NUCLEAR PROBLEMS:
TECHNICAL COOPERATION MEETING TO
CONSIDER NEW BUDGET
The Technical Cooperation Programme
undertakes projects in human health, agricultural productivity, food security,
water management, environmental protection, medicine and sustainable energy
development.
The annual meeting of the IAEA's Technical Assistance and Cooperation
Committee (TACC) convenes Monday, 14 November in Vienna.
The Committee will consider the full programme cycle for 2012-2013.
Then the TACC will make recommendations for changes or approval to the IAEA
Board of Governors, which begins its deliberations three days later on 17
November.
Planning for the Technical Cooperation programme starts two years prior
to project implementation.
Nuclear Experts Discuss IAEA
Operational Safety Reviews
Senior nuclear experts offered several recommendations on how the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can further develop its operational safety review
services (on 15th November 2011). The IAEA hosted a technical
meeting on the Evaluation of Effectiveness of Operational Safety Review
Services and their Future Evolution at the Agency's headquarters in Vienna
from 1 to 4 November 2011.
Representatives from nuclear regulatory bodies, nuclear utilities,
nuclear power plants and technical support organisations from 19 IAEA Member
States and the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) took part in the
meeting. It provided a platform for the exchange of information, experience and
lessons learned from the operational safety review missions performed during
2008-2011. The meeting also included discussion of expectations for the future
evolution of these services.
The IAEA's operational safety review services assess the operational
safety performance of nuclear power plants by conducting peer reviews using the
requirements of IAEA Safety Standards. The longest running safety review
service, the Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) programme, was established
in 1982 and has provided advice and assistance to Member States in 165 missions
to enhance the safety of nuclear power plants during commissioning and operation.
Other review services available in the area of operations evaluate operating
experience feedback, safe long-term operation and safety culture.
The IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety includes actions
focused towards strengthening the existing IAEA peer reviews by incorporating
lessons learned and improving their effectiveness. This week's meeting provided
several recommendations to the IAEA on how to modify the scope and methodology
of the OSART missions to reflect the lessons learned from this year's accident
at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
The most important recommendation was to introduce Severe Accident
Management as a separate review area in the standard OSART scope. The meeting
endorsed the integration of the different types of operational safety services
under the umbrella of OSART, to improve the effectiveness of using available
resources and harmonising the methodology of these services. In addition,
several ideas on how to improve the efficiency of OSART missions in identifying
safety significant issues were endorsed by the meeting.
The meeting considered that the IAEA operational safety review
services, and in particular the OSART programme, were effective in supporting
the enhancement of the safety of nuclear power plants during both commissioning
and operation. The recommendations and improvements endorsed by the meeting in
light of the Fukushima accident and a review of the services are intended to
support further enhancement of the safety of nuclear power plants worldwide.
Statement by IAEA Director General
Yukiya Amano
Action Plan - the product of intensive consultations with Member States - is both
a rallying point and a blueprint for strengthening nuclear safety worldwide.
It contains concrete and achievable actions to make nuclear safety
post-Fukushima more robust and effective than before.
At its core is greater transparency. If there is more transparency,
there is more incentive to implement all the actions in the Plan, and
to be seen to do so.
We count on Member States to implement the Action Plan fully
and vigorously. It will need their sustained commitment and full involvement.
I am confident that the UN High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and
Security, which is taking place in New York today, will continue to build
on the foundations laid here in Vienna.
We must not lose our sense of urgency. Public expectations are very
high.
This is an Action Plan. It is time for action.
IAEA DECLARES PAKISTAN
NUCLEAR PROGRAM SAFE
While declaring Pakistan's nuclear program secure, IAEA appreciated the
dedication to the safety and security of the regulators as well of operators.
ISLAMABAD:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Monday declared the nuclear program
of Pakistan as safe and secure and appreciated the obvious dedication to the
safety and security of the regulators as well of operators.
Talking
exclusively to APP on the sidelines of “International seminar on nuclear safety
and security”, held here from 21-23 April, Deputy Director General IAEA Denis
Flory said the IAEA emphasizes the importance of national responsibility for
security, which Pakistan takes seriously. In fact, Pakistan has had an Action
Plan in place to strengthen nuclear security since 2006, he added.
Giving details he
said this plan covers such items as Management of Radioactive Sources; Nuclear
Security Emergency Co-ordination Center (NuSECC); Locating and Securing Orphan
Radioactive Sources.
Pakistan has
worked with the agency to implement that plan and to provide resources for its
implementation, he maintained.
For example, he
said, Pakistan is the 10th largest contributor to the Nuclear Security Fund,
contributing $1.16 million. This is an example of their strong leadership and
commitment as well as their serious approach to nuclear security in the course
of implementing its action plan.
IAEA should become more
than "nuclear watchdog": Pakistan
|
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 1 (Xinhua) -- The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) should strengthen the nuclear safety regime in its way towards an
impartial, efficient and professional body -- not just a "nuclear
watchdog," a senior Pakistani diplomat said here Tuesday.
The remarks came as Raza Bashir Tarar, the acting permanent
representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, addressed the 66th session of
the UN General Assembly on the report of the IAEA.
"It would be important for the Agency to be seen as an impartial,
efficient and professional body -- not just a 'nuclear watchdog'" in
fulfilling its crucial role of promoting peaceful use of nuclear energy and
advancing socio-economic development, Tarar said.
The UN-affiliated organization's role has become even more important in
an increasingly complex and challenging international environment, with the
fast growing global energy demands, shortage of fossil fuel reserves and the
diverse challenges of safety and security concerns, Tarar said.
"In evolving a strengthened nuclear safety regime, it would be
essential to take into account the differentiated nature of countries'needs and
circumstances," the Pakistani representative said. "The course
correction proposals and modalities should be based on technical and objective
assessments."
Tarar said that the IAEA, with its global leading role in evolving
guidelines, recommendations, codes, and guidance documents in the area of
nuclear security, has put duplicate and overlapping efforts on nuclear security
related activities.
"It would be counterproductive, both financially and politically,
to duplicate nuclear security related activities, particularly in the design
and development of parallel guidelines, recommendations, standards and guidance
documents in various areas related to nuclear security," Tarar said.
Policies and practices, based on commercial and political
considerations, have eroded the sanctity of long-standing norms and legal
instruments that underpin the non-proliferation regime, he said.
"Pakistan believes in an equitable, non-discriminatory and
criteria-based approach to advance the universally shared goals of
non-proliferation and promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, "
Tarar said.
Pakistan is now actively engaged in the applications of nuclear
technology for the socio-economic development that include areas such as cancer
diagnosis and treatment, agriculture, food preservation, water management,
industry and generation of electrical power, Tarar said.
The country will continue to apply safety review of nuclear energy
facilities as it expands its nuclear capacities in public sectors, he said.
"We also hope that considerations of nuclear safety and nuclear
security would facilitate, not hinder, the pursuit of peaceful uses of nuclear
energy for advancing the development agenda and offsetting environmental
degradation," Tarar said.
IAEA REMEDIATION MISSION ISSUES
FINAL REPORT
Interview with Tero Varjoranta, Director,
Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology Division and Deputy Team Leader, 10
November 2011
A team of international experts completed their assessment of the
strategy and plans being considered by the Japanese authorities to remediate
the areas off-site TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP).
"A lot of good work, done at all levels, is on-going in Japan in
the area of environmental remediation," said Juan Carlos Lentijo, Team
Leader and General Director for Radiation Protection at Spain's nuclear
regulatory authority.
In the report, Japan is encouraged to continue its remediation efforts,
taking into account the advice provided by the Mission.
"In the early phases of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, a very
cautious approach was adopted by the Japanese authorities in terms of dealing
with the handling of residue materials. It is considered right to do so,"
Lentijo said.
"However, at this point in time, we see that there is room to take
a more balanced approach, focusing on the real priority areas, classifying
residue materials and adopting appropriate remediation measures on the basis of
the results of safety assessments for each specific situation."
The IAEA stands ready to support Japan as it continues its efforts to
remediate the environment in the area off-site the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant.
The IAEA sent the mission to Japan from 7 to 15 October 2011 following
a request from the country's government. The mission, comprising 12
international and IAEA experts from several countries, visited numerous
locations in the Fukushima Prefecture and conducted meetings in Tokyo and
Fukushima with Japanese officials from several ministries and institutions.
The Mission had three objectives:
1. Provide assistance related to
Japan’s plans to remediate large areas contaminated by the accident at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP;
2. Review Japan’s ongoing
remediation related strategies, plans and activities, including contamination
mapping; and
3. Share its findings with the
international community as part of the joint effort to broadly disseminate
lessons learned from the accident.
The Mission included an assessment of information provided to the Team,
open discussions with relevant institutions in Japan, and visits to the affected
areas, including several demonstration sites. The Team also visited the
Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP. The authorities of Japan provided comprehensive
information on their remediation programme.
BACKGROUND
The accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has led to
elevated levels of radiation over large areas. The Government of Japan has been
formulating a strategy and plans to implement countermeasures to remediate
these areas.
The IAEA organized an International Fact Finding Expert Mission of
the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident Following The Great East
Japan Earthquake And Tsunami, which took place between 24 May and 2 June 2011
The environmental remediation mission of 7-15 October was a follow-up
to the fact-finding mission held earlier in the year and an essential component
of the IAEA's Nuclear Safety Action Plan, approved by the IAEA Board
of Governors on 13 September and endorsed by all 151 Member States at the
recent IAEA General Conference in September 2011.
IRAN’S NUCLEAR CHALLENGE:
In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency
has delivered a damning critique of the current status of Iran’s nuclear
program. While acknowledging that the Agency had found no evidence that Iran
had actually decided to build nuclear weapons, a fact conveniently overlooked
by the international media, the report underlined the growing sophistication
and expansion of the program suggesting a move in the direction of
weaponisation. In specific terms, Iran was accused of carrying out computer
simulations of nuclear explosives, developing detonators and creating over a
dozen designs of warhead attachments to missiles.
The release of the report was preceded by ominous Israeli sabre rattling involving the test firing of a ballistic missile and hints of surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear installations. Following the release of the report, talk of military action acquired wider currency within Israel and in the Western media. Warnings of the direst consequences by the Iranian leadership inducted a measure of moderation in the debate prompting the US Secretary of Defence to caution against military strikes as these would have ”unintended consequences” for American interests and forces in the region. The Israelis are now calling for the imposition of “destructive sanctions” which would effectively neutralise Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The United Kingdom, France and Germany have also called for additional sanctions.
Already the Security Council has imposed four layers of sanctions against Iran since 2006 when Iranian non-compliance was first reported by the IAEA Board of Governors. According to the West’s own admission, these sanctions have not worked. Further proliferation of penal measures are unlikely to produce the anticipated results and are, in any case, opposed by China and Russia who have expressed a clear preference for the diplomatic option. Even the reticent Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, has come out against the use of force and has called for a negotiated solution.
The issue is relatively simple. Iran, consistent with the NPT and IAEA provisions is entitled to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Thirteen states are currently engaged in the production of enriched uranium and plutonium for use as fuel rods in power reactors. Japan, one of whose nationals currently heads the IAEA, boasts amongst the largest reprocessing plants in the world. These activities are closely monitored by the Agency through a stringent safeguards regime which has been significantly upgraded in recent years.
There are two reasons why this right is being denied to Iran: its radical Islamist orientation manifest principally in its unrelenting hostility towards Israel and the fact that its nuclear infrastructure was clandestinely constructed fuelling the fear that Iran was pursuing the path of nuclear weapons using peaceful applications as a façade. While the first has no locus in international law the second is considered legitimate even though the Iranians claim that secrecy was imposed on them as otherwise the West would have used its immense clout to pressurise its sources of supply to deny Iran the means to acquire the technology. The Iranians also contend that under the IAEA Statute, declaration of nuclear assets becomes mandatory only when nuclear material is introduced into the facility which was not done until 2003 and that too under intimation to the Agency. By those criteria, in strictly legal terms, Iran claims it had not breached any Agency regulations.
That the debate on the Iranian nuclear issue is driven in good measure by political considerations is beyond question. Three instances clearly bear this out.
The decision of the IAEA Board of Governors in 2006 to refer the Iranian dossier to the Security Council was taken through a vote which is unprecedented. The Board takes all its decisions by consensus, a time-honoured practice which was breached in this instance.
Several previous instances of non-compliance were never reported to the Security Council, the most glaring being the detection of highly enriched uranium in one of South Korea’s nuclear facilities. The enrichment was found to be in the range of 80 percent which is close to if not actually bomb grade level. Yet the Board did not take any action. According to Goldsmith, a former Deputy Director General of the IAEA, these discriminatory practices were actuated by purely political considerations.
The moot point is that if this information was available earlier why it was not published. If it was discovered recently all its sources should be made public in the interest of transparency particularly since these revelations have the potential to unleash war in the region.
The release of the report was preceded by ominous Israeli sabre rattling involving the test firing of a ballistic missile and hints of surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear installations. Following the release of the report, talk of military action acquired wider currency within Israel and in the Western media. Warnings of the direst consequences by the Iranian leadership inducted a measure of moderation in the debate prompting the US Secretary of Defence to caution against military strikes as these would have ”unintended consequences” for American interests and forces in the region. The Israelis are now calling for the imposition of “destructive sanctions” which would effectively neutralise Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The United Kingdom, France and Germany have also called for additional sanctions.
Already the Security Council has imposed four layers of sanctions against Iran since 2006 when Iranian non-compliance was first reported by the IAEA Board of Governors. According to the West’s own admission, these sanctions have not worked. Further proliferation of penal measures are unlikely to produce the anticipated results and are, in any case, opposed by China and Russia who have expressed a clear preference for the diplomatic option. Even the reticent Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, has come out against the use of force and has called for a negotiated solution.
The issue is relatively simple. Iran, consistent with the NPT and IAEA provisions is entitled to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Thirteen states are currently engaged in the production of enriched uranium and plutonium for use as fuel rods in power reactors. Japan, one of whose nationals currently heads the IAEA, boasts amongst the largest reprocessing plants in the world. These activities are closely monitored by the Agency through a stringent safeguards regime which has been significantly upgraded in recent years.
There are two reasons why this right is being denied to Iran: its radical Islamist orientation manifest principally in its unrelenting hostility towards Israel and the fact that its nuclear infrastructure was clandestinely constructed fuelling the fear that Iran was pursuing the path of nuclear weapons using peaceful applications as a façade. While the first has no locus in international law the second is considered legitimate even though the Iranians claim that secrecy was imposed on them as otherwise the West would have used its immense clout to pressurise its sources of supply to deny Iran the means to acquire the technology. The Iranians also contend that under the IAEA Statute, declaration of nuclear assets becomes mandatory only when nuclear material is introduced into the facility which was not done until 2003 and that too under intimation to the Agency. By those criteria, in strictly legal terms, Iran claims it had not breached any Agency regulations.
That the debate on the Iranian nuclear issue is driven in good measure by political considerations is beyond question. Three instances clearly bear this out.
The decision of the IAEA Board of Governors in 2006 to refer the Iranian dossier to the Security Council was taken through a vote which is unprecedented. The Board takes all its decisions by consensus, a time-honoured practice which was breached in this instance.
Several previous instances of non-compliance were never reported to the Security Council, the most glaring being the detection of highly enriched uranium in one of South Korea’s nuclear facilities. The enrichment was found to be in the range of 80 percent which is close to if not actually bomb grade level. Yet the Board did not take any action. According to Goldsmith, a former Deputy Director General of the IAEA, these discriminatory practices were actuated by purely political considerations.
The moot point is that if this information was available earlier why it was not published. If it was discovered recently all its sources should be made public in the interest of transparency particularly since these revelations have the potential to unleash war in the region.
RUSSIAN DOUBTS OF THE IAEA REPORT ON IRAN’S NUKES
The Russians have indicated that they don’t believe
necessarily in the credibility of the IAEA report.
Whereas Ben rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic
communications said that:
Absolutely, the IAEA report is, again, the finding of a very credible
international organization. This is not simply the judgment of the United
States or any one country. This is the finding of the preeminent international
organization that deals with these issues. Therefore it’s essential that the
international community take those findings very seriously.
Now, there’s a foundation for sanctions that exist because
of the U.N. Security Council resolution that we’ll continue to build up from.
And as that’s taken place the United States has moved very far with other
like-minded nations. The Russians have taken significant steps, unprecedented
steps, in terms of their own sanctions, in terms of even canceling some arms
contracts. But the U.S. is building out from that with European and Asian
partners as well. So there’s space for us, again, to significantly dial up
pressure as it relates to sanctions.
At the same time, it’s important that Iran is isolated
diplomatically and politically when it’s outside of its international
obligations. And that we believe has a very important impact on the Iranian
government and on its position in the international community.
NUCLEAR PROGRAME OF IRAN;
NUCLEAR PROGRAME OF IRAN AND THE REACTION OF
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:
ISRAEL
|
China backs Russia on Iran's
nuclear program
Russia says more sanction will
not topple Iran regime; China Foreign Ministry says 'dialogue and cooperation'
needed to resolve dispute, imposing pressure, sanctions 'cannot fundamentally
resolve' issue.
China's Foreign
Ministry joined Russia Thursday in warning Western countries that additional
pressure on Iran would not solve the nuclear stand-off.
Beijing reacted to
a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which said this
week that there are many concrete indications that Iran worked towards
developing a nuclear weapon.
Several Western powers
including France have raised the possibility of new sanctions, should Iran not
start answering the IAEA's questions on this topic.
"We, as always,
believe that dialogue and cooperation are the only effective approaches for
properly resolving the Iran nuclear issue," Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesman Hong Lei said.
"Imposing
pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally resolve the issue," he added.
The last round of
talks between Iran and the grouping of the United States, Britain, France,
Germany, Russia and China ended without result in January.
A senior Western
official said Thursday in Vienna that diplomatic efforts were underway to show a
united front among these six powers at a meeting of the IAEA governing board
next week.
"Our goal is
to do everything we can to narrow our differences there," he said.
"It will be tough."
The official said
that new punitive measures should be discussed only after the IAEA meeting, and
after gauging Iran's reaction to the new report.
Russian Vice
Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov warned Wednesday that additional sanctions
would amount to an attempt at toppling Iran's regime.
So far, the UN
Security Council has passed four sets of sanctions against Tehran but has
stopped short of targeting the country's oil sector, which is a key revenue
source for the Islamic leadership.
Experts Complete IAEA Follow-up
Review of Australia's Nuclear Regulatory Authority
Sydney,
Australia -- Nuclear and radiation
safety experts concluded an eight-day mission (on 15th November
2011) to review the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA), the country's nuclear regulator. At the request of the Australian
Government, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assembled a
peer-review team of five regulatory experts from as many nations and three IAEA
staff members to conduct a follow-up assessment of an Integrated Regulatory
Review Service (IRRS) mission conducted in 2007.
This follow-up
IRRS mission examined ARPANSA's progress in acting upon the recommendations and
suggestions made during the 2007 IRRS mission and reviewed the areas of
significant regulatory changes since that review. Both reviews covered safety
regulatory aspects of all facilities and activities regulated by ARPANSA.
The review team
found that ARPANSA has made significant progress toward improving its
regulatory activities, as most of the findings identified in the 2007 report
have been effectively addressed and therefore can be considered closed.
Complementing the ARPANSA strengths identified during the 2007 mission, the
2011 IRRS team noted the following strengths:
- Response
to the Tepco Fukushima Dai-ichi accident;
- High
level of in-house technical expertise in radiation safety;
- Recognition
of the need and willingness to re-organize ARPANSA;
- Timely
development of the national sealed source register in good coordination
with other relevant organizations; and
- Creation
of the Australian clinical dosimetry service and the national dose
reference levels database.
The 2011 IRRS team
also made recommendations and suggestions to further strengthen ARPANSA's
regulatory system, including:
- Making
full use of the opportunity to revise the ARPANS Act in 2012;
- Completing
implementation of the reorganization of ARPANSA;
- Influencing
enhancement of the national framework for nuclear and radiation emergency
preparedness;
- Establishing
a coordinating function for ARPANSA's Emergency Preparedness and response
arrangements;
- Better
utilizing the expertise within ARPANSA with respect to the regulation of
patient protection; and
- Increasing
ARPANSA's leadership role in the implementation of Codes of Practice in
patient protection.
The IRRS team
identified areas where the Australian Government should take actions to enhance
the national regulatory infrastructure for nuclear safety and security. These
include:
- Revise
the ARPANS Act to take full account of international principles,
recommendations and IAEA safety standards and guides; and
- Enhance
the national framework for nuclear and radiation emergency preparedness by
clearly identifying and assigning responsibilities to ARPANSA and other
appropriate organizations.
Carl-Magnus
Larsson, Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA, said, "ARPANSA has benefitted
from the IRRS mission using the contribution from senior regulators which has
resulted and will certainly lead in further improvements in our regulatory
system." He also encouraged other countries that are yet to have an IRRS
mission to make use of the IAEA's services in the area of nuclear safety.
About IRRS
Missions
IRRS missions are
designed to strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of the national nuclear
regulatory infrastructure of States, while recognizing the ultimate
responsibility of each State to ensure safety in this area. This is done
through consideration of both regulatory, technical and policy issues, with
comparisons against IAEA Safety Standards and, where appropriate, good
practices elsewhere.
The missile program of the
DPRK (Democratic Peoples’s
Republic Of Korea) otherwise
known as North Korea, threatens the United States. President Clinton is
considering whether or not he should continue talks that could shut down the
missile system. One of the questions to take into account is how to
verify that North Korea has actually discontinued its missile program.It
refuses to comply with the safeguards agreement it made with the IAEA. In
1999, it allowed the IAEA to only perform certain safeguards, such as the
verification of the freeze of graphite moderated reactors and other, similar,
facilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment