nuclear security: a fortnightly newsletter from...

NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS

Vol. 11, No. 21, 01 SEPTEMBER 2017 / PAGE - 1

CONTENTS OPINION

NUCLEAR STRATEGY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

NUCLEAR COOPERATION

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

NUCLEAR SECURITY

NUCLEAR SAFETY

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

Vol 11, No. 21, 01 SEP. 2017

OPINION – Manpreet Sethi

Nuclear Policy & Diplomacy – 3 Years of theModi Government

Democracies often undergo swings in policieswith a change of government. India’s nuclearpolicy, however, in both its dimensions - weaponsand power generation – has enjoyed broadsupport across political parties. The pace ofdevelopment of these programmes may havevaried depending on the personal inclination ofthe leadership, but the general direction of thepolicies has mostly remained the sameirrespective of the party in power. India’s abilityto conduct nuclear tests in 1998 was enabled bythe continued support given to the programmeby leaders of all hues while occupying the primeminister’s chair between 1948-98.

More recently, the broad-based consensus onnuclear weapons-relatedissues has beendemonstrated through thecontinuing validation ofIndia’s nuclear doctrine.This was first articulated in1999 (and officiallyaccepted with slightrevisions in 2003) under theNDA government led byPrime Minister Atal BihariVajpayee. The change ofadministration in 2004 with the coming in of theUPA government headed by Dr Manmohan Singhdid not lead to any alteration in the doctrine overhis terms (2004-2014). Subsequently, PM

India’s nuclear policy, however, in bothits dimensions – weapons and powergeneration – has enjoyed broad supportacross political parties. The pace ofdevelopment of these programmes mayhave varied depending on the personalinclination of the leadership, but thegeneral direction of the policies hasmostly remained the same irrespectiveof the party in power.


Narendra Modi has yet again expressed hissupport for the doctrine despite the noise madeby his party during the election campaign abouta possible doctrinal revision.

The PM’s endorsement ofthe doctrine, especially itsattribute of NFU early in histenure was the right moveto set the record straight onIndia’s nuclear strategy.Given that India believesthat nuclear weapons aremeant to deter use ofsimilar weapons, theprinciple of NFU isgrounded in sound political

and military logic. Using them first is sure to bringback nuclear retaliation from India’s nuclear-armed adversaries, both of whom have securesecond strike capabilities.



Hopefully, India’s leadershipwill continue to understandand uphold this simple logiceven as India is passingthrough not-so-benignnuclear developments in theneighbourhood. Even if theadversaries developostensibly counterforcecapabilities, the NDAgovernment would do thecountry a favour bysteadfastly declining to godown the route of nuclearwar-fighting.

Instead of effecting any doctrinal changes, thefocus of India’s nuclear strategy must be oncapability build-up to further the survivability andreliability of the nuclear arsenal and to lendcredence to the promise of assured retaliation. Toits credit, the NDA government has retained themomentum on capability as evident in the regulartesting of delivery systems. Its focus has alsorightly been on the full operationalisation of INSArihant as well as making future additions morepotent to enhance thecredibility of deterrence.

As regards India’s nuclearpower programme, the NDAinherited the majorbreakthrough achievedthrough a fulloperationalisation of theIndo-US civilian nuclearcooperation agreement,including a waiver grantedby the NSG to its members to do nuclear tradewith India. The UPA had already captured the newopportunities through the signing of the MoU onpeaceful nuclear cooperation with as many as 11countries by 2011. However, the nuclear accidentat Fukushima and the subsequent enactment ofthe Civil Liability Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA),which was imbued with many strict provisions thatthe nuclear industry considered unfriendly forinvestment, significantly slowed India’s ability toencash the cooperation agreements.

On its occupation of the seat of power, the NDA -whose main constituent party, the BJP, when inopposition had been responsible for the stridency

of the CLNDA – began totake steps to resolve someof the hurdles to the rapidexpansion of India’snuclear energyprogramme. In order toaddress liability concerns,the government issued newclarifications on theprovisions in 2015, besidescreating an insurance poolto assure nuclear industryin 2016. PM Modi also usedhis visits to the major

nuclear supplier countries to allay their fears.However, the results have been slow, running intofurther problems because of the flux ininternational nuclear industry. Even as pricenegotiations with AREVA were being worked out,it was taken over by Electricite de France (EdF).Organisational and procedural realignments attheir end are sure to slow the finalisation of thecontract with India. Meanwhile, in another blow,Westinghouse declared bankruptcy earlier thisyear, placing in jeopardy India’s cooperation withthe Toshiba-Westinghouse consortium.

Owing to thesedevelopments, India hasnot yet been able to startconstruction of anyimported reactor. However,in an attempt to keep someof the targets on track, theNDA government hasapproved the constructionof 10 indigenous nuclear

power plants of 700 MWe each. This is a goodmove and will boost local nuclear industry. In fact,it would be best if the NPCIL, the national nuclearbuilder and operator, is able to show the capacityto build these plants with no financial overrunsand time delays since nuclear power is todaycompeting in the mind space with fast expandingrenewable energy.

One major disappointment for the NDA has beenits inability to secure NSG membership for India.On this issue, they seem to have run into the ChinaGreat Wall even as proactive Indian nucleardiplomacy was able to bring around some of theother countries that had earlier expressed

Hopefully, India’s leadership willcontinue to understand and upholdthis simple logic even as India ispassing through not-so-benign nucleardevelopments in the neighbourhood.Even if the adversaries developostensibly counterforce capabilities,the NDA government would do thecountry a favour by steadfastlydeclining to go down the route ofnuclear war-fighting.

Organisational and proceduralrealignments at their end are sure toslow the finalisation of the contractwith India. Meanwhile, in anotherblow, Westinghouse declaredbankruptcy earlier this year, placing injeopardy India’s cooperation with theToshiba-Westinghouse consortium.



reservations about India’s inclusion. China,however, remains intransigent for now and someclever diplomacy will berequired to make abreakthrough here.

One such idea could be toprepare India to step intothe nuclear export marketwith its own wares. Indiacould be a nuclear suppliereven without being an NSGmember. It certainly has therequisite expertiseespecially in small and mid-sized nuclear reactors thatcould be suitable for manycountries. In case the needfor financial and fuelsupport to enable export ofIndian nuclear reactors isfelt, India could explore the possibility ofpartnering with some other nuclear suppliers suchas Rosatom or even a Chinese company. In thenext two years, the NDA administration could putin place a nuclear export strategy for India andprovide a new direction and momentum to nationalnuclear policy and diplomacy.

Source: IPCS Special Report #191, http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/Modi_Compendium_Final.pdf

OPINION – Ramesh Thakur

China and the North Korean Nuclear Challenge

On a superficial reading,China is feeling thesqueeze to take effectiveaction to bring North Koreato heel over its roguenuclear program. On adeeper reading, China’sgains from the crisisexceed the costs. On awider reading, Washingtondaily vindicatesPyongyang’s nuclearchoices.

In July 2017, Pyongyangdemonstrated technicalcapability to launch ICBMs that put US mainland

cities within reach. The trigger to the latest tit-for-tat brinkmanship is revised US intelligence

assessments that NorthKorea has miniaturizedwarheads to fit them on themissiles, and may alreadypossess 60 bombs.

China is at a criticalinflection point in itsupwardly mobile trajectory.Its long-term strategic visionand political stability haveunderpinned sustainedeconomic growth anddramatic expansion ofcomprehensive nationalpower. This hassubstantially bolstered itsvoice and role in regionaland global governance.

Permanent membership of the UNSC adds to itsstructural weight in managing world affairs.

But China is still only a middle income country. At$8,000, its GDP per capita is only one-seventh thatof the US and it ranks 72nd in the world. Itsdramatic growth and massive population areprojected forward and the prospective powerpotential conditions the expectations of China asa global leader today. But at present China lacksthe material capacity to meet such elevatedexpectations. Stability and conflict-avoidance inits immediate region remains a vital nationalinterest for China’s development and peaceful rise.

Heightened tensions overNorth Korea’s nuclear anticsrisk an uncontrolled armedconflict, strengthened US-Japan-South Koreaalliances and enhancedprospects of nuclearbreakouts by Japan, SouthKorea and Taiwan.

But China’s leverage overPyongyang, althoughgreater than that of others,is limited. Pyongyang hasproven indifferent to whatothers think and impervious

to external pressure. With 80 percent of trade withChina, more UN sanctions amount to more

India could be a nuclear supplier evenwithout being an NSG member. Itcertainly has the requisite expertiseespecially in small and mid-sized nuclearreactors that could be suitable formany countries. In case the need forfinancial and fuel support to enableexport of Indian nuclear reactors is felt,India could explore the possibility ofpartnering with some other nuclearsuppliers such as Rosatom or even aChinese company. In the next twoyears, the NDA administration couldput in place a nuclear export strategyfor India.

China’s leverage over Pyongyang,although greater than that of others,is limited. Pyongyang has provenindifferent to what others think andimpervious to external pressure. With80 percent of trade with China, moreUN sanctions amount to moresanctions on China. It is cost-free forWashington and Western countries toengage in virtue signaling by enactingstill tougher international sanctionswhose costs have to be borne by China.



sanctions on China. It is cost-free for Washingtonand Western countries to engage in virtuesignaling by enacting still tougher internationalsanctions whose costs have to be borne by China.

If the sanctions succeed in destroying NorthKorea’s economy andengineer a collapse,millions of desperaterefugees will flood intoChina and a crucialgeographical buffer againstUS forces will disappear.

By what right doesWashington toleratenuclear weapons in the hands of its ally Israelbut demand that China force a rollback of NorthKorea’s? In Beijing’s eyes, the US provokes a crisisbut holds China responsible for solving it. USthreats also stir memories among elderly Chineseof how they were treated in the early years ofChina’s own nuclear program.

Any further weakening of Pyongyang’s links withBeijing and Moscow will feed North Korea leaderKim Jong Un’s siege paranoia and solidify relianceon nuclear weapons as the only assured guaranteeof regime and personal survival. The US record ofinfidelity to political package deals — the 1954Geneva accords on Indochina, understandingswith Russia on EasternEurope on ending the ColdWar, Libyan leaderMoammar Gadhafi’sabandonment of his nuclearprogram — inspiresdistrust. Every freshbellicose threat fromWashington deepensPyongyang’s dependenceon and attachment to anuclear deterrent that can strike the US mainland.

On balance, therefore, in China’s calculation thestatus quo of a nuclearized North Korea, howeverunpalatable, is preferable to the upheaval thatwould result from military strikes or regimecollapse. This is consistent with the soberconclusion of The Economist that all options for

dealing with North Korea are bad but blunderinginto a war would be the worst.

Nothing in North Korea’s history indicates itsleadership is suicidal. Conversely, Donald Trump’scareer to date does not inspire confidence in the

quality of his decision-making. On nuclear policyhe is positively terrifying inproving with each newtweet how ignorant,reckless and a threat toworld peace he is. In a 37-country global survey of40,448 people, 62 percent

considered him dangerous and only 26 percentthought he is fit to be US president.

The recent Trump-Kim exchange of inflammatoryrhetoric highlighted both as blusteringmegalomaniacs who pose a clear and presentdanger to world peace. Kim may already haveachieved one major goal of being treated as anequal by the US. On 15 August 2017, South KoreanPresident Moon Jae-in warned publicly that anyaction against the North would require his consentand he renewed calls for dialogue with the North.But the frightening reality is that Trump would notface any domestic checks on his untrammeledauthority to use nuclear weapons. The existingprotocol has been designed for speed and

efficiency, not deliberation,and permits the presidentto launch nuclear weaponswith a single verbal order.

By contrast, ChinesePresident Xi Jinping is thevery model of acircumspect, calm andstatesmanlike leaderurging restraint in rhetoric

and action by both sides and calling for a phasedprogram (freeze-for-freeze) to reduce tensions.Each new step on the escalation ladder doesfurther damage to the US reputation forresponsible leadership while boosting China’sprofile and prestige. It also obscures China’s ownpast culpability in enabling North Korea’s nuclearprogram while underlining the history of US

Any further weakening of Pyongyang’slinks with Beijing and Moscow will feedNorth Korea leader Kim Jong Un’s siegeparanoia and solidify reliance onnuclear weapons as the only assuredguarantee of regime and personalsurvival.

Kim may already have achieved onemajor goal of being treated as an equalby the US. On 15 August 2017, SouthKorean President Moon Jae-in warnedpublicly that any action against theNorth would require his consent andhe renewed calls for dialogue with theNorth.



forcible regime change as the main driver ofPyongyang’s nuclear pursuit.

This, in turn, this amplifies the larger narrative ofthe diminishing US presence in Asia, weakeningits alliance system and sowing doubts about thereliability and quality of US decision-making.Retaliatory trade measures against China wouldcause substantial damage to the US economy andalso to US allies in global supply chains that runincreasingly through China.

Japan and South Korea have managed to live foryears with the reality ofvulnerability to NorthKorea’s nukes. There is noreason why the US cannotlearn to do the same. Kimshould be left in no doubtthat an attack on any of thethree allies would bringinstant military strikes andelimination of the regime.But there will be nopreventive strikes. Insteada policy of containment —which requires crediblethreats, not bluster — willbe instituted along with riskavoidance and crisisstability measures that served all sides well duringthe Cold War….

Source: Japan Times, 17 August 2017.

OPINION – Stanly Johny

Reading Kim Jong-un’s Mind

Is North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un a “crazy fatkid” and a “total nut job”, as US President DonaldTrump has described him, or is he a rational leaderwho makes his foreign policy choices to protectthe interests of his regime? Every discussionaround the North Korean nuclear crisis couldeventually settle around this basic question. If heis an irrational, crazy and impulsive leader, it’sdifficult to reach a diplomatic settlement withhim. A military solution to the North Korean issueis even more difficult and risky as Mr. Kim coulduse the country’s nuclear arsenal in retaliation.

That’s a cul-de-sac. On the other hand, if there’sa strategy behind Mr. Kim’s perceived madness,it at least opens avenues for further engagement.

Most accounts of the Korean crisis are writtenfrom the perspective of Pyongyang’s rivals wherean erratic, despotic regime is portrayed asrelentlessly pursuing dangerous weapons indefiance of international public opinion andsanctions. But if one looks at the whole issue froma North Korean security point of view, it is nothard to find a method behind the North’s actions.

It’s a country that’s beentechnically at war with itsneighbour for almost sevendecades. There are alsomultiple US bases in SouthKorea, the Philippines,Japan, Guam Island and anaval presence in the EastChina Sea and the Pacific,in the vicinity of NorthKorea. In terms ofconventional militarymight, the impoverishedNorth knows that it’s nomatch for the US. This hasforced it to make extremechoices to overcome the

asymmetry in capabilities.

This strategic insecurity was reinforced in the1990s when Russia became a directionless, timid,floating power after the disintegration of theSoviet Union and China gradually moved closer tothe US. These were the only allies North Koreahad. In 1992, China established formal relationswith South Korea, which deepened Pyongyang’sconcerns. Adopting a two-pronged strategy, itfast-tracked its missile and nuclear programmesand expressed a willingness to negotiate. Thepurpose, as it seems now, was to prompt worldpowers, mainly the US, to sit down to talk andmake assurances on security. This strategy metwith success as the Clinton administrationresponded constructively. In 1994, Pyongyangagreed to freeze the operation and constructionof nuclear reactors in line with the AgreedFramework signed with Washington. In return, the

It is not hard to find a method behindthe North’s actions. It’s a country that’sbeen technically at war with itsneighbour for almost seven decades.There are also multiple US bases inSouth Korea, the Philippines, Japan,Guam Island and a naval presence inthe East China Sea and the Pacific, inthe vicinity of North Korea. In terms ofconventional military might, theimpoverished North knows that it’s nomatch for the US. This has forced it tomake extreme choices to overcome theasymmetry in capabilities.



The North’s nuclear facilities are spreadacross its mountainous regions makingit difficult to destroy them. So are thecountry’s missile capabilities, whichreportedly have mobile launchers thatcould survive an attack on defence bases.There are thousands of pieces of artilleryalong the Demilitarised Zone that couldbe used to attack Seoul which liesroughly 50 km from the border.

US promised two proliferation-resistant nuclearreactors.

The George W. Bush administration took a hawkishstance towards Pyongyang. In 2002, Mr. Bushlumped North Korea with Iraq and Iran in the “Axisof Evil”. Pyongyang withdrew not only from theAgreed Framework but also from the NPT, andaccelerated efforts to gain nuclear weapons. WithPresident Barack Obama following the tested andfailed policy of sanctions and intimidation, theNorth steadily expanded its military capabilities.And now, Donald Trump hasto deal with a North Koreaequipped with nuclearbombs and intercontinentalballistic missiles that canreach US territory.

Both the diplomatic andmilitary options are now alot more difficult than thosein the early 1990s. A limitedattack by the US couldsnowball into a full-fledgednuclear war, threatening millions in East Asia. TheNorth’s nuclear facilities are spread across itsmountainous regions making it difficult to destroythem. So are the country’s missile capabilities,which reportedly have mobile launchers that couldsurvive an attack on defence bases. There arethousands of pieces of artillery along theDemilitarised Zone that could be used to attackSeoul which lies roughly 50 km from the border.

For a diplomatic solution, the North will have tomake great compromises. In the 1990s, NorthKorea was an aspiring nuclear power and all itneeded to surrender was its ambition in returnfor security. Now that it is a nuclear power, will itabandon its nuclear weapons in return for securityassurances? It ’s unlikely to happen as theexamples of Iraq and Libya show. Both SaddamHussein and Muammar Qadhafi, respectively, hadgiven up their nuclear ambitions, saw theirregimes toppled by Western invasions and thenwere killed. Even the example of Iran would notbe encouraging for North Korea. Tehran agreedto curb its nuclear activities and open its reactors

for routine international inspections in return forthe lifting of international sanctions during theObama presidency. The Trump administration hastaken an extremely hostile view, added moresanctions on Tehran, joined hands with itsregional rivals, and even threatened to cancel thecertification of Iran’s compliance with the nucleardeal. Mr. Kim would be asking himself how hecould trust American security assurances even ifthey come by.

China Template: North Korea would rather prefera Chinese model. Chinaexploded its first nuclearbomb in 1964, which led toit being treated as a roguenuclear power. But Chinawas accepted into themainstream internationalorder in the 1970s. Even theUS, its main rival, initiateda diplomatic process withBeijing. Mr. Kim may bebetting on both his nucleardeterrence as well as his

chances of being accommodated as a nuclearpower in the international system, a game ofchicken scenario. Conflict is inevitable if the USand North Korea keep going down the path theyare now on. If one swerves, the other will benefit.But will both swerve for a tie and re-launch adiplomatic process afresh.

Source: The Hindu, 17 August 2017.

OPINION – Alexandro Pando

Can Next-Generation Nuclear Power MeetWorld Energy Needs?

As the construction and adoption rates of nuclearfacilities slow down globally, now more than everit seems nations are gradually phasing out nuclearenergy as a choice replacement option for fossilfuel-derived energy sources. The exit of industryleaders like Siemens, Toshiba’s recent $6.3 billionloss and the lack of interest in nuclear powerreactors resonate this assertion. Alternativeoptions for global power generation are beingheavily investigated and include nuclear fusion,



Many reasons can be posited to justifyChina’s commitment to nuclear, butperhaps the most appropriate is thefact that nuclear power presents aclear-cut pathway to producing stable,clean and high-density energy. Unlikeother renewables, nuclear power is notsubject to seasonal variations.

Solar and wind power systems typicallyfeature a capacity factor of 20%compared to nuclear-powered plantswith an average capacity factor of over90%. What this means is nuclearreactors would produce 90% of theirrated energy capacities at all timescompared to solar/wind, which onlyprovides 20%, a figure that is stillsubject to fluctuations due to climateand weather. Then there’s the issue ofcompatibility.

geothermal, and carbon capture andsequestration, but these alternatives are still inthe developmental stage. Nuclear power is aviable option, and next-generation reactors(expected to be deployed between 2020-2030)represent advancementsin sustainability,economics, safety,reliability and proliferationresistance.

Going against the trend,China has continued toamplify its nuclear energyinvestments. It holds thetitle of being the world’slargest emitter of CO2, soit comes as no surprise that its government hasset aside a sky-high figure of $361 billion for thedevelopment of cleaner energy sources. Of thislump sum, the country plans to utilizeapproximately $78 billion to construct 35 reactorsin the next four years. Many reasons can beposited to justify China’s commitment to nuclear,but perhaps the mostappropriate is the fact thatnuclear power presents aclear-cut pathway toproducing stable, clean andhigh-density energy. Unlikeother renewables, nuclearpower is not subject toseasonal variations. Onceinstalled, reactors go on toproduce energy within theirrated capacity consistently.In other words, throughouttheir years of activeservice, their drop inefficiency is almost negligible.

How Efficient Are Wind and Solar? With regardto efficiency, the same cannot be said for windand solar. Solar and wind power systems typicallyfeature a capacity factor of 20% compared tonuclear-powered plants with an average capacityfactor of over 90%. What this means is nuclearreactors would produce 90% of their rated energycapacities at all times compared to solar/wind,

which only provides 20%, a figure that is stillsubject to fluctuations due to climate and weather.Then there’s the issue of compatibility. Forgenerated power to reach the end consumer, it hasto be transmitted, and while nuclear power plants

connect seamlessly toalready existent powergrids, solar and wind farmsrequire converters to bridgewith the grid in mostinstances. The costimplications of this andother significantmodifications like theimplementation of smartergrids to facilitate

redundancy make nuclear power more scalable andcost-efficient.

Energy Prices are Rising to Foster Development ofOther Renewables: A survey of countries that relymajorly on nuclear energy sources shows thatelectricity retails at a below-average price incomparison to countries where other renewables

are more prominent. Incountries like Germany, thesurge in consumer powerprices is attributed to anumber of factors, chiefamong them being theincrease in taxes levied toaid the subsidy ofrenewables and thes y s t e m a t i cdecommissioning ofoperating nuclear plants.Shutting down nuclearpower plants drive upenergy costs, an indication

that renewables cannot sustain current globalpower needs (at least for now). In the US,accompanying the rise in cost as a result of nuclearpower plant shutdowns is a marked increase ingreenhouse emissions, because gas plants are themore likely replacements for decommissionednuclear power stations.

Source: https://www.forbes.com, 16 August 2017.



OPINION – Steven Ashley

Thorium Could Power the Next Generation ofNuclear Reactors

A Dutch nuclear research institute has just firedup the first experiment on next-generation nuclearreactors based on thorium in nearly half a century.Thorium has long held promise for “safer” nuclearpower. A slightly radioactive element, it convertsto fissionable U-233 when hit by high-energyneutrons. But after use, U-233 has fewer long-livedwaste products thanconventional U-235 nowused in nuclear powerplants. It ’s alsoexceedingly difficult toreprocess thorium intoplutonium.

But because nuclearpower was traditionallytied up with nuclear weapons research, thoriumwas abandoned. Except for one test reactor thathas been under construction in India since 2004,the last research into thorium reactors took place45 years ago.

But now, NRG, a nuclear research facility on theNorth Sea coast of the Netherlands, has launchedthe Salt Irradiation Experiment (SALIENT) incollaboration with the EU Commission. Theresearchers want to use thorium as a fuel for amolten salt reactor, one of the next generationdesigns for nuclear power.

Molten salt reactors are expected to be very wellsuited for using thorium as a fuel. The uniquefluid fuel can incorporate thorium and U-233fluorides as part of a salt mixture, to melt at veryhigh temperatures. The Petten team will melt asample of thorium salt fuel to see if, over time,the neutron bombardment triggers the nuclearreactions necessary to transmute the thoriuminto uranium isotopes that can undergo nuclearfission, and sustain the chain reaction needed togenerate energy.

If they can produce this cleaner reactor fuel, thenext step is to study tough metal alloys and othermaterials that can survive the bombardment.

Later research will examine how to deal with thewaste from a molten salt thorium reactor. Whilesafer than the long-lived products from a standardnuke, these will still need special disposal.

If this project bears fruit, there are many interestswaiting to join the thorium club. A US startup basedin Utah says it’s developing a thorium reactor, thefirst in the US in half a century, and a consortium ofeastern Utah counties is exploring whether toparticipate in the project. So is thorium really back

on the table? We’ll know bythe end of the year, if theKalpakkam test reactor inIndia starts generatingenergy. We need cleanenergy sources to stave offclimate change, yet fearsraised by Fukushima havecaused nuclear power tostagnate. Maybe thorium’stime has finally come.

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/a, 25 August2017.

OPINION – Kyle Mizokami

Great Britain’s Nuclear Weapons Could EasilyDestroy Entire Countries

The United Kingdom maintains a fleet of fourballistic missile submarines with the ability todevastate even the largest of countries. This fleetcame into being after its ally, the US, canceled akey weapon system that would have been thecornerstone of London’s nuclear arsenal. Fifty yearslater, the UK’s missile submarine force is the solecustodian of the country ’s nuclear weapons,providing a constant deterrent against nuclearattack.

The United Kingdom’s nuclear force in the early1960s relied upon the so-called “V-Force” strategicbombers: the Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor andVickers Valiant. The bombers were set to beequipped with the Skybolt air-launched ballisticmissile, which could penetrate Soviet defenses atspeeds of up to Mach 12.4 (9,500 miles an hour).Unfortunately technical problems plagued Skybolt,and the US government canceled the missile in1962.

But because nuclear power wastraditionally tied up with nuclearweapons research, thorium wasabandoned. Except for one test reactorthat has been under construction inIndia since 2004, the last research intothorium reactors took place 45 yearsago.



Skybolt’s cancellation threatened to undo the UK’sentire nuclear deterrent, and the two countriesraced to come up with a solution. The US agreedto offer the new Polaris submarine-launchedballistic missile to replace Skybolt. The UnitedKingdom had no missile submarines to carryPolaris—it would have to build them.

A study by the Ministry of Defense concluded that,like France, the UK would need at least five ballisticmissile submarines tomaintain a credibledeterrent posture. Thisnumber would later bereduced to four submarines.Like the French LeRedoutable class, thesubmarines would bear astrong resemblance to theUS Navy’s Lafayette-classballistic missilesubmarines, with two rows of eight missiles tubeseach behind the sail. Unlike Lafayette and LeRedoutable, the new submarines of the RoyalNavy ’s Resolution-class would have theirhydroplanes on the bow, with the ability to fold upwhen parked along a pier.

Most of the submarine was British, with two builtby Vickers Armstrong at Furness and two byCammel Laird at Birkenhead. The missiles, missilelaunch tubes and fire control mechanisms,however, were built in the US. Each submarine wasequipped with sixteen Polaris A-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Polaris had a rangeof 2,500 miles and was originally equipped with asingle British warhead. A midlife improvement forthe missile, Polaris A-3TK, replaced the singlewarhead with six Chevaline multiple independentlytargetable warheads of 150 kilotons each.

The first submarine, HMS Resolution, was laiddown in 1964 and commissioned in 1967, followedby Repulse and Renown, commissioned in 1968,and the aptly-named Revenge in 1969. Resolutionfirst successfully launched a missile off the coastof Florida in February 1968.

In the early 1980s, it became clear that theResolution class would eventually need

replacement. Despite the end of the Cold War andthe dissolution of the Soviet threat, London heldfirm and built all four ships. The UK again decidedto build its own submarines and outfit them withAmerican missiles. The result was the fourVanguard-class submarines: Vanguard(commissioned in 1993), V ictorious (1995),Vigilant (1996) and Vengeance (1999). Vanguardcarried out her first Trident II missile firing in 1994,

and undertook her firstoperational patrol in 1995.

At 15,000 tonsdisplacement, theVanguards are twice thesize of the Resolution classthat preceded them.Although each submarinehas sixteen launch tubes,a decision was made in2010 to load each sub with

just eight American-built Trident II D-5 submarinelaunched ballistic missiles. The Trident II D-5 hasa range of 4,600 miles, meaning it can striketargets across European Russia with ease. EachD-5 carries eight multiple independentlytargetable warhead 475 kiloton thermonuclearwarheads, giving each submarine a total of thirtymegatons of nuclear firepower.

UK missile submarine crews, like their Americancounterparts, maintain two crews per boat toincrease ship availability. Under a program knownas Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) at leastone submarine is on patrol at all times, withanother coming off patrol, another preparing fora patrol and a fourth undergoing maintenance.According to the Royal Navy, CASD has not misseda single day in the last forty-eight years without asubmarine on patrol.

In 2016, the Ministry of Defense announced thenext generation of nuclear-powered ballisticmissile submarines, dubbed Successor, would bethe Dreadnought class. The Royal Navy will buildsfour Dreadnought-class subs, each weighing17,200 tons, with construction beginning inSeptember 2016. Each will have twelve missiletubes instead of sixteen, and the subs will recyclethe Trident II D-5 missiles from their predecessors.

Skybolt’s cancellation threatened toundo the UK’s entire nuclear deterrent,and the two countries raced to comeup with a solution. The US agreed tooffer the new Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile to replaceSkybolt. The United Kingdom had nomissile submarines to carry Polaris—itwould have to build them.



The Dreadnought boats are expected to enterservice in the 2030s and have a thirty-year lifecycle. The ministry expects the new submarinesto cost an estimated $39billion over thirty-fiveyears, with a $12 billioncontingency. Theintroduction of the thirdgeneration Dreadnoughtclass will provide the UKwith a powerful strategicdeterrent until the 2060sand possibly beyond.

At any one time, at leastsixty-four of the UK’snuclear weapons aresomewhere at sea, ready tolaunch within minutes of warning. While nowherenear as powerful as the US strategic deterrent,the nuclear weapons are more than enough toprevent any opponent from launching a surpriseattack. The Royal Navy ’s ballistic missilesubmarines carry on the service’s centuries-oldmission of protecting the country from the sea.

Source: http://nationalinterest.org/, 26 August2017.

OPINION – Moshe Arens

The Results of the Iran Nuclear Deal

A little more than two years after the signature ofthe Joint ComprehensivePlan of Action between Iranand the five permanentmembers of the UNSC plusGermany. It is time to takestock of what the results areso far.

Iran is not a nuclear powerat the moment but has thecapability to become one onrelatively short notice. Ithas continued to develop itsballistic missile arsenal,whose primary objective is to launch nuclearwarheads against those Iran considers its enemy.And Iran, relieved of the economic sanctions that

had forced it into the negotiations, has usedresources that have become available to projectits power in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. It

keeps threatening Israel.

It is arguable just howquickly Iran could gonuclear if it so decides.Iranian President HassanRohani recently declared tothe Iranian parliament that“Iran could return toconditions more advancedthan before thenegotiations within hours.”Even discounting some ofthis as bluster aimed at hisenemies at home and

abroad, the time required for Iran to go nuclearwould be at most a few months.

The nuclear deal neglected to address Iran’sballistic missiles, and ignored Iran’s well-knownambitions to become the dominant power in theMiddle East. Barack Obama, the architect of theagreement with Tehran, then stood by while theslaughter in Syria continued, and Iran and Russiamoved in to take over. Now the Iranians and theirproxy, Hezbollah, are approaching Israel’s borders.

As Benjamin Netanyahu said at the time, it was abad deal. Bad for Israel and bad for the world.The prime minister did his level best to prevent

the confirmation of theagreement by the Congressof the United States.

There was generalagreement in Israel that itwas a bad deal, butNetanyahu’s appearancebefore both houses ofCongress came in forcriticism from theopposition. He is going toruin Israel’s relations withthe United States, Israel’s

only friend and ally, it was claimed. This will bethe end of bipartisan support for Israel in theCongress, it was argued.

At any one time, at least sixty-four ofthe UK’s nuclear weapons aresomewhere at sea, ready to launchwithin minutes of warning. Whilenowhere near as powerful as the USstrategic deterrent, the nuclearweapons are more than enough toprevent any opponent from launchinga surprise attack. The Royal Navy’sballistic missile submarines carry onthe service’s centuries-old mission ofprotecting the country from the sea.

It is arguable just how quickly Irancould go nuclear if it so decides. IranianPresident Hassan Rohani recentlydeclared to the Iranian parliament that“Iran could return to conditions moreadvanced than before the negotiationswithin hours.” Even discounting someof this as bluster aimed at his enemiesat home and abroad, the time requiredfor Iran to go nuclear would be at mosta few months.



Actually, he did what was incumbent upon anIsraeli prime minister to do: make his best effortsto try and stop a deal that would cause damageto Israel’s interests. The U.S.-Israeli relationshiphas not only survived his appearance before theU.S. Congress, but it is better today than it hasbeen in a long time. And support for Israel in theCongress continues to be, as it has been for manyyears, bipartisan – Democratic and Republican.There are some lessons to be learned from thisshort-sighted view of the Israeli-U.S. relationshipthat was adopted by so many at the time. It istrue that the task of the opposition is to oppose,but not at the cost of losing sight of Israel’s mostvital interests.

Now Israel is stuck with contending with growingIranian influenceapproaching its borders. Tothe threat of over 100,000Hezbollah rockets andmissiles in Lebanon hasbeen added the danger ofHezbollah and Iranianmilitias attempting toapproach the GolanHeights. If not the directresult of the nuclear dealwith Iran, it has certainlybeen compounded by that agreement. The dangersto Israel implied by it were simply ignored byObama and the other signatories, and now Israel,although dealing with a much more friendlyadministration in Washington, is left to its owndevices.

Everyone has to be put on notice that Israel isfully aware of the approaching danger and willnot hesitate to deal with it before it is too late.Netanyahu’s visit to Sochi was intended to letPresident Vladimir Putin know in no uncertainterms that Israel will not stand by impassively asthe dangers accrue. This time the oppositionseems to agree.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.809345, 29 August 2017.

NUCLEAR STRATEGY

GERMANY

Germany’s Schulz Demands US WithdrawNuclear WeaponsThe center-left candidate for chancellor inGermany’s September 2017 election demanded

that US nuclear weapons be withdrawn from thecountry, taking an increasingly anti-American tackin a campaign season overshadowed by theEuropean discontent with President Donald Trump.Martin Schulz of the Social Democrats, thechallenger to incumbent Chancellor Angela Merkel… said that the “upper limit for nuclear weaponsin our country must be zero.” He was elaboratingon comments he made at a campaign rally insouthwest Germany on which he promised that,as chancellor, he would “work to make sure thatnuclear weapons stored in Germany bewithdrawn.”…The new demand represented one of Mr. Schulz’smost ambitious attempts yet to leverage Germanopposition to Mr. Trump into an electoral

advantage as he trails Ms.Merkel by double digits inthe polls. While the SocialDemocrats have often beenmore critical of the US thanMs. Merkel’s center-rightChristian Democrats, theyhave long supported thetrans-Atlantic alliance. Itwas a Social Democraticchancellor, Helmut Schmidt,who backed a Western plan

during the Cold War to base US nuclear-tippedmissiles in Germany should disarmament talkswith the Soviet Union fail.The US keeps nuclear warheads in five Europeancountries, including Germany, according to theFederation of American Scientists and theCongressional Research Service. The US militaryhas a policy of not commenting on the location ofits nuclear arsenal in Europe, and German officialsalso declined to comment on the presence of USnuclear weapons in the country. About 150 B61nuclear bombs are stored at six differentEuropean bases, according to FAS.…A spokeswoman for Merkel signaled that thechancellor wouldn’t be echoing Mr. Schulz’sdemand. While Ms. Merkel wants to see a nuclear-weapon-free world, “there continues to be a needfor nuclear deterrence” as long as other countriessee nuclear weapons as a means of militaryconflict, the spokeswoman said.The dispute over nuclear weapons was the latestexample of Europe’s response to Mr. Trump—whois deeply unpopular here, polls show—becoming

The center-left candidate for chancellorin Germany’s September 2017 electiondemanded that US nuclear weapons bewithdrawn from the country, taking anincreasingly anti-American tack in acampaign season overshadowed by theEuropean discontent with PresidentDonald Trump.



a German campaign issue.Mr. Schulz has said heopposes the NATO goal,often repeated by Mr.Trump, that membercountries spend at least 2%of their gross domesticproduct on defense.Germany signed on to thatgoal in 2014, and Ms.Merkel reiterated that shewill stick to it if she wins afourth term in the Sept. 24general election…. “AnAmerica that does not careabout the world but only about itself will not be agreat America,” Ms. Merkel said in an onstageinterview with the newspaper Handelsblatt.Source: Julian E. Barnes contributed to this articlein Brussels, The Wall Street Journal, 23 August2017.JAPAN–USAJapan to Seek Assurance of US Defense Pledge,Including Nuclear DeterrenceJapan’s defense chief and foreign minister willmeet their US counterparts on 14 August 2017 toreaffirm Washington’s commitment to defendingJapan, including the use of its nuclear deterrent,as threats from North Korea intensify. Japan’sMinister of Defence, Itsunori Onodera, and Ministerof Foreign Affairs, Taro Kono,travel to the US capital for“two-plus-two” meetingswith Defense Secretary JimMattis and Secretary of StateRex Tillerson….The meetings come withtensions high in East Asiawith North Koreathreatening to fire missilesinto the waters close to theUS Pacific territory of Guam.The missiles would have to fly over Japan to reachtheir target worrying Tokyo that warheads ormissile debris could fall on its territory. USPresident Donald Trump has warned of “fire andfury” if North Korea threatens the US, and saidthe US military is “locked and loaded”.…Under Japan’s alliance treaty with the US,Washington has pledged to defend Japan. It has

put Japan under its nuclearumbrella, meaning it couldrespond to any attack onJapan with atomicweapons. A renewedcommitment byWashington to that promisewould reassure Tokyo as itlooks to bolster itsdefenses against possibleNorth Korean militaryaction.Source: Reporting by TimKelly; Editing by MichaelPerry, ps://www.reuters.

com/, 14 August 2017.USA–SOUTH KOREAUS Open to More Powerful South KoreanMissilesThe US Department of Defense is currentlyreviewing a request by the Republic of South Koreato allow it to develop more powerful ballisticmissiles amidst rising tensions over North Korea’sgrowing military capabilities.“There is currently a limit on the warhead sizeand missiles that South Korea can have and yes,it is a topic under active consideration here,”Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis toldreporters on 07 August 2017….

In a bilateral agreementsigned in 1979, the US andSouth Korea set outguidelines about thespecific payload and rangeof the latter’s domesticallydeveloped missiles in orderto avoid a regional armsrace. These guidelineswere updated in 2012.However, while SouthKorean missiles can have

now an extended range of up to 800 kilometers(about 500 miles), the maximum payload remainsunchanged at 500 kilograms (1,102 pounds).In an August 7 phone conversation, South KoreanPresident Moon Jae-in asked his US counterpart,President Donald Trump, to revise the guidelinesand allow for the development of payloads of upto 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds). “President

Mr. Schulz has said he opposes theNATO goal, often repeated by Mr.Trump, that member countries spendat least 2% of their gross domesticproduct on defense. Germany signedon to that goal in 2014, and Ms. Merkelreiterated that she will stick to it if shewins a fourth term in the Sept. 24general election…. “An America thatdoes not care about the world but onlyabout itself will not be a greatAmerica.

In an August 7 phone conversation,South Korean President Moon Jae-inasked his US counterpart, PresidentDonald Trump, to revise the guidelinesand allow for the development ofpayloads of up to 1,000 kilograms(2,200 pounds). “President Trumpexpressed his position to activelysupport the move.



A $150-million facility designed todiscourage new nations from enrichingthe nuclear fuel. The LEU Bank in thecity of Oskemen, in eastern Kazakhstan,will store up to 90 tonnes of the fuel,enough to power a large city for threeyears, and sell it to IAEA members if theyare unable to procure it elsewhere.

Trump expressed his position to actively supportthe move,” a South Korean governmentspokesperson said following the conversationbetween the two heads of government, accordingto Yonhap News.The Pentagon is now reviewing the guidelines inconsultation with the US State Department todetermine next steps…. The South Koreanmilitary ’s ballistic missile arsenal currentlyconsists of the Hyunmoo 2A and 2B surface-to-surface missiles. The Hyunmoo 2A has anestimated range of 300 kilometers, whereas theHyunmoo 2B can hit targets at a distance of over500 kilometers. Both ballistic missiles carry apayload of around 500kilograms.South Korea is also workingon fielding an extendedrange Hyunmoo 2 missilewith an estimated range of800 kilometers. The lasttest launch of this newmissile, likely to bedesignated the Hyunmoo2c, took place on 23 June2017 and was overseen by South Korean PresidentMoon Jae-in. The new missile is expected tobecome operational by the end of 2017.The 2C is essentially an upgraded 2B ballisticmissile armed with a 500 kilogram payload. The2C, however, could be modified to accommodatea heavier warhead. Precision-guided ballisticmissiles armed with a 1-ton warhead will likelyhave a bigger chance penetrating leadershipbunkers and other underground facilities in theNorth. “The deep precision-strike capable missilesare part of Seoul’s deterrence strategy vis-à-visPyongyang, known as Korea Massive Punishment& Retaliation (KMPR)”… .Source: The Diplomat, 16 August 2017.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

GENERAL

UN Nuclear Watchdog Opens Uranium Bank inKazakhstan

The IAEA opened a uranium bank in Kazakhstanon 29 August 2017, a $150-million facility

designed to discourage new nations fromenriching the nuclear fuel. The LEU Bank in thecity of Oskemen, in eastern Kazakhstan, will storeup to 90 tonnes of the fuel, enough to power alarge city for three years, and sell it to IAEAmembers if they are unable to procure itelsewhere.“The LEU Bank will serve as a last-resortmechanism to provide confidence to countriesthat they will be able to obtain LEU for themanufacture of fuel for nuclear power plants inthe event of an unforeseen, non-commercialdisruption to their supplies,” IAEA Director GeneralYukiya Amano said in a statement.

Countries such as Iran havesaid they need enrichmentfacilities to ensure a steadysupply of fuel for nuclearpower plants, and the ideabehind the bank is to makesuch supply availablewithout domesticenrichment.Russia has operated a

similar bank since 2010 but the one in Kazakhstanwill be the first one fully owned and operated bythe global nuclear watchdog.“By hosting the IAEA LEU bank, Kazakhstan hasmade another contribution to strengthening theglobal non-proliferation regime,” Kazakh PresidentNursultan Nazarbayev said as he handed Amanoa symbolical key to the facility at a ceremony inthe Kazakh capital, Astana.… The IAEA said in a statement it would beginbuying uranium soon, with the aim to ship it tothe bank next year. The project was funded bydonors, including the United States, the EuropeanUnion, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Norwayand the Nuclear Threat Initiative.Source: https://www.usnews.com, 29 August2017.JAPANThree More Japanese Reactors Step Closer toRestartJapan’s nuclear regulator approved the‘construction plans’ for strengthening Ohi units 3



and 4 and Genkai unit 3. The plans are the secondof three applications required during the restartprocess. The units must undergo furtherinspections before being permitted to restart.Under Japan’s reactor restart process, plantoperators are required to apply to the NuclearRegulation Authority (NRA) for: permission tomake changes to the reactor installation;approval of its construction plan to strengthenthe plant; and, final safetyinspections to ensure theunit meets new safetyrequirements. Operatorsare required to add certains a f e t y - e n h a n c i n gequipment within fiveyears of receiving the NRA’sapproval of a reactorengineering work program.Kansai Electric PowerCompany submitted itsconstruction plan application for units 3 and 4 ofits Ohi plant in Fukui prefecture to the NRA inJuly 2013. It supplemented this application withadditional information the following month andsubsequently submitted five amendments. Theconstruction plan for unit 3 of Kyushu ElectricPower Company’s Genkai plant in Saga prefecturewas also submitted to the NRA in July 2013. Thecompany subsequentlymade four amendments tothe application. In Januarythis year, the NRAconfirmed Genkai 3 and 4- both 1180 MWe PWRs -meet new regulatorystandards.With the NRA nowapproving these plans,both companies said they now plan to apply forpre-operation inspections of those units. Theseinspections are to confirm that the safetycountermeasure equipment complies with theapproved construction plan at the plant.Kyushu said it also plans to submit a constructionplan for unit 4 at the Genkai plant. Of Japan’s 42operable reactors, five have so far clearedinspections confirming they meet the new

regulatory safety standards and have resumedoperation. These are: Kyushu’s Sendai units 1 and2; Shikoku’s Ikata unit 3; and, Kansai’s Takahamaunits 3 and 4. Another 19 reactors have applied torestart.Source: World Nuclear News, 25 August 2017.USACall for Government to Revitalise US NuclearIndustry

The US government shouldhold “a structuredconversation” with thecountry’s nuclear industryon ways to restore anddevelop the sector,according to an essay fromMark Hibbs, senior fellow ofthe Carnegie Endowmentfor International Peace’snuclear policy program.

“The pending bankruptcy of Westinghouse,announced five months ago, could have far-reaching strategic impact on US exports and onthe economic viability, safety, and security ofnuclear power installations in the US and beyond,”Hibbs says…. “There are four basic reasons whynuclear power plant exporters and theirgovernments in the US and other western countries

should be keenly concernedabout China’s and Russia’sunderstandably ambitiousforays into future nuclearpower plant markets,”according to Hibbs.Firstly, he notes that bothChinese and Russiancompanies planning to buildreactors abroad are state-

owned enterprises (SOEs), which puts them at acompetitive advantage. “The US nuclear industryis a strategic industry, but Westinghouse and GEare privately owned companies, not SOEs,” he says.However, he suggests a federal governmentbailout of Westinghouse is “neither likely nordesirable”. He suggests, “The polarised politicalculture in Washington will prevent other,constructive partial solutions, such as theimposition of a carbon tax that would make nuclear

Of Japan’s 42 operable reactors, fivehave so far cleared inspectionsconfirming they meet the newregulatory safety standards and haveresumed operation. These are:Kyushu’s Sendai units 1 and 2;Shikoku’s Ikata unit 3; and, Kansai’sTakahama units 3 and 4. Another 19reactors have applied to restart.

The polarised political culture inWashington will prevent other,constructive partial solutions, such asthe imposition of a carbon tax thatwould make nuclear power more costcompetitive with other sources ofenergy.



Oglethorpe Power Corp., the second-largest partner in Georgia Power’s nuclearexpansion project, has asked theDepartment of Energy for as much as $1.6billion in additional support to help finishthe reactors…. The money will help cushionthe blow of an increased budget used topay for two reactors at Plant Vogtle,already years behind schedule and billionsabove their original forecast amount.

power more cost competitive with other sourcesof energy.”… During the last 20 years, while China and Russiabuilt dozens of reactors at home over, leadingWestern vendors virtually stopped constructing newunits. “Western firms’ long-term loss of domesticexpertise and politicalsupport will negativelyripple across their entiresupply chain, and both theeconomics and the safety ofinstallations operating inthese countries may incoming years bethreatened,” Hibbssuggests.

He also warns the USA could lose its leadership ininternational nuclear governance “in the face of afuture shift towards newcomers and away fromestablished nuclear technology-owning countries”.Western nuclear power companies want theirChinese and Russian competitors to “engagefairly”, Hibbs says. However, they do not want “tosacrifice the real benefits that come frompartnering with Chinese and Russian industry, ledoff by market access andopportunities to takeadvantage of non-Westernfirms’ genuinely lower factorcosts”.

The Trump administration,he says, should discuss withthe US nuclear industry whatsteps the governmentshould take to “enhance USnuclear exports andencourage a levelinternational playing field for exporting nuclearequipment, material, and technology, especially torisk-bearing destinations”. “This might lead theWhite House to make better use of the US Export-Import Bank and to establish bureaucratic lines ofauthority to favour a more coordinated andstrategic view in the federal government aboutnuclear trade.” …

Source: World Nuclear News, 15 August 2017.

Vogtle Owner Asks DOE for $1.6B More toFinish Project

Oglethorpe Power Corp., the second-largestpartner in Georgia Power’s nuclear expansionproject, has asked the Department of Energy foras much as $1.6 billion in additional support to

help finish the reactors….The money will helpcushion the blow of anincreased budget used topay for two reactors atPlant Vogtle, already yearsbehind schedule andbillions above theiroriginal forecast amount.Oglethorpe, a 30 percent

owner in the project, already has a $3 billion loanguarantee from the Energy Department.

It has drawn on $1.7 billion of that amount.Oglethorpe, which serves 38 membercooperatives, is one of the public powercompanies involved in building the reactors atVogtle in southeast Georgia. Its request to theEnergy Department is one of several last-minute

moves the utility ownersare making in efforts tolower the project’s overallprice tag, which could top$20 billion, based onestimates from two of theutility owners.

…Vogtle’s future has beenin flux since its maincontractor, WestinghouseElectric Co. LLC, filed forChapter 11 bankruptcyprotection in March.

Westinghouse’s bankruptcy stemmed fromsignificant cost increases at Vogtle and a nuclearproject in South Carolina.

The electric companies in Georgia and SouthCarolina analyzed how much it would cost tofinish their reactors. In South Carolina, ScanaCorp.’s South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. andstate-owned Santee Cooper decided that theamount would be too much for their customers

USA could lose its leadership ininternational nuclear governance “inthe face of a future shift towardsnewcomers and away from establishednuclear technology-owning countries”.Western nuclear power companieswant their Chinese and Russiancompetitors to “engage fairly.



to bear and have abandoned their project. SouthCarolina’s governor, Legislature and utilityregulators have sharply criticized the utilities fortheir decision, accusing them of charging theircustomers billions for reactors that won’t produceelectricity.

…Vogtle, regulators,analysts and otherstakeholders are waiting forGeorgia Power to reveal itshighly anticipated finalanalysis of how much itwould take to finish thereactors, as well as to cancel them. A publicversion of that report is due out next week.Georgia Power has a 45.7 percent share of Vogtle,but its report will contain input from the other co-owners.

… Oglethorpe, the Municipal Electric Authority ofGeorgia and Dalton Utilities have their own boardsor set of independentdecisionmakers, but nonehas revealed whether theyhave decided to go forwardwith the project. Oglethorpewill need to increase itsoriginal $5 billion budget toa range of $6.5 billion to$7.3 billion, including acontingency amount,according to a Securitiesand Exchange Commissionfiling. This amount covers a combination ofconstruction and financing costs.

Southern Co., Georgia Power’s parent, has givena range of $6.7 billion to $7.4 billion in capitalcosts alone. Oglethorpe’s and Southern’s figuresare offset by billions that Westinghouse’s parent,Toshiba Corp., has agreed to pay to underwriteVogtle. Without that infusion, Georgia Power’scapital costs for Vogtle will increase to $8.4 billionto $9.1 billion.

...DOE has already agreed to back $8.3 billion inloans to Vogtle. Georgia Power is also workingwith the agency to increase the amount of federalsupport…. The utilities negotiated a new working

arrangement with Westinghouse that includesmaking Southern’s nuclear unit and Georgia Powerthe main contractors at Vogtle. DOE approved thenew agreement in July 2017 and amended the loanterms along with it, “given the Westinghouse

bankruptcy and thedisruption on the project,”Higgins said.

This includes suspendingany advances to theutilities until they havefinished their costassessments and decided

whether to finish Vogtle. As with the other utilities,Oglethorpe’s executives were careful not to revealwhere they stand on the project. Smith praisedSouthern Nuclear’s experience in operatingnuclear reactors. He also said that Oglethorpe isplanning conservatively around the higher end ofits economic forecast given that there’s no longer

a fixed-price contract. ...Theboards for Southern andGeorgia Power also mustsign off on the project atsome point. AWestinghouse companyemail obtained by E&ENews said that SouthernNuclear’s board did notannounce a decision onVogtle’s reactors ….

Source: https://www.eenews. net/, 26 August 2017.

NUCLEAR COOPERATION

RUSSIA–CHINA

Rosatom to Build Nuclear Power Plant in ChinaRussia will take part in the construction of at leasttwo out of six reactors, according to AndreyLebedev, the vice-president of the company.China’s Tianwan nuclear power plant was built in2006 by Russia’s nuclear power equipment andservice export monopoly owned by Gazprom. It isthe biggest joint NPP project between countries.Two of its units with a capacity of 1,000 MW eachwere opened in 2007, while the construction of

Oglethorpe will need to increase itsoriginal $5 billion budget to a range of$6.5 billion to $7.3 billion, including acontingency amount, according to aSecurities and Exchange Commissionfiling. This amount covers a combinationof construction and financing costs.

Russia will take part in the constructionof at least two out of six reactors,according to Andrey Lebedev, the vice-president of the company. China’sTianwan nuclear power plant was builtin 2006 by Russia’s nuclear powerequipment and service exportmonopoly owned by Gazprom. It is thebiggest joint NPP project betweencountries.



the third and the fourth units is still underway.The countries are reportedly negotiating thepossibility of adding seventh and eighth units. Lastyear in 2016, Beijing and Moscow said theyintended further strategic partnerships in thepeaceful use of nuclear energy. “The fact Chinaoffered Russia to build new nuclear power plantsshows that plans for extending cooperation in thesector are moving to practical implementation,”said Aleksandr Uvarov, the chief editor of theAtomInfo web portal, as quoted by RIA.Source: https://www.rt.com/, 17 August 2017.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

IRAN

Iranian President Threatens to Restart NuclearProgram

Iran’s President issued a direct threat to the West… claiming his country iscapable of restarting itsnuclear program withinhours and quickly bringingit to even more advancedlevels than in 2015, whenIran signed the nuclear dealwith world powers.Rouhani’s comments areseen as a direct responseto the new US legislationearlier in August thatimposed mandatorypenalties on people involved in Iran’s ballisticmissile program and anyone who does businesswith them. The US legislation also appliesterrorism sanctions to the Revolutionary Guardand enforces an existing arms embargo.

…. Rouhani’s remarks were likely an attempt toappease hard-liners at home who have demandeda tougher stand against the US. But they are alsoexpected to ratchet up tensions further with theTrump administration. Iran has said the new USsanctions amount to a “hostile” breach of the 2015nuclear deal.…But Rouhani also tempered his ownthreat, adding that Iran seeks to remain loyal toits commitments under the nuclear deal, whichopened a “path of cooperation and confidence-

building” with the world. “The deal was a modelof the victory of peace and diplomacy over warand unilateralism,” said Rouhani. “It was Iran’spreference, but it was not and will not remainIran’s only option.”

Source: The Hindu, 27 August 2017.

NORTH KOREA

Nuclear Blast Imminent, Warn Security Services

A missile has not been launched at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site since September 2016. But spybosses have warned a test could be just days away- suggesting a nuclear blast is imminent. SouthKorea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS)monitors the test site by satellite on a daily basis.And because the bombs are tested undergroundbeneath Mount Mantap, signs of excavation areclosely watched for.

Experts believepreparations for two testtunnels have beencompleted so far - and NISchief Suh Hoon warned ablast could fall onSeptember 9. The date is anational holiday in NorthKorea, the Day of theFoundation of the Republic,and the same date whenKim last conducted a

nuclear test.

South Korea-based reporter Christine Kim said theNorth wanted to make its nuclear warheadssmaller so they could be mounted on a missile.She added: “Experts believe North Korea hassecured some technology to make its warheadssmall but it’s not quite there yet so more testingis needed. “In order for missiles to fly a longdistance, anything attached… would have to belightweight to ensure the missiles fly for longerand farther.”

It was feared a nuclear test under the mountaincould see North Korea destroy itself by sparkinga huge volcanic eruption. But 38 North, a thinktank dedicated to monitoring North Korea’s

Rouhani’s comments are seen as adirect response to the new USlegislation earlier in August thatimposed mandatory penalties onpeople involved in Iran’s ballistic missileprogram and anyone who doesbusiness with them. The US legislationalso applies terrorism sanctions to theRevolutionary Guard and enforces anexisting arms embargo.



activities, suggested this phenomenon is unlikely.

Source: http://www.express.co.uk, 28 August 2017.

SOUTH KOREA

South Koreans Want Their Own NuclearWeapons but Doing So Risks Triggering

North Korea has nuclearweapons — and a majorityof South Koreans supportgetting them too, but theconsequences of doing socould be far reaching. TheUS battlefield nuclearweapons in South Koreawere removed in 1991, but since then North Koreahas conducted five nuclear tests and achievedalarming success in its ballistic missile program.Based on reports, the North has the capability toproduce several dozen nuclear bombs.

“It’s not really a good solution for a country likeSouth Korea to remain non-nuclear when itsneighbors are becoming nuclear and becomingquite aggressive,” said Anders Corr, a formergovernment analyst and principal at consultingfirm Corr Analytics. Polling done by Gallup Koreahas shown nearly 60 percent of South Koreanswould support nuclear armament, according toYonhap news agency. The largest support is foundamong residents age 60and above.

Some suggest that theopinion surveys reflect theanxiety level of some SouthKorean residents aboutwhat the true aims are ofNorth Korea’s Kim Jong Un,an unpredictable and brutalleader known for takingrisks….”Given the situationwe’re now facing a nuclear-armed North Korea, maybeit is time for the US to really take a look at thisoption,” said In-Bum Chun, a retired lieutenantgeneral in the Republic of Korea Army and now isa visiting scholar at the US-Korea Institute at JohnsHopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

…However, the retired South Korean militaryofficer said that any discussion about Seoulgetting its own nuclear weapons arsenal shouldfirst be done in Washington and should be startedif it hasn’t already. Also, he said the assumptionmust be that if the North Koreans were to get ridof their nuclear weapons, so would the South

Koreans (if they hadthem)….

…If South Korea were to armitself with nuclearweapons, China wouldlikely protest and probablytake the matter to the UNas a violation of the NPT,

of which South Korea is a signatory but not NorthKorea. Yet there also are concerns South Koreagetting its own nukes could trigger a wider US-China war because if Seoul were to use theweapons against North Korea, the regime’slongtime ally Beijing might respond with an attackof its own that might include targeting US militarybases in South Korea or the Asia-Pacific region. “Ithink South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons ispossible, but unlikely,” said.

… James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policyprogram and a senior fellow at the CarnegieEndowment for International Peace said it’sunderstandable there’s uneasiness from South

Koreans watching theirneighbor to the northdevelop nuclear weapons,but added that there’s stillnot been a serious debateabout the costs of acquiringnuclear weapons. “If therewas a very seriousdiscussion of the costs, Ithink you would find muchless support for nuclearweapons,” he said. Forinstance, Acton said if

South Korea were to arm itself withnuclear weapons it would a violation of thecountry’s international commitments, whichmeans Seoul “would be very likely to have serioussanctions imposed on it.” Also, he said the US

Polling done by Gallup Korea hasshown nearly 60 percent of SouthKoreans would support nucleararmament, according to Yonhap newsagency. The largest support is foundamong residents age 60 and above.

There’s uneasiness from South Koreanswatching their neighbor to the northdevelop nuclear weapons, but addedthat there’s still not been a seriousdebate about the costs of acquiringnuclear weapons. if South Korea wereto arm itself with nuclear weapons itwould a violation of the country ’sinternational commitments, whichmeans Seoul “would be very likely tohave serious sanctions imposed on it.



might decide to no longer offer its own securitycommitments to South Korea.

… Back in the 1970s, South Korean President ParkChung-hee secretly began a nuclear weaponsdevelopment program. Once the US learned aboutit, the US pressured Seoul to halt the program. Aswas the case then, it remains US policy to opposethe spread of nuclearexplosives in the region.

At the same time, anotheroption is the US couldredeploy tactical nuclearweapons to South Korea.But doing so would violatethe 1992 Seoul-Pyongyangjoint agreement ondenuclearization of theKorean Peninsula.Pyongyang violated its endof the agreement in 2006 when it exploded itsfirst nuclear device under Kim Jong Il, father ofthe regime’s current young leader. Also, bringingback tactical weapons to South Korea could makethe US perhaps an even bigger target of NorthKorea and its communist neighbor, China.Pyongyang recently threatened to lob ballisticmissiles toward US military bases on the Pacificterritory of Guam, which hosts the Air Force’s B-1B bombers and a Navy submarine base.

… That said, South Korea has “serious concernsabout the reliability ofthose guarantees underPresident Donald Trump,”Acton said. He said Trumphas done “a lot to disruptthe US-South Koreanrelationship — and I thinkit’s very important that thedisruption stop.” “DonaldTrump’s statements aboutallies needing to pay their fair share and hishesitation about whether the US would back upNATO’s Article 5 commitment ... has all givenpeople in South Korea greater anxiety about theAmerican military commitment to help protectSouth Korea,” said Daryl Kimball, executive directorof the Arms Control Association, a Washington-

based research and advocacy group….

Source: Jeffrey Daniela, https://www.cnbc.com/,24 August 2017.

UKRAINE–NORTH KOREA

Ukraine Denies Supplying North Korea withMissile Technology, Alleges Russia to Blame

An anxious Kyiv has denieda story in The New YorkTimes quoting an expert assaying North Korea mayhave obtained rocketengines from a Ukrainianstate-run factory known asYuzhmash, and insteadalleges Russia is to blame.Citing a report by the IISSand classified assessmentsby US intelligence agencies,

the Times on 14 August 2017 reported thatPyongyang’s recent progress in its long-rangemissile program may be due to it having obtainedadvanced engine technology from Ukraine orRussia.

But the secretary of Ukraine’s National Securityand Defense Council (NSDC), OleksandrTurchynov, insisted that could not be the case.“Ukraine has never supplied rocket engines or anykind of missile technology to North Korea,” he saidin a strongly worded statement published on the

council’s website. “Webelieve that this anti-Ukrainian campaign wastriggered by Russian secretservices to cover theirparticipation in the NorthKorean nuclear and missileprograms.”

...Michael Elleman, theexpert and author of the report for the London-based IISS, told The New York Times that hebelieved the Yuzhmash missile factory, located inthe eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipro, was “themost likely source of the engines” that poweredNorth Korea’s two intercontinental ballisticmissiles in July 2017…. However, Elleman

Bringing back tactical weapons toSouth Korea could make the USperhaps an even bigger target of NorthKorea and its communist neighbor,China. Pyongyang recently threatenedto lob ballistic missiles toward USmilitary bases on the Pacific territoryof Guam, which hosts the Air Force’s B-1B bombers and a Navy submarinebase.

Ukraine has never supplied rocketengines or any kind of missiletechnology to North Korea, We believethat this anti-Ukrainian campaign wastriggered by Russian secret services tocover their participation in the NorthKorean nuclear and missile programs.



conceded that the North Koreans could havegotten the technology from Russia’s state-runrocket company, Energomash, as well, somethinghe reiterated on Twitter following publication ofthe report and a wave of public scrutiny.

As the report notes, the Yuzhmash factory islocated near territory controlled by Russia-backedseparatists in eastern Ukraine. It is also not farfrom the border with Russia, and amid the chaosof war, Ukraine’s east has become a haven forillicit trade. A Ukrainiansecurity official who askednot to be named because ofthe sensitive nature of theissue said Ukraine had hadsuccess in tacklingsmuggling recently but hadin the past struggled withkeeping secrets from therocket factory from leaking outside the country.

The Kyiv Post, citing local and international reports,said that North Korean spies had attempted to stealrocket technology from Ukraine in June 2012 andDecember 2015, in both cases from Yuzhmash. In2015, the paper reported, Ukraine claimed to havedetained and sentenced two North Korean diplomatsfrom Belarus who had triedto photograph secretYuzhmash documentsrelating to the constructionof liquid-fuel rocketengines….

…The allegations ofUkraine’s possibleinvolvement in supplyingPyongyang with missiletechnology come at aparticularly crucialmoment for the country. USPresident Donald Trump’sadministration is currently weighing whether toprovide Kyiv with lethal weapons, including Javelinantitank missiles, to better defend against theRussia-backed forces it has been fighting in itseast for more than three years. Asked if the NSDCor any other security body would be investigating

whether the rocket technology could have beenobtained illegally from someone in Ukraine andsmuggled to Pyongyang, Lytvynenko said that“could not happen,” suggesting there would beno inquiry….

Source: http://www. globalsecurity. org/, 14August 2017.

North Korea Likely Can Make Missile Engineswithout Imports: US

North Korea likely has theability to produce its ownmissile engines andintelligence suggests itdoes not need to rely onimports, US intelligenceofficials said on 15 August2017. The assessmentdisputes a new study by the

London-based IISS that said that the engines fora nuclear missile North Korea is developing to hitthe US likely were made in factories in Ukraine orRussia and probably obtained via black marketnetworks.

The New York Times report said that classifiedassessments by US intelligence agencies mirrored

the IISS finding. “We haveintelligence to suggest thatNorth Korea is not reliant onimports of engines,” one USintelligence official toldReuters. “Instead, we judgethey have the ability toproduce the enginesthemselves.”

The US officials did notdisclose any details of whatunderpinned theassessment on the high-

performance liquid-fueled engines, called RD-250’s. Ukraine denied that it had ever supplieddefense technology to North Korea. The Ukrainianfactory cited in The New York Times, state-ownedYuzhmash, said it had not produced military-gradeballistic missiles since independence from theSoviet Union in 1991.

The Yuzhmash factory is located nearterritory controlled by Russia-backedseparatists in eastern Ukraine. It is alsonot far from the border with Russia,and amid the chaos of war, Ukraine’seast has become a haven for illicittrade.

North Korea likely has the ability toproduce its own missile engines andintelligence suggests it does not needto rely on imports. The assessmentdisputes a new study by the London-based IISS that said that the enginesfor a nuclear missile North Korea isdeveloping to hit the US likely weremade in factories in Ukraine or Russiaand probably obtained via blackmarket networks.



Another US intelligence official said that themodifications to the RD-250 that resulted inimproved reliability may have relied in part onforeign scientists recruited by North Korea or beendeveloped by North Koreans educated in Russiaor elsewhere. Ukraine is supported by the US inits fight against Russian-backed separatists ineastern Ukraine.

Asked about the reports that North Korea may haveobtained Ukrainian-produced engines, StateDepartment spokeswoman Heather Nauertpraised K iev’s efforts to halt weaponsproliferation. “Ukraine,though, we have to say hasa very strongnonproliferation record andthat includes specificallywith respect to the DPRK,”she said, using the acronymfor North Korea’s officialname, the DemocraticPeople’s Republic of Korea.

…By comparing the enginesin the photographs toothers, it found that they likely were modifiedversions of the RD-250 produced by Yuzhmash andaccounted for sudden successes in North Koreanmissile tests following a slew of failures. The IISSstudy is also being disputed by some leadingindependent nuclear weapons experts…. Lewissaid his research team performed measurementsindependent from each other on the samephotographs used in the IISS study and determinedthat they were of different sizes. They concludedthat the motors for the North Korean ICBM likelywere indigenously built. Lewis also pointed to a17 January 2017, US Treasury announcement ofUS financial sanctions on Iranian firms for helpingNorth Korea develop the engine that was testedin November and most closely resembles theUkrainian engine.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/, 16 August2017.

NUCLEAR SECURITY

CHINA

AEA Conducts First Nuclear Security Assessmentof China

The IAEA started its first nuclear security

assessment of China, at the request of ChinaAtomic Energy Authority (CAEA). During the 10-day assessment, the agency will review China’snuclear security system, laws and governmentsupervision, and visit nuclear plants in ZhejiangProvince, according to the CAEA. The IAEA willcarry out reviews of nuclear security systems andmake suggestions for improvement, said WangYiren, vice chairman of the CAEA.

China regards nuclear security as an importantpart of national security, state run Xinhua quotedthe CAEA as saying. The CAEA is responsible for

China’s internationalnuclear cooperation,emergency response andmanagement. As thecentral intergovernmentalforum for scientific andtechnical cooperation in thenuclear field, the IAEAworks to ensure safe,secure and peaceful use ofnuclear science andtechnology. China currently

has 23 nuclear power generating units inoperation and 27 under construction, about onethird of the world’s unfinished nuclear units.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com, 28August 2017.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

CHINA

China Says Nuclear Safety Law Ready to bePassed

A new nuclear safety law in China is ready to bepassed, state media said, adding that thelegislation will help prevent and deal withaccidents and promote development of theindustry. Safety in China’s nuclear industry hasbecome increasingly important as it seeks toincrease exports of its nuclear technologies. Chinahas already signed agreements to build reactorsin Argentina, Romania, Egypt and Kenya.

It plans to build more than 60 nuclear plants athome in the coming decade and will see totaldomestic capacity rise to 58 gigawatts by the endof 2020. The new law is needed to better ensurenuclear safety, prevent and deal with nuclear

It plans to build more than 60 nuclearplants at home in the coming decadeand will see total domestic capacity riseto 58 gigawatts by the end of 2020. Thenew law is needed to better ensurenuclear safety, prevent and deal withnuclear accidents, protect people’shealth and the environment andpromote the industry’s development.



accidents, protect people’s health and theenvironment and promote the industry ’sdevelopment, the official Xinhua news agencysaid, citing parliament’s standing committee.

The law is designed to oversee and manage risksassociated with building nuclear facilities, takingthem out of commission and how to deal withnuclear waste, the news agency added, withoutgiving details. Lawmakers have suggested thetime is right to approve the law, Xinhua said,meaning it is likely to pass when parliament endsits latest legislative session.

The IAEA released a report on China’s nuclearsafety last year sayingChina’s nuclear safetyrecord had been strong butneeded “further work” inareas such as wastemanagement and handlingageing plants. China’senvironment ministry saidin February it had fined amanufacturer ofcomponents used in nuclearpower plants for safetybreaches at two facilities.

Source: The Indian Express, 28 August 2017.

IRAN–SWITZERLAND

Iran, Switzerland Discuss Nuclear Safety

Head of Iranian Center for Nuclear Safety SystemHojjatollah Salehi and Director General of theSwiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate HansWanner followed up on the implementation of amemorandum of understanding signed lastSeptember 2016, IRNA reported. The agreementfollowed discussions between Iranian nuclearofficials and Wanner during his visit to Tehran inMarch 2016, when he was accompanying thenSwiss president, Johann Schneider-Ammann.

The two officials agreed that a team of Swissnuclear safety experts visit Iran this fall to startcollaborating with their Iranian counterparts. Theagreement came in the wake of the landmark2015 nuclear deal involving Iran and P5+1(the US,Britain, France, China and Russia, plus Germany).

The deal, which came into force in January 2016,envisaged Tehran scaling back its nuclear programin return for the lifting of all nuclear-relatedsanctions. The deal urges cooperation on civilapplications of nuclear energy between Iran andthe international community.

Source: https://financialtribune.com/, 21 August2017.

USA

Senator Seeks Answers on LANL’s Nuclear Safety

A US senator has asked the National NuclearSecurity Administration to report to Congress on

the costs and safety of LosAlamos NationalLaboratory’s weaponsproduction program and, inparticular, the potential forcritical accidents.

In early August 2017, USSen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a ranking member ofthe Senate’s HomelandSecurity and GovernmentalAffairs Committee, sent aletter to Frank Klotz,

administrator of the NNSA, saying she had seriousconcerns about poor federal oversight andmanagement of the laboratory and requesting areport.

The inquiry was triggered by a series ofinvestigative reports by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity, which werepublished in The New Mexican and othernewspapers earlier this summer. The serieshighlighted a number of serious incidents at LosAlamos’ plutonium facility, events that could haveled to significant radiological releases and workerdeaths. Poor management has resulted in unsafeworking conditions, injured workers and federalviolations at the plutonium facility and other sites,and senior officials rarely were penalized for theproblems, the stories said.

The investigative series is among a number ofcritical looks at the lab’s safety record in recentmonths. The Defense Nuclear Facilities SafetyBoard, an independent adviser to the US

The series highlighted a number ofserious incidents at Los Alamos’plutonium facility, events that couldhave led to significant radiologicalreleases and worker deaths. Poormanagement has resulted in unsafeworking conditions, injured workersand federal violations at theplutonium facility and other sites, andsenior officials rarely were penalizedfor the problems.



Department of Energy, raised questions at ahearing in Santa Fe in June 2017 about the lab’sability to handle increasing quantities ofplutonium. The Energy Department also launchedan investigation after plutonium from the lab wasshipped out of state by air rather than cargo truck,violating federal regulations.

Los Alamos was the only nuclear site that failedits annual review for nuclear criticality safety infiscal year 2016, a program designed to preventsevere nuclear accidents. The lab was graded as“adequate but needs improvement” the previousyear, according to a federal report. In her 03 August2017 letter to Klotz,McCaskill said, “Privatefirms contracted to operateand maintain thesefacilities have not beenheld accountable in ameaningful way for thesafety lapses that occurredunder their watch.”

The lab is currentlyoperated by Los Alamos National Security LLC, aconsortium that includes the University ofCalifornia, Bechtel, BWXT Technical ServicesGroup Inc. and AECOM, but new management willtake over in 2018. LANS lost a chance to renew itslucrative contract after a serious of safety issuesin 2014, including the improper packaging of awaste drum at Los Alamos that ultimately burstand released radiation at the Waste Isolation PilotPlant in Carlsbad, one of the most costly nuclearaccidents on record. …

She asked the National Nuclear SecurityAdministration to report on the current state ofoperations and safety testing at Los Alamos’plutonium facility, known as PF-4, and whethersafety standards have been met. She also askedthe agency to provide costs associated withclosing the facility, how much of the agency’sbudget for fiscal year 2018 will go to improvingsafety standards, and if any penalties will beimposed on the lab or its managementcontractors.

… In an email to The New Mexican, aspokeswoman for the agency’s Los Alamos FieldOffice said the NNSA has received McCaskill’s

letter and is working with Congress to answerquestions. “Safety is paramount at the NationalNuclear Security Administration,” Toni Chiri said,“and we have uncompromising standards for ourlabs, plants and sites to perform work in a safeand secure manner.”

Soon after the Center for Public Integrity publishedits series, Klotz released a statement saying theagency had been holding the lab accountable. Itwithheld $82 million in award fees for Los Alamosoperators between 2013 and 2016 as a result ofsafety incidents at the plutonium facility, he said.

…He also said the lab was on track to create newplutonium pits — thesoftball-size plutoniumtriggers within nuclearweapons. The lab isexpected to create as manyas 80 pits by 2040. Labspokesman Kevin Roarksaid in email…. “PF-4 isoperational. It is operatingconsistent with its

established safety requirements includingrequired testing. Testing is conducted daily at PF-4 to establish the functional aspects of the facilityto ensure the safety of the workers and the public.”

Source: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/, 23August 2017.

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

AUSTRALIA

Leonora Lobbies for Nuclear Waste Dump in itsBackyard

Leonora in WA’s northern Goldfields is puttingtogether a bid for an outback repository to storeradioactive waste. The Federal Government’sdecade-long search for a national radioactivewaste management facility appears far from over.This has provided a window of opportunity for theShire of Leonora to press its case again to host anational repository for waste arising from medical,industrial and scientific use.

Leonora looked to have missed its chance inNovember 2015 when it was left off a short-listof six sites, five of which have since been ruled

Los Alamos was the only nuclear sitethat failed its annual review for nuclearcriticality safety in fiscal year 2016, aprogram designed to prevent severenuclear accidents. The lab was gradedas “adequate but needs improvement”the previous year, according to afederal report.



out by the government. On that occasion, the Shireput together a last-minute bid, nominating about81 hectares of freehold land owned by CouncillorGlenn Baker.

An application for an exploration license for a newsite, north-west of Leonora, is currently beingassessed by multiple State Governmentdepartments. Shire of Leonora president PeterCraig conceded there were no guarantees the newsite would receive state approval. But he said theCouncil believed the waste dump was anopportunity worth pursuing.

Solving the problem of whatto do with Australia’sradioactive waste has beena growing headache sincethe 1950s. Thegovernment’s search for anew site — likely to costmore than $100 million —has intensified in recentyears, with ANSTO’s facilityat Lucas Heights near Sydney running out of space.

…A spokeswoman for acting Resources MinisterBarnaby Joyce said the government could continueto accept and assess any new nominations forsites until a final decision is made on the locationof the facility…. It saidAustralia had 4,250 cubicmetres of low-level wastestored at Lucas Heightsand Woomera in outbackSouth Australia. Low-levelwaste largely comprisedpaper, rags, tools, clothingand filters, which is oftencompacted or incineratedin a closed container before disposal.

There was also 656 cubic metres of much morehazardous, intermediate-level material, includingspent nuclear fuel rods, luminous paints andindustrial waste. The Department claims theamount of low and intermediate waste stored inAustralia takes up the equivalent of two Olympic-sized swimming pools. It said the amount of low-level waste generated in Australia every year wasless than 40 cubic metres, or smaller than oneshipping container. By comparison, Britain andFrance each produced around 25,000 cubic metres

of low-level waste annually — about 600 timesmore than Australia.

Source: Jarrod Lucas, http://www.abc.net.au/, 18August 2017.

JAPAN

METI Seeks to Pass Nuclear Buck with Releaseof Waste Disposal Map

Taro Kono’s appointment as the new foreignminister is raising eyebrows. Though he hasn’tshown any indication that he will buck Prime

Minister Shinzo Abe’sagenda, Kono isconsidered a leftishmaverick within the LiberalDemocratic Party,especially with regard to itsnuclear energy policy,which he has opposed. Inan editorial, theconservative SankeiShimbun insisted he

maintain the LDP line when the 30-year US-Japannuclear energy pact expires next year.

The pact’s ostensible purpose is to authorize thereprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for energypurposes so as to limit the amount of weapons-

grade plutonium Japan canstockpile. This system hasbeen stymied, however, bythe decommissioning of theexperimental Monju fast-breeder reactor and theshutdown of most of thenation’s nuclear plantsfollowing the Fukushima No.1 meltdowns in 2011.

Whatever reprocessing of spent fuel that has beendone has been carried out in the UK and Franceand, of the 47 tons of extracted plutoniumpossessed by Japan, 36 tons are still overseas.

So the US has no reason to worry about theprospect of Japan suddenly turning plutonium intobombs. Japan’s “peaceful” use of atomic energy,after all, was encouraged by America in the 1950s,when the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki werestill fresh in people’s minds.

But Japan’s long-term plan of recycling spent fuel

Solving the problem of what to do withAustralia’s radioactive waste has beena growing headache since the 1950s.The government’s search for a new site— likely to cost more than $100 million— has intensified in recent years, withANSTO’s facility at Lucas Heights nearSydney running out of space.

But Japan’s long-term plan of recyclingspent fuel into plutonium fuel has hita wall, not only because of Monju’sfailure, but also because of thecontinued postponement of theopening of the reprocessing plant inRokkasho, Aomori Prefecture.



into plutonium fuel has hit a wall, not only becauseof Monju’s failure, but also because of thecontinued postponement of the opening of thereprocessing plant in Rokkasho, AomoriPrefecture.

Nevertheless, two weeks ago, the Ministry ofEconomy, Trade and Industry (METI) published amap showing plans for disposing of the high-levelwaste that’s a byproduct of processing. The mapillustrates possiblecandidate areas for wastedisposal. “Suitability” isindicated by color, withgreen being the mostsuitable and orangeunsuitable due togeological phenomenasuch as earthquake faults,volcanoes and groundwater movement. Thegreen areas are mainly onthe coastline because shipswill likely be used totransport the waste. Silveris used for areas not being considered becausethey may contain deposits of minerals that canstill be exploited.

The map was drawn up so that the public wouldknow the government still takes its nuclear energyprogram, as well as the stalled recycling plan,seriously, and most media outlets have conveyedthose points. However, NHK has looked at the mapand wondered if it has any real meaning. As thepublic broadcaster pointed out on its “Jiron Koron”explanation series, the waste will be keptunderground for up to 100,000 years, buried 300meters deep at the bottom of a series of deeptunnels.

Consequently, getting local governments to offerland for disposal sites is going to be very difficult.METI insists that participation is voluntary andhas sent requests to 1,750 municipalities, butgiven the public’s allergy to nuclear power in thewake of Fukushima, NHK doesn’t seem to thinkanyone is going to raise their hand, even thoughacceptance comes with rewards: ¥2 billion for the

initial two-year data study and ¥7 billion for thefollowup on-site study. After accepting those twodeliveries of cash, a local government could stillreject METI’s request. And even if it grants METI’srequest, landowners will later have to be consultedand paid. At present the cost of disposal isestimated at ¥3.7 trillion, but it is sure to go up.

The plan is actually an old one, developed as partof the scheme to recycle spent fuel, a process

that produces its ownparticular waste that ismuch more radioactive thanthe spent fuel itself. Thiswaste is combined withmolten glass and pouredinto steel canisters, whichare eventually buriedunderground. According tointernational law, suchwaste is the responsibilityof the country that owns theoriginal fuel and cannot beexported for disposal.Because of the delay with

Rokkasho, Japan has had the UK and France dotheir recycling, and the waste has been shippedback to Japan along with the recycled fuel. It’snow sitting at the Rokkasho plant in refrigeratedcontainers.

There is also a lot of spent fuel at Rokkasho waitingto be reprocessed, and the governor of Aomori,frustrated by the government’s equivocation, hasbeen threatening to send it back to the reactorsfrom whence it came if the plant isn’t opened forbusiness. There are presently 18,000 tons of spentfuel in storage at the plants that produced it andthere is no room left for any more.

The disposal plan is only theoretical as long asRokkasho remains inoperable and fuelreprocessing delayed. Moreover, there has beenno public discussion about what happens to allthe spent fuel if reprocessing is abandoned,though there are media reports of a “feasibilitystudy.” …

Source: The Japan Times, 21 August 2017.

Getting local governments to offer landfor disposal sites is going to be verydifficult. METI insists that participationis voluntary and has sent requests to1,750 municipalities, but given thepublic’s allergy to nuclear power in thewake of Fukushima, NHK doesn’t seemto think anyone is going to raise theirhand, even though acceptance comeswith rewards: ¥2 billion for the initialtwo-year data study and ¥7 billion forthe followup on-site study.



UK

Low Level Radioactive Waste Deal for AmecFoster Wheeler

Amec Foster Wheeler has secured two frameworkcontracts from the company that manages the UK’slower level radioactive waste. As part of the ESCframework, Amec Foster Wheeler explained thatit has been appointed as the single supplier forhydrogeological and geological support, and asone of four suppliers for general technical support.It is estimated that the contract will generateapproximately £2 million in revenue over the nextfour years.

The WCASS framework, which is expected to beworth about £2 million over four years, will seeAmec Foster Wheeler providing analytical supportservices and environmental monitoring supportfrom its full-service analytical laboratories. “Thesewins advance Amec Foster Wheeler’s strategy toexpand our share of work on radiological andwaste management programmes in Europe,” saidAndy White, Vice President for Decommissioningat Amec Foster Wheeler’s Clean Energy business.

Source: https://waste-management-world.com/,27 August 2017.

Centre for Air Power Studies

The Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS) is an independent, non-profit think tank that undertakesand promotes policy-related research, study and discussion on defence and military issues,trends and developments in air power and space for civil and military purposes, as alsorelated issues of national security. The Centre is headed by Air Marshal V inod Patney, SYSMPVSM AVSM VrC (Retd).

Centre for Air Power Studies

P-284Arjan Path, Subroto Park,New Delhi - 110010Tel.: +91 - 11 - 25699131/32Fax: +91 - 11 - 25682533Email: [email protected]: www.capsindia.orgEdited by: Director General, CAPS

Editorial Team: Dr. Sitakanta Mishra, Hina Pandey, Arjun Subramanian P, Chandra Rekha, Dr. Poonam Mann, Wg Cmdr Kaura

Composed by: CAPSDisclaimer: Information and data included in this newsletter is for educational non-commercial purpo ses onlyand has been carefully adapted, excerpted or edited from sources deemed reliable and accurate at t he time ofpreparation. The Centre does not accept any liability for error therein. All copyrighted material belongs to respectiveowners and is provided only for purposes of wider dissemination.

nuclear security: a fortnightly newsletter from...

Documents