CRITICAL ISSUES FORUM

BENCHMARK II

Topic: “Nuclear Renaissance: Risk versus Benefits”

Students: Georgy Koshelev, Andrew Popov

Form 10

Gymnasia # 41

Teacher: Helen Patrusheva

Teacher of English
Gymnasia #41

Novouralsk

Sverdlovsk region

Russia

2008

BENCHMARK II

Objective 1

In Benchmark II we are going to demonstrate an understanding of national and international controls of nuclear energy. We will also describe the laws and organizations that monitor nuclear energy in Russia. We will begin with describing international controls of nuclear energy.

First of all, we’d like to give the definitions of the terms proliferation and non-proliferation:
Proliferation -the spread of biochemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction

Non-proliferation -leading to an end to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by countries that do not already have them

International Atomic Energy Agency

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), founded on July 29, 1957, promotes the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Its activities include research on the applicability of nuclear energy to medicine, agriculture, water location and industry; provision on technical assistance; development of radiation safeguards; and public relations programs. [1, p.812]

The IAEA has its headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Two "Regional Safeguards Offices" are located in Toronto, Canada; and Tokyo, Japan. The IAEA has two liaison offices, located in New York, USA; and Geneva, Switzerland. In addition, it has laboratories in Seibersdorf and Vienna, Austria; Monaco; and Trieste, Italy.

In 1953, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower envisioned the creation of this international body to control and develop the use of atomic energy, in his "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly. [11]

IAEA headquarters

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iaea-vienna-05.jpg)

The IAEA was headed by Hans Blix from 1981 to 1997. The current head of the organization is the Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei. At the 49th General Conference, ElBaradei was confirmed as Director General until 2009.

Mohamed ElBaradei

Source:[3]

The IAEA is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). The IAEA is not under direct control of any UN body, but reports to both the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Structure and function

The IAEA’s structure and function is defined by its founding document: the IAEA’s Statute. The IAEA has three main bodies:

· the Board of Governors

· the General Conference

· the Secretariat

Source: designed by the authors

The current Board members are: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the People's Republic of China, Croatia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America, (IAEA Board of Governors 2007–2008)

Source:[3]

History

The IAEA serves as an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology worldwide. The IAEA's programmes encourage the development of the peaceful applications of nuclear technology, provide international safeguards against its misuse, and facilitate the application of safety measures in its use. IAEA expanded its nuclear safety efforts in response to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

The IAEA was headed by Hans Blix from 1981 to 1997. The current head of the organization is the Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei. At the 49th General Conference, ElBaradei was confirmed as Director General until 2009.

The IAEA's mission is guided by the interests and needs of Member States, strategic plans and the vision embodied in the IAEA Statute (see below). Three main pillars - or areas of work - underpin the IAEA's mission: Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification. [4]

IAEA's mission:

· Safety and Security;

· Science and Technology;

· Safeguards and Verification.

IAEA headquarters since 1979, Vienna, Austria

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iaea-vienna.JPG)

According to Mohamed ElBaradei society faces many current challenges and threats. Concerns have arisen recently because of the threat posed by the further proliferation of nuclear weapons; the uncovering of undeclared nuclear programs and illicit networks of trading in sensitive nuclear technology; the expected and unprecedented expansion of world energy demand over the next 50 years and, as a result, the renewed interest in nuclear power. [2, p. 5]

Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is a complex task of international cooperation. It includes political commitments, treaties and other legally binding agreements in which non – proliferation commitments are anchored, export control and nuclear security measures and, also importantly, the safeguards system of the IAEA. The Deputy Director General for Safeguards, Olli Heinonen said “Effective IAEA safeguards remain a key component of the world’s nuclear non – proliferation regime aimed at stemming the spread of nuclear weapons and moving towards nuclear disarmament.’ [2, p. 6]

Source:[3]

Practically all countries in the world use nuclear techniques for peaceful purposes, including food and water security, energy, industrial applications and human health. Only a few of these activities involve the type of nuclear material that could potentially be diverted to make nuclear weapons. The material subjected to safeguards includes

· enriched uranium;

· plutonium;

· uranium - 233;

· natural uranium;

· depleted uranium.

Radioactive sources that do not contain nuclear material are not subject to safeguards and not be reported to the IAEA under a safeguard agreement. [2, p. 8]

The expectations of the IAEA safeguards system have grown in the past 50 years in response to technological and geopolitical changes and to experience gained through responding to verification challenges. Among them can be named the following ones:

· Despite its existing CSA under the NPT, Iraq, until 1991, had been conducting a clandestine nuclear weapons program that was centered around the same nuclear site where the IAEA conducted routine inspections of declared nuclear material.

· In the early 1990s, the IAEA identified inconsistencies between nuclear activities declared under the NPT safeguards of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and information available to the IAEA through inspections and other sources. The DPRK denied the IAEA’s access and the comprehensive safeguards haven’t been implemented in the DPRK since 1993.

· In 1991, South Africa acceded the NPT, conducted a CSA and informed the IAEA that it had dismantled its nuclear devices prior to becoming party to the NPT.

· In 2003, information came to light regarding previously undeclared nuclear material and activities that the Islamic Republic of Iran should have declared but not declared to the IAEA.

· The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya informed the IAEA in 2003 that it had previously engaged in small scale nuclear weapons related research and purchased related technology through a covert supply network.

· The Libyan case showed the importance of monitoring and analyzing trade in sensitive nuclear technologies and research involving small quantities of nuclear material. Recently the IAEA has reported on such research in several States with CSAs, including Egypt and the Republic of Korea. [2, p. 8, 9]

The process of joining the IAEA is fairly simple. A State must notify the Director General of its desire to join. The Director then submits the request to the Board for consideration. If the State is approved by the Board, the GC must then consider the State. When the State receives final approval for membership, it must then submit its signed acceptance of the IAEA’s Statute. The State is considered a member when its acceptance letter is deposited; the IAEA’s other members are subsequently notified of the new member.

The IAEA exists to pursue “safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear sciences and technology” (Pillars 2005). The IAEA pursues this mission with three main functions: inspections of existing nuclear facilities to ensure peaceful use, information and standards to ensure the stability of nuclear facilities, and as a hub for the sciences seeking peaceful applications of nuclear technology.

Source:[3]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is an international agreement intended to prevent the spread of nuclear technology, signed by the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and 59 other countries in 1968. The three major signatories agreed not to assist states lacking nuclear weapons to obtain or produce them; the non – nuclear signatories agreed not to attempt to develop them, and in exchange were promised assistance in developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. [1, p. 1171]

The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958. It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign. There are currently 189 countries parties to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China.

France and China, both nuclear powers, declined to ratify the treaty until 1992.

Only four nations are not signatories: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

The signing parties decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions upon meeting in New York City on May 11, 1995. On this date it was extended indefinitely by a consensus vote of 174 countries at the U,N. It was followed by the Comprehensive Test – Ban Treaty in 1996.

The Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water bans nuclear weapons tests except those conducted underground.

U.S. – Soviet test – ban talks began after concerns arose in the 1940s and 50s about the dangers of radioactive fallout from aboveground nuclear tests, but went slowly until the Cuban missile crisis.

Britain, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union signed the treaty in 1963, and more than 100 other governments within the next few months. France and China were notable non - signatories.

In 1996 the treaty was replaced by the Comprehensive Test – Ban Treaty, which will not make effect until all 44 countries with nuclear power plants sign it. India refuses to do so, on the ground that the treaty lacks disarmament provisions and permits non - explosive testing. [1, p. 1172]

The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars:

· non-proliferation,

· disarmament,

· the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

Treaty pillars

First pillar: non-proliferation

Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS):

· France (signed 1992),

· the People's Republic of China (1992),

· the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia),

· the United Kingdom (1968),

· the United States (1968).

These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I).

NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II).

NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

This is why the recently proposed US-India nuclear energy deal has come under (legal) controversy as it threatens to undermine the global nuclear non-proliferation regime exploiting the loophole granted by the nature of dual-use technology, as has the Russia-Iran uranium deal.

The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. This inconsistency led to such facts as

· The U.S. had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991.

· The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defense, Geoff Hoon, explicitly searched for the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".

· In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers. [4]

Second pillar: disarmament

The NPT's preamble shows the desire of treaty signatories to ease international tension and to create someday the conditions for a halt to the production of nuclear weapons.

The NPT's Article VI urges all State Parties to the NPT, both nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states, "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

On the one hand, the wording of Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament. Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."

On the other hand, some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, have a free interpretation of Article VI. In their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons. In their opinion these states have failed to meet their obligation. Some government delegations to the Conference on Disarmament have tabled proposals for a complete and universal disarmament, but no disarmament treaty has emerged from these proposals. Critics of the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states sometimes argue that what they view as the failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, especially in the post-Cold War era, has angered some non-nuclear-weapon NPT signatories of the NPT. Such failure, these critics add, provides justification for the non-nuclear-weapon signatories to quit the NPT and develop their own nuclear arsenals. [4]

Third pillar: peaceful use of nuclear energy

Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.

The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "Achilles heel" of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.

Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, some countries, purposely or not, break the obligations. {Some of these facts were discussed above}

In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.

Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons. [4]

Key articles

Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article IV:

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative). [4]

History

The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon states. It was recognized that the cold war deterrent relationship between just the United States and Soviet Union was fragile. More nuclear players reduced security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accident or unauthorized use, or through the escalation of a small nuclear conflict. by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996). Several NPT signatories have given up nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs. South Africa undertook a nuclear weapons program, allegedly with the assistance of Israel in the 70s, and may have conducted a nuclear test in the Atlantic ocean in 1979, but has since renounced its nuclear program and signed the treaty in 1991 after destroying its small nuclear arsenal. Several former Soviet Republics destroyed or transferred to Russia the nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union. [4]

Other nuclear organizations

The following table shows the goals, functions and activities of some other organizations.

Organizations	Countries and Location	Functions
Nuclear Free World Policy	A commitment by the governments of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden.	Focuses on foreign policy that aims at elimination of nuclear weapons. The states that have refused to sign the NPT are of particular concern.
Nuclear Control Institute	This research and advocacy. center founded by Paul Leventhal in 1981 is supported by the donations of philanthropic foundations and individuals.	Prevents nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Focuses on the elimination of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, which can be used to create nuclear weapons
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations	INPO is a member of the World Association of Nuclear Operators. Established and funded by the U.S. nuclear power industry. The headquarters is in Atlanta, GA.	Sets performance objectives, criteria, and guidelines industry-wide for nuclear power plant operations, intends to promote operational excellence and improves the sharing of operational experience between nuclear power plants
World Association of Nuclear Operators [3]	Four regional centers are in London, Paris, Moscow and Atlanta.	Focuses on international cooperation and professional excellence within the nuclear industries. Conducts seminars, exchange programs and peer reviews. The evaluation of operating experience is a main field of activity.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [3]	U.S. independent agency established in 1974 to replace the Atom Energy Commission.	Regulates the nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment.
International Science and Technology Center [12]	Russia, Japan, Norway, South Korea, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the EU. Headquarters in Moscow.	Provides scientists from the Soviet successor states with opportunities to redirect their scientific talents from military to peaceful uses. Publishes an annual report and maintains a public database of projects.
European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) [16]	15 members of the UE. Headquarters in Brussels.	Provides a common market in nuclear materials, and guarantees a supply of nuclear fuels. The members agree to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted to weapon purposes and to comply with safeguards obligations.
Brazil – Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials [13]	Brazil and Argentina. Headquarters in Rio de Janeiro.	The organization’s specialists conduct routine, ad hoc, and special inspections to verify the validity of information received from facilities. Publishes annual reports and papers on safeguards - related topics.
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms	Has affiliates all over the world, including in the USA and the Russian Federation. Headquarters in The Hague.	Seeks to build international legal efforts to ban the use and threat of nuclear weapons. Aims to control the international conventional arms trade and to introduce new concepts of international security based on nonoffensive defense and confidence – building measures.
Natural Recourses Defense Council [15]	400,000 individual members. Headquarters in New York.	Uses law, science and the support of the members to protect the planet’s wilderness and wildlife and to ensure a safe and healthy environment. Nuclear weapons and waste are important areas of concern.

The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958. It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign. By 1992 all five then-declared nuclear powers had signed the treaty, and the treaty was renewed in 1995 (and followed

Rosatom

· The Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, or MinAtom, was established on January 29, 1992 as a successor of the Ministry of Nuclear Engineering and Industry of the USSR. It was reorganized as the Federal Agency on Atomic Energy on March 9, 2004.

· According to the law adopted by the Russian parliament in November 2007 and signed by the President Putin in early December, the agency was reorganized to Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation.

· Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation (Rosatom) is a State Corporation, the regulatory body of the Russian nuclear complex. It is comparable in function to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is headquartered in Moscow.

· Rosatom controls nuclear power holding Atomenergoprom, nuclear weapons companies, research institutes and nuclear and radiation safety agencies. It also represents Russia in the world in the field of peaceful use of nuclear energy and protection of the nonproliferation regime.

· Rosatom was directed by Yevgeny Adamov until he was ousted by President Vladimir Putin in 2001. He was replaced by Alexander Rumyantsev (2001–2005).

· A. Rumyantsev was replaced by Sergei Kirienko.{2005 – February 2008}

In 2005 S. Kirienko visited our native town Novouralsk and the UEIP.

Sergei Kirienko

(www.ufo.og.ru/photos/2005/12/15/107big.jpg)

· Recently S. Kirienko has been replaced by the current head of Rosatom Ivan Kamenskih. [6]

Conclusion

Different countries unite in organizations in accordance with the goals of their world policy, cultural and economical background, geographical position, current events, the fact of possessing nuclear weapon and nuclear power stations. More than half a century has passed since the destructive power of nuclear weapons was first demonstrated. Since then great technological and geopolitical changes have taken place in the world community. In the twenty – first century, the delicate balance between nuclear weapon control and the threat of nuclear destruction greatly influences the world policy. To prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is a complex task. It needs cooperation on different levels: governmental and non governmental, regional, bilateral, international.

Nowadays, there are a number of international political and legal mechanisms to help to achieve nuclear non-proliferation objectives. But, while a single state posses nuclear weapons arsenal, there is little prospect in sight for global nuclear disarmament.

In the context of the post – 1945 period, much has been accomplished to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. However, much greater cooperation will likely be necessary to move toward global nuclear elimination. Is such a goal indeed achievable?

Bibliography and other sources:

1. Merriam – Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia, Incorporated Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 2000

2. “IAEA safeguards: Staying Ahead of the Game”, autumn 2007

3. Sarah J. Diehl “Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation”, California, 2002

4. http://en.wikipedia.org

5. http://www.iaea.org

6. http://www.minaom.ru

7. http://www.nrc.gov

8. http://www.world-nuclear.org

9. http://www.icjt.org

10.http://en.rian.ru

11.http://www.atomicarchive.com

12.http://www.istc.ru

13.http://www.abacc.org

14.http://www.ialana.org

15.http://www.nrdc.org

16.http://www.europa.eu.int

Benchmark II

Objective 2

In our research paper we are going to demonstrate an understanding of the international spread of nuclear energy to countries in the world that have not had nuclear energy before. We will also provide some of the reasons why these countries are pursuing nuclear energy and whether this pursuit might contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear proliferation

On September 2006 Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern country in the past year to say it wants nuclear power, intensifying an atomic race spurred largely by Iran's nuclear agenda, which many in the region and the West claim is cover for a weapons program. Some countries in Asia and Africa are also interested in getting nuclear technologies.

Experts see the following important points:

· The nuclear ambitions of majority are reactions to Shiite Iran's high-profile nuclear bid, seen as linked with Tehran's campaign for greater influence and prestige throughout the Middle East. "The Iranian angle is the reason," says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior nonproliferation official in the US State Department.

· Economics are also behind this new push to explore nuclear power. Egypt's oil reserves are dwindling, Jordan has no natural resources to speak of at all, and power from oil and gas has grown much more expensive for everyone. Though the day has not arrived, it's conceivable that nuclear power will be a cheaper option than traditional plants.

(http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1101/csmimg/ONUKES_G1_L.gif )

Though the US has been vociferous in its opposition to Iran's nuclear bid, particularly since the country says it's determined to establish its own nuclear fuel cycle, which would dramatically increase its ability to build a nuclear bomb, it has generally been tolerant of the nuclear ambitions of its friends in the region. [2]

But some analysts argue that nuclear power remains an economic loser. When state subsidies to nuclear power are removed, nuclear plants are not economically viable. But for most of them, the allure of nuclear power is apparent. Theirs oil consumption is growing and electricity demand is growing at about 7 percent a year.

Even major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia are, along with Iran, arguing that they need nuclear power. They say it's better to sell their oil than to burn it at home.

Of course whenever the topic of nuclear power comes up, particularly in the Middle East, concerns about the possible spread of nuclear weapons are not far behind. Experts, who follow the nuclear weapons question say assurances of only pursuing peaceful objectives, as have been given by all the countries pursuing nuclear power, Iran included, shouldn't be taken at face value.

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40610000/jpg/_40610880_radiationsymbol203.jpg )

Will they pursue their own nuclear fuel cycle, which would make little economic sense and would be a clear "red flag" of intent to develop a weapon, or will they buy nuclear fuel from abroad? If you are interested in having the capability of building a nuclear weapon, the best way to start is by building up your nuclear power infrastructure. The same people that help you design and build nuclear reactors have many of the skill sets you will need if you are going to build a nuclear weapon. [2]

Regional Stability

The United States recognizes that geo strategic and geopolitical stability in South and Southwest Asia are augmented by strong U.S. ties with both India and Pakistan. What does the Bush Administration want?

· With New Delhi, the Bush seeks to increase the scope and quality of engagement on a range of fronts, including high-technology trade, arms sales, and military-to-military relations.

· With Islamabad, a somewhat more utilitarian approach focuses on antiterrorism cooperation, even as President Bush vows to establish a multi-year package that would provide billions of dollars in U.S. economic and military aid for the remainder of the current decade.

· In both South Asian capitals, the United States is viewed by some as an unreliable ally, so the extent to which Indians and Pakistanis feel assured about long-term U.S. engagement in the region will almost certainly affect their willingness to cooperate on those issues most important to U.S. policy makers.

(http://www.drouk.ru/sergey/photoalbom/washington/whitehouse.jpg )

For these reasons, and others, many in Congress continue to be interested in initiatives that affect the overall tenor of U.S. relations with India and/or Pakistan, as well as the progress of economic development and human rights promotion in the region. Will it make the situation in the region more stable?

Many observers believe that increased U.S. trade with and investment in India and Pakistan would enhance more stable and pacific international relations on the Subcontinent. Some emphasize the need for strong democratic institutions.

A major issue may be a more effective U.S. role in efforts to resolve what arguably the single greatest threat to regional stability is: continuing violence in the Kashmir region. From a broader perspective, many experts believe improved U.S.-China and India-China relations could do much to ensure a more tranquil Asia in coming years and decades. [3]

Nuclear activity in Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries

The conception of these countries’s nuclear doctrine is summarized in three principles formulated by A. Vajpayee:

1. The countries maintain minimal but persuasive potential of nuclear deterrence.

2. The countries do not apply nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and don’t apply it first against nuclear-weapon states.

3. The countries comply with all non-discriminative treaties and international regimes in the field of arms control and disarmament. They may enter the CTBT.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, some of these countries have already produced some nuclear weapon, or have technologies and capabilities to do it.

(http://pass.maths.org.uk/latestnews/sep-dec05/Nobel/warhead.jpg )

India, Israel and Pakistan

Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—have declined to sign the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) treaty. India and Pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made a statement admitting that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, breaking a long-standing policy of official denial, though it is not known to have conducted tests.

India and Pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests, India having first done so in 1974 and Pakistan following suit in 1998 in response to another Indian test. India is estimated to have enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. Pakistan reportedly has 60. India is one of the few countries to have a no first use policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons.

According to leaked intelligence, Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona.

n early March of 2006, India and the United States finalized a deal, having critics in both countries, to provide India with US civilian nuclear technology. However, attempts made by Pakistan to sign a similar agreement have been thwarted by the U.S. as well as the international community. The argument put forth is that Pakistan lacks the same energy requirements, and that the track record of Pakistan as a nuclear proliferator makes it impossible for it to have any sort of nuclear deal in the near future.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers with very narrow exceptions for India, Pakistan, and Israel, since none of the three has full-scope IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities. Several countries, including France, Russia and Australia, are discussing possible nuclear cooperation with India in case of such an exception to the NSG Guidelines. [4]

North Korea

North Korea ratified the NNPT treaty on December 12, 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal from the treaty on January 10, 2003 following U.S. allegations that it had started an illegal enriched uranium weapons program.

On Monday, October 9, 2006 at 01:35:27 (UTC) the United States Geological Survey detected a magnitude 4.2 seismic event 70 km (45 miles) north of Kimchaek, North Korea indicating a nuclear test. The North Korean government announced shortly afterward that they had completed a successful underground test of a nuclear fission device. [4]

Iran

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government asserts that this enrichment program is part of its civilian nuclear energy program. However, Iran violated its NPT safeguards agreement by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret, after which the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution ordering Iran to suspend its enrichment-related activity.

In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program. However, the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate judged, with "high confidence,” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, with "moderate confidence" that the program remained frozen, and with "moderate-to-high confidence" that Iran "is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."[4]

South Africa

South Africa also deserves a special mention as the only country that developed nuclear weapons themselves and fully disarmed under the NNPT.

During the days of apartheid, the white South African government developed a deep fear of both a black uprising and the threat of communism. This led to the development of a secret nuclear weapons program as an ultimate deterrent. South Africa has a large supply of uranium, which is mined in the country's gold mines. The government built a nuclear research facility at Pelindaba near Pretoria where uranium was enriched to fuel grade for the nuclear power plant at Koeberg as well as weapon grade for bomb production.[4]

Libya

Libya signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in October of 2003 was caught in violation of it when the United States intercepted the illegal transport of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts sent from Malaysia as part of A. Q. Khan's proliferation ring. Libya then admitted to possessing an illegal nuclear weapons program in violation of the treaty and simultaneously announced its intention to end it and dismantle all existing weapons of mass destruction to be verified by unconditional inspections. [4]

Terrorist Organizations

The devastating attacks of September 11, 2001 and the September 2004 Beslan school siege in Russia demonstrated terrorists' willingness to kill thousands of innocent people, cause billions of dollars of physical and economic damage, and wreak untold psychological harm. Nuclear terrorism may use nuclear weapons or radiological weapons in acts of terrorism, including attacks against facilities where radioactive materials are present. Nuclear weapons may offer terrorists the ultimate means of mass destruction.

Nuclear terrorism use nuclear weapons or radiological weapons in acts of terrorism, including attacks against facilities where radioactive materials are present. Terrorist organizations designations play a critical role in fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.

(http://www.sinhaya.com/lanka03.gif )

The danger that weapons or materials might be stolen or fall into the hands of terrorist organizations is a global one and it demands global solutions.

Terrorism involving nuclear weapons or radioactive materials could take a variety of forms. Terrorists could:

• Attack a nuclear reactor.
• Disrupt critical inputs for the safe running of a nuclear reactor.
• Steal nuclear fuel or waste.
• Acquire fissile material and fabricate a crude nuclear bomb.
• Acquire a ready-made nuclear weapon or take over a nuclear-armed submarine, plane or base.

In the following list you may see groups or organizations that might use nuclear or radiological materials to make a terrorist device:

· Al-Qaida (Iraq)

· Asbat al-Ansar (Lebanon)

· Holy war (Egypt)

· Muslim Brotherhood (international)

· Islamic Salvation Party (international)

· Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT/Army of the Righteous) (Pakistan)

· Jemaah Islamiya organization (Pakistan)

· Social Reform Society (Kuwait)

· Islamic Heritage Revival Society (Kuwait) …and_others. (http://www.hetek.hu/files/pictures/onlinearticles/20070404/kaida.jpg )

(Source: FBR, USA)

While there has been important progress in locking down weapons and materials, much more needs to be done. Governments around the world must accelerate their efforts to secure or destroy nuclear weapons materials to keep them out of terrorist hands. This is the least expensive, most effective way to prevent nuclear terrorism. States must look beyond their own borders and treat the global lockdown of nuclear weapons and materials as a diplomatic priority. Countries need to work together to remove bureaucratic roadblocks, allocate additional funds, and accelerate implementation of programs. Effective counterterrorism efforts require collaboration among countries to disrupt the few terrorist organizations (in particular Al Qaeda and related entities) that may have the motives and capabilities to engage in terror with nuclear explosives.

Conclusion

Proliferation risk in the countries of Asia, Africa and Middle East is really high. Some of them haven’t ratified the NNPT treaty but they still produce secretly high-reached uranium that can be used in weapon or in terrorist acts. Nuclear weapon gives independence to any country, but it also can be a reason of international conflicts. The countries that ratified NNPT treaty are against of pursuing nuclear energy in poor developed countries, because it might contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. One of the latest conflicts is Iran’s one.

Bibliography and other sources

1. K.Alan “Missile Proliferation and the Strategic Balance in South Asia” Kronstadt, October 17, 2003

2. http://www.tmia.com

3. http://www.csmonitor.com

4. http://en.wikipedia.org

Benchmark II

Objective 3

Now we are going to demonstrate an understanding of international challenges related to nuclear energy. We will also describe the issues of waste management, the issues of benefit & risks, safety & security and the issue of nuclear terrorism. We will begin with describing the issues of benefit & risks.

Interview

We live in a small town in the Urals called Novouralsk. The main enterprise there is the Ural Electrochemical Integrated Plant. While doing our research work we watched a film “Radiation. Myths and Reality.” The film was released launched by the local television of Novouralsk. We watched this film several times to have clear ideas for our project work. In this film Alexander Konstantinov, the general supervisor of the regional nuclear and environment center, is interviewed. The questions are asked by people of different ages and social status. The people’s concern is about the UEIP, the largest uranium enrichment enterprise in the world, as well as the major manufacturer of state-of-art process control equipment and systems for the nuclear industry.

Here you can see some of the questions and answers of the interview with Alexander Konstantinov.

The questions asked by the people show a low level of people’s awareness and lack of information regarding safety and security of operating nuclear facility as well as challenges associated with nuclear waste. It’s quite natural that people are afraid of things they don’t know well enough. The authorities of the town and the plant management must take this fact into consideration and work on nuclear and ecological education with the population to decrease the social tension.

Risks and benefits of a nuclear power plant

Nuclear power plants are very clean and efficient to operate. Increased concern over energy security and global climate change has led many people to take a fresh look at the benefits and risks of nuclear power for the Russian Federation and other countries.

(http://www.intergraph.co.kr/industries/images/Nuke-Power.jpg )

Benefits:

Reduction in Air Pollution

Nuclear power can also be part of a strategy to address carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrous oxides.

Price Stability

Since nuclear technology was first introduced in the 1950s, the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power (not including construction costs) has remained relatively constant, unlike prices of natural gas and petroleum

Improved Safety

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the number of events at nuclear power plants that trigger any of a multitude of safety systems have dropped from 2.37 in 1985 to 2.03 in 2000.

Reduced Reliance on Energy Imports

Increased reliance on nuclear power in the United States means a reduced reliance on oil imported from other countries. Some countries even use nuclear power out of necessity because they do not have adequate domestic supplies of fossil fuels

Improved Fuel Reprocessing

Reprocessing nuclear fuel reduces the waste that must be disposed to three per cent of its original amount. If nuclear fuel is reprocessed, the radioactivity declines to that of coal ash in 400 years.

Diversified Energy Supply

The stability of the price of nuclear power could help to ensure that energy is always provided at a reasonable cost.

Risks:

Lack of Plan to Store Waste

According to the Natural Research Council, the growing volume of nuclear waste stored on-site at nuclear power plants requires attention. However, that both geologic disposal and monitored storage on or near the earth’s surface are safe and feasible storage options.

Risk of Catastrophe

The accidents at Three Mile Island in New York and Chernobyl in Ukraine confirmed the long-festering fear of many people that nuclear power was not a safe source of energy. As a result of these two accidents, utilities cancelled a number of proposed and partially constructed nuclear generating stations. Since that time, industry and government has worked to improve safety and reduce the risk of accident, but many still fear a catastrophe.

Lack of Public Support

Although recent polls in the U.S. have shown that a majority of the public supports an increase in nuclear power production, such numbers are highly uncertain. Many countries are struggling with the decision to decommission their existing plants, maintain existing plants, or build new plants.

Cost

While the cost of producing a megawatt of electricity from an existing nuclear power plant is generally less than or equal to the cost of producing a megawatt of power from natural gas or coal, such estimates do not include construction, decommissioning, and insurance costs.

Some argue that solar energy is cost-competitive in the long-term and that is a desired energy path for reducing global warming. Other arguments against nuclear are that it is actually much less efficient in displacing carbon dioxide on a dollar for dollar basis than investments in energy efficiency. Specifically this argument is that a dollar invested in energy efficiency saves seven times as much carbon dioxide as that invested in nuclear power. The arguments point out that although nuclear power plant releases much less carbon dioxide than other thermal power plants, the mining, construction, fuel enrichment and manufacturing process all release carbon dioxide. [4]

Probability of nuclear accidents

The nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have always maintained that the probability of an accident was low. Even if we were to take the nuclear industry or the NRC at its word, the risk of a meltdown would still be great because the consequences of such an event are potentially so devastating. However, neither the nuclear industry nor the NRC has been very good at estimating the probability of an accident.

According the information of Green Peace On March 9, 1979, the NRC staff produced a memo for then Commissioner Peter Bradford entitled, "Probabilities That the Next Major Accident Occurs within Prescribed Intervals." The memorandum states that:

1. The probability is less than 0.5 that the next (i.e., the first) major accident occurs within the next 400 reactor years.

2. The probability is less than 0.05 that the next major accident occurs within the next 21 reactor years.

3. The probability is larger than 0.5 that the next major accident occurs after the next 400 reactor years.

(Note: one nuclear reactor operating for one year equals a reactor year.)

Less than three weeks later, the unit 2 reactor at Three Mile Island suffered a meltdown of the radioactive fuel in the reactor core. [10]

It is very hard to make an accurate forecast. We can only suppose that an accident can take place in any country. Because of it federal government should control nuclear power plants harder.

Probability of nuclear accident depends on quantity of reactors in a country. Because of it, such countries as France, USA, Russia and some others are in bigger danger of nuclear accident. [6]

Causes of nuclear accident

An accident at a nuclear power plant could kill more people than were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. The financial repercussions could also be catastrophic. The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant cost the former Soviet Union more than three times the economical benefits accrued from the operation of every other Soviet nuclear power plant operated between 1954 and 1990.

In general nuclear plant risk assessments that were examined by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) are really not risk assessments because potential accident consequences are not evaluated. They merely examine accident probabilities - only half of the risk equation. Moreover, the accident probability calculations are seriously flawed. They rely on assumptions that contradict actual operating experience:

• The risk assessments assume nuclear plants always conform to safety requirements, yet each year more than a thousand violations are reported.

• Plants are assumed to have no design problems even though hundreds are reported every year.

• Aging is assumed to result in no damage, despite evidence that aging materials killed four workers.

• Reactor pressure vessels are assumed to be fail-proof, even though embitterment forced the Yankee Rowe nuclear plant to shut down.

• The risk assessments assume that plant workers are far less likely to make mistakes than actual operating experience demonstrates.

• The risk assessments consider only the threat from damage to the reactor core despite the fact that irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pools represents a serious health hazard.

The results from these unrealistic calculations are therefore overly optimistic.

Nuclear accidents

• Radiation reactor accidents occur almost exclusively at well-characterized fixed facilities, like nuclear reactors or nuclear power plants, or along prescribed transit routes when radioactive materials are moved.
• Typically, facility operators and local officials have formal response plans and practice response operations.
• For accidents at fixed facilities, like a nuclear power plant, there is likely to be a window of time before the release of radiation starts, as opposed to an improvised nuclear device (IND) or a nuclear bomb, which may be initiated without any advanced warning.
• With nuclear reactor sabotage incidents, there may be less warning time.
• Victims can have both exposure and contamination.
• Contamination with radioactive iodine has almost exclusively been identified in the aftermath of accidents at nuclear reactors (see Figure 1), although some exposure may occur with other types of radiological events. [8]

Just what is considered to be a accident depends on one's point of view - where one stands on an issue depends on where one sits. Those who fear radiation regard any accident, however minor, as serious. A utility would regard as very serious, from a financial standpoint, any accident that damaged the reactor enough to put it out of service, even if no radioactive material were released. The potential financial penalty serves as a powerful incentive for the utility to maintain safety. In general there are two types of nuclear accidents: military and civilian.

(http://microblog.routed.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/nuclear-explosion.JPG )

Major civilian nuclear accidents

Three Mile Island

In March of 1979 at the Three Mile Island light-water reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, an accident occurred. It was the most severe to that time but whether it was "serious" by the present definition is debatable. There was a huge, panic-driven, voluntary evacuation of the surrounding area, but the actual release of radioactive material was so little that the authorities did not call for an official evacuation. Financially, the accident was serious for the utility since the reactor could not be restored and the clean-up was extremely expensive. And there is no question that it was very serious psychologically in affecting the public's attitude to nuclear energy.

(http://www.solcomhouse.com/testk.jpg )

A simple interpretation of the cause of the accident is that it was initiated by an equipment failure, a valve that failed to close, compounded by several operator errors. Following the accident, a twelve-member Presidential Commission was established to inquire into the circumstances and causes. Its report shows that the situation was much more complex. Altogether 18 faults or errors were identified as being part of the initiating sequence or of being primary, exacerbating, contributing and underlying causes. The equipment failure was attributable to a manufacturing error, indicating a weakness in the manufacturer's quality assurance (QA) program. There were five design errors, two errors by the regulator and eleven operating errors

Following the accident all nuclear utilities reviewed their own reactor designs and operations to determine what changes should be undertaken in the light of the experience. [7]

Chernobyl

Just as the international nuclear industry was recovering its reputation for safety, damaged by the Three Mile Island accident, a really serious reactor accident occurred at Chernobyl in the Ukrainian Republic of the former U.S.S.R. in April 1986. If communications with the public at Three Mile Island suffered from the presence of too much media the reverse was true for Chernobyl. The world's first awareness of the accident came from Swedish reports of unusually high levels of radioactivity in the atmosphere. For many months afterwards information about the accident was filtered through the U.S.S.R. authorities, raising suspicions that unpleasant facts were being suppressed.

The reactor concerned was one of a four-reactor plant. Its fuel was quite similar to that used in other power reactors internationally, and it was water-cooled. The big difference was in its moderator, graphite, operated at elevated temperatures. At the time of the accident, the reactor was being shut down for scheduled maintenance, and it was already at low power. In this nearly unstable condition, and under pressure to maintain production to satisfy the electrical demand of Kiev, the operating utility decided to test whether there was enough mechanical energy in the rotating generator to supply emergency

(http://www.ng.ru/images/2006-12-12/6-4-1.jpg )

power for nearly a minute after the steam supply was cut off. This test had not been performed during commissioning and had not been properly reviewed for safety before local approval. Several operator errors, some involving serious violations of existing procedures but some understandable given the condition of the reactor, resulted in a power surge beyond the capacity of the normal control system. This invoked the emergency shutdown system but, due to a subtle design weakness, this reaction initially increased the power. As a result the coolant water vaporized and burst the surrounding tubes; and the steam reacted with the hot graphite to cause an explosion.

Twenty-nine of the plant workers died during or shortly after the accident, most as a consequence of fighting the fires; and about 200 of them suffered acute radiation syndrome. There was widespread radioactive contamination, causing evacuation of the surrounding area. The contamination was significant in parts of Europe and could even be detected later in North America, albeit at a level insignificant to health. [7]

Mayak

Working conditions at Mayak resulted in severe health hazards and many accidents .The most notable accident occurred on 29 September 1957, when the failure of the cooling system for a tank storing tens of thousands of tons of dissolved nuclear waste resulted in a non-nuclear explosion having a force estimated at about 75 tons of TNT (310 gigajoules), which released some 20 MCi (740 petabecquerels) of radioactivity. Subsequently, at least 200 people died of radiation sickness, 10,000 people were evacuated from their homes, and 470,000 people were exposed to radiation.

Russians driving through the area in the 1960s and later found a deserted region where road signs ordered cars to close their windows and not stop for any reason (these directives may still be in force). Russians then relayed this information to

(http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/opinion/2005/07/images/071011mayak.jpg )

Western contacts, and thus Western intelligence agencies came to know of this region. Rumours of a nuclear mishap somewhere in the vicinity of Chelyabinsk had long been circulating in the West. That there had been a serious nuclear accident west of the Urals was eventually inferred from research on the effects of radioactivity on plants, animals, and ecosystems, published by Professor Leo Tumerman, former head of the Biophysics Laboratory at the Institute of Molecular Biology in Moscow, and associates. [5]

Those nuclear accidents had very distractive affect on the environment, in the following list you may see less major nuclear accidents:

· Fermi I Reactor

· Reactor at Chalk River

· Windscale Reactor

· SL-1 Reactor

Stringent Federal Security Requirements

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds nuclear power plants to the highest security standards of any American industry. Since 2001, the agency has elevated nuclear plant security requirements numerous times by issuing orders and other formal requirements.

The industry meets or exceeds these requirements in all areas. As a result, U.S. nuclear power plants are among the nation’s most protected and secure industrial assets.

Now we will describe different uses of nuclear materials.

What do we call nuclear materials?

A chemical element consists of atoms, which contain “sub – atomic” particles. These particles are of three types:

· protons (positively charged particles)

· neutrons (uncharged particle)

· electrons (uncharged particles).

Protons and neutrons make up an n atom’s core or nucleus. Electrons are identical in number to the protons, but are found outside of the nucleus of the atom. All chemical elements are defined and distinguished from each other by the number of protons/electrons their atoms contain, termed their atomic number.

While all atoms of an element must have the same number of protons/electrons, they may contain differing numbers of neutrons. These variants are called isotopes of an element. They have different nuclear properties and masses but their chemical properties are identical: thus they can only be separated by making use of their different masses, and not by chemical means.

Isotopes are normally identified by the sum of their protons and neutrons.

Fission is the splitting of the nucleus of an atom into two or more parts. This process occurs when heavy elements such as uranium and plutonium are bombarded by neutrons under favorable conditions. Not all isotopes of these elements fission; those that do are called fission materials. The most frequently used fissile materials are the isotopes uranium 235 and plutonium 239.

U -235 forms 0,7 % of natural uranium ore. Plutonium is manufactured from uranium, by placing it inside a reactor.

Fusion takes place when two nuclei of light elements such as hydrogen fuse together to make a heavier one. This process releases much larger quantities of energy than the fission process. The most frequently used materials to generate fusion reaction are tritium, deuterium and the solid Lithium-6 Deuteride. [1, p.198]

Medical, Industrial, and Academic Uses of Nuclear Materials

All of these uses are under control of NRC.

• Medical Uses - use of nuclear materials to monitor, image, or treat metabolic processes or tissues in humans.
• Veterinary Uses - use of nuclear materials to treat animals
• Industrial Uses - the use of nuclear materials in industrial devices such as, irradiators, gauging devices, well-logging devices, and industrial radiography systems.
• Academic and Research Uses - use of nuclear materials in universities, colleges, and other academic institutions for course work, laboratory demonstrations, and research.
• General License Uses - commercial use of nuclear materials by general licensees for activities such as measuring, gauging, or controlling devices, etc.
• Exempt Consumer Product Uses - products containing radioactive materials whose use is exempt from regulation and that are available in the marketplace to the public. [9]

Radioisotope Application and Radiation Technology

Human Health

Radioisotopes are used to improve health care in many countries. The number of medical procedures requires different isotopes, for example in diagnostic nuclear medicine and radionuclide therapy. Over 60 reactors worldwide produce medical radioisotopes. 350 cyclotrons are available with many dedicated to the production of positron emission tomography (PET) isotopes. PET is used in the detection, staging and treatment of various types of cancer, neuroendocrine tumors, for bone pain palliation. [2, p.29]

Combined tomography-therapy treatment

Nuclear Technology Review, p.39 Fig G-1. International Atomic Agency. Vienna, 2007

Innovative strategies in nuclear techniques have propelled the field of nuclear cardiology from the assessment of coronary blood flow to the heart muscle and its ability to pump blood into the main arteries into molecular imaging. Combining information provided by PET and by modern computer tomography (CT) scanners in hybrid PET-CT systems now allows the assessment of coronary artery disease at its early stages. The added value of this technology is particularly important in patients having conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and elevated levels of blood lipids.

The use of stable isotope techniques can assist in the development and evaluation of nutritional interventions. [2, p. 37, 39]

Radiation technology provides a highly advantages means of grafting. At present radiation grafting on polymers is developing in three directions: for adsorbents, membranes, and for use in medicine and biotechnology. The possibility of re-creating various tissues and organs with advanced technology has received much interest for the purpose of regenerative medicine. [2, p. 30]

Food and Agriculture

Isotopic and nuclear techniques play an important role in identifying the source of pollutants from different land use practices and farming activities. Both stable isotopes and fallout radionuclides in soil, water or sediment samples can help to accurately pinpoint the sources of these agricultural pollutants from catchments.

Radiation hybrid mapping is a technique based on exposing somatic sells to lethal doses of X-rays in order to fragment the chromosomes. Radiation hybrid maps for a number of crops such as barley, maize, wheat and cotton have been developed for detailed analyses and sequencing of their genomes, which will facilitate the identification and transfer of genes affecting useful agronomic, quality and stress tolerance traits to improve crops. [2, p. 32, 33]

Water and Environment

Isotope contents in precipitation, rivers and groundwater – particularly stable oxygen and hydrogen isotopes and tritium – help to understand the relationship between the water cycle and climate. Isotope data are extremely useful in unraveling the impacts of climate variability on water resources.

Present worldwide research on the rates of glacial accumulation and disappearance rely heavily on isotope analysis of ice cores and their relationship to the isotopes in present precipitation.

The temperature dependence of isotopes: oxygen isotopes in January

Nuclear Technology Review, p41, Fig. H-1. International Atomic Agency. Vienna, 2007

Nuclear analytical techniques (X-ray fluorescence, neutron activation analysis and iron beam techniques) are tools that can be used for determining the elemental composition of air particulate matter. When this is known, the particular source of pollution may be identified. Based on such information decisions can be taken on actions to reduce emissions. [2, p. 40, 41, 43]

Industrial Uses

Industrial radiography is the use of radiation to produce an image of internal features on photographic film; it is used to inspect metal parts and welds for defects.

Irradiators are devices or facilities that expose products to radiation to sterilize them, such as spices and some foods, milk containers, and hospital supplies. Self-shielded irradiators are constructed so that there is no external beam during use and there is "usually a small cabinet type device that is not built in." Non-self-shielded irradiators do not provide shielding from the radiation beam, therefore, additional shielding needs to be provided and special radiation protection precautions need to be taken. [3]

Well logging is a process used to determine whether a well drilled deep into the ground has the potential to produce oil. This process uses byproduct or special nuclear material tracer and sealed sources in connection with the exploration for oil, gas, or minerals in wells.

Gauging devices are used to measure, monitor, and control the thickness of sheet metal, textiles, paper napkins, newspaper, plastics, photographic film, and other products as they are manufactured. Nonportable gauging devices (i.e., gauges mounted in fixed locations) are designed for measurement or control of material density, flow, level, thickness, or weight, and so forth. The gauges contain sealed sources that radiate through the substance being measured to a readout or controlling device. Portable gauging devices, such as moisture density gauges, are used at field locations. These gauges contain a gamma-emitting sealed source, usually cesium-137, or a sealed neutron source, usually americium-241 and beryllium. [3]

Spent nuclear fuel

Spent nuclear fuel, occasionally called used nuclear fuel, is nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in a nuclear reactor to the point where it is no longer useful in sustaining a nuclear reaction.

Two different management strategies are being implemented for spent nuclear fuel:

1. Spent fuel is reprocessed or stored for future reprocessing.

2. Spent fuel is considered as waste and is stored pending disposal. Both dry and wet storage technologies are considered to be effective.

China, France. India. Japan and the Russian Federation either reprocess or store for future reprocessing, most of their spent fuel.

Canada, Finland, Sweden and the USA have currently opted for direct disposal, although in February 2006, the USA announced a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP0), which includes the development of advanced recycling technologies for the USA.

Most countries have not yet decided which strategy to adopt. They are currently storing spent fuel and keeping abreast of developments associated with both alternatives.

The Finnish, Swedish and US repository programs continue to be the most developed [2, p.11, 12]

Nuclear Technology Review, p30, Fig. E-1. International Atomic Agency. Vienna, 2007

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel

Nuclear reprocessing can separate spent fuel into various combinations of reprocessed uranium:

· plutonium

· minor actinides

· fission products

· remnants of zirconium or steel cladding

· activation products

· the reagents or solidifiers

PUREX, the current main method of reprocessing

PUREX is an acronym standing for Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by EXtraction. The PUREX process is a liquid-liquid extraction method used to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, in order to extract uranium and plutonium, independent of each other, from the fission products. This is the most completely developed and widely used process in the industry at present. If used on fuel from commercial power reactors, plutonium extracted using PUREX typically contain too much Pu-240 to be useful in a nuclear weapon. However, reactors that are capable of refueling frequently can be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium, which can later be recovered using PUREX. Because of this, PUREX chemicals are monitored.

Now some words about transportation and storage of nuclear materials.

Nuclear Materials Transportation and storage in the USA

About 3 million packages of radioactive materials are shipped each year in the United States, either by highway, rail, air, or water. Regulating the safety of these shipments is the joint responsibility of the NRC and the Department of Transportation. The NRC establishes requirements for the design and manufacture of packages for radioactive materials. The Department of Transportation regulates the shipments while they are in transit, and sets standards for labeling and smaller quantity packages.

A typical SNF shipping cask mounted on a railroad car

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shipping_Cask_01.jpg

Spent nuclear fuel shipping casks are used to transport spent nuclear fuel used in nuclear power plants and research reactors to disposal sites such as the to-be-opened one at Yucca Mountain or the Nuclear reprocessing center at COGEMA La Hague site. Each shipping container is designed to maintain its integrity under normal transportation conditions and during hypothetical accident conditions.

The storage methods

· Spent Fuel Pools - Currently, most spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in specially designed pools at individual reactor sites around the country.

· Dry Cask Storage - If pool capacity is reached, licensees may move toward use of above-ground dry storage casks.

Removal of very low-level waste

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fort-greely-low-level-waste.jpg)

These radioactive materials can damage people’s health and the environment. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Agreement States regulate and license the use of it.

Nuclear waste locations in USA

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg)

Conclusion

There are a lot of advantages and disadvantages connected with nuclear energy. On the one hand, nuclear energy has price stability and produces very little air pollution. Nuclear materials have a lot of spheres of application. On the other hand, there is a big risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Nuclear energy is the next step in the development of all energy system. We have studied many facts and conducted a great research work. In conclusion we can contend that nuclear energy is the energy of the future.

Bibliography and other sources:

1. Sarah J. Diehl “Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation”, California, 2002

2. International Atomic Agency. Nuclear Technology Review. Vienna, 2007

3. Р.Тимербаев “Международный контроль над атомной энергией” Права человека, 2003.

4. http://www.nei.org

5. http://en.wikipedia.org

6. http://www.magma.ca

7. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

8. http://www.remm.nlm.gov

9. http://www.nrc.gov

10.http://www.greenpeace.org