Nuclear Security - Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS)

Vol 08, No. 06, 15 January 2014 PAGE - 1

NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS

Vol 08, No. 06, 15 January 2014


OPINION - Sanjaya Baru

A Flashback to Victory

Addressing the nation for the first time from theramparts of Delhi’s Red Fort, on 15 August 2004, PMSingh declared, playing on Robert Frost’s lines,“Today, I have no promises to make, but I havepromises to keep.” The reference being to the factthat his agenda in office would be defined by theNational Common Minimum Programme (NCMP)arrived at between the constituents of the coalitionhe headed. It is not a secret that almost everyimportant policy initiative taken by the first UPA 1,save the nuclear deal, was embedded in the NCMP.The historic India-US agreement for cooperation inthe development of civil nuclear energy, and thesubsequent end to what Singh has called “thenuclear apartheid” against India by the NSG, thatnormalised and “legitimised” India’s status as anuclear weapons power, was Singh’s own promiseto the country that he finally kept.The nuclear deal was not an NCMP commitmentbecause it was only after Singhtook charge as PM that hediscovered that his predecessor,Atal Bihari Vajpayee, hadinitiated an important dialoguewith President George W. Bush ofthe US towards this end. Whenthe deed was finally done, Singhtold Vajpayee, as the two stoodalone at Singh’s officialresidence, “I have completedwhat you began.”

It is not, therefore, surprising thatwhen PM Singh was asked, at lastweek’s press conference in New Delhi, what hethought was the “high point” of his decade in office,he promptly said, “the best moment for me waswhen we were able to strike a nuclear deal withthe US to end the nuclear apartheid, which hadsought to stifle the processes of social and economic

change and technical progress of our country inmany ways.”

That was indeed his personal achievement inoffice. The rest being the product of the UPA’sjointly adopted NCMP. Two criticisms have beenlevelled against Singh for claiming that getting the

nuclear deal through was his“best moment”. The firstcriticism has come from thesupporters of the UPAgovernment who wonder whythe PM mentioned the nucleardeal rather than any of theimportant “rights” legislated bythe government. The right toemployment, information,education and food, claim thesecritics, ought to have figuredhigher on the PM’s list. Thesecond criticism has come fromthe UPA’s opponents who claim

the nuclear deal was just a “dud” and has not addeda single megawatt of nuclear power to the country’spower generation capacity.

The second criticism is easily answered with facts.India’s nuclear power generation was going down

India’s nuclear power generationwas going down month after

month in the early 2000s with adecline in the availability of therequired fuel. India’s domesticproduction of uranium was not

meeting the requirements of thenuclear power sector and importswere constrained by internationalrestrictions. What the nuclear deal

did was to remove the externalconstraint.

CONTENTS OPINION

NUCLEAR STRATEGY

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE

NUCLEAR ENERGY

NUCLEAR COOPERATION

NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION NUCLEAR SAFETY NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

CONTENTS


NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETER FROM CAPS

month after month in the early 2000s with a declinein the avai labi lity of the required fuel. India’sdomestic production of uranium was not meeting therequirements of the nuclear power sector and importswere constrained by international restrictions. Whatthe nuclear deal did was to remove the externalconstraint. Having entered into the 123 agreementwith India, the Bush administration lobbied withmember countries of the NSG, including a recalcitrantChina, to lift the restrictions on the supply of nuclearfuel to India. The capacity utilisation at India’s existingnuclear power plants has gone up from as low as 30per cent in the months preceding the deal to over 80per cent. India’s access to global supply of nuclearfuel is a concrete benefit of the nuclear deal. So, thedeal was no “dud”.

It is true that plans for new nuclear power plants havenot come to fruition, but that has to do both with theincreased global risk aversion to nuclear energy afterthe Fukushima tragedy and to international concernsabout India’s nuclear liability law. The second UPAgovernment (UPA 2) was unable to get throughParliament the original draft of the liability law itwanted, which would have met internationalstandards and expectations and kept costs lower.Instead, it succumbed to opposition pressure andbrought forward an amended law that has beencriticised by all nuclear power plant suppliers,including the Russians, French and Japanese, not tomention the Americans, and has raised the cost ofnuclear power.

For India’s civil nuclear power programme to moveforward, the government has to rework or reinterpretits liability law. UPA 2 has been incapable of this. Onlya future government can addressthe problem. The response to thefirst criticism would be that, at thepress conference, the PM wasasked what was the “bestmoment for him” (emphasisadded) in his decade in office.Implementing the variouspromises of the NCMP wouldhave given satisfaction to all theconstituents of the UPA. But thenuclear deal was “his” personalinitiative, for which he risked thesurvival of his government. To have been able todeliver on that promise would naturally constitute amoment of personal triumph.

Here again, the opposition has claimed that the dealwas finally done after Singh secured a “tainted”victory in the July 2008 vote of confidence. The factsabout that victory, when revealed, will absolve Singhof that charge. Aware that he would in fact secure amajority, various political actors may have decided

to “taint” it by staging the “votes-for-cash” scam. Butthat is a different story.

The fact is that a significant majority of public opinionbacked Singh’s tough stance against the CPMhardliners, they saw his resolve as being in thenational interest, they liked the fact that the primeminister of the country was standing up forsomething and was willing to go down fighting, andthey rewarded him a year later with a handsomevictory in the general elections. Singh, the mediadeclared in one voice, “is king”! If Singh did not viewthe nuclear deal as the high point of his decade inoffice, what else could he?

Source: http://indianexpress.com/, 06 January 2014.

OPINION-Sitakant Mishra

Crisis Perception and Diplomacy Mismatch in SouthAsia

Taking inkling from Michael Krepon’s views in ArmsControl Wonk, I wish to add the missile aspect to hisassertion: “The dynamism of nuclear weapon [andmissile]-related developments on the subcontinentcontrasts markedly with somnambulant diplomacyto reduce nuclear [and missile] dangers”. While thereis absence of any substantive talks to reduce thedangers emanating from new developments in thearena of nuclear weapons, there seems norealization also of the fact that nuclear capable cruiseand short-range missiles in South Asia haveexacerbated the challenges of deterrence stability.A Track-2 initiative the Colombo Group led by two

scholars, Gurmeet Kanwal fromIndia and Feroz Hassan Khanfrom US prescribes for a CBM onthe basis of the idea that the firstgeneration SRBMs like Prithvi-Iand Hatf-I of India and Pakistanrespectively, are obsolete and averified phased approach to theirretirement can be attempted.

Undoubtedly, any CBM proposalbased on solid foundation and

realistic assessment is worth attempting by Indiaand Pakistan. However, the two candidatesidentified by the Colombo Group – Prithvi-I and Hatf-I – are not of the same taxonomy today. As pergeneral understanding, while Prithvi-I is still inservice, (most probably) Hatf-I is already withdrawn;a new version, Hatf-IA, has been inducted in the year2000.

The two candidates identified bythe Colombo Group – Prithvi-I and

Hatf-I – are not of the sametaxonomy today. As per generalunderstanding, while Prithvi-I isstill in service, (most probably)

Hatf-I is already withdrawn; a newversion, Hatf-IA, has beeninducted in the year 2000.



From the operational point of view, since Prithvimissiles are inducted in large numbers during thelast few decades, they would remain the mainstayin India’s 150-km range category missiles till Brahmosand Prahar are inducted in large numbers. Of course,DRDO Chief Avinash Chander has reportedly said that“we are withdrawing the tactical 150 km-rangePrithvi missiles and will replace them with thePrahar missiles, which are more capable and havemore accuracy”. However, tested for the first time in2011, Prahar will have to undergo a few moretechnology demonstration tests followed by usertrials in the coming years; therefore, it will take somemore time to really replace Prithvi, if at all it isobsolete.

Therefore, the merit of the proposal by the ColomboGroup needs serious scrutiny. At the outset, onewould wonder if the proposition is doable orrealizable. Given the level of distrust and suspicionbetween India and Pakistan, an outright proposal toverify and withdraw inductedarmaments from service is easiersaid than done. Also, there havebeen occasions when theexchanged list of nuclearfacilities (as a provision of thenon-attack of each other’snuclear facilities agreement) hasnot been wholly accepted by thetwo sides – one side doubtingthe authenticity of the list of theother. Secondly, unlike Pakistan,whose security concerns areIndia-centric, India’s potentialchallenge also emanates in a bigway from China. Therefore, anydisarmament/arms controlmeasure between India and Pakistan goes beyondbilateral terms. Thirdly, if the role of the so-calledobsolete missiles is to be replaced by some othersystems in both countries – as they have alreadyembarked on this process – what purpose theproposed CBM is going to achieve?

Instead, two pressing issues that South Asia willgrapple with in the foreseeable future – the spreadof nuclear weapon capable cruise missiles; andmanagement of a nuclear weapons related accident,if arises – need urgent attention. The expandingcruise missile inventory in South Asia necessitatesrevisiting the contours of deterrence stability, andmilitary-CBMs in vogue in South Asia. The threat ofballistic missiles and nuclear weapons does indeedremain a great concern, but are not the only form of

contingency that this region is currentlyexperiencing. One perceived strategic implicationof the (nuclear) cruise missiles, especially withPakistan, is that it has “lowered the index of stabilityin the region”. Moreover, the changing calculus ofnuclear deterrence caused by the improving accuracyand diversification of missile delivery systems inSouth Asia, and the increasingly blurred linebetween nuclear and conventional forces has madethe regional security situation precarious. Whilethere exists a CBM on reducing ballistic missilesthreat, no substantive perception has evolved yeton the crisis escalation potential of the nuclear cruisemissile in South Asia.

On the other hand, nuclear weapons inventories ofboth India and Pakistan are in an expansion mode.While India is in the process of establishing the thirdleg of its nuclear triad, Pakistan, in addition toacquiring TNWs, has constituted its Naval StrategicForce Command in 2012. A diversified nuclear and

missile force is prone toaccidents or inadvertent use.Though there is no precedent ofa nuclear weapons relatedaccident yet in either country,the chances of occurring of suchan incident cannot be ruled outcompletely. Cognizant of theconsequences of the risksinvolved, in 2007 India andPakistan have signed theAgreement on Reducing Riskfrom Accidents Relating toNuclear Weapons. However,except reaffirming theagreement for another fiveyears in 2012, no initiative is

undertaken yet to implement or put in placeinstitutional arrangements for dealing with such asituation, if ever arises.

To that extent, for the last five years (after theMumbai terror attack in 2008), New Delhi andIslamabad have not conducted any substantive, high-level, purpose-driven talks on these serious issues.Meanwhile, both countries have focused on militarymodernization and diversification of their respectiveforce structure. This signifies the existence of amismatch of crisis perception and setting thediplomatic agenda in South Asia; consequently, theTrack-2 level initiatives have remained nonstarters.

Source: http://southasianvoices.org/, 09 January2014.

One perceived strategicimplication of the (nuclear) cruisemissiles, especially with Pakistan,is that it has “lowered the index ofstability in the region”. Moreover,

the changing calculus of nucleardeterrence caused by theimproving accuracy and

diversification of missile deliverysystems in South Asia, and the

increasingly blurred line betweennuclear and conventional forceshas made the regional security

situation precarious.



OPINION - Milad Jokar

Why Does Netanyahu Want To Sabotage the IranNuclear Deal?

A rapprochement with Iran will weaken Israel’sstanding in the region and the Israeli PM’s governingcoalition. After a decade of deadlock, the historicinterim deal signed in Geneva represents the firstsignificant victory for Iran and the six world powers.Reaching a final deal would also be a victory for theIsrael because it will guarantee that Iran would neverhave the means to develop nuclear weapons. So,why does Israeli PM vehemently oppose this win-win agreement and call it “a historic mistake”?

Creating a Palestinian state living side-by-side withIsrael in “peace and security” has always been USPresident Obama’s priority along with the Iraniancrisis. If world powers find a way out of the Iraniannuclear crisis, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will beback at the top of theinternational community’sagenda.

Israeli settlement expansionrepresents a violation ofinternational law and thedeadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process givesNetanyahu’s coalitiongovernment space to keep“authorising” more constructionin the Occupied Territories. As areminder, Netanyahu’s Likud (centre-right) partyformed a pro-settlement coalition - from centrist tofar-right political parties - to win the election. TheMinister of Housing and Construction, Uri Ariel,stated that “there can only be one state betweenthe Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea - Israel”.

Netanyahu’s coalition government logically finds aninterest in maintaining the status quo with thePalestinians. Moreover, the failure of the Genevaagreement would keep the internationalcommunity’s focus on Iran rather than the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Additionally, ending the Iranian nuclear crisis willput the UN conference on a Middle East zone freeof nuclear weapons back on the world powersagenda with greater credibility. The issue of Israel’snuclear arsenal will then become almost impossibleto dodge, which could eventually jeopardise Israel’sregional arms hegemony.

The status quo that preceded the Geneva agreement- increased crippling sanctions against Iran combinedwith the constant threat of military strikes - isolatedIran significantly and increased Israeli and Saudigeopolitical influence as well as their economic andmilitary advances. Ahmadinejad’s incendiarydiatribes and approach regarding negotiations madeit much easier to isolate Iran through sanctions. Ithas also, somewhat, justified the US Congress’approval for nearly $3bn to Israel in military aidannually. As a matter of fact, the former director ofMossad, Ephraim Halevy, stated in 2008:“Ahmadinejad is our greatest gift.” According to him,“We couldn’t carry out a better operation at theMossad than to put a guy like Ahmadinejad in powerin Iran.”

Iran’s foreign minister talks to Al Jazeera

As a consequence, hardliners in Israel andWashington consider the victory of the moderate

Hassan Rouhani and the space hegave to diplomacy, as a threat tothe status quo because Rouhani’shandling of the nuclear crisiscould lead to a potential finalagreement.

The US-Iran rapprochement thatwould result of such a deal wouldshift the balance of power in theMiddle East. Indeed, solving thecrisis would mean - eventually -the lifting of sanctions and,

ultimately, the end of Iran’s isolation. Iran wouldthen get back to its natural position in the regionand, geopolitically, it is a heavyweight in the MiddleEast.

Netanyahu’sideological discourse is not irrational,and aims at maintaining its anti-Iran coalition in bothIsrael and Washington. His coalition government wasfuelled by an aggressive and confrontational anti-Iran rhetoric. The huge political capital invested inthis discourse matched former conservativepresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s investment inhis anti-Israel rhetoric.

With Ahmadinejad gone, Netanyahu is now tryingto overshadow Rouhani’s discourse of moderationand engagement by constantly rehashing thefamous “wipe off the map” quote attributed toAhmadinejad. Even though Netanyahu’s formerMinister of Intelligence Dan Meridor, confirmed last

Ending the Iranian nuclear crisiswill put the UN conference on aMiddle East zone free of nuclear

weapons back on the worldpowers agenda with greater

credibility. The issue of Israel’snuclear arsenal will then become

almost impossible to dodge, whichcould eventually jeopardise

Israel’s regional arms hegemony.



year in an interview with Al Jazeera thatAhmadinejad was misquoted, Netanyahu stil lpolitically utilises the former Iranian president’sprovocative speeches to foster Iran’s negative imagein the West.

It is in this same effort that Netanyahu explainedthat Rouhani “revealed his true face sooner thanexpected” when his statements on the occupationof Palestinian lands were distorted to become athreat on the existence of Israel itself. To this day,Netanyahu presents Rouhani -who was elected by 51.7 percentof the Iranian population for hismoderation and willingness toengage with the West - as “a wolfin sheep’s clothing”.

While some pro-Israeli lobbies,such as J Street, opposeNetanyahu’s vision and support the Genevaagreement, numerous hard-line pro-Israeli lobbies,such as AIPAC, and numerous Congressmen such asRobert Menendez, Lindsey Graham and Mark Kirkliterally repeat Netanyahu’s characterisation of Iranas “an existential threat” in order to prevent a thawbetween Iran and the West.

The Geneva agreement and the de-escalation oftensions with Iran mark a logicalnew chill between Obama andNetanyahu. Obama has rightfullyguaranteed that the success ofthe Geneva agreement willsecure the Israel. However, thesuccess of diplomacy makes itpolitically difficult forNetanyahu to maintain his anti-Iran coalition. Netanyahu,recently slammed by formerIsraeli Prime Minister EhudOlmert for his publicprovocations, is now inconfrontation with the USgovernment and his last hope isthat the US Congress - which is about to enter the2014 election campaign - will vote in favour of newsanctions and scuttle the Geneva agreement.

Source: Author is a political analyst specialising inthe Middle East and Iran, http://www.aljazeera.com/, 11 January 2014.

OPINION-Zahir Kazmi

Pakistan’s Energy Security

Energy shortages are driving Pakistanis to an edgeand are exacerbating their economic insecurities aswell. At places, people have taken to the streets forwant of gas. Can these concerns be alleviated by anuninterrupted availability of inexpensive energysources? Nuclear energy is affordable, whereasother sources are swiftly becoming either financially

or politically unfeasible. A goodrecipe that comprises a mix ofresources can enhancePakistan’s energy security. Thereis lots of criticism about thedecision to construct two2,200MW nuclear power plants(NPP) on Karachi’s coastline by2019. Interestingly, these

anxieties have been offered sans solutions. InNovember 2013, Nawaz Sharif had announced thathis administration has envisioned that nuclearenergy will add 40,000MW to the national grid bythe year 2050 at an affordable cost. What role willnuclear power generation play in Pakistan’s energymix?

Pakistan has an installed electricity generationcapacity of 22,797MW. Theaverage demand is 17,000MWand the shortfall is between4,000 and 5,000MW. Oil (35.2 percent), hydel (29.9 per cent), gas(29 per cent), and nuclear andimported (5.8 per cent) are theprincipal sources. In the next 10years, peak electricity demand isexpected to rise by four to fiveper cent, which is roughly1,500MW. This dismal forecast isdue to a lopsided energy mix,diminishing indigenous fuelreserves, increasing circulardebt and transmission hold-ups.

Pakistan has almost exhausted its gas reserves.Imported oil’s price hikes affect the budget and itsconstant supply cannot be guaranteed. Pakistan hasthe potential to meet these energy challengesthrough hydel power but there are political andenvironmental issues in building dams. Rationalitydemands reducing reliance on oil and going for

The Geneva agreement and the de-escalation of tensions with Iran

mark a logical new chill betweenObama and Netanyahu. Obama has

rightfully guaranteed that thesuccess of the Geneva agreement

will secure the Israel.

Pakistan has almost exhausted itsgas reserves. Imported oil’s price

hikes affect the budget and itsconstant supply cannot be

guaranteed. Pakistan has thepotential to meet these energychallenges through hydel power

but there are political andenvironmental issues in building

dams. Rationality demandsreducing reliance on oil and goingfor alternatives. The development

of alternatives does not happenovernight.



alternatives. The development of alternatives doesnot happen overnight.

Pakistan will have to rely on imported fuels for theinterim period at a huge cost. LNG is difficult toimport, using coal has environmental issues, usingshale gas also has environmental issues attachedwith it, and wind power has transmission networkchallenges.

Nuclear energy seems the best option for Pakistanbecause the cost of oil-based generation, otheralternatives and their indigenisation is pretty high.The nuclear reactors that are being constructed inKarachi are called Advance China Pressurised–1000reactors and are the latest technology over whichChina has complete intellectual property rights.These reactors are often confused with Chinese CPR-1000 design that is an advancedversion of French M-310technology. China also hascomplete intellectual propertyrights for that technology. It’s aglobal norm that nuclearreactors are released for saleonly after passing throughseveral developmental stages.Like any other industry, there isalways a first buyer and herePakistan is no exception.Besides this, the IAEA’s watchfuleyes do not compromise ondesign and safeguardsstandards. Internationalpractices show that the closeproximity of reactors to Karachi should not be ofgreat concern. Sixty-five out of 104 reactors in theUS are within a 10-50 miles vicinity of denselypopulated states like New York. Despite the ThreeMile Island nuclear disaster of 1979, those ageingAmerican reactors pose no safety concerns. It hasbeen internationally accepted that NPPs are moreenvironment-friendly compared with fossil fuel-based plants. Industrialisation has its hazards evendams have environmental issues but the factremains that NPPs provide clean and uninterruptedpower supply at a competitive cost.

The two reactors have a reported US$9.1 billioncapital cost, which is expensive indeed. However,these will be cheaper in the long-term due toaffordable power generation cost. China is not onlyproviding the NPP technology; unlike other

suppliers, it is reportedly offering 82 per cent of thefinancing as well. The current energy basket ratefor electricity generation in Pakistan is aroundRs12.3/KWHr, which is calculated by taking a meanof the cost of electricity from all sources. In thatsense, NPPs with a levelised cost of electricity inthe range of Rs5-8/KWHr is worthwhile.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 cast a darkspell on the use of nuclear energy but for a shortwhile. Japan had abandoned its reliance on nuclearenergy but has recently reverted its stance. TheFukushima disaster was not due to technical failuresor inadequate safety features. An unparalleledtsunami completely swamped the back-up powerfor cooling the plants. China has offered cuttingedge technology with the latest safety and designfeatures. The Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority

and the IAEA remain activelyinvolved in selecting the sites forthe new reactors and a thoroughsurvey has been done in thisregard.

There is a misperception thatChina has violated its obligationsof the NSG in offering thesereactors to Pakistan. It is worthnoting that China is, in fact,meeting international legalobligations of a nuclearagreement that it made withPakistan in 1986, which wasbefore it joined the NSG in 2004.This, notwithstanding, these

reactors, will be under IAEA safeguards and willproduce electricity, not bombs. The criticism aboutthese reactors is political in context. This peacefulnuclear cooperation can be considered to be aneffort on Pakistan’s part to counterbalance the Indo-US nuclear deal and New Delhi’s efforts to join theNSG, which is a nuclear export control cartel. The USoffered the nuclear deal to India for economicreturns and also because of New Delhi’s so-calledpotential as a counterweight to Beijing. Pakistan’sagreement with China predates the Indo-US nucleardeal and Islamabad has no extra-regional ambitions.The Pakistan-China deal does not violateinternational norms but the Indo-US nuclear dealdoes. The US bent its domestic laws and pressurisedNSG members to bend theirs for potential trade withIndia.

There is a misperception thatChina has violated its obligations

of the NSG in offering thesereactors to Pakistan. It is worth

noting that China is, in fact,meeting international legal

obligations of a nuclear agreementthat it made with Pakistan in 1986,

which was before it joined theNSG in 2004. This,

notwithstanding, these reactors,will be under IAEA safeguards and

will produce electricity, notbombs. The criticism about these

reactors is political in context.



Nuclear energy is a quintessential part of Pakistan’senergy mix. Scarce hydrocarbon sources posepolitical, economic and environmental issues.Nuclear energy is a safe and viable alternative.Pakistan spends $1 billion in oil imports per 1,000MW, which is not cost-effective. Nuclear energy canreduce that burden. China has shared the safest andthe most cutting edge technology that will alleviatethe burden on the Pakistani economy and enhanceenergy security no one else has made us such anoffer. Nuclear energy is an effective solution thatwill produce uninterrupted electricity at anaffordable price. Let’s hope we overcome the simplechallenge of switching on a light bulb.

Source: The writer is a visiting faculty member at theSchool of Politics & International Relations, Quaid-e-Azam University, http://tribune.com.pk/, 07 January2014.

OPINION - The Daily Times

Chernobyl, Fukushima Combined? : Impacts ofNuclear Projects on KarachiCoast

Social scientists, activists andcivil society membersexpressed serious concerns overthe installation of two nuclearpower plants along Karachicoast. They were speaking at adialogue on ‘Impacts of NuclearPower Projects (K-II and K-III) along the CoastalAreas’, jointly organised by Pakistan FisherfolkForum (PFF), Pakistan Institute of Labour Educationand Research (PILER), ActionAid Pakistan andStrengthening Participatory Organisation (SPO) at alocal hotel.

The participants demanded government to informpeople about the dangers of the project and toprovide exact data for public awareness regardingthe dangers of nuclear energy.Noted scientists, DrPervez Hoodbhoy and Dr AH Nayyar, ExecutiveDirector of PILER Karamat Ali, Chairman of PFFMohammad Ali Shah were the main speakers at thedialogue. Dr Hoodbhoy said the government has notconsidered the dangers of the nuclear power plantsand these plants along the Karachi coast would posea great danger to human lives in case of any accident.He recalled that radiation could start because of anearthquake, tsunami or terrorist act.

All over the world, nuclear power plants are beingclosed down, and countries like Germany, Japan and

Switzerland are now shifting to alternative energyoptions. He said a human error at Chernobyl powerplant in 1980s caused about 8,000 to 24,000 deaths.The deaths because of cancer are uncounted. Theradiation can mutate the genes of people and createpermanent disabilities for centuries. Fukushimaincident in Japan has further changed the world’sthinking towards the nuclear power. The affects ofradiation emitted from Fukushima reactors are stillbeing felt after a passage of three years, he added.

After Chernobyl and Fukushima it was decided allover the world that nuclear power plants should notbe established near a city. People are not allowedto live in 20-kilometre radius of Fukushima nuclearpower plants. The experts know that there wouldbe no agriculture production or fish surviving in thesea for many years. The renowned physicistreminded of the dangers of living on a coastlineprone to both tsunamis and earthquakes, and said,“I am worried about operators’ error or someterrorism incidents which can cause destruction of

the nuclear reactors of thesepower plants. In case of anyaccident, the deaths in Karachimay not be in hundreds, but maybe in hundreds of thousands.”

Dr Hoodbhoy regretted thatdeveloped countries wereclosing down nuclear powerreactors, while China could not

find a buyer except Pakistan in the world. China isalso providing $6.5 bill ion loan to Pakistan forpurchasing the nuclear reactors. He asked whyalternative energy like wind and solar were notbeing used. In 2013 alone, Germany installed windpower plants with a capacity to produce 25,000MW,which is almost equal to the total installed capacityof Pakistan, which is around 23,000MW. “We needto look into the options we have, like Thar coal andbuilding small dams,” he said.

Senior physicist Dr AH Nayyar said at the moment,the total installed capacity of nuclear power plantswas 725MW, including 125MW power plant atKANUPP that was established in 1971 and tworeactors of 300MW each at Chashma. All thesenuclear power plants cover only a total 3 percent ofthe total energy production. By 2030 Pakistanintends to install 8800MW.He said two reactors of1100MW in Karachi would need a lot of water andwhen that water would be disposed off in the sea,which would create pollution and harm fish stocksand human lives.

By 2030 Pakistan intends to install8800MW.He said two reactors of1100MW in Karachi would need alot of water and when that waterwould be disposed off in the sea,which would create pollution andharm fish stocks and human lives.



He regretted that only SITE Evaluation Report of theproject has been prepared so far. Reactor SafetyReport and Environmental Impact Analysis have notbeen made so far. He said Makrancoast is termed tsunamigenic,where tsunami waves of 10metres were witnessed after the1945 earthquake. Thatearthquake caused life andproperty loss on Bombay coast,1100 km away, and cut boats offmooring 1500 km away on Indian west coast. Hefeared that in case of an accident, the evacuation ofthe population was difficult in Karachi without aneffective disaster management system.

Speaking about monetary interests, Dr Nayyar saidPakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) wasestablishing more nuclear power plants to assert itsimportance and claim a share in national resources.The PAEC received a budget of Rs 52-56 billion thisyear. Terming the decision a blatant violation of the18th Amendment in the Constitution, PILER’sKaramat Ali said neither the government, nor thepeople of Karachi were taken into confidence priorto the installation of power plants in the metropolis.Moreover, he said Article 19-A provides right toinformation, which does not mean that a citizen asksfor the information, but that the government seeksthe people’s point of view by holding public hearingsfor such huge projects.

He further said that the right to life was also ensuredin the Constitution, which means all possibledangers to human lives should be prevented andpeople informed of those dangers.”Possibility ofcorruption cannot be ruled out in these deals.Someone has already acquired $600-700 millioncommission by allowing such huge projects,” Aliclaimed. “There should be a regional position onnuclear power in South Asian countries becauseother countries are also in therace to install nuclear powerplants.”Mohammad Ali Shah saidpeople living on the coastal beltswere not taken into confidenceand the government had madedecisions in a clandestinemanner.

The existing nuclear powerplants at Chashma and KANUPPwere already posing threats to

lives and livelihoods. With looming threats of terroractivities, there were no studies available to confirmsafety levels. Ellahi Bukhsh of SPO and Project

Director of K-II and K-II AzfarMinhaj also spoke on theoccasion. On 18 October 2011the KANUPP Karachi nuclearpower plant imposed a seven-hour emergency after waterleaked from a feeder pipe to thereactor. The leakage started

during a routine maintenance shut down. After theleakage was detected the emergency was imposedat the plant and the affected area was isolated.

Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/, 09 January2014.

OPINION- K.S. Parthasarathy

Is Working in A Nuclear Power Plant Risky?

Several studies of nuclear power plant workers haveshown that work in a nuclear power plant is not arisky occupation. A 24-year-old man who was aboutto join the NPCIL and his parents were troubled bywhat they saw on a TV channel about the allegeddamage to DNA by radiation. TV channels often gooverboard and make unsubstantiated claims. A 63-year-old person asked this writer whether the throatmalignancy, which, his 33-year-old daughter wassuffering from, was likely due to the possibleradiation exposure he might have received whileworking in a nuclear power plant when he was 28years old. The explanations offered appeared to havedispelled their doubts.

Several extensive epidemiological studies of nuclearpower plant workers have shown that work in anuclear power plant is not a risky occupation.Radiation workers in nuclear industry like otherradiation workers form a unique group. They are adult

workers whose radiation dosesreceived at work are regularlymeasured; these records aremaintained.

Radiation protection specialistsaccept that ionising radiation athigh dose levels can causecancer…Cancer induced byradiation is indistinguishablefrom those causedspontaneously or by othercancer-causing agents. Since

There should be a regionalposition on nuclear power in South

Asian countries because othercountries are also in the race to

install nuclear power plants.

Several extensive epidemiologicalstudies of nuclear power plant

workers have shown that work in anuclear power plant is not a riskyoccupation. Radiation workers in

nuclear industry like otherradiation workers form a unique

group. They are adult workerswhose radiation doses received at

work are regularly measured.



there are no unique biomarkers for radiation-induced cancer, specialists depend on statisticalmethods to predict cancer incidence in a group ofexposed workers. Specialists have carried out long-term studies of these workers in many countries.Most of these studies have low statistical power.

To get statistically respectable population groups,specialists carried out a pooled study of radiationworker populations from 15 nations. The participantsin this international collaborative study included407,391 workers whose external radiation doseswere individually monitored; the total follow up wasabout 5.2 million person-years. The study publishedin Radiation Research in 2007 quite unexpectedlyshowed statistically significant increased risks perunit of occupational ionising radiation dose formortality from solid cancer andfrom all cancers excludingleukaemia, compared to those ofA-bomb survivors.

The observation that theradiation risk at low doses is morethan that at high doses attractedwide attention. In the pooledanalysis, Canadian workers hadthe highest cancer radiation risk estimates amongthe 15 countries. None of the other 14 countrycohorts individually had significantly raised cancermortality risk estimates. Exclusion of Canadianworkers (4 per cent of the sample) from the pooledanalysis changed the findings to statistically non-significant. Critics questioned the data and theanalytical validity of the study because of theapparent difference in the results between theCanadian and the 15-country studies.

A recent paper dispelled the disproportionate alarmcaused by the pooled study. A paper published on13 November 2013 inthe British Journal of Cancer,indicated that the significantly increased risks forearly AECL workers are most likely due to incompletetransfer of AECL dose records to the National DoseRegistry. Researchers reported that the analysis ofthe remainder of the Canadian nuclear workers (93.2per cent) provided no evidence of increased risk;also the risk estimate was compatible with estimatesthat form the basis of radiation protection standards.

“Study findings suggest that the revised Canadiancohort, with the exclusion of early AECL workers,would likely have an important effect on the 15-country pooled risk estimate of radiation-related

risks of all cancer excluding leukaemia bysubstantially reducing the size of the point estimateand its significance,” the researchers clarified.Workers in nuclear power plants will receive someradiation dose. NPCIL has strict procedures in placeto keep the doses to workers within the limitsprescribed by the AERB. The AERB Annual Report of2012-2013 …indicates that in 2012 no radiationworker in any nuclear power plant exceeded thedose limits prescribed by AERB.

The average radiation dose varied from 0.35 mSv to2.84 mSv, a fraction of the AERB annual dose limit of30 mSV. Conclusions were similar in earlier years. Atthese doses, radiation risks, if any, are insignificant.Since the dose limits are based on conservativeassumptions, it is inconsequential if anyone receives,

occasionally, a dose above thelimit.

Radiation protection standardsare based on studies byscholarly bodies such as the USNational Academy of Sciences(NAS), Biological Effects ofIonizing Radiation Committee,the International Agency forResearch on Cancer (IARC) and

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effectsof Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). They indicate thatat low doses similar to those received by nuclearpower plant workers radiation risks, if there are any,are negligibly small. Such risks are no risks at all.Work in a nuclear power plant is not a riskyoccupation.

Source: The author is Former Secretary, AERB, TheHindu, 01 January 2014.

OPINION - George Monbiot

Nuclear Scare Stories a Gift to Truly Lethal CoalIndustry

Most of the afflictions wrongly attributed to nuclearpower can rightly be attributed to coal. I was struckby this thought when I saw the graphics publishedby Greenpeace recently, showing the prematuredeaths caused by coal plants in China. The researchit commissioned suggests that a quarter of a milliondeaths a year could be avoided if coal power therewere shut down. Yes, a quarter of a million. WereGreenpeace to plot the impacts of nuclear power onthe same scale, the vast red splodges depicting theair pollution catastrophe suffered by several Chinese

NPCIL has strict procedures inplace to keep the doses to workerswithin the limits prescribed by theAERB. The AERB Annual Report of

2012-2013 indicates that in 2012 noradiation worker in any nuclearpower plant exceeded the dose

limits prescribed by AERB.



cities would be replaced by dots invisible to thenaked eye.

This is not to suggest that there are no impacts, butthey are tiny by comparison. The WHO’s analysis ofthe Fukushima disaster concludes that “for thegeneral population inside and outside of Japan ...no observable increases in cancer rates abovebaseline rates are anticipated”. Only the mostcontaminated parts of Fukushima prefecture areexposed to any significant threat: A slight increasein the chances of developing cancer. Even themajority of the emergency workers have no highercancer risk than that of the general population. Andthis, remember, was caused by an unprecedenteddisaster. The deaths in China are caused by businessas usual.

The tiny risk that is imposed by nuclear power hasboth obscured and invoked the far greater risk thatis imposed by coal. Scare stories about nuclearpower are a gift to the coal industry. Where they aretaken seriously by politicians as they have been inJapan and cause a switch fromnuclear to coal power, they killpeople.

Since the tsunami in 2011, theinternet has been awash withever more lurid claims aboutFukushima. Millions have readreports claiming that children onthe western seaboard of the USare dying as a result of radiationreleased by the damaged plant.It does not seem to matter howoften and effectively the storiesare debunked: They keep on coming. But childrenin the US really are dying as a result of pollutionfrom coal plants and we hear almost nothing aboutit. Plenty of reports also propose that the water onthe Pacific coast of North America is now dangerousto swimmers and the fish there too radioactive toeat. Again, it is not true. Except in the immediatevicinity of the plant, any extra radiation to whichfish in the Pacific are exposed is minute bycomparison to the concentration in their tissues ofpolonium-210, which occurs naturally in seawater.There are, however, genuine dangers associatedwith another toxic contaminant found in fish:Mercury. What is the primary source of mercurypollution? Ah yes, coal burning.

In October 2013, for the first time, WHO officiallylisted both gaseous outdoor pollution and airborne

particulates as carcinogenic to humans. Exposurelevels, it notes, are rising sharply in some parts ofthe world. In 2010, an estimated 223,000 deaths fromlung cancer were caused by air pollution. But thesecancers, though wildly outstripping those correctlyattributed to man-made radiation, are just a smallpart of the pollution problem. Far greater numbersare afflicted by other diseases, including asthma,bronchitis, emphysema, heart disease,hypertension, strokes, low birth weight, pre-termdelivery, pre-eclampsia and (through heavy metalexposure in the womb) impaired brain function.

Three hundred micrograms of fine particulates percubic metre of air is classed as severe pollution, thepoint at which children and elderly people shouldnot leave their homes. As Greenpeace points out,in Shanghai, a fortnight ago, and in Harbin, inOctober 2013, concentrations of particulatesexceeded 500 micrograms. By far the greatest sourceof these particles is coal burning. In total, airpollution in northern China according to a studypublished in Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences has cut average lifeexpectancy by five-and-a-halfyears.

We have exported much of ourpollution and its associateddeaths, but the residue in ourown countries is still severe. Astudy by the Clean Air Task Forcesuggests that coal power in theUS causes 13,200 prematuredeaths a year. In Europe,according to the Health and

Environment Alliance, the figure is 18,200. A studycited by the alliance suggests that around 200,000children born in Europe each year have beenexposed to “critical levels” of methylmercury in thewomb. It estimates the health costs inflicted by coalburning at between 15 billion euros (Dh76.29 billion)and 42 billion euros. Do you still reckon coal ischeap?

You are picturing filthy plants in Poland and Romania,aren’t you? But among the most polluting powerstations in Europe, Longannet in Scotland is ranked11th and Drax, in England, is ranked seventh. Weekbefore last, the House of Lords failed to pass anamendment that would have forced a gradualshutdown of UK’s coal-burning power plants: Theyremain exempted from the emissions standards thatother power stations have to meet.

The tiny risk that is imposed bynuclear power has both obscuredand invoked the far greater riskthat is imposed by coal. Scare

stories about nuclear power are agift to the coal industry. Where

they are taken seriously bypoliticians as they have been inJapan and cause a switch fromnuclear to coal power, they kill

people.



While nuclear power is faltering, coal is booming.Almost 1,200 new plants are being developedworldwide: Many will use coal exported from theUS and from Australia. The exports are now a massivesource of income for these supposedly greeningeconomies. By 2030, China is expected to beimporting almost five times as much coal as it doestoday. The IAEA estimates that the global use of coalwill increase by 65 per cent by2035. Even before you considerclimate change, this is a disaster.

You do not have to be anenthusiast for atomic energy tosee that it scarcely features as ahealth risk beside its rival. Iwonder whether the nuclearpanic may be a way of not seeing.Displacement is something we all do: Fixing onsomething small to avoid engaging with somethingbig. Coal, on which industrialism was built and whichover the past 200 years has come to seem central toour identity is an industry much bigger and nastierand more embedded than the one we have chosento fear. I don’t believe our choice is accidental.

Source: http://gulfnews.com/, 28 December 2013.

NUCLEAR STRATEGY

CHINA

China’s Nuclear Bomber Can Hit US Military Bases

China’s new nuclear bomber can launch strategicmissile attacks against US military facilities andthose of its allies in the Western Pacific, accordingto Chinese state media. H-6K strategic bombers havealready been deployed with the 8th and 10th airdivisions of the PLAAF, Watch China Times reported.The strategic bomber can attack the Japanesemainland with CJ-10 cruise missiles without evenleaving Chinese airspace.

With a range of between 1,500 and 2,000 kilometers,the CJ-10 meets the requirements of the PLA AirForce to target US military bases and those of itsallies in the Western Pacific, according to the report.The report notes that “the long-range cruise missile has becomea crucial part of China’s nucleararsenal.” An H-6K would be ableto take off from the air base ofthe PLA’s 10th air division inAnqing, Anhui province and“strike at all US military bases inSouth Korea.” In November 2013,

Chinese media released a map showing thelocations of major US cities and how they would beimpacted by a nuclear attack launched from China’sstrategic submarine force.

In addition, major cities in India, Russian, Vietnam,Malaysia and the Philippines are within the rangeof the Chinese nuclear bomber. The US is gravely

concerned about China’s newlong-range nuclear bomber. TheUS-China Economic and SecurityReview Commission warned inits annual report in November2013 that China is “rapidlyexpanding and diversifying” itsability to strike US bases, shipsand aircraft throughout thePacific, even places like Guam

that were previously out of reach.

Source: http://english.farsnews.com/, 28 December2013.

INDIA

India Successfully Test Fires Nuclear Capable Missile

India has successfully test launched a nuclearcapable ballistic missile, Prithvi II, in the easternstate of Odisha, the Ministry of Defence stated…The ministry said the ballistic missile was launchedfrom the test range at Chandipur, off the OdishaCoast, adding, the launch was flawless and achievedall its targeting and technical parameters set out forthe exercise. “The launch was conducted as aculmination to a strategic training exercise. The aimof this exercise was to validate our readiness byundertaking launches in various contingencies,”India’s elite Strategic Force Command stated. Theministry said Prithvi missile is being indigenouslyproduced and is equipped with improved highaccuracy navigation and manoeuvring system. Thebattlefield Prithvi-II missile can travel 250 to 350 kmand can carry a nuclear warhead weighing 500 to1,000 kg. It has a flight duration of 483 seconds and apeak altitude of 43.5 km. Other than that, the missilehas features to deceive anti-ballistic missiles and

uses an advanced inertialguidance system withmanoeuvring capabilities…

Source: http://www.kuna.net.kw/, 07 January2014.

By 2030, China is expected to beimporting almost five times asmuch coal as it does today. The

IAEA estimates that the global useof coal will increase by 65 per centby 2035. Even before you considerclimate change, this is a disaster.

China’s new nuclear bomber canlaunch strategic missile attacks

against US military facilities andthose of its allies in the Western

Pacific, according to Chinese statemedia. H-6K strategic bombers havealready been deployed with the 8thand 10th air divisions of the PLAAF.



INDIA - PAKISTAN

Exchange of List of Nuclear Installations BetweenIndia and Pakistan

India and Pakistan on 01 January 2014 exchanged,through diplomatic channels simultaneously at NewDelhi and Islamabad, the list of nuclear installationsand facilities covered under the Agreement on theProhibition of Attack againstNuclear installations betweenIndia and Pakistan. Theagreement, which was signed on31 December, 1988 and enteredinto force on 27 January 1991,provides, inter alia, that the twocountries inform each other ofnuclear installations andfacilities to be covered under theAgreement on the first of Januaryof every calendar year. This is thetwenty third consecutiveexchange of such lists between the two countries,the first one having taken place on 01 January, 1992.

Source: http://www.security-risks.com/, 01 January2014.

RUSSIA

Russian Strategic Rocket Forces to ModernizeSecurity Systems in 2014

In 2014 the modernization of the automatic securitysystems at five facilities of the Russian strategicrocket forces will involve for the first time theRussian Defense Ministry’s 12th main departmentresponsible for maintaining, developing andservicing the Russian forces’ nuclear arsenal and forcontrolling nuclear tests of other countries.

‘In 2013 these works were held at eight facilities ofthe Russian strategic rocket forces. Themodernization of the automatic security systemsincludes changing technical means of detection,alert and protection. The works in this direction willcontinue,’ representative of the Russian DefenseMinistry’s press service and information departmentfor the Russian strategic rocket forces, Col. IgorYegorov, told Interfax…

The forces being re-equipped with the Yar rocketcomplex are supplied with the latest automaticsecurity systems ‘including a number of modernmeans increasing the reliability and readiness for

target use in any conditions,’ Yegorov said.Nuclearfacilities of the Russian strategic rocket forces arecurrently guarded with the use of six various typesof automatic security systems, Yegorov said.

The majority of them have already beenmodernized and include means upon the newelement basis, he said. Works to improve the

systems of physical protection ofthe Russian strategic rocketforces facilities are held solelyby military experts and involveRussian organizations, he said.

‘The equipment being installedis developed and producedsolely at Russian enterprises ofthe military industrial complex.It is ensured during the worksbeing held that the informationon the configuration of securitycomplexes being installed, the

operation principles and algorithms of theirfunctioning is utterly closed,’ Yegorov said.

…’The Russian strategic rocket forces was and istaking organizational and technical measures inorder to exclude such cases,’ he said. This work isheld in the framework of the automatic securitysystem modernization program until 2015 approvedby Russian strategic rocket forces Commander Gem.Col. Sergei Karakayev, Yegorov said.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/, 06 January2014.

USA

US to Start Cutting Submarine Missile-LaunchersNext Year

Beginning in 2015, launch tubes in Ohio-class vesselswill be reduced to 20 each, in accordance with NewSTART requirements. The Navy’s nuclear-armedballistic submarine USS Maine conducts surfacenavigational operations about 50 miles south ofPuerto Rico in this undated photo. Beginning in 2015,launch tubes in Ohio-class vessels will be reducedto 20 each, in accordance with New STARTrequirements. The US next year is slated to beginreducing launch tubes on each of its Ohio-classballistic missile submarines, a new independentreport states.

In 2014 the modernization of theautomatic security systems at fivefacilities of the Russian strategicrocket forces will involve for the

first time the Russian DefenseMinistry’s 12th main department

responsible for maintaining,developing and servicing the

Russian forces’ nuclear arsenal andfor controlling nuclear tests of

other countries.



The elimination of fouroperational launch tubes on eachof the 14 submarines that makeup the Navy’s Ohio submarinefleet will be the first substantialreduction in US strategic weapondelivery capability since the 2011New START accord went intoeffect, according to HansKristensen, who co-authored an assessment on thecurrent status of U.S. nuclear forces. The report waspublished in the January/February ( 2014) editionof the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Nearly three years after the New START pact withRussia entered into force, implementation of thetreaty has “been going very slowly,” Kristensen saidin a brief Monday phone interview.

…”The way that the U.S. military has approachedimplementation of the New START treaty so far hasnot done anything that has actually affected theactual number of nuclear [delivery vehicles] thatare in the war plan,” said Kristensen, who directsthe Nuclear Information Project at the Federationof American Scientists. Instead, the Pentagon hasfocused on reducing the nuclear-delivery capabilityof selected vehicles, such as heavy bombers, thathave already been retired, he said.

The Defense Department has the latitude to pursuethat approach because the treaty allows so manyyears -seven, specifically -before each side must carry outall mandated reductions,Kristensen said.

Once all of the Ohio-classsubmarines have had theirlaunch tubes capped at 20 each— a project that is to take placein the 2015-to-2016 time frame— the United States will be ableto deploy no more than 240submarine-launched ballistic missiles at any time,according to the report written by Kristensen andRobert Norris, who is also with the Federation ofAmerican Scientists.

The submarine set to replace aging Ohio-classvessels — dubbed “SSBN(X)” — is expected to haveonly 16 missile tubes, which will reduce further the

number of sea-launchedballistic missiles that theUnited States can deploy. Thereplacement fleet is alsoenvisioned to be smaller — only12 submarines instead of thecurrent 14. The Navy is notexpected to begin building thefirst boat before 2021, and could

field the vessel a decade later, according to theBulletin report.

Source: http://www.nti.org/, 06 January 2014.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE

ISRAEL

Israel Moves Closer To Anti-Missile Shield WithArrow 3 Test

Israel’s latest test-firing of its high-altitude Arrow 3anti-ballistic missile system marks a major steptoward the Jewish state’s plan to build a multilayermissile defense shield against everything fromIranian intermediate-range ballistic weapons tohome-made rockets built by Palestinian militants.

The Arrow, under development by state-run IsraelAerospace Industries and the Boeing Co. of the US,will be Israel’s primary defense against ballisticmissiles when it’s declared operational. That’scurrently expected to be some time in 2015. Thesystem’s upgraded missile underwent its secondflight test Friday over the eastern Mediterranean

although it did not involve aninterception, officials reported.

The test took place at thePalmahim air force base on thecoast south of Tel Aviv. The two-stage Arrow reached itsoperational altitude outsideEarth’s atmosphere where it isdesigned to shoot down ballisticmissiles high enough to

disintegrate chemical, biological or nuclearwarheads. Yair Ramati, head of the Israel MissileDefense Organization, said the test, which wasattended by US officials, involved the solid-fuel exo-atmosphere interceptor jettisoning its boosterrocket. “The kill vehicle continued to fly in spaceand conducted various maneuvers ... for a couple ofminutes” using thrust vectors, Ramati reported. Theinterceptors do not carry explosives, but destroy

Israel’s latest test-firing of its high-altitude Arrow 3 anti-ballistic

missile system marks a major steptoward the Jewish state’s plan to

build a multilayer missile defenseshield against everything from

Iranian intermediate-range ballisticweapons to home-made rockets

built by Palestinian militants.

The elimination of four operationallaunch tubes on each of the 14(submarines that make up the

Navy’s Ohio submarine fleet will bethe first substantial reduction in

US strategic weapon deliverycapability since the 2011) NewSTART accord went into effect.



their targets by ramming them at closing speeds ofthousands of feet per second and vaporizing them.

The Arrow 3 system will constitute the topmost tierof the planned Homa Hebrew for The Wall —defense shield and will be dedicated to interceptingballistic missiles held by Iran, the embattled Syrianregime of President Bashar Assad, and, increasingly,Hezbollah in Lebanon…

Shipments already in Lebanon are believed toinclude several supersonic P-800 Yakhont anti-shipmissiles. Seventy-two of these weapons weredelivered to Syria in 2012-13. The Yakhont,considered the most advanced missile of its type inthe world, “represents a new type of threat,”…

…Arrow 3, which underwent its first flight test 25February 2012, is the latest variant of the systemIAI, flagship of Israel’s defense industry, which hasbeen developing it with the Americans since 1988at a cost well in excess of $1 billion. Arrow 1 wasfirst deployed in 2000. Arrow 2, with at least twobatteries operational, will back up Arrow 3 at loweraltitudes when the new variant becomesoperational, picking off any ballistic missiles thatget through the first line of defense in space.

The next tier down in the missile shield is theDavid’s Sling system defense under developmentby Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the USRaytheon Co. to counter medium-range missilesand rockets. The bottom layer is Rafael’s upgradedIron Dome system, primarily designed to interceptshort-range rockets. It was deployed in early 2012and the Israeli military boasts it has destroyed 84.6percent of the targets it engaged in clashes withPalestinian militants.

That claim has been questioned by some Israelimissile experts, who say it has been highly inflatedto boost the morale of Israelis who have beenrepeatedly warned they face the prospects ofsustained weeks-long missile bombardment bytheir adversaries if a new war breaks out….

Source: http://www.upi.com/, 06 January 2014.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

INDIA

Indian Research Centre Takes Shape

The centre being built near Bahadurgarh in Haryanastate will strengthen India’s cooperation with theinternational community. It will house five schools

to conduct research into advanced nuclear energysystems, nuclear security, radiological safety, as wellas applications for radioisotopes and radiationtechnologies.

Training faci lities are to include virtual realitylaboratories and a radiation monitoring, calibrationand accreditation laboratory. The GCNEP will be usedfor research by Indian and visiting internationalscientists; training of Indian and internationalparticipants; international seminars and groupdiscussions by experts on topical issues; and,development and conduct of courses in associationwith interested countries and the IAEA. Indian PMSingh…said that India aims to continuestrengthening the security of its nuclear powerplants and nuclear materials. This, together with thedevelopment of human resources in the field ofnuclear energy, will be an important objective ofthe GCNEP, he said.

…He noted that the centre will be boosted bybringing together Indian and international scientistsfor their research and training programs. “Toaccomplish these aims, we have the IAEA and Russia,while working together with countries such asFrance and the USA.”

The Indian government announced in September2010 that it had approved the establishment of theGCNEP. It will be the sixth R&D unit under the aegisof the Department of Atomic Energy. In June 2011,Russia signed an agreement with India to cooperateon establishing four of the GCNEP schools. “India isone of the few countries in the world which hasdeveloped technology to detect nuclear powerplants and has also acquired the ability to producenuclear fuel,” Singh noted. “Our goal is to build27,000 MWe of nuclear power generating capacitywithin the next ten years.”

Source: World Nuclear News, 03 January 2014.

PAKISTAN

Containment Dome Placed at Reactor in Pakistan asNew Plants Proposed

Roughly two years after construction began,Pakistan’s newest reactor at Chashma is takingshape. Crews placed the 180-metric-toncontainment dome on unit 4 at the plant in PunjabProvince. The News, an English language paperbased in Karachi, said the placement was witnessedby Pakistani dignitaries, as well as the ambassador



of China, which is providingfunding and technology forPakistan’s nuclear powerprogram. Officials alsoannounced their intention tostudy additional sites for newreactors.

Chashma 4 is a 315 megawatt,net, CNP-300 pressurized waterreactor…according to the WorldNuclear Association. The units are expected to enterservice in 2016 and 2017, and discussions have takenplace with the Chinese for a fifth unit at the plant.Elsewhere in the country, first nuclear concrete isexpected to be poured this year for two ACP-1000units at the Karachi Coastal Power Station.Additionally, Pakistani media reported last weekthe country’s planning authorities will soon considerpurchasing land in Muzaffargarh and Ahmadpur East,also in Punjab, for additional multi-unit plants…

Source: http://nuclearstreet.com/, 06 January 2014.

Pakistan Has Planned 7 Nuclear Plants for 8900 MWof Electricity By 2030

Pakistan on 02 January 2014 announced its plan toset up seven functional nuclearplants of 1100 MW each by 2030.The government is set to install325 MW Chashma-4 (C-4) plant.Pakistan took this decision tocombat the problem of shortageof power supply in the country.Nuclear power was set tobecome a major player in thecountry’s power sector. As perthe Pakistan government, by2030 the Pakistan Atomic EnergyComission (PAEC) will beoperating four nuclear powerplants of 325 to 340 MW and seven nuclear powerplants with the capacity of 1100 MW each, in additionto four units of 300 MW, producing a total of 8,900MW of electricity.

The power generated through C-3 and C-4 (650 MW)will be linked to national grid by 2016. Pakistanwould install more nuclear power plants to generate42000 MW of electricity under its Vision 2050. Chinahas committed 6.5 billion dollar finance for theconstruction of a major nuclear power project in theport city of Karachi.

China National NuclearCooperation (CNNC) haspromised to grant a loan of atleast 6.5 billion dollar to financethe project, which will have tworeactors with a capacity of 1,100megawatts each…China hasalready helped supply twonuclear reactors at the Chashmanuclear power complex in

Punjab, while another two are alsounder construction with Chinese assistance.

Source: http://www.jagranjosh.com/, 03 January2014

SOUTH AFRICA

How Another Emerging Nation is Going Nuclear

Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear powercompany, just signed a memorandum ofunderstanding with South Africa to provide end-to-end nuclear plant delivery and operation. SouthAfrica’s Integrated Resource Plan calls for 9.6Gigawatts of nuclear power by 2035. It plans todeliver that capacity through three nuclear plants.

Russian President Putin and South African PresidentZuma had agreed in March topartner on a portfolio of powerinvestments, especially nuclear.They met at the 5th BRICS Summitin Durban, South Africa lastMarch. South Africa is thesmallest of the BRICS partners,led by Russia, China, India, andBrazil. South Africa supplies just5% of its 18 GW capacity throughtwo nuclear power plantsoperated by state-ownedelectricity utility Eskom. South

Africa plans to add 9.6 GW of capacity by 2030-2035,with power to start-up by 2023. Eskom coal plantsgenerate most of the power in the northeasternsection of the country. Many of these plants areretiring through 2020.

Post-Fukushima nuclear power

…The world initially went anti-nuclear with theGreens of Germany leading the way. Germanydeclared it would eliminate its nuclear fleet by 2022.Pre-Fukushima, nuclear power accounts for 25% ofthe 163 GW generated in Germany. By 2013 nuclear

As per the Pakistan government, by2030 the Pakistan Atomic Energy

Comission (PAEC) will be operatingfour nuclear power plants of 325 to340 MW and seven nuclear power

plants with the capacity of 1100MW each, in addition to four units

of 300 MW, producing a total of8,900 MW of electricity.

Rosatom, Russia’s state-ownednuclear power company, just signed

a memorandum of understandingwith South Africa to provide end-to-end nuclear plant delivery and

operation. South Africa’s IntegratedResource Plan calls for 9.6

Gigawatts of nuclear power by2035. It plans to deliver that

capacity through three nuclearplants.



power accounted for just 18%. New coal and naturalgas fired plants, along with renewable energysources, are taking up the slack amid greenhousegas emission targets in a policy called theEnergiewende, or “energy transition.” Much of thispolicy will require even greater reliance on Russiancrude oil and natural gas. Siemens built all ofGermany’s nuclear fleet of 17 units. The last unitwas commissioned in 1989. The fleet has since beenreduced to nine reactors producing 12 GW ofcapacity. E.ON and RWE run most of the remainingnuclear plants.

With Germany out of the picture, in the EU only Italyhas voted nuclear out. All other EU countries arestepping up their plans for nuclear power plantdevelopment, albeit undereven stricter safety guidelines.Japan is reducing itsdependency on nuclear powerby over 50%. In 2011 Japan’selectricity capacity of was splitevenly among nuclear, hydro,coal/oil, and combustible gas.After Fukushima, withmounting dependence onforeign fossil fuels, and the winby the Liberal Democratic Party, nuclear isback in the electricity portfolio.

The German reduction in its nuclear fleet accountsfor about 5% of global uranium oxide supply.Startups and new plants in France alone over thenext three years will be enough to soak up the excesssupply.

Vying for contracts to build nuclear power plants inSouth Africa are Areva and Rosatom. Early in 2011Areva stepped up its involvement with the NuclearEnergy Corporation of South Africa, NECSA. Rosatomjust registered a marketing office in Johannesburg.

Areva built the two pressurized water reactors atEskom’s Koeberg site. They produce 5%-6% of SouthAfrica’s total power requirements. LESEDI NuclearServices, in which Areva has a 51% share, providesconstruction, operation and maintenance supportand services to Eskom and AREVA. Requests for bidsare expected in early 2014. The contractor will beexpected on-site building in 2016. Over 9.6 GW ofnew capacity will be on-line by 2023. Up to 40% localfuel and construction content is expected as well.

The company that can deliver $5,800 per kilowattinstalled capacity on time will probably win.Influencing Eskom’s assessment of that probabilitywill be French and Russian government guaranteesand other material support….

Source: http://www.dailyfinance.com/, 30 December2013.

UK

UK Regulators Begin Next Phase of Hitachi ABWRAssessment

The UK’s joint nuclear regulators have announcedthat they are progressing to the next phase of theirassessment of a new nuclear reactor design thatcould be built at two sites in the UK. The Office for

Nuclear Regulation and theEnvironment Agency said in astatement they have begunassessing Hitachi-GE NuclearEnergy’s UK Advanced Boi lingWater Reactor (UK ABWR), whichHorizon Nuclear Power, asubsidiary of Hitachi, is planningto use at two nuclear sites, Wylfain north Wales and Oldbury inGloucestershire.

The assessment follows nine months of preparatorywork by Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy and theregulators, the statement said…According tostatement, the process is likely to take around fouryears…The regulators said they have been workingwith Hitachi-GE to make sure the companyunderstands the UK regulatory system and theregulators’ expectations. The regulators have alsobeen increasing their knowledge of Hitachi-GE’sproposals…Horizon Nuclear Power was formed in2009 to develop new nuclear power stations in theUK. It was acquired by Hitachi in November 2012.

Source: http://www.nucnet.org/, 06 January 2014.

NUCLEAR COOPERATION

JAPAN- INDIA

Japanese Coalition Party Leader for NuclearCooperation with India

A key ally of Japan’s ruling coalition on 06 January2014 announced support to the India-Japan nuclearcooperation talks, saying they should be“accelerated”. Natsuo Yamaguchi, chief of Japan’s

With Germany out of the picture, inthe EU only Italy has voted nuclear

out. All other EU countries arestepping up their plans for nuclearpower plant development, albeit

under even stricter safetyguidelines. Japan is reducing its

dependency on nuclear power byover 50%.



New Komeito Party, a junior partner of the LiberalDemocratic Party-led ruling coalition, said here thatthere should be a “flexible approach” to the issueof nuclear cooperation.

“We are part of the ruling coalition.. we have nomajor difference of opinion on the subject.. (ofIndia-Japan nuclear cooperation.) The talks shouldbe accelerated,” Yamaguchi told journalists hereahead of the visit of Japanese PM Abe to India laterthis month. Yamaguchi, whose Komeito Party is forphasing out of all nuclear reactors in Japan in thewake of the Fukushima disaster and earlier theHiroshima bombing, said there were two-threeaspects of nuclear tech cooperation - nuclear nonproliferation, CTBT and safe disposal of nuclearwaste. “These are areas of concern... but we mustremain realistic.. cooperation is possible, we musthave a flexible approach,” he said.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/, 06January 2014.

NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION

IRAN

Iran Nuclear Talks Paving the Way for a Final Deal

Iranian and European negotiators have foundsolutions to “all” their disagreements over how toimplement the Geneva nuclear deal, Iran’s deputychief negotiator has said, in a move that could pavethe way for a final deal to contain Tehran’s nuclearprogramme.

…An EU spokesman said “very good” progress wasmade “on all the pertinent issues”, but added thatresults of the talks — involving Mr Araqchi and HelgaSchmid, deputy to Baroness Ashton, the EU foreignpolicy chief — still had to be validated by moresenior officials. US State Department spokesman JenPsaki said technical talks were making good progressbut reports that a deal had been finalised wereinaccurate. Any agreement needs to be signed offby Britain, China, France, Russia, the US andGermany.

And fears among sceptics that Iran was outflankingthe world powers deepened with a report fromReuters that Iran and Russia were broking an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5bn (€1.1bn) a month thatwould let Iran lift oi l exports substantially, indefiance of sanctions. The report, if confirmed,would undermine US and UK claims that the

sanctions relief granted to Iran was “limited andtargeted”, and could see Russia unilaterally drainingnegotiating leverage from the US and the EU.

Source: Peter Foster, http://www.independent.ie/,11 January 2014.

US Sanctions Bill, Iran Nuclear Talks “InsurancePolicy” - Senator

A Democratic US senator leading the charge to passnew sanctions on Iran despite objections from theObama administration said the measure is a“diplomatic insurance policy” to push Tehran tocomply with agreements to curtail its nuclearprogram.

Fifty-nine senators 16 of them Democrats of the 100in the chamber were co-sponsoring the bill, despitethe White House’s insistence that it could imperildelicate international negotiations with the IslamicRepublic. Senator Robert Menendez, the chairmanof the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,disputed that in an op-ed published in TheWashington Post , saying the bill would bolsterdiplomacy, not threaten it.

…”It allows all sides to negotiate in certainties andprovides one year of space for the parties to continuetalking. It spells out precisely the consequencesshould the agreement fail. This should motivateIranians to negotiate honestly and seriously,” hesaid. Menendez is the main sponsor of the “NuclearFree Iran Weapon Act,” which would impose newsanctions on Tehran if it breaks an agreement to curbits nuclear program. The White House hasthreatened a veto, and Iran has said an interimnuclear agreement would be dead if Congressimposes new sanctions.

The bill would also place sanctions on Iran if it doesnot agree to a comprehensive deal later this year ornext. The US and five other world powers agreed toa six-month interim deal with Iran in Geneva inNovember 2013 that can be extended to a year.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said theadministration still feels the proposed bill wouldbe harmful. “It could, if they were to do it, actuallyweaken the sanctions structure that’s in place byundermining faith among our international partnersand providing Iran the opportunity to say that wehave been negotiating in bad faith,” Carney said at adaily news briefing.



The 59 co-sponsors mean the bill is near the 60 votesneeded to pass most legislation in the Senate andthe 67 necessary to overcome a presidential veto.But there has been no indication from DemocratHarry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, on when itwould come to the floor for a vote. Separately, USRepresentative Eliot Engel said he was “deeplytroubled” about a report thatRussia is negotiating an oil-for-goods swap with Iran, saying itraises questions about Moscow’scommitment to the negotiationsto end Iran’s pursuit of nuclearweapons.

Reuters reported on Friday thatthe deal being negotiated isworth $1.5 billion a month, andwould let Iran raise its oil exports by up to 500,000barrels per day. US and European sanctions on Iran’sdisputed nuclear program have combined to cutIran’s oil exports by about 1 million bpd.

Source: Patricia Zengerle and Timothy Gardner ,http://in.reuters.com/, 11 January 2013.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

INDIA

Kudankulam Nuclear Plant Has Foolproof SafetySystems: Russian Developer

The Kudankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu,whose first 1,000 MW unit is currently in the testingstage, is equipped with state-of-the-art safetymechanisms with unique features that make themfoolproof, its Russian developer says, addressingcurrent concerns on nuclearsafety issues.

Denis Kolchinskiy, chief projectengineer of SPbAEP, thedevelopers of the AES 92 nuclearreactor installed at Kudankulam,said modern Russian designshave an optimised balance ofactive and passive safety systems that have beendeveloped over a decade. “Now we implement suchprojects in Russia and offer them our foreignpartners,” Kolchinskiy told IANS in an emai linterview.

According to Kolchinskiy, the Kudankulam plant isbuilt with “active” and “passive” safety systems to

provide two layers of protection. While the activelayer requires an electrical actuator, or starter, thepassive one uses natural force, like that of gravity.Spurred by Japan’s Fukushima disaster, activists ofthe People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy(PMANE) have been holding protests against theKudankulam plant, citing safety and enviromnent

concerns. The Supreme Courthad last year rejected a pleaagainst the project but askedthe government to put in placestringent security measures.

The key to preventing anapocalypse in the event of a coremeltdown, said Kolchinskiy, isthe “molten-core catcher” - amandatory safety system

included in the Kudankulam project’s basic supplypackage. To remove heat from the reactor corewhich contains nuclear fuel, it is necessary to supplywater by means of pumps. Should the reactor fail tobe cooled down for some reason, the fuel insidewould not melt down. “The molten core would goto the ‘catcher’, which would ensure its coolingdown and prevent release of hydrogen,” Kolchinskysaid.

“When the molten matter gets into the ‘catcher’, anendothermic reaction (reaction with thermal energyabsorption) begins, which results in solidificationof the melt. Besides, the material containsdysprosium, which absorbs neutrons, and thisexcludes the possibility of a chain reaction,” theRussian engineer said.

In the Fukushima disaster, theimpact of a tsunami wavedamaged the nuclear plant’sdiesel generators andinterrupted power supply topumps. With the pumps shutdown, heat removaldiscontinued, leading to a coremeltdown. “If such a system had

been at Fukushima, no one would have ever knownwhat Fukushima is,” Kolchinskiy maintained.Russia’s concerns over the operator’s responsibilityin India’s nuclear liability law have stalled agreementon Unit 3 and 4 of the Kudankulam project. “Thepassive emergency protection system turns onwithout electricity and begins cooling by heat toheat exchanges owing to thrust. It directs heat to

Kudankulam plant is built with“active” and “passive” safety

systems to provide two layers ofprotection. While the active layerrequires an electrical actuator, or

starter, the passive one usesnatural force, like that of gravity.

The 59 co-sponsors mean the bill isnear the 60 votes needed to pass

most legislation in the Senate andthe 67 necessary to overcome apresidential veto. But there has

been no indication from DemocratHarry Reid, the Senate Majority

Leader, on when it would come tothe floor for a vote.



the atmosphere for an unlimited period of time,”the Russian engineer said.

He explained that there is a vessel with water, whilesteam goes up by a pipe, condensates and returnsto the steam generator so as to establish naturalcirculation. “For the passive system to remove heat,no electricity is needed, no action by the personnel.As soon as temperature increases in the primarycircuit, the system starts removing heatautomatically,” Kolchinskiy said.

“The reactor is designed so that the passive andactive safety systems prevent the core from meltingdown. However, in the event of a hypotheticalaccident, our reactor provides for a special device,the molten-core catcher,” he added. The only otherGeneration III+ units with double-wall containment,combination of passive and active systems, and a“molten-core catcher” in the world in actualoperation are the 1st and 2nd units of the Tianwannuclear plant in China, Kolchinskiy said…

Pointing out that nuclear power is “most harmless”,sans hazardous emissions into the environment,Kolchinskiy said construction at Kudankulam “waspreceded by landscaping the surrounding areas, asa result of which all necessary conditions werecreated for birds, the pond in which they fish andtrees where birds build nests.”

Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/, 06 January2014.

India Ranks Below Pakistan in N-Security Index

India has been ranked below its two nuclear-armedneighbours Pakistan and China in the list ofcountries with a weak nuclear material security inthe world, according to a US-based think-tank. Inthe 2014 Nuclear Threat Initiative’s NuclearMaterials Security Index released, India has beenranked 23rd out of 25 countries with weapons-usable nuclear materials.

India received 41 out of 100 points, which isimprovement by one point from the 2012 score. Forcomparison, China received 64 points and has beenranked at 20th spot, while Pakistan with 46 pointsstands at 22nd place. India and these countries areincluded in the list of 25 countries with one kilogramor more of these materials, which also includes allother nuclear-armed states.

The NTI said this improvement reflects India’s firstcontribution to the IAEA Nuclear Security Fund.“Overall, however, India’s score remains low”. Thisis due to a number of factors, including weakregulations that are written as guidance rather thanas requirements; increasing quantities of weapons-usable nuclear materials for both civil ian andmilitary use and gaps in its regulatory structure suchas a lack of an independent regulatory agency.

External risk factors, such as high levels ofcorruption, which undermine confidence inimplementation or enforcement of securitymeasures and also increase the risk that officialsmay contribute (even unwittingly) to the theft ofnuclear material are also among the factors, itadded. Both India and China improved their scoressince 2012 by one point by contributing to the IAEANuclear Security Fund, which supports theimplementation of nuclear security activities, thereport said.

In comparing both countries, India scored higherthan China on the implementation of UN SecurityCouncil Resolution 1540 related to nuclear securityissues. China, however, scored higher in a numberof areas, including: the existence of an independentregulatory agency; having invited a peer review ofits nuclear security arrangements; and having strongregulations for control and accounting of materials.Pakistan received 46 out of 100 possible pointscompared to India’s 41, the report said, adding thatboth countries improved their scores since 2012.

Pakistan improved its score by publishing newregulations for the physical protection of nuclearfacilities. In comparing both countries, India scoredhigher than Pakistan on international legalcommitments because India has adopted all of therelevant treaties whereas Pakistan has not. Pakistan,however, scored higher in a number of areas,including: the existence of an independentregulatory agency; having invited peer review of itsnuclear security arrangements; and having securityand other personnel with access to nuclear materialssubjected to additional vetting.

In addition, Pakistan has an operational Center ofExcellence (COE), whereas the foundation stone forIndia’s COE, the Global Center for Nuclear EnergyPartnership, was laid on 03 January 2014, it said. Inits report, NTI said India was briefed on the Index,along with other countries. “Unfortunately, India did



not use the opportunity to review and confirm thedata, a process through which governments canchoose to provide responses to one, some, or allquestions depending on their sensitivities and helpensure the accuracy of the data,”it said. “Out of the 25 countrieswith weapons usable nuclearmaterials, 17 (more than two-thirds) responded to the datareview and confirmation request(including nuclear-weaponsstates such as France, the U.K.,and the US),” the report said.

NTI said India scored at the topfor international legalcommitments, having signedand ratified the Conventional onthe Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and its2005 Amendment, as well as the InternationalConvention for the Suppression of Acts of NuclearTerrorism. India also received the highest possiblescore for implementation of UNSCR 1540.

NTI recommended that India’s nuclear materialssecurity conditions could be improved bystrengthening its laws and regulations for mitigatingthe insider threat, for the control and accounting ofnuclear materials, and for the physical security ofmaterials during transport.

…India’s nuclear materials security conditions couldalso be improved by completing the establishmentof an independent nuclearregulatory agency, in fulfilmentof a commitment made at the2012 Nuclear Security Summit, itsaid.

Establishing and maintaining aregulatory agency that isindependent of influence fromthose being regulated isnecessary to ensure meaningful and unbiasedoversight. The importance of an independentregulatory agency has been highlighted in a recentIndian parliamentary panel report.

Source: The Hindu, 10 January 2014.

JAPAN

Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 1 Accident Was Not Due ToCoolant Loss, Says Tepco

The problems that led to core meltdown and fueldamage at Unit 1 of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclearplant began as a direct result of the impact of the

tsunami and not a loss of coolant from pipe failurecaused by the earthquake, a report by plant operatorTokyo…

The Fukushima Nuclear Accident IndependentInvestigation Commission ofJapan’s Diet (parliament) hadraised the possibility that theaccident may have been theresult of a loss of coolantbecause of earthquake- inducedcomponent damage and not theresult of a loss of emergencypower because of the tsunami,Tepco said in a statement. Ifcorrect, this assumption wouldhave contradicted the prevailingunderstanding that the facility

had weathered the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, animportant consideration for future designsincorporating seismic safety principles.

But the new report says Unit 1 survived theearthquake intact. Data recorded by wave metrerecords and other instruments, along withphotographic sequences of the incoming tsunami,make it clear that the loss of emergency dieselgenerator power caused by the tsunami, and theresulting failure of the cooling systems, caused theaccident, Tepco said.

Tepco said the report was less conclusive on whywater injected into Units 1, 2 and 3 from fire trucks

in the immediate aftermath ofthe tsunami when coolingsystems had failed wasinsufficient to cool the reactorcores and prevent meltdown. Itis possible, the report says, thatthe water found its way intoother systems and failed to reachthe core. Because of this, an

investigation into the actual amount of waterinjected into the unit and its impact on the progressof the accident will be “a focus of continued study”.

The new report is the first progress report on Tepco’scontinuing investigation into the causes of thecrippling of three of the facility’s reactor units afterthe earthquake and subsequent tsunami of March2011.

Units 1, 2 and 3 at the six-unit plant were incommercial operation at the time of the earthquakeand tsunami and all suffered reactor core, fuel andcontainment damage. The other three units did not

The problems that led to coremeltdown and fuel damage at Unit1 of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclearplant began as a direct result of the

impact of the tsunami and not aloss of coolant from pipe failure

caused by the earthquake.

NTI said India scored at the top forinternational legal commitments,

having signed and ratified theConventional on the Physical

Protection of Nuclear Materials andits 2005 Amendment, as well as the

International Convention for theSuppression of Acts of Nuclear

Terrorism. India also received thehighest possible score for

implementation of UNSCR 1540.



suffer fuel damage. Unit 4 was offline and was notloaded with fuel, but the reactor building wasseverely damaged by a hydrogen explosion. Units 5and 6 were offline, but were still fuelled.

Source: http://www.nucnet.org/, 02 January 2014.

Nuclear Expert: Why Steam From Reactor 3 atFukushima Matters?

In September of 2013, steam was observed comingfrom Reactor 3. The average temperature inFukushima was 30 degrees Celsius (86 degreesFahrenheit) during the daytime high. GordonEdwards, president of the Canadian Coalition forNuclear Responsibility (CCNR) spoke about thesteam and warned that it could be indicative of anunder-reported problem.

Mehran Keshe, a nuclear scientist and founder ofthe Keshe Foundation, explained that TEPCO is notlistening to scientists from all over the world, whoagree that Fukushima is responsible for thepoisoning of Japanese citizens through contact withradioactive, carcinogenic elements. A few monthsago TEPCO admitted they do not know why thesteam began emanating and, irresponsibly, told thepublic that it was just a “puddle sitting atop thereactor and it was not dangerous.”

TEPCO reported that they have not recorded anincrease of radioactivity, being released into theenvironment, from Reactor 3. Essentially a steadystream of radioactive material has been seeping intothe environment, and the downplay of the potentialseverity of the situation continued. The Japanesegovernment will soon be approving legislation thatwould make the leaking of information aboutFukushima a state offense, carrying a hefty criminalsentence.

On 17 December 2013, TEPCO began to “remove fuelassemblies from the Reactor 3 Spent Fuel Pool, (andbegan with the) removal of large-size debris in theSpent Fuel Pool”. Not long after TEPCO began thisoperation, steam once again began to emanate fromReactor 3. Since 24 December 2013, reports, directlyfrom TEPCO’s website, have confirmed that steamhas been emanating from Rector 3. The daytime hightemperature during the 3 days in question was 6degrees Celsius or43 degrees Fahrenheit.

Over the course of 3 days, reports continued,claiming that no “abnormal plant conditions” havebeen identified at Rector 3, where the steam hasbeen observed via a camera. A recent commentaryon the steam rising from Rector 3, claims that

because it is currently winter in “much of thenorthern hemisphere” that the steam is simply “hotwater vapor [being] released daily”, from thedevastated Fukushima nuclear plant.

Under normal conditions, with temperaturedifferences between the environment and thenuclear plant, this explanation would make sense.Although the steam, rising from Reactor 3, isundeniably more visible during the winter months,it is certainly not just ordinary “hot water vapor” assome media outlets may suggest.

…The specific elements contained within the steamshould be the focal point of discussion in terms ofproperly appreciating the potential consequencesyet to manifest at Reactor 3. In 2011, at Reactor 3,the water in the reactor vessel evaporated. Fuelbecame uncovered, and heated up to a temperatureof 2,300 degrees Celsius. It mixed with the materialsof the structure to form magma called Corium.

The Corium flowed down to the bottom of thereactor vessel, which is made of steel. According toJapanese investigators, the Corium pierced thereactor vessel before falling on the concretebasement inside the containment.

Questions about how much erosion to the concretehas occurred because of the Corium still remainunanswered. The steam emanating from Reactor 3is most assuredly radioactive. In fact, TEPCO lied atfirst about Corium melting through concrete andsteel casings. The Institute of Applied Energy (IAE)pointed out that, at least in Reactor 1, the Coriumdid indeed melt through the barriers, causing thevessel to “tilt”.

Reactor 3 could be showing sings that Corium maybe the cause of a possible future disaster if theCorium comes into contact with radioactive water,causing a violent reaction such as a steam explosion.Harvey Wasserman, nuclear energy activist,explained, that during the 40 years he has beeninvolved in activism, “no one ever talked about thepossibility of multiple meltdowns, but that is whatoccurred at Fukushima.”

One way of dealing with the cumulative effects oflow-radiation exposure which has been proven tobe useful is Zeolite. Because of its crystallinestructure Zeolite, a natural mineral, acts like amagnet that attracts positively-charged particlesand metals including radioactive metals. During theChernobyl disaster, some “500,000 tons of Zeolite”were distributed in the most heavily exposed areas.Chinoptilolite Zeolite is highly effective in treating



persons exposed to even low levels of radiationbecause it is a naturally detoxing mineral. Triplewater filtration systems are extremely effective inprotecting against harmful radioactive isotopesfound in public drinking water. TEPCO has beencaught doctoring the readings and downplaying theimpact of Fukushima by ordering workers at thecleanup sites “to shield their dosimeter with leadcovers to make the integral dose look lower” than itactually is. Workers confirmed that “they coveredthe dosimeters with lead cases.”

TEPCO also omitted leaks, resulting in radioactivewater being dumped into the Pacific Ocean. In Julyof 2013, the Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority(JNRA) finally told the press that the leaking of thisdeadly water from Fukushima had been occurringsince the accident.

Source: http://nsnbc.me, 04 January 2014.

SOUTH KOREA

Korean Reactors Cleared For Restart

Three South Korean nuclear power reactors forcedto stop operations in May 2013 after finding safety-related control cabling had falsified documentationhave been given approval to restart. With thecabling having been replaced, Korea’s Nuclear Safetyand Security Commission (NSSC) has now givenKorea Hydro and Nuclear Power(KHNP) approval to restartoperations at Shin Kori units 1and 2 and Shin Wolsong unit 1.

Korean authorities began aninvestigation into safetycertificates for the cabling inApril 2013 after a tip-off. Thefollowing month, the NSSC ordered the units toshut. In the event of an accident, the cables sendsignals from the reactor operating systems, such ascooling, to the control room. The newly-constructedShin Wolsong 2 is having its cabling replaced andstill awaiting approval to start commercial operationfor the first time.

The discovery of falsified quality documentation forthe cabling was said to be unrelated to the similarcase announced in November 2012 in which KHNPhad allegedly been supplied with falsely-certifiednon-safety-critical parts for at least five of thecountry’s 23 power reactors.The two most affectedunits, Yonggwang 5 and 6 (since renamed Hanbit 5and 6), were taken off line for the parts to bereplaced. The other affected units, Yonngwang

(Hanbit) 3 and 4 and Ulchin (now Hanul) 3, were ableto continue in operation during replacement work…

Source: World Nuclear News, 02 January 2013.

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

EU

Funds on Condition for EU Decommissioning

More EU money will go to decommission nuclearreactors in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania, but thebloc’s Council of Ministers has requested tighterproject management. There are two newregulations, one to support the decommissioningin Lithuania, and the other supporting programmesin Bulgaria and Slovakia. They approved larger sumsthan initially proposed.

Some €293 million instead of €209 million will beset aside for helping decommission units 1 to 4 ofthe Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria. Theprojects at Bohunice 1 and 2 in Slovakia will receive€225 million, compared with an originally proposed€115 million. In Lithuania work to decommissionIgnalina 1 and 2 will recieve €450 million, up fromthe proposed €229 million.

In total these add up to €968 million ($1.31 billion),an increase of €415 million ($564 million) on

previous allocations, and gosome way to bridge a €2.5 billionfunding gap identified by the EUCourt of Auditors in 2013.Another change is that EUsupport for decommissioning inLithuania and Slovakia willcontinue for an extra three years

to 2020. The end date for the Bulgarian program wasalready set at 2020 under the initial proposal. Allthree new arrangments started on 01 January 2014.

A council memorandum asserted that the EU wasright to help given that the closures had been pushedthrough during these countries’ negotiations to jointhe EU: “Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia undertookto close and subsequently decommission theabovementioned nuclear reactors. The EU hasundertaken to assist those countries in addressingthe exceptional financial burden imposed by thedecommissioning process,” it said.

The formal proposal for the spending added thatthe three member states “do not have the requiredfinancial resources” to complete the

EU support for decommissioning inLithuania and Slovakia will continuefor an extra three years to 2020. Theend date for the Bulgarian programwas already set at 2020 under the

initial proposal.



decommissioning: “Taking into account that thereactors were shut down before their initiallyforeseen end of design lifetime and that it takesabout 25 years... of operation to accumulatesufficient funds for decommissioning, it was notpossible for the three countries to set asidesufficient funds.”

However, the regulations also specify a number ofconditions which the three countries must meet toreceive the funds, including compliance with theEuratom Treaty’s rules on nuclear safety;establishing a financing plan identifying full costsand envisaged funding sources required for the safedecommissioning; and the submission to theCommission of a revised detailed decommissioningplan.

These conditions were included following aperformance audit conducted by the EU’s financial

watchdog European Court of Auditors in 2011. Theproposal said that it had taken account of courtrecommendations, notably that full funding shouldnot be guaranteed by the EU, that clear end-datesfor EU support should be set, and that conditionsfor EU support were needed…

The Commission will now set out an annual workprogram for each decommissioning projectspecifying the objectives, expected results, relatedperformance indicators and timeline for the use offunds, followed by a progress report at the end ofeach year. The regulation also says that a mid-termevaluation will be conducted by December 2017, aswell as a final evaluation following the end-date.

Source: Jonathan Dyson, World Nuclear News, 03January 2014.

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 Vinod Patney, SYSMPVSM AVSM VrC (Retd).

Centre for Air Power Studies

P-284Arjan Path, Subroto Park,New Delhi - 110010Tel.: +91 - 11 - 25699131/32Fax: +91 - 11 - 25682533

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Website: www.capsindia.orgEdited by: Director General, CAPS

Editorial Team: Dr. Sitakant Mishra, Hina Pandey, Arjun Subramanian, Chandra Rekha, Debalina Ghoshal

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.

Documents

Nuclear Security - Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS)