nuclear security: a fortnightly newsletter from caps

NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS

Vol. 12, No. 06, 15 JANUARY 2018 / PAGE - 1

CONTENTS

OPINION

INTERVIEW

NUCLEAR STRATEGY

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE NUCLEAR ENERGY

NUCLEAR COOPERATION

URANIUM PRODUCTION

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION

NUCLEAR SAFETY

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

Vol 12, No. 06, 15 JAN. 2018

OPINION – Ramesh Thakur

Nuclear Arms: Look Ahead to 2018 in Hope,not Back at 2017 in Anger

We begin 2018 with a surreal contest betweenUS President Trump and North Korea’s Kim as towhose nuclear button is bigger. Against NorthKorea’s anxiety-inducing rapid nuclear advances,the biggest positive story line of 2017 was a newUN nuclear ban treaty adopted on July 7 andopened for signature on September 20. Itstrengthens the norms of non-proliferation andthose against nuclear testing, reaffirms thedisarmament norm, rejects the nucleardeterrence norm and articulates a new universalnorm against possession. Once in force, it willbecome part of the legal architecture fordisarmament and allcountries must adjust to thisnew institutional reality. Itwill reshape how the worldcommunity thinks aboutand acts in relation tonuclear weapons and thosewho possess the bomb….

It is, nonetheless, a good-faith effort by 122 countriesto act on their responsibilityunder the Nuclear NPT to take effective measureson nuclear disarmament at an early date. Tocritics of nuclear deterrence, the nuclear powersare not so much possessor as possessedcountries. Within the security paradigm, nuclearweapons are national assets for the possessorcountries individually. In the ban treaty’s

humanitarian reframing, they are a collectiveinternational hazard. The step-by-step approach

adopts a transactionalstrategy to moveincrementally withoutdisturbing the existingsecurity order. The bantreaty’s transformativeapproach transcends thelimitations imposed bynational and internationalsecurity arguments. Theknown humanitarian

consequence of any future use makes the verypossibility of nuclear war unacceptable.Dispossession of nuclear weapons now wouldremove that future possibility.

The ban treaty is a circuit breaker in the searchfor a dependable, rules-based security order

To critics of nuclear deterrence, thenuclear powers are not so muchpossessor as possessed countries.Within the security paradigm, nuclearweapons are national assets for thepossessor countries individually. In theban treaty’s humanitarian reframing,they are a collective internationalhazard.



outside the limits of what the nuclear-armedcountries are prepared to accept. The nuclearpowers have instrumentalized the NPT tolegitimize their ownindefinite possession ofnuclear weapons whileenforcing non-proliferationon anyone else pushing tojoin their exclusive club.For them, the problem iswho has the bomb. But foranti-nuclear advocates,increasingly the bomb itself is the problem.

The ban treaty has created a new political realitythat will require managing domestic demands andexpectations, and national security calculations....Hitherto, nuclear deterrence has been privilegedabsolutely over calls for disarmament. Butsignificant domestic constituencies in severalalliance members will continue to demandsignature of the ban treaty and the only credibleroute to defusing their demands will be todemonstrate continued concrete progress onnuclear disarmament.

The International Campaign played the lead rolein civil society to ICAN. Nuclear weapons areuniquely destructive andhence uniquely threateningto all our security. ICAN wasestablished in the beliefthat there is a compellingneed to challenge andovercome the reigningcomplacency towardnuclear risks and dangers,to sensitize policy communities to the urgency andgravity of the nuclear threats and the availabilityof non-nuclear alternatives as anchors of nationaland international security orders.

ICAN, launched in Melbourne in April 2007, wasmodelled on the International Campaign to BanLandmines (ICBL), which had won the Nobel PeacePrize in recognition of its lead role in mobilizingcivil society and like-minded governments. Thetransformation of anti-nuclear movements intocoalitions of change requires a similar shift from

street protest to engagement with politics andpolicy.... It won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize inrecognition of its decade long “ground-breaking

efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition” ofnuclear weapons bydrawing “attention to thecatastrophic consequencesof any use” of theseweapons….

Source: https://www.japantimes. co.jp, 09

January 2018.

INTERVIEW – Sukesh Aghara

Nuclear Security Expert Assesses World Threatsin 2018

In November, North Korea announced it hadsuccessfully launched a new type of ICBM capableof striking the entire US mainland. It was thecountry’s 23rd missile fired in 16 tests in 2017.Among the security experts worldwide keeping aclose eye on this development is Assoc. Prof.Aghara, director of UMass Lowell’s NuclearEngineering Program…. Here, Aghara shares hisperspective on what we can expect to see in the

geopolitical landscape inthe coming year.

Q: What do you think willhappen with North Korea in2018?

A: North Korea willcontinue to develop itslong-range ICBMs and

nuclear weapons program, and I do not see anychange in this regard. The country’s maturity inthese technologies has reached a point of no returnunder the current regime. The US needs to continueto contain this development by engaging the UNSC,the IAEA, South Korea, China, Russia and otherregional allies. There is also substantial globalinterest in the South China Sea, and US leadershipis essential to maintain peace.

Q: What about Iran? What’s next for the nucleardeal brokered by the Obama administration with

But significant domestic constituenciesin several alliance members willcontinue to demand signature of theban treaty and the only credible routeto defusing their demands will be todemonstrate continued concreteprogress on nuclear disarmament.

The US needs to continue to containthis development by engaging theUNSC, the IAEA, South Korea, China,Russia and other regional allies. Thereis also substantial global interest in theSouth China Sea, and US leadership isessential to maintain peace.



the UK, Russia, France, China and Germany?

A: The Iran nuclear deal has successfully put thecountry’s uranium enrichment program and nuclearweapons development onice. However, the deal doesnot eliminate Iran’s nuclearcapability as desired bymany in the US, includingthe Trump administration.By refusing to certify theagreement in October andasking Congress to reviewit, the Trump administrationis pushing US policymakersto debate the alternativesto the Iran deal. As it is,Iran has not breached anyof the clauses of thecurrent deal and hence, it is difficult for theadministration to walk away from it. However, bytaking this step, the issue is brought back into theforefront of discussion.

Q: In the South China Sea, there’s ongoing disputebetween China and Southeast Asian countries overterritorial waters and sovereignty, and in the EastChina Sea, tension is increasing between Chinaand Japan over maritime incursions. Both couldhave significant impacts onUS national interests in theregion and could quicklyescalate into full-scalearmed conflict. Are thereother potential global flashpoints we should worryabout in 2018?

A: Europe continues to develop into a dynamicregion that will pull US interests into differentdirections. The departure of the UK from theEuropean Union and a weak election outcome inGermany leaves a power vacuum in the region.The US has diverse history and national interestsin the region that span all the way from the UK toTurkey. Our diplomacy and foreign policy are goingto be tested in the coming year. …

Q: Finally, is the world getting closer to a nuclearconflict?

A: It will take a crazy person to start a nuclearconflict in the 21st century. History has shown thatusing a nuclear weapon is not the true advantage,

but rather possessing thetechnology, which providesstrategic and tacticaldeterrence. It is unlikelythat a state will make aconscious decision to use anuclear weapon; however,the real danger is that if thecontrol of that weapon getsoutside of the regulator’sdirect command, it canpose a major problem.

Source: https://w w w. u m l . e d u / N e w s /st o r i es /2 0 1 8 / S u kes h -

QandA-2018.aspx, 3 January 2018.

OPINION – Brian Hioe

Are China’s Plans for ‘Floating Nuclear Reactor’a Strange Form of Deterrence?

A bizarre idea proposed by China as of late hasbeen that of building floating nuclear reactorsaround South China Seas islands which it iscurrently disputing territorially with Taiwan, Japan,

the Philippines, Vietnam,and other regional powers.In truth, the idea is not asgrandiose as it sounds.While artificial islandbuilding has beensomething that China hasresorted to in order to

territorial claims over these islands, most plansof these “floating nuclear reactors” would becloser to nuclear-powered vessels, rather than aslarge in scale as artificial islands….

But what China possibly intends is for such “floatingnuclear reactors” in the South China Seas to serveas a nuclear deterrent to possible attacks on SouthChina Seas Islands that it claims as its own. Whatis unique about this is that nuclear deterrentusually consists of a country warding off possibleattack with the threat of attacking aggressors with

It will take a crazy person to start anuclear conflict in the 21st century.History has shown that using a nuclearweapon is not the true advantage, butrather possessing the technology,which provides strategic and tacticaldeterrence. It is unlikely that a statewill make a conscious decision to use anuclear weapon; however, the realdanger is that if the control of thatweapon gets outside of the regulator’sdirect command, it can pose a majorproblem.

What China possibly intends is for such“floating nuclear reactors” in theSouth China Seas to serve as a nucleardeterrent to possible attacks on SouthChina Seas Islands that it claims as itsown.



nuclear countries. Countries do not typically usenuclear reactors as nuclear deterrents, in thesense that fear of causing a nuclear disaster isused as a shield to preventattack.

It has to be rememberedthat nuclear-poweredmilitary vessels already doexist, as in nuclearsubmarines or nuclear-powered aircraft carriersoperated by the US, and fearof nuclear disaster causedby destroying these vesselsis usually not viewed as adeterrent in military strategic calculus. Yet nuclearsubmarines or nuclear-powered aircraft usuallyare not positioned in territories that are highlydesired by a number of nation-state as a form ofdeterrent.

China’s use of floating nuclear reactors, however,would be ironic in this light. A nuclear disasterwould render South China Seas islands asdangerous inaccessible to China as to othercountries also pursuing territorial claims over suchislands. China’s attitude,then, could be summarizedas resembling a scorchedearth strategy. If Chinacannot have these islands,then nobody should beallowed to have them. Likemany other countries in theregion, China has an activeenvironmental and anti-nuclear movement. Aradiation disaster in SouthChina Seas islands, causedby China’s attempts to use nuclear reactors as adeterrent to maintain territorial claims, would nodoubt affect Chinese citizens.

In general, it has to be remembered that issuesof radiation contamination following nucleardisasters or air and water pollution areinternational causes, which defy the conflicts,which may exist between nation-states, seeingas pollution knows no boundaries. In fact, it is in

the very nature of the environmental movementto be transnational, seeing as if one countryaddresses its issues of pollution within its own

borders, if its neighbor doesnot also address theseissues, that country willcontinue to be affected.

This is what has allowedfor collaboration betweene n v i r o n m e n t a lorganizations and NGOsfrom Asia Pacific countriesotherwise politically atodds with each other, suchas many of the claimants

to South China Seas islands. China has taken stepsto crack down on international collaborationbetween NGOs in recent times, fearing that suchcollaboration will provide foreign agents a meansto undermine the Chinese government fromwithin. Yet such actions evidence the hypocrisyof the Chinese state, seeing as the Chinese stateseems to fear political threats or what it views asits territorial sovereignty being undermine morethan it cares about addressing environmental

issues facing both theChinese people and otherpeoples of the Asia Pacificregion….

Broadly speaking, althoughChina has done a good jobof grandstanding its poweron the international,China’s naval capacitiesleave much to be desired.China, for example, onlyhas one aircraft carrier, theLiaoning, a former Soviet

vessel originally slated to be turned into a floatingcasino. Although China is building a secondcarrier, this still does not compare to the tenaircraft carriers officially operated by America orthe total of nineteen American ships which beclassified as aircraft carriers.

Nonetheless, the fact that China has at least putforward the notion of floating nuclear reactors asa nuclear deterrent is out there, and this

China’s use of floating nuclear reactors,however, would be ironic in this light.A nuclear disaster would render SouthChina Seas islands as dangerousinaccessible to China as to othercountries also pursuing territorialclaims over such islands. China’sattitude, then, could be summarizedas resembling a scorched earthstrategy.

The fact that China has at least putforward the notion of floating nuclearreactors as a nuclear deterrent is outthere, and this evidences somethingabout the mentality of the Chineseparty-state in terms of how itevaluates environmental dangersversus military grandstanding and theneed to defend its territorialsovereignty.



evidences something about the mentality of theChinese party-state in terms of how it evaluatesenvironmental dangers versus militarygrandstanding and the need to defend itsterritorial sovereignty. The values of the Chineseparty-state should be clear from this.

Source: https://newbloommag.net, 03 January2018.

OPINION – Justin McCurry, Benjamin Haas, Michael Safi

North Korea Casts Nuclear Shadow Over Asia’s2018

North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missileprogrammes dominated Asia-Pacific’s geopoliticallandscape in 2017, and willloom large throughout theyear ahead. Pyongyang isenjoying better returns oneach test, with the rest ofthe world seeminglyhelpless to resist its self-sponsored application tojoin the global nuclear club.

Its most recent launchinvolved a powerfulintercontinental ballisticmissile that, in theory, puts all of America’s majorcities within range. Evidence that the regime ismastering the technology needed to guide amissile back into Earth’s atmosphere couldemerge in the first few months of 2018. It’s unclearhow Trump’s administration intends to make goodon its promise to “deny” Pyongyang the ability tostrike the US mainland. In the 11 months since hetook office, the president has failed to articulatea coherent plan to denuclearise the Koreanpeninsula – and some analysts believe he shouldnow accept that Pyongyang’s nuclear genie is outof the bottle.

Repeated attempts to cajole China into inflictingtangible economic pain on North Korea have hadmixed results. Beijing has signed off on UNsecurity council sanctions, but is unlikely to deliverwhat Trump believes would be the decisive blowof stopping oil supplies, a move China fears could

foment regime collapse and create a vacuum filledby South Korea and its US ally. There is little tosuggest that Trump has a diplomatic ace up hissleeve.

The biggest test of Trump’s Asia policy will comeif Pyongyang convinces the US, through moretests, that it can send a nuclear-armed missile allthe way to Washington. The North Korean leader,Kim, declared on the US should be aware that hiscountry’s nuclear forces were now a reality, not athreat…. the fact that China has at least putforward the notion of floating nuclear reactors asa nuclear deterrent is out there, and thisevidences something about the mentality of theChinese party-state in terms of how it evaluatesenvironmental dangers versus military

grandstanding and theneed to defend its territorialsovereignty. ”

The removal of any doubtover the North Korea’sability to strike the US couldhave profoundconsequences for Japanand South Korea, wherefears will grow thatWashington’s commitment

to their security will waver if the US joins them inKim’s crosshairs. Simply put, would the US beprepared to trade San Francisco for Seoul?

A year of provocations from North Korea haveplayed into the hands of Abe, Japan’s conservativeprime minister, who successfully fought thisautumn’s general election on the “national crisis”created by the looming missile threat. Abe isexpected to strengthen Japan’s security in the next12 months through more defence cooperationwith the US, and the reported acquisition of cruisemissiles to take out North Korean military targetsin pre-emptive strikes – a stance that sitsuncomfortably with Tokyo’s strictly defensivepostwar posture.

Abe and his allies view their country’s postwarpacifism as an anomaly – a concessionnecessitated by wartime defeat but which now isan unfair constraint on its ability to defend itself

The fact that China has at least putforward the notion of floating nuclearreactors as a nuclear deterrent is outthere, and this evidences somethingabout the mentality of the Chineseparty-state in terms of how it evaluatesenvironmental dangers versus militarygrandstanding and the need to defendits territorial sovereignty.



against North Korea, and counter Chineseattempts to control over seas near the disputedSenkaku/Diaoyu islands. Abe is expected to putforward an amendment to the constitution thatwould legalise the status of the self-defenceforces, which are a standing military in all butname.

Abe has the votes he needs in parliament but mustpersuade a sceptical public to back him in areferendum. China’s president, Xi, will meanwhileplay an increasingly important role on the worldstage as Trump reduces US diplomatic efforts,especially in international treaties and tacklingclimate change. Xi is alsolikely to step up hisoverhaul of the military andthe sweeping campaignagainst corruption. TheChinese leader secured asecond five-year term inOctober and has signalledhe wants to extend his fightbeyond the rulingCommunist party to 62million governmentworkers….

In India, Modi will continue to dominate politicsbut his sheen could start to wear off in 2018. Howthe economy fares will be crucial to the politicalfortunes of the Indian prime minister, as thecountry gears up for the biggest democraticexercise in the world, its months-long, multi-stagenational polls, the results of which won’t be knownuntil May 2019…but analysts said suchconfrontations might become increasinglydangerous as China aggressively expands itsinfluence in south Asia….

Source: https://www.theguardian.com, 01 January2018.

OPINION – Ibu Sanjeeb Garg

Perspective on Nuclear Power in India: Beatingthe Rhetoric

In 1947, for a nation that was recentlyindependent and had critical energy issuesnuclear power seemed to the answer to all

problems. It was billed as environment friendlyand a technological boon. The steps towards thenuclear age had started right after independenceitself when in 1948 the AEC was set up, withBhabha as the chairman. Later on the DAE wascreated under the Office of PM, Nehru. Initiallythe AEC and DAE received internationalcooperation, and by 1963 India had two researchreactors and four nuclear power reactors. Indiastood steadfast in its promise of peaceful nuclearenergy uses and saw nuclear energy only as ameans to solving the energy crisis.

However by the 1970’s India had been throughthree wars and the ColdWar era had just started.Thus India too believed thata slight reorientation in itsnuclear policies wasrequired and on May 18,1974 India performed a 15kt PNE. The internationalcommunity viewed this asbreach of trust of itscommitment towards Indiaand issued sanctionsagainst it. Even then Indiacontinued to develop its

nuclear programme and exploded both fission andfusion devices on May 11 and 13, 1998. Theinternational community as a serious threat to theCTBT and the NPT viewed this; both deemedessential to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.India’s own defence for not signing the treaties isthat it feels they favour nuclear states. India wasprepared to sign them only if genuine nucleardisarmament is included as an integral part ofthese treaties. Since then, however, India hasbeen able to pursue a peaceful nuclear doctrine.In 2008 India signed a civilian nuclear agreementwith US.... Since then India has entered intomultiple agreements with various countries of theworld for sharing of nuclear technology. Theseagreements solved India’s long-standing problemof Uranium reserves for nuclear fuel.

Yet, nuclear power has not been much of a successin India as it was originally envisioned. The nuclearpower sector in India has suffered from myriad

Yet, nuclear power has not been muchof a success in India as it was originallyenvisioned. The nuclear power sectorin India has suffered from myriadproblems. First and foremost theperformance of the completedreactors has not been very good. Theiractual output as compared to theirpossible maximum output is about thesame as for thermal and hydroelectricpower stations in India (around 45%).



problems. First and foremost the performance ofthe completed reactors has not been very good.Their actual output as compared to their possiblemaximum output is about the same as forthermal and hydroelectricpower stations in India(around 45%). The highcapital costs of nuclearreactors dictate that theymust be run at somethinglike 70% or more ofmaximum output in orderto be economically viable.

Secondly India has neverbeen able to substantiatea proper fuel reserve for itself. There havebeen major efforts in uranium exploration thathave absorbed huge financial resources butwithout any success. Even after thirty years, thecountry has not been able to find reserves of goodquality uranium. With the signing of the civiliannuclear agreement, nuclear fuel could beobtained from other countries. However, for thecountry to be self sufficient in power a reallysizeable nuclear power programme, which isnecessary, could not be fuelled by the limitedquantity of assured reserves.

Thirdly the development of technology in thissector has not producedthe desired results.Although postIndependence a major partof the national exchequerhas been devoted toresearch in this sector yetproblems still persist. TheIndian fuel enrichmentplant has still not beenable to produce thedesired results.

Fourthly, when the huge operating costs are takeninto account and a detailed economic analysisof India’s power reactors is done then it is seenthat nuclear electricity generation has noadvantage over hydro or coal-fired generation.Indeed the latter two are considerably cheaperunless the electricity must be transmitted 800km or more....

The Fukushima reactor disaster in Japan rings asthe fifth and the most dangerous problem with anuclear power plant. It is the operational risk thatruns in any nuclear programme. The Chernobyl

disaster was pegged attrillions of dollars whilescientists are stillcalculating the damage ofthe Fukushima disasters inJapan. Human cost ofnuclear disaster is massive.Thus the human andeconomic costs ofoperating a nuclear plantare huge….

Apart from these, in the traditional poweralternatives some changes must be made in termsof policy making. Fossil fuels like coal, petroleumetc. will not last forever. Hence conspicuous effortsmust be made to ensure sustained and judicioususe of these available resources. These includemeasures of upgrading technology to preventdisasters like oil spilling (which wastes a lot ofoil) developing better-refined oil transportationfacilities (since a large part of refined oil is veryoften wasted in the largely unorganized network),etc.

Also the most important change must be in themind-sets of people. Thecitizens must be madeaware of suitable powerconsumption, which wouldensure a strong powerdelivery in the longer run.People must be made awareof innovative concepts likeGreen housing. In the longrun it will take a sustainedgovernment, publicpartnership to ensure that

an alternative to nuclear power is viable andworkable. The image of the dead city of Chernobyleven after 25 years of the tragedy still haunts theworld. Efforts must be made at any cost to avoidsuch dangers and the best way out lies in saying‘no to nuclear power.’

Source: http://www.theshillongtimes.com, 10January 2018.

The development of technology in thissector has not produced the desiredresults. Although post Independencea major part of the national exchequerhas been devoted to research in thissector yet problems still persist. TheIndian fuel enrichment plant has stillnot been able to produce the desiredresults.

The citizens must be made aware ofsuitable power consumption, whichwould ensure a strong power deliveryin the longer run. People must be madeaware of innovative concepts likeGreen housing. In the long run it willtake a sustained government, publicpartnership to ensure that analternative to nuclear power is viableand workable.



OPINION – Gregory Kulacki

Should US Nuclear Strategy be More LikeChina’s?

I was born in the USA but spent a lot of years inChina. If you asked a thousand people like mewhich place is better, I’dbe astonished if more thanfive would prefer the PRC.American air is cleaner.American food is safer, ifless interesting.Americans enjoy a greaterdegree of freedom. Butwhen it comes to nuclearstrategy, China may be thewiser.

US nuclear strategy is focused on destroyingmilitary targets. The list of targets is classifiedbut we know it isn’t short. Remember the finalscene of the movie War Games, when the mainelectronic brain at NORAD runs through a longlist of nuclear war scenarios before deciding itwould prefer a game of chess? US defenceplanners use a list just like that that to determinehow many and what types of nuclear weaponsthe US needs. The Obama administration projectsthe US must spend more than a trillion dollars tocontinue to implement the current US nuclearstrategy, i.e., to maintainthe option to hit themilitary targets on its list.This includes funds for anew generation ofnuclear-armed missiles,subs and bombers as wellas significant upgradesto complex of laboratoriesand facilities needed toensure the safety… .

China’s nuclear strategy isfocused on damaging a handful of enemy cities.It doesn’t need a lot of nuclear weapons to pullthat off, which may be why China’s nucleararsenal is a lot smaller. The Chinese military doesnot disclose how much it spends on nuclearweapons but it is probably safe to assume that it

is a fraction of the US nuclear weaponsbudget. International estimates of China’s totalannual military expenditures place them hundredsof billions of dollars lower than the total annualmilitary expenditures of the US. While its nuclearbudget may be secret, China’s nuclear strategy is

e x p l a i n e d w i t hunprecedented clarity in themost recent edition of aChinese military page-turnercalled The Science ofMilitary Strategy. Theauthoritative tome, writtenby a committee of 35scholars from the Academyof Military Science, echoesthe wisdom of the NORAD

computer at the end of War Games. “After the USand the Soviet Union went through a nuclear armsrace and reached a balance of nuclear terror, theycould not but face the fact that a nuclear war hasno winner.”

According to the authors, the sole purpose ofChina’s nuclear arsenal is “to prevent enemynations from using or threatening to use nuclearweapons against us.” Their logic for targeting citiesis straightforward. “Chinese nuclear deterrence isbuilt on the foundation of effective retaliation, andthrough this capability presents an enemy with the

possibility of the creation ofunendurable nucleardestruction, a possibility thataccomplishes the objectiveof preventing an enemynuclear attack....”

In plainer English, Chinesestrategists assume thatwhen it comes to nuclearwar the only winning movereally is not to play. The onlystrategic purpose of nuclear

weapons is to keep a nuclear war from starting, i.e.to deter an enemy nuclear attack. According to thetext, Chinese strategists believe the most efficientand effective method is to convince their enemiesthat a nuclear attack on China will cost them a fewmajor metropolitan areas. They are betting no

American air is cleaner. American foodis safer, if less interesting. Americansenjoy a greater degree of freedom. Butwhen it comes to nuclear strategy,China may be the wiser. US nuclearstrategy is focused on destroyingmilitary targets. The list of targets isclassified but we know it isn’t short.

China’s nuclear strategy is focused ondamaging a handful of enemy cities. Itdoesn’t need a lot of nuclear weaponsto pull that off, which may be whyChina’s nuclear arsenal is a lot smaller.The Chinese military does not disclosehow much it spends on nuclearweapons but it is probably safe toassume that it is a fraction of the USnuclear weapons budget.



nuclear-armed adversary would make that trade.The Chinese may have a bad reputation forgambling, but that seems like a pretty good bet.So why is US nuclear strategy so much morecomplex? Why won’t the US make the same bet?

One reason is that US strategists want to preservethe option to use nuclear weapons for war fighting.So US strategy calls for targeting a long list ofmilitary and industrial sites, with the idea ofcrippling its adversary’s military capability if a crisisstarted. Obama’s 2011 review of US nuclearpolicies reiterated a reliance on this “counterforce”strategy. In part, US strategists see this policy asstrengthening deterrence, since a US presidentcould be self-deterred by moral reservations aboutretaliating with nuclear weapons against cities. Butit’s a moral distinction without a difference.The twenty W88 warheads US nuclear plannerswould use to destroy the Chinese DF-5A missilesilos just outside the ancient city of Luoyang wouldalso kill between five and twenty-five millionChinese civilians, depending on the weather. Onlythe egregiously hypocritical would argue such aUS strike is morally superior to a Chinese nuclearattack on Los Angeles because it is aimed at amilitary target….

Finally, this strategically questionable distinctionbetween military and civilian targets guides USthinking about the credibility of extended nucleardeterrence for its allies. US strategists apparentlyassume, for example, that US threats of nuclearretaliation against Chinese military targets aremore credible than US threats of nuclear retaliationagainst Chinese cities because it decreases thepossibility of Chinese retaliation against US cities,despite Chinese claims to the contrary. Thisdubious US assumption is supposed to assure theJapanese government that the US would not bedeterred from launching against China, therebymaking extended deterrence more credible… .

The US strategic focus on the destruction of militaryand industrial targets requires a much larger USarsenal than if its target list were confined toretaliation against a small number of enemy cities,like China’s. It also suggests US strategists are morelikely to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict

than their Chinese counterparts, who argue anuclear war cannot be won and that the onlystrategic purpose of nuclear weapons is to detertheir use by other nuclear-armed states.

In truth, the first and last time that any nationactually used a nuclear weapon was seventy yearsago. When you visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki itbecomes easier to understand why the probabilitythat any nation will intentionally use one again isvery close to zero. Some American officials like tosay the US uses nuclear weapons every day fordeterrence. But is there any reason to believe thatUS requirements for nuclear deterrence should beso much higher than China’s? Is there really astrategically or morally significant advantage inchoosing military over civilian targets? Ismaintaining whatever distinction might exist worththe increased risk of a nuclear exchange? Is it worththe increased expense?...

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com, 09January 2018.

OPINION – Harry J. Kazianis

Why 2018 will be North Korea’s year

If at the end of 2016 someone told me I wouldspend nearly the entire year watching NorthKorea test long-range missiles that couldpotentially strike the US homeland and a hydrogenbomb, with prominent national leadersdaily weighing the chances of potential war, Iwould have said they sipped a little too muchspiked eggnog. To be honest, until this year, mostnational security experts including yours truly,thought the real threat from Pyongyang wasn’tnuclear weapons but regime collapse that wouldforce an international crisis of the gravest ofmagnitudes.

And while there has been fears since the late1990s that North Korea could eventually developtechnology to hit America with a nuclear tippedmissile, most assumed such a threat was yearsaway. North Korea was known more for failedmissile tests than successes, with many doubtingif the so-called hermit kingdom could ever reallybecome a true nuclear power with global reach.But failure can be one of the greatest teachers



and make no mistake, going into 2018, the world’scollective gaze will be cast upon North Korea onceagain. Kim and his band of bad guys are committedto developing a militaryarmed to the teeth withevermore advancedweapons that, as Secretaryof Defense Mattis pointedout, “threaten everywherein the world”. In manyrespects, 2018 will be avirtual repeat of 2017: moremissile tests starting in the early spring followedby at lest one big nuclear tests, lots of fieryrhetoric from both sides and a Trumpadministration agonizing over how best torespond.

So what can we expect from North Korea goinginto the New Year? To put it simply: more of thesame. Here are six things I will be watching in2018—and why next year will bring far moretensions from the Kim regime—with the possibilityof armed conflict now closer than ever before.

More Long-Range Missile Tests: Yes, North Koreaslowed the number of missiles tests it conductedas 2017 closed. And, to befair, if history tells usanything, we won’t see atremendous amount ofmissile tests until thespring. But, Pyongyang willt e s t i t s H w a s o n g - 1 5ICBM at least once more inthe next fewweeks, following apattern of testing all newmissile platforms at leasttwice. From there, North K o r e ahas more advanced solid-fuel missiles that it hasbeen developing for years that could be even moredangerous. Look for a test of those systems, alongwith the accompanying pictures and video,sometime in 2018.

Submarine Launched Missiles: While Pyongyangfor sure has been working on nuclear-tippedmissiles that can be fired from under the sea, we

should expect the pace and scope and such testswould quicken next year. With the regime likelyworking on a new submarine design, Kim will be

eager to demonstrate anynew advances hisunderwater nuclearprogram may have made.And with some speculatingthis new weapon couldhave a range of three tofour thousand kilometers,Kim would have another

dangerous platform to attack US allies and basesall over Northeast Asia and eventually beyond.

Nuclear Weapons Tests: Recent reportsshow North Korea tunneling once again at theirnuclear proving grounds, demonstrating that Kimis not done testing nuclear weapons. Expect theregime to test at least one more nuclear weaponsdesign next year, an attempt to ensure they havea weapon that is compact enough to fit atop anyof their missile designs that also has thedestructive power to turn a US or allied city intoash….

No Help from China: With President Trump’s newnational security strategyjust being released, adocument that labels Chinaa revisionist power andattempts to tackle Chinese“economic aggression,”Beijing will not exactly havethat warm and fuzzy feelingtowards Washington. Suchan action, just about asbadly timed as you canimagine, will only cementChina’s view that it has

done all it can to help America contain the NorthKorea threat—and should do no more. There willbe no oil embargo imposed by China. What seemsmore likely is a slow and steady weakening ofsanctions—Beijing’s standard playbook.

China’s goal on North Korea is quite simple: makesure North Korea does not collapse or start a warand use its ally to keep America from worrying

In many respects, 2018 will be a virtualrepeat of 2017: more missile testsstarting in the early spring followed byat lest one big nuclear tests, lots offiery rhetoric from both sides and aTrump administration agonizing overhow best to respond.

China’s goal on North Korea is quitesimple: make sure North Korea doesnot collapse or start a war and use itsally to keep America from worryingabout China’s push to dominate theSouth China or East China’s Seas orTaiwan. While Beijing might not likelyPyongyang’s aggressive push todevelop nuclear weapons and missiles,it will use such moves to its advantage.



about China’s push to dominate the South Chinaor East China’s Seas or Taiwan. While Beijingmight not likely Pyongyang’s aggressive push todevelop nuclear weapons and missiles, it will usesuch moves to its advantage. That’s justInternational Relations 101.

No Help from Russia: While things with Moscowmight be warm and fuzzy for now, just as in thecase of China above, President Putin will not taketoo kindly to being labelled essentially an enemyof America. While he will likely see through thenew “America First” national security strategy aswhat such strategies always are—a missionstatement-style document that mostadministrations launch and quickly forget about—he has very little incentive to do much on thisissue.

Just like China, Putin has every incentive to makesure North Korea does not collapse or start a war,but likes the idea of America being bogged downover Kim’s nuclear and missile programs—asRussia has its own national security objectives tofocus on without American interference.

2018 will be the Year of North Korea: The aboveonly scratches the surface of what will be a yearfilled with North Korea related headlines andtimes of tension. In many respects, 2018 will be avirtual repeat of 2017: more missile tests startingin the early spring followed by at least one bignuclear test, lots of fiery rhetoric from both sidesand a Trump administration agonizing over howbest to respond.

The good news, if there is any when it comes toNorth Korea, is that we have been down this roadbefore, with a so-called “rogue regime” that ishell-bent on developing nuclear weapons and themissiles to slam them into our homeland—thinkmurderers of millions Mao and Stalin.

Unless we are attacked first, right now, Americacan easily contain and deter North Korea, a nationthat has an economy the size of Vermont. Thereis no need to embark on a dangerous war ofchoice…. Sanctions combined with internationalisolation—while not the fastest way to bring Kimand his band of thugs to the table—will work. Ifnot, and the administration decides to embark on

the so-called “military option,” well, 2018 couldbe a year like no other.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com, 18 December2017.

NUCLEAR STRATEGY

PAKISTAN

Pakistan’s Credible Nuclear Deterrence OnlyThing Stopping India from War: DG ISPR

The Director General of Inter-Services PublicRelations (ISPR) Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor respondedto the Indian army chief’s ‘nuclear bluff’ assertionsaying that such statements are unbecoming froma person of a responsible stature. Indian ArmyChief Gen Bipin Rawat said the force was readyto call Pakistan’s ‘nuclear bluff’ and cross theborder to carry out any operation if asked by thegovernment, according to Indian media outlets.“We will call the [nuclear] bluff of Pakistan. If wewill have to really confront, and a task is given tous, we are not going to say we cannot cross theborder because they have nuclear weapons. Wewill have to call their nuclear bluff,” Gen Rawatsaid at a press conference.

Speaking to state TV’s world service, the Pakistanimilitary spokesman said, “We believe COAS is avery responsible appointment and four-star is arank with age-long experience and maturity.”Asked what if India undertakes any misadventureagainst Pakistan, Ghafoor said, “Well, it’s theirchoice. Should they wish to test our resolve theymay try and see it for themselves.” The DG ISPRsaid that Pakistan has a credible nuclearcapability, exclusively meant for threat from theeast. “But we believe it’s a weapon of deterrencenot a choice.”

Responding to a question about New Delhi’s rolein destabilising Pakistan through state-sponsoredterrorism, he said if India could overpower Pakistanthrough conventional engagement post-overtnuclearisation, it could have done that by now.

“The only thing stopping them is our crediblenuclear deterrence as there is no space of warbetween the two nuclear states,” the Pakistan



Army general said. “That’s why they are targetingus through sub-conventional threat and state-sponsored terrorism,” he said, adding, “But theyhave failed on this account as well. “We are aprofessional army, responsible nuclear state andresilient nation,” the DG ISPR said. “They mustnot remain in illusion,” he warned.

Source: https://www.geo.tv, 13 January 2018.

USA

US to Loosen Nuclear Weapons Constraints andDevelop More ‘Usable’ Warheads

The Trump administration plans to loosenconstraints on the use of nuclear weapons anddevelop a new low-yieldnuclear warhead for USTrident missiles, accordingto a former official that hasseen the most recent draftof a policy review.Wolfsthal, who was specialassistant to Obama on armscontrol andnonproliferation, said thenew nuclear posture reviewprepared by the Pentagon,envisages a modified version of the Trident D5submarine-launched missiles with only part of itsnormal warhead, with the intention of deterringRussia from using tactical warheads in a conflictin Eastern Europe.

The new nuclear policy is significantly morehawkish that the posture adopted by the Obamaadministration, which sought to reduce the roleof nuclear weapons in US defence. Arms controladvocates have voiced alarm at the new proposalto make smaller, more “usable” nuclear weapons,arguing it makes a nuclear war more likely,especially in view of what they see as DonaldTrump’s volatility and readiness to brandish theUS arsenal in showdowns with the nation’sadversaries.

The NPR also expands the circumstances in whichthe US might use its nuclear arsenal, to include aresponse to a non-nuclear attack that causedmass casualties, or was aimed at critical

infrastructure or nuclear command and controlsites. The nuclear posture review (NPR), the firstin eight years, is expected to be published afterTrump’s State of the Union speech at the end ofJanuary.

Wolfsthal, who has reviewed what he understandsto be the final draft of the review, said it statesthat the US will start work on reintroducing a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile, as a counter to anew ground-launched cruise missile the US hasaccused Russia of developing in violation of the1987 INF treaty. Wolfsthal said that earlier draftsof the NPR was even more hawkish. The final draftdrops proposals to develop a nuclear hyper-glideweapon, and to remove assurances to non nuclear

weapons states that the USwill not use its nucleararsenal against them.

… The development of alow-yield warhead for asea-launched ballisticmissile is based on thebelief that in any conflictwith Russia on NATO’seastern flank, the Russianswould use a tactical

nuclear weapon early on, to compensate for theirrelative weakness in conventional arms. TheRussians, the argument goes, would count on USreluctance to use the massive warheads on itsexisting weapons, leading Washington to backdown. Kristensen, the director of the nuclearinformation project at the Federation of AmericanScientists, said that justification for developingthe new weapons was incoherent. …

Source: https://www.theguardian.com, 09 January2018.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE

USA–JAPAN

Trump Admin Approves $133 Million Anti-BallisticMissile Sale to Japan

The Trump administration notified Congress onthat it has approved the potential sale of SM-3anti-ballistic missiles to Japan in a deal estimated

Arms control advocates have voicedalarm at the new proposal to makesmaller, more “usable” nuclearweapons, arguing it makes a nuclearwar more likely, especially in view ofwhat they see as Donald Trump’svolatility and readiness to brandishthe US arsenal in showdowns with thenation’s adversaries.



to be worth $133.3 million,according to a StateDepartment statement.Included in the sale are fourStandard Missile-3 (SM-3)Block IIA missiles, four MK29 missile canisters, andother technical,engineering and logisticssupport services. The SM-3 Block IIA is an anti-ballistic missile that can beemployed on Aegis-classdestroyers or on land, via the Aegis Ashoreprogram, according to a State Department official.“If concluded, this proposed sale will contributeto the foreign policy and national security interestsof the US by enhancing Japan’s Maritime SelfDefense Force’s... ability to defend Japan and theWestern Pacific from ballistic missile threats,” theofficial said.

The sale would also “follow through on PresidentTrump’s commitment to provide additionaldefensive capabilities to treaty allies” threatenedby North Korea’s “provocative behavior,” theofficial added. Throughout 2017, North Korea hasconducted a series of ballistic missile tests despiteconstant criticism from the West and tradesanctions.

The most provocativemoment came November29, when North Korea saidit successfully tested anew type ofintercontinental ballisticmissile, topped with a“super-large heavywarhead” which it said wascapable of striking the US mainland.

Last month, Japan’s cabinet approved a plan tobuy two US-built Aegis missile defense systems,state broadcaster NHK reported, as the countryfaces increasing hostility from neighboring NorthKorea. Russia slams US plan to sell anti-missilesystem to Japan. Russia accused the US ofviolating an arms control treaty by agreeing to

supply anti-missile systemsto Japan. Russian ForeignMinistry spokeswomanZakharova said the dealwith Japan was part of abigger plan by the US for a“global anti-missilesystem.” Zakharova claimedthey were in breach of theINF Treaty, an arms controlagreement betweenMoscow and Washingtonthat has been in force for

30 years.

… Secretary of Defense Mattis spoke with JapanMinister of Defense Onodera on to discuss a rangeof US-Japan alliance matters and reaffirmed UScommitments to the defense of Japan, pledgingto work closely with his Japanese counterpart tobolster critical alliance capabilities.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com, 10 January 2018.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

CHINA

China Starts Work on “Landmark” Fourth-Generation Fast Breeder Reactor

China has begun pouringconcrete for one of theworld’s first “gen IV”nuclear reactors, the CFR-600, on the coast of Fujianprovince, about 400kmsouth of Shanghai. The600MW demonstrationunit, which is due to becomplete in 2023, follows a20MW experimental

reactor completed in 2011. It is intended to bethe prototype of a 1GW commercial reactorscheduled for around 2030. The significance ofthe sodium-cooled reactor is that it points the wayto the “fast breeder” fourth generation designsthat are expected to be adopted by the globalnuclear power industry over the next century.

It is not the only design that the Chinese industry

The Trump administration hasapproved the potential sale of SM-3anti-ballistic missiles to Japan in a dealestimated to be worth $133.3 million,according to a State Departmentstatement. Included in the sale arefour Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) BlockIIA missiles, four MK 29 missilecanisters, and other technical,engineering and logistics supportservices.

China has begun pouring concrete forone of the world’s first “gen IV” nuclearreactors, the CFR-600, on the coast ofFujian province, about 400km south ofShanghai. The 600MW demonstrationunit, which is due to be complete in2023, follows a 20MW experimentalreactor completed in 2011.



is pursuing. Another fast breeder gen IV is beingbuilt in nearby Jiangxi province. This uses “pebble-bed” fuel and a helium cooling system. Theadvantage of these reactors, which use fastneutrons to split uraniumatoms, are that they areabout 60 times more fuel-efficient than slowreactors, they generateless radioactive waste andthey can be used in a“closed cycle” system, inwhich waste is reprocessed into new fuel.

This last requirement is particularly important forChina, which is planning a massive expansion ofits nuclear fleet, but it concerned about futureshortages of uranium. The China Institute ofAtomic Energy, which designed the CFR-600, isenvisaging an increase in output from 40GW in2015 to 400GW in 2050, at which time it isforecast that it will account for 16% of thecountry’s 2,500GW installed capacity. …

Source: http://www. globalconstructionreview.com, 03 January 2018.

GENERAL

It’s Time for the West’s Nuclear Renaissance

Despite political instability in many parts of theworld, the global economy is ending 2017 in goodshape, and cheap energyis the foundation of it.Asia continues to set thepace; US growth isencouraging, and theEurozone is stronger thanit has been for a decade.Investors aren’t yetspooked by the prospect of higher interest rates,and equity markets remain buoyant…. Butabundant, secure and cheap energy can’t be takenfor granted. In the last eighteen months fourdevelopments, which taken together are capableof overturning the status quo, have emerged. Ifthe West ignores them, it risks missing out onthe economic and security benefits of the nextenergy revolution.

The first is the growing political consensus aboutclimate change. Action to cut carbon emissions isaccelerating. New coal projects are hard to financebecause investors are scared of being left with

stranded assets.

The second is Trump’srepudiation of the ParisAccord. Mr. Trump hashanded leadership of theworld’s response to climatechange to China where

President Jinping eagerly seizes it.

The third is the faster than expected expansion ofrenewable energy. The addition last year of 161gw of renewable energy capacity worldwide—fourtimes more than ten years earlier—is unreservedlywelcome, but it doesn’t mean that renewables canbe relied on to meet the entire energy needs ofthe world, however much their starry-eyedadvocates wish they could. Without the availabilityof flexible, large scale, low cost and long-termelectricity storage, renewables can’t guaranteesecurity of energy supply without massive andexpensive back up capacity.

The fourth is the growing geographical divergenceof attitudes towards nuclear power. The oldeconomies of Western Europe and the US, apartfrom the UK, are shunning investment in newnuclear capacity. By contrast new high growth

countries, the BRICS andbeyond, in Asia, the MiddleEast and elsewhere,together with east andcentral Europe, are planningambitious nuclear new buildprograms.

The relative decline ofnuclear in the West is the result of a misperceptionof costs, and the militancy of activists, who ignorenuclear energy’s vital contribution todecarbonising electricity.

This interaction of these four factors posesuntenable risks. Many actors, including China, willback up the growth in renewables with increasednuclear capacity.

The second is Trump’s repudiation ofthe Paris Accord. Mr. Trump hashanded leadership of the world’sresponse to climate change to Chinawhere President Jinping eagerly seizesit.

The relative decline of nuclear in theWest is the result of a misperceptionof costs, and the militancy of activists,who ignore nuclear energy’s vitalcontribution to decarbonisingelectricity.



By 2030 concern about climate change will haveintensified enormously. China, whose emissions willthen be falling rapidly, may propose, with strongbacking from the EU, theimmediate imposition of asubstantial internationalcarbon price, designed tospeed the demise of fossilfuels.

Countries, which havesuccessfully prepared to befossil fuel free by the end ofthe 2030s, will flock tosupport this proposal.Others, who rely on gas, will be waking up to anasty shock…. The price of nuclear could be lowertoo if common sense international cooperation onsafety standards grows and economies of scale kickin. Russia’s Rosatom, which is now building moreof the latest generation reactors than all othervendors combined, provides a good example forhow the economies of scale reinforce thecompetitiveness of nuclear. The Russians are alsolikely to be the first to commercialise fast breederreactors that recycle spent nuclear fuel fromconventional reactors, effectively solving theproblem of waste andturning nuclear into a formof renewable energy….

Particularly galling for theWest, already reeling fromthe consequence of Chinesesuccess in the solar industry,in these circumstanceswould be the dominance of foreign nuclearcompanies. Flawed policies have already pushedthe Western nuclear vendors, such as Westinghouseand Areva, to the brink of survival. Anti-nuclearprejudice in the West hampers the prospects of theirrevival.

The message to policy makers is clear. Recognisewhere the urgency of the climate change challengeis taking us. Accept that the era of fossil fuelconsumption, which powered the economic growthof the last century, is over. Understand thelimitations of renewable energy and embrace

nuclear as its natural complement. Thenecessary nuclear renaissance won’t win short-term political plaudits. Instead, it will do

something far morevaluable and enduring. Itwill deliver to gratefulconsumers and votersclean, reliable andaffordable energy, coupledwith economic benefits forthose countries smartenough to be competitivein the industries thatsupply it.

Source: http://nationalinterest.org, 07 January2018.

INDIA

Westinghouse Bailout Fuels Hope for India’sNuclear Energy Sector

The New Year has brought a fresh ray of hope inIndia’s nuclear energy sector, withWestinghouse, the bankrupt energy companybeing sold to a Canadian investment major,Brookfield Business Partners. Westinghouse is

supposed to build six of itsAP-1000 nuclear reactorsin India, a project that hadbeen delayed after thecompany filed forbankruptcy earlier in 2017.

The $4.6 billion acquisitionis expected to get the

beleaguered US-Japanese company out of hotwater. Toshiba, the owner of Westinghouse hadbeen looking to sell the nuclear business after itfiled for bankruptcy.

Westinghouse had, in its discussions with theIndian government, assured that it wouldcontinue to work on the six reactors which areexpected to come up in Kovvada, AndhraPradesh. KM Rajan, former India representativeof Westinghouse, told a nuclear energy conclaverecently, “we expect to be out of bankruptcyChapter 11 process sometime in early next year.We will be out of that, so it will not have any

Russia’s Rosatom, which is nowbuilding more of the latest generationreactors than all other vendorscombined, provides a good examplefor how the economies of scalereinforce the competitiveness ofnuclear. The Russians are also likely tobe the first to commercialise fastbreeder reactors.

The $4.6 billion acquisition is expectedto get the beleaguered US-Japanesecompany out of hot water. Toshiba,the owner of Westinghouse had beenlooking to sell the nuclear businessafter it filed for bankruptcy.



impact (on the nuclear project in India).”

There may be a need to tweak the planssomewhat, sources said. Reports quotedWestinghouse officials as saying that thecompany’s main focus after emerging frombankruptcy would be component construction. Thecompany is expected to build six reactors in India— private sector and government entities arecurrently exploringwhether a greater amountof indigenous componentscan be used to build thesereactors, bringing downtheir costs as well as givinga fillip to Indian nuclearindustry.

The immediate cause of itsbankruptcy was the time and cost overruns thatderailed four AP-1000 reactors in South Carolinaand at Plant Vogtle in Georgia in the US.

Trying to allay concerns on this score, Unionminister Jitendra Singh told Parliament, “The AP1000 reactors of WEC are state of the art in termsof technology and safety and are comparable tothe latest reactors developed by other countries.Their cost effectiveness in the Indian contextwould depend on the business models adoptedand the current discussions are aimed at arrivingat a viable project proposal.”

Singh added, “There ispresently no change in theplan to set up nuclearpower reactors at Kovvadain cooperation with M/sWestinghouse (WEC) ofUSA. Discussions are inprogress between NPCILand WEC to arrive at a viable project proposal.The filing of bankruptcy by WEC and subsequentdevelopments have been noted and factored inthe discussions. The project will be set up onemergence of a viable project proposal and accordof administrative approval and financial sanctionof the Government.”

Source: Indrani Bagchi, The Times of India, 10January 2018.

NUCLEAR COOPERATION

CHINA–FRANCE

China, France Sign Deal to Enhance Cooperationon Nuclear Energy

A Chinese nuclear power operator signed anagreement with a Frenchenergy organization todeepen cooperation onnuclear power technology.The deal, between ChinaGeneral Nuclear PowerCorporation (CGN) and theFrench Alternative Energyand Atomic EnergyCommission (CEA), focuses

on areas such as nuclear reactor technology,advanced fuels and materials, and nuclear fuelcycles.

Under the agreement, CGN and CEA will deepencooperation in the upstream and downstreamnuclear power industry chain, including reactorlife management and the concept design of thefourth-generation nuclear energy technology. HeYu, chairman of CGN, said the new agreementwould enhance bilateral exchanges in nuclearpower technology and open new space for Sino-French nuclear power cooperation.

Founded in 1994, CGN is thelargest nuclear poweroperator in China, with39,000 employeesworldwide. It focuses on thedevelopment of cleanenergies such as nuclearpower, nuclear fuel, windpower and solar power. The

CEA is a key organization in research, developmentand innovation in France. Its main areas includedefense and security, nuclear and renewableenergy, and physical and life sciences.

Source: http://www.xinhuanet.com, 09 January2018.

There is presently no change in the planto set up nuclear power reactors atKovvada in cooperation with M/sWestinghouse (WEC) of USA.Discussions are in progress betweenNPCIL and WEC to arrive at a viableproject proposal.

CGN and CEA will deepen cooperationin the upstream and downstreamnuclear power industry chain,including reactor life management andthe concept design of the fourth-generation nuclear energy technology.



INDIA–PAKISTAN

India, Pak Exchange List of Nuclear InstallationsUnder 30 Year-Old Pact

India and Pakistan exchanged a list of nuclearinstallations that the two countries have under athree-decade-old bilateral pact to maintaintransparency and avoid attacking each other’snuclear facilities….

In September 2017, India’s atomic chief Dr. Basuhad told NDVT that thanksto new explorations, Indiacould now call itself auranium-endowed country.“When I joined the atomicenergy programme wewere told India has justabout 60,000 tonnes ofmineable uranium. But today the quantity hasgrown by four to give times. Government is fullysupporting us to make India uranium self-sufficient,” Dr Basu had said during a visit byNDTV to Jaduguda uranium mine, the oldest sitein the country.

The locally mined uranium is supplied to generateelectricity and also to power nuclear weaponscapability. India currently has 22 operatingnuclear power plants, which have an installed

capacity of 6,780 MW. Of these, the two nuclearplants at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu are run onuranium imported from Russia.

Russia will continue supplying uranium for theentire 60-year life of the atomic plants. Each 1,000MW reactor of Kudankulam needs several tonnesof uranium to function round-the-clock. “The plantis ready to supply fuel to Kudankulam on a long-term basis,” Zhiganin, the chief of NovosibirskChemical Concentrates Plant, the uraniumprocessing facility in Russia’s Siberia, told NDTVlast month. “We are happy about the results ofour co-operations and we have very good technicalresults of our nuclear fuel exportation to thenuclear reactor,” he added.

Source: https://www.ndtv.com, 01 January 2018.

TURKEY–CHINA

Turkey Looks to China for Third Nuclear PowerPlant

Turkey and China are taking steps to address risingdomestic energy demand through the use ofnuclear power. In 2016, Turkey hosted the 23rdAnnual World Energy Congress, the global flagshipevent of World Energy Council, where the themewas “embracing new frontiers.” At the event,Turkish PM Yýldýrým announced Turkey’s goal of

increasing nuclear energyto 10% of total Turkishpower generation by 2023.Turkey’s most recent steptowards this goal was theratification of theAgreement for Cooperationbetween Turkey and China

in the Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes(the “Turkey-China Nuclear CooperationAgreement”), which was signed on September2, 2016, immediately before the World EnergyCongress.

Turkey and China inked this CooperationAgreement in 2012; however its ratification andpublication had been pending for 4 years. Thiswaiting period was considerably beneficial forTurkey, giving it the chance to approve a full-scopeengineering survey regarding the first NPP to beconstructed in Akkuyu and Sinop in cooperationwith Japan. The land allocation and the executionof an IGA between Turkey and Japan weresignificant steps forward in developing expertisein the construction of NPPs in Turkey. Despite thegovernment’s busy schedule with the Akkuyu andSinop NPPs, the relationship between the Chineseand Turkish governments has improved, thanksto their endeavour to reinforce their nuclearpartnership through official visits andcorrespondence.

Signing the Turkey-China Nuclear CooperationAgreement in 2012 paved the way for the“tripartite” MoU on November 24, 2014between (a) the Chinese State Nuclear PowerTechnology Corporation, (“SNPTC”); (b) Turkey’sstate owned electricity generation company EÜAª

But today the quantity has grown byfour to give times. Government is fullysupporting us to make India uraniumself-sufficient,” Dr Basu had said duringa visit by NDTV to Jaduguda uraniummine, the oldest site in the country.



(“EÜAª”); and (c) the US-based WestinghouseElectric Company (“Westinghouse”). The MoUprovided exclusive negotiation rights to the SNPTCand Westinghouse for Turkey’s third nuclear powerplant, and Westinghouse and SNPTC prepared areport under EÜAª’s supervision where possiblesites for the third NPP were assessed with respectto the technical parameters such as transmissioninfrastructure, on-site geological formations, andseismic activity levels. EÜAª and the Ministry ofEnergy and Natural Resources are currentlyreviewing this report. Even though this MoUgrants exclusive negotiation rights to the SNPTCand Westinghouse, and moves them to the frontof the line in terms of futurecompetition, it does notconstitute a definitivedocument for thenegotiations for the thirdNPP. For that reason, theMoU constitutes anonbinding sign of theparties’ common goal.

Following the execution ofthe MoU at the corporatelevel in June 2016, the current Minister of Energyand Natural Resources, Albayrak signed anotherMoU for the development of nuclear powertechnologies with Bekri, the Director of China’sNational Energy Administration. Albayrak andBekri had a chance to further elaborate on theTurkish and Chinese governments’ intention tobecome partners in this field during G20 Summitheld in China, and its sideline event, the G20Energy Ministerial Meeting, which aimed to bringtogether key players in energy sector.

The Grand National Assembly of the Republic ofTurkey (“National Assembly”) ratified the Turkey-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in August2016, giving it the force of law. This stronglydemonstrates that Turkey aims to become self-sufficient in terms of energy supply by having itsown NPPs. Cooperation areas stated in the saidagreement such as research and development,training of nuclear engineers, and the exchangeof qualified scientific and technical personnel

also confirms Turkey’s intention to develop its ownhuman resources in the long term in order tobecome a global competitor.

Turkey is already familiar with bilateral nuclearagreements. The legal framework for both theAkkuyu and Sinop nuclear power plants was setout by specific agreements for cooperation, i.e.bilateral treaties at the state level. These IGAsallowed the countries to build a legal regime toapply to a particular project, which will provideexemptions from laws of general applicability withan intention to providing stability of legislationto the project in question. Another advantage ofbuilding a project-specific legal regime structure

based on an internationalagreement is that Article90 of the TurkishConstitution eliminates therisk of invalidation…. TheIGA often includes a hostgovernment agreement(“HGA”) in its annexes, tobe signed by the projectcompany and the hostcountry’s officials. It usually

spells out the exemptions to be granted to theproject company in specific detail and is usuallyratified by the government at the same time asthe IGA.

Turkey employed the IGA-HGA structure for boththe Akkuyu and Sinop NPP projects. With regardsto the Akkuyu NPP, ratification of the Agreementfor Cooperation in the Use of Nuclear Energy forPeaceful Purposes between Turkey and Russiawas officially announced on February 12, 2011,without an HGA appended to it.... For Sinop,ratification of the Agreement for Cooperation inthe Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposesbetween Turkey and Japan was published in theOfficial Gazette on April 22, 2014, and enteredinto force on May 23, 2015, together with theMemorandum of Cooperation and its appendixtemplate HGA. Together, these agreementsconstitute the IGA between the two governmentsfor the construction of Turkey’s second nuclearplant, to be established in Sinop.

Cooperation areas stated in the saidagreement such as research anddevelopment, training of nuclearengineers, and the exchange ofqualified scientific and technicalpersonnel also confirms Turkey’sintention to develop its own humanresources in the long term in order tobecome a global competitor.



While the entry into force of internationalagreements concerning nuclear energy issuescontinues at a rather increased pace, adoption ofdomestic laws by theNational Assembly and/orauthorized governmentalauthorities cannot keeppace with thesei n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a larrangements. Currentlegislation in Turkey mainlyfocuses on rather technicalmatters, such as theequipment supply process,the approval ofmanufacturers, or the inventory principles ofnuclear substances….

Source: https://www.lexology.com, 03 January2018.

URANIUM PRODUCTION

CANADA

Supply Cuts a ‘Step Change’ for Uranium Price

The announcement made by uranium giantCameco in November that it ’s suspendingoperations at its flagship McArthur River minein northern Saskatchewan and surprisingly deepthree-year cutsby Kazakhstan’s state-owned Kazatomprom provide a “step change”for uranium prices says anew report on the sectorfrom Cantor Fitzgeraldequity research.

On, the world largestproducer of uranium,surprised the beleaguered market with a largerthan expected cut to production of its own. Twoweeks ago Kazakhstan’s state-ownedKazatomprom announced intentions to reduceits output of U3O8 by 20% or 11,000 tonnes(around 28.5m pounds) over the next threeyears beginning in January 2018. According tothe company roughly 4,000 tonnes will be cutin 2018 alone “representing approximately

7.5% of global uranium production for 2018 asforecast by UxC.”

Cameco’s shuttering of McArthur River for tenmonths is expected toreduce production by13.7m pounds in 2018translating to a combined42.3m pounds of expectedproduction that has beenremoved from the market.In 2018 alone, thereduction will be about24.1m pounds of U

3O

8 or

about 15% of CantorFitzgerald’s prior forecast

of 158.4m pounds of output…. We expect theseevents to ultimately push spot uranium pricesto the mid-high US$20/lb range and perhapsinto US$30/lb. However, as seen so far, thedegree of movement may be muted at first dueto fact that there are a limited number ofqualified purchasers of uranium – making it aless efficient market.

We estimate that less than 10% of total uraniumdemand for 2018 and 2019 are uncovered, asutilities have shored up what were once largeshortages through spot purchases or short-termcontracts. As such, there is less of an impetus

for uti l ities to makepurchases immediately.Inventory levels are also aconcern as we estimatethat there are 800-1,200Mlbs of total above groundinventory of which about700-800M lbs are held byutilities. We do not believethat all of it is availablefor sale as significant

portions are held for strategic purposes andnecessary utility needs. Moreover there is thepossibility of sales from distressed utilities andby util ities with reactors that are beingdecommissioned…. Prices will gain in 2019 andby 2020 retake the $40 level. Long term pricingof $80 a pound remains unchanged.

Source: http://www.mining.com, 18 December2017.

While the entry into force ofinternational agreements concerningnuclear energy issues continues at arather increased pace, adoption ofdomestic laws by the NationalAssembly and/or authorizedgovernmental authorities cannot keeppace with these intergovernmentalarrangements.

We estimate that less than 10% oftotal uranium demand for 2018 and2019 are uncovered, as utilities haveshored up what were once largeshortages through spot purchases orshort-term contracts. As such, thereis less of an impetus for utilities tomake purchases immediately.



NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

NORTH KOREA

Russia Urges US-North Korea Talks over NuclearCrisis

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has urged the USand North Korea to start negotiations amidgrowing tensions over Pyongyang’s nuclearprogramme. Lavrov told the state-run RIA newsagency…. There is a need todevelop relations withNorth Korea to resolve thenuclear dispute on theKorean Peninsula.” He said,we firmly believe that notonly North Korea, but alsothe US, as well as theirallies, should refrain fromany steps that could provokea crisis, and finally launchthe negotiation process.” …

UN Sanctions: Russia’s callfor dialogue comes after the 15-member UNSCunanimously voted to impose tough newsanctions on North Korea in response to its latestmissile test on November 29. Russia as well asChina supported the new move, despite previouslyraising concerns that not enough was being doneto promote diplomaticresolutions to tensions onthe Korean Peninsula. Themeasures order NorthKoreans working abroad toreturn home within twoyears and ban nearly 90percent of refined petroleum exports to thecountry.

The latest sanctions were the third imposed onPyongyang this year in an attempt to prevent itfrom furthering its nuclear and missilesprogramme. Following the vote, US PresidentTrump endorsed the stricter measures, saying onTwitter “The World wants Peace, not Death!”North Korea’s foreign ministry slammed the latestround of measures as “an act of war”. NorthKorean leader Kim’s government has conducted

several missile tests in 2017, which have drawncondemnation from the international community.

Source: http://www.aljazeera.com, 25 December2017.

Trump Taunts North Korea: My Nuclear Buttonis ‘Much Bigger,’ ‘More Powerful’

President Trump on taunted North Korean leaderKim, warning Kim about US nuclear capabilities

as tensions worsenbetween the two nations.“North Korean Leader Kimjust stated that the‘Nuclear Button is on hisdesk at all times.’ Willsomeone from his depletedand food starved regimeplease inform him that I toohave a Nuclear Button, butit is a much bigger & morepowerful one than his, andmy Button works!” Trump

tweeted.

North Korean Leader Kim just stated that the“Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Willsomeone from his depleted and food starvedregime please inform him that I too have a NuclearButton, but it is a much bigger & more powerful

one than his, and my Buttonworks! The eveningmessage followed morethan a dozen others Trumphad sent throughout the dayon issues ranging from TheNew York Times’ coverage

of his administration to conflict in the Middle East.Kim said in his annual New Year’s Day address“The entire mainland of the US is within the rangeof our nuclear weapons and the nuclear button isalways on the desk of my office. They shouldaccurately be aware that this is not a threat but areality.” In the address, Kim also expressed adesire for a peaceful resolution with South Korea,a break from the aggressive language he used tothreaten the US.

Trump, as part of his morning tweet storm, said

Russia as well as China supported thenew move, despite previously raisingconcerns that not enough was beingdone to promote diplomaticresolutions to tensions on the KoreanPeninsula. The measures order NorthKoreans working abroad to returnhome within two years and ban nearly90 percent of refined petroleumexports to the country.

Will someone from his depleted andfood starved regime please inform himthat I too have a Nuclear Button, butit is a much bigger & more powerfulone than his, and my Button works.



the potentially warm gesture to South Korea fromKim is “perhaps” good news, “perhaps not,” andreferred to “sanctions and ‘other’ pressures” onNorth Korea. Sanctions and “other” pressures arebeginning to have a big impact on North Korea.Soldiers are dangerouslyfleeing to South Korea.Rocket man now wants totalk to South Korea for firsttime. Perhaps that is goodnews, perhaps not - we willsee!...

Recent years have seenNorth Korea displayincreasing strength in itsnuclear weapons andballistic missiledevelopment, while Kimmakes provocativestatements threatening to attack his enemies. InNovember, North Korea claimed it had thecapability to attack any part of the US mainland.The UNSC has voted to ratchet up sanctions inresponse to the continued development of NorthKorea’s nuclear program….

Source: http://edition.cnn.com, 03 January 2018.

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION

IRAN

Iran rejects Trump’s call for changes to nucleardeal

Iran has said it will not accept any changes to theterms of the 2015 nuclear deal, after US PresidentDonald Trump threatened to pull out of theagreement unless its “terrible flaws” are fixed.The Islamic Republic’s foreign ministry said in astatement that it would not “move beyond itscommitments” to the existing agreement, towhich Trump has extended the US commitmentfor another 120 days, Iran’s state-run IRNAreported. “Iran strongly announces that it willmake no measure beyond its Joint ComprehensivePlan of Action (JCPOA) commitments and willmake no changes in the nuclear deal neither nownor in the future,” the statement said.

… Trump announced on 12 January 2018 that theUS would keep the pact in place and waivesanctions against Iran for the “last time”, in orderto secure agreement from the US’ European alliesto fix its “terrible flaws”. “Despite my strong

inclination, I have not yetwithdrawn the UnitedStates from the Irannuclear deal,” he said in astatement.

“Instead I have outlinedtwo possible pathsforward: either fix thedeal’s disastrous flaws, orthe United States willwithdraw,” he added. “Thisis the last chance. Inabsence of such anagreement [between the

US and European powers], the United States willnot again waive sanctions in order to stay in theIran nuclear deal.”

‘Critical Components’: Trump said four “criticalcomponents” must now be worked into theagreement: immediate inspections at all sitesrequested by international inspectors, measuresto ensure Iran “never even comes close topossessing a nuclear weapon”, no policy“expiration date”, and no distinction between theIslamic Republic’s long-range missile and nuclearweapons programmes regarding the impositionof sanctions.

The US president is required to renew the existingdeal every 120 days under American law. …

Source: http://www.aljazeera.com, 13 January2018.

Iran Says it Might Reconsider Cooperation withNuclear Watchdog

Iran said, it might reconsider its cooperation withthe nuclear watchdog if the US failed to respectits commitments in the nuclear deal Tehran struckwith world powers in 2015. US President Trumpmust decide by mid-January whether to continuewaiving US sanctions on Iran’s oil exports underthe terms of the nuclear pact that eased economic

Trump said four “critical components”must now be worked into theagreement: immediate inspections atall sites requested by internationalinspectors, measures to ensure Iran“never even comes close to possessinga nuclear weapon”, no policy“expiration date”, and no distinctionbetween the Islamic Republic’s long-range missile and nuclear weaponsprogrammes regarding the impositionof sanctions.



pressure on Tehran in exchange for limits on itsnuclear program.

In October, Trump refused to certify that Iran wascomplying with the deal, also known by itsacronym JCPOA.... “If theUS does not meet itscommitment in the JCPOA,the Islamic Republic of Iranwould take decisions thatmight affect its currentcooperation with theIAEA”…. The IAEA is …scrutinizing Iran’s compliance with theagreement. Supporters of the deal insist thatstrong international monitoring will prevent Iranfrom developing nuclear bombs. Iran has deniedthat it is seeking nuclear weapons….

“The international community might come to thisconclusion that the US will withdraw from theJCPOA in the next few days,” Deputy foreignminister Araghchi was quoted as saying by thestate news agency IRNA.“The internationalcommunity must be readyfor this development,”Araghchi added, warningthat such a decision wouldaffect stability in theregion. Trump is weighingwhether the pact serves USsecurity interests, while theother world powers thatnegotiated it - France,Germany, Britain, Russia and China - still stronglysupport it….

Source: https://www.usnews.com, 08 January2018.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

UK

Financing and Managing Nuclear Energy Risks:The UK Model

Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) have long lifetimesand low running costs, but they require high up-front capital expenses and a long planning and

construction time. This means the economics ofNPPs are sensitive to the cost of financing andoverruns, and project delays can be costly.Successful financing is a major challenge andtypically requires significant government

involvement.

Traditionally, the costs ofconstructing and operatingnuclear power plants weremostly passed on toelectricity consumers in theform of regulated tariffs,

minimizing the risk to lenders, investors andoperators of exposure to price fluctuation. Thistraditional approach characterized most pre-liberalization electricity markets, where many ofthe utilities were integrated monopolies combininggeneration, transmission, distribution and retail,and the level of government involvement inregulation

However, the market liberalization that started inthe developed world in the1990s has led to increasedprice and revenueuncertainty, causingreluctance among lendersand investors to commit thesignificant resourcesneeded for NPPconstruction.

In an attempt to addressthis reluctance,

stakeholders have come up with innovativeapproaches to risk sharing in nuclear powerprojects that aim to give additional assurance topotential lenders and reduce capital costs. Theseinclude reducing revenue volatility by guaranteeingelectricity prices and providing various forms ofgovernment guarantees.

Replacing Nuclear with Nuclear: Why the UKModel Matters: Around 20 percent of the UK’selectricity supply today is produced by nuclear.Within the broader context of its Electricity MarketReform, the Government has decided to continueto rely on nuclear rather than only on gas orrenewable energy sources, and is seeking to

If the US does not meet its commitmentin the JCPOA, the Islamic Republic ofIran would take decisions that mightaffect its current cooperation with theIAEA.

Stakeholders have come up withinnovative approaches to risk sharingin nuclear power projects that aim togive additional assurance to potentiallenders and reduce capital costs. Theseinclude reducing revenue volatility byguaranteeing electricity prices andproviding various forms ofgovernment guarantees.



replace its existing nuclear fleet.

Currently, developers have up to 11 reactorsproposed or planned at six sites. The power plantat Hinkley Point C has already passed throughseveral stages of the decision-making processand is expected to be commissioned in the early2020s.

The UK model features three main mechanismsin support of nuclear: a price guarantee schemeknown as contract for difference (CfD); agovernment guarantees scheme; and amechanism for limiting investor exposure to thecosts of disposing of higher activity waste,including spent nuclear fuel.

Contract for Difference: The CfD features aratepayer-backed guaranteed price for electricitygenerated by low-carbontechnologies. According tothe terms of its CfD,Hinkley Point C, onceoperational, will be paidthe difference (on a ‘permegawatt hour’ basis)between a ‘strike price’(the electricity price thatreflects the cost ofinvesting in a particular low-carbon technology)and the ‘reference price’ — a measure of theaverage price for electricity in the UK market.When the average market price (the price that agenerator such as Hinkley Point C might expectto receive directly from the sale of its electricityin the market) is lower than the strike price, thegenerator receives a ‘top up’ payment to make upthe difference. When the average market price ishigher than the strike price, the generator mustpay back the difference.

“In the Hinkley Point C project, the CfDsubstantially mitigates the so-called ‘market risk’faced by lenders and investors,” said AnuragGupta, Director and Global Sector Head for PowerInfrastructure and Corporate Finance at KPMG.This gives electricity generators greater certaintyand stability of revenues by reducing theirexposure to volatile wholesale prices, whileprotecting consumers from paying for higher than

necessary support costs when electricity pricesare high.

“By creating greater certainty, investors andlenders are able to model the project, which inturn allows them to make more informeddecisions,” explained Paul Murphy, ManagingDirector of Gowling WLG. “Furthermore, taking a35-year tenure, as opposed to a classic 20-yeartenure, facilitates further long-term equityinvestment as well as refinancing options.”

The UK Guarantees Scheme: The UK GuaranteesScheme (UKGS) is a mechanism developed by theUK Government to provide credit enhancementthrough debt guarantees. The scheme wasintroduced in 2010 with a budget of £40 billion inguarantees to be invested across a range of UK

infrastructure categories,including energy, transportand social infrastructure.Support from this schemehas been made available tothe Hinkley Point C project(for up to £2 billion worthof debt).

“It is instructive that the UKGovernment has concluded,

based on years of analysis, that even in a marketthat has a long history with civilian nuclear power,government support is still needed to facilitatenuclear power development,” Murphycommented.

Limiting Investor Exposure to the Costs ofDisposing of Higher Activity Waste: One of thekey issues associated with nuclear power isuncertainty with regard to the costs of disposingof higher activity waste, including spent nuclearfuel. The UK Government has put in place amechanism to effectively cap such costs, therebyreducing operators’ exposure to the risk of costescalation. The mechanism operates by settingan upper limit (or ‘cap’) on the ‘waste transferprice’ that an operator will have to pay in returnfor the UK Government taking ‘ownership’ of thehigher level waste (and thus responsibility for itsdisposal).

The UK Guarantees Scheme (UKGS) is amechanism developed by the UKGovernment to provide creditenhancement through debt guarantees.The scheme was introduced in 2010 witha budget of £40 billion in guarantees tobe invested across a range of UKinfrastructure categories.



“By effectively capping the ultimate wastetransfer price, the UK Government has providedreassurance to potential investors regarding avery ‘difficult to quantify’ project risk,” explainedPaul Warren, IAEA Senior Nuclear Engineer forNuclear Power.

Source: https://www.iaea.org, 10 January 2018.

USA

CDC to Inform Public on Nuclear Safety Measures

With all the recent newsstories about nuclearweapons – and theprospect of an intentionalor accidental launch the USCenters for DiseaseControl and Preventionplan to educate the publicon safety precautions theycan take if such an unlikelyevent occurs. The CDCplans to hold an onlinebriefing January 16, toinform the public about preparations that havebeen made on the federal, state and local levels.

The agency’s website stresses that a nucleardetonation, while unlikely, would have“devastating results,” and allow little time forprotection against radiation. Nevertheless,knowing fundamental safety measures canalleviate some of the more devastating effects.For example, “Despite thefear surrounding such anevent, planning andpreparation can lessendeaths and illness. Forinstance, most people don’trealize that sheltering inplace for at least 24 hoursis crucial to saving lives andreducing exposure toradiation,” the CDC says….

The webcast will feature input from Dan Sosin,the CDC’s deputy director and chief medicalofficer, plus radiation experts and emergencyresponse officials. Members of the public can

submit questions for the discussion, or apply toattend the event in person, by contacting theCDC’s Grand Rounds team.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com, 06 January2018.

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

CANADA

Eight New Buildings Planned at KincardineNuclear Waste Facility

2018 is looking to be a busyyear for Ontario PowerGeneration’s wastemanagement operations.Vice President of NuclearWaste Management Mortonsays they have plans foreither the design orconstruction of eightbuildings at the WesternWaste Management Facilityon the Bruce Power site.

She says five buildings are planned to store low-or-intermediate level nuclear waste, an additionaltwo buildings will be constructed for dry storageof used nuclear fuel from the Bruce Powerreactors, as well as a waste processing building.She says the processing building will help divertsome waste from permanent storage on the site.

“A building in which our low-level wastespecifically, is sortedthrough so that we look foropportunities for eitherdiversion of some of thatwaste, decontamination ofsome of that waste andsome further processing,”says Morton. “Soultimately, we’re trying toreduce our environmental

footprint.” Morton says the additionaldevelopment at the Western Waste ManagementFacility is not as a result of delays in gainingapproval for the planned deep geologic repositoryon the site, which is proposed to store low-and-

knowing fundamental safety measurescan alleviate some of the moredevastating effects. For example,“Despite the fear surrounding such anevent, planning and preparation canlessen deaths and illness. For instance,most people don’t realize thatsheltering in place for at least 24 hoursis crucial to saving lives and reducingexposure to radiation

The additional development at theWestern Waste Management Facility isnot as a result of delays in gainingapproval for the planned deepgeologic repository on the site, whichis proposed to store low-and-intermediate level nuclear wastenearly 700-metres below the surface.



intermediate level nuclear waste nearly 700-metres below the surface.

She says they remain committed to the DGRproject, including fulfilling the latest request fromfederal environment minister Catherine McKenna,who asked OPG to update its cumulative effectsprojections to include impacts on local FirstNations communities. Morton says they are alsocontinuing positive dialogue with SaugeenOjibway Nation, maintaining their commitment toonly proceed with First Nations approval. …

Source: http://blackburnnews.com, 08 January2018.

SWITZERLAND

Swiss Nuclear Plant Plans Low Risk RadioactiveWaste Facility

Switzerland’s Mühleberg nuclear plant plans tobuild a facility to deal with 1,000 tonnes of lightradioactive waste after it goes offline next year.Such treatment centres have been given the greenlight by a government proposal to update laws.The agency running the canton Bern plant told

Swiss public television that it wants to have thetreatment facility up and running by 2025, andtreating the radioactive waste for the following30 years. But a spokesperson would not revealhow much it would cost, how big it would be orwhere it will be located.

Earlier this month, the government put forwardproposals to consultation that would allow lighterradioactive waste to be disposed of in this wayby the beginning of 2019. Currently, all waste mustbe buried in deep geological depositaries. Theproposals state that individual cantons must agreeto the construction of waste treatment plantsbefore they can be built.

In 2011, Switzerland decided to phase out nuclearpower, which supply an average 35% of thecountry’s electricity production, following theFukushima disaster, but there is no clear timetablefor decommissioning plants. In November, Swissvoters rejected an initiative that called for all ofSwitzerland’s five nuclear reactors to be shut downno later than 45 years after they started operating.

Source: https://www.swissinfo.ch, 13 January2018.

Centre for Air Power Studies

The Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS) is an independent, non-profit think tank that undertakes

and promotes policy-related research, study and discussion on defence and military issues,

trends and developments in air power and space for civil and military purposes, as also

related issues of national security. The Centre is headed by Air Marshal V inod Patney, SYSM

PVSM AVSM VrC (Retd).

Centre for Air Power Studies

P-284

Arjan Path, Subroto Park,

New Delhi - 110010

Tel.: +91 - 11 - 25699131/32

Fax: +91 - 11 - 25682533

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.capsindia.org

Edited by: Director General, CAPS

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

Dr Pamreihor Khashimwo

Composed by: CAPS

Disclaimer: Information and data included in this newsletter is for educational non-commercial purposes only

and has been carefully adapted, excerpted or edited from sources deemed reliable and accurate at the time of

preparation. The Centre does not accept any liability for error therein. All copyrighted material belongs to respective

owners and is provided only for purposes of wider dissemination.

nuclear security: a fortnightly newsletter from caps

Documents