 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
2/6/12 |
 |
||||||||
|
 |
Home / Publications / News |
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
RANSAC Nuclear News, December 19, 2003 Compiled By: Matthew Bouldin A. Announcements
 A. Announcements 1. RANSAC Staff RANSAC wishes a Happy Chanukah to all our friends around the world. Return to Menu B. Research Reactor Fuel Return 1. U.S. Considers Extending “Takeback” Policy of Spent Fuel From Foreign Research Reactors WASHINGTON — The U.S. Energy Department is considering whether to extend a policy of accepting spent nuclear fuel from certain foreign research reactors — a move that some experts said could affect U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts (see GSN, Oct. 23). The U.S. “takeback” policy allows foreign research reactors that use U.S.-origin uranium fuel to return the spent fuel to the United States for storage and disposal in exchange for those reactors agreeing to shut down or convert to use low-enriched uranium. Reactors that can convert to low-enriched uranium fuel but choose to continue using highly enriched fuel are not eligible to ship their spent fuel to the United States. The current arrangement, intended to reduce the risk of terrorists or others acquiring weapon-grade uranium, is set to expire after 2009. Last week, representatives from the Foreign Research Reactor Group (FRRG), which represents 12 European research reactors, met with Energy Department officials in Washington to discuss extending the takeback policy. While a spokesman for the group said last week that the department appears ready to approve the policy’s extension, the department has said that a decision on whether to do so has not yet been made. Nongovernmental proliferation experts appear to disagree on whether the extending the policy would help or hinder nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Some experts support extending the takeback policy, saying nations would be more likely to convert their research reactors to use less proliferation-sensitive fuel if the United States promised to accept the reactors’ spent fuel. Others have argued, however, that extending the policy would actually reduce incentives for research reactor operators to convert to using low-enriched uranium fuel in the near future. The takeback policy, which was created in 1996, originated out of the 1950s “Atoms for Peace” effort, through which the United States promised to provide nuclear technology to countries that agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons. One component of the atoms-for-peace effort was the provision of nuclear research reactors and the highly enriched uranium fuel needed to power them. In 1964, the United State implemented the “Off-Site Fuels Policy,” under which foreign research reactors would eventually return the spent fuel to the United States for storage and disposal. In the late 1970s, the United States initiated the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program, which seeks to convert foreign research reactors to the use of low enriched uranium fuel (see GSN, Sept. 27, 2002). According to a 1996 Energy Department document, many foreign research reactors agreed to participate in the RERTR program on the condition that the United States would continue to accept spent fuel through the Off-Site Fuels Policy, which expired in 1988. In 1996, the United States agreed to adopt a new takeback policy to resume the return of U.S.-origin spent fuel from foreign research reactors. According to the Energy document, the purpose of the new policy was “to support the broad United States’ nuclear weapons nonproliferation policy calling for the reduction and eventual elimination of the use of highly enriched (weapons-grade) uranium in civil commerce worldwide.” Under the 1996 policy, the United States agreed to accept 22,700 spent-fuel elements loaded into research reactors during a 10-year period, effectively ending the policy in 2006. Reactor operators were given 13 years, until 2009, to ship spent fuel to allow for the material to cool enough to be safely transported. The fuel eligible to be returned included spent HEU and LEU from research reactors that had converted to LEU fuel use or were doing so when the policy went into effect, as well as HEU and LEU fuel from reactors that agreed to convert to LEU use once it became technically feasible. The takeback policy is funded by a charge to “high-income-economy countries,” with the United States covering the full cost of the return of spent fuel from the other countries involved in the policy, according to the Energy Department document. According to Matthew Bunn, senior research associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the takeback policy was originally set for a 10-year period in the belief that by 2006 new types of reactor fuels would have been developed, enabling all U.S.-supplied reactors that used HEU fuel to convert to LEU use. Furthermore, the program envisioned that by 2006, reactor operators could make their own arrangements to manage spent fuel supplies, such as through reprocessing, Bunn said in a written response to Global Security Newswire. “The foreign research reactor operators must be prepared to implement their own arrangements for disposition of their spent nuclear fuel after the policy expires,” says the 1996 department document. The Energy Department now appears set, though, to extend the takeback policy beyond 2006, FRRG spokesman Jack Edlow said during a press conference last week. He added that questions still remain as to how the policy would be extended. “It’s the how and why that’s the important part,” Edlow said. “We have not found any opposition to this,” he added. The FRRG is “extremely pleased” that the department appears willing to extend the takeback policy, Edlow said, adding that such an extension was “vital” to the research reactor industry. Edlow said that within the Energy Department there is a “broader view” of the foreign research reactor community and of the nonproliferation benefits of the takeback policy, which resulted in departmental support for the policy’s extension. In addition, the State Department, which helped to prepare the 1996 policy, is also “extremely supportive” of extending it, Edlow said. An Energy Department spokesman said, though, that a final decision on extending the takeback policy has not yet been reached. The department is “open to the potential expansion” of the effort, the spokesman said. Impacts If the department chooses not to extend the takeback policy, foreign research reactors that converted to LEU use through the RERTR program may be left with quantities of spent fuel they are unable to manage, according to some experts. Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the LEU fuel used by many of the converted reactors cannot be reprocessed, resulting in a need for those reactors to continue to ship spent fuel to the United States. While work is being conducted to develop new types of LEU fuel that can be reprocessed, such efforts have suffered long delays, he said. Bunn said that many of the research reactors that converted to using the type of LEU fuel that cannot be reprocessed easily, known as uranium silicide, are required by national regulations to have spent fuel management plans in place. If the reactors cannot send back the spent uranium silicide fuel to the United States while new types of fuel are developed, they could be forced to shut down “as a result of heeding our advice,” he said. Other the other hand, extending the takeback policy could hinder efforts to convert the U.S.-supplied remaining research reactors that use HEU fuel. By extending the policy, the United States could lose the ability to pressure the estimated 130 reactors that still use HEU fuel to quickly convert to LEU use, Bunn said today. “Some reactors are planning to insert LEU five minutes before the end of the deadline,” he said. Bunn suggested that the policy could be expanded only for those reactors that have already converted to LEU use and for those for which there is not yet suitable LEU fuel. Edlow disagreed, however, that policy’s expansion would result in long-term delays by research reactors in converting to LEU fuel, noting that the reactors had to agree to do so to initially participate in the takeback policy. In addition, an end to the takeback policy could result in the United States losing the ability to pressure research reactors to convert to LEU use, according to Bill Hoehn, director of the Washington office of the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council. Hoehn said the reactor operators faced with no U.S. support for disposing of their spent fuel, might simply choose to continue operating as they have in the past and to buy their fuel from non-U.S. suppliers, such as Russia. The Energy Department’s decision on whether to extend the takeback policy could also affect efforts to persuade Russia to accept Russian-origin spent fuel from foreign research reactors (see GSN, Nov. 24). On Tuesday, Edlow said that extending the takeback policy would set “the proper standard” for Russia to increase its own efforts to recover spent fuel from Russian-supplied reactors. Lyman said that if the Energy Department chose not to extend the takeback policy, Russia might use that decision to as a rationale for continuing to stall in its own efforts. If Russia were to do so, however, it would be a “hypocritical, political move,” he said, noting that the United States has already brought back most of the HEU fuel it distributed. In addition, Lyman also said that a blanket extension of the takeback policy might not be needed because of the ability of some nuclear countries, such as Germany, to manage their own spent fuel situations. Instead, a case-by-case approach could be adopted, modeled on the limited shipments made during the 1998-1996 period after “urgent relief” assessments were completed, he said. A “carefully crafted expansion … would be in the interest of nonproliferation,” Bunn said. Return to Menu C. Fissile Material Storage Facility 1. Russia Commissions Unique Nuclear Storage Facility CHELYABINSK /MOSCOW, December 17, 2003 (RIA Novosti) - Mayak nuclear complex has commissioned a fissionable material storage facility, the only one in the world, Mayak's press centre told RIA Novosti. The facility is designed to store 400 tons of uranium and plutonium /25,000 containers/ for at least 100 years. The first 34 tons of weapon-grade plutonium dismantled from warheads will soon be placed in the storage facility. Experts say the facility will survive a powerful earthquake measuring 8 on the Richter scale. The construction of the storage facility was launched in 1995 in line with relative Russo-American agreements, the Nuclear Energy Ministry's press service told RIA Novosti. The project was supervised by a joint group, which among others involved Nuclear Energy Ministry and Mayak officials. The project was financed mainly by the American partners. Russia allocated some 30 to 40 million roubles of budgetary funds on the project, whose overall cost is about $400 million, according to the Nuclear Energy Ministry. The facility will store only Russian plutonium and uranium, which have been overproduced for military programmes, while "Americans will benefit from disarming Russia," said the ministry. Return to Menu D. Sub Dismantlement 1. Japan to Boost Funding of Russia's Nuclear Submarines Disposal Programs? TOKYO, December 16 (RIA Novosti correspondent Alla Isayeva) - Russia and Japan are discussing a possibility of increasing the funding of the programs for the disposal of Russia's nuclear submarines, Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov told reporters. He recalled that Japan was engaged in the projects to dispose decommissioned Russian submarines in the Far East in line with the Global Partnership Program. The first contract for the disposal of a B-3 class sub has already been signed, he added. "This is a good beginning of the program," said the premier. While in Tokyo, Mr Kasyanov discussed an international project to build a thermonuclear pilot reactor. He said Japan wanted the reactor to be built on its territory. Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, who is a member of the visiting Russian delegation, conducts talks with Japan's government bodies and companies on the matter. Return to Menu E. Cooperative Threat Reduction 1. Ukraine Asks US To Finance Destruction Of Missile Fuel KIEV (AFP) Dec 17, 2003 Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma on Wednesday asked his US counterpart George W. Bush to honour a pledge to finance the destruction of 5,000 tonnes of fuel from intercontinental SS-24 missiles. The financial aid for the project is part of US commitments under two US-Ukrainian accords on the disposal of nuclear weapons, signed in 1993, Kuchma said in a letter to Bush, according to a Ukrainian presidency statement. The fuel is stored currently in Pavlohrad, in eastern Ukraine, waiting to be destroyed. Ukraine risks suffering "an ecological catastrophe in one of its most populated regions," Kuchma said. At the end of 2000, the US Congress approved the disbursement of 24 million dollars for the constuction in Ukraine of a centre to dispose of the fuel from intercontinental SS-24 missiles, according to the Interfax news agency. The centre was due to have been completed by 2003 to 2004 and the destruction of the fuel finished by the end of 2007, but the US authorities suspended financing of the project, Interfax said. Ukraine started in June 2000 to dismantle its 46 SS-24 missiles, whose nuclear warheads were all removed and transferred to Russia in 1996 in the framework of an accord signed in 1994 between Kiev, Moscow and Washington. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine was the world's third-biggest nuclear power with 176 strategic missiles (130 SS-19 and and nearly 1,300 nuclear warheads. The destruction of the Ukrainian SS-19 arsenal was completed in 1999. Return to Menu F. G-8 Global Partnership 1. Russian Council Approves Multilateral Nuclear Cleanup Agreement WASHINGTON — The upper house of the Russian Federal Assembly last week approved the Framework Agreement on a Multilateral Nuclear Program in the Russian Federation, a measure that will govern international efforts to clean up dangerous nuclear materials in northwestern Russia (see GSN, Dec. 1). The Federal Council’s approval of the agreement follows a similar action late last month by the assembly’s lower house, the State Duma, and leaves President Vladimir Putin’s signature as the last step required before Russia can bring MNEPR into force by depositing its instrument of ratification with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Patrick Reyners, head of legal affairs at the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency, said the “formality” of the president’s signature is expected to come quickly. He called Russian ratification of the agreement “a very strong encouragement for the other countries.” “The Russians have acted remarkably quickly. Truly, this has been almost a record for speed in ratifying an international agreement,” said Reyners by telephone from Paris. Meanwhile, the donors and Russia are working out the details of a side letter to the accord that would provide for tax exemption for MNEPR parties engaged in cleanup projects in Russia (see GSN, Oct. 27). There is some disagreement, however, over how much progress has been made on the letter. Reyners said talks are “in the absolute home stretch” and that a solution acceptable to all parties could come this week, while U.S. State Department negotiator Jeff Miller was more cautious. “We’ve been discussing this issue, and we’d like to resolve it ― we being the donors and, I’m quite sure, the Russians. If that can happen this week, that would be great. It just depends on the outcome of all donor reviews and then communicating our response to the Russians,” said Miller, a senior negotiator on nuclear safety in the department’s Nonproliferation Bureau. “The NEA is obviously being optimistic, and I’m not going to say I share their optimism,” he added. U.S.-Russian Liability Dispute Continues Experts have said Russian ratification of MNEPR could signal a hard line by Moscow on a broad U.S.-Russian dispute over how to assign liability for damages and injuries resulting from activities carried out under such agreements. At issue is whether Russia should be shielded from liability in case of a premeditated attack causing damages or injuries. The United States has been seeking to impose the language of the 1992 Cooperative Threat Reduction umbrella agreement, which could leave Russia liable in such an attack, as a standard for all such texts. MNEPR liability provisions include the exemption and were drawn up in a separate protocol that was signed by all parties except the United States. The dispute has led to the termination of two U.S.-Russian threat reduction accords. Return to Menu G. Nuclear Smuggling 1. Russia Records Four Radiological Thefts in 2003 Russian authorities this year recorded four thefts of radiological material nationwide, Interfax reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 1). “The Russian state nuclear inspectorate registered four thefts of radioactive sources in the first 10 months of the year,” said Andrei Malyshev, the agency’s chief (see GSN, Feb. 28). Six thefts were reported in 2000 and 2001. Four were recorded last year. None of the radiological material was taken from Atomic Energy Ministry sites but at least one source was owned by the Russian military, Interfax reported. That material was recovered nearby (Interfax, Dec. 18). Return to Menu H. Counterproliferation 1. Russia Backs U.S. Resolution on Weapons UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Russia says it likes a U.S. resolution aimed at preventing terrorists from getting weapons of mass destruction because the text incorporates many of Moscow's ideas. Russia's positive reaction is considered key to the resolution's eventual adoption. "We like it because in many ways it goes along with what we suggested, and we think that we have a good basis for common ground," Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador Gennady Gatilov said Thursday. U.S. President George W. Bush called for a U.N. resolution to control nuclear, chemical and biological weapons at the annual ministerial meeting of the U.N. General Assembly in September. The Russians were the first to circulate a draft in late October but the United States said it also planned to introduce a resolution. On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte presented what Washington described as a "consolidated" text to the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Experts from the five veto-wielding nations - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - were scheduled to discuss the text on Thursday but the meeting was delayed until Friday at Paris' request. Gatilov said once the five permanent members agree on a text, it will be presented to the 10 non-permanent council members. Diplomats said no action is expected until next year, but Russia's positive reaction is considered crucial. The U.S. draft expresses grave concern "that non-state actors are seeking to acquire, traffic in, or use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons," the material to make them and the missiles to deliver them. It would require all countries to adopt and enforce laws "to prohibit any non-state actor from the manufacture, acquisition, possession, development, transport or use" of such weapons and missiles, "in particular for terrorist purposes." It also calls for laws to control material for such weapons as well as the equipment and technology to produce them. The Russian draft resolution called for law enforcement measures "to prevent individuals from illicit acquisition, possession, development or use of weapons of mass destruction, means of their delivery and related materials, in particular for terrorist purposes." It would have had the Security Council act under a chapter of the U.N. Charter which allows military enforcement if necessary. The U.S. draft is not under that chapter. Gatilov said the issue "is negotiable." "This is our vision of the draft," he said. "The Americans have their vision, but I think we can find a common ground here." Bush warned the General Assembly that if terrorists were to obtain weapons of mass destruction, it would "bring sudden disaster and suffering on a scale we can scarcely imagine." Declaring that "nations of the world must have the wisdom and the will to stop grave threats before they arrive," he called on the Security Council to adopt a new anti-proliferation resolution that calls on the 191 U.N. member states "to criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Bush said the resolution should also require countries to enact strict export controls and secure all sensitive materials. These elements are included in the U.S. draft along with a call for effective border controls and law enforcement measures to prevent unlawful trafficking. Return to Menu 2. Officials Work to Block Weapons Transfers WASHINGTON — Military and intelligence officials from 16 countries concluded talks Wednesday that were designed to develop skills for blocking the transfer of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Six exercises in early 2004 are planned, led by the United States, France, Germany, Poland, and two by Italy. The joint effort involves interdiction at sea, in the air and on land. The main goal is to prevent North Korea and others rogue states from spreading and acquiring weapons and technology. Russia and China, which are not among the 16 nations, have agreed to support the program, a senior U.S. official said. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, who is President Bush's national security adviser, were among the U.S. officials who participated. Four exercises have been held since Bush proposed the program in May in Krakow, Poland. This week's meeting was the fifth held by experts since then. John R. Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said the latest round of talks "reflects our continued efforts to enhance collective capabilities for interdiction." White House officials said last year that the exercises were designed with North Korea in mind. White House press secretary Scott McClellan called North Korea "probably the most serious proliferator of missile technologies." U.S. officials have accused North Korea of selling missiles to Syria and Iran and engaging in a determined marketing campaign in other countries. The Bush administration is hoping to curb these exports as well as North Korean imports of materials needed for nuclear weapons programs. Joining with the United States in the exercises are Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom -- and five new members of the Proliferation Security Initiative: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Singapore and Turkey. Return to Menu I. Strategic Arms Reduction 1. Moscow Does Not Support Some Of UN Resolutions On Nuclear Arms Destruction MOSCOW, December 19, 2003 (RIA Novosti) - Russia does not support some of the United Nations resolutions on nuclear arms destruction, Yuri Fedotov, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, told a press conference at the Novosti agency on Friday. "UN resolutions do not take into account the complexity of the destruction process and often leap ahead," said the deputy minister. Yet, Mr Fedotov admitted that nuclear arms destruction was a matter of paramount importance for the present day. Russia is pursuing a steady policy towards disarmament, against the nuclear threat and possible possession of nuclear arms by terrorists, said Mr Fedotov. He also said Russia was following the line of reducing its nuclear stockpiles. Return to Menu 2. A Present From Bush To Moscow Hawks The USA has taken several steps that could seriously complicate its relations with Russia and the rest of the world and drive on the race for nuclear weapons. First, President George Bush signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2004 that includes the allocation of budgetary funds for the creation of new types of nuclear weapons. One of them is small low-yield precision bombs that can provoke seismic tremors of the crust and annihilate reinforced military facilities - command centres, missile silos, missile and nuclear technical depots. Second, the White House granted $24.9 to the Pentagon and the Department of Energy for the modernisation of the Nevada nuclear test site for underground nuclear tests. And third, several days later the US defence department tested a sea-based ABM system that intercepted a ballistic missile in the first few minutes after the launch by hitting its warhead. These three steps have greatly alarmed Russian military experts. "This is extremely dangerous for Russia," said Colonel-General Varfolomei Korobushin, first vice-president of the Academy of Military Sciences, who headed the General Staff's Centre for Operations and Strategic Studies from 1985 to 1990. "The thing is that the US navy deployed close to Russia's shores will soon have a chance to hit the strategic missiles launched from our submarines at the boost stage, thus making them absolutely useless weapons unable to fulfil their main task of ensuring deterrence from possible aggression." General of the Army Andrei Nikolayev, Chairman of Defence Committee in the 3rd Duma, was even more forthright: "This step actually means that the USA has launched a new stage of the nuclear race." In the past few years, Russo-US relations have relied on a system of mutually binding treaties, which prevented either side from gaining a strategic advantage by delivering a first decapitating strike. Despite promises and the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty last year, the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the 1972 ABM Treaty delivered a heavy blow to this balance. Generals usually assess not political positions, which can change depending on the situation, but real capabilities. If the Americans create precision guided penetration nuclear warheads with a yield of under 5 kilotons (as the White House-approved project provides for), this will render all Russo-US agreements senseless. First, such warheads cannot be termed strategic and hence will not be covered by the SOR treaty limitations. Second, the USA will be able to place them at nuclear submarines armed with strategic missiles, approach Russia in the Sea of Norway or the Northern Sea and present an ultimatum to the Kremlin (like it did to Saddam Hussein). The flight time of such missiles will be 7-8 minutes. Technically, this is not enough to take a decision on a retaliatory strike or send an order to the launch sites. The precision guided penetration warheads will burrow into the crust, provoking seismic shocks and annihilating command centres and missiles in their silos. Besides, such low-yield warheads can be mounted on US anti-missiles. Tests show that today the Pentagon can intercept one incoming missile by hitting its warhead with a kinetic (conventional) charge but it cannot intercept a group of missiles. This can be done only by a nuclear explosion, which was the basis of the ballistic missile system protecting Moscow for a long time. On the other hand, a high-yield nuclear explosion over national territory ordered to protect a large industrial or capital city always risks doing damage to other territories. Low-yield nukes, even if exploded over national territory, do not do such damage, which means that the US ABM system will ensure maximum protection (90-95%). This impunity can turn the heads of some hawks in the US administration, giving them the chance to feel like the invulnerable rulers of the world, with all the ensuing negative consequences. This will make the future of Planet Earth extremely dangerous and unpredictable. The line for creating low-yield nukes can have other dangerous consequences, say military experts. They cannot be created without underground nuclear tests. But as soon as the first such test is made at the Nevada site, Iran and other countries, in particular Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and a dozen of other threshold states, will rush to acquire their own nuclear weapons to protect their independence and sovereignty. This will effectively bury the nuclear club, where the USA, France, Britain, China and Russia are official members and India, Pakistan and Israel, unofficial ones. The Moscow hawks are waiting impatiently for the USA to violate its nuclear test moratorium: Russian nuclear scientists have trial programmes, too. The Novaya Zemlya test site has been lying idle too long, they say. But not a single explosion occurred there while the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was in force (though Moscow ratified it but Washington did not). If the USA carries out tests in Nevada, the Kremlin will not keep its defence industries from following the bad US example. They have been waiting too long since the end of the Cold War. What else can the Russian hawks do in response to the resumption of nuclear tests in Nevada? Few people have noticed that there are quite a few of them in the 4th Duma (Gen. Makashov alone is worth a dozen). They can put serious and consistent pressure on President Putin and the Government to get additional allocations for the creation of ABM-evasion systems; low-yield prevision MIRVed missiles; new mobile strategic missiles which even precision nukes will be hard put to detect and hence destroy; new nuclear submarines; and the launch of additional reconnaissance, navigation and targeting satellites. This amounts to a new stage in the nuclear race, even though to the detriment of economic progress. But then, national security has always been a priority in Russia. Late this week, Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov is expected to provide an official reply to Bush's decision to grant allocations to the creation of new types of nuclear weapons. A new regiment of Topol-M (SS-27) silo-based missiles will be put on combat duty in Tatishchevo outside Saratov, raising the number of the SS-27s to about 45. Today this is enough to deter a potential aggressor. As for tomorrow, both the Kremlin and the White House should give serious thought to it. Return to Menu J. Threat Reduction Expansion 1. U.S. Plans to Employ Hundreds of Iraq's Weapons Scientists Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration plans to create jobs for hundreds of Iraqi weapons scientists to keep Saddam Hussein's arms experts from working for terrorists or unfriendly governments. ``This is a program to put people to work to give them more productive uses of their expertise, their intelligence and their energy,'' U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in Washington. The U.S. plans to establish an Iraqi International Center for Science and Industry in Baghdad using an initial budget of $2 million for its first two years, Boucher said. The Bush administration announced the job creation proposal while continuing to fend off criticism about its failure to find any of the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons that it cited as justification for the war to topple Hussein's regime. The employment program is not an attempt to further that hunt, Boucher said. David Kay, who is leading the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, told the Bush administration he plans to leave before the group's work is finished, the Washington Post reported today, citing unidentified military and intelligence officials. The idea to employ Iraqi scientists, similar to the U.S.-funded program in Russia for employing former Soviet weapons scientists, was welcomed by arms experts as a critical step toward reducing the threat posed by postwar Iraq. Some said the U.S. should have initiated the effort sooner. ``There is already some certainty of some scientists fleeing to states not of proliferation concern like Jordan,'' and the United Arab Emirates, said Michael Roston, an analyst with the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, a Washington policy study group. More Funding The Bush administration intends to seek more government funding to increase the budget of the Iraqi science center to $20 million, while using money from other sources such as private industry contracts to raise additional funds for salaries and operations, Boucher said. The types of jobs that will be made available to the scientists have not yet been identified, though Boucher said one initial plan involves a desalination project. While the scientists also have not yet been fully identified, the U.S. estimates there ``probably hundreds of scientists'' available, Boucher said. The U.S. has anecdotal reports of some Iraqi arms experts fleeing for jobs outside the country, but has no firm data on how many, he said. The State Department also is working on a separate proposal, to create a ``Science, Technology and Engineering Mentorship Initiative for Iraq,'' to forge links between U.S. and Iraqi scientific communities through a grant system based on research and development ideas proposed by Iraqis, according draft documents that describe the plan. Return to Menu 2. U.S. to Steer Ex-Arms Experts to Peaceful Jobs WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 — The State Department said Thursday that it was starting a two-year program that could spend some $22 million to help provide several hundred former Iraqi weapons scientists and technicians with nonmilitary jobs in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq to prevent them from working for countries of concern or for terrorist groups. Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said American officials would begin by opening the Iraqi International Center for Science and Industry in Baghdad, at a cost of $2 million. He said the program could ultimately provide some $20 million in projects for such scientists. The effort is similar to a decade-old, Pentagon-led program that has had bipartisan support in Congress. Called Cooperative Threat Reduction, it has supported former Soviet weapons scientists and their research projects to redirect them from arms-related to peaceful work. Separately, a senior Defense Department official said Thursday that her agency might spend some of a new pool of $50 million of the Pentagon-led program on scientific exchanges and projects in Afghanistan and possibly in Iraq to reduce the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Speaking at a meeting of experts on unconventional weapons, the official, Lisa Bronson, a deputy under secretary at the Pentagon, said her agency was exploring using some of that money for programs to improve border security and expand disease surveillance. Mr. Boucher said the Iraqi center in Baghdad would hold workshops next year on energy research, environmental protection, information technology and other nonmilitary projects for up to 600 Iraqi scientists, technicians and engineers who are known to have worked in Iraq's unconventional weapons programs. A State Department fact sheet said the center would also provide "quick start" projects to employ idle military scientists and technicians. Finally, it will sponsor meetings between American experts and Iraqi scientists involved in Iraq's unconventional weapons programs to help identify other Iraqis who were involved in such work and redirect them toward other projects. He said Iraqi scientists and technicians would be paid a stipend to attend the workshops and for their involvement in projects aimed at reconstructing the Iraqi infrastructure. He said all weapons scientists would be eligible to take part provided they had not actually used the weapons they had helped produce. Many American soldiers and experts hunting for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq have long complained that the lack of financial and other incentives for former weapons scientists to cooperate with the United States has hampered the search. Officials said they hoped that the program would both encourage their cooperation and help identify Iraqis not known to Americans to have been involved in research or production of unconventional arms. But in his remarks, Mr. Boucher stressed that the new effort was "not an information-collection program." "This is a program to put people to work to give them more productive uses of their expertise, their intelligence and their energy than work on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs," he said. He said the United States had only "anecdotal" information that Iraqi scientists were being tempted by offers to work abroad for countries of concern or for terrorist groups. "We know of the potential, and we wanted to do something fairly early and fairly quickly as this program is unveiled to try to give these people an opportunity to contribute to the future of Iraq," he said. Meanwhile, Ms. Bronson complained in her remarks that the Pentagon was not spending enough money to protect American soldiers against chemical and biological attack. She said that while the Pentagon was now spending $10.2 billion a year on missile defense programs, it had committed $1.2 billion a year on research, development and procurement aimed at protecting soldiers from such weapons — or one third of one percent of the Pentagon budget. "Get serious," she said, arguing that the budget for chemical and biological defense should be doubled. Return to Menu 3. Lugar: Afghanistan Next Focus WMD Clean-Up WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- Afghanistan may be the next place the United States spends non-proliferation dollars originally slated only for the former Soviet Union. Senator Richard Lugar, R-Ind., told United Press International Tuesday that he considers U.S. Special Forces actions in Afghanistan the best opportunity to uncover eligible weapons of mass destruction. "Maybe in the course of those operations we could run into materials that ought to be cleaned up," he said. Lugar was the co-author of a bill that allows the United States to use money that was once earmarked for weapons cleanup in the former Soviet Union for dismantling nuclear, biological and chemical weapons worldwide. Former Senator Sam Nunn, co-sponsor of the original Nunn-Lugar act, told a Tuesday luncheon audience that terrorists are eagerly seeking weapons of mass destruction all over the world -- not just in the former Soviet states. "A nuclear 9/11 would make the trade center attacks look like a warning shot," he added. "There remains a dangerous gap between our progress and the scope of the threat." Return to Menu K. Russia - Iran 1. Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant: Russia to Launch Talks for Second Unit Before First Unit is Commissioned? MOSCOW, DECEMBER 18 (RIA NOVOSTI) - Russia may start negotiations with Iran to build the second unit of the Bushehr nuclear plant next year, even before the first unit is commissioned, Valery Govorukhin, Russia's Deputy Minister of Nuclear Power Industry, announced in Moscow. "Iran has proposed that we build the second unit, and we can open negotiations on the matter next year," he says. The construction of the first unit of the power plant, on the Persian Gulf east coast, is procrastinated, and likely to get behind the schedule. Mr. Govorukhin is blaming the host country. "Iran was too long with sorting away outdated equipment so to delay a contract for manufacture and delivery of new plant machinery." Iran wants Russia to finish the first unit's construction next year. "That is impossible, however - we cannot skip over any construction stage or make it change place with another," explains the deputy minister. "The unit will be built. That matters most - more than just when the project is ready," he emphasizes. Return to Menu 2. Russia To Get Back Spent Nuclear Fuel From Bushehr, Despite All MOSCOW, DECEMBER 18 (RIA NOVOSTI) - Russia and Iran are likely to supplement their intergovernmental agreement on nuclear plant construction with a protocol to return depleted fuel to Russia. The protocol may be signed even in January 2004, says Valery Govorukhin, Russia's Deputy Minister of Nuclear Power Industry. "Iran insists on the protocol signed next month. It may come true - the document may be signed when Alexander Rumyantsev, Minister of Nuclear Power Industry, visits Iran, January 2004." Iran and the IAEA are signing an additional agreement. It is in no way linked to the Russian-Iranian protocol, and will not have whatever influence on the tentative day to sign it, stressed the deputy minister. Return to Menu 3. Aref: Iran Applies Nuclear Energy In Peaceful Programs Tehran, Dec 17, IRNA -- First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref declared on Wednesday that Iran`s policy is based on peaceful application of nuclear energy. In a meeting with the Russian Ambassador to Tehran Alexander Maryasov, Aref called for further scientific and technical cooperation between the two neighbors. "Implementation of projects within the framework of Iran-Russia Economic Commission, formation of technical committees and expansion of scientific and technological collaboration contribute to development of mutual ties," he added. Stressing that the promotion of bilateral relations will benefit both states and contribute to regional peace and stability, he called for expansion of regional cooperation between Iran and Russia and joint investments. Turning to Russia`s stance in the foreign policy of Iran, Aref underlined strengthening ties in all fields; particularly economy, technology and energy. For his part, Maryasov assessed bilateral relations satisfactory and called for further broadening ties in the fields of mutual interest. Declaring his country`s support for Iran`s transparent policy on peaceful application of nuclear energy, he underlined continuous cooperation between the two states in this field. The diplomat expressed the interest of Russian officials in expediting Iran-Russia`s collaboration and declared their readiness for taking part in the production of aircraft. Maryasov also announced the interest of Russian enterprises in taking part in major oil and gas projects in Iran as well as manufacture and launch of Zohreh satellite. Return to Menu 4. Iran, Russia Soon To Sign Depleted Nuclear Fuel Protocol TEHERAN/MOSCOW, December 17, 2003. (RIA Novosti) - Iran and Russia will quite soon sign a protocol on which depleted nuclear fuel will come back to Russia from the Bushehr plant, announced Gholam Reza Aga-zadeh, Iran's Vice-President and President of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran. Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia's Minister of Nuclear Power Industry, will shortly visit Teheran. The protocol is expected for signing during his sojourn. The Iranian Vice-President refused to specify the visit day. He is of high opinion of the present scope of bilateral nuclear power partnership, and hopes the Bushehr plant Unit One will be commissioned next year. The plant is under construction by Russian experts and workers. Russia's Ministry of Nuclear Power Industry also says protocol signing will be timed to Mr Rumyantsev's visit. It is scheduled for January's end, ministerial press service says. The federal Cabinet made a decree, August last, authorising the ministry to sign the fuel protocol to an available agreement on Bushehr plant construction, said our interviewee at the ministry press centre. Return to Menu 5. RF, Iran Will Not Sign Deal On Return Of Spent Nuke Fuel This Year Moscow, Dec 16, Itar-Tass/ACSNA/IRNA -- Russia and Iran will not sign an agreement on the return of spent nuclear fuel from the Bushehr nuclear power plant till the end of this year, Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said. Rumyantsev told Itar-Tass on Monday Moscow declines to clarify Tehran`s intention to sign the agreement so that Iranian specialists could concentrate on joining the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The minister said, "There is no need to hurry up in order to sign the agreement on the return of spent nuclear fuel." He explained that fuel supplies to the Bushehr nuclear power plant are planned for the year 2004. Rumyantsev described Iran`s intention to sign the additional protocol as "very positive and important." "The signing of the additional protocol will facilitate the full implementation of our contract on Bushehr," the minister said. At the same time, the minister noted that Russia and Iran are not holding talks on a possibility of expanding nuclear cooperation. "The second unit (in the Bushehr nuclear power plant) was not in the focus of our talks," he added. On December 10, the Iranian government instructed the Foreign Ministry to sign the additional protocol to the NPT. Return to Menu L. Russia - China 1. Russia And China Ink Agreement Upon Completion Of Tianwan Nuclear Power Unit MOSCOW, DECEMBER 16. /RIA NOVOSTI / -- The Rosenergoatom concern (Russian nuclear power company) and the Jiangsu nuclear energy corporation have signed a cooperation agreement upon completion of the construction, putting on line and into service of the VVER-1000 unit of the Tianwan nuclear power plant, the concern says in a communique. The agreement was signed during the visit to China of the Rosenergoatom delegation on invitation from the Jiangsu Corp. The first unit is now in pre-commissioning hot running-in of the equipment. During the last five years, Rosenergoatom has been partaking in the fulfilment of international obligations to build the Tianwan nuclear power facility. Return to Menu M. Russia - India 1. Russia Will Not Sign Military Contract Threatening India's Strategic Interests - Russian Ambassador NEW DELHI, December 17, 2003. (RIA Novosti) - Russia will not sign military deals with any country in case they threaten India's strategic interests, Russian ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin said on Wednesday at the New Delhi seminar following a recent visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Moscow. Kadakin stressed that this Russian position has been clearly set forth to Pakistan, whose request for the supply of modern arms has been rejected. "India is our reliable friend and we are its largest defence partner", Kadakin said. He added that there were several enterprises manufacturing defence products for India's defence needs. The Russian ambassador welcomed the Vajpayee-proposed peace initiatives towards normalisation of Indian-Pakistani relations, and expressed the hope that the two countries will be able to settle their differences, including the Kashmir issue, within the framework of the Simla peace agreement. Kadakin has called India's Jammu and Kashmir state an integral part of India, noting that the related problems are caused by transboundary terrorism. Return to Menu N. Spent Fuel Disposition 1. Russia May Built Nuclear Depository Near Krasnoyarsk Rumyantsev is in the Russian delegation accompanying Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov on a visit to Japan. The idea to built such a facility was voiced by director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna in September 2002. "The project looks attractive" and Russia will certainly take part in the tender, in a bid to build the facility on its territory, Rumyantsev said. The area around Krasnoyarsk is one of the most suitable locations for the project, with specialized restricted access municipalities which ceased the production of weapon-grade plutonium and weapons materials. The building of a world storage facility for spent nuclear fuel would launch defense conversion for Krasnoyarsk companies which "already have an infrastructure, specialists and the necessary space." The facilities will be under serious IAEA control and the necessary technical means of protection will be provided. At the same time, the minister emphasized that he did not mean radioactive waste, whose import is prohibited by the Russian legislation. "It concerns the spent fuel containing some 95 percent of useful things," Rumyantsev said. "It's not waste, it's the material for recycling and using in energy turnover," he added. The United States is presently engaged in a similar project, building a giant depository in Yukka mountain, Nevada. A Krasnoyarsk repository could store dozens of thousands of tonnes of irradiated fuel from Europe, Asia, and, in principle, from the whole world," where aggregate amounts of spent fuel now reach over 200,000 tonnes, Rumyantsev said. The construction of an international reservoir in Krasnoyarsk will bring Russia considerable revenue. "If the project is worth billion of dollars, the tax revenue will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars," he said, noting the project would also help create additional jobs. Return to Menu 2. Russia Ready To Put In Store Japanese Spent Nuclear Fuel MOSCOW, December 17 (Itar-Tass) - Russia can accept for putting a long-time storage the spent nuclear fuel from the Japanese nuclear power stations, an expert of the Atomic Energy Ministry told Itar-Tass on Wednesday. The expert is in charge of overseeing the construction of new and enlargement of the existing spent nuclear fuel storage facilities in Russian territory. According to the expert, “Work is now in progress to enlarge the capacities of a ‘wet’ storage facility at the mining-and-chemical combined works near Krasnoyarsk to enable it to hold up to eight thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel.” “The construction of a ‘dry’ storage facility has been designed in the same place that will store over 30,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel,” the expert said. “Only a part of the new capacities are to be used to store spent nuclear fuel from the Russian nuclear power plants, and the remaining space could be used to store spent nuclear fuel from the Japanese nuclear power stations,” the atomic energy ministry expert specified. He also said that the ministry “is considering the construction of a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in the Chita region.” “Russian legislation allows importation of foreign spent nuclear fuel for putting into storage for up to 50 years,” the expert said. The law stipulates “the obligatory return of spent nuclear fuel to its owner in the same containers in which it is brought to the storage facility and the spending of at least 30 percent of the value of the deal to finance environmental protection procedures.” According to the atomic energy ministry data, “At present, 54 power-generating reactors in Japan produce between 1.5 thousand and 2 thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel a year.” “Over more than three decades of the existence of the Japanese energy program, a problem of how to store the spent nuclear fuel has arisen in the country,” the Russian expert said. The same problem exists in other Southeast Asian countries, said the expert. He noted, “The average world price of one kilogram of spent nuclear fuel, including its delivery to the place of storage and return to the owner, now fluctuates between 200 and 400 dollars,” the expert noted. Return to Menu O. Nuclear Industry 1. Bids reaping time The end of this year has appeared to be a good reaping time for new nuclear unit construction tenders. Judging from media reports, China, shortly after getting the “green light” from the government, is likely to call for tenders for construction of four nuclear reactors in Guangdong Province. Two of them are the would-be second phase of Ling Ao nuclear plant with another two at Yangjiang, which is eventually to turn into the largest (six-unit) nuclear power plant in China. Such nuclear power construction escalation in China certainly makes it the world’s nuclear power leader as the 2003 results show. Besides Asia, the tender reaping time has come in Finland: on December 18 TVO and AREVA/Siemens consortium signed the contract for construction of the country’s fifth nuclear unit. The new reactor is to be built at Olkiluoto nuclear plant site. Before a next tender is called for everyone is curious who will be participating? In fact, nuclear reactor suppliers are few in the world; therefore the tender participants’ composition is generally the same. They are the European concern Framatome ANP, American Westinghouse Electric and General Electric, Canadian AECL, and Russian Minatom. The question is what can each of them currently offer? Framatome ANP promotes the European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) and boiling water reactor SWR-1000, Westinghouse pushes hard its advanced light-water reactor AP-1000, AECL is for a new make of heavy-water CANDU – ACR-700. Russia’s nuclear industry is ready to offer two makes of VVER reactor (VVER-92 and VVER-91/99) on the world’s market. General Electric is standing apart from this clan. The competent Russian experts believe that this American power generation tycoon has nothing new to offer today. Out of the listed makes it is only the Russian reactor, which is nearly identical to the one offered for Finland, that is already under construction at Tianwan nuclear plant in China and Kalinin plant in Russia. The advanced VVER reactors are planned to build at Balakovo-5,6 and Volgodonsk-2. Meanwhile, the foreign designs exist only on paper. At this, most of the foreign tenders set the customer’s binding condition as to the offering country must operate a reference power unit. To make it simple, the vendor is suggested to trial the facility in its territory first, gain certain operating experience and only then offer it to a foreign customer. In this regard Russia a priory should have an advantage over the competitors. Moreover, the IAEA considers VVER-91/99 a most state-of-the-art facility in terms of engineering solutions and safety. Chances to win the tender, however, are determined not only by the technical side of the issue but also by the political side. The most recent example is the Finnish tender. As far as a month ago, before the official tender results were announced, TVO had announced that EPR reactor would be the preferred option for the fifth nuclear unit. The formal reason is that Finland wants to construct a reactor with the maximum permissible power capacity (1,600 MW). EPR nominal power is 1,500 MW. But shortly after TVO’s announcement the voices were heard saying that a determining factor affecting Finn’s “premature” decision had been its clanship – as France’s and Germany’s – to the EU. It may be assumed with a certain degree of confidence that in China the political factors would have no small share. PRC has an ambitious program of nuclear power development. In particular, in addition to the said units China plans to construct two one-million-kilowatt reactors at Sanmen and Zheijiang with the Yaugu construction project being under the governmental review. On the one hand, for China it would be more logical to pursue the unification path and build reactors of only one type in future. As the world experience has shown this would be beneficial for further operation and control over the nuclear power plant. On the other hand, Beijing, due to the large scale of future nuclear construction, is interested in cooperation with the maximum possible number of partners. China’s existing nuclear plants have been built to Canadian and French designs, Tianwan plant, which construction is nearly completed, is built to the Russian design and with Russian expert participation. What is incontestable is that since China is the most attractive market for reactor equipment vendors, all and any who make this equipment will be competing over Chinese orders. So, Chinese customers are not going to suffer from the lack of offers, and time will say what preferences will be. In turn, Russia’s position in the world market is also affected by domestic factors. They are associated with changes in top management of the Russian contractor for nuclear projects abroad – JSC Atomstroyexport. After the Objedinennye Mashinostroitenlnye Zavody (OMZ - United Machine Engineering Works) had raised its stock in Atomstroyexport up to the controlling block, November 1st OMZ director general Kakha Bendukidze seized the company. Minatom rushed to state that there was an agreement in principle with OMZ to return the controlling block of stock to the State (likely next financial year). Minatom stated that the necessity of such move was due to the fact that Russia constructed nuclear plants abroad in accordance with intergovernmental agreements and at the federal budget credits. Besides, foreign customers, particularly, Iran insist on the State control over the construction. It is clear that the State control can be restored but it is unlikely that the private capital would ever undertake such an operation for the sole intent of profiting by re-selling of stock. In early December Kommersant newspaper reported on a part of Atomstroyexport stock to be controlled by Silovye Mashiny (Power Machines) Concern (Interros holding). As a result the State again will become the largest stockholder, however, Atomstroyexport will be actually controlled by private companies, which are its main suppliers. OMZ, which holds about one forth of the world’s primary equipment market, participates in implementation of projects in Koodankulam (India), Tianwan (China) and Bushehr (Iran). OMZ made its first attempts to become a stockholder of Atomstroyexport were made even at the stage of setting the Koodankulam construction consortium. The idea of consortium popped up right at the Indian contract signing stage, because the construction contracts in China and Iran had been signed when Izhorskie Zavody (now within Uralmash-Izhora Group) was a state-owned enterprise. By the moment of the Koodankulam construction contract signing the holdings Uralmash-Izhora and Silovye Mashiny had formed. JSC ZiO-Podolsk and JSC Gidropress should have been also incorporated, however, the idea didn’t come true that time. The second attempt to merge enterprises, which take part in construction of nuclear power facilities, can be more successful. On December 18 OMZ and Silovye Mashiny announced their future merging. The published joint statement says the companies merge on parity basis. The Silovye Mashiny’s stockholders are to get 50% of OMZ stock and OMZ is to have 100% of Silovye Mashiny. After merging legal and technical issues are settled, the company will be re-named as OMZ-Silovye Mashiny. OMZ has repeatedly stated that it builds up its Atomstroyexport share with intent to strengthen the position in the global markets. Considering the prospects of new orders from China, the OMZ strive to expand its presence in Atomstroyexport management, take over the negotiation process with the foreign partners appears logical for such alignment of forces can remain also after the controlling block of stock is returned to the State. And then the majority stockholder – Minatom of Russia – will have to find a common language with the private business whose interests are not always in line with the State ones. Return to Menu 2. Rosenergoatom Summed Up First Free Electricity Market Bidding Results Rosenergoatom’s sales office sold over 170 billion kWh of electricity within six days on the free electricity market. The electricity was sold at prices three and odd times higher the possible price of it in the regulated wholesale market sector, as Nuclear.Ru was informed by the Concern’s press-center. Electricity to the free market founded by ATS non-profit partnership was supplied by 9 out of 10 Russia’s nuclear power plants. In addition to good financial results Rosenergoatom achieves in the deregulated market sector, the Concern’s presence in the ATS sales site helps to solve issues of principle, which will arise when the Concern starts binding electricity sales in the free market sector in the amount of 5 to 15% of the operating capacities. In particular, the Concern’s units and divisions have the opportunity until January 1, 2004 to work through all issues and accommodate features of interacting with the free electricity market founders – ATS as well as with nuclear electricity consumers. The voluntary participation of the Concern in free market sales will also help to gain price variation statistics necessary for decision-making regarding price nominating for the bid electricity. By the moment of the Concern’s joining the ATS site bidding, the Concern issued an order as to set up a unified system for commercial accounting of electricity. The larger-scale work to set up the system is planned for 2004. Now the system for commercial accounting, which meets the present-day market requirements, has been installed and operated at Kalinin nuclear plant. Return to Menu 3. V. Golovin: Now Uranium is in Good Demand and Sales Market is Guaranteed The RF Presidential Decree of July 25, 2003 dedicates the RF Government to pay for additional stock of Priargunski Mining and Chemical Production Association (PMCPA) issued by JSC TVEL and owned by the Government. Thus, TVEL Corporation has got the controlling block of stock of the main uranium mining enterprise and increased its share up to 75%. Valeri GOLOVIN, the PMCPA Director General, in his exclusive interview described to Nuclear.Ru the prospects of the new, corporate development stage of the enterprise: Nuclear.Ru: What advantages your enterprise is to get from the further development as a part of the corporation? V. Golovin: The incorporation into TVEL will allow our enterprise to work within the common process link to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. We are at the front end of this link. We mine uranium, which is to be processed by TVEL’s plants starting from next year. Previously we were selling a significant share of natural uranium for export through Tekhsnabexport. We have, with TVEL’s help, to solve a number of problems related to future development. At present, jointly with TVEL, research and development institutes we draft a uranium mining strategy until 2020 at Streltsovski deposits. When the drafting is completed, we jointly with TVEL will look at how to implement it, at what expense and within what timeframe. Nuclear.Ru: Why did you refuse the Tekhsnabexport’s mediating services? V. Golovin: I don’t think it’s the right thing to sell natural uranium for export. Why? Just because natural uranium is the feed and Russia has capabilities to sell so to say higher-completion-degree products, for instance, as fuel assemblies for nuclear power plants. It’s more cost-effective to sell uranium as fuel both in terms of cost and load of processing capacities. Nuclear.Ru: Could you give a general overview of the enterprise’s current activities, performance indicators, maybe? V. Golovin: The association is a multi-faceted enterprise. Considering our geographic remoteness from industrial centers, in the 1970s of the last century the enterprise was built to work independently at maximum. It means that now we have nearly all processes and production lines to mine and process ore and produce natural uranium concentrate. The association includes a number of large productions: shaft uranium mining, ore processing to produce concentrate, sulfuric acid production for process needs – all for production of uranium. We have our power generation, which includes a 410-megawatt district heating plant and Urtui brown coal deposit where we mine coal for our needs and for sale. We generate electricity for the productions and satellite-city with the surplus going to the federal power generating capacities’ market (FOREM). In addition, we have repair shops and machine engineering section. Considering the fact that many of mining machinery producers are in Ukraine, now we have not only to repair but also manufacture a lot of such equipment in our repair and machine engineering section. We also incorporate the Mine Construction Department, large truck fleet and a number of auxiliary facilities. Speaking about performance indicators of the association as a whole, in my view, it develops well with annual output growth of 15-20% as compared to the preceding year. In the first half of this year the output increment was nearly 16% against the same period of the last year. As regards coal mining, it’s a very cost-effective product for us. Here we have doubled the output in two recent years. Last year we approached the coal output of 4 million tons and plan to exceed it this year. At this, the number of staff is practically unchanged, so it means that the output grows at the expense of labor efficiency. In mining we have the performance indicators like those in the best times of the association. Still, considering the fact that our equipment is rather old, we need to step up a new qualitative level in terms of the mining equipment. We must implement new uranium ore mining and processing technologies, new equipment, which has larger capacities, because what we employ now is morally obsolete. Nuclear.Ru: Is it obsolete morally or for PMCPA, as for many of the industry’s enterprises, it is characteristic of having highly worn-out major equipment? V. Golovin: In fact, the major equipment is highly worn-out. During perestroika neither refurbishment no repairs were done. Therefore, we have to spend a lot to repair equipment, buildings, structures, etc. Annually we spend about 500-550 million rubles for these purposes. These are enormous sums for us. In recent years we have somewhat improved our assets with certain proceeds from major investments. But repairing the old is one story. We need to buy and implement new machinery to approach much better performance indicators. It is difficult to do with our capabilities, because we are constantly lacking of money. However, the renovation has started already; that is what matters. Nuclear.Ru: You said PMCPA was a multi-faceted enterprise, diversified in terms of business activities. How the share of various business sections is balanced in terms of the total revenues? Shouldn’t you donate from internal funds some of them? V. Golovin: Just a few years ago natural uranium stood for 85-87% of the total productions. The situation has changed since then. Now uranium makes approximately 70% of the total sales output with 30% going for other products. This is primarily coal, which we sell to energy catering systems of East Siberia, and the power generation capabilities of our district heating plant. Owing to the increase in coal mining and sales as well as the growth of electricity generation we have reduced the uranium share in the total products output. I believe it a positive trend because one shouldn’t deal with only one product. As regards the supporting facilities, I pursue the following approach: For each production line we calculate self-cost, cost-effectiveness, etc. TVEL is sticking to the similar policy. If a production line is cost-effective, it has the right to live, if not, we shut it down. Nuclear.Ru: In other words, does the association have cost-ineffective or unprofitable facilities? V. Golovin: Mentioning the unprofitable facilities, we do have an agricultural section – Priargunski farm. Considering the weather conditions, the farming in Chita Region is essentially unprofitable, so our farm would unlikely ever be profitable. Certainly, we can phase it out, but what we are to feed people with? In principle, you can bring in carrots, potatoes, cabbage, say, from Altai. But if you do some computation, you’ll see it’s more expensive than plat them here. Therefore, our agriculture section, being cost-ineffective, caters socially. As regards the basic production lines, we had cost-ineffective divisions, now we don’t have them as parts of the association. Nuclear.Ru: What divisions they were? V. Golovin: For instance, the ceolite section. For many years we produced ceolites, which are natural ion-exchangers. They are used for clean-up of gases, oil from admixtures and as additives to cattle feed and fertilizers in agriculture. For some years this section was cost-ineffective and we decided to seclude it to set up an independent joint-stock company. That’s what it is now. Nuclear.Ru: Let’s come back to the main sector – uranium mining. Does the uranium mining sector implements advanced mining and ore transportation, dressing technologies? Do you use the experience of lead foreign companies? V. Golovin: As regards the ore mining and processing technology, we jointly with Moscow-based VNIPIPT have developed a feasibility study for technical refurbishment. We work in these frames now. The idea behind is that, firstly, there are low-grade ores, which are ineffective to mine. Since last year we have started leaching of these ores in ground blocks. In other words, we explode the ore body containing low-grade ore, the ore is made loose then we wash the exploded mass with sulfuric acid. The uranium-containing solutions go upward and are cleaned-up by ion-exchange resins. Uranium is removed from the resins and the solutions are bound with sulfuric acid and sent for leaching again. Secondly, the ore separation goes. All mined ore has to be separated: high-grade ore should go for processing to the plant and the low-grade ore has to be heap leached. The low-grade ore is arranged in dozen-thousand-ton-bulks and washed by sulfuric acid solutions to extract uranium. These are main areas of our activities for coming years. As regards the foreign experience, it’s nearly the same as ours. The shaft ore mining technology and production of natural uranium is similar everywhere. However, in many countries they produce uranium using underground leaching technique. This is the same we do in the blocks but cheaper and simpler. The matter is that our ore is rock-based, so we just cannot employ these techniques. We have to grind ore by explosion and then leach it. Nuclear.Ru: Is the issue of tails recovery pressing for PMCPA? Do you consider uranium tails re-enrichment? V. Golovin: We have been working for thirty five years already and certainly we have accumulated a lot of tails and poor ore. Regarding re-enrichment I can say that it is a no go because due to the low uranium assay in tails it is unprofitable to process it now and in near future. Of cause, we will have to upgrade the tails. As of the poor ore we will be doing the leaching of such material but much later. After we bring the poor ore up to the uranium tails assay level we will upgrade the ore. Today we don’t do it because the issue is not pressing yet. Other countries have the upgrading experience that can be implemented here but this requires large funds. Nuclear.Ru: You have noted that PMCPA is a self-supporting enterprise. In other words, all supporting infrastructure built in the soviet times is within the enterprise. The foreign companies have been using the outside services for a long time, and this practice has been found out more effective. Is it possible to change the situation and how would you provide the released personnel with jobs then? V. Golovin: The problem is that we are very far from the industrially developed centers. As of outside services, we involve specialized companies to do maintenance and repair of complex equipment. They do the job and issue quality warrants. Primarily, this relates to DHP equipment and compressor stations’ equipment. However, before repairs we judge them in terms of economics: What we are capable of doing ourselves, how much it will be and what can be done by external servicing companies. We also look into whether our employees are sufficiently qualified to ensure quality repair. We involve experts from servicing companies but it’s more expensive. Nuclear.Ru: Does this relate to major overhauls with small repairs being done by your staff? V. Golovin: Generally, repair and construction are done by local construction organizations. When the satellite-city and industrial site were built there was a rather large Priargunski Construction Authority. Factually, it took just a few years to build the industrial site and 60,000-population city. Regretfully, in the 1990s, when the productions declined, Priargunski Construction Authority turned into several construction and assembling companies, which are based in the city and now work for the association. I know how the servicing is arranged for in the West. It's orders higher and better because of the competition. Now the affiliate companies are spinning off - the repair, construction and assembling companies. This would create a services’ market. Nuclear.Ru: You say the remoteness of the enterprise doesn’t matter, it’s lacking of funds again. What about salaries and wages in such difficult financial conditions; what is the situation as compared to the average industry’s level? Do you raise them and at what expense? V. Golovin: We do shaft mining of uranium and open mining of coal, manganese ore, and limestone. This is a difficult and dangerous job but wages are low. We are planning to raise it up to 7,000 rubles by the end of 2003. Now it is about 6,700 rubles and already includes the regional bonus factor of 1.8. Certainly it is lower than the average industry’s. Why can’t we raise it? Primarily, because of large funds being spent for repairs. But if we stop repairing, the productions will be disrupted; we’ll have problems with outcomes, sales, etc. Besides, during the 1990s we accumulated a great deal of debts in terms of taxes and credits. We are paying them off now. These are the main causes why we cannot raise salaries and wages substantially. There is the only way how to raise it – the increase in productions and decrease in expenditures. There are no other ways and the staff accept it and commit to it. Nuclear.Ru: One has to do justice to your staff – not everybody would agree to work in such hard conditions for such a low salary. V. Golovin: Right, it was just recently that we had salary debts before our staff. The mere fact that we are paying it regularly now and paying the leave allowance timely is actually the achievement. However, the salary level is still low and has to be raised. Nuclear.Ru: Do you have recruitment problems? Do people leave? V. Golovin: There are problems with qualified personnel. Generally speaking, there is an excess of the working-age population who unemployed because the city doesn’t have enterprises to work for except for our association. Young people grow up, graduate from institutes, colleges but it’s difficult for them to find jobs. However, we are lacking of the qualified cadre, especially in mines (mineral surveyors, geologists, miners). Today young specialists are reluctant to take such jobs because of low salary and lack of housing. We plan to achieve the industry’s average salary level within two-three years. Besides, in the 1990s the uranium prices were very low. Today, I think, they are not bad. And we are able to raise salaries to our workers owing to that. The main thing now is that there is a good demand for uranium, the guaranteed sales market. Nuclear.Ru: How would you describe the strategy of PMCPA development? V. Golovin: Considering the fact that we have been operating for 35 years already and finished near-surface deposits, we have to go much deeper and mine lower-uranium assay ore. Therefore, it is essential for us to retain the current production level. Certainly, we are not going to have large increments in terms of uranium production. It’s simple to finish all high-grade deposits and leave poor ones, but the problem arises: What to do with the satellite-city which is 12,500 population? That’s why we have to retain the production level, on the one hand, and provide for a slight increment, but don’t increase the production costs, on the other. In other words, we have to mine lower-assay ore deeper but prevent an increase in self-cost of kilogram of natural uranium. Secondly, we need to carry out geological surveys to add to our ore stock. We have promising deposits and I’m confident that new ore deposits in our territories will be surveyed. This will give us the possibility to add to our feed stock, and when the feed stock is available one can speak of more substantial growth in uranium production. Today the development program until 2020 is being drafted, but we have to look into a far distant future because we are the feed producing enterprise and any feed producing enterprise operates until its stock ends up. Our challenge is to carry out the geological surveys, add up to our ore stock to have sustainability not just for 20-30 years but at least for fifty years. Nuclear.Ru: When the PMCPA development program drafting will be completed? V. Golovin: Presently, Minatom of Russia and the Ministry of the RF for Natural Resources are developing the joint program “Uranium of Russia”. In the frames of this program we, along with TVEL, research and design institutions, draw out our own development program until 2020. In my view, we have good prospects because in near future we will be the main producer of the Russian uranium. And we have all necessary assets for producing required amounts and meet the prices which have established both in Russia and world markets. Return to Menu 4. Russia To Build First Floating Nuclear Plant In 3 To 5 Years Rumyantsev is among the officials accompanying Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov on a visit to Japan. He said "some 70 million dollars have already been invested in all the project-related works and the feasibility study, so it's necessary to find the money to implement the construction at a fast rate." It is planned to build the station on a barge in the area of Severodvinsk or at a Petersburg shipyard. The capacity of the nuclear power plant which will run the reactors of the type installed on nuclear submarines will amount to 70 megawatt of electricity and 140 giga calories of thermal energy. The aggregate spending on the construction is estimated at 180 million dollars. When asked about when the construction might be completed, Rumyantsev answered "in three to five years, if all things go well." He noted that Southeast Asia countries were displaying considerable interest in the project. "For example, the station can be moved along the Northern Sea Way to Indonesia," and after expiration of the specified term, Russia may bring it back to the dock along the same route, the minister said. Maintenance, arranged by shifts, will be done by Russian specialists. "If nobody buys the station, our town of Severodvinsk will be provided with heat and electricity," Rumyantsev said. Return to Menu 5. TVEL to supply Slovakia with uranium RBC, 15.12.2003, Moscow 17:01:16.The TVEL corporation, Russia's largest producer of uranium, has made a $200-million contract on supplying Slovakian nuclear power stations with nuclear fuel, the press service of the company reported. The contract envisages supplying fuel through 2010, starting in October 2005. The signing of the contract followed a tender that involved, among other companies, the US-based Westinghouse. Return to Menu P. Nuclear Forces 1. Rocket Forces Commander-In-Chief Greets Subordinates On Professional Holiday MOSCOW, DECEMBER 17. /RIA NOVOSTI / -- Russia's strategic rocket forces can cope with missions of nuclear deterrence, Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov says in the order greeting the personnel on the professional holiday, reports the press service of the Russian military establishment. The strategic rocket forces do their share to ensure strategic stability in the world, says the order. "The quality of nuclear weapons, which as ever form the basis of security for Russia, meets the highest standards in versatility, efficiency and security", Sergei Ivanov says. "In the Russian Federation December 17 is marked as the Day of the Strategic Rocket Forces, constituting the basis of the strategic nuclear forces of our state. They are the guarantor of the military security of Russia and its allies", reads the ministerial order. Sergei Ivanov greets the personnel and veterans of the Strategic Rocket Forces, researchers and designers of nuclear missile weapons, all workers in the defence sectors of industry. "I wish you good health, happiness, optimism, well-being, great achievements in your military service and martial deeds for the good of Russia", reads the ministerial order. Return to Menu 2. Russia to Extend Nuclear Missile Lifetime MOSCOW (AP) - Russia will keep its most powerful, Soviet-made long-range nuclear missiles on duty for at least a decade, a top general said Wednesday. Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, chief of the country's Strategic Missile Forces, said the heavy R-36 missiles - known in the West as the SS-18 Satan - ``will serve Russia for another 10 to 15 years,'' according to the Interfax-Military News Agency. Solovtsov has said previously that Russia would keep its arsenal of some 150 SS-18s on duty until 2016-2020, even though the missiles were past their designated lifetime and scheduled to be scrapped this decade under earlier plans. The heavy missile, capable of slamming 10 individually guided nuclear warheads at targets more than 6,800 miles away, is the heaviest weapon in Russia's inventory. The SS-18 and another multi-warhead missile, the SS-19, have formed the core of the Russian strategic forces since Soviet times. Russia would have had to scrap both types of missiles under the 1993 START II arms reduction treaty. The treaty never took force, and a new U.S.-Russian arms reduction agreement has given each country a free choice of what weapons to keep while slashing the number of their nuclear warheads by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200, by 2012. The new treaty, signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bush in 2002 and ratified this year, would help Russia maintain nuclear parity with the United States relying on Soviet-era missiles, postponing a costly race to build a replacement. Return to Menu 3. Russia To Launch More Than Ten Ballistic Missiles In 2004 VLASIKHA (Moscow Region), December 17 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) are to carry out ten combat training launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2004, SMF Commander Colonel-General Nikolai Solontsov told reporters during the Wednesday meeting, held here on the occasion of the 44th anniversary of the inauguration of this arm of the service. The purpose of those launches, the general said, is to check the dependability of Russian missile weapons and to prolong the service lives of the existing types of missiles. According to the START Treaty, Russia is to have not more than 1,700-2,200 nuclear warheads by December 31, 2012, which is sufficient to guarantee adequate nuclear containment irrespective of possible military-strategic developments. Due to this, the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces will continue to play the fundamental role in the country’s nuclear triad. Touching on the “Satan” missile complex, the general said it would remain in service for 10-15 more years. The “Satan” complex (R-36 M UTTH) with multiple head part had to be removed from duty, but it was eventually found possible to prolong its service life”. The R-36 M UTTH is a silo-based two-stage intercontinental ballistic missile with a multiple target homing head section containing ten warheads. The complex went into service in 1980. Its initial guaranteed storing period equalled to ten years. The missile’s maximum firing range is 11,500 kilometres. The complex is able to surmount all the existing and future anti-missile defence systems. Return to Menu 4. Russia's Strategic Missiles Troops Marking 44th Anniversary MOSCOW, December 17 (Itar-Tass) - The Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN), the backbone of Russia's deterrent potential which ensured almost 60 years of peaceful life for the country, are marking on Wednesday the 44th anniversary since their establishment as a branch of troops. The Strategic Missile Forces were founded by Resolution 1384-615 by the Soviet Union's Council of Ministers, the RVSN press service said. Over the elapsed time, this branch of troops turned into one of the main elements of Russia's strategic nuclear forces. The establishment of the RVSN was necessitated by aggravation of the military and political situation after World War II, and rapid deployment in the Untied States and other NATO countries of offensive nuclear armaments which was viewed as a real threat to the USSR's national security. The press service noted that "the existing RVSN group remains on standby alert and is capable of fulfilling missions within the designated time and under any conditions of the situation." Missiles with multiple warheads will be one of the main elements of the strategic missile forces in the next decade. After 2015, the RVSN group will mostly comprise Topol-M systems, both silo-based and mobile. Russia is putting on combat duty the fourth regiment equipped with Topol-M systems this December. It will be based in the Saratov region. Return to Menu 5. Russia And Belarus Divine Supercomputers MOSCOW, DECEMBER 16. /RIA NOVOSTI CORRESPONDENT NATALIA BELOVA / -- Russia and Belarus have created supercomputers, which can find application in different sectors of industry, science, education, state administration and defence. The supercomputers is the embodiment of the four-year programme of the Russia-Belarus Union - SKIF (The Development and Putting into Mass Production of the Family of Highly Efficient Computer Systems with Parallel Architecture (Supercomputers) and the Creation of Applied Programme-Apparatus Complexes on Their Basis). About 20 Russian and Belarussian enterprises participated in the programme. It targets revival of the two countries' computer sector, commercial production of a series of programme-compatible models of supercomputers with a wide production rate - up to one trillion operations/second. "We are not making one specimen but mastering mass production in order to introduce state-of-the-art technologies at Russian and Belarussian works", said Sergei Abramov, executive director of the SKIF programme. To him, in order to rehabilitate cooperation between Russia and Belarus the new supercomputer programme SKIF-2 has to be developed in the 2005-2008 period. SKIF's further goal is the involvement of other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States by integrating the present developments and experience for on-going development of the computer industry. This will make it possible to unfold a common information telecommunication environment on the Commonwealth territory and outline own alternative, actually independent of the West, road of development of competitive and highly efficient computers, believe authors of the SKIF programme. Return to Menu Q. Nuclear Safety 1. Technical Documentation Developed For New Radwaste Truck Rosenergoatom had developed technical documentation for manufacturing of a special third generation truck for transportation of radioactive waste of nuclear power plants, as Nuclear.Ru was informed by the concern’s press-center. Presently Russian nuclear plant use for radwaste shipments the special trucks which were designed and manufactured as far back as 1970s of the last century, therefore Rosenergoatom’s technical branch and VNIIAES were challenged in July 2002 to develop the technical documentation for the third generation truck, which would meet all current radwaste management safety requirements. The new truck is based on the standard chassis of KAMAZ-6520. The detailed design and working design documentation have been reviewed by the research and development center for radiation safety Medbioextrem. The relevant sanitary and epidemiological review has resulted in positive statement by the surgeon general of the RF Ministry of Public Health. Rosenergoatom’s technical directorate has identified the manufacturer of the lead specimen truck – Design Bureau of Automotive Transport of Minatom of Russia, which has been supplying special radwaste trucks to Minatom and Ministry of Defense’s enterprises and organizations over 50 years already. In 2004 the lead specimen truck will be sent to Kalinin nuclear power plant for trial runs and then a decision will be taken as to the series manufacturing to supply all Russia’s nuclear plans with such trucks. Return to Menu 2. Level Of Russian Nuclear Facilities' Security Corresponds To World Standards MOSCOW, December 18 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is among the three leaders as to the security level at nuclear facilities, said head of the Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety Inspectorate Andrei Malyshev at a press conference on Thursday. "Seventy-four violations were registered at nuclear facilities in the first six months of 2003, 28 of which - at nuclear power plants," he said. On the whole, the number of such violations is decreasing. That is why we can say that Russia still keeps the third place, after Japan and Germany, as far as the security level at nuclear facilities is concerned." At the same time, according to Malyshev, the Inspectorate is concerned over the fact that despite the tendency towards a reduction of a number of violations at nuclear facilities their number grows at nuclear power plants rather than at research blocs. "This is connected with the personnel working at nuclear power plants, which worries us. That is why we are going to take planned measures to find out the causes of these violations." Return to Menu 3. Kyrgyz Town Has Uranium in Its Blood MAYLUU-SUU, Kyrgyzstan -- Lenin's portrait still watches over the rusting, closed Izolit uranium processing plant here, where 23 radioactive waste sites infest the landslide-prone hills -- a catastrophe-in-waiting that threatens to poison the river below and the most populous area of Central Asia. Some 2 million cubic meters of tailings -- leftovers from more than two decades of refining the uranium from mines in this Kyrgyz mountain town as well as from as far off as East Germany -- are buried in this valley along the Mayluu-Suu River. The waterway runs a short distance south to Uzbekistan and the Fergana Valley, Central Asia's agricultural heartland, which has 12 million inhabitants. The potential disasters rattle readily off the tongue of Arip Kokkozov, an official at the Ministry of Ecology and Emergency Situations who monitors waste sites. Landslides could carry waste into the river, snow and rain could cause leaks from containers built with outdated technology, wind could carry waste through the air, or the heavy radioactive materials could seep into groundwater. "There are many problems. They need to be solved," Kokkozov said in his office in the southern city of Osh. "If there was enough money, we could fly it all into space," he quips. The debt-saddled nation of Kyrgyzstan has pleaded for outside help to clean up the sites, arguing it doesn't have the resources to tackle the problem alone. Cleaning up Mayluu-Suu will cost an estimated $17 million, officials say. "I can't say we are receiving enough assistance from abroad as the cost is very high," said Bolot Aidaraliyev, Kyrgyz deputy minister of ecology and emergency situations. "This is not one day's work. Each site requires an individual approach. ... It will take years of work to rehabilitate the sites." The World Bank pledged $5 million this year -- to be granted in 2004 if preparations to address the problem go as planned. The funding will go to shore up waste sites against landslides and help government agencies get ready for a potential disaster. Japan is giving about $500,000 under one of the first grants in the project. The European Union also has been involved through its Tacis technical assistance program for former Soviet states. All countries in the former Soviet Union have been saddled with the environmental problems sown by their Soviet masters, and such radioactive and biological and chemical waste sites litter the landscape of Central Asia. The vast steppes of Kazakhstan were used as a nuclear testing ground, and an island in the Aral Sea shared by Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan was home to a biological weapons testing facility. However, in Central Asia, the site at Mayluu-Suu poses the most immediate threat to the largest number of people. Mayluu-Suu, which means "oily water" in Kyrgyz, first got into the uranium business in 1946 as the Soviet Union rushed to develop atomic weapons after seeing the United States unleash their destructive power in Japan. The town was a closed city until the 1970s, a restricted military zone that only people who lived and worked there could enter, a place not mentioned on maps. It later became known for its light bulb factory, now a Russian-Kyrgyz joint venture that remains the main industry in town. "Our goods provide you with the joy of light," a billboard boasts in English on the road leading into Malyuu-Suu, with a map showing beams radiating out to the world. There are no cheery slogans at the Izolit factory, where profiles of Lenin and Marx still watch over a model of an atom. The crumpled metal remains of a bridge that once crossed the river to the factory lie rusting, half-submerged in the water. The city's chief physician, Dr. Nemat Mambetov, said health officials have found levels of radon -- a radioactive gas formed by decaying uranium -- as high as twice the internationally accepted rates in 28 of 30 homes they examined. Mambetov said cancer rates in the town also appeared higher than normal, but he has no funding -- and no oncologists in town -- to do more detailed research. At High School No. 4, American studies teacher Valentin Ladeishikov is trying to educate people about the dangers in their backyard and has founded the city's only humanitarian organization to take on the issue. He said some residents have removed highly radioactive bricks or metal from waste sites and used them for building homes. On his classroom chalkboard underneath a drawing of the Capitol building in Washington, Ladeishikov draws a series of circles showing how the effects of a radioactive leak would expand across the region, creating ecological refugees who would spread worries about contamination for hundreds of kilometers. Ladeishikov has held educational seminars for students on the dangers of stealing material from the waste sites and on what to do if catastrophe strikes. He is trying to get international funding to reach more residents. "They do not realize the danger," Ladeishikov said. On the road into the mountains, Raimjan Osmonaliyev, a village elder and former uranium miner, and four other men prayed on their knees facing toward Mecca, just steps away from the entrance to the mine and also the Izolit factory. He said he has no plans to move his six daughters and two sons, and so many grandchildren that he's lost count, away from Mayluu-Suu. "This is now in our blood," Osmonaliyev, 68, said of potential radiation from the uranium. "We've been here since birth, that's why there's no injury from it." Nearby, a sign warns people not to enter the mine, but the fence posts have long been stripped of the barbed wire that once blocked trespassers. "Even if we're scared, what can we do?" Osmonaliyev asks. "We can't fly into the sky. We can't escape." Return to Menu R. Official Statements 1. Speech by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Igor Ivanov in the Argentine Council for International Relations, Buenos Aires, December 17, 2003 (excerpted) [...] I think that the present condition of Russian-Argentine relations is particularly indicative from the point of view of the favorable conditions which are now ripening for imparting a new quality to cooperation by Russia with the states of the region. Our countries have successfully overcome the serious economic crises. Now the Russian economy is on the increase. The results of the recent elections to the Lower House of Parliament - the State Duma - indicate that our country both internally and internationally has the possibility to pursue a stable, successive and long-term political and economic policy. The Argentine economy also demonstrates positive dynamics. All of this creates a good basis for taking a decisive stride forward in the development of our cooperation. The first forum of the Argentina-Russia Business Council being held these days in Buenos Aires is in this regard a very encouraging event. Moreover, we are by no means starting with a blank slate. Our countries have more than a century-old historical experience of cooperation. It is enough to recall that in the 80s the volume of our trade with Argentina used to reach 3 billion dollars a year. Up until now 25 percent of electricity in Argentina is being generated with the use of Russian equipment. Now, I think, we need jointly to look for new areas of cooperation. For example, Russian equipment and technologies could find application in the fight against floods and forest fires, which, as we know, inflict substantial damage upon Argentina. Participation by Russian enterprises in the realization of projects in the field of infrastructure, joint assembly plants, and the supply of the latest Russian technologies for the power industry is of interest. Such projects are capable of creating additional jobs and could be realized in parallel with purchases of Argentine agricultural products. There are good opportunities for cooperation also in such areas as nuclear power and the exploration and utilization of outer space for peaceful purposes, including the development of technologies and new materials, and Earth monitoring. Of course, we are ready for the continuation and diversification of traditional cooperation between our countries on the international scene, in particular, in such key fields as the fight against international terrorism and other threats and challenges. For example, why not think of establishing a bilateral working group for the study of questions relating to the prevention of financial crises and of imparting greater stability to the world financial system? [...] Return to Menu 2. Statement by Alexander Yakovenko, the Official Spokesman of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the Wake of the Signing by Iran of an Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement Pursuant to the NPT On December 18, in Vienna, Iranian International Atomic Energy Agency representative Ali Akbar Salehi and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei signed an Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement pursuant to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We welcome this responsible step of the Iranian leadership attesting to the disposition of Teheran to consistently follow the path of ensuring the full transparency of its nuclear program. The signing of the Additional Protocol and the immediate commencement of the application of its provisions in practice will enable the Agency, on a larger scale and in an effective way, to carry out its monitoring activities in order to check Iran's observance of its obligations in the field of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and must contribute to the speediest clarification of all the remaining questions to Teheran. Russia had consistently insisted on the signing of the Additional Protocol and the strengthening on this basis of cooperation by Iran with the IAEA. We highly appreciate the Agency's role in performing its monitoring functions in Iran on the basis of objectivity and impartiality and without bringing any unnecessary elements of politicization in this work. We expect cooperation between Iran and the IAEA to continue to be strengthened. Return to Menu 3. President of Ukraine sends letter to US President George W Bush President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma sent a letter to the US President, George W Bush, in which he touched upon a renewal of the financing of ecologically safe destruction of solid rocket fuel at the Pavlohrad chemical plant (Dnipropetrovsk oblast) by the American side, which is important and urgent for both Ukraine and the United States of America. The Head of the Ukrainian State noted, in particular, that about 5 thousand tons of solid rocket fuel for rockets 35-24 were stocked in the town of Pavlohrad. It creates a serious man-caused burden and social tension, increases the risk of an ecological catastrophe, high as it is, in one of the most densely populated regions of Ukraine. The problem acquires all-national importance. Leonid Kuchma emphasized that the financing of the project of ecologically safe destruction of solid rocket fuel at the Pavlohrad chemical plant was a commitment of the American side under the Agreement between Ukraine and the USA on provision of assistance to Ukraine to eliminate strategic nuclear weapons and to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of October 25, 1993 and under the Implementation agreement between the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the Defense Department of the USA on provision of material and technical means, services to Ukraine and relevant training for staff members in relation to destruction of strategic nuclear weapons of December 5, 1993. Leonid Kuchma asked the US President to consider the issue and contribute to its settlement in the quickest and most objective way possible in accordance with the bilateral agreements existing between the two states. Return to Menu S. Links of Interest 1. A Crossroads in U.S.-Russia Relations Return to Menu 2. Daily Press Briefing (on Iraqi International Center for Science and Industry) Return to Menu 3. Edwards, Dean, and Kerry on Non-Proliferation Return to Menu 4. Expanding Nunn-Lugar Return to Menu 5. Fact Sheet: Redirection of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Experts Short-term Program Return to Menu 6. Plan to Stregnthen Homeland Security - Highlights Efforts to Improve Port Security, Prevent Terrorists from Obtaining WMD's Return to Menu 7. Kazakhstan: From Nuclear Nightmare To Epicenter Of Peace Return to Menu 8. Kazakhstan: Reducing Nuclear Dangers, Increasing Global Security Return to Menu 9. Fact Sheet: Edwards' Strategy Of Prevention, Not Preemption 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. To be automatically removed from our mailing list, click on the following link: Remove Me From The List If you have questions/comments/concerns, please reply to news@ransac.org |
|
|
|
© 2007 Partnership for Global Security. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement.