security

In mid-February, the United Nations nuclear promotional and watchdog body, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hosted an International Conference on Nuclear Security (ICONS 2020).¹ The conference followed earlier high-level IAEA nuclear security meetings held in 2013² and 2016³. You could be forgiven for having missed ICONS 2020, as media attention was minimal, notwithstanding the crucial importance to worldwide security of the matters discussed. Dr. David Lowry explains:

Ministers at ICONS 2020 – which attracted about 1,900 participants from more than 130 countries – agreed on the importance of effective international legal instruments for strengthening global nuclear security.^4,5

The IAEA issued lots of positive statistics about ICONs, pouring out of the media briefing office like bratwurst from the sausage machine.

The accompanying Ministerial Declaration said, inter alia, "We remain concerned about existing and emerging nuclear security threats and committed to addressing such threats …"⁶

Federico Alfaro, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama and Co-President of ICONS, added: "In the coming years, global stocks of nuclear material are expected to continue growing …We cannot allow for such material to fall into the wrong hands."

IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi told an ICONS ministerial side event:

"A nuclear security incident in one country could have effects far beyond that country's borders, so it is vital that all of us remain ahead of the curve in guarding against nuclear terrorism and other malicious acts."

Nuclear explosive material can and does go missing

Perhaps the most alarming element of ICONS was the disclosure of the IAEA's Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB).⁷ It revealed that the IAEA last year received notifications of nearly 190 incidents of nuclear and other radioactive material being out of regulatory control, including some cases of trafficking and other criminal activities.

The IAEA stresses that "with 140 participating States, the database plays an important role in fostering international cooperation and information sharing among countries. By reporting lost or stolen material to the ITDB, countries increase the chances of its recovery and reduce the opportunities for it to be used in criminal activities. The information is shared with the IAEA, other Member States and relevant international organizations supporting the retrieval of lost or stolen material and the prosecution of suspected criminals."⁸

In 2019, 189 incidents were reported by 36 States, indicating that unauthorized activities and events involving nuclear and other radioactive material, including incidents of trafficking and malicious use, continue to occur. Six of the incidents were related to trafficking or malicious use, continuing a slight downward trend since a peak of 20 such incidents around 15 years ago. Over the past ten years, the average number of incidents submitted to the ITDB has been 185 per year.

Since 1993, 3686 incidents have been reported to the ITDB, of which 290 involved a confirmed or likely act of trafficking or malicious use. Twelve of those incidents included high enriched uranium and two included plutonium. Radioactive sources continue to be reported as stolen or missing, underscoring the need to improve security measures for such sources, especially during transport.

IAEA: propagandist and protector

The IAEA's relatively new Director-General Grossi – probably unintentionally – revealed the dynamic tension the IAEA has in both promoting and regulating nuclear power, in his remarks to open ICONS:⁹

"We live in a world in which nuclear activities are growing in a very sustained way. The number of nuclear power plants, laboratories and locations dealing with nuclear material is increasing. This is a magnet for groups with malicious intent, which see in this material a possibility to create panic and bring distress and pain to our societies. Nuclear security is about more than just preventing nuclear terrorism. It is essential for ensuring that countries can enjoy the great benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear science and technology sustainably, and for maintaining public confidence. Maintaining the highest levels of nuclear security should not be seen as an obstacle to using nuclear technology, but rather as an enabler." (emphasis added)

Funding

Recognizing that collective action against transfrontier nuclear security threats requires collective international action, an International Nuclear Security Fund has been established.

The IAEA reported at the conclusion of ICONS that countries announced or confirmed a total of more than US$20 million to the IAEA Nuclear Security Fund (NSF).¹⁰ Grossi in his closing remarks said: "The pledges of contribution to the NSF is an indication of the political commitment, [as well as of the] seriousness of the mission and the gravity of the challenges."

Raja Raja Adnan, Director of the IAEA's Division of Nuclear Security, added: "The Nuclear Security Plan responds to priorities Member States have expressed. The Nuclear Security Plan 2022-2025 will be informed by the recommendations from the five high-level panels and 55 technical sessions held during ICONS 2020."

In other side events held in the margins of ICONS 2020, participants discussed the prevention and detection of trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive material, challenges of securing nuclear fuel during transport, integrating safety and security in the management of disused sealed radioactive sources, the development of regulatory infrastructure, and challenges in defining nuclear security in every language.

Flawed entrance of the new "Global Britain"

In his speech to ICONS, British minister Nadhim Zahawi asserted "an attack against a nuclear facility, or using radioactive materials, could severely harm people, our prosperity and the environment. It would damage public acceptance of nuclear technologies with far-reaching consequences," before announcing that the UK was to add £1.6m to the international nuclear security fund.¹¹

How seriously does minister Zahawi – and the government he represents – take his own warning?

By contrast to the £1.6m set aside for nuclear security protection, what other recent expenditures on the nuclear sector in the UK have been announced? Last October, the U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson, pledged £220m of new resources for fusion R&D.^12,13

Last November, the UK energy department committed an additional an initial £36m for small modular reactor (SMR) development.¹⁴ This was on top what the energy department (BEIS) told Parliament in March 2019 of up to £56m "being made available to support the development of advanced modular reactors, including up to £44m for a Feasibility and Development Project and £12m for the Office of Nuclear Regulation and Environment Agency to build the necessary capability."¹⁵

You can see from comparing these amounts – £1.6m for nuclear security contrasted with £312m collectively for news fusion and SMR development – just where nuclear security resides in the U.K. government hierarchy of nuclear priorities. Completely skewed priorities, reflecting the power of the nuclear lobby, that has failed in its mission to launch a nuclear renaissance, but has convinced under-informed ministers to throw huge amounts of new R&D resources to keep a dying industry alive, while neglecting the real challenges of nuclear insecurities.

Trans-Atlantic knowledge gaps over innovative new nuclear designs

At ICONS, Jeremy Edwards, business manager of NNL (UK National Nuclear Laboratory) informed Dr. Ed Lyman, Senior Global Security Scientist of the US Union of Concerned Scientists, about the UK using the AVERT vulnerability assessment software. Dr. Lyman said that, disturbingly, Edwards erroneously "claimed had received extensive accreditation by the US DOE" ‒ to 'optimize' – i.e. reduce ‒ security at nuclear facilities. Lyman corrected this, pointing out that DOE did not actually accredit the software for most of the applications that he discussed.

Another British contributor, Dan Hasted – Lead Security Regulator for Sellafield, Dounreay, Plutonium, & Transport at the UK nuclear regulator, Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) ‒ presented a paper in Vienna under the banner 'Nuclear security of new nuclear technologies (e.g. small modular reactors)' in the session on 'Nuclear Security: Supporting And Enabling The Peaceful Use Of Nuclear Power – Portability Of Competent Authority's Assessment Activity To Third Party States.'

Hasted both promoted innovative regulation and the early deployment of SMRs, which, as an independent regulator, it may be argued is out of place. Surely regulators must remain studiously neutral towards the merits of nuclear technology deployment.

In his opening comments, he mused: "Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and other Advanced Nuclear Technologies (ANTs) offer potential advantages in respect of being quickly deployable and requiring lower capital investments."

Hasted then added: "It is not the Competent Authority (CA)'s role to promote nuclear power but can the CA community remove barriers by working together?," and pondered "Does the importing CA start from a zero base assessment of the security characteristics and required physical protection or does it take account of the assessment activity of the exporting CA? If so, to what extent?"

He concluded: "The overall aim is for the security community, which has for long been perceived as a blocker, to enable and support" and that: "Greater collaboration between CAs could enable the potential modularisation, rapidly deployable and scalable nature of the next generation of reactors to be realised."

Regulators elide into promoters with such conclusions!

Reprinted from the energy transition website hosted by the Heinrich Boel Stiftung (Foundation), https://energytransition.org/2020/03/iconic-failure-to-recognise-nuclear...

References:

1. https://www.iaea.org/events/nuclear-security-conference-2020

2. https://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/43046/International-Conference-on-...

3. https://www.iaea.org/events/nuclear-security-conference-2016

4. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/ministers-at-iaea-conference-highlig...)

5. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-ministerial-conference...

6. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/20/02/cn-278-ministerial-declar...

7. https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/itdb

8. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-database-shows-contin...

9. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/director-generals-statement-a...

10. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/countries-to-provide-us-20-million-...

11. http://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uk-national-statement-to-the-iaea-...

12. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/miniature-sun-fusion-reactor-to-be-bui...

13. http://www.newscientist.com/article/2218570-boris-johnson-jokes-about-uk...)

14. http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-technologies/...

15. https://www.nuclearconsult.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Prospects-f...

US: Could the last remaining nuclear power project fall over?

Last year, the twin AP1000 reactor project in South Carolina was abandoned after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion. Now, the last remaining reactor construction project ‒ the twin AP1000 reactor project in Georgia ‒ is in jeopardy. The Wall Street Journal reported on September 20:

"The sole remaining nuclear power plant under construction in the U.S. is facing mounting opposition from cities and lawmakers concerned about its rising costs. A decision on the expansion of Georgia's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant is expected by Monday [September 24], when its three primary owners are set to vote on whether to continue going ahead.

"The project is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule, and expected to cost upwards of $27 billion, more than double the original price tag estimated when work began a decade ago. It has received $12 billion in federal loan guarantees, including $3.7 billion from the Trump administration last year.

"Southern Co., the utility that serves as the largest owner of the project, announced last month that costs had risen by $2.2 billion, triggering the vote with the other major owners, Oglethorpe Power and the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia.

"The Vogtle plant is the only nuclear power plant under construction, or even serious consideration, in the U.S. If work on it stops, the prospects for new nuclear power in the U.S. would dim considerably and raise the question of whether the country can revitalize its nuclear industry.

"On Wednesday, 20 Georgia lawmakers wrote a letter expressing "concern about the ever-escalating cost" of the power plant, under construction in Waynesboro, Ga., and seeking a cap on how much of those costs could be passed on to customers of smaller utilities. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican, wrote a letter in support of finishing work, offering his "full support moving this project forward."

"Earlier this month, one the biggest future expected customers of the nuclear plant, a public utility in Jacksonville, Fla., filed a lawsuit to try to back out of the deal. The utility, JEA, contracted with the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, known as MEAG, to buy about 10% of the plant's new units for 20 years. Now, it argues, there are less expensive options.

"On Tuesday, the JEA chairman wrote an open letter urging MEAG ‒ a collection of 49 rural electric cooperatives and cities that operate municipal power companies ‒ to vote against continuing with the project when it takes up the issue Friday, before the Monday vote by the three major partners.

"JEA ran ads in Georgia newspapers on Wednesday, including one published in the Newnan Times-Herald that called Vogtle "a mistake that will cost you and your children for years to come." ...

"When Southern announced last month that the Vogtle costs had risen by $2.2 billion, the company said it would not ask its customers to pay for the increase and instead took a $1 billion charge to its earnings. But as public utilities, some of the other partners have noted that they don't have shareholders with whom to share the burden.

"Georgia Power said it "has voted to move forward, and we hope the co-owners will also vote in favor to fulfill their obligation."

"If any of the three owners vote against moving ahead, the project would be imperiled. Southern's Georgia Power owns 45.7% of the plant, while MEAG owns 22.7% and Oglethorpe roughly 30%. Another company, Dalton Utilities, owns a small share, 1.6%."

Abridged from: Russell Gold, 20 Sept 2018, 'Growing Opposition Threatens Completion of Last U.S. Nuclear Plant', www.wsj.com/articles/growing-opposition-threatens-completion-of-last-u-s...

See also:

• Anastaciah Ondieki, 19 Sept 2018, 'Georgia legislators call for cost cap on nuclear plant Vogtle', The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, www.ajc.com/business/economy/georgia-legislators-call-for-cost-cap-nucle...
• Jim Galloway, Greg Bluestein and Tamar Hallerman, 20 Sept 2018, 'The Jolt: 'Election' campaign erupts ahead of Plant Vogtle nuke votes', https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/the-jolt-election-campaign-erup...
• Ross Williams, 20 Sept 2018, 'Vogtle fate rests in key vote, deadline Monday', www.mdjonline.com/news/vogtle-fate-rests-in-key-vote-deadline-monday/art...

Fukushima clean-up workers, including homeless, at grave risk of exploitation, say UN experts

Japan must act urgently to protect tens of thousands of workers who are reportedly being exploited and exposed to toxic nuclear radiation in efforts to clean up the damaged Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station, say three UN human rights experts: Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on the disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Urmila Bhoola, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, and Dainius Puras, special rapporteur on physical and mental health.¹

"Workers hired to decontaminate Fukushima reportedly include migrant workers, asylum seekers and people who are homeless," said the experts. "We are deeply concerned about possible exploitation by deception regarding the risks of exposure to radiation, possible coercion into accepting hazardous working conditions because of economic hardships, and the adequacy of training and protective measures. We are equally concerned about the impact that exposure to radiation may have on their physical and mental health."

Contamination of the area and exposure to radiation remains a major hazard for workers trying to make the area safe seven years after the catastrophic nuclear meltdown which followed damage to the power plant from an earthquake and subsequent tsunami.

Tens of thousands of workers have been recruited over the past seven years under the decontamination programme. Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare indicates on its website that 46,386 workers were employed in 2016; and the Radiation Worker Central Registration Centre of Japan has indicated that as many as 76,951 decontamination workers were hired in the five-year period up to 2016.

The experts said: "The people most at risk of exposure to toxic substances are those most vulnerable to exploitation: the poor, children and women, migrant workers, people with disabilities and older workers. They are often exposed to a myriad of human rights abuses, forced to make the abhorrent choice between their health and income, and their plight is invisible to most consumers and policymakers with the power to change it."

"Detailed reports that the decontamination contracts were granted to several large contractors, and that hundreds of small companies, without relevant experience, were subcontracted, are of concern. These arrangements, together with the use of brokers to recruit a considerable number of the workers, may have created favourable conditions for the abuse and violation of workers' rights."

The UN rights experts have engaged in a dialogue with the Japanese government since last year and have taken into account a recent reply to their most recent concerns.

As part of its Universal Periodic Review, Japan recently "accepted to follow up" on a recommendation from other States to restore radiation levels to those before the disaster to protect the human right to health of pregnant women and children, among several other recommendations. The experts strongly urge the government to lower the allowable dose of radiation to 1 mSv/year to protect children and women who may become pregnant.

An official of Japan's Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry called the UN statement regrettable and one-sided, as did Japan's Foreign Ministry.²

1. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 16 Aug 2018, 'Japan: Fukushima clean-up workers, including homeless, at grave risk of exploitation, say UN experts', www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23458&LangID=E

2. Reuters, 17 Aug 2018, 'Tens of thousands' of workers exposed to radiation risks in Fukushima cleanup, U.N. rights experts say, www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/08/17/national/u-n-rights-experts-allege-...

2018 NTI Index: Nuclear security progress in jeopardy

After years of progress on nuclear security, the fourth edition of the Nuclear Threat Initiative's NTI Nuclear Security Index finds that the steps countries have taken to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism are jeopardized by a deterioration of political stability and governance, an increase in corruption, and the expanding presence of terrorist groups around the world. The 2018 NTI Index also finds that many countries remain poorly prepared to defend against rapidly expanding and evolving cyber threats to nuclear facilities.

On a brighter note, the biennial NTI Index finds that there has been some progress reducing the number of countries holding fissile, weapons-usable materials. Twenty-two countries now have fissile materials (highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium), compared with 32 when the first NTI Index was released in 2012. In the past two years, Argentina and Poland have joined the list of countries that have removed or disposed of all highly enriched uranium within their territories.

In another positive development, of the 44 countries and Taiwan that have nuclear facilities where an act of sabotage could cause a dangerous release of radiation, 78% improved their Sabotage Ranking scores by implementing greater on-site physical protection, enhanced insider threat prevention, improved response capabilities, and other security measures. However, the NTI Index shows substantial room for improvement in this area and finds a troubling deterioration in the risk environment in almost a quarter of the countries with nuclear materials or facilities that could be targeted.

Four global Nuclear Security Summits, held between 2010 and 2016, highlighted nuclear security risks but no more summits are planned. "The summits were crucial for holding states accountable for appropriate and effective security measures," said NTI President Joan Rohlfing. "Unfortunately, no comparable cooperative global effort has emerged to replace them, leaving dangerous gaps in the current global nuclear security system that terrorist groups or others seeking weapons of mass destruction could exploit."

Nuclear Threat Initiative, 5 Sept 2018, 'Important Nuclear Security Progress Now in Jeopardy, According to 2018 NTI Index', https://ntiindex.org/news-items/important-nuclear-security-progress-now-...

Full report: https://ntiindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NTI_2018-Index_FINAL.pdf

A number of nuclear security issues have emerged in Belgium in recent months, and long-standing problems have been exposed. Here we pull together some of the most illuminating commentary.

Academics Robert Downes and Daniel Salisbury summarize recent problems and provide some context:¹

"Belgium's counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels. The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country. Occurring a week before a major international summit² on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

"The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium's nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.³ The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site's "protected area", which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers.⁴ Yet, Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.⁵

"Beyond incursions, so-called "insider threats" have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation's nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

"In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant.⁶ The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month. Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.⁷

"Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq.⁸ This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or "dirty bomb" – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

"It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under "hostile surveillance" by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris.⁷ Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials.

"Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an "insider threat". A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

"This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012.⁶ Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that "several people have ... been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism"."

Before and after the March 22 terrorist attacks in Brussels, authorities revoked the security clearances of 11 workers at the Tihange nuclear power plant.^9,10 After the March 22 attacks, all non-essential staff were sent home from the Tihange and Doel nuclear power plants to reduce the risk of unauthorized access, and military presence was increased at the sites.^11,12

Patchy record

A February 29 analysis by the Center for Public Integrity outlines Belgium's patchy record on nuclear security:⁷

"In 2004, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell raised the reactor security issue with Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, according to a February 2005 U.S. diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks.¹³ U.S. nuclear authorities also asked their counterparts in France ‒ which arms guards at its own nuclear sites ‒ to help persuade the Belgians to take the issue seriously.

"Three years later, many of the security upgrades urged by Washington were still not in place, due to what Belgian officials termed "unforeseen technical, budgetary, and management issues," according to a March 2007 U.S. cable disclosed by Wikileaks.¹⁴ But by late 2009, Belgian security authorities had completed some of the work and invited American officials to witness a security drill there.

"In the drill, 13 armed police units from the surrounding area responded to a mock attack on the reactor site by five supposed terrorists equipped with rifles and small explosives, who pretended to be trying to gain access to dangerous radioactive materials. U.S. officials on the scene termed the exercise a sign of progress, but said room for improvement remained, and urged the Belgians to take lessons from more robust "force-on-force" exercises conducted at similar facilities in the United States.

"It wasn't until 2013, nine years after Powell's complaint, that Belgium enacted laws strengthening its security clearance procedures and providing serious criminal penalties for both improper handling of radioisotopes and for attempted break-ins at the high-security areas of nuclear sites. An inspection team sent to SCK-CEN and other nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency in December 2014 concluded that "the physical protection system ... is robust" but also recommended additional measures to improve security. ...

"Scheerlinck, the nuclear regulatory spokeswoman, responded that although the government recently decided to create a "Nuclear Quick Response Team" within the federal police, arming the guards stationed on-site at such facilities is not currently being considered. Doing so "would give people a false sense of security and ... weapons should only be used by people who are properly trained to deal with the kind of situations that require an armed intervention (i.e. the police and military)," she said in an emailed comment.

"Even after taking some of the security precautions urged by Washington, Belgium ‒ which has seven operating nuclear reactors ‒ was embarrassed by several 2014 incidents¹⁵ that suggest important gaps remain."

Video surveillance and armed guards at nuclear plants

Last November, 10 hours of video footage of an employee of Belgium's nuclear research reactor centre SCK-CEN was discovered in a house being rented by Mohamed Bakkali, who was arrested on suspicion of helping to plot the November 2015 terrorist siege on Paris that killed 130 people.^16,17,18 Belgian authorities believe the video camera was picked up from outside the employee's house by Ibrahim and Khalid el-Bakraoui, the suicide bombers in the March 22 Brussels attacks. The existence of the video footage became public knowledge on February 18. The Belgian interior minister initially rejected a proposal to deploy troops at nuclear plants but changed his mind a fortnight later and deployed 140 soldiers to guard five nuclear sites. Until then, Belgium had no armed troops or armed guards at its nuclear facilities.

In the absence of any concrete evidence, the motives for the video surveillance have been the subject of speculation. A spokesperson for Belgium's nuclear regulator said: "We can imagine that the terrorists might want to kidnap someone or kidnap his family."¹⁸ Another spokesperson for the nuclear regulator raised the possibility of "an accident in which someone explodes a bomb inside the plant".¹⁹ Others have speculated that the plan was to kidnap the employee "potentially to gain access to the facility and acquire enough radioactive material to create a dirty bomb."²⁰

Nuclear security expert Prof. Matthew Bunn from Harvard University questions whether the motivation was to acquire material for a dirty bomb since radiological materials are available in many locations where they would be much easier to steal, such as hospitals and industrial sites.²¹ He argues that the possibility that terrorists were (and are) seeking fissile material for nuclear weapons has been too quickly dismissed. The SCK-CEN site at Mol contains enough highly enriched uranium [HEU] for several nuclear bombs.

Bunn writes:²¹

"The Times story¹⁹ largely dismissed ‒ wrongly, in my view ‒ the idea that the HEU at SCK-CEN might have been the terrorists' ultimate objective, saying that the idea that terrorists could get such material and make a crude nuclear bomb "seems far-fetched to many experts." Unfortunately, as we document in detail in our recent report²², repeated government studies, in the United States and elsewhere, have concluded that this is not far-fetched ‒ that it is quite plausible that a sophisticated terrorist group could make a nuclear bomb if they got the needed nuclear material. ...

"Of course, just because the terrorists could find and monitor a nuclear official's home does not mean they could have broken in to SCK-CEN and gotten HEU or anything else. What did they think they could accomplish with this monitoring? One obvious possibility is that they envisioned either kidnapping the official or kidnapping his family to coerce him into helping them carry out whatever plot they had in mind. Such coercion is a frequent criminal and terrorist tactic. Breaking into a nuclear facility is not as simple as kidnapping someone. But a kidnapping might well contribute to a more complex plot.

"If the Belgian suicide bombers were the ones monitoring the nuclear official, it's possible they first planned to attack the country's nuclear infrastructure.²³ They may have shifted to the airport when their plans were accelerated by the arrests of co-conspirators, or because of Belgium's deployment of armed troops to guard its nuclear facilities. But a spokesman at the Belgian Federal Agency for Nuclear Control told the Washington Post that they "knew nothing" of any such a plot²⁴, and Belgian federal prosecutors have not confirmed any such plot.

"Press accounts of the possibility the terrorists were planning some kind of an attack on nuclear facilities have unduly played down the potential dangers of reactor sabotage. A story¹⁹ in The New York Times, for example, quotes an argument that the TATP explosive the terrorists were using would not get through the steel pressure vessel of a nuclear reactor. It is certainly true that to cause a major radioactive release, terrorists would have to understand how to overcome a number of different safety and security systems. Getting into a power plant with a suicide vest of explosives would not be enough. But as Fukushima made clear, cutting off a reactor's electricity and cooling water can cause a disaster that can provoke widespread panic and cause devastating disruption and economic losses."

US nuclear weapons in Belgium

Jeffrey Lewis from the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies writes about the security risks associated with U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in Belgium:²⁵

"If you were a Belgian terrorist, why settle for a dirty bomb, when you have the option of stealing an honest-to-goodness nuclear bomb? The United States "forward deploys" about 180 B61 nuclear bombs at bases in Europe ‒ including a small number at a Belgian air base known as Kleine Brogel, about an hour outside of Brussels. These weapons are the sole remaining tactical nuclear weapon systems that the United States deploys abroad. ...

"The security of these nuclear weapons is terrible. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The U.S. Defense Department will trot out a spokesbot to tell you everything is fine. Let me tell you a story or two. In an earlier job, I ran a project that tried to outline options for what would become the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review. One of the better parts was the travel. I made a lovely visit to Brussels, where my team had a series of very high-level meetings at the European Union and NATO headquarters. There were some steak frites, a little lambic beer, and a lot of talk about nuclear weapons. And at the time, senior U.S. military officers made one thing very clear to us: The security at the bases stunk.

"One commander noted that the upgrades necessary to meet security requirements would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Another said his worst fear was that a group of activists would be able to get inside the shelters where the nuclear weapons are stored and use a cell phone to publish a picture of the vaults. And then it happened. In January 2010, a group of protesters who call themselves "Bombspotters" entered Kleine Brogel.⁴ Apparently the plan was to hang around on the tarmac of the runway and get arrested. But no one came to arrest them. ...

"It's true that the Bombspotters haven't been back to Kleine Brogel in a few years. But that's because they've been breaking into other locations. And, a couple of years ago, there was yet another incursion, by another group of activists, at Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands.

"Security still stinks, as far as I can tell. Which brings us back to the terrorist attacks in Brussels. Do we really want to keep these weapons in Belgium, in light of what we now know are very large and organized jihadi networks in that country and France? Or in light of these security failings? The rationale for keeping nuclear weapons in Belgium and other NATO countries is the idea of burden-sharing ‒ the notion that Belgium and other European governments should share political responsibility for defending this contribution to their national defense. Yet, what contribution are U.S. nuclear weapons making, precisely, to European security? At present, they seem to pose more of a threat, a temptation for local terrorist networks."

References:

1. Robert J. Downes and Daniel Salisbury, 30 March 2016, 'Is Belgium's nuclear security up to scratch?', https://theconversation.com/is-belgiums-nuclear-security-up-to-scratch-5...

2. www.nss2016.org/

3. www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2013/alleged-al-qaeda-member-ext...

4. www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/202614/activists-breach-security-at-klei...

5. www.publicintegrity.org/2016/03/11/19417/belgium-orders-immediate-securi...

6. http://chameleonassociates.com/homeland-security/security-screening/

7. Patrick Malone and R. Jeffrey Smith, 29 Feb 2016, 'The Islamic State's Plot to Build a Radioactive 'Dirty Bomb'', http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/29/the-islamic-states-plot-to-build-a-r...

8. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28240140

9. Rachel Middleton, 25 March 2016, 'Fears Brussels cell was plotting radioactive attack after 11 nuclear workers' access passes revoked', www.ibtimes.co.uk/fears-brussels-cell-plotting-radioactive-attack-after-...

10. 24 March 2016, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3507417/Brussels-bombers-DID-plan-attac...

11. Angelique Chrisafis, 26 March 2016, 'Belgium steps up security at nuclear sites in wake of attacks', www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/25/belgium-steps-up-security-at-nucle...

12. Reuters, 22 March 2016, 'Non-essential staff at Belgian nuclear plants Doel and Tihange sent home', http://news.yahoo.com/non-essential-staff-evacuated-belgian-tihange-nucl...

13. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05paris670_a.html

14. https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07brussels844_a.html

15. www.dw.com/en/germany-expresses-concerns-over-belgian-nuclear-safety/a-1...

16. 27 March 2016, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12204863/Brussels-terr...

17. R. Jeffrey Smith, 25 March 2016, 'A Nuclear Wake-Up Call in Belgium', www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/a-nuclear-wake-up...

18. Patrick Malone, 24 March 2016, 'Report: Brussels suicide bombers sought radioactive materials', http://news.yahoo.com/report-suicide-bombers-sought-radioactive-20380098...

19. Alissa J. Rubin and Milan Schreuer, 25 March 2016, 'Belgium Fears Nuclear Plants Are Vulnerable', www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/world/europe/belgium-fears-nuclear-plants-are...

20. Samuel Osborne, 19 Feb 2016, 'Isis suspects secretly monitored Belgian nuclear scientist, raising dirty bomb fears', www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-dirty-bomb-nuclear-scientis...

21. Matthew Bunn, 29 March 2016, 'Belgium Highlights the Nuclear Terrorism Threat and Security Measures to Stop it', www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-bunn/belgium-nuclear-terrorism_b_9559006....

22. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/PreventingNuclearTerrorism-Web...

23. www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4721270.ece

24. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/brussels-attacks-stoke-fears...

25. Jeffrey Lewis, 29 March 2016, 'Belgium's Failed State Is Guarding America's Nuclear Weapons', http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/29/belgiums-failed-state-is-guarding-am...

==================================================================

Belgium's nuclear power program: Trade unions take action

Belgium's nuclear program has featured prominently in the media in recent months, and not just because of the security scares. There were the thousands of cracks in the pressure vessels of two reactors, and a fierce public debate over the lifetime extension of the oldest nuclear reactors. Last week, trade unions blocked access to the Tihange nuclear power plant for several days. Only the operators could enter the plant. The trade unions complain about bad relations with the Executive Board, which would not respect an agreement between the board and the trade unions. Trade unions also claim that working conditions have deteriorated. The discontent of the trade unions also has to do with their dissatisfaction with government policy. According to them, government is far too friendly to businesses. On Friday April 15, the trade unions and the managing director came to an agreement and the blockade was removed. During the action, electricity supply was not disrupted.

Belgian law provides for the closure of Belgium's seven reactors within 10 years. What will be the future for the staff of the two Belgian nuclear power plants? Will they be able to find another job within owner Engie Electrabel? With the same job quality and wage conditions? There is another important question. In recent years traditional utilities such as EDF, Eon and Engie have experienced hard times. Their business model is faltering. Will Engie Electrabel be sufficiently profitable to maintain the current wage policy? If not, employees could risk worse salary conditions. Will employees accept that, or will there be strikes and blockades of nuclear power plants? These are major issues but there is little discussion or debate about them in Belgium at the moment. Last week's action at the Tihange nuclear plant might be the harbinger of a long and important social struggle.

‒ Luc Barbé, independent consultant on energy issues

Public opposition to reactor restarts, and the nuclear industry more generally, continues to exert some influence in Japan. Five to seven of the oldest of Japan's 48 'operable' reactors are likely to be sacrificed to dampen opposition to the restart of other reactors, and public opposition may result in the permanent shut down of some other reactors.¹

However, slowly but surely, the collusive practices that led to the Fukushima disaster are re-emerging. The 'nuclear village' is regaining control.

Energy policy

After the Fukushima accident, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) government commenced a review of energy policy. After deliberations in a committee that included more or less equal numbers of nuclear critics, proponents and neutral people, three scenarios were put forward in June 2012 − based on 0%, 15% and 20−25% of electricity generation from nuclear reactors. These scenarios were put to a broad national debate, the outcome of which was that a clear majority of the public supported a nuclear phase-out. The national debate played a crucial role in pushing the DPJ government to support a nuclear phase-out.²

After the December 2012 national election, the incoming Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) government repudiated the DPJ's goal of phasing out nuclear power. The LDP government also revamped the policy-drafting committee, drastically reducing the number of nuclear critics. And the committee itself was sidelined in the development of a draft Basic Energy Plan. "From a process perspective, this represents a step back about 20 years," said Dr Philip White, an expert on Japan's energy policy formation process.²

"A major step toward greater public participation and disclosure of information occurred after the December 1995 sodium leak and fire at the Monju fast breeder reactor," Dr White wrote in Nuclear Monitor last year. "Although public participation was not conducted in good faith, at least lip service was paid. It seems that the current government has decided that it doesn't even need to pay lip service."²

The Basic Energy Plan approved by Cabinet in April 2014 contains nothing more than a meaningless nod to widespread public anti-nuclear sentiment, stating that dependence on nuclear energy will be reduced 'to the extent possible'.

Junko Edahiro, chief executive of Japan for Sustainability and one of the people removed from the energy policy advisory committee, noted in November 2014: "Now what we have is a situation where government officials and committees are back to doing their jobs as if the March 2011 disasters had never occurred. They have resumed what they had been doing for 30 or 40 years, focusing on nuclear power. ... In Japan we have what some people refer to as a "nuclear village": a group of government officials, industries, and academia notorious for being strongly pro-nuclear. There has been little change in this group, and the regulatory committee to oversee nuclear policies and operations is currently headed by a well-known nuclear proponent."³

'An accident will surely happen again'

Yotaro Hatamura, who previously chaired the 'Cabinet Office Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of TEPCO', recently told the Asahi Shimbun newspaper that pre-Fukushima complacency is returning.⁴

"Sufficient investigations have not been conducted" into the causes of the Fukushima disaster, said Hatamura, professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at the University of Tokyo. The Cabinet Office Investigation Committee report called on the government to continue efforts to determine the cause of the nuclear disaster, but "almost none" of its proposals have been reflected in recent government actions, Hatamura said.

He further noted that tougher nuclear safety standards were introduced after the Fukushima disaster, but with the exception of this "regulatory hurdle ... the situation seems unchanged from before the accident."

"It does not appear that organizations to watch [government actions] are working properly," Hatamura said. "There could always be lapses in oversight in safety assessments, and an accident will surely happen again."

Hatamura questioned the adequacy of evacuation plans, saying they have been compiled without fully reflecting on the Fukushima accident" "The restarts of reactors should be declared only after sufficient preparations are made, such as conducting evacuation drills covering all residents living within 30 kilometers of each plant based on developed evacuation plans."

Japan Atomic Energy Commission

In September 2012, the DPJ government promised that a review of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) would be conducted 'with its abolition and reorganization in mind'. The government established a review committee, which published a report in December 2012. After taking office, the incoming LDP government shelved the report and commenced a new review.⁵

The second review recommended that the JAEC no longer produce an overarching Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy. But an LDP committee has reportedly decided that the JAEC will be tasked with putting together a nuclear energy policy that would effectively have equivalent status to the Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy.⁵

Two reviews, very little change − and far from being abolished, the JAEC retains a role in framing nuclear policy. Moreover, the government has proposed that the JAEC, a promoter of nuclear power, could acts as a 'third party' in the choice of a final disposal site for nuclear waste. Some experts who attended a ministry panel meeting in February questioned the JAEC's independence.⁶

TEPCO

Many have called for TEPCO to be nationalised, or broken up into separate companies, but the LDP government has protected and supported the company. The government has also greatly increased financial support for TEPCO. For example in January 2014 the government approved an increase in the ceiling for interest-free loans the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund is allowed to give TEPCO, from 5 trillion yen to 9 trillion yen (US$41.2−74.1b; €39.0−70.2b).⁷

The government will also cover some of the costs for dealing with the Fukushima accident which TEPCO was previously required to pay, such as an estimated 1.1 trillion yen (US$9.1b; €8.6b) for interim storage facilities for waste from clean-up activities outside the Fukushima Daiichi plant.⁷

The government has also amended the Electricity Business Act to extend the period for collecting decommissioning funds from electricity rates by up to 10 years after nuclear plants are shut down. The amendments also allow TEPCO to include in electricity rates depreciation costs for additional equipment purchased for the decommissioning of the Fukushima plant.⁸

Media censorship and intimidation

Japan has steadily slipped down Reporters Without Borders global ranking for press freedom since the Fukushima disaster, from 11th in 2010 to 61st in the latest ranking.^9,10

Journalists have been threatened with 'criminal contempt' and defamation suits, and Japan's 'state secrets' law makes investigative journalism about Japan's nuclear industry perilous.¹¹ Under the law, which took effect in December 2014, the government can sentence those who divulge government secrets − which are broadly defined − to a decade in jail.¹⁰

Benjamin Ismaïl from Reporters Without Borders wrote in March 2014: "As we feared in 2012, the freedom to inform and be informed continues to be restricted by the 'nuclear village' and government, which are trying to control coverage of their handling of the aftermath of this disaster. Its long-term consequences are only now beginning to emerge and coverage of the health risks and public health issues is more important than ever."¹¹

Reporters Without Borders stated in March 2014: "Both Japanese and foreign reporters have described to Reporters Without Borders the various methods used by the authorities to prevent independent coverage of the [Fukushima] disaster and its consequences. They have been prevented from covering anti-nuclear demonstrations and have been threatened with criminal proceedings for entering the "red zone" declared around the plant. And they have even been interrogated and subjected to intimidation by the intelligence services."¹¹

References:

1. 30 Jan 2015, 'Reactor restarts in Japan', Nuclear Monitor #797, www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitors
2. Philip White, 24 Jan 2014, Japan goes back to the future to affirm energy 'foundation', Nuclear Monitor #776, www.wiseinternational.org/node/4219
See also: 16 March 2013, 'Abe purges energy board of antinuclear experts',
www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/03/16/national/abe-purges-energy-board-of...
18 Oct 2013, 'Pro-nuclear voices dominate energy policy committee', http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/analysis/AJ201310180073
3. Junko Edahiro, November 2014, 'Toward a Sustainable Japan: Fukushima Accidents Show Japan's Challenges', JFS Newsletter No.147, www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id035110.html
4. 10 March 2015, 'Ex-panel chief says Japan still hasn't learned lessons from Fukushima crisis', http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201503100048
5. Philip White, 10 July 2014, 'Reform of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: as if Fukushima never happened', Nuclear Monitor #788, www.wiseinternational.org/node/4244
See also: Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Jan/Feb 2015, Nuke Info Tokyo No. 164, www.cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit164/nit164articles/07_nw164.html
6. Kyodo, 17 Feb 2015, 'Government explores options on how to store nuclear waste in the long term', www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/17/national/science-health/final-nucle...
7. Kyodo, 15 Jan 2014, 'Gov't OKs new business turnaround plan for TEPCO, to give more aid', www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/140115/govt-ok...
8. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Oct 2013, www.meti.go.jp/press/2013/10/20131001002/20131001002.html
9. Reporters Without Borders: http://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details/JPN
10. Toko Sekiguchi, 13 Feb 2015, 'Japan Slips in Press Freedom Ranking', http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/02/13/japan-slips-in-press-freed...
11. 12 March 2014, 'Japan – Nuclear lobby still gagging independent coverage three years after disaster', http://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2014/03/12/japan-nuclear-lobby-still-gagging...

Belgium is a microcosm of the ageing nuclear power industry. The International Energy Agency predicts a "wave of retirements"¹ − almost 200 reactor shut downs by 2040 − and Oilprice.com argues that it is unclear whether new build will offset the "tidal wave" of reactor shut downs over the next 20 years.² Belgium is at the sharp edge of this new nuclear era: the Era of Nuclear Decommissioning, the END.

Belgium's seven reactors − all pressurized water reactors − are all operated by Electrabel, a GDF Suez subsidiary. Electrabel owns 100% of two reactors, 89.8% of four reactors and 50% of one reactor. EDF and SPE are the other companies with ownership stakes.³

When all seven reactors were operating, they supplied about half of Belgium's electricity. All are due to be shut down by the end of 2025. Belgium's nuclear phase-out law mandates the shut down of six reactors when they have operated for 40 years − with the exception of Tihange 1, which is due to be shut down in 2025 when it has operated for 50 years.

All seven reactors have been in the news over the past year:

• Doel 1: Shut down when its 40-year licence expired in February 2015.
• Doel 2: Now operating but due to be shut down in December 2015. GDF Suez / Electrabel is negotiating a possible licence extension for Doel 1 and 2 to operate for another 10 years, and seeking regulatory approval.
• Doel 3 and Tihange 2: Offline since March 2014 due to concerns about the integrity of reactor pressure vessels; future uncertain.
• Doel 4: Offline for more than four months in 2014 due to suspected sabotage of the high-pressure turbine. Now operating.
• Tihange 1: Now in its fortieth year of operation but licensed to operate for another 10 years. Greenpeace has initiated a legal challenge against the licence extension, because of the failure to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment and cross-boundary consultation in line with Belgium's obligations under the Espoo Convention (the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context). Court hearings are scheduled for March 24 and the judge is expected to present his verdict soon after.
• Tihange 3: Briefly shut down following a fire in December 2014. Now operating.

Policies and politics

Nuclear power policies and laws have been in flux over the past two decades:³

• In 1999, the government announced that reactor lifetimes would be limited to 40 years, and banned further reprocessing.
• In 2003, the Belgian Parliament passed legislation banning the building of new power reactors and limited the operating lives of existing reactors to 40 years.
• In 2009, the government decided to postpone the phase-out by 10 years, so that it would not begin before 2025. This would allow the licensing of reactor life extensions. Reactor operators agreed to pay a special tax of €215−245 million (US$227−259m) per year from 2010−14, and more thereafter. GDF Suez also agreed to subsidise renewables and demand-side management by paying at least €500 million (US$528m) for both, and it maintaining 13,000 jobs in energy efficiency and recycling.

However, an election in April 2010 occurred before the agreed proposals were passed by parliament and thus the nuclear phase-out law remains in place. In July 2012 Belgium's Council of Ministers announced that Doel 1 and 2 were to close in 2015 after 40 years of operation, but Tihange 1 would be permitted to operate to 2025. This was written into law in December 2013. The government said that it had rewritten the 2003 law so that its current stance could not be changed by decree, and therefore the timing of the phase-out "is now final."^3,4

In December 2014 the Council of Ministers from the new ruling coalition government agreed that Doel 1 and 2 could continue operating for a further 10 years, to 2025. Energy minister Marie-Christine Marghem said that it was an "unconditional prerequisite" that the Belgian nuclear regulator − the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) − approve licence extensions for the two reactors. She noted that Belgium's planned nuclear phase-out by the end of 2025 remains in place.⁴

The government decision to allow Doel 1 and 2 to continue to operate for a further 10 years was partly a result of problems with other reactors − in particular the outages of Tihange 2 and Doel 3 and uncertainty about their future. GDF Suez / Electrabel is in negotiation with the Belgian government over the Doel 1 and 2 licence extensions but an agreement has not yet been reached − hence the shut down of Doel 1 in February in accordance with the nuclear phase-out law. Further, the regulator FANC has not yet approved licence extensions for Doel 1 and 2.⁴

GDF Suez / Electrabel is unwilling to invest up to €600−700 million (US$634−740m) in necessary upgrades to Doel 1 and 2 unless the government provides a "clear legal and economic framework" to justify the investment. Negotiations include removal of the nuclear generation tax introduced by a previous government − according to the World Nuclear Association, that tax cost the company €397 million (US$419m) in 2014.⁵

As Rianne Teule, campaign director for Greenpeace Belgium, put it: "In order to agree to such a large investment, Electrabel demands 'a clear legal and economic framework'. Read: 'a good deal to reduce the investment risks'. It's the Belgian people who will pay the price, one way or another. If not through increased taxes, when Electrabel's payments to the state decrease, then through increased electricity prices when Electrabel passes on their investments to their clients."⁶

In 2012 the government passed laws increasing the tax on nuclear operators. The government set a total contribution from nuclear operators for 2012 of €550 million (US$581m), of which Electrabel had to pay €479 million (US$506m). In June 2013 Electrabel filed an appeal to Belgium's Constitutional Court, claiming the tax violated a protocol signed by the company and the federal government in 2009, which included a lower tax, and took no account of declining revenue from nuclear power generation. In April 2014 the Court of First Instance in Brussels rejected Electrabel's claim. The company appealed, but the appeal was rejected in July 2014. Electrabel said it would continue "to examine all potential legal means in order to defend its interests" and "examine all options concerning the future of its nuclear activities in Belgium."^3,7

According to Greenpeace, nuclear power is part of the energy security problem, not part of the solution: "The reason for the potential electricity supply problem is Belgium's excessive dependency (55%) on unreliable nuclear power. A political decision to extend the lifetime of two old reactors will not mitigate this acute supply problem. It will take at least a year to implement the necessary safety upgrades, and to order and fabricate new fuel for them. Extending the legally fixed phase-out calendar will undermine investment in real climate solutions such as energy efficiency and renewables."⁸

Tihange 2 and Doel 3 − compromised reactor pressure vessels

Doel 3 and Tihange 2 were taken offline in 2012 when ultrasound testing suggested the presence of cracks in their reactor vessels. Further investigations indicated that the defects are so-called hydrogen 'flakes'. FANC allowed Electrabel to restart the reactors in May 2013. However the reactors were again taken offline in March 2014 after Electrabel reported that tests to investigate the mechanical strength of irradiated specimens of similar material "did not deliver results in line with experts' expectations".⁹ FANC said that "a fracture toughness test revealed unexpected results, which suggested that the mechanical properties of the material were more strongly influenced by radiation than experts had expected."¹⁰

In January 2015, FANC said the process to restart the reactors had been extended from April to July so that Electrabel could answer further questions. In February, FANC announced that additional inspections revealed more extensive flaking within the pressure vessels of the two reactors than previously identified. FANC said 13,047 flaw indications have now been found in the vessel of Doel 3 and 3,149 in that of Tihange 2. Further test results are expected by April.^1,9

FANC Director General Jans Bens said: "This may be a global problem for the entire nuclear industry. The solution is to implement worldwide, accurate inspections of all 430 nuclear power plants."¹¹

Shortly after approving the restart of Doel 3 and Tihange 2 in May 2013 − a decision that was contested at the time and seems unwise in hindsight − Bens was seriously downplaying nuclear risks: "The harbour of Antwerp is being filled with windmills, and the chemical industry is next to it. If there is an accident like a break in one of the wings, that is a guillotine. If that goes through a chloride pipe somewhere, it will be a problem of a bigger magnitude than what can happen at Doel. Windmills are more dangerous than nuclear power plants."¹²

Two materials scientists have said the unexpected flaws in Doel 3 and Tihange 2 could be related to corrosion from normal operation, with potential implications for reactors worldwide. Prof. Digby MacDonald said: "The consequences could be very severe ... like fracturing the pressure vessel. Loss of coolant accident. This would be a leak before break scenario. ... My advice is that all reactor operators, under the guidance of the regulatory commissions should be required to do an ultrasonic survey of the pressure vessels. All of them." Prof. Walter Bogaerts said: "If I had to estimate, I would really be surprised if it ... had occurred nowhere else.^13,14

Electrabel reacted to the latest news by saying that it may be willing to "sacrifice" one of the two reactors to allow destructive testing to learn more about the problem.¹⁵

Doel 3 and 4: Fire and sabotage

On 1 December 2014 at 10:30am, a fire began in the electrical substation transformer building at Doel and led to an emergency shutdown of reactor #3. The fire was put out by the local fire service and the reactor was restarted at 5am the following day.¹⁶ Fires at nuclear power plants pose significant risks to reactor safety due to the potential disruption of the electrical supply to vital reactor safety functions. The risks in Belgium are all the greater because of the high population density and the concentration of seven reactors at just two sites.¹⁷

Sabotage at Doel 4

The Belgium nuclear industry was shaken on 5 August 2014 when it was revealed that sabotage had caused, in Electrabel's words, "significant damage" at Doel 4. Lubricant had been discharged from the high-pressure turbine through a valve which had probably been opened deliberately by a worker. Some 6,000 professionals from 15 companies participated in the repair of the turbine. The repair involved the manufacture of 2500 blades at four plants in China, Croatia, Italy and Switzerland.¹⁸ The reactor was restarted on December 19.¹⁹

The END of nuclear power

When the last reactor is shut down in 2025, that won't be the end of Belgium's nuclear program but the beginning of the END − the Era of Nuclear Decommissioning.

In addition to the decommissioning of seven reactors, Belgians will somehow have to manage: high-level nuclear waste currently stored at Dessel and at reactor plants; larger volumes of low- and intermediate-level waste; and other nuclear facilities now in various stages of decommissioning including a MOX fuel fabrication plant and the Eurochemic reprocessing plant at Dessel.

References:

1. International Energy Agency, 2014, 'World Economic Outlook 2014', www.worldenergyoutlook.org
2. Nick Cunningham, 19 Feb 2015, 'Is There Any Hope Left For Nuclear Energy?', http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Is-There-Any-Hope-L...
3. World Nuclear Association, 17 Feb 2015, 'Nuclear Power in Belgium', www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Belgium/
4. WNN, 12 Feb 2015, 'Belgian reactor shutdown imminent', www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Belgian-reactor-shutdown-imminent-1202156.html
5. WNA Weekly Digest, 27 Feb 2015, http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=b933e03098
6. Rianne Teule, 22 Dec 2014, 'Belgium's government is Electrabel's slave', www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/belgiums...
7. World Nuclear News, 18 July 2014, 'Belgian court rejects nuclear tax complaint', www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Belgian-court-rejects-nuclear-tax-complaint...
8. Eloi Glorieux, 13 Sept 2014, 'Belgium's nuclear reactors are phasing themselves out', www.greenpeace.org/international/en/high/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/bel...
9. WNN, 17 Feb 2015, 'Further flaws found in Belgian reactor vessels', www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Further-flaws-found-in-Belgian-reactor-ves...
10. FANC, 13 Feb 2015, 'Doel 3/Tihange 2: new update',
www.fanc.be/nl/news/doel-3/tihange-2-new-update/745.aspx
11. 13 Feb 2015, 'Veel meer scheuren in kerncentrales dan gedacht', http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/1.2238955
12. Justin McKeating, 23 May 2013, 'Fact not fiction: Renewable energy is safer than nuclear power', www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/fact-not...
13. Greenpeace, 17 Feb 2015, 'Thousands more cracks found in Belgian nuclear reactors, Belgian regulatory head warns of global implications', www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Thousands-more-cracks...
14. Greenpeace, 15 Feb 2015, 'Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel Crisis', www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/kk-links/Briefing_cracking_RPV_Greenpeace_...
15. Greenpeace, 17 Feb 2015, 'Thousands of cracks in Belgian reactors, potentially a global nuclear problem', www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/cracks-i...
16. Greenpeace, 3 Dec 2014, www.greenpeace.org/international/en/high/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/bel...
17. Bart Martens, December 2014, 'De Economische Impact van een Kernramp In Doel', study commissioned by Greenpeace Belgium, www.greenpeace.org/belgium/Global/belgium/report/2014/RapportNL.pdf
18. WNN, 5 Dec 2014, 'Doel 4 restart approaches', www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Doel-4-restart-approaches-0512145.html
19. 19 Dec 2014, 'Doel 4 reactor reopens', http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2186676

Claims in late January from US President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that they had reached an agreement on accident liability arrangements have been met with scepticism.

In a detailed analysis posted on the website of the (Indian) Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, G. Balachandran writes:

"In a sort of official statement, US Ambassador to India Richard Verma was reported in the media to have said – although the US Embassy refused to either clarify or deny his having ever made such a statement – that the liability issue was to be resolved through a "memorandum of law within the Indian system" that would not require a change of the Indian law. Later on, the spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External affairs clarified the situation by the mere statement that "We will indeed be providing you that information and that will be copious in nature, it will answer all your questions." This was done ... in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) format, although this still leaves many questions unanswered. For instance, it does not answer how the understanding between the two sides will be formalised. On the contrary, the FAQ answers raise further questions that need to be answered. Obviously, a FAQ will not carry much weight in business decisions that have to be made in respect of nuclear transfers."¹

Pro-nuclear commentator Dan Yurman said:

"There is no signed piece of paper, joint communique, or treaty between the US and India that says US nuclear firms, including Westinghouse and GE Hitachi, will now be exempt from the provisions of a nuclear liability law enacted with the support of the BJP, the political party that swept PM Nodi into office. ... No one on the US side is buying it. Spokesmen for both Westinghouse and GE Hitachi were noncommittal in response to questions from the news media about the so-called "breakthrough" deal and the insurance pool. At best their responses have been lukewarm."²

Washington Post reporters Annie Gowen and Steven Mufson wrote:

"We've been characterizing it as a breakthrough or breakthrough understanding," said a senior U.S. administration official on Tuesday. But, the official said, "It is not a signed piece of paper but a process that led us to a better understanding of how we might move forward. ..."

The key issue will be whether the conflict between international law and Indian law can be waved away by a memorandum from India's attorney general. The memorandum would have to say that the 2010 liability law "doesn't mean what it says," said a Washington lawyer familiar with the issues but who asked for anonymity to protect his professional relationships. "The fear is that the U.S. government will say this is good enough," the lawyer added. "Even if the [Indian] attorney general comes out with a memorandum saying the law doesn't apply to suppliers, that's not binding on Indian courts."³

The Associated Press reported:

"India and America's declaration of a breakthrough in contentious nuclear energy cooperation has been met with a lukewarm response from industry and analysts. Few expect the potentially lucrative Indian market to suddenly become less complicated for U.S. nuclear companies."⁴

Other obstacles remain in addition to the liability issue, as energy and nuclear policy consultant Mycle Schneider told Deutsche Welle:

"In reality, there is no real market for foreign nuclear companies in India, unless they bring their own funding. Under free market conditions it is not possible anymore to build a nuclear power plant anywhere in the world. So if new reactors are built in India or elsewhere, the projects are highly subsidized, either by the government − the taxpayer − or the ratepayer."⁵

Schneider is a nuclear critic but his views on nuclear economics can also be found in the industry literature. World Nuclear News recently ran an article by Edward Kee from the Nuclear Economics Consulting Group, who notes that of the 69 reactors under construction around the world, only one is in a liberalized electricity market.⁶

References:

1. G. Balachandran, 10 Feb 2015, 'Some issues in respect of Indian's nuclear liability law', www.idsa.in/idsacomments/issuesinIndiansnuclearliabilitylaw_gbalachandra...
2. Dan Yurman, 8 Feb 2015, 'India's Nuclear Deal; Good for Diplomats; Bad for US Nuclear Firms', http://neutronbytes.com/2015/02/08/indias-nuclear-deal-good-for-diplomat...
3. Annie Gowen and Steven Mufson, 4 Feb 2015, 'Is the India nuclear agreement really the 'breakthrough' Obama promised?',
www.washingtonpost.com/world/is-the-india-nuclear-agreement-really-the-b...
4. Associated Press, 27 Jan 2015, India nuke deals still thorny for US despite 'breakthrough' www.washingtonpost.com/business/india-nuke-deals-still-thorny-for-us-des...
5. 28 Jan 2015, Breakthrough in US-India civil nuclear deal 'more symbolism than reality', www.dw.de/breakthrough-in-us-india-civil-nuclear-deal-more-symbolism-tha...
6. WNN, 4 Feb 2015, 'Can nuclear succeed in liberalized power markets?', www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Can-nuclear-succeed-in-liberalized-power-ma...

Canada: Progress with non-reactor isotope production

A research team at the University of British Columbia is making progress developing non-reactor methods to produce technetium-99m (Tc-99m), the isotope used in 70−80% of diagnostic nuclear imaging procedures. Using its Triumf cyclotron, they produced enough Tc-99m in six hours to enable about 500 scans, thereby creating a "viable alternative" to the NRU reactor which is scheduled to close in 2016.¹

Clinical trials involving 50−60 patients are expected to begin this year to prove that the cyclotron-produced Tc-99m behaves in the same way as that from nuclear reactors. If the three-month trials are successful, the university says, one of Triumf's cyclotrons "would likely be dedicated to medical isotope production", possibly as soon as 2016.

Only a handful of research reactors around the world produce molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), the parent of Tc-99m. The supply chain has been vulnerable to interruptions from unplanned reactor outages.

The Canadian government has invested around C$60 million (€43m; US$48m) in projects, including Triumf, to bring non-reactor-based isotope production technologies to market through its Isotope Technology Acceleration Program initiative.

Production of Tc-99m using cyclotrons does not require the highly enriched uranium targets that are commonly used in reactors to produce Mo-99 (and Mo-99 production has sometimes been used to justify the use of highly enriched reactor fuel). Instead, Tc-99m is produced by bombarding a Mo-100 target with a proton beam.

Another technique that is showing some promise uses the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.² The accelerator bombards a target of enriched Mo-100 with high-energy X-rays, which knock a neutron out of some of the Mo-100 atoms to produce Mo-99. If all goes to plan, two or three accelerator systems like the Canadian Light Source facility could produce enough isotopes to supply Canada's domestic needs. Production of the parent isotope Mo-99 is preferable to direct production of Tc-99, as its longer half-life (66 hours vs. 6 hours for Tc-99m) facilitates more widespread distribution.

Numerous non-reactor methods of Mo-99/Tc-99m production have been proposed over the past few decades, and some methods have been proven on an experimental scale.³ There is a reasonable chance that the looming closure of the NRU reactor in Canada will result in viable, affordable methods of large-scale, non-reactor Mo-99/Tc-99m production.

1. WNN, 9 Jan 2015, 'New record for cyclotron isotope production', www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-New-record-for-cyclotron-isotope-productio...
2. WNN, 17 Nov 2014, 'Canada ships first synchrotron isotopes', www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Canada-ships-first-synchrotron-isotopes-17...
3. www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/lh/tc99

Belgium not ready for major nuclear accident

Contingency plans for a major nuclear accident are not up to scratch and Belgium is therefore ill-prepared for such a catastrophe. This is the conclusion of a study commissioned by Greenpeace Belgium. The study was undertaken by the French Association pour le Contrôle de la Radioactivité de l'Ouest (ACRO).

Nothing has been learned from the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Emergency preparations are very limited and "would not suffice to protect Belgians if there was serious nuclear accident."

"Zones covered by current contingency plans are too limited and must be enlarged to cover the whole country. There is no mention of the evacuation of cities such as Antwerp, Liege or Namur, in spite of their location being less than 30 kms from a nuclear power station," said Greenpeace, which also highlights power stations in Gravelines, Chooz, Cattehom (France), and Borssele (Netherlands), all along the Belgian border.

For Greenpeace, the Fukushima disaster showed that contingency plans only work to protect populations if they have been developed and tested with a worst case scenario in mind. Everyone concerned – from emergency services to potential victims – must be trained in what to do in advance of an actual incident. "This is not the case in Belgium, where the case of only a limited nuclear incident with low radioactive contamination levels has been envisaged," explains Eloi Glorieux, energy campaigner for Greenpeace Belgium.

In view of the high population density in this country, and of the problems occurring at Belgian nuclear plants in recent months, the expected lifespan of Belgian reactors should not be extended, said Greenpeace.

"Will the Belgian government act responsibly to protect Belgian citizens? For now, it seems willing to run the risk and is ignoring any lessons that were learned from Fukushima and Tchernobyl. We call this culpable negligence".

The report (in Dutch) is posted at: www.greenpeace.org/belgium/nl/nieuws-blogs/Blogs/blog-klimaat/belgi-tota...

Global renewable energy knowledge hub

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has launched 'REsource' − an online platform that enables users to easily find country-specific data, create customized charts and graphs, and compare countries on metrics like renewable energy use and deployment. It also provides information on renewable energy market statistics, potentials, policies, finance, costs, benefits, innovations, education and other topics.

www.irena.org/REsource

Renewable energy costs reaching grid parity

Maturing clean energy technologies, such as onshore wind, solar power and biomass, are reaching grid parity in many parts of the world regardless of whether or not they receive subsidies, a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has revealed.¹

IRENA states: "The competitiveness of renewable power generation technologies continued improving in 2013 and 2014, reaching historic levels. Biomass for power, hydropower, geothermal and onshore wind can all provide electricity competitively against fossil fuel-fired power generation. Solar photovoltaic (PV) power has also become increasingly competitive, with its levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) at utility scale falling by half in four years."

IRENA estimates fossil-fuelled power plants produce power at between US$0.07−0.19/kWh when environmental and health costs of carbon emissions and other forms of pollution are taken into account.

Deutsche Bank has released its 2015 Solar Outlook report.² Deutsche Bank states: "Unsubsidized rooftop solar electricity costs anywhere between $0.13 and $0.23/kWh today, well below retail price of electricity in many markets globally. The economics of solar have improved significantly due to the reduction in solar panel costs, financing costs and balance of system costs. We expect solar system costs to decrease 5-15% annually over the next 3+ years which could result in grid parity within ~50% of the target markets. If global electricity prices were to increase at 3% per year and cost reduction occurred at 5-15% CAGR [compound annual growth rate], solar would achieve grid parity in an additional ~30% of target markets globally. We believe the cumulative incremental total available market for solar is currently around ~140GW/year and could potentially increase to ~260GW/year over the next 5 years as solar achieves grid parity in more markets globally and electric capacity needs increase."

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, global investment in renewables jumped 16% last year to US$310 billion (€89b), five times the tally of a decade earlier. Solar investments accounted for almost half the total. China led the way with renewable investments increasing almost one-third to US$89.5 billion (€79.6b), while US investment gained 8% to US$51.8 billion (€46.1b).³

A November 2014 report commissioned by the Vienna Ombuds-Office for Environmental Protection compares the economics of renewables and nuclear power.⁴ Five different renewable technologies were analysed: biomass, onshore and offshore wind, small-scale hydropower plants and solar photovoltaics. Calculations were conducted for five different EU Member states (UK, Poland, Germany, France and the Czech Republic) and the EU-28 overall.

The report concludes: "Generating electricity from a variety of renewable sources is more economical than using nuclear power; this is clearly shown by the model-based assessment of future developments up to 2050. Across the EU end consumers can save up to 37% on their electricity costs – in some Member States even up to 74% – when plans to build nuclear power plants are shelved in favour of renewables. In order to achieve these goals it is vital that we act quickly, but with care, to create the infrastructure and regulatory framework this requires, or to adapt that which already exists."

1. IRENA, January 2014, 'Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014', www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID... . For more of IRENA's ongoing renewable energy cost analysis, see www.irena.org/costs
2. Deutsche Bank, 13 Jan 2015, 'Deutsche Bank’s 2015 solar outlook: accelerating investment and cost competitiveness', www.db.com/cr/en/concrete-deutsche-banks-2015-solar-outlook.htm
3. http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/rebound-clean-energy-investment-201...
www.theage.com.au/business/renewable-investment-dives-in-australia-bucki...
4. Austrian Institute of Ecology / e-think, Nov 2014, 'Renewable Energies versus Nuclear Power: Comparing Financial Support', www.ecology.at/wua_erneuerbarevskernenergie.htm

Charlie Hebdo − an ally of the anti-nuclear movement

French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been at the forefront of the denunciation of nuclear threats − from nuclear weapons and from the nuclear fuel cycle − since its creation in 1969; indeed since its predecessor magazine Hara Kiri was first printed in 1960.

Several Charlie Hebdo staffers supported anti-nuclear struggles, including murdered editor Stéphane 'Charb' Charbonnier. Staffer Fabrice Nicolino, who was wounded on January 7, was the author of a special edition of Charlie Hebdo in 2012 called 'The Nuclear Swindle' − with democracy the victim of the swindle.

• Some nuclear cartoons from Charlie Hebdo are posted at: http://sortirdunucleaire.org/Solidarite-Charlie

Global nuclear power capacity increased slightly in 2014 according to the World Nuclear Association¹:

• Five new reactors (4.76 gigawatts (GW)) began supplying electricity (three in China, one each in Argentina and Russia), and three were permanently shut down (Vermont Yankee, USA; Fukushima Daiichi #5 and #6).
• There are now 437 'operable' reactors (377.7 GW) compared with 435 reactors (375.3 GW) a year ago. Thus the number of reactors increased by two (0.5%) and nuclear generating capacity increased by 2.4 GW (0.6%). (For comparison, around 100 GW of solar and wind power capacity were built in 2014, up from 74 GW in 2013.²)
• Construction started on just three reactors during 2014, one each in Belarus, the United Arab Emirates, and Argentina. A total of 70 reactors (74 GW) are under construction.

Thus a long-standing pattern of stagnation continues. Global nuclear power capacity grew by 10.6% in the two decades from 1995−2014, and just 2.6% in the decade from 2005−2014.³

The pattern of stagnation is likely to persist. Steve Kidd, a nuclear consultant who worked for the World Nuclear Association for 17 years, wrote in a May 2014 article: "Upper scenarios showing rapid nuclear growth in many countries including plants starting up in new countries now look very unlikely, certainly before the late 2020s. If there is to be a nuclear renaissance, it is now much more likely to happen later, and with a new generation of reactors. On the other hand, predictions that another major accident would shut down nuclear in lots of countries have been negated by the experience of Fukushima. Although there remain some uncertainties, the outlying upper and lower cases are much less credible than before."⁴

Despite 20 years of stagnation, the World Nuclear Association remains upbeat. Its latest report, The World Nuclear Supply Chain: Outlook 2030, envisages the start-up of 266 new reactors by 2030.⁵ The figure is implausible − it would require completion of the 70 reactors under construction, start-to-finish construction of another 196 reactors, and start-to-finish construction of dozens more reactors to replace those that are shut down ... all in the space of 15 years! If only the World Nuclear Association took bets on its ridiculous projections.

Nuclear Energy Insider is more sober and reflective in an end-of-year review published in December: "As we embark on a new year, there are distinct challenges and opportunities on the horizon for the nuclear power industry. Many industry experts believe that technology like Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR) represent a strong future for nuclear. Yet, rapidly growing renewable energy sources, a bountiful and inexpensive supply of natural gas and oil, and the aging population of existing nuclear power plants represent challenges that the industry must address moving forward."⁶

Steve Kidd is still more downbeat, arguing that nuclear advocates have not made much progress gaining public acceptance over the past few years.⁷ Kidd writes: "[W]e have seen no nuclear renaissance (instead, a notable number of reactor closures in some countries, combined with strong growth in China) ... Countries such as Germany and Switzerland that claim environmental credentials are moving strongly away from nuclear. Even with rapid nuclear growth in China, nuclear's share in world electricity is declining. The industry is doing little more than hoping that politicians and financiers eventually see sense and back huge nuclear building programmes. On current trends, this is looking more and more unlikely. The high and rising nuclear share in climate-friendly scenarios is false hope, with little in the real outlook giving them any substance. Far more likely is the situation posited in the World Nuclear Industry Status Report⁸ ... Although this report is produced by anti-nuclear activists, its picture of the current reactors gradually shutting down with numbers of new reactors failing to replace them has more than an element of truth given the recent trends."

Kidd's comments on renewables are also worth quoting: "The nuclear industry giving credence to climate change from fossil fuels has simply led to a stronger renewables industry. Nuclear seems to be "too difficult" and gets sidelined − as it has within the entire process since the original Kyoto accords. And now renewables, often thought of as useful complements to nuclear, begin to threaten it in power markets when there is abundant power from renewables when the wind blows and the sun shines."⁷

Kidd proposes reducing nuclear costs by simplifying and standardising current reactor designs. Meanwhile, as the International Energy Agency's World Economic Outlook 2014 report noted, nuclear growth will be "concentrated in markets where electricity is supplied at regulated prices, utilities have state backing or governments act to facilitate private investment." Conversely, "nuclear power faces major challenges in competitive markets where there are significant market and regulatory risks, and public acceptance remains a critical issue worldwide."⁹

Four countries supposedly driving a nuclear renaissance

Let's briefly consider countries where the number of power reactors might increase or decrease by 10 or more over the next 15−20 years. Generally, it is striking how much uncertainty there is about the nuclear programs in these countries.

China is one of the few exceptions. China has 22 operable reactors, 27 under construction and 64 planned. Significant, rapid growth can be expected unless China's nuclear program is derailed by a major accident or a serious act of sabotage or terrorism.¹⁰

In the other three countries supposedly driving a nuclear renaissance − Russia, South Korea and India − growth is likely to be modest and slow.

Russia has 34 operating reactors, nine under construction and 31 planned. Only three reactors have begun operation over the past decade, and the pattern of slow growth is likely to continue. As for Russia's ambitious nuclear export program, Steve Kidd noted in October 2014 that it "is reasonable to suggest that it is highly unlikely that Russia will succeed in carrying out even half of the projects in which it claims to be closely involved".¹¹

South Korea has 23 operating reactors, five under construction and eight planned. Earlier plans for rapid nuclear expansion have been derailed by the Fukushima disaster, a major scandal over forged safety documents, and a hacking attack on Korea Hydro's computer network.¹² Growth will be, at most, modest and slow.

India has 21 operating reactors, six under construction and 22 planned. But India's nuclear program is in a "deep freeze" according to a November 2014 article in the Hindustan Times.¹³ Likewise, India Today reported on January 8: "The Indian nuclear programme is on the brink of distress. For the past four years, no major tender has gone through − a period that was, ironically, supposed to mark the beginning of an Indian nuclear renaissance in the aftermath of the landmark India−US civil nuclear deal."¹⁴

India's energy minister Piyush Goyal said in November 2014 that the government remains "cautious" about developing nuclear power. He pointed to waning interest in the US and Europe: "This government would like to be cautious so that we are not saddled with something only under the garb of clean energy or alternate energy; something which the West has discarded and is sought to be brought to India."¹⁵

A November 2014 article in The Hindu newspaper notes that three factors have put a break on India's reactor-import plans: "the exorbitant price of French- and U.S.-origin reactors, the accident-liability issue, and grass-roots opposition to the planned multi-reactor complexes."¹⁶ In addition, unresolved disagreements regarding safeguards and non-proliferation assurances are delaying US and European investment in India's nuclear program.¹⁷

Saudi Arabia last year announced plans to build 16 reactors by 2032. Already, the timeline has been pushed back from 2032 to 2040.¹⁸ As with any country embarking on a nuclear power program for the first time, Saudi Arabia faces daunting logistical and workforce issues.¹⁹ Numerous nuclear supplier are lining up to supply Saudi Arabia's nuclear power program but political obstacles could easily emerge, not least because Saudi officials (and royalty) have repeatedly said that the Kingdom will build nuclear weapons if Iran's nuclear program is not constrained.²⁰

South Africa's on-again off-again nuclear power program is on again with plans for 9.6 GW of nuclear capacity in addition to the two operating reactors at Koeberg.²¹ In 2007, state energy utility Eskom approved a plan for 20 GW of new nuclear capacity. Areva's EPR and Westinghouse's AP1000 were short-listed and bids were submitted. But in 2008 Eskom announced that it would not proceed with either of the bids due to a lack of finance. Easy come, easy go.

Thus the latest plan for 9.6 GW of new nuclear capacity in South Africa is being treated with scepticism. Academic Prof. Steve Thomas noted in a July 2014 report: "Overall, a renewed call for tenders (or perhaps bilateral negotiations with a preferred bidder) is likely to produce the same result as 2008: a very high price for an unproven technology that will only be financeable if the South African public, either in the form of electricity consumers or as taxpayers, is prepared to give open ended guarantees."²²

Pro-nuclear commentator Dan Yurman is also sceptical: "Depending on who's pricing analysis you accept, the reactors alone will cost between [US]$5000 (Rosatom) and $6500/Kw (Eskom) or between $48 billion and $62.4 billion. Adding in balance of plant equipment and power line infrastructure, and the total price tag heads north to between $65 billion and $84 billion. Given that the intended power purchase firm is state-owned Eskom, which is perpetually broke due to government resistance to rate increases, the entire exercise seems implausible at this scale. ... Almost no one believes that as long as Zuma is in power that anything remotely resembling an orderly procurement process is likely to take place."²³

Iran has one operable power reactor. Last year, Russia and Iran signed a contract to build two power reactors, and they signed a protocol envisaging possible construction of an additional six reactors.²⁴

Plans for significant nuclear power expansion in one or two other countries − such as the Pakistani government's plan for 40 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050 − are implausible.²⁵

Nuclear negawatts

Now to briefly consider those countries where a significant decline of nuclear power is possible or likely over the next 15−20 years.

Patterns of stagnation or slow decline in north America and western Europe can safely be predicted. Steve Kidd wrote in May 2014 that uranium demand (and nuclear power capacity) "will almost certainly fall in the key markets in Western Europe and North America" in the period to 2030.⁴ In January 2014, the European Commission forecast that EU nuclear generating capacity of 131 GW in 2010 will decline to 97 GW in 2025.²⁶

The United States has 99 operable reactors. Five reactors are under construction, "with little prospect for more" according to Oilprice.com.²⁷ Decisions to shut down just as many reactors have been taken in the past few years. As the Financial Times noted last year, two decisions that really rattled the industry were the closures of Dominion Resources' Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin and Entergy's Vermont Yankee − both were operating and licensed to keep operating into the 2030s, but became uneconomic to keep in operation.²⁸

The US Energy Information Administration estimated in April 2014 that 10.8 GW of nuclear capacity − around 10% of total US nuclear capacity − could be shut down by the end of the decade.²⁹

The most that the US nuclear industry can hope for is stagnation underpinned by new legislative and regulatory measures favouring nuclear power along with multi-billion dollar government handouts. The situation is broadly similar in the UK − the nuclear power industry there is scrambling just to stand still.

France's lower house of Parliament voted in October 2014 to cut nuclear's share of electricity generation from 75% to 50% by 2025, to cap nuclear capacity at 63.2 GW, and to pursue a renewables target of 40% by 2030 with various new measures to promote the growth of renewables.^30,31 The Senate will vote on the legislation early this year.

However there will be many twists and turns in French energy policy. Energy Minister Segolene Royal said on January 13 that France should build a new generation of reactors, and she noted that the October 2014 energy transition bill did not include a 40-year age limit for power reactors as ecologists wanted.³²

Germany's government is systematically pursuing its policy of phasing out nuclear power by 2023. That said, nothing is certain: the nuclear phase-out policy of the social democrat / greens coalition government in the early 2000s was later overturned by a conservative government.

Japan's 48 operable reactors are all shut down. A reasonable estimate is that three-quarters (36/48) of the reactors will restart in the coming years. Before the Fukushima disaster, Tokyo planned to add another 15−20 reactors to the fleet of 55 giving a total of 70−75 reactors. Thus, Japan's nuclear power industry will be around half the size it might have been if not for the Fukushima disaster.

The elephant in the room − ageing reactors

The problem of ageing reactors came into focus in 2014 − and will remain in focus for decades to come with the average age of the world's power reactors now 29 years and steadily increasing.^33,34

Problems with ageing reactors include:

• the increased risk of accidents (and associated problems such as generally inadequate accident liability arrangements);
• an increased rate of unplanned reactors outages (at one point last year, less than half of the UK's nuclear capacity was available due to multiple outages³⁵);
• costly refurbishments;
• debates over appropriate safety standards for reactors designed decades ago; and
• the costs associated with reactor decommissioning and long-term nuclear waste management.

Greenpeace highlighted the problems associated with ageing reactors with the release of a detailed report last year³⁶, and emphasised the point by breaking into six ageing European nuclear plants on 5 March 2014.³⁷

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its World Energy Outlook 2014 report: "A wave of retirements of ageing nuclear reactors is approaching: almost 200 of the 434 reactors operating at the end of 2013 are retired in the period to 2040, with the vast majority in the European Union, the United States, Russia and Japan."⁹

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said: "Worldwide, we do not have much experience and I am afraid we are not well-prepared in terms of policies and funds which are devoted to decommissioning. A major concern for all of us is how we are going to deal with this massive surge in retirements in nuclear power plants."³⁸

The World Energy Outlook 2014 report estimates the cost of decommissioning reactors to be more than US$100 billion (€89b) up to 2040, adding that "considerable uncertainties remain about these costs, reflecting the relatively limited experience to date in dismantling and decontaminating reactors and restoring sites for other uses."

The IEA's head of power generation analysis, Marco Baroni, said that even excluding waste disposal costs, the final cost could be as much as twice as high as the $100 billion estimate, and that decommissioning costs per reactor can vary by a factor of four.³⁴

Baroni said the issue was not the decommissioning cost per reactor but "whether enough funds have been set aside to provide for it." Evidence of inadequate decommissioning funds is mounting. To give just one example, Entergy estimates a cost of US$1.24 billion (€1.10b) to decommission Vermont Yankee, but the company's decommissioning trust fund for the plant − US$0.67 billion − is barely half that amount.³⁹

Michael Mariotte, President of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, noted in a recent article: "Entergy, for example, has only about half the needed money in its decommissioning fund (and even so still found it cheaper to close the reactor than keep it running); repeat that across the country with multiple and larger reactors and the shortfalls could be stunning. Expect heated battles in the coming years as nuclear utilities try to push the costs of the decommissioning fund shortfalls onto ratepayers."⁴⁰

The nuclear industry has a simple solution to the problem of old reactors: new reactors. But the battles over ageing and decommissioned reactors − and the raiding of taxpayers' pockets to cover shortfalls − will make it that much more difficult to convince politicians and the public to support new reactors.

References

1. WNA Weekly Digest, 16 Jan 2015, 'Slight increase in nuclear capacity in 2014',
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=4785fc1...
2. Tierney Smith, 9 Jan 2015, '5 Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy', http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/
3. www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendNuclearPowerCapacity.aspx
4. Steve Kidd, 6 May 2014, 'The future of uranium – higher prices to come?', www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionthe-future-of-uranium-higher-prices-t...
5. WNA, 2014, 'The World Nuclear Supply Chain: Outlook 2030, http://online-shop.world-nuclear.org/bfont-size18pxthe-world-nuclear-sup...
6. John Johnson, 5 Dec 2014, 'Nuclear power to change shape in 2015', http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/nuclear-...
7. Steve Kidd, 21 Jan 2015, 'Is climate change the worst argument for nuclear?', www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionis-climate-change-the-worst-argument-...
8. http://worldnuclearreport.org
9. International Energy Agency, 2014, 'World Economic Outlook 2014', www.worldenergyoutlook.org
10. China's nuclear power plans: safety and security challenges, 19 Dec 2014, Nuclear Monitor #796, www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitors
11. Steve Kidd, 6 Oct 2014, "The world nuclear industry – is it in terminal decline?", www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionthe-world-nuclear-industry-is-it-in-t...
12. Heesu Lee, 15 Jan 2015, 'Fukushima Meltdowns Pervade S. Korea Debate on Reactor Life', www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-14/fukushima-meltdowns-pervade-korea-deba...
13. Shishir Gupta and Jayanth Jacob, 30 Nov 2014, 'Govt plans N-revival, focuses on investor concerns', www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-plans-n-revival-looks-for-answers...
14. Pranab Dhal Samanta, 8 Jan 2015, 'Splitting the liability atom', http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/obama-republic-day-visit-nuclear-powe...
15. 6 Nov 2014, 'Govt cautious about tapping nuclear energy for power generation', www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-cautious-on-westdiscarded-nuclear-te...
16. Brahma Chellaney, 19 Nov 2014, 'False promise of nuclear power', www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/false-promise-of-nuclear-power/article6612...
17. Indrani Bagchi, 19 Nov 2014, 'American officials put up hurdles, try to scuttle India-US nuclear deal', http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/American-officials-put-up-hurdl...
18. Reuters, 19 Jan 2015, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/saudi-nuclear-energy-idUKL6N0UY...
19. Dan Yurman, 24 Jan 2015, 'Saudi Arabia delays its nuclear plans', http://neutronbytes.com/2015/01/24/saudi-arabia-delays-its-nuclear-plans/
20. 18 Sept 2014, 'Saudi Arabia's nuclear power program and its weapons ambitions', Nuclear Monitor #791, www.wiseinternational.org/node/4195
21. 'South Africa's stop-start nuclear power program', Nuclear Monitor #792, 2 Oct 2014, www.wiseinternational.org/node/4193
22. Steve Thomas, July 2014, 'Nuclear technology options for South Africa', http://earthlife.org.za/www/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/nuclear-cost_repo...
23. Dan Yurman, 6 Dec 2014, 'China jumps into the action in South Africa', http://neutronbytes.com/2014/12/06/china-makes-haste-to-develop-its-nucl...
24. 5 Dec 2014, 'Russia to build more reactors in Iran', Nuclear Monitor #795, www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitors
25. 20 Jan 2015, 'N-safeguards steps implemented: IAEA', www.dawn.com/news/1158113/n-safeguards-steps-implemented-iaea
26. WNN, 9 Jan 2014, 'Policies hold European nuclear steady', www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Politics-hold-European-nuclear-steady-0901...
27. Nick Cunningham, 9 Feb 2014, 'Wind and Gas Forcing Out Nuclear in Midwest', http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Wind-and-Gas-Forcing-O...
28. Ed Crooks, 19 Feb 2014, 'Uneconomic US nuclear plants at risk of being shut down', www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/da2a6bc6-98fa-11e3-a32f-00144feab7de.html
29. Reuters, 29 Apr 2014, 'U.S. expects about 10 pct of nuclear capacity to shut by 2020', http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/utilities-nuclear-eia-idINL2N0N...
30. 10 Oct 2014, 'France to cut nuclear's share of power market to 50% by 2025', www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/france-to-cut-nuclears-...
31. Michel Rose, 15 Oct 2014, 'French energy transition law to cut red tape on renewables', http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/72327
32. Reuters, 13 Jan 2015, 'French energy minister wants new nuclear reactors', www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/13/france-nuclear-idUSL6N0US1P320150113
33. Michael Mariotte, 3 April 2014, 'Nuclear reactors are getting old – and it's showing', www.wiseinternational.org/node/4056
34. Nina Chestney and Geert De Clercq, 19 Jan 2015, 'Global nuclear decommissioning cost seen underestimated, may spiral', www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/nuclear-decommissioning-idUSL6N0UV2BI...
35. Nuclear Free Local Authorities, 9 Dec 2014, 'NFLA concerns over the reliability of aging nuclear reactors in the UK', www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/briefings/A241_%28NB127%29_Aging_nuclear_rea...
36. Greenpeace International, 2014, 'Lifetime extension of ageing nuclear power plants: Entering a new era of risk', www.greenpeace.nl/Global/nederland/2014/Documenten/Rapport%20Lifetime%20...
37. http://out-of-age.eu
38. WNN, 12 Nov 2014, 'Nuclear industry shares IEA concern', www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear-industry-shares-IEA-concern-121114...
39. Robert Audette, 19 Dec 2014, 'Vermont Yankee decommissioning plan submitted to NRC', www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_27171602/vermont-yankee-decommissioning-pl...
40. Michael Mariotte, 5 Jan 2015, 'Nuclear industry goes hysterically ballistic over Yankee shutdown', http://safeenergy.org/2015/01/05/nuclear-industry-goes-hysterical

China is pushing ahead with ambitious plans to expand nuclear power, but the risks are daunting.

China's State Council published the 'Energy Development Strategy Action Plan, 2014-2020' in November. The plan envisages an expansion of nuclear power from 19.1 gigawatts (GW) of currently installed capacity to 58 GW by 2020, with another 30 GW under construction by then. It says that efforts should be focused on promoting the use of large pressurised water reactors (including the AP1000 and CAP1400 designs), high temperature gas-cooled reactors, and fast reactors.¹

Ambitious targets for renewables have also been set: 350 GW of hydro capacity by 2020, 200 GW of wind power capacity, and 100 GW of solar capacity. ¹ Thus the renewable target of 650 GW greatly exceeds the 58 GW nuclear target. In 2013, for the first time, China added more new renewable capacity than new fossil and nuclear capacity.²

Chinese authorities have a history of failing to meet nuclear power forecasts:

• In 1985, authorities forecast 20 GW in 2000 but the true figure was 2.2 GW (11% of the forecast).³
• In 1996, authorities forecast 20 GW in 2010 but the true figure was 8.4 GW (42% of the forecast). ³
• In late 2012, China revised its plan to have 50 GW of nuclear capacity installed by 2015 down to 40 GW − and the true figure will be around half that.⁴

The Economist noted in a December 6 article that plans for a massive nuclear expansion should be taken with "a big pinch of salt" and added: "It is true that China is the brightest spot in the global nuclear industry, but that is mostly because prospects in other places are bleak."⁵

Claims by industry bodies − such as the World Nuclear Association's forecast of 150 GW of nuclear capacity in China by 2030⁶ − should also be taken with a pinch of salt.

In 2010, Chinese officials forecast 130 GW of installed nuclear capacity by 2020 − more than double the current forecast. And the State Council Research Office's 2011 forecast of 70 GW by 2020 has been reduced to 58 GW.²

It is unlikely that the 58 GW target can be reached by 2020. It assumes no closures of the 22 operating reactors, completion of all 27 reactors (29 GW) under construction, and completion of 10 GW that has yet to begin construction − all in the space of six years.

Constraints

The South China Morning Post noted in a September 2014 article that "China will have to overcome some big hurdles, including conflicts of interest among large state-owned companies, technological uncertainties in new-generation power plants and public concerns about nuclear safety." The newspaper quotes a China Institute of Atomic Energy expert who argues that a shortage of scientists and engineers poses a "major challenge".⁷

Plans for inland nuclear plants have been delayed by public opposition (especially in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster), water shortages and other problems. Even the latest plan calls for nothing more than feasibility studies regarding inland plants.

A 2011 report from the State Council Research Office stated that nuclear development would require new investment of around US$150 billion (€121b) by 2020, on top of the costs of plants already under construction. The Office noted that new nuclear projects rely mainly on debt, funds are tight, and "investment risks cannot be discounted". Supply chain problems and bottlenecks could result in delays and further cost increases, the report noted.⁸

Safety first?

Numerous insiders have warned about inadequate nuclear safety and regulatory standards in China. He Zuoxiu, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said last year that "to reduce costs, Chinese designs often cut back on safety".⁹

Li Yulun, a former vice-president of China National Nuclear Corporation, said last year that Chinese "state leaders have put a high priority on [nuclear safety] but companies executing projects do not seem to have the same level of understanding."¹⁰

Cables released by WikiLeaks in 2011 highlighted the secrecy of the bidding process for nuclear power plant contracts in China, the influence of government lobbying, and potential weaknesses in management and regulatory oversight. Westinghouse representative Gavin Liu was quoted in a cable as saying: "The biggest potential bottleneck is human resources – coming up with enough trained personnel to build and operate all of these new plants, as well as regulate the industry."¹¹

In August 2009, the Chinese government dismissed and arrested China National Nuclear Corporation president Kang Rixin in a US$260 million (€209m) corruption case involving allegations of bid-rigging in nuclear power plant construction.¹²

Regulation

In 2011, Chinese physicist He Zuoxiu warned that "we're seriously underprepared, especially on the safety front" for a rapid expansion of nuclear power. Qiang Wang and his colleagues from the Chinese Academy of Sciences noted in 2011 that China "still lacks a fully independent nuclear safety regulatory agency"¹³, and they noted that China's nuclear administrative systems are fragmented among multiple agencies; and China lags behind the US, France, and Japan when it comes to staff and budget to oversee operational reactors.¹⁴

The 2011 report by the State Council Research Office recommended that the National Nuclear Safety Administration "should be an entity directly under the State Council Bureau, making it an independent regulatory body with authority."⁸

China's nuclear safety agency is still not independent. And there are other problems: salaries for regulatory staff are lower than in industry, and workforce numbers remain relatively low. The State Council Research Office report said that most countries employ 30−40 regulatory staff per reactor, but China's nuclear regulator had only 1000 staff.⁸

In 2010, an International Atomic Energy Agency team carried out an Integrated Regulatory Review Service mission and said the review provided "confidence in the effectiveness of the Chinese safety regulatory system."⁸ Which just goes to prove that the IAEA sometimes says the silliest things − and in the process implicitly endorses and encourages sub-standard practices.

The Economist argued on December 6: "[T]he headlong rush to nuclear power is more dangerous and less necessary than China's government admits. One of the main lessons of Fukushima was that politicised, opaque regulation is dangerous. China's rule-setting apparatus is also unaccountable and murky, and ambitious targets for a risky technology should ring warning bells."¹⁵

Nuclear technology options

The Economist points to risks arising from China's approach to nuclear technology options:

"China's approach to building capacity has added to the risk of an accident. Rather than picking a single proven design for new reactors from an experienced vendor and replicating it widely, the government has decided to "indigenise" Western designs. The advantage of this approach is that China can then patent its innovations and make money out of selling them to the world; the downside is that there are now several competing designs promoted by rival state-owned enterprises, none of which is well tested.

"China should slow its nuclear ambitions to a pace its regulators can keep up with, and build its reactors using the best existing technology − which happens to be Western. That need not condemn it to more sooty, coal-fired years. The cost of renewable energy is dropping quickly and its efficiency is rising sharply. Last year, over half of all new power-generation capacity installed in China was hydro, wind or solar. If China wants to accelerate its move away from coal, ramping up those alternatives yet more would be a lot safer."¹⁵

Liu Baohua, the head of the nuclear office at the National Energy Administration, recently said that key technology and equipment being deployed in China's nuclear program is "still not completely up to standard". Liu said: "The third-generation reactors now under construction still have problems with the pumps and valves, and with the inflexibility of the design. ... We are working to resolve these problems and the overall situation is still under control." He said more needed to be done to improve the regulatory framework and to train nuclear personnel.¹⁶

The '12th 5-year Plan for Nuclear Safety and Radioactive Pollution Prevention and Vision for 2020', produced by the Ministry of Environment and endorsed by the State Council, said that China needed to spend US$13 billion (€10.4b) to improve nuclear safety at over the three years to 2015. The document states that "China has multiple types of nuclear reactors, multiple technologies and multiple standards of safety, which makes them hard to manage."⁸

China continues to build large numbers of 'Generation II' reactors which lack the safety features of more modern designs. The State Council Research Office report said that reactors built today should operate for 50 or 60 years, meaning a large fleet of Generation II reactors will still be in operation into the 2070s, when even Generation III reactors may have been superceded.⁸

Secrecy

The EPR reactors under construction at Taishan illustrate some of the problems and risks associated with China's nuclear program. "It's not always easy to know what is happening at the Taishan site," Stephane Pailler from France's Autorite de Surete Nucleaire (ASN) said in an interview this year. "We don't have a regular relationship with the Chinese on EPR control like we have with the Finnish," she said, referring to Finland's troubled EPR reactor project.

Philippe Jamet, one of ASN's five governing commissioners, testified before the French Parliament in February. "Unfortunately, collaboration isn't at a level we would wish it to be," he said. "One of the explanations for the difficulties in our relations is that the Chinese safety authorities lack means. They are overwhelmed."¹⁷

In March, EDF's internal safety inspector Jean Tandonnet noted problems evident during a mid-2013 visit to Taishan, including inadequacies with large components like pumps and steam generators which were "far" from the standards of the EPR plants in Finland and France.¹⁷

Tandonnet urged corrective measures and wrote that studies "are under way on tsunami and flooding risks."¹⁷ Oilprice.com has assessed nuclear plants most at risks from a tsunami. Globally, it found that 23 nuclear power plants with 74 reactors are in high-risk areas. The riskiest country is China − of the 27 reactors under construction, 17 are located in areas considered at risk of tsunamis.¹⁸

Little information has been published about the Taishan reactor project − and the same could be said about many others. Albert Lai, chairman of The Professional Commons, a Hong Kong think tank, said this year that the workings of China's nuclear safety authority are a ''total black box'' and ''China has no transparency whatsoever.''¹⁷

Insurance and liability arrangements

The Economist recently noted that Communist leaders are "keenly aware that a big nuclear accident would prompt an ugly − and, in the age of viral social media, nerve-wrackingly unpredictable − public backlash against the ruling party."⁵

The backlash would be all the more virulent because of grossly inadequate insurance and liability arrangements. Chinese authorities are slowly developing legislation which may improve the situation. Currently, liability caps are the lowest in the world. Nuclear plant operators must have insurance that covers financial losses and injuries up to 300 million yuan (US$48.5m; €39m). If a legitimate claim exceeds that amount, the central government may provide up to 800 million yuan (US$129m; €104m) extra.¹⁹

Closing the fuel cycle, increasing the risks

China's attempt to develop a closed fuel cycle will increase safety and security risks as discussed in an October 2014 paper by Hui Zhang, a physicist and a research associate at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.²⁰

In 2010, China conducted a 10-day hot test at its pilot reprocessing plant, where it is also building a pilot MOX fuel fabrication facility. The China National Nuclear Corporation plans to build a medium-scale demonstration reprocessing plant by 2020, followed by a larger commercial reprocessing plant.

Hui Zhang notes that the pilot reprocessing plant lacks an integrated security system. He notes that the 2010 hot test revealed problems: "Although reprocessing operations stopped after only ten days, many problems, including safety and security issues, were encountered or identified. These included both a very high amount of waste produced and a very high measure of material unaccounted for or MUF."

If the closed fuel cycle plans proceed, the long-distance shipment of MOX fuels and metal plutonium fuels will pose major security concerns.

Hui Zhang argues that "China has no convincing rationale for rushing to build commercial-scale reprocessing facilities or plutonium breeder reactors in the next couple of decades, and a move toward breeders and reprocessing would be a move away from more secure consolidation of nuclear materials."

China ranks poorly in the NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index − it is in the bottom fifth of the countries ranked. The NTI summarises: "China's nuclear materials security conditions could be improved by strengthening its laws and regulations for the physical security of materials in transport to reflect the latest IAEA nuclear security guidelines, and for mitigating the insider threat, particularly by requiring personnel to undergo more stringent and more frequent vetting and by requiring personnel to report suspicious behavior to an official authority. China's nuclear materials security conditions also remain adversely affected by its high quantities of weapons-usable nuclear materials, political instability, governance challenges, and very high levels of corruption among public officials."²¹

References:

1. WNN, 20 Nov 2014, 'China plans for nuclear growth', www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-China-plans-for-nuclear-growth-2011144.html
2. World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 2014, www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2014.html#_Toc268768720
3. ACF, 2012, 'Yellowcake Fever: Exposing the Uranium Industry's Economic Myths', www.acfonline.org.au/resources/yellowcake-fever-exposing-uranium-industr...
4. Keith Bradsher, 24 Oct 2012, 'China Slows Development of Nuclear Power Plants', www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/business/global/china-reduces-target-for-cons...
5. 6 Dec 2014, 'Promethean perils', www.economist.com/news/business/21635498-after-hiatus-nuclear-power-set-...
6. World Nuclear Association, 9 December 2014, 'Nuclear Power in China', www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear...
7. Stephen Chen, 14 Sept 2014, 'China plans to be world leader in nuclear power by 2020', South China Morning Post, www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1591984/china-plans-be-world-leader-nucl...
8. World Nuclear Association, 9 December 2014, 'Nuclear Power in China', www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear...
9. He Zuoxiu, 19 March 2013, 'Chinese nuclear disaster "highly probable" by 2030', www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5808-Chinese-nuclear-di
10. South China Morning Post, 7 Oct 2013, 'China nuclear plant delay raises safety concern', www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/1325973/china-nuclear-plant...
11. Jonathan Watts, 25 Aug 2011, 'WikiLeaks cables reveal fears over China's nuclear safety', www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileaks-fears-china-nuclear...
12. Keith Bradsher, 15 Dec 2009, 'Nuclear Power Expansion in China Stirs Concerns', www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/global/16chinanuke.html?_r=2&
13. David Biello, 16 Aug 2011, 'China's nuclear ambition powers on', www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/08/16/3293802.htm
14. 22 June 2011, 'China needs improved administrative system for nuclear power safety', www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/acs-cni062211.php
15. 6 Dec 2014, 'China's rush to build nuclear power plants is dangerous', www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635487-chinas-rush-build-nuclear-power-...
16. Reuters, 5 Dec 2014, 'China's new nuclear technology not yet fully up to standard, energy official says', www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1655799/new-nuclear-tech-not-yet-fully-s...
17. Tara Patel and Benjamin Haas, 20 June 2014, 'Nuclear Regulators 'Overwhelmed' as China Races to Launch World's Most Powerful Reactor', www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-18/french-nuclear-regulator-says-china-co...
18. Oil Price, 4 Nov 2014, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/8-Countries-With-Nu...
19. 26 April 2014, 'What if China has a Fukushima?', www.globaltimes.cn/content/856971.shtml
See also WNN, 16 Sept 2014, 'Insurers can help improve the image of nuclear', www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Insurers-can-help-improve-the-image-of-nuc...
20. Hui Zhang, 8 Oct 2014, 'The Security Risks of China's Nuclear Reprocessing Facilities', http://nuclearsecuritymatters.belfercenter.org/blog/security-risks-china...
21. NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index, 2014, http://ntiindex.org/countries/china/

Behind the flag-waving and cheers surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent visit to Australia are serious questions about the safety and security implications of Australia's agreement to supply uranium to New Delhi.¹

When he inked the uranium deal in India in September, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott praised India's "absolutely impeccable non-proliferation record".² He refused to answer questions about alleged serious deficiencies in India's civil nuclear sector and was reduced to cliché, declaring that Australia and India trust each other on issues like uranium safeguards because of "the fundamentally ethical principle that every cricketer is supposed to assimilate – play by the rules and accept the umpire's decision".³

Yet despite the assurances of peaceful purposes, this deal has serious nuclear security implications. After all, India has form. It used Canadian peaceful nuclear technology to develop weapons, provoking Pakistan to follow suit. Even if all goes well – and in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster that is a big assumption – Australian sales could potentially free up India's domestic uranium stocks for military use.

Whatever happens, the new deal certainly won't reduce the continuing tension with nuclear rival Pakistan, or promote nuclear non-proliferation.

Checks and balances

India is a nuclear-armed nation that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and as such is not subject to the (admittedly fragile) checks and balances provided by full international nuclear safeguards. It is engaged in an active nuclear weapons program, has an estimated 80-100 nuclear warheads, and explicitly refuses to renounce nuclear testing.

Contrary to Abbott's statement, India is neither playing by the rules nor recognising the authority of the international umpire. Add these facts together and the plan to sell Australian uranium to India is in clear and direct conflict with Australia's international obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty,⁴ which says: "States Parties are obliged not to manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device anywhere inside or outside the Treaty zone; not to seek or receive any assistance in this; not to take any action to assist or encourage the manufacture or acquisition of any nuclear explosive device by any State; and not to provide sources or special fissionable materials or equipment to any non-nuclear weapon State (NNWS), or any nuclear weapon State (NWS) unless it is subject to safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Prime Minister Modi is intent on expanding India's civil and military nuclear ambitions but there are big question marks around the safety and security arrangements for India's nuclear sector. In 2012 a scathing report by India's then Auditor-General Vinod Rai warned of a "Fukushima or Chernobyl-like disaster if the nuclear safety issue is not addressed".⁵

The issues identified in this frank assessment from one of India's own senior officials have not been addressed, and there is no guarantee that they ever will be. The safety of India's nuclear reactors remains shaky, because the sector's regulation and governance is deficient. As we have seen with Fukushima and Chernobyl, the cost of errors or accidents can be catastrophic.

Australian uranium's role

Fukushima is a continuing nuclear crisis that has been directly fuelled by Australian uranium, so its lessons are significant. If Japan, the world's third-largest economy and a nation steeped in technological expertise, could not control the atomic genie, it bodes poorly for the application of this technology in other countries. In the aftermath of Fukushima, instead of opening up uranium exports to insecure and conflict-prone regions, we should tread more carefully.

With Australia's renewable energy expertise and resources, we are perfectly placed to turn on the lights in Indian villages while ensuring that the Geiger counter stays off.

The deal has even prompted doubts among pro-nuclear commentators. For two decades until 2010, John Carlson⁶ was director general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office⁷ and charged with overseeing Australian uranium sales. Now he has raised serious concerns, including his worry that Australia may be unable to keep track of what happens to uranium once it's sold to India.⁸

As Carlson makes clear, without proper reporting Australia has no way of knowing whether India is really meeting its obligations to identify and account for all the material that is subject to the agreement, and to apply Australia's safeguard standards. It is not good enough simply to take India on trust as a fellow cricket-mad nation, or to appeal to an "impeccable" non-proliferation record that it doesn't actually have.

Carlson's assessment is that the planned deal is short-sighted, self-defeating, and compromises Australia's standards. That warning should ring loud alarms in Canberra. The deal has yet to be examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.⁹ The rigour that the committee brings to this issue will be a test of whether radioactive rhetoric or real-world responsibility is in the ascendency in Canberra.

Uranium is not just another mineral. It fuels nuclear reactors and devastating weapons. Whether used for electricity or bombs, it inevitably produces radioactive waste that must be stored for geological timescales.

As home to around a third of the world's uranium supply, Australia's decisions on this issue matter. It is important that those flagging concerns are listened to just as much as those waving flags.

• Reprinted from The Conversation: http://theconversation.com/a-cricketing-ally-but-will-india-play-a-strai...

References:

1. http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATNIF/2014/26.html
2. www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-09-04/doorstop-interview-mumbai-india
3. www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-09-05/address-indian-chambers-commerce-lunch-ne...
4. www.armscontrol.org/documents/rarotonga
5. http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/our_products/audit_report/government...
6. www.lowyinstitute.org/people/john-carlson
7. www.dfat.gov.au/asno
8. www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/10/01/Is-the-Abbott-Government-abandon...
9. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties

Indian government cautious about nuclear power

India's Power, Coal and Renewable Energy Minister Piyush Goyal said on November 6 that the government remains "cautious" about developing nuclear power. He pointed to waning interest in the US and Europe: "This government would like to be cautious so that we are not saddled with something only under the garb of clean energy or alternate energy; something which the West has discarded and is sought to be brought to India."¹

Goyal noted that India's Nuclear Liability Law remains an obstacle to nuclear vendor countries and companies. That law does not fully absolve vendors of liability in the event of an accident. Asked if a breakthrough on the liability dispute was possible ahead of President Obama's January 2015 visit to India, US Assistant Secretary of State Nisha Biswal recently said: "I see there is a lot of hard work ahead and I would not be sanguine about announcing any early breakthrough. What is required right now is not a lot of unrealistic expectations."²

The Hindustan Times reported on November 30 that the Indian government is working on a plan to weaken the liability law. Options include setting up an insurance pool, fixing a limit on reactor components for the purpose of determining liability, and the PM providing a personal assurance that vendors won't be harassed unnecessarily in the event of an accident.⁵

An article in The Hindu newspaper notes that three factors have put a break on India's reactor-import plans: "the exorbitant price of French- and U.S.-origin reactors, the accident-liability issue, and grass-roots opposition to the planned multi-reactor complexes."³

Meanwhile, The Times of India reports that US investment in nuclear power in India remains far off. In addition to unresolved liability issues, India and the US are yet to complete administrative arrangements concerning safeguards and non-proliferation assurances. The US is reportedly is demanding fresh bilateral safeguards in the nature of non-proliferation assurances, and the two countries have yet to agree on matters regarding the tracking of nuclear fuel through the entire cycle.⁴

1. 6 Nov 2014, 'Govt cautious about tapping nuclear energy for power generation', www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-cautious-on-westdiscarded-nuclear-te...
2. 28 Nov 2014, 'U.S. plays hardball with India on nuclear deal', www.thehindu.com/news/national/us-plays-hardball-with-india-on-nuclear-d...
3. Brahma Chellaney, 19 Nov 2014, 'False promise of nuclear power', www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/false-promise-of-nuclear-power/article6612...
4. Indrani Bagchi, 19 Nov 2014, 'American officials put up hurdles, try to scuttle India-US nuclear deal', http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/American-officials-put-up-hurdl...
5. 30 Nov 2014, ''Govt plans N-revival, focuses on investor concerns', www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-plans-n-revival-looks-for-answers...

Lifetime Achievement Award for Michael Mariotte

Michael Mariotte, President of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), was honoured on November 10 by 14 environmental organisations in recognition of his three decades of work to educate the public and lawmakers about the dangers of nuclear power. The award was presented by Ralph Nader.

Among his many achievements over 30 years, Michael led the successful fight to block the Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor project in Maryland. In the 1990s, he initiated a program to support fledgling anti-nuclear groups across Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union with tens of thousands of dollars in grants and visits by U.S. energy experts to Ukraine, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Hungary. Drawing upon public awareness of the 1986 Chernobyl reactor disaster, Michael played a major role in the fight to defeat federal 'Mobile Chernobyl' legislation that would have permitted the mass transportation nationwide of nuclear fuel waste, with the outcome hinging on a one-vote margin of victory in the US Senate in 2000.

Michael influenced an entire generation of anti-nuclear activists by bringing the idea of "anti-nuclear action camps" from Europe to the US and helped organise six of them − three in New England and three in Midwest. The Vermont Yankee reactor shutdown announcement came 15 years to the day after the arrests of members of the first New England action camp.

The 14 groups supporting the award are Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Beyond Nuclear, Center for Study of Responsive Law, Clean Water Action, Environment America, Friends of the Earth, The Guacamole Fund, Greenpeace, Independent Council for Safe Energy Fund, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club and World Information Service on Energy.

Former NIRS board chair Paxus Calta said: "MM was a visionary with respect to Eastern Europe, which is how we met. He was one of the few people in the US who saw what was completely apparent in Czechoslovakia, that without orders for new reactors in the 1990s in the west, the newly liberated former communist countries were the place nuclear engineering infrastructure could be maintained. And just as Westinghouse and GE's focus moved to eastern Europe. MM designed (with me) and implemented the east European small grant program, he got money from Ted Turner and others, recognizing that relatively small contributions from the west could have tremendous impact in the east. We gave out 40 grants, funding everything from bike tours, to direct action camps, micro anti-nuclear university and east/west internships. Some of the most important reactors in the world in this fight were the pair of units affectionately called K2R4, which were in Khmelnitsky and Rivne in the Ukraine.

"One of the most important interns to come to the micro anti-nuclear university was Tanya Murza also from Rivne. We stopped the western funding for the reactors at K2R4 and basically knocked the east European development bank (the EBRD) out of the business of paying western companies to complete 25 unfinished Russian reactors. And Tanya stayed and she an MM had two charming kids. MM has been a hero and inspiration to a whole bunch of people including me."

www.nirs.org/about/mmlifetimeachievementawardpr111014.pdf
http://funologist.org/2014/11/11/a-cardboard-hero-of-the-revolution-button/​
http://safeenergy.org/2014/11/12/on-awards-and-elections/

UK: Waste transport ship fire

A ship carrying intermediate-level radioactive waste from Dounreay to Belgium which caught fire and began drifting in the Moray Firth, near Scotland, has raised new concerns about plans to move waste and fuel from Dounreay to Sellafield by sea. The MV Parida was transporting a cargo of cemented radioactive waste when a fire broke out in a funnel. The blaze was extinguished, but 52 workers were taken from the Beatrice oil platform by helicopter as a precaution. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said the platform was evacuated because the ship may have crashed into it, but not out of any concerns about radioactive contamination.(1)

Questions were asked about why this ship set out given the severe weather warnings. Highlands Against Nuclear Transport said the incident was a warning about transporting radioactive cargoes by sea, and called for proposals to move other nuclear waste from Dounreay to Sellafield by sea to be scrapped. Angus Campbell, the leader of the Western Isles Council, said the Parida incident highlighted the need for a second coastguard tug in the Minch. "A ship in similar circumstances on the west coast would be reliant on the Northern Isles-based ETV [emergency towing vessel] which would take a considerable amount of time to get to an incident in these waters."(2) Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) say the contentious plans to ship some 26 tonnes of 'exotic' nuclear materials (irradiated and unirradiated plutonium and highly enriched uranium fuels) from Dounreay to Sellafield have moved a major step closer following recent sea and port trials in Scottish waters undertaken by the NDA's ship Oceanic Pintail which is based at Barrow-in-Furness.(3)

− Reprinted from nuClear news No.68, Nov 2014, www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo68.pdf

1. West Highland Free Press, 26 July 2014, www.whfp.com/2014/07/25/concern-over-nuclear-waste-shipments/
Stornoway Gazette, 3 Aug 2014, www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/local-headlines/concerns-raised-about-ra...
2. Herald, 30 July 2014, www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/plans-for-radioactive-waste-by-sea...
3. CORE, 8 Oct 2014, www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=346

UK: Leaked Sellafield photos reveal radioactive threat

The Ecologist has published a set of leaked images from an anonymous source showing decrepit nuclear waste storage facilities at the Sellafield nuclear plant. The images show the state of spent nuclear fuel storage ponds that were commissioned in 1952 and used until the mid-1970s to store spent fuel until it could be reprocessed. They were abandoned in the mid-1970s and have been left derelict for almost 40 years. The ponds are now undergoing decommissioning but the process is fraught with danger. Nuclear expert John Large warned that if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material.

Oliver Tickell, 27 Oct 2014, 'Leaked Sellafield photos reveal 'massive radioactive release' threat', www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2611216/leaked_sellafield_photos...

143 states support UN call for DU clean-up assistance

143 states voted in favour of a fifth UN General Assembly First Committee resolution on DU weapons, which calls for states to provide assistance to countries affected by the weapons. Four states opposed the resolution, and 26 abstained (including Germany, which has previously supported similar resolutions). The resolution, which built on previous texts with the addition of a call for 'Member States in a position to do so to provide assistance to States affected by the use of arms and ammunition containing depleted uranium, in particular in identifying and managing contaminated sites and material' was submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. The resolution also recognised the need for more research on DU in conflict situations. Predictably, the UK, US, France and Israel voted against the resolution. It has recently emerged that the US may again use DU in Iraq. International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons coordinator Doug Weir said: "The reasons given for abstaining have become increasingly feeble, and now seem to revolve around paradoxical arguments calling for more research while opposing a text that calls for exactly that. The people of Iraq and other affected states deserve far better."

www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/143-states-support-call-du-vote-at-un-1comm
www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/06/inside-the-un-resolution-on-depleted-ura...

Activists hold up uranium train in Hamburg

Anti-nuclear activists stopped a trainload of "yellow cake" uranium in Hamburg harbour, Germany, for more than seven hours earlier this month.¹ The train was taking 15 containers of the ore from Kazakhstan to Malvési in southern France for processing, a frequent run. While two activists suspended themselves over the railway track, eight were temporarily arrested on the ground. Activists have demanded that Mayor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, close Hamburg harbour to nuclear shipments, as the city of Bremen has done. From November 28−30, an international meeting to oppose uranium transportation will be held in Münster, hosted by SOFA Münster (www.sofa-ms.de/home.html).

Meanwhile, an alliance of German environment activists plans to try to prevent the export of CASTOR containers with highly radioactive fuel pebbles to the USA from Jülich and Ahaus. When the supervisory board of the Jülich research centre met on November 19 to discuss what to do with the CASTORS there, activists mounted a protest outside. The catchcry of the anti-nuclear movement, "Nothing in, nothing out!" is the basic tenet of the new alliance, currently comprising 13 groups, with more likely to come on board.

1. http://nuclear-news.net/2014/11/12/activists-hold-up-uranium-train-in-ha...

German authorities stuff up nuclear exercise

A secret large-scale simulation of an atomic disaster at a German nuclear power plant in Lingen ended poorly on 17 September because crisis managers at national and state levels fought over responsibilities. The outcome was revealed by the investigative newspaper Taz in October, citing 1,000 pages of internal ministerial protocols and files. In a real situation a radioactive cloud would have moved southeast from Lingen across Osnabrück, Steinfurt, Warendorf, Gütersloh and Bielefeld before authorities had alerted people to the danger. Only because of the assumed wind direction, cities like Münster and Hamm were spared the first atomic cloud; had a different wind been assumed they, too, would have been hit by the fallout unprepared. Taz reported that despite this disaster the federal environment ministry had drawn no conclusions from the failure of the emergency exercise by time it published its story.

Willi Hesters of the Aktionsbündnis Münsterland gegen Atomanlagen (Münsterland Alliance Against Atomic Installations) said: "This exceeds the worst fears. It appears that in a real situation the German authorities appear to be unable to adequately inform and protect the population in case of a maximum credible accident. Why was this exercise kept secret? Why have no consequences been drawn yet? If the authorities are unable to protect the population in case of grave atomic accidents, the federal environment ministry must immediately close down all atomic installations." The simulated worst case scenario in Lingen, where there is also a nuclear fuel factory, is particularly controversial because earlier this year the precautionary areas for atomic accidents were drastically enlarged. Under the new rules, all areas within a 20 km radius of nuclear power stations would have to be evacuated within 24 hours; within a radius of 100 kilometres people would have to stay indoors and take iodine tablets. Matthias Eickhoff from the activist group SOFA (Immediate Atomic Shutdown Münster) said: "If communication doesn't work at the highest level between federal and state governments, how is it supposed to work at lower level between the states, counties and municipalities? A disaster beyond all expectations is unmanageable at administrative level."

www.taz.de/Geheime-Uebung-von-Bund-und-Laendern/!148295/
https://linksunten.indymedia.org/en/node/127362

These news items draw heavily on resources produced by the Nuclear Threat Initiative. You can subscribe to the NTI's daily Global Security Newswire at www.nti.org/get-involved/subscribe

A number of nuclear security problems in the US were discussed in Nuclear Monitor #769, including[1]:

• an Air Force unit that oversees one-third of the US land-based nuclear missiles failed a safety and security inspection;
• in March, the deputy commander of the 91st Missile Wing complained of "rot" in the group after an inspection gave its missile crews the equivalent of a "D" grade on Minuteman 3 launch operations, resulting in the suspension and retraining for 19 officers;
• a B-52 bomber flight over several US states during which the crew was unaware that actual weapons were onboard;
• a US Air Force crew ejected from a B-1 bomber that ran violently aground during a training flight;
• Energy Department personnel pretending to be terrorists reached a substance representing nuclear-weapon fuel after they fought through defenses in an exercise at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina;
• an Inspector General audit found over two dozen files with evidence of incidents involving Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff that should have been reported to NRC security officials, but weren't; and
• foreign visitors allowed "unaccompanied access to numerous buildings" at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Here we summarise some further lapses.

Los Alamos accused of disregarding security during VIP visits. A Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, employee with responsibility for site security is charging that the facility suspended some safety procedures during VIP visits in 2011, and then retaliated against him after he complained. The employee, Michael Irving, filed a lawsuit in the federal court in October 2013, asserting that he has the right to criticise breaches of security that impact safety around nuclear weapon materials.[2]

Two plead guilty to communication of classified nuclear weapons data. The US Justice Department announced on June 21 that a scientist and his wife, who both previously worked as contractors at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, have pleaded guilty to charges relating to their communication of classified nuclear weapons data to a person they believed to be a Venezuelan government official.[3] Physicist Leonardo Mascheroni and his wife Marjorie Mascheroni face prison terms. Later reports indicate that Leonardo Mascheroni may withdraw his guilty plea.[4]

Security personnel cheating on tests. More than a year after three peace activists broke into the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee, security continues to pose a "significant management challenge" for the Energy Department, the Inspector General said in a report issued on November 26. The report refers to a number of unspecified "policy issues" that have not been resolved since the July 2012 break-in at the nuclear weapons facility. Responses to the break-in have included employee retraining and follow-up investigations that uncovered other security concerns such as security personnel cheating on tests.[5]

Guard dogs accused of cheating on tests. The Y-12 National Security Complex could be working its guard dogs to exhaustion and skipping steps in their training, raising the risk that intruders or explosives could slip into the facility unnoticed, the Energy Department Inspector General said in a report released in April. "We found that half of the canine teams we observed failed explosive detection tests, many canines failed to respond to at least one of the handler's commands, and that canines did not receive all required training," the report says. Auditors were unable to confirm claims that the guard dog company had cheated on canine proficiency tests, possibly by ordering animals to sit when they failed to do so on their own to signal detection of contraband.[6]

Lost driver enters nuclear weapons complex. An apparently lost driver entered the Y-12 National Security Complex on June 6 and proceeded roughly 3 kms across its restricted grounds before protective forces blocked her progress. The Complex allowed the driver onto the grounds during an early morning surge in employee traffic. Questioning of the driver revealed "there were mental issues involved," an Oak Ridge police officer said, adding that the dirver "thought that there must have been a crash because there were nice officers waving her through with illuminated flashlight cones." Seven protection workers and a manager were removed from duty pending the outcome of an investigation.[7]

Air Force to more closely examine candidates for top nuclear posts. The US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said on November 13 that candidates for senior nuclear positions in the service would be subjected to a more rigorous screening process. The decision comes after the Air Force general in charge of intercontinental ballistic missiles was discharged from his position in October due to concerns about his alcohol consumption.[8]

Former Dresden nuclear plant workers banned by NRC. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued orders on October 28 prohibiting two former employees of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station in Illinois from participating in nuclear work under its jurisdiction. The incident involved two senior reactor operators who worked at the Dresden plant. One of the men, Michael J. Buhrman, planned to rob an armoured car and recruited the assistance of a colleague, Landon Brittain. The plan was foiled when Buhrman was apprehended following a car-jacking on 9 May 2012. The pair fled the country while free on bail but were recaptured in Venezuela. Dresden personnel who knew about Buhrman's plan to commit an offsite crime failed to report the situation to plant management.[9,10]

US missile officers leave blast doors open while napping. US Air Force officers responsible for launching land-based nuclear missiles twice violated security policy by leaving blast doors open while napping. The incidents took place in April and May at the Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, and the Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. Two launch crew commanders and two deputies received administrative punishment for the breaches. Officials with personal knowledge of the incidents say that similar transgressions have likely taken place and not been discovered. The Associated Press was alerted to the blast-door violations at Malmstrom by an official who wanted the incidents publicised out of a belief they show just how problematic discipline among ICBM crews has become.[11]

Analysis finds 'burnout' plaguing US nuclear-missile crews. A draft US Air Force-commissioned study found a significant number of personnel who oversee the service's ground-based, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles suffering from "burnout" over what they described as a high-pressure job environment offering few opportunities for advancement. RAND Corp. gathered the findings over three months earlier this year in a bid to explain why the nation's ICBM crews show a high rate of on- and off-duty misconduct relative to other Air Force personnel.[12]

References:
[1] 10 Oct 2013, 'US reactors vulnerable to terrorist attack', Nuclear Monitor #769, www.wiseinternational.org/node/4030
[2] 16 Oct 2013, Los Alamos Accused of Disregarding Security During VIP Visits, www.nti.org/gsn/article/los-alamos-accused-disregarding-security-during-...
[3] US Department of Justice, 21 June 2013, 'Former Workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory Plead Guilty to Atomic Energy Act Violations', www.fbi.gov/albuquerque/press-releases/2013/former-workers-at-los-alamos...
[4] 5 Dec 2013, 'Ex-Lab Scientist May Reverse Plea in Nuclear-Secrets Case', www.nti.org/gsn/article/ex-los-alamos-scientist-may-reverse-his-guilty-p...
[5] Diane Barnes, 3 Dec 2013, 'Nuclear-Arms Security Concerns Persist After Y-12 Break-In', www.nti.org/gsn/article/nuclear-arms-security-concerns-persist-after-y-1...
[6] Diane Barnes, 29 April 2013, 'Tired, Poorly Trained Guard Dogs Could Endanger Y-12 Nuclear Arms Site', www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/y-12-guard-dogs-exhausted/
[7] 10 June 2013, 'Unauthorized Driver Gets Past Y-12 Nuke Site Security', www.nti.org/gsn/article/guards-wave-unauthorized-driver-y-12-nuke-facility/
[8] 14 Nov 2013, 'Air Force to More Closely Examine Candidates for Top Nuclear Posts', www.nti.org/gsn/article/air-force-subject-candidates-top-nuke-command-jo...
[9] Aaron Larson, 30 Oct 2013, 'Former Dresden Nuclear Plant Workers Banned by NRC', www.powermag.com/former-dresden-nuclear-plant-workers-banned-by-nrc
[10] 18 Nov 2013, 'Bungling nuclear worker-turned-armed-robber jailed', www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509317/Michael-J-Buhrman-sentenced-40-...
[11] 23 Oct 2013, 'U.S. Missileers Left Blast Doors Open in Security Breach', www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-missileers-found-leaving-blast-doors-open-bre...
[12] 21 Nov 2013, 'Analysis Finds 'Burnout' Plaguing U.S. Nuclear-Missile Crews', www.nti.org/gsn/article/air-force-backed-study-finds-burnout-among-icbm-...

IAEA computers infected. The International Atomic Energy Agency said on October 22 that in recent months malware had contaminated some of its computers but no sensitive data had been impacted. The infected computers are located at the Vienna International Centre.[1] This is not the first time the IAEA has been the target of cyber-attacks. A hacker website in 2012 published the contact information for IAEA experts that it had illicitly copied from a former IAEA computer server. The hackers were calling for an international investigation of Israel's atomic program.[2]

Stuxnet attack on Iran was more dangerous than previously thought. The Stuxnet virus that ravaged Iran's Natanz nuclear facility "was far more dangerous than the cyberweapon that is now lodged in the public's imagination," security expert Ralph Langner writes in Foreign Policy.[3,4] Stuxnet, a joint US-Israel project, is known for reportedly destroying roughly a fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control.

Langner states that Stuxnet − which was delivered into Natanz through a worker's thumb drive − also increased the pressure on spinning centrifuges while showing the control room that everything appeared normal by replaying recordings of the plant's protection system values while the attack occurred. The intended effect was not destroying centrifuges, but "reducing lifetime of Iran's centrifuges and making the Iranians' fancy control systems appear beyond their understanding," Langer writes.

Only after years of undetected infiltration did the US and Israel unleash the second variation to attack the centrifuges themselves and self-replicate to all sorts of computers. The first version was only detected with knowledge of the second. So while the second Stuxnet is considered the first cyber act of force, the new details reveal that the impact of the first virus will be much greater.

Langner writes: "The sober reality is that at a global scale, pretty much every single industrial or military facility that uses industrial control systems at some scale is dependent on its network of contractors, many of which are very good at narrowly defined engineering tasks, but lousy at cybersecurity."

In October, Jofi Joseph, a former White House national security aide, accused Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for communications, of leaking classified information about Stuxnet to the media. Joseph had earlier been fired after it came to light that he was behind the Twitter account @NatSecWonk.[5]

Stuxnet in Russia? Security firm Kaspersky has claimed that Stuxnet "badly infected" the internal network of an unnamed Russian nuclear plant after it caused chaos in Iran's nuclear facilities. Kaspersky CEO Eugene Kaspersky said a staffer at the unnamed Russian nuclear plant informed him of the infection.[6] When asked about Kaspersky's comments about the infection of one or more nuclear plants in Russia, security experts from FireEye and F-Secure said the nature of Stuxnet means it is likely that numerous power plants outside of Russia and Iran have fallen victim to the malware.[7]

Stuxnet in space? Security firm Kaspersky also claims that Stuxnet infected the International Space Station after being installed through a USB stick carried on board by a Russian cosmonaut. He did not provide details or elaborate on how the virus affected operations.[8]

New variant of Stuxnet. The Israeli and Saudi Arabian governments are working to create a new, more destructive variant of Stuxnet, according to Iranian news outlet Farsnews. Farsnews reported that an unnamed source with links inside the Saudi Arabian secret service confirmed the news, warning that the two nations plan to use it to further disrupt Iran's nuclear program.[9]

References:
[1] http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/uk-nuclear-iaea-malware-idUKBRE...
[2] www.nti.org/gsn/article/computer-attackers-release-iaea-contact-data/
[3] Ralph Langner, 19 Nov 2013, 'Stuxnet's Secret Twin', www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/19/stuxnets_secret_twin_iran_nuke...
[4] Michael Kelley, Nov 2013, 'Stuxnet Attack On Iran's Nuclear Plant Was 'Far More Dangerous' Than Previously Thought', www.businessinsider.com.au/stuxnet-was-far-more-dangerous-than-previous-...
[5] Allie Jones, 24 Oct 2013, 'Fired White House Tweeter Accused Ben Rhodes of Leaking Stuxnet', www.nti.org/gsn/article/hagel-nato-must-do-more-deal-cyber-attacks/
[6] Lee Bell, 11 Nov 2013, 'Kaspersky claims Stuxnet infected a Russian nuclear plant', www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2306151/kaspersky-claims-stuxnet-infec...
[7] Alastair Stevenson, Nov 2013, 'Stuxnet: UK and US nuclear plants at risk as malware spreads outside Russia', www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2306181/stuxnet-uk-and-us-nuclear-plants-at-risk...
[8] Connor Simpson, 11 Nov 2013, 'Russian Cosmonauts Occasionally Infect the ISS with Malware', www.thewire.com/global/2013/11/russian-cosmonaut-accidentally-infected-i...
[9] 3 Dec 2013, www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2316605/governments-preparing-stuxnet-20-malware...

In September, documents leaked by former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that keeping tabs on the security of Pakistan's nuclear, chemical and biological facilities was consuming a growing share of the budgets of US intelligence agencies.[1]

"Knowledge of the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and associated material encompassed one of the most critical set of ... intelligence gaps," according to a leaked budget document, and this lack of information is especially troubling in light of "the political instability, terrorist threat and expanding inventory [of Pakistan's nuclear weapons]."[2]

US agencies are concentrating on two possibilities: the chance that nuclear sites in Pakistan could be assaulted by local extremist groups, and that radical militants could to infiltrate the military or intelligence agencies, giving them a better position to gain access to nuclear materials or to mount an insider attack.[2]

Another concern is that Pakistan's recent focus on developing compact lower-yield nuclear weapons might make it easier for extremists groups to steal an entire warhead.[1]

In September 2012, former nuclear weapons developer and proliferator A.Q. Khan said he was directed by Pakistan's now-deceased prime minister Benazir Bhutto to sell sensitive technology to two foreign nations, undermining the view that he was a rogue operator. Khan's claim was quickly denied by the governing Pakistan People's Party.[3]

In January 2012, a Pakistani national living in the US received a three-year prison sentence for plotting to provide Pakistan with technology and substances with atomic uses in violation of US nonproliferation controls. Nadeem Akhtar was charged with attempting to export radiation sensors, calibration equipment, specialised resins, attenuators and surface refining materials. Akhtar admitted receiving directions from a trading firm in Karachi, which received its directions from persons or entities within the Pakistani government. Some of the technology may have been destined for Pakistan's Khushab complex, where plutonium is produced.[4]

In 2010, docucments released by Wikileaks revealed numerous concerns about nuclear security in Pakistan. "Despite pending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world," a December 2008 US intelligence document prepared for NATO noted. A White House strategy meeting in 2009 addressed potential threats to the Pakistani nuclear arsenal in great detail. "Why is it that we're trying to prevent the Pakistani government from collapsing?" one official said. "Because we fundamentally believe that we cannot afford a country with 80 to 100 nuclear weapons becoming the Congo."[5]

Recently declassified US documents show that the Reagan administration put Cold War considerations above nonproliferation concerns in the late 1980s when it decided to continue providing foreign aid to Pakistan even after the discovery of a nuclear-technology smuggling operation. Proposals from arms control officials to punish Islamabad by ending US$4 billion in annual economic and military aid were rejected because of Islamabad's support for Afghan forces fighting the Soviet Union.[6]

References:
[1] 24 Oct 2013, 'Obama Says He is Confident About Pakistani Nuclear Security', www.nti.org/gsn/article/obama-says-he-confident-about-pakistani-nuclear-...
[2] 3 Sept 2013, 'U.S. Concerned About Pakistani Nuke Security, Secret Budget Reveals', www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-has-heightened-monitoring-pakistani-nuke-bio-...
[3] 17 Sept 2013, 'Khan Says Pakistani Nuke Tech Sold on Bhutto's Orders; Party Denies Claim', www.nti.org/gsn/article/k-khan-claims-he-sold-nuke-tech-former-leaders-o...
[4] 9 Jan 2012, 'Man Gets 3 Years For Plotting to Send U.S. Nuke-Related Goods to Pakistan', www.nti.org/gsn/article/maryland-man-gets-3-years-plotting-export-nuke-r...
[5] 1 Dec 2010, 'Leaked Memos Reveal Further Concerns on Pakistani Nukes', www.nti.org/gsn/article/leaked-memos-reveal-further-concerns-on-pakistan...
[6] 26 Nov 2013, 'U.S. Ignored Attempted Pakistani Nuclear Smuggling in 1980s: Records', www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-decided-1980s-ignore-apparent-nuclear-smuggli...

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hosted a conference titled 'International Conference on Nuclear Security: Enhancing Global Efforts' from July 1−5 in Vienna. [1] There were more than 1,300 registered participants, including 34 government ministers, from 125 countries.

In his closing statement to the Conference, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said: "This Conference has been an important milestone for nuclear security. The Ministerial Statement, from an inclusive global forum, sends a strong message that nuclear security is recognized as a priority by Governments."

Few shared that generous opinion. One of the few solid commitments from the conference was a commitment to hold more conferences. Maybe. The Ministerial Declaration calls on the IAEA "to consider organizing international conferences on nuclear security every three years."

The conference did not result in any strengthening of the patchwork of mostly non-binding, mostly underfunded nuclear security initiatives around the world. Kissinger, Nunn, Perry and Shulz noted in a March 2013 article that "no global system is in place for tracking, accounting for, managing and securing all weapons-usable nuclear materials." [2] The same can be said for the broader range of nuclear and radioactive materials that can be used in dirty bombs.

The Ministerial Declaration encourages nations to fully implement existing international accords, including the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and a 2005 amendment to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the US remains outside the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, but claimed that the US is a leader on nuclear security because the President made a speech on the topic (!) and the US government intends to host a conference on the topic in 2016 (!!). [3]

A report released by the Arms Control Association and the Partnership for Global Security details actions that the 53 countries that participated in the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in South Korea have taken since the meeting. [4] It notes that there has been some progress − for example 22 countries have taken steps to "prevent the smuggling of illicit radioactive materials by enhancing transport security, expanding border controls and developing new detection and monitoring technologies." But still the emphasis seems to be on talk-fests − 44 countries have hosted nuclear security workshops, conferences or exercises. The NGOs state that "the largely nationally focused efforts to date are inadequate" and that the lack of universal reporting requirements makes it difficult to assess the overall progress of the security summit process.

International Atomic Energy Agency
The Ministerial Declaration affirmed "the central role of the IAEA in strengthening the nuclear security framework globally and in leading the coordination of international activities in the field of nuclear security."

Many delegates called for an expanded role for the IAEA. Miles Pomper from the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies expressed scepticism, noting that member states would have to agree to fund such expanded security activities through the IAEA's regular budget, but current funding for security work relies on voluntary contributions made on an irregular basis. [5] The Ministerial Declaration went no further than to recognise "the importance of the IAEA having access to appropriate resources and expertise to undertake its work, including through further voluntary contributions to the IAEA's Nuclear Security Fund by existing and new donors."

As of 2008, the IAEA relied on voluntary funding for 90% of its nuclear security program, 30% of its nuclear safety program, and 15% of its verification/safeguards program [6]. Mohamed El Baradei, then IAEA Director-General, told the IAEA Board of Governors in 2009: "I will be cheating world public opinion to be creating the impression that we are doing what we're supposed to do, when we know we don't have the money to do it."

Limited scope
Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, noted in 2009 that "even so-called arms controllers fall over themselves trying to establish their bona fides by supporting nuclear energy development and devising painless proposals ..." [7] That mentality was in evidence at the IAEA nuclear security conference. The Ministerial Declaration calls upon states "to ensure that measures to strengthen nuclear security do not hamper international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities."

Gilinsky advocates a reversal of priorities: "Security should come first − not as an afterthought. We should support as much nuclear power as is consistent with international security; not as much security as the spread of nuclear power will allow."

Fukushima illustrates one of the issues that ought to be addressed under the umbrella of nuclear security. Kenneth Luongo from the Partnership for Global Security said that the disaster highlighted the fact that the international community does not "have an adequate system for dealing with radiation that crosses borders." He noted that "Fukushima blurred the line between nuclear safety and nuclear security." [8]

Matthew Bunn, a Harvard University professor and former White House adviser, said at a recent briefing: "Fukushima sent a message to terrorists that if you manage to cause a nuclear power plant to melt down, that really causes major panic and disruption in a society. ... All you need to do to do that is cut off the power for an extended period of time." [9]

Conventional military strikes on nuclear plants by nation-states is another issue that the nation-states assembled in Vienna were reluctant to address.

References and Sources
1. IAEA, July 2013, 'IAEA Ministerial Meeting Concludes With Focus on Stronger Nuclear Security', www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/nsfocusconcludes.html
2. Henry A. Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William J. Perry, George P. Shultz, 5 March 2013, 'Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Risks: The Pace of Nonproliferation Work Today Doesn't Match the Urgency of the Threat', Wall Street Journal, www.nti.org/analysis/opinions/next-steps-reducing-nuclear-risks-pace-non...
3. Douglas P. Guarino, 1 July 2013, 'In Vienna, a Focus on National Responsibility for Nuclear Materials Security', Global Security Newswire, www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/vienna-focus-national-responsibility-nucle...
4. Arms Control Association and the Partnership for Global Security, 1 July 2013, The Nuclear Security Summit: Progress Report, www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/New-Report-Finds-Gaps-in-Nuclear-Materials...
5. Rachel Oswald, 19 July 2013, 'U.S. Energy Chief Hopes for Bigger IAEA Role in Global Nuclear Security', Global Security Newswire, www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/us-energy-chief-hopes-bigger-iaea-role-glo...
6. IAEA, 2008, '20/20 Vision for the Future: Background Report by the Director General for the Commission of Eminent Persons', www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/PDF/20-20vision_220208.pdf
7. Victor Gilinsky, 'A call to resist the nuclear revival', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 27 January 2009, www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/call-to-resist-the-nuclear-revival
8. Douglas P. Guarino, 14 March 2012, 'U.S. Defends Narrow Focus for Nuclear Security Summit', Global Security Newswire, www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-defends-narrow-focus-nuclear-security-summit/
9. Jonathan Tirone, 4 July 2013, 'Fukushima Shows Nuclear-Terrorism Risks at UN Meeting', www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-01/fukushima-shows-nuclear-terrorism-risk...

---
US officials warn of risks in the Middle East and North Africa
Obama administration officials have warned of the possibility that nations in Africa and the Middle East could become sources of sensitive components or materials for weapons of mass destruction. Simon Limage, deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation programs, told EUobserver.com: "In North Africa and the Middle East, you have terrorist organisations, unstable governments, in some cases actual civil conflict and lack of control over sovereign territory. In the former Soviet Union we still have remaining challenges, but we are dealing with relatively stable governments with which we have a history of engagement." Anne Harrington, a US Energy Department nonproliferation official, said concerns extend beyond those regions, citing Pakistan.

Earlier this year, Algerian customs officers discovered radioactive waste in three containers shipped from China to Algiers' port. The containers were imported by an Algerian businessman, North Africa Post reported on May 18: "The origin and the final destination the radioactive cargo have not yet been determined but the investigators suspect international traffickers of nuclear waste to be involved in the affair as Africa is seemingly becoming a dumpster of radioactive waste for greedy international corporations and super powers."

'U.S. Officials: Dirty Bomb Risk in Mideast, Africa Unprecedented', 14 June 2013, www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/us-officials-dirty-bomb-risk-mideast-afric...
Radioactive Waste Found in Algiers Port, 18 May 2013, http://northafricapost.com/3684-radioactive-waste-found-in-algiers-port....
---