk is tough because officials don't know what rogue states and terrorists are capable of doing with different types of nuclear material. U.S. officials worry, for example, that al-Qaeda picked up nuclear secrets from sympathetic Pakistani scientists. The other problem is that no one knows how much nuclear material may be missing around the world. Many research and power reactors keep shoddy fuel inventories, particularly in former Soviet states and developing nations. And reports of thefts or losses tallied by the International Atomic Energy Agency are notoriously spotty. ''No one doubts that there are a number, if not many, instances of diversion or theft of nuclear material that we're not aware of,'' says William Potter, a non-proliferation expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Many countries don't disclose losses, he adds, and intelligence sharing is limited. Data gathered by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monterey Institute reveal several thefts or losses over the past few years involving low-enriched uranium and small amounts of traditional weapons fuel. Many officials fear they will undermine the critical mission of securing big stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium if they draw attention to the risk posed by lesser grades or amounts of nuclear material. Economic woes in the former Soviet states, especially Russia, have left little money for securing numerous sites storing weapons-ready nuclear fuel left from the Cold War. U.S. assistance programs to help consolidate and protect that material have reached fewer than half the sites of concern. ''We need to have more countries throwing money into the pot,'' says Rose Gottemoeller, a former assistant secretary of Energy now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. U.S. officials recently won agreement from the seven other top economic powers to collectively match a U.S. pledge of $10 billion over 10 years for non-proliferation efforts. Meanwhile, many experts say, safeguards must be tightened. The rules should reflect that information on making bombs with low-grade nuclear fuel or small amounts of traditional material ''has leaked out more in recent years,'' says Laura Holgate of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit group working to curb the spread of nuclear arms. Some critics say they expect no action because the International Atomic Energy Agency's member states fear that their nuclear industries would be hurt by the costly measures needed to secure all the types and quantities of nuclear materials that might be useful to rogue states or terrorists. Those nations are ignoring the growing capabilities of those who would steal material for nuclear weapons, says Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council. ''They're living in 1945,'' he says. return to menu E. HEU Purchase Agreement 1. Minatom Of Russia Is To Sign HEU Supply Contract With ORNL As Nuclear.Ru was told by Alexander Rumyantsev, RF Minister for Atomic Energy, the contract with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) concerning supplies of highly enriched uranium (HEU) for research reactor fuel is "at the signing and formalizing stage". Last week Minister Rumyantsev addressed attendees of the presentation of the book "The Leo and the Atom" - a joint project by Rossiiskaya Gazeta, Voskresenie Publishers and Minatom of Russia. The author and the hero of the book, Academician Lev Feoktistov, more than a quarter of a century was developing nuclear weapons. According to Alexander Rumyantsev, the contract with ORNL is "a barely commercial, therefore, after all formalities have been settled, it is not to face any difficulties". In this regard the Minister noted that Russia had been a supplier of highly enriched uranium for basic research to one of the European neutron scattering center - Laue Langevin Institute. After the contract is signed the Russian HEU will be shipped to the Oak Ridge Y-12 plant. According to the US "News-Sentinel", the HEU will be used as fuel for several research reactors in the US including the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The federal manager at Y-12 plant Bill Brumley said that is was planned to supply 250 kg of HEU annually. "Our target is to have delivery of the first shipments in May", he said adding that Y-12 representatives had visited Russia to prepare for the future shipments. Last year in conjunction with ORNL Y-12 plant established a Joint Center for International Threat Reduction. The Y-12 plant is not to process the Russian HEU into fuel rods but is to be stored. Bill Brumley did not mention the uranium enrichment, however, it is known that the High Flux Reactor in Oak Ridge uses more than 90% enriched uranium with regard to uranium-235 isotope. According to the US official, these will be first procurements of the Russian uranium which is not downblended to low enriched uranium (LEU). Y-12 plant has HEU delivery contracts for research reactors with Japan (US$ 24 M) and France (US$ 8.6 M). return to menu F. Nuclear Industry 1. Russia To Provide US Space Program With Nuclear Fuel MOSCOW - Russia is set to start delivering nuclear fuel to the US space program beginning next year, an official with Russia's atomic energy ministry said Wednesday. Russia is set to provide the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with plutonium-238 for five years, according to a 32-million-dollarmillion-euro) contract signed by the Russian and US energy departments, the official said. "NASA needs this type of nuclear fuel after President (George W.) Bush's announcement that it had launched a program to develop a nuclear engine for rockets," the official said, quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency. A nuclear-fueled engine would increase the speed at which rockets enter space, allowing rockets to reach Mars in two months rather than the current six, Russian scientist Nikolai Ponomaryov-Stepnoi told ITAR-TASS. return to menu 2. State Support to Nuclear Powered Icebreaker Cut Off Nuclear-powered civilian vessels are federal property but are operated by the joint-stock Murmansk Shipping Company, or MSCo. All vessels are based at Atomflot, located two kilometres to the north of the city of Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula. The purpose of the nuclear icebreakers, which have being built since 1959, was to contribute to the large-scale development and industrialisation of the northern regions of the Soviet Union, whereby the icebreakers would break through the ice to facilitate the passage of cargo ships. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the development of the Russian Arctic had slowed down, state financing of the civilian nuclear fleet shrunk, thus forcing MSCo to arrange tourist cruises onboard nuclear-powered ships to the North Pole. The situation stabilised in late 1990s with the revival of Norilsk Nickel, one of the biggest exporters of raw materials in Russia, as well as the state granting some funding from the budget. According to Aleksandr Medvedev, director general of MSCo, the federal budget has allotted $14.3m a year during the last two years. MSCo had to spend around $50m of their funds to keep the icebreakers afloat, however. In 2003, MSCo was to receive the regular $14.3m and extra $7.6m for icebreakers to prolong the lifetime of their reactor installations. The final say from the government was, however, to cut all the subsidies and increase the tariffs for ships' work in the Arctic. But nuclear powered icebreakers are aging. To date, Russia operates six nuclear-powered icebreakers and one container ship. The newest icebreaker, Yamal, was built in 1992. The first nuclear icebreaker Lenin was taken out of service in 1989, whereas the second-generation icebreaker Sibir was taken out of operation in 1993. Icebreaker Arktika is undergoing repairs aimed at extending the lifetime of its nuclear installation up to 175,000 hours (prior practice suggested the lifetime of 100,000 hours). In theory the service time can be extended up to 200,000 hours, increasing the operation lifetime of the icebreaker from 25 years to 30-35 years. In February this year repairs were carried out on Vaigach icebreaker during which the nuclear installation's steam generator was replaced. MSCo believes that the experience gained with Vaigach can be used to put Sibir back in operation, which had similar failure in its steam generator. But all these innovations will only help the icebreakers to operate in the Arctic until 2012-2015. Russia is currently building one nuclear icebreaker at the Baltic shipyard in St Petersburg called the 50 Year Anniversary, meaning 50 years since the end of the WWII. The 50-year anniversary was back in 1995, but the icebreaker is still only 80% complete. The ship was laid down in 1989 and launched in 1993. Last year, Russia's Cabinet decided to divert the money, regularly spent on support to nuclear icebreakers fleet, to complete the 50 Year Anniversary. The governmental decree stipulates earmarking around $83m until the year 2005 - the year of ship's commissioning. Norilsk Nickel Combine is also planning to allot $15m each year to commission the icebreaker in 2005. To finance the operation of the nuclear icebreakers, MSCo has raised the cost of icebreaker services in the Arctic by a minimum of 50%. But even though Norilsk Nickel, the major customer of MSCo, has agreed to the new rates, MSCo fears that cargo shipping volumes will drop this year. Norilsk Nickel also has the possibility to ship its cargo up the Yenisey River and further on land in summer time, or increase the shipment of rare metals by aircraft, unless, the company is forced to use the icebreakers by the government. The stated intention of Norilsk Nickel to start funding the completion of the 50 Year Anniversary also sounds surprising because only a couple of years ago Norilsk Nickel intended to convert nuclear-powered submarines, such as Typhoon class, into underwater transports in order to avoid using "expensive nuclear icebreakers." But the operating cost of the nuclear icebreaker fleet is only a part of the story. Atomflot base - home base for the nuclear icebreakers located at the outskirts of Murmansk - is a standalone federal enterprise subjected to the Ministry of Transport, which cannot be owned by private companies. Atomflot gets its income by renting the pier plants to the icebreakers and their support fleet as well as carrying out maintenance and occasional repairs of these nuclear vessels. Atomflot also conducts refuelling of nuclear vessels and storage of solid and liquid radioactive waste. A storage pad for spent nuclear fuel casks is also being built on the territory of Atomflot. But these jobs are not sufficient to cover all the expenses. Atomflot started this year with salary arrears and other economic hardships. The icebreakers need an infrastructure to operate properly and whatever company will run them also needs to keep Atomflot afloat. This will lead to additional expenses, which will apparently be mirrored in further raise of the costs for the services provided in the Arctic. Another factor, which contributes to MSCo's instability, is the shift of management. The company, which was bought by the Russian oil giant Lukoil in 1998, is now being transferred to a company Sevmorput Kapital. The company is headed by Nikolay Kulikov, former director general of Lukoil Arktik Tanker, who left this position in September 2002 with 61% of MSCo's stocks. Whether the new management will be interested in operating the fleet of nuclear icebreakers is yet unclear. There are talks of forming another company to operate the civilian nuclear fleet, although no decision has been made so far. Still, it remains to be seen whether the raised cost for icebreaker services will sustain the civilian nuclear fleet without federal funding. Vyacheslav Ruksha, Deputy Minister of Transport, who used to sit in the chair of MSCo's general director, says he is confident that the new prices will meet the icebreakers' financial requirements. Pessimistic forecasts suggest that the coming years are going to be hard for the nuclear icebreaker fleet, however. And they will remain hard until the increase of the cargo shipment volumes in the Arctic, which will not come before 2007. return to menu G. Announcements 1. Kazakhstan Debates Handling Radioactive Waste, Building Nuclear Power Plant The issues of how to get rid of the radioactive waste and whether to build a new nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan were at the heart of intense public debates these days, prompted in part by the announcement last week that Kazakhstan and Russia may jointly build such a plant. At the Feb. 24 Parliament session and the Feb. 25 Government meeting, Energy Minister Vladimir Shkolnik argued in favor of both importing foreign low-level radioactive waste and using the revenues to pay for the clean-up, and the construction of a new nuclear plant to satisfy the projected sky-rocketing growth in demand for cheap electricity. "At the current annual rate of 440 million tenge, we will be able to get rid of the waste in [as little as] 300 years," Shkolnik said at the Cabinet session, arguing for the need to spend as much as $1.154 billion to clean up the waste in 10 years time. The huge amounts of radioactive waste accumulated in Kazakhstan both through industrial processes and the 40 years of nuclear testing in Semipalatinsk. Shkolnik said the money could be earned by importing law-radiation waste. His stance seemed to gain support among the ministers for health, finance, industry and environment, Khabar TV reported. The ministers argued that with existing technologies such operations can be both safe and beneficial to ridding Kazakhstan of its own radioactive waste and improving healthcare, particularly in the Semipalatinsk area. Prime Minister Imangali Tasmagambetov threw a note of caution and said the government needs "to focus not only on the financial feasibility of importing low-and medium-level radioactive waste." "Attention should also be paid to environmental safety and issues related to the country's reputation," he noted, adding that Kazakhstan itself may potentially afford to spend $1 billion for these purposes during the next decade. He said there's a need to conduct thorough expertise, together with the international experts, to assess its requirements and capabilities before making a determination. Currently, the members of Parliament are increasingly questioning the merits of potential importation of foreign radioactive waste. The debates on the nuclear power plant were no less sharp in the Parliament, where legislators, mindful of Chernobyl and Semipalatinsk legacies, questioned the safety and the need for such a plant, while Shkolnik said Kazakhstan needed it for a variety of reasons. "Kazakhstan needs nuclear plant from the environmental standpoint, from the point of its social development, its existing raw material and scientific potential," Shkolnik said in the Parliament. He was referring to ecologically cleaner operations of nuclear plants compared to coal-fired ones, expected growth in electricity demand by "dozens of times over the 10 years" in Kazakhstan, as well as its world's largest uranium reserves and an existing nuclear fuel producing plant. He said the government hasn't made the final decision on how to proceed with this issue, and only after that will it likely "hold an international tender for the construction of the plant." Karatai Turysov, chairman of the Majilis Economy Committee, suggested the people are not in for of such proposals. "Why are they against it? Because they do not see that the government is doing enough to ensure nuclear safety." After talks with President Nazarbayev in Moscow last week, Russia's President Putin announced the two countries would work jointly to build a nuclear power plant near Lake Balkhash in southeastern Kazakhstan. Shkolnik said no formal agreement has been signed. return to menu 2. Daily Press Briefing Question Regarding Bolton's Trip to Moscow Question: Bolton's trip to Moscow? Mr. Reeker: Bolton's trip to Moscow. Question: I'm also wondering if you can provide a transcript of the news conference -- Mr. Reeker: He did a news conference, which I don't have a transcript of yet. I don't know if we'll -- let me just try to -- I had a couple of points for Mr. Bolton, but as you know, he has been in Moscow, he's had meetings with Mamedov whom he often meets with in Russia, and discussed a wide variety of topics, including Iraq. I know in his press conference, he made quite clear, he reiterated again that, as you know, the President has not made a decision, but we are working to show unanimity in the Security Council and to have the Security Council live up to its responsibility to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses. But I don't have any specific details from John Bolton's meetings there, but I'm sure your wire sources and others we will provide you something when we can. We will see what we can get from Embassy Moscow. return to menu H. Links of Interest 1. The Hunt for Hot Stuff return to menu 2. Briefing Book on Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty return to menu DISCLAIMER: Nuclear News is presented for informational purposes only. Views presented in any given article are those of the individual author or source and not of RANSAC. RANSAC takes no responsibility for the technical accuracy of information contained in any article presented in Nuclear News. RANSAC's Nuclear News is compiled two to three times weekly. If you would like to be removed from our mailing list or if you have questions/comments/concerns, please reply to news@216.119.87.134 |
|
|
|
© 2007 Partnership for Global Security. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement.