Thursday, 30 April 2009

New DG lineup

The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced the line-up of Director-General hopefuls.


This is not a good time to be a bookmaker. It is very difficult to see who of these people comes out as the strongest candidate. Given that Amano was only one vote away last time around, will he be able to convince the last holdout that he is the best person for the job? Would a former Areva vice-president really have fighting chance? And could the seasoned and charismatic Spaniard in charge of the OECD/NEA sneak his way into the top spot?

And above all, will Ambassador Minty be able to stage a comeback?

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Reader's choice: Olli Heinonen


So, the nominations are in, which means that I have deleted the vote on the blog. In all, we had 75 votes and I think it is fair to say that my readers - who are into verification - would like to see a verification practitioner lead the Agency. Once I have confirmation on the candidates, I will possibly set up another survey on the blog.

Thanks to all that voted.

Friday, 24 April 2009

Repo at Yongbyon

I had to repost this thing – the original post had all tables out of whack, and there is no way of seeing that before you actually put the thing on the blog.

Reprocessing at Yongbyon could start within the year. What would the flow rate and the mass balances of the facility look like once it is in operation? The exact numbers are obviously impossible to find, but one can make a guess based on openly accessible information. The primary source for the following analysis is David Albright's book on North Korea's programme.

Based on the data in the book, I am assuming that the plant has a capacity of 230 metric tonnes per year, and a loss fraction of about two per cent. That would give us the following general parameters:

Uranium feed rate (MT/yr)

13.14

Plutonium feed rate (kg/yr)

6.43

Uranium flow rate (MT/yr)

12.88

Plutonium flow rate (kg/yr)

6.30

Plant throughput (kg/day)

44.92


Based on the same assumptions, the following would be the inventory mass (in kilograms) per day:

Inventory mass: total (kg)

Water

325

Acid

1340

Solvent

158

Uranium

103

Plutonium

0.0501

Neptunium

0.00222

Rhodium

6.24E-4

Ruthenium

0.00221

Iodine

1.23E-5

Xenon

0

Krypton

0

Hydrogen

5.99E-8

Other fissionable products

0.0649

Light Elements

0

Aluminium

0


Inventory activity: curies (Ci)

Uranium

0.0704

Plutonium

9.94

Neptunium

0.0015

Rhodium

195

Ruthenium

195

Iodine

9.29E-6

Xenon

0

Krypton

0

Hydrogen

0.579


While these figures are moderately useful for finding a solution to the problem, I thought they were wonkish enough to warrant publication on the blog.

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Things on the horizon

You may already have noticed the changed layout of the blog. I was looking for something cleaner. I also removed a lot of the sidebar clutter that had accumulated over time. The great change is of course yesterday evening's purchase of a domain name for my blog. Since everything related to verification was taken, I opted for the impressive sounding armscontrolverification.org. There should be no need to update bookmarks or feeds, since Google is taking care of redirection for me. The remaining question is whether I should do yet another name-change. Send me an e-mail if you think that's a good idea.


I'd also like to announce the pending release of yet another VERTIC factsheet, this one on the verified dismantlement of nuclear weapons. It will go through what the UK-Norway Initiative has been doing and what we aim to do. It is currently at our printers, and will be distributed at the Initiative briefing at UN Headquarters on Friday, 8 May 2009. Keep an eye out for announcements on that. Once I've agreed something with my UK and Norwegian friends, the full text will go up here and on VERTIC's website.

Thursday, 16 April 2009

DPRK: Back to Square One

The monitors have been switched off. The cameras are being removed from their mounts, and the seals are broken. The guesthouse just off the main site no longer houses the IAEA three-person team or the four-person US experts group. By now, the equipment is probably being packed into boxes by the former North Korean hosts, after which it will be carefully catalogued and transferred to storage in some building on the sprawling Yongbyon site. There, it will gather dust until the next time inspectors visit the facility. That is, if there will be a next time.

North Korea threatens to restart the facility, and there have been some educated guesses as to how fast this could be done. These guesses range from a couple of weeks, to six months, to possibly longer. Undeniably, it will take a year to get the entire facility back in order again, but some critical processes, such as the reprocessing of spent fuel, might get up and running by the summer of 2009. And this is possibly why the Russian Foreign Minister is about to visit Pyongyang quite soon, and why the Chinese are placing frantic phone calls to Washington DC.

But what are the North Korean’s required to do to get the plant up and running again? Despite wishes to the contrary, the agreed minute on disablement was never released to the wider arms control community. However, some details were nevertheless leaked, quite possibly since some involved principals on the US side felt that the disablement steps were wholly inadequate.

The first disablement action was to unload the 5MWe reactor, and transfer spent fuel to the cooling pond. This action does not appear to have been completed. The North Korean's would now speed up their unloading operations, and transfer the remaining spent fuel rods to the cooling pond. It is possible that they would then ask the director of the Fuel Manufacturing plant to transfer the fresh load of fuel (pictured) to the GCR for reloading.


However, a number of immediate tasks would need to be completed before then. First, the reactor's director would need to instruct his people to repipe the secondary cooling system and, obviously, rebuild the cooling tower, or jury-rig the system somehow. This is not likely to be completed before summer, so do not expect to see steam rising over Yongbyon until autumn. Naturally, the construction of the tower can be tracked by satellite. The reactor also needs to have its control rod mechanism reconnected.

At the reprocessing facility, work may progress slightly faster. The drive mechanism between the spent fuel receiving building and the hot cells need to be reconnected, and two steam lines would need to be re-attached and pressure-tested. Moreover, the drive mechanism for fuel cask transfers needs to be replaced, as well as some hot-cell doors. After these tasks are completed, the reprocessing facility is mostly ready for action. This can be done fairly soon, possible before July. The start of a reprocessing campaign can be detected through the release of radionuclides into the atmosphere.

The Fuel Fabrication Plant has also undergone some 'disablement'. In order to get the plant back in operation, the site director needs to reinstall all three uranium ore concentrate dissolver tanks, all seven uranium conversion furnaces, metal casting furnaces and the vacuum system, and eight machining lathes. Again, this is something that can be done in a matter of months.

The pressing question is, of course, what happens next? The ejection of IAEA monitors and US experts will lead to a substantial degradation in knowledge of ground truth. While the North is unlikely to substantially add to its fissile material stockpile in 2009, larger scale production may be likely in the coming year. Of course, a new nuclear test cannot be ruled out. It's very likely, even, that the test site director has already received instructions to elevate his level of readiness.

Personally, I find it very difficult to see any easy way out of this predicament.

US pledges to strengthen verification

Last week, the 2009 Carnegie Non-Proliferation Conference drew to a close. This two-day Woodstock draws a lot of heavy-duty players to Washington DC, including a number of senior officials from the Obama administration. This year saw the participation of Rose Gottemoeller, under-secretary of State for verification and compliance (who I once had the pleasure of having dinner with in Moscow) and James Steinberg, US deputy secretary of State. The IAEA and the CTBTO also had a strong presence. Tibor Toth, the CTBTO's executive secretary, participated in one of the panels, and the Agency people were very active in the debates (mostly to fend off inaccurate portrayals of the IAEA's work).

As has been reported elsewhere, the discussions at the conference were suitably inspired by U.S. President Barack Obama's progressive speech in Prague, where he, amongst other things, pledged that his "administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty".

At the Conference's first luncheon, James Steinberg added:

As a measure of the president's continuing commitment to this vital non-proliferation agenda, he has asked Vice President Joe Biden to help lead the administration's non-proliferation efforts. The vice president will lead the conduct of a comprehensive review of the complex technical military and diplomatic issues surrounding the comprehensive test ban treaty and develop a strategy to secure its ratification.


I later heard that the State Department is already on top of the situation, and that they've put one of their best men on the job. The person I heard is reviewing the past eight years operation of the treaty is very knowledgeable of CTBT issues and is, in addition, very keen on re-engaging in the development of the verification regime. There has been a lot of progress in the verification regime over the last decade, and it has proven exceptionally sensitive. At the end of the day, however, verifiability is likely to be just one, relatively minor, issue in the broader ratification debate.

It is equally important to protect and enhance the important role of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Secretary Steinberg held that, "we must improve the verification system. Adherence to the IAEA's protocol must become a duty, not an option. We should explore means of augmenting the IAEA safeguards authorities, and the agencies should receive the increased resources it needs to carry out its rapidly growing responsibilities".

This is not a new agenda, obviously. Making the additional protocol the new safeguards standard was raised in Mohamed ElBaradei's first speech to the General Conference in 1997, and the policy was strongly supported both by the Clinton and the Bush administrations. Exploring the means of augmenting the Agency's safeguards authorities was something sought by George W. Bush, but its attempt to set up a working group within the Agency faltered due to a botched attempt to exclude Iran, as well as increased non-nuclear weapon state reluctance to assume more responsibilities under their safeguards agreements.

Getting all members to agree to an increase in the Agency's regular budget may also prove difficult. Some IAEA members are concerned that they will pay the bill for increased verification in India through an increase in annual appropriations. The US could, however, leave the regular budget alone, and recapitalize the Agency through a series of substantial voluntary contributions with no strings attached.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this, and whether some reform could start before next year's end of the current NPT review cycle.

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Luis Echavarri joins the race

This from Reuters:

A Spanish nuclear power specialist has entered the race to lead the U.N. nuclear watchdog following last month's inconclusive vote to replace Mohamed ElBaradei.

Luis Echavarri, 59, head of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's nuclear energy arm, confirmed his candidature to be director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday.

The director general oversees a global inspectorate that seeks to detect and deter covert diversions of nuclear energy to bomb-making and to promote peaceful uses of the atom, in keeping with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

ElBaradei has held the role since 1997 and delegations are keen to avoid a prolonged, divisive succession battle given the challenges facing the IAEA, including technical but politically charged reports on agency investigations into suspected proliferation activity.

Iran and Syria are under scrutiny. North Korea, Libya and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were subject to earlier investigations.

An engineer and nuclear safety expert, Echavarri has been head of the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency since 1997. In his earlier career, spanning more than 35 years in the nuclear field, he managed power plants in Spain.

"I think my experience gives me a political grasp of the issues as well as technical competency," he told Reuters by telephone.

Spain submitted his candidature to the agency's 35-nation board of governors on Wednesday, Echavarri said.

Echavarri joins new contenders from Slovenia and Malaysia, and a renomination from Japan -- Yukiya Amano, a non-proliferation veteran who failed to garner enough votes in the first vote.

Neither of the original candidates, Amano and South African diplomat Abdul Samad Minty, were seen as broad-based enough to replace ElBaradei, who steps down in November this year.

"Many have countries have called on Spain saying I could play that role -- to meditate between different sensitivities surrounding the IAEA," Echavarri said.

"I have a lot experience in dealing with many countries with different policies and experience with both developing and industrialised nations."

Board chairman Algeria invited fresh nominations following the inconclusive two-way election and another vote will be held in May just in time for the board's meeting the following month.


Thursday, 2 April 2009

First new DG nomination out

From Reuters:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 2 (Reuters) - Malaysia's government endorsed the country's atomic energy board chief as a candidate for the U.N. nuclear watchdog director-general's post, a minister said on Thursday.

Malaysia will put forward Noramly Muslim, chairman of the Malaysian Atomic Energy Licensing Board, after the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governers failed to agree on a sucessor to Mohamed ElBaradei last week.

"Yes, Professor Dr Noramly Muslim is officially endorsed by the Malaysian government (for the post)," Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Maximus Ongkili told Reuters in a mobile phone text message. He declined to give further details.

Noramly, who has researched the impact of nuclear technology in developing countries, was IAEA's deputy director-general for technical cooperation in the late 1980s.

He has argued for Malaysia to start using nuclear energy to generate electricity much sooner than its 2020 target as the Southeast Asian country's oil reserves are getting depleted.

Too bad I cant change the poll once people have started voting.

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

Voting for the new DG

I have set up a poll to canvass my limited readership for views as to who they want to see as the new IAEA DG. Just click the button on the right. One vote per person (but you are free to change your vote at any time). The poll closes on 27 April 2009 (which I believe is the deadline for new nominations).

I used Jeffrey's list of hot candidates. Don't worry. I cannot see who has voted or when. So go on then, click on your preferred candidate.