2/ (/ VOL.38, N0.1 J · 2020. 5. 5. · iaea / bulletin \2/ (/ vol.38, n0.1 j 1996 vienna, austria...

$: 2/ (/ VOL.38, N0.1 J · 2020. 5. 5. · iaea / bulletin \2/ (/ vol.38, n0.1 j 1996 vienna, austria quarterly journal of the international atomic energy agency nuclear power safety$
IAEA /BULLETIN \ 2 /( / VOL.38, N0.1

J 1996VIENNA, AUSTRIA

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

NUCLEAR POWER SAFETYELECTRONUCLEAIRE ET SURETE

EE3OriACHOCTb flflEPHOM OHEPrETMKMENERGIA Y SEGURIDAD NUCLEARES

u

or THC WTCMUTIOMJU. mmr

Front Cover: Ten years after the tragic accident in April1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine,the consequences are still being debated. In many cases,speculation clouds public perceptions and obscures thefactual scientific record. In this edition of the IAEA Bulle-tin, feature articles examine aspects of the post-Cher-nobyl nuclear picture, including nuclear power's develop-ment and future in many countries and the sharper globalfocus on issues of nuclear and radiation safety. A forth-coming edition will report on the outcome of an Interna-tional Conference at the IAEA in April 1996 that will sumup the known radiological consequences of the Cher-nobyl accident.(Cover design: Hannelore Wilczek, IAEA;Stefan Brodek, Vienna.)

Facing Page: On a scientific expedition, scientists at theIAEA's Marine Environment Laboratory in Monaco collectsamples on the high seas. Their work following the Cher-nobyl accident contributed significantly to the world's un-derstanding of the radiological impact on the marine en-vironment. (Credit: IAEA-MEL)

CONTENTS

Features Nuclear power beyond Chernobyl: A changing international perspectiveby Poong Eil Juhn andJurgen Kupitz/2

Safety of RBMK reactors: Setting the technical frameworkby Luis Lederman / 10

Chernobyl & the marine environment: The radiological impact in contextby Pavel Povinec, Scott Fowler and Murdoch Baxter /18

Nuclear and radiation safety: Guidance for emergency responseby Malcolm Crick / 2 3

Bulletin Update Inside Technical Cooperation: The Atom and Food Production I Insert

Special Report Electricity, health & the environment: Selecting sustainable optionsby Leonard Bennett and Malik Derrough / 28

Topical Reports Environmental impact of radioactive releases: Addressing global issuesby Gordon Linsley / 36

International Centre for Theoretical Physics: A new institutional frameworkby Edwin Nwogugu / 40

Departments International Newsbriefs/Datafile / 44

Keep abreast with IAEA publications / 54

Posts announced by the IAEA / 56

Databases on line / 58

IAEA conferences and seminars/Coordinated research programmes / 60

ISSN 0020-6067 IAEA BULLETIN, VOL. 38, NO. 1 (MARCH 1996)

FEATURES

Nuclear power beyond Chernobyl:A changing international perspective

Nuclear power's development has slowed over the past 10 yearsbut steady growth is projected well into the next century

byPoong Eil Juhn

and JurgenKupitz

^Jtatistics show that nuclear power has becomean important energy source in many countriessince its introduction four decades ago. In the1960s, the industry was convinced that nuclearpower represented the solution to cheap and reli-able energy supply, and programmes wereeagerly pursued worldwide. As a result, the con-struction of nuclear power plants expanded rap-idly through the 1970s. According to data in theIAEA's Power Reactor Information System(PRIS), by 1980 nuclear power production hadincreased to 692.1 terawatt-hours (TWh), con-tributing 8.4% of total electricity generation.(See figures, next page.) This represented an al-most ninefold increase since 1970, and an aver-age annual growth of 24% over the decade.

Since the 1980s, the expansion rate hasdropped markedly even though significant newnuclear electricity capacity is still added eachyear. In the period 1980-85, nuclear electricitygeneration increased to 1402 TWh, correspond-ing to an average annual growth of 15.2% ingeneration; in the next half decade, during 1985-90, it increased to 1913 TWh, yielding an annualgrowth of 6.4%. In the period 1990-94, it in-creased to 2130 TWh, corresponding to a growthof about 2.8% per annum. The five largest pro-ducers in 1994 were the United States (639.4TWh), France (341.8 TWh), Japan (258.3 TWh),Germany (143.0 TWh), and Canada (101.7TWh).

Worldwide, the nuclear option today ac-counts for about 17% of the total electricity pro-duced. In altogether 14 countries (as well as inTaiwan, China), one-quarter or more of the elec-tricity is generated by nuclear power plants. Nu-clear power accounts for some 40% or more ineight countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Hun-gary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Sweden, and Switzer-

Mr Juhn is Director of the IAEA Division of Nuclear Powerand Mr. Kupitz is Head of the Division's Nuclear PowerTechnology Development Section.

land. (See the International Data File section,page 53.)

By the end of 1995, a total of 437 units witha generating capacity of over 343 gigawatts-elec-tric (GWe) were in operation in the world, and 39units with a generating capacity of over 32 GWewere under construction. The total accumulatedoperating experience of the operating plantsamounts to more than 6637 reactor years, or anaverage operating period per plant of about 15years. Substantial operating experience has alsobeen gained by plants that have now been shutdown, and factoring in these plants yields a totalof more than 7700 reactor years. In other words,by now, nuclear energy has acquired a strongposition in the electricity generation sector as amature technology.

Impact of the Chernobyl accident

Recent development trends could give theimpression that nuclear power's slower rate ofgrowth after the 1985-90 period is mostly due tothe Chernobyl accident, which occurred in April1986. Actually, other factors were at work aswell, and overall Chernobyl's impact variedaround the world.

One factor has been the rate of electricitygrowth, which in many countries declined duringthe past decade and influenced decisions aboutcapacity additions throughout the electricity sec-tor. Since the construction of a nuclear planttakes 5 to 8 years to complete, with a lead time(after contract) of 1 to 2 years, any observableindication of Chernobyl's direct impact over thepast decade would be hard to discern.

Still, the accident did have immediate conse-quences in some countries. In countries operat-ing Chernobyl-type reactors, the operation of theplants was carefully checked and a number ofrestrictions were imposed. Public opposition alsocaused other types of plants outside these coun-

IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1996

FEATURES

Growth Trends for Gross DomesticProduct (GDP), Energy, and Electricity

(per capita values, normalized to 1 in 1974)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

:

i

OECD countries

i i i i i i i i i i i

:

:

i i i i i i i0.51970 1975 1980 1985 1990

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Developing countries

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

GDP Energy Electricity

Growth of Nuclear Electricity Generation Since 1970

2500

2000

Source: IAEA Energy & 1913_ Economic Data Base (EEDB) S X

1 b.£;U/o S y

1402

1500co

1cCD

1000

500

Percentage figures are nuclearshare of total electricity generation

2130

14.3%

14 000

12 000

10 000

8 000

§.6 000 c

4 000

2 000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994Year

Total generation Nuclear generation

Co2 Emission Factors from the FullEnergy Chain of Different Power Sources

zz

1 1 1

!1f

I 62 Solar thermal

155 Solar PV cells

_, 42 Waves

36 Ocean therm, gradient

35 Tidal flow

120 Wind

H11

]5.6

]5

| 2.5

Geothermal

Small & medium hydro

Nuclear (diffusion)

Nuclear (centrifuge)Source: Atoms in

. ! . . . , I . . . . I . . . .

I

Coal I ?70

200 Oil

0 Natural gas

Japan. Nov. 1994

. . . . I . . . .50 100 150 200 250 300

g C/kWh

Worldwide Nuclear Power Outlook up to 2015

Nuclear power's growth has slowed markedly over the past twodecades, though steady development continues. Environmentalconcerns are driving renewed interest in nuclear-generated elec-tricity, a low CO2 option.


FEATURES

tries to shut down for a period of time. In Italy,the Caorso plant was taken out of service indefi-nitely and construction of the Montalto di Castroplants was stopped following a referendum in thewake of the accident, and in both Finland and theNetherlands plans for new nuclear power plantprojects were mothballed.

Generally in Europe, the Chernobyl accidentis one of the reasons that increases in nucleardeployment have been brought more or less to acomplete halt; politicians do not dare to promotenuclear power as a safe and clean energy source,and utilities are afraid of the financial risks withrespect to the economic consequences of a majornuclear accident. Besides, the economies of theEuropean countries have been growing at a veryslow rate, if growing at all, and the rate of growthin overall energy demand has been very small.On the other hand, recent studies have shownthat the picture is likely to change. Electricityconsumption continues to rise with economicgrowth, even when total energy consumption isdecreasing. In a few years time more generatingcapacity will be needed in many countries, andchances are that some of this additional capacitywill be nuclear power plants.

In regions of Asia, the situation is different;the rate of growth in energy demand is very highand nuclear is seen as an attractive option. Manycountries in these regions have ambitious pro-grammes for deployment of nuclear power in thenext decades, and vendors worldwide are antici-pating a revitalization of the nuclear market.

Advanced nuclear power plant designs

In a number of countries, great emphasis isbeing placed on the development of advancednuclear power plant designs. These new genera-tions of nuclear power plants have been, or arebeing, developed by building upon experienceand applying lessons learned from existingplants. Hence, the new, advanced designs areanticipated to become even more safe, economic,and reliable than their predecessors.

The advanced designs generally incorporateimprovements of the safety concepts, including,among others, features that will allow operatorsmore time to perform safety actions, and that willprovide even more protection against any possi-ble releases of radioactivity to the environment.Great attention is also paid to making new plantssimpler to operate, inspect, maintain, and repair,thus increasing their overall reliability andeconomy.

Advanced designs comprise two sub-catego-ries: evolutionary and developmental designs.The first encompasses direct descendants from

predecessors (existing plant designs) that featureimprovements and modifications based on feed-back of experience and adoption of new techno-logical achievements. They also take into ac-count possible introduction of some new fea-tures, e.g., by incorporating passive safety func-tions. Evolutionary designs are characterized byrequiring, at the most, engineering and confirma-tory testing prior to commercial deployment. De-velopmental designs consist of those that deviatemore significantly from existing designs, andthat consequently need substantially more test-ing and verification, probably including alsoconstruction of a demonstration plant and/or pro-totype plant before large-scale commercialdeployment.

Advanced designs under development com-prise three basic types: water-cooled reactors,utilizing water as coolant and moderator; fastreactors, using liquid metal, e.g. sodium, as cool-ant; and gas-cooled reactors, using gas, e.g. he-lium, as coolant and graphite as moderator.

Most — about 75% — of the nuclear powerreactors in operation are water-cooled reactors,and most of the advanced designs are, too. Theyare of two basic types: light-water reactors(LWRs) with ordinary water as moderator, andheavy-water reactors (HWRs). The LWRs are inturn subdivided into boiling and pressurizedwater reactors (BWRs and PWRs).

Some examples of large evolutionary ad-vanced LWRs are: the ABWR of General Elec-tric, United States; the APWR of Westinghouse,United States and Mitsubishi, Japan; the BWR-90 of ABB Atom, Sweden; the EPR of NuclearPower International (NPI), a joint company ofFramatome in France and Siemens in Germany;the S WR (or B WR) 1000 of Siemens; the System80+ of ABB Combustion Engineering, UnitedStates; the WWER-1000 (V-392) of Atomener-goproject and Gidropress, Russia; and theKNGR of KEPCO and KAERI, the Republic ofKorea. Among the medium-size ALWRs, fivetypical designs are the AP-600 of Westinghouse,United States; the AC-600 of China NationalNuclear Corporation, China; the MS-600 of Mit-subishi, Japan; the SBWR of General Electric,United States; and the WWER-640 (V-407) ofAtomenergoproject and Gidropress, Russia.Many of the large- and medium-size designs arealready available for commercial deployment, orwill be within a number of years.

The situation for developmental designs —such as ISIS of Ansaldo, Italy; PIUS of ABBAtom, Sweden; SPWR of JAERI and IHI, Japan;and VPBER-600 of OKBM, Russia — is moreuncertain. This is due to the need for experimen-tal verifications and associated financingburdens.


FEATURES

Typical examples of advanced HWRs underdevelopment are the advanced Canadian designs— Candu-3 (of about 450 MWe), the Candu-6(currently of about 680 MWe), and the Candudesigns (of 900-1100 MWe) of AECL, Canada— and the improved Indian PHWR design (ofabout 500 MWe).

Liquid metal-cooled fast reactors (LMFRs),or breeders, have been under development formany years in a number of countries. The design,construction, and operation of several plants,such as the BN-600 in Russia, the 1200-MWeSuperphenix in France, and the 280-MWeMonju in Japan, has provided extensive experi-ence of more than 200 reactor years for furtherimprovements. The fast reactors use "fast" neu-trons for sustaining the fission process, and theyactually produce fuel as well as consume it; plu-tonium breeding allows fast reactors to extractsixty times as much energy from uranium asthermal reactors do. Their capability of produc-ing fissile material may become indispensable inthe longer term if the deployment of nuclearpower is increased substantially in the decades tocome. Fast reactors may also contribute to burn-ing of plutonium and to reduction of the requiredisolation time for high-level radioactive waste byburning of long-lived transuranic radioisotopes.

The further development of fast reactors fo-cuses on improving plant safety and economy,and on improvements of fuel burnup and fuelrecycling technology to reduce the amounts ofradioactive waste. Examples of developmentconcepts are the BN-800M in Russia, the DFBRin Japan, the PFBR in India, the advanced Euro-pean EFR, and the LMR developed by GeneralElectric in the United States.

Gas-cooled reactors have been in operationfor many years. In the United Kingdom, nuclearelectricity is mostly generated in CO2-cooledMagnox and Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors(AGRs). Other countries also have pursued de-velopment of high-temperature reactors(HTGRs) with helium as coolant, and graphite asmoderator. Prototype or demonstration plantshave been built, without complete success, how-ever. The inert helium gas and a special fueldesign enable these plants to operate at tempera-tures considerably above those in water-cooledreactors; hence, they can supply steam for con-ventional steam turbine generators at muchhigher temperature (and pressure), or high-tem-perature process heat for special applications.

Further HTGR development concentrates onimproved plant performance and life extensionstudies. In particular, much effort is devoted tothe direct gas-turbine cycle which may yield veryhigh thermal efficiency and low energy cost. Ademonstration plant for testing of high tempera-

ture process heat applications is under construc-tion in Japan, and construction of a test reactorhas begun in China.

Prospects for nuclear power

Nuclear power alone will not ensure secureand sustainable electricity supply worldwide, norwill it be the only means of reducing greenhousegas emissions, which continue to be a majorenvironmental concern. But it has a key role toplay. Studies of greenhouse gas emissions fromdifferent energy chains for electricity generationindicate that nuclear power is one of the cleaneroptions. (See graphs.)

A prerequisite for realizing the necessary re-vival of the nuclear option is that the technicaland economic performance of nuclear powerplants must improve. At the same time, plantsafety must be further enhanced and the issues ofwaste management and disposal must be moresatisfactorily addressed.

At the present time, nuclear power is amongthe cheapest sources of electricity generation inmany countries. Its competitive margin has beenreduced, however, by low fossil fuel prices andincreases in nuclear power plant capital costs,which are very much due to long constructionand licensing lead times. Rising market prices offossil fuels, in particular gas, and increased capi-tal and operating costs of fossil fired units due tothe required addition of abatement systems forenvironmental reasons may reverse this trend inthe coming decade. The economic advantage ofnuclear power can further be increased by theefforts of reactor designers to reduce capitalcosts by streamlining the reactor concepts, re-ducing the amount of material required, andshortening the construction times. Substantialprogress has been achieved in this regard andadditional gains are expected through the de-ployment of advanced reactors.

Financing nuclear power plants will remain akey issue, especially in developing countries.Technology adaptation, the development ofsmall- and medium-size reactors, and the imple-mentation of new financing approaches may al-leviate funding constraints and facilitate abroader deployment of nuclear power.

Nuclear power projections beyond 2000

Projecting nuclear power development is asomewhat difficult exercise. A number of factorscan influence policies and decision-making, andthe implementation of programmes cannot beassessed with certainty.


FEATURES

Up to the year 2000, the installed nuclearcapacity worldwide will grow to between 367GWe and 375 GWe, compared to 340 GWe in1994, according to IAEA estimates. Since all theunits to be commissioned by the turn of thecentury are already under construction, the rangeof uncertainty reflects potential delays in con-struction and licensing. New nuclear units willbe connected to the grid mainly in Asia, while inWestern Europe and North America the installednuclear capacity will remain practically un-changed. In Eastern Europe, although some ofthe units under construction will be completed,the economic transition will delay significantlythe implementation of nuclear programmes inmost countries.

After the turn of the century, the range ofuncertainty regarding nuclear power develop-ment is wider, owing to a number of technical,economic, environmental, and policy factors.The low and high projections for nuclear gener-ating capacity developed by the IAEA up to 2015are based upon a review of nuclear power pro-jects and programmes in Member States. Theyreflect contrasting but not extreme underlyingassumptions on the different driving factors thathave an impact on nuclear power deployment.These factors and the ways they might evolvevary from country to country. Consequently, theIAEA projections do not reflect the whole rangeof possible futures from the lowest to the highestfeasible, but provide a plausible range of nuclearcapacity growth by region and worldwide.

In the low case, the current barriers to nuclearpower deployment are assumed to prevail inmost countries during the coming two decades.Economic and electricity demand growth ratesremain low in industrialized countries. Publicopposition to nuclear power continues, and envi-ronmental concerns, such as the risk of globalclimate change, do not become strong drivingfactors in energy policies to switch from fossil tonuclear energy. Institutional and financing issuesprevent the implementation of previouslyplanned nuclear programmes, in particular incountries in transition and in developing coun-tries, and there is no drastic enhancement regard-ing nuclear technology adaptation and transfer,nor financial support to developing countries forthe implementation of nuclear power projects.

Under these rather pessimistic assumptions,most of the nuclear units under constructionwould be completed but new nuclear units wouldbe ordered only in the countries where nuclearpower is a major component of electricity gen-eration mixes, such as France, Japan, and theRepublic of Korea. Owing to the large number ofunits that would be shut down at the end of theirscheduled operating lifetime, the total nuclear

capacity in the world would start to decreaseafter 2010 and would be similar in 2015 to thatin 2000, i.e., at some 370 GWe. The share ofnuclear power in world electricity supply woulddecrease from about 17% at present to some 13%in 2015.

The high case reflects a moderate revival ofnuclear power deployment, that might result inparticular from a more comprehensive compara-tive assessment of the different options for elec-tricity generation, integrating economic, social,health, and environmental aspects. This case as-sumes that some policy measures would be takento facilitate the implementation of these pro-grammes, such as strengthening of internationalco-operation, enhanced technology adaptationand transfer, and establishment of innovativefunding mechanisms. Based on these assump-tions, the total installed nuclear capacity world-wide would reach some 515 GWe in 2015 andthe share of nuclear power in total electricitygeneration would be some 15%.

In both the low and high cases, the produc-tion capabilities of the world nuclear industrywould exceed the demand for new reactors. Ahigher rate of nuclear power development wouldbe technically feasible and economically viablein a number of countries. However, a substantiverevival of nuclear power programmes would re-quire policy measures, including a removal ofthe de facto moratoria in several countries andthe introduction of mechanisms for providingfunding support to nuclear projects in developingcountries, which seem unlikely to be imple-mented in the short term.

Other applications of nuclear energy

Today, only a few nuclear plants are beingused for non-electric applications (with a totalcapacity of only 5 GWth to supply hot water andsteam). The potential market for applications ofnuclear energy in the non-electric energy sectormay be quite large, however. About 30% of theworld's primary energy consumption is used forelectricity generation, about 15% is used fortransportation, and the remaining 55% is con-verted into hot water, steam, and heat. Non-elec-tric applications include desalination, hot waterfor district heating, and heat energy for petro-leum refining, for the petrochemical industry,and for the conversion of hard coal or lignite.

For non-electric applications, the specifictemperature requirements vary greatly. Hotwater for district heating and heat for seawaterdesalination require temperatures in the 80° to200°C range, whereas temperatures in the 250° to550°C range are required for petroleum refining


FEATURES

processes. The use of heat for enhancing heavyoil recovery can be applied by the method of hotwater or steam injection. The temperature andpressure conditions required for heavy oil recov-ery are highly dependent on the geological con-ditions of the oil field; the temperature require-ments range up to 550°C and above. Oil shaleand oil sand processing requires temperaturesranging from 300° to 600°C, and processes usedin the petrochemical industry require higher tem-peratures, in the range of 600° to 880°C. Stillhigher temperatures (up to 950°C) are needed forrefining hard coal or lignite (for example, toproduce methanol for transportation fuel), andtemperatures of 900° to 1000°C are necessary forthe production of hydrogen by water splitting.

Water-cooled reactors can provide heat up toabout 300°C, and liquid-metal-cooled fast reac-tors produce heat up to about 540°C. The gas-cooled reactors can provide even higher tem-peratures, about 650°C for advanced gas-cooled,graphite-moderated reactors (AGRs), and up to950° to 1000°C for high-temperature gas-cooledreactors (HTGRs).

There is considerable incentive to utilize thecapability of nuclear plants to provide co-genera-tion of electricity, steam, and heat for residentialand industrial purposes. Experience in co-gen-eration with water-cooled reactors has beengained in the Russian Federation, China, Can-ada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland,Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria. One of thelargest uses of nuclear process steam is at theBruce Nuclear Power Development Facility inOntario, Canada, where the Candu PHWRs arecapable of producing 6000 MWe of electricity aswell as process steam and heat for use by OntarioHydro and an adjacent industrial energy park.

An important milestone in the developmentof high-temperature nuclear process heat wasreached in March 1991 with the start of construc-tion of the HTTR (High Temperature Engineer-ing Test Reactor) at the Oarai Research Estab-lishment of the Japanese Atomic Energy Re-search Institute. It will be the first nuclear reactorin the world to be connected to a high-tempera-ture process heat utilization system.

Nuclear power in developing countries

Most nuclear power plants are located in in-dustrialized countries, but a number of develop-ing countries also are relying on the nuclearpower option. At the end of 1995, there were 73nuclear units (or about 16% of the total numberin the world) with a net capacity of close to 45GWe (about 13% of total worldwide capacity) inoperation in developing countries. The accumu-

lated operating experience of these plantsamounts to 850 reactor years, corresponding toan average of 11 years of operation per plant.

This means that nuclear power already is anestablished technology in a number of develop-ing countries. The deployment of nuclear poweris also expected to expand substantially in thenext decade. It can be noted that more than halfof the 39 units reported as "under construction"in 1995 were being built in developing coun-tries.

The world's energy demands are expected torise significantly in the coming decades. Theworld population has nearly doubled over the lastthree decades and will continue to increase.Forecasts are that by the year 2020 there will beabout eight billion people living on this planet,with some 90% or more of the population in-crease taking place in developing countries. Inthese countries, electricity consumption per cap-ita, which may be used as an indicator of stand-ard of living, is very low, about one or two ordersof magnitude below industrialized countries.

The high cost of building nuclear powerplants, however, and financing constraints havebecome major hurdles for many developingcountries. For countries with an existing infra-structure, established nuclear power pro-grammes, and an indigenous manufacturing ca-pability, the situation is not too bad; they needonly to import special components, equipmentand know-how from abroad, with a correspond-ing limited spending of foreign currency.

In most developing countries, a suitable in-frastructure and manufacturing capability is notavailable. They generally also have a currencythat is not convertible, which means that whenthey buy most of the plant equipment fromabroad, they must depend heavily on loans fromforeign banks or institutions.

In this context, it may be noted that whenconstructing the first nuclear power plant a pref-erable approach appears to be having a "turn-key" delivery, including a technology transferprogramme. In that way, the possibilities of mak-ing the first plant project a success, actually amatter of paramount importance for the accept-ability of a nuclear programme, would be thebest. Additionally, the transfer of technologywill enable the country to gradually develop itsown capabilities, and successively increase thedomestic participation in subsequent nuclearpower plant projects.

Some developing countries, such as China,India, and the Republic of Korea, have ambitiousprogrammes for deployment of nuclear power,and are also actively pursuing development oftheir own reactor designs. China has three nu-clear units in operation, of which one is of own


FEATURES

Role of the IAEA in Nuclear Power Development

Advanced Reactor Development. The earlydevelopment of nuclear power was conducted to alarge extent on a national basis. However, foradvanced reactors, international co-operation isplaying a greater role, and the IAEA promotesinternational co-operation in their development.Especially for designs incorporating innovativefeatures, international co-operation can play animportant role for pooling resources and expertisein areas of common interest to help meet the highcosts of development.

The Agency's programme in nuclear powertechnology development promotes technical infor-mation exchange and co-operation between Mem-ber States with major reactor development pro-grammes. It offers assistance to Member States withan interest in exploratory or research programmes,and publishes reports which are available to allMember States interested in the current status ofreactor development. Activities are focused on keyissues (for example safety concerns, high capitalcosts, complex and expensive operating proce-dures) which currently hinder further introductionof nuclear power.

IAEA activities in the development of water-cooled, liquid-metal-cooled, and gas-cooled reac-tors are co-ordinated by three international workinggroups (IWGs) which are committees of leaders innational programmes in these technologies. EachIWG meets periodically to serve as a global forumfor information exchange and progress reports onnational programmes, to identify areas of commoninterest for collaboration, and to advise the IAEAon its technical programmes and activities. Thisregular review is conducted in an open forum inwhich operating experience and development pro-grammes are frankly discussed. Smaller specialists'meetings are convened to review progress on se-lected technology areas in which there is a mutualinterest. For more general participation, larger tech-nical committee meetings, symposia, or workshopsare held. The IWGs sometimes advise the IAEA toestablish co-operative programmes in areas of com-mon interest in order to pool efforts on an interna-tional basis. These co-operative efforts are carriedout through co-ordinated research programmes(CRPs). CRPs are typically of a duration of 3 to 5years and often involve experimental activities.Such CRPs allow a sharing of efforts on an interna-tional basis to develop technology at a lower costthan would be required with separate national ef-forts, and to benefit from the experience and exper-tise of researchers from the participating institutes.

Nuclear Power Plant Personnel Training &Qualification. Agency activities in this area haveexpanded greatly since 1993. The main focus is theintroduction and use of a systematic approach totraining (SAT) for plant personnel to enhance theirqualification and competence and thus the safety

and reliability of plant operation and maintenance.Regulatory bodies in a number of Member Statesmandate or strongly recommended the SAT ap-proach to the training of nuclear power plant per-sonnel.

An International Working Group on NuclearPower Plant Personnel Training and Qualificationwas constituted in 1994 to provide advice concern-ing IAEA activities in this area and to promoteglobal co-operation. A new type of IAEA assistanceon personnel training has been introduced in theform of the Training Advisory Service (TAS). Onrequest from a Member State or nuclear powerplant, the IAEA organizes a TAS, which comprisestraining experts from various countries who wouldprovide technical advice and assistance on all as-pects of training, including the exchange of experi-ence and good practices.

Nuclear Power Plant Project Management.The IAEA provides assistance to requesting Mem-ber States in a variety of areas related to the use ofnuclear power for safe and economic electricitygeneration. This assistance is directed to nationalauthorities, operating organizations, and the indus-trial infrastructure that supports the planning andexecution of nuclear power project.

An important objective is to assist developingMember States in achieving self-sufficiency in thesystematic development and improvement of awide range of infrastructural facilities, includingorganizational structures and their management,transfer of tools and methodologies for project man-agement, and the feedback of construction experi-ence from successful project execution.

No less important is the problem of providingqualified human resources to plan, regulate, andimplement the nuclear power programme. Thus,programmes are being supported with the objectiveof creating an independent national training infra-structure that meets the needs of the nuclear indus-try. To this effect, ten projects for nuclear powerprogramme implementation are being put into serv-ice in eight countries in regions of the Middle East,Europe, Asia and the Pacific.

In order to complement assistance providedunder individual projects, topical training courses,workshops, and seminars are held on subject mat-ters selected for their relevance to country specificneeds and requirements. At the international levelmajor training courses are offered periodically forparticipants from all regions. These courses aredesigned to represent an effective transfer of tech-nology that helps create a base of trained personnelin developing countries. They cover subjects suchas strengthening project management, quality as-surance in nuclear power plant operation and main-tenance, qualification of nuclear power plant opera-tions personnel, and control and instrumentation innuclear power plants.

8 IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1996

FEATURES

design, and has ordered another two 950-MWeunits from abroad. It also plans construction of aWWER-1000, and is discussing construction ofCandus with AECL of Canada. The near-termprogramme includes serial production of a 600-MWe version of the indigenous PWR design thatis in operation at Qinshan, and further develop-ment of that type; construction of a heating reac-tor of its own design at Daqin; and constructionof a high temperature test reactor.

India has 10 plants in operation of which sixare PHWRs of own design, and another four areunder construction. Development activities areconcentrated on a 500-MWe PHWR and a 500-MWe fast, sodium-cooled breeder reactor.

The Republic of Korea has 11 units in opera-tion, all supplied by foreign vendors. With itslatter units, the country has entered a new era,bringing on line the first of a series of plantsbased on the System 80 of ABB CombustionEngineering for which more and more design,engineering, and equipment are supplied by Ko-rean companies. Five plants of this series and ofanother type are under construction, and a further11 plants are planned for the period up to 2006.Development also has begun on the next genera-tion reactor, with operation targeted for 2006.

Some other developments should also benoted: the supply to the Democratic Peoples Re-public of Korea of two PWR plants of KoreanStandard Nuclear Power Plant; Indonesia'srather firm plans on introduction of nuclearpower within some years; Thailand's interest innuclear power; the Islamic Republic of Iran'sdesire to get support for completing the Bushehrunits; Pakistan's construction of one 300-MWePWR and its discussions on the possibilities ofhaving a second such unit built; Morocco's de-sire to start a feasibility study on desalination ofseawater using nuclear-supplied heat; andEgypt's plans on utilization of nuclear power.

In Eastern Europe, Armenia has restarted oneof its nuclear plants; the Czech Republic has twounits under construction; Romania has four unitsunder construction; the Slovak Republic has fourunits under construction, and Ukraine has two(with plans for six) units under construction.

In Latin America, Argentina and Brazil eachhave one unit under construction. Argentina isalso developing its own nuclear reactor designs.Mexico has two plants in operation, but no firmplans for further construction; in the early 1980s,it had a very ambitious programme for nuclearpower development that had to be abandoned forfinancing reasons. It can also be noted that Vene-zuela has been discussing utilization of nuclearpower plants for heat and electricity generation;the heat is intended for improving the heavy oilextraction along the Orinoco river.

Challenges and prospects

Prospects for nuclear power should be as-sessed in the context of growing electricity de-mand and greater awareness of environmentalissues. Nuclear power alone will not solve all theproblems, but it will form part of the answers.

Over the near term, nuclear power projectswill be pursued mostly in Asian countries, in-cluding China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.In many other regions of the world, safe andreliable operation of nuclear power plants, con-vincing solutions to high-level nuclear wastestorage and disposal, and a predictable licensingprocess are essential prerequisites for the revivaland expansion of nuclear power.

Today, energy consumption trends reflect theimportant role that electricity plays in modern-ization efforts and in total energy use and effi-ciency improvements. Also increasingly evidentis that full participation in the information andcommunication age requires reliable sources ofelectricity. Studies have shown that there is adistinct correlation between the trends of elec-tricity consumption and national economic out-put in a wide range of countries. From 1960 to1990, the share of electricity in global energyconsumption has grown from 17% to 30% andthe annual consumption of electricity per capitahas almost tripled (from 765 to 2225 kWh perperson). Still, two billion people in the world donot have access to electricity in their homes.

For years ahead, it is quite obvious that percapita consumption of electricity in developingcountries will have to increase substantially tosustain economic growth and improve standards-of-living. The accelerating movement toward ur-banization, which allows easier access to electri-cal distribution systems, together with the elec-trification of rural areas, will also contribute to asteadily increasing role for electrical power. Inthe Republic of Korea, where nuclear power al-ready is a major producer, per capita electricityconsumption has grown from 70 kWh per year in1960 to almost 3200 kWh per year in 1992.

Over the next decades, the projected growthin the Earth's population, mostly in developingcountries, will place higher demands on energyand electricity supplies. According to the WorldEnergy Council, global consumption of electric-ity can be expected to increase between 50% to75% by the year 2020. The potential clearlyexists for nuclear power to play an important roleas a safe and clean source of electricity to helpcountries meet their future energy needs. •


FEATURES

Safety of RBMK reactors:Setting the technical framework

The IAEA's co-operative programme is consolidating the technicalbasis for further upgrading the safety of Chernobyl-type reactors

byLuis Lederman

In April 1986, unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclearpower plant in Ukraine was destroyed in theworst accident in the history of commercial nu-clear power. The reactor, which started operationin 1983, was a Soviet-designed nuclear powerplant known by the Russian acronym RBMK.

The RBMK evolved from Soviet uranium-graphite reactors whose purpose was the produc-tion of plutonium. The first of these plutoniumproduction reactors began operation in 1948. Sixyears later, in 1954, a demonstration 5-MWeRBMK-type reactor for electricity generationbegan operation in Obninsk. Subsequently a se-ries of RBMKs were developed using the combi-nation of graphite moderation and water coolingin a channel design.

Today 15 RBMK power reactors are produc-ing electricity in three States: 11 units in Russia,two in Ukraine, and two in Lithuania. The grosselectric power rating of all but two RBMKs is1000 MWe; the exceptions are the two units atIgnalina in Lithuania which are rated at 1300MWe gross.

All operating RBMKs were connected toelectric power grids during the period 1973 (Len-ingrad-1) to 1990 (Smolensk-3). They representdistinct generations of reactors having signifi-cant differences with respect to their safety de-sign features.

Six plants are considered "first-generation"units (Leningrad-1 and -2, Kursk-1 and -2, andChernobyl-1 and -2). They were designed andbrought on line in the early-to-mid 1970s, beforenew standards on the design and construction ofnuclear power plants (OPB-82) were introducedin the Soviet Union. Units brought on line sincethe late 1970s and early 1980s are generallygrouped as " second-generation" RBMKs (Len-ingrad-3 and -4; Kursk-3, and -4; Ignalina-1;

Mr. Lederman is Acting Head of the Safety AssessmentSection in the IAEA Department of Nuclear Safety.

Chernobyl-3; and Smolensk-1 and -2). Ignalina-2 contains safety features beyond those of othersecond generation units. These RBMKs weredesigned and constructed in accordance with theupdated standards issued in 1982.

After the Chernobyl accident, Soviet safetystandards were revised again (OPB-88). OneRBMK (Smolensk-3) has been built to these"third-generation" standards. Additional designchanges now are being incorporated in the con-struction of Kursk-5.

Over the past decade, a considerable amountof work has been carried out by Russian design-ers and operators to improve the safety of RBMKreactors and to eliminate the causes that led to theChernobyl accident. As a result, major designand operational modifications have been imple-mented. However, safety concerns remain, par-ticularly regarding the first-generation units.

This article reviews major efforts for improv-ing the safety of RBMK reactors through a co-operative IAEA programme initiated in 1992.(See box, page 12.) Specifically covered aretechnical findings of safety reviews related to thedesign and operation of the plants, and the docu-mentation of findings through an Agency data-base intended to facilitate the technical co-ordi-nation of ongoing national and international ef-forts for improving RBMK safety.

Scope of the RBMK safety programme

The IAEA's RBMK safety programme aimsto consolidate results of various national, bilat-eral, and multilateral activities and to establishinternational consensus on required safety im-provements and related priorities. It assists bothregulatory and operating organizations and pro-vides a basis for technical and financial decisions.A wide range of activities are covered, and since1992, a number of reviews and assessments havebeen conducted. Smolensk-3 and Ignalina-2


FEATURES

RBMK nuclear power plants

Operating units:

Lithuania. Two 1300-MWe units at Ig-nalina. Start of commercial operation: Ignalina-1in 1984; Ignalina-2 in 1987

Russian Federation. Eleven 1000-MWeunits: four units at Kursk; four units at Leningrad;three units at Smolensk. Start of commercial op-eration: Kursk-1 in 1977; Kursk-2 in 1979;Kursk-3 in 1984; Kursk-4 in 1986. Leningrad-1in 1974; Leningrad-2 in 1976; Leningrad-3 in1980; Leningrad-4 in 1981. Smolensk-1 in 1983;Smolensk-2 in 1985; Smolensk-3 in 1990.

Ukraine. Two units at Chernobyl. Start ofcommercial operation: Chernobyl-1 (780-MWe)in 1978; Chernobyl-3 (1000-MWe) in 1982.Notes: Chemobyl-2 shut down since 1991; Cher-nobyl-4 destroyed in April 1986 accident.

Units under construction:

Russian Federation. Kursk-S, a 1000-MWeunit whose construction began in December 198S.

Operating RBMKs(light-water cooled,graphite-moderated reactor)

have served as RBMK reference plants duringthe programme's first phase.

The IAEA conducted a first review of safetyimprovements proposed for RBMKs in October1992. In June 1993, a safety assessment of designsolutions and proposed safety improvements ofSmolensk-3 was organized. It was conducted byan international group of experts and IAEA staffover a period of 2 weeks at the plant site.Smolensk-3 is the most advanced of the operat-ing RBMK plants and its design incorporatessafety improvements identified from analyses ofthe Chernobyl accident and other studies. Asimilar review was performed for the Ignalinaunits in October 1994.

Additionally, the Agency's Assessment ofSafety Significant Event Teams (ASSET) havereviewed the plant-specific operational experi-ence at all RBMK sites. An Operational SafetyReview Team (OSART) mission also was con-ducted at Ignalina in September 1995.

Experts also have reviewed the design ofplant shutdown systems at Smolensk-3. The re-view — the subject of an IAEA consultants'meeting in Switzerland in December 1993 —was based on IAEA Nuclear Safety Standards(NUSS) documents; national standards (Russia,Canada, and Germany); and regulatory practicesof the Organization for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD). International expertsfully supported the intent of Russian designers toimprove the RBMK shutdown systems.

Another matter receiving attention has beenthe analysis of a multiple pressure tube rupture inRBMK-type reactors. At a topical meeting inMoscow in January 1994, participants examinedthe relevant regulatory approaches adopted inMember States operating channel-type reactorsand reviewed the methodology, criteria, and re-sults from safety analyses. They agreed on theurgent need to validate computer codes used forstudying loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) sce-narios in RBMKs. In November 1994, at anIAEA consultants' meeting in Japan, a validationmatrix for code calculation was established, andin 1995 the IAEA started an international exer-cise based on experimental results made avail-able by Japan.

Activities of the IAEA's RBMK safety pro-gramme are co-ordinated with those of an inter-national consortium on the "Safety of DesignSolutions and Operation of Nuclear Power Plantswith RBMK Reactors" established under aus-pices of the European Commission. The two pro-grammes use the same RBMK reference plants.

With the completion in 1994 of the safetyreviews of Smolensk-3 and Ignalina-2, these twoprogrammes reached important milestones. To

IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1996 11

FEATURES

RBMK Safety Programme

At the start of the 1990s, the IAEA initiated aprogramme to assist countries of Central andEastern Europe and the former Soviet Unionin evaluating the safety of their first generationWWER-440/230 nuclear power plants. Themain objectives were: to identify major designand operational safety issues; to establishinternational consensus on priorities for safetyimprovements; and to provide assistance in thereview of the completeness and adequacy ofsafety improvement programmes. Theprogramme's scope was extended in 1992 toinclude RBMK, WWER-440/213, andWWER-1000 plants in operation and underconstruction. It is complemented by nationaland regional technical co-operation projects.

Programme elements include plant-spe-cific safety reviews to assess the adequacy ofdesign and operational practices; reviews un-der the IAEA's Assessment of Safety Signifi-cant Events Team (ASSET) service; reviewsof plant design, including seismic safety stud-ies; and topical meetings on generic safetyissues. Additionally, follow-up safety missionsare conducted to nuclear plants to check the statusof IAEA recommendations; assessments aremade of safety improvements implemented orproposed; peer reviews of safety studies are per-formed; assistance is provided to strengthenregulatory authorities; and training workshopsare organized. A database also is maintained ontechnical safety issues identified for each plantand the status of safety improvements.

As an extra-budgetary programme, activi-ties depend on voluntary contributions fromIAEA Member States. Steering Committeesprovide co-ordination and guidance on techni-cal matters and serve as forums for exchangeof information with the European Commission(EC) and with other international and financialorganizations. The programme takes into ac-count the results of relevant national, bilateral,and multilateral activities, and thus provides aframework in which an international consen-sus can be reached on the technical basis forupgrading the safety of WWER and RBMKnuclear power plants. The IAEA further pro-vides technical advice within the co-ordinationstructure established by the Group of 24 OECDcountries through the European Commission.

The programme's results, recommenda-tions, and conclusions are only intended toassist national decision-makers who have soleresponsibility for the regulation, upgrading,and safe operation of their nuclear powerplants. They facilitate but do not replace the needfor comprehensive safety assessments in theframework of the national licensing process.

make results available to the international tech-nical community, the IAEA convened a techni-cal meeting in May-June 1995. Results fromboth the IAEA and EC programmes were pre-sented, thereby reflecting the large amount ofwork done by the international experts and Rus-sian organizations to review the safety of RBMKnuclear power plants.

Both projects produced a large number ofrecommendations for enhancing the safety ofRBMK plants. Most of them correlate with themeasures already included in national pro-grammes for RBMK units which are under wayin Russia, Lithuania, and Ukraine.

Based on the initial phase of its programme,the IAEA prepared a consolidated list of designand operational safety issues for RBMKs. Forthis work, a database of findings and recommen-dations for RBMKs compiled by the IAEA wasused. All findings and recommendations fromthe various technical meetings, safety reviews ofSmolensk and Ignalina, and ASSET reports ofthe EC's International Consortium were col-lected in the database and further grouped bytopical areas into safety issues. Also included isplant-specific safety information provided by themain design institute for RBMK reactors inMoscow.

The Agency's database has an interface withthe databank established by the G-24 NuclearSafety Co-ordination Group, thus making jointanalyses of safety topics and assistance projectseasier.

Results from the IAEA programme

The IAEA's programme identifies 58 RBMKsafety issues related to seven topical areas. Issuesrelated to six design areas are further rankedaccording to their perceived impact on plantsafety. Safety issues connected to operationalareas, particularly those related to the assuranceof a high degree of safety culture, are all consid-ered very important.

The ranking of a safety issue does not neces-sarily imply that all the proposed recommenda-tions have the same urgency for implementation.Therefore, recommendations have to be furtherconsidered on a plant-specific basis.

Two broad issues addressing quality assur-ance (QA) and regulatory matters are not specifi-cally attributed to any particular topical area, butthey are recognized as affecting all areas. Fromthe QA standpoint, the main concern relates toensuring the use of the actual plant status andconfiguration for various analyses, safety re-views, and safety improvements. Another aspectis ensuring that the relevant design documentation


FEATURES

RBMK Technical Overview

The reactor core of an RBMK is constructedof closely packed graphite blocks stacked intocolumns and provided with axial openings.Most of the openings contain fuel channels.Some also serve other purposes (e.g.instrumentation and control) and are called"special channels". The graphite stack iscontained within a cylindrical steel vessel, 14meters in diameter, which acts as a support forthe graphite stack and as a container for thehelium-nitrogen gas mixture.

The total mass of the graphite within thecore is 1700 tons. About 6% of the reactor'sthermal energy is generated in the graphitestack. The helium-nitrogen mixture im-proves the heat transfer from the graphite tothe channels, protects the graphite from oxi-dation at its operating temperature of about650° C and, through gas sampling, formspart of the integrity monitoring system.

There are 1661 fuel channels in the verti-cal ducts of the graphite columns; these chan-nels are tubes 88 millimeters in diameter madeof a zirconium niobium alloy. Each fuel chan-nel contains two fuel assemblies, one abovethe other, each of them containing 18 fuel rodsthat are 13.6 millimeters in diameter, enclosedin the zirconium niobium cladding. The totalfuel length of the core is about 7 meters.

Number and Category of RBMK Safety Issues

Topical area

Core design and core monitoringInstrumentation and controlPressure boundary integrityAccident analysisSafety and support systemsFire protectionOperational safety

Total

Numberof safetyissues

identified

677

10105

13*

58

Number of safety issues incategory

High

524341

19

Medium

152

763

24

Low

001001

2

* Not ranked, but considered very important and improvements should be implemented inparallel with design modifications.

High: Issues that reflect insufficient defense-in-depth and have a majorimpact on plant safety. Short-term actions have to be initiated toimprove safety as applicable to each specific nuclear power plantuntil the issue is fully resolved.

Medium: Issues that reflect insufficient defense-in-depth and have asignificant impact on plant safety. Short-term actions might benecessary to improve safety as applicable to each nuclear powerplant until the issue is fully resolved.

Low: Issues that reflect insufficient defense-in-depth and have a smallimpact on plant safety. Actions are desirable to improvedefense-in-depth, if applicable and effective from a cost-benefitpoint of view.

1 Reactor2 Fuel channel3 Water pipelines4 Steam pipelines5 Steam separator6 Downcomer7 MCP suction header8 Main circulation pump9 MCP header bypass10 MCP pressure header11 Mechanical filter12 Flow limiter13 Group distribution header14 Isolation and control valve15 Mixer16 Feedwater valve assembly17 Steam headers18 Main relief valve (MRV)19 Steam dump valve20 Turbine trip valve21 Turbogenerator22 Condenser23 Condensate pump24 Condensate purification25 Heater26 Deaerator27 Auxiliary feedwater pump28 Feedwater pump29 Blowdown regenerator

21

30 Cooldown pump31 Blowdown afterheat32 Bypass purification

33 ALSpool34 Emergency water tank35 Emergency feedwater pump


FEATURES

RBMK Basic Design and Safety Improvements

Major safety improvements have beenimplemented in RBMKs since the Chernobylaccident in April 1986. They address both thedirect causes of the accident and other safetyshortcomings which have been identified invarious analyses.

Reactor Core. Safety modifications directlyrelated to the Chernobyl accident focus on reduc-ing the void reactivity coefficient and improvingthe control rod design. These modifications havebeen implemented in all RBMKs. Main measurestaken to reduce the void coefficient include:• loading additional absorbers. The number of

additional absorbers varies from 85 to 103depending on the reactor. Technical specifica-tions require at least 81 additional absorbers.

• increasing the fuel enrichment from 2.0% to2.4%.

• controlling the operational reactivity margin(ORM). The ORM fully inserted value is con-trolled between 43 and 48 equivalent controlrods.Emergency Protection System (EPS).

Three safety improvements were carried out toimprove the EPS efficiency and speed of re-sponse. The manual control rods were replaced byrods of an improved design. This includes elimi-nation of the water column at the bottom end ofthe reactor control and protection system chan-nels, and increasing the neutron absorbing section.The rod drives were also modified, reducing thetime required to insert the rods fully into the corefrom 19 to 12 seconds. These two measures haveimproved the EPS response efficiency during thefirst few seconds of rod insertion. As a thirdmeasure, a fast-acting EPS was developed andinstalled in all operating reactors. This system canfully insert 24 control rods in less than 2.5 sec-onds, or in 7 seconds depending on the emergencysignal activated.

Control and Monitoring System. Othermeasures were taken to improve the control andmonitoring system. They include manual reactortrip when the power falls below 700 MW(th); andmanual trip if the ORM is less than 30 equivalentcontrol rods.

Pressure Boundary. Two independent loopsprovide cooling for each half of the reactor core.Each loop contains four main coolant pumps andassociated piping. The pressure in the system is 7MPa.

Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS).For Smolensk-3, the design basis accident for theECCS is a double-ended guillotine break of a 900mm tube and loss of off-site electric power. Thiscorresponds to a break in the main circulationpump pressure headers or suction header. In theevent of such an accident, the ECCS makes pro-

vision for both fast-acting cooling of the core andlong-term decay heat removal. The long-termcooling system comprises six emergency corecooling pumps taking suction from the accidentlocalization system (ALS) for cooling the dam-aged half of reactor and three pumps taking suc-tion from the tanks for pure condensate for coolingthe non-damaged half of the reactor. Both sets ofpumps are electrically driven with their powersupplies backed up by diesel generators.

Design modifications not related to the causesof the Chernobyl accident are being introduced atfirst and second generations RBMK plants.Among other steps, these include: increasing thenumber of emergency feedwater pumps fromthree to five and the number of ECCS lines fromone to two; installing additional ECCS pumps(three for cooling the damaged core side and threefor cooling the undamaged side) and the associ-ated three divisions of piping; installing checkvalves between the distribution group headers andthe main coolant pump discharge header; andinstalling large capacity accumulators.

Accident Localization System. RBMKs areprotected by an Accident Localization System(ALS). This pressure suppression system enclosespart of the main circulation circuit and consists ofleak-tight compartments. All main pipelines,headers, and components carrying cooling waterare part of the ALS. The ALS differs considerablyin design from one plant to another. The reactorcoolant system of first-generation RBMKs is notenclosed in a leak-tight ALS, as is the case at theother RBMKs. Even in these other RBMKs, how-ever, only part of the reactor coolant circuit is con-fined by an ALS of pressure compartments.

Reactor Cavity Overpressure ProtectionSystem (RCOPS). This is an important part of theRBMK's safety system. The cause of overpres-surization is postulated to be a failure of pressuretubes inside the reactor cavity. Relief is providedby tubes which connect the reactor cavity to theALS via a water lock. The design basis accidentof RBMK safety analyses is the rupture of onetube. The system has the capacity for two or threechannel tube ruptures (for first and second genera-tion units, respectively) which reflects a safetymargin over the design basis accident. For first-generation units, the steam discharge system ventsthe steam/gas mixture from the cavity to a con-denser, with the gas subsequently held up andreleased through the stack.

To improve the capacity of the RCOPS, workis being conducted in stages for all units. AtSmolensk-3, the existing system already has thecapacity for the simultaneous rupture of up to ninepressure tubes under conservative assumptions ofsimultaneous ruptures.


FEATURES

is updated as the plant configuration is modifiedand upgraded. It is therefore of utmost impor-tance that the organizational structure promotesawareness of safety concerns, responds quicklyin evaluating these concerns, and implementstimely corrective actions if they are warranted.

Exactly how and when identified safety is-sues are addressed is a matter to be resolvedbetween the operating organization and the regu-latory body. The IAEA safety reviews are in-tended to help by providing international exper-tise to assist in this process. The reviews drawupon the IAEA's NUSS publications, the Rus-sian regulations, and national practices. Recom-mendations and conclusions are only intended toprovide an additional technical basis for deci-sions to improve the safety of RBMKs. Nationalauthorities have sole responsibility for the regu-lation and safe operation of their nuclear powerplants. Therefore, the results do not replace acomprehensive safety assessment which needs tobe performed in the frame of the national licens-ing process.

Overview of Technical Findings

Core Design and Core Monitoring. The di-rect causes of the Chernobyl accident were re-lated to the reactor core design. Therefore, safetyimprovements have been initially focused onidentified shortcomings related to core physics.

To date, considerable work has been com-pleted to decrease the core void reactivity coeffi-cient and to increase the efficiency of the shut-down system. However, important issues remainto be resolved. They include the problem of thevoid reactivity associated with the loss of coolantfrom channels of the control and protection sys-tem (CPS); and the issue of independent anddiverse reactor shutdown. International expertsthus strongly support the intent of Russian de-signers to develop and modernize the RBMKCPS to provide a higher safety level.

Another issue of high significance to safetyrelates to the operational reactivity margin (ORM).The ORM has to be controlled in order to maintainthe void reactivity coefficient, the effectiveness ofthe shutdown system, and the power distributionwithin defined safety limits. With the present de-sign, it is the responsibility of the operator alone tokeep the ORM within the corresponding limits.IAEA programme experts have recommended theautomation of shutdown actions when the ORMvalue falls below the safety limits.

Other aspects of importance concern theprocess of analyzing RBMK design and safety.Such analyses have been done using calcula-tional tools available at that time. These tools

(e.g. computer codes) generally did not have thecapability to adequately model spatial interac-tions between neutronics and thermohydraulics.Consequently, efforts are being directed at thedevelopment of three-dimensional methods foranalyzing neutron fields, coolant density, andtemperature distribution of fuel and graphite.IAEA programme experts have recommendedthat these methods be used to confirm results ofprevious safety analyses as well as for furtherstudies.

Instrumentation and Control (I&C). Themajor concerns related to the segregation be-tween the electronic systems and the level ofdiversity present in the most important systemsand equipment. For example, the flux controlsystem shares many common elements with theshutdown system. Although there is consider-able resilience in the system due to the high levelof redundancy, the two systems would be vulner-able to common mode failure, and thus controland protection could be lost simultaneously. TheEmergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) is in-itiated by a combination of signals. However,there is no sufficient assurance that the systemresponds promptly nor that the actuation equip-ment is designed against single failures.

A safety issue ranked as "medium" is thereplacement of the station's main computers.The situation differs from site to site. The equip-ment in Ignalina, for example, is showing dis-tinct signs of ageing with thermally inducedwarping of boards and embrittlement of the plas-tic edge connectors.

A number of other issues related to I&Ccould be improved by local measures at the plant.These include test and maintenance proceduresand the recording and use of failure data.

Pressure Boundary Integrity. Some primarycoolant circuit components and piping are out-side of the accident localization system. In first-generation RBMKs, a guillotine break in thepiping can result in damage to civil structures.Application of the leak-before-break conceptwould reduce the risk of primary coolant circuitfailures. Work is going on to demonstrate the appli-cability of this concept for RBMK conditions andto implement the method and techniques.

To date, there have been three single-channelruptures due to the blockage of water flow or animbalance in the flow-to-power ratio. Recom-mendations therefore call for analyzing and im-plementing, as feasible, the reduction of thenumber of in-line components, whose failure canblock water flow.

The IAEA programme's safety reviews indi-cate that at some plants operation has continuedeven though the frequency and the number ofexaminations required by national regulations


FEATURES

for the reactor pressure boundary are not per-formed, or when the results have not been satis-factory. The existing time schedules for imple-menting modifications, performing additionalanalysis, and maintaining required record-keep-ing are sometimes not followed. Criteria forlimiting plant operation in these cases are notestablished.

The required volume of in-service inspection(ISI) is not fulfilled in practice. It was found thatin some cases the required number of fuel chan-nels was not inspected. The approach adopted atRBMK plants to repair identified critical defectsdiffers from the predictive approach adopted forISI elsewhere. Pre-service inspection recordsand ISI predictive records are not maintained.The existing equipment and procedures are in-adequate to give reproducible measurements ofsmall defects below the critical size.

Accident Analysis. The scope of analysis ofpostulated accidents available in the technicaljustification of safety (TOB) for RBMKs wasdetermined by national regulations effectivewhen the TOB was issued. Compared to currentpractices, it was found to be limited and therelated information usually does not provide aclear description of assumptions used in theanalysis. Computer codes used at the time ofRBMK design were of limited modeling capabil-ity. The lack of an experimental database on piperupture of the primary heat transport system lim-ited the possibility of integral code validation.More modern Russian codes and some Westerncodes now are being used, but they have not beensufficiently validated for modeling RBMKs.

The review further found a number of areasto be incomplete, including the analysis of De-sign Basis Accidents (DBA); the adequacy of thecodes, database, validation, and documentationfor the analysis of loss-of-coolant accidents; andthe sensitivity to parameter variations and uncer-tainties. Additionally, anticipated transientswithout scram (ATWS) were considered of highsafety significance and the analysis of theseevents needs to be performed.

The completeness of such analysis is of ut-most importance to ensure the safe plant design.The analysis should identify possible shortcom-ings of the existing design and be performedusing modern and qualified methods. As designchanges are implemented in the plants, the analy-sis also needs to be updated. An example of thisprocess is the safety analysis report (SAR) worknow being performed for the Ignalina plant.

A useful tool in identifying weaknesses andprioritizing improvements is probabilistic safetyassessment (PSA). Therefore the performanceand peer review of a plant-specific PSA for allRBMKs is recommended.

Safety and Support Systems. In general, ithas been found that the high redundancy whichexists in several of the front-line safety systemsis not present to the same extent in supportingsystems, such as the service water and intermedi-ate cooling systems. Moreover, the high level ofredundancy in the safety systems cannot alwaysbe given full credit due to potential commoncause failures.

The reliability of the safety systems is de-pendent on the system design and alignment andon operational parameters, such as maintenanceand testing procedures and emergency operatingprocedures. Therefore, a strong tie needs to bemaintained between this area and the develop-ment of emergency operating procedures andtesting procedures.

In general, it has been found that the differ-ences between the plants are so important thatrecommendations in this area have to be evalu-ated on a plant-specific basis.

Fire Protection. Passive fire protection canaddress fire safety problems in an effective way.Passive fire protection comprises all the meas-ures that are put in place before the start ofoperation and are not expected to need any hu-man or mechanical action in case of fire. Thebasis for prevention of fire damage is the mini-mization of the amount of burnable material andfire loads. Total elimination of burnable materialis preferred, but where this is not possible, thefire load has to be separated into different firecompartments. The basis for compartmentationis the separation of safety significant equipmentfrom each other and from hazardous substances.Compartment boundaries should consist of fixedfire barriers such as walls, floors, ceiling, andmechanical and electrical penetration seals. Alsowithin compartments, important elements mayneed fire separation. This may take place throughdistance or local separative elements.

Fire risks were not adequately considered inthe design phase of RBMK reactors when pas-sive measures could have easily been imple-mented. However, much work has been doneafterwards. Removal of the largest fire load, theplastic floor coating, has started gradually. Im-provement of compartmentation has been carriedout by upgrading fire doors and penetration seal-ings. Within the compartments the main im-provement effort has been the covering of cableswith a fire resistant protective coating.

These problems have already been tackled tosome extent in some RBMK units. In other casesthis has been taken care of by a newer design, bynational upgrading programmes, or by bilat-eral/international assistance programmes.

Throughout the plant, all areas with burnablematerial should be provided with fire detection


FEATURES

equipment connected to a proper alarm system.The existing systems need both extension andquality upgrading. Some plants have startedthese measures as a part of their own upgradingprogramme, and some in connection with bilat-erally or internationally financed programmes.

Manual fire suppression capability is gener-ally very strong at nuclear power plants in theformer Soviet Union. This applies to the numberand the training of fire brigade personnel. Defi-ciencies, however, exist in the personal protec-tive equipment, communication equipment, andfire fighting equipment, such as fire extinguish-ers, hoses, and nozzles.

Automatic fire suppression is mainly realizedthrough fixed water sprinkler and deluge extin-guishing systems. Local carbon dioxide or foamextinguishing systems also exist. The reliabilityand coverage of the existing systems need evalu-ation. Automatic fixed water extinguishing sys-tems should be added to some compartmentswhich so far have not been fully protected.

The reliable supply of water assures properavailability and operation of both manual andautomatic fire suppression capability. However,differences between sites and the different gen-erations of RBMKs are extensive and measuresof different magnitude are needed.

Operational Safety. Past experience in theoperation of nuclear power plants confirms theimportant role of plant personnel in assuring nu-clear safety. Considerable attention has beengiven to the study of human factors in plantoperation. Overall, it has been found that theoperational safety of RBMKs can be upgraded.

Identified safety issues include those relating tothe training of operators; operating and emer-gency management procedures; and surveil-lance, maintenance, and control of plant modifi-cations. Recommendations have been made inthese areas and should be implemented in parallelwith proposed design and safety improvements.

A stronger technical basis

On the basis of national and multilateralsafety reviews, the main safety concerns of themore modern RBMK nuclear power plants havebeen identified and the required safety improve-ments have been agreed upon.

Despite the work carried out to date, safetyconcerns remain, particularly those related to thefirst-generation units. Future IAEA activitieswill focus on assisting in the review of first-gen-eration units and on streamlining efforts to re-solve generic safety issues.

Up-to-date information on the plant-specificstatus of operating RBMKs is essential for aneffective exchange of technical information andfor the co-ordination of national and interna-tional efforts to improve nuclear safety. The da-tabase established by the IAEA is an effectivetool to facilitate this co-ordination. The workahead will enable the compilation of moreplant-specific information in the interests oftracking the status of safety improvements andidentifying areas where more efforts need to betaken. •

Participants in the safetyreview at the Smolenskplant under the IAEA'sextra-budgetary RBMKsafety programme.


FEATURES

Chernobyl & the marine environment:The radiological impact in context

Scientists at the IAEA's Marine Environment Laboratory inMonaco have played an integral role in post-Chernobyl studies

byPavel Povinec,

Scott Fowler,and Murdoch

Baxter

I he Chernobyl nuclear accident in April 1986had a significant impact on both the terrestrialand marine environments. The total activity ofthe nuclear debris released was so high (1-2.1018

becquerel) that the radioactive fallout distributedwidely after the accident actually dominated an-thropogenic environmental levels in variousparts of the world.

Concentrations of anthropogenic radionu-clides generally vary from region to region, ac-cording to the location and magnitude of thedifferent sources of contamination. The mainglobal contribution to marine radioactivity, as inthe terrestrial environment, is still from falloutfrom nuclear tests in the atmosphere, particularlyduring the 1950s and 1960s.

However, in some regions, like the Irish andNorth Seas, the concentrations of anthropogenicradionuclides (e.g. caesium-137 and plutonium-239) in the marine environment have been sig-nificantly influenced by discharges (e.g. fromEuropean reprocessing plants). On the otherhand, the Baltic and Black Seas have been theseas most affected by the Chernobyl accident. Inall these latter regions the spatial and temporaltrends in the concentrations of anthropogenicradionuclides have been quite dynamic. They area result of changing source terms and marineprocesses, including horizontal and verticaltransport in seawater, marine sedimentation, re-suspension from sediment and biological uptake,and food-chain transfer.

IAEA-MEL tracer studies

The Chernobyl accident, perhaps surpris-ingly, was of considerable interest to oceanogra-

Mr Baxter is the Director, Mr. Fowler, Head of the Radio-ecology Section; and Mr Povinec, Head of the Radiomet-rics Section of the IAEA's Marine Environment Laboratoryin Monaco.

phers around the world. The accidental release ofsubstantial amounts of radioactivity to the at-mosphere essentially initiated a worldwide tran-sient tracer experiment on a scale that wouldnever have been planned deliberately. Shortlyafter the accident, fission and activation productsreleased by the fire entered marine watersthroughout Europe. They became involved inmany of the elemental cycles that oceanogra-phers have for decades been trying to charac-terize using a wide variety of conventional tech-niques. Suddenly, immediately after the Cher-nobyl accident, a suite of radioactive tracers be-came available as a pulse to trace, rather like acoloured dye, the movement of elements throughthe oceans. IAEA-MEL scientists took part inthis exciting and serendipitous experimentthrough temporal radionuclide monitoring ofboth the coastal and open ocean ecosystems.

For open sea work, one of the most importantinnovations in marine monitoring over the past15 years has been the development of sedimenttraps to directly measure fluxes of materials as-sociated with sinking particles. Moored sedimenttraps can be left unattended at any depth in theocean to collect discrete, time-series samples atpre-determined intervals.

As part of a joint French-IAEA study of openMediterranean particle flux, in mid-April 1986,IAEA-MEL scientists had, by a happy coincidenceof timing, moored their automated time-series sedi-ment trap at a depth of 200 meters in the LigurianSea between Monaco and the island of Corsica. Inorder to study timescale changes in particle flux,each of the six trap collection cups was set tosample sinking particles for consecutive periods of6.25 days. Following the accident on 26 April,atmospheric measurements made at Monaco byIAEA-MEL indicated that most of the peak Cher-nobyl fallout entered the Ligurian Sea essentially asa single pulse during the period 4-5 May.

The sediment trap was retrieved on 22 Mayand the paniculate material, along with other


FEATURES

Top: As part of an IAEA-MEL training course in Istanbul inNovember 1994, scientists collect sediment samples in theMarmara Sea using the University of Istanbul's ship. Left A teamof IAEA-MEL scientists deploy a sediment trap such as the onesused during their post-Chernobyl marine studies. Above: Typicalparticles collected in sediment traps include oval, rectangular, andcylindrical fecal pellets produced by zooplankton that are activelyfeeding on micro-organisms. (Credits: IAEA-MEL).


FEATURES

marine samples, was analyzed for radioactivityby gamma spectrometry. The radioanalysesshowed that the primary pulse of paniculate ra-dionuclides arrived at 200 meters depth between8 and 15 May, that is only about seven days afterpeak radioactivity was delivered to the sea sur-face. The time lag implied an average sinkingspeed of the radioactive particles of approxi-mately 30 meters per day. This pulse of radioac-tivity sinking through 200 meters was particu-larly evident for the particle-reactive fissionproducts (e.g. zirconium, niobium, and ceriumradionuclides) which were either not detectableor present in very low amounts in the last sedi-ment trap sample collected after 15 May.

The rapid descent of these radionuclides on atimescale of a few days indicated that they werenot sinking as fallout particles according toStokesian settling models. Rather, they were in-corporated into large aggregates which areknown to sink at speeds of tens to hundreds ofmeters per day.

From earlier laboratory research at IAEA-MEL, it was suspected at the time of the accidentthat biological activity in surface waters might beresponsible for absorbing radionuclides like asponge and removing them to depth. Primaryproduction of minute plant-like phytoplanktoncells creates solid surfaces onto which contami-nants like radionuclides are adsorbed. Thezooplankton which feed on these radioactivecells subsequently defecate large aggregates (fe-cal pellets) which can further scavenge radioac-tivity as they sink.

Therefore, to test this hypothesis, on 6 May1986 live zooplankton were netted from the wa-ters over the sediment trap and allowed to defe-cate in special aquaria on board ship. When ana-lyzed, these freshly produced fecal pellets werefound to contain radionuclides with similar con-centrations and relative distributions as were pre-sent in the sinking particles trapped at 200 me-ters. Microscopic examination of the trap sam-ples confirmed that they were rich (70% byweight) in the same type of fecal pellets as thenetted zooplankton had produced. Thus, this ac-cidental " field experiment" was actually the firstdirect and convincing demonstration of the bio-logical processes by which ocean waters arecleansed of contaminants like radionuclides.

Following the Chernobyl accident, the differ-ent radionuclides which entered the surroundingseas were removed to different degrees depend-ing upon their chemical reactivities. For exam-ple, in the case of the particle-reactive radionu-clides, cerium-141, cerium-144, and plutonium-239+240, from 50% to 75% of the total radionu-clide inventories deposited in this region of theMediterranean had transited through 200 meter

depth by one month after the accident when thesediment trap stopped sampling. In sharp con-trast, only 0.2% of the corresponding caesium-137 deposition had passed through 200 metersby that time, an observation which is consistentwith the generally non-reactive behaviour of thislong-lived nuclide in seawater. For this reason,Chernobyl-derived caesium-137 has proved tobe very useful as a water mass movement tracerin the Mediterranean and other seas for severalyears after the accident.

IAEA-MEL was not the only group of ma-rine scientists deploying sediment traps in Euro-pean waters following the Chernobyl accident;time-series traps were collecting particles atnearly the same time in the North Sea, the BlackSea, and Lake Zurich. Where comparisons couldbe made, concentrations of Chernobyl-derivedradionuclides in the different sinking particleswere surprisingly similar, and in most cases bio-logical activity in the upper water column wasconsidered to be the driving force in transportingthe radioactivity downward. However, large dif-ferences in radionuclide flux were evident due tovariations in particle mass flux which is normallysite and depth specific. The extreme case wasobserved in Lake Zurich where roughly 20% ofthe fallout was removed from the water columnin two months due to the sinking of a massivebloom of calcareous algae.

Viewed collectively, the temporal flux datafor the Chernobyl radionuclides collectedthroughout Europe after the accident haveproven extremely important for refining generalmodels of contaminant removal and transport inaquatic systems.

Environmental & radiological aspects

Of more than 20 radionuclides which werereleased in significant quantities during theChernobyl accident, only a few have been stud-ied extensively in the marine environment.Among the most important have been strontium-90, caesium-134, caesium-137, and plutonium-239+240. Other radionuclides, such as iodine-131, have half-lives that are too short to be harm-ful or relevant to understanding marine proc-esses, or had very low concentrations (for exam-ple, iodine-129).

As mentioned previously, considerable dif-ferences in marine behaviour were observed.Strontium-90 and caesium-137 are typical repre-sentatives of elements which are soluble inseawater and can be used for studies of waterdynamics. Their particle reactivity is very low incomparison to, for example, plutonium isotopes,which lie at the other extreme, in a group of


FEATURES

Bq/m3

Above left: The average caesium-137 activity of surface seawater (Bq m'3)estimated for the reference year 1990. The Mediterranean regional seavalues were extracted from the Commission of the European Community'sMARINA-MED report.Above right: Caesium-137 contours in the surface seawater of the BalticSea for the period 1986-88 as extracted from the IAEA-MEL Global MarineRadioactivity Database. The data were mostly supplied by the Bundesamtfur Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie, Hamburg, Germany.Right: Caesium-137 activity isolines (Bq m"3) in surface waters of thewestern Black Sea as extracted from the measurements in 1988. Adaptedfrom G. G. Polikarpov etal.. Journal of Environmental Radioactivty (Vol.13,1(1991)).

45°

40°NL

elements having low solubility and high particlereactivity. Plutonium isotopes do not travel longdistances from the source because they are de-posited into sediment, which therefore containstheir main inventory in the ocean.

As the plutonium input to the oceans follow-ing the Chernobyl accident was small and local-ized, this article will concentrate on discussingthe impact of Chernobyl radiocaesium on themarine environment. The caesium isotopes wereboth the most widespread and most abundant ofthe ones released.

The behaviour of radiocaesium in the oceanshas been studied over a long period with refer-ence to its fallout from nuclear bomb tests and indischarges from nuclear reprocessing plants. Inparticular, discharges from Sellafield in theUnited Kingdom have been extensively used tostudy water and sediment dynamics in the Irish,North, and Norwegian Seas. The radiocaesiumfrom weapons test fallout was exclusively cae-sium-137. Caesium-134 has, however, been pre-sent in Sellafield discharges as well as in Cher-nobyl debris. The ratios of caesium-134 to cae-sium-137 have been different, however. Cae-sium from Chernobyl was thus readily distin-guishable from other sources by having a differ-

ent caesium-134/caesium-137 activity ratio ofabout 1:2.

Radiologically, the sea most affected by theChernobyl accident was the Baltic, since the firstradioactive clouds from Chernobyl travelled tothe north and caused high deposition over theScandinavian region. Atmospheric depositionplayed a dominant role in determining the radio-activity of this sea. The mean caesium-137 con-centration in surface waters estimated for thereference year 1990 was highest in the BalticSea. (See maps.) Because of the closed nature ofthis sea and its small exchange of water with theNorth Sea, the levels of caesium-137 of this seahave remained the highest in Europe.

Caesium-137 contours shown on the map ofthe Baltic Sea for the period 1986-88 illustratethe enhancement of caesium-137 concentrationsin seawater, with clear evidence of the effect ofrun-off from land, particularly from Sweden.The measured range in 1986 was from a fewbecquerel (Bq) to 2400 Bq per cubic meter, i.e.two to three orders of magnitude higher than inother European seas.

The next most perturbed sea following theChernobyl accident was the Black Sea, where themean caesium-137 concentration in seawater in


FEATURES

1990 was 52 Bq per cubic meter, comparable tothat in the Irish Sea. The highest deposited activ-ity was observed in 1986 in its northernmostarea, about 500 Bq per cubic meter, i.e. 30 timeshigher than the pre-accident values. Strontium-90 activity measured in 1988 in surface waters ofthe western Black Sea was mostly between 10and 50 Bq per cubic meter. Generally, a similardistribution was observed in 1988 for caesium-137 as well, but the levels were higher for thisradionuclide by a factor of two. Strontium-90and caesium-137 surface concentrations inAegean Sea waters were much lower, between 5and 11 Bq per cubic meter. The distribution pat-terns of strontium-90 and caesium-137 observedin the surface waters of the Black Sea can beexplained in terms of two main source functions— namely by a short-term atmospheric deposi-tion which dominated immediately after the ac-cident, and then by a long-term transfer from theKiev Reservoir and the catchment area of theDnieper, Dniester, and Danube rivers.

For the Mediterranean Sea, the main Cher-nobyl contribution then arrived by exchange ofwaters with the Black Sea, which has essentiallyacted as a radioactive source. Atmospheric depo-sition and river inputs were estimated to haveplayed minor roles. The mean caesium-137 con-centration in surface water estimated for 1990was 5.7 Bq per cubic meter. The caesium-137levels in regional seas as estimated by the Com-mission of the European Community's MA-RINA-MED project ranged from 2.9 to 9 Bq percubic meter, clearly showing a west-east trendtowards the highest values in the Aegean Sea.

Technical assistance and training

The IAEA has been active in assisting Mem-ber States both to monitor and understand theeffects of the Chernobyl accident on their marinesystems. Firstly, in the Black Sea region whereChernobyl radioactivity is among the foremostpublic concerns in relation to health, the IAEAhas initiated a major programme of technicalco-operation. Activities are directed at strength-ening the capabilities of the regional MemberStates to measure and monitor marine radioactiv-ity, especially alpha-emitters, and involve care-ful evaluation and selection of equipment andtraining approaches.

In November 1994, a 2-week regional train-ing course on marine radioactivity monitoringwas held in Istanbul. In addition, a complemen-tary Co-ordinated Research Programme (CRP)on isotopic tracers in the Black Sea has beencarried out. It is being done with a view to usingthe Chernobyl pulse of radionuclides and related

nuclear techniques to understand water move-ment and element cycling in the heavily pollutedmarine system.

In the Baltic Sea, the Helsinki CommissionMORS programme (Monitoring of RadioactiveSubstances) has received significant supportfrom IAEA-MEL in terms of organization ofspecially designed analytical quality assuranceexercises for marine radioactivity assay. Thissupport will be further increased by the organiza-tion, in Finland, of an IAEA training course onmarine radioactivity studies in September 1996.Again, the work will feature particular referenceto the Chernobyl impact and to the needs of thenew Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithu-ania) which have joined the IAEA.

Overview of marine radioactivity

An overview of marine radioactivity per-spectives has been provided by the IAEA's re-cently completed CRP, " Sources of Radioactiv-ity in the Marine Environment and their RelativeContributions to Overall Dose Assessment fromMarine Radioactivity (MARDOS)". This studyprovided new up-to-date estimates of doses tothe public from anthropogenic caesium-137(originating from global fallout, the Chernobylaccident, and authorized discharges) and fromnatural polonium-210 through consumption ofmarine food.

It included a study of fishing areas as definedby the United Nations Food and Agriculture Or-ganization (FAO). Analysis of fishing areaNo.37 (the Mediterranean and Black Seas) hasshown that the collective effective dose commit-ment for caesium-137 in marine food (fish andshellfish) in 1990 was 6 man sievert (Sv) —much smaller than the 700 man Sv derived frompolonium-210 ingestion. The highest doses (86man Sv) in world oceans due to caesium-137were found in the North Atlantic area (FAOfishing area No. 27, which also includes the Irish,North, Baltic, Norwegian, and Barents Seas).However, they are still negligible in comparisonwith 2900 man Sv derived from polonium-210ingestion.

Generally, it can be concluded that theChernobyl accident has had a measurable im-pact on the marine environment. Radionuclidelevels (mainly caesium-137) were two to threeorders of magnitude higher than the pre-Cher-nobyl levels. However, the doses to the publicfrom ingestion of caesium-137 in marine foodhave been estimated to be at least an order ofmagnitude lower than those due to natural po-lonium-210. O


FEATURES

Nuclear and radiation safety:Guidance for emergency response

Criteria have been established at the international level to guide decisionsabout protective actions after a nuclear or radiological emergency

involving radioactive materials inrecent years have had consequences for thehealth of the general public. These have rangedfrom the major accident at Chernobyl in 1986 toaccidental dispersion of medical and industrialradioactive sources.

Responses to these accidents differed be-tween countries. It later became apparent thatsome protective actions were taken that, in themost extreme cases, may have worsened, ratherthan improved, the well-being of the populationsinvolved and their environmental surroundings.In other cases, the actions led to large but unpro-ductive expenditures of national resources. Fur-ther, where the accident involved exposure ofpopulations across national boundaries, many in-stances occurred of contradictory national re-sponses either side of the national borders.

During the past decade considerable pro-gress has been made in developing internation-ally recognized principles for decisions on pro-tective measures following accidents involvingradioactive materials, and in providing quantita-tive guidance for applying these principles. Ef-forts have involved the IAEA, the InternationalCommission on Radiological Protection (ICRP),World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Ag-riculture Organization (FAO), Commission of theEuropean Communities (CEC), and Nuclear En-ergy Agency of the Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD/NEA).

This article summarizes guidance on the ra-diation protection criteria that have been estab-lished with regard to responding to nuclear acci-dents or radiological emergencies, and the prin-ciples for establishing intervention levels. Theguidance was developed to assist those at na-tional and regional bodies and at nuclear facili-ties having responsibility for emergency res-ponse planning.

Mr. Cnck is a staff member in the IAEA Division of Radiationand Waste Safety, Department of Nuclear Safety.

Establishing international consensus

In 1985, the Agency published Safety SeriesNo. 72, which set out guidance on the principlesfor establishing intervention levels for the pro-tection of the public in the event of a nuclearaccident or radiological emergency. That guid-ance was aimed at assisting national and regionalauthorities having responsibility for emergencyresponse planning to specify levels of projecteddose at which it may be necessary to introducerelevant protective measures. It recognized aneed for practical quantities that could be readilycompared with the results of measurementsmade in environmental materials and in food-stuffs, so-called Derived Intervention Levels(DILs). Shortly after the accident at the Cher-nobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, the Agencypublished Safety Series No. 81, which addressedthe principles, procedures, and data needed toestablish these DILS. Guidance was also givenon the extent to which the supportive numericaldata and the illustrative DILs might have moregeneric application.

Additionally over the past decade, new rec-ommendations for radiation protection havebeen issued by the ICRP; the FAO/WHO CodexAlimentarius Commission published GuidelineLevels of Radionuclides in Food Moving in In-ternational Trade; WHO issued recommenda-tions on Derived Intervention Levels for Protect-ing the Public; and the International ChernobylProject made a number of important recommen-dations.

In 1991, the IAEA revised its Safety SeriesNo. 72 to clarify the guidance with respect tointervention, and provided illustrative examplesof how intervention levels are established inemergency plans. It stopped short of providingnumerical intervention levels that might havesome generic application.

The emergency response to the Chernobyl ac-cident underscored the need for a simple set of

byMalcolm Crick


FEATURES

consistent intervention levels at the internationallevel. Such a set of values was considered desir-able to increase public confidence in authoritiescharged with dealing with the aftermath of anaccident. Additionally, since many countries donot have nuclear facilities and hence detailedemergency plans themselves, a simple interna-tionally agreed set can assist them in the eventof transboundary releases.

In the process of establishing internationalconsensus on the values of these generic inter-vention levels, the IAEA convened a number oftechnical meetings. The work led to the prepara-tion, in 1993, of Safety Series No. 109, Interven-tion Criteria in a Nuclear or Radiation Emer-gency. This Safety Guide, published in 1994,represents the international consensus reachedon principles for intervention and numerical val-ues for generic intervention levels. These princi-ples and values subsequently became the basis ofintervention guidance in the Basic Safety Stand-ards for Protection against Ionizing Radiationand for the Safety of Radiation Sources, whichhave been issued jointly by the IAEA, FAO,ILO, NEA, PAHO, and WHO.

Summary of guidance

Prompt and Delayed Radiation Effects onHealth. For most prompt (or deterministic) ef-fects on health, the severity is related to the levelof dose to the individual and there is a practicalthreshold radiation dose below which effects arenot clinically observable. The most severe con-sequence is death, which may occur in sensitiveindividuals, due to bone marrow failure, at dosesabove one gray (Gy) delivered promptly to thewhole body. Serious prompt effects may alsooccur in other organs. Most of the thresholddoses for these are above that for bone marrowand will be avoided if the dose to the whole bodyis below one Gy. However, some individual or-gans, such as the thyroid and the lung, may receivehigh doses due to breathing or swallowing certainradionuclides and must be considered separately.

Delayed (or stochastic) effects include a widerange of cancers and hereditary effects, for whichthe probability of occurrence (not the severity)increases with dose. They usually appear manyyears after exposure, and, although they do notoccur in every exposed individual, there is nothreshold for their induction. Because of the as-sumed linear (proportional) relationship betweendose and the probability of these effects, it ispossible to estimate the number expected to oc-cur in a large exposed population even if thechance of an effect is very small for most indi-viduals. Since other causes (mostly unidentified)

can give rise to the same effects, it will be usuallyimpossible to identify those caused by radiation.

Typically, even a severe accident will causehigh doses to relatively few and small doses tomany people. Most cancers and hereditary ef-fects will occur in large populations that receivesmall doses. These usually cannot all be avoidedand the objective of intervention is to reducetheir number as much as is reasonably possible.

Exposure Routes and Dose Projections.Although accidental releases may occur to air,water, or land, those most likely to require urgentprotective action are major releases to air. Fol-lowing such a release people may be exposed toradiation from the airborne radioactive cloud andthrough inhalation of radioactive dust from thecloud. As the cloud disperses, particles willslowly settle on the earth's surface or be depos-ited rapidly by rainfall. People then may be ex-posed to radiation from these deposits, from in-haling resuspended dust, or from contaminatedfood or water.

During an accident, potential doses to thepopulation will usually be estimated by well-qualified professionals. However, early on, thereare many uncertainties (e.g., in the amount andrate at which radioactive material is being re-leased and in the meteorological situation). Be-cause of this and the need to use simple mathe-matical models to obtain results soon enough tobe useful, there will be large uncertainties inearly dose estimates.

Decision-makers must be aware of this situ-ation and ensure that their expert advisors pro-vide an expression of uncertainties in early esti-mates of projected doses. They should not relyon "most likely" estimates alone (which couldlead to wrong conclusions with severe repercus-sions for the population) and must consider theuncertainties in arriving at a suitable decision onurgent protective action. Later, as the situationbecomes clearer, it will be possible to modifyand initiate protective actions with a much firmergrasp of projected doses.

Normal and Emergency Situations. Undernormal conditions, doses from man-madesources (e.g., from nuclear power or the practiceof medicine) are kept within specified levels.These are much lower than would prompt a needfor protective action; typically they are compara-ble to local variations in natural background ra-diation. They are achieved through the use ofcontrols on the radiation source and do not re-quire direct constraints on people.

In the event of an accident, radioactive ma-terial released into the environment is no longerunder control; doses can only be reduced throughprotective actions — such as evacuation, shelter-ing, relocation, resettlement, prophylatic use of


FEATURES

iodine, and restrictions on food and water — allof which impose constraints on people's activi-ties. These actions may also incur additionalrisks. Therefore, in choosing the level at which aprotective action should be initiated, it is neces-sary to consider the effects of constraints onpeople's activities and any additional risks fromthe action itself.

For the above reasons, the levels of dose forintervention following an accident and the levelsfor control of doses under normal conditions willbe different and it is important to avoid confu-sion between the roles of these two differentkinds of levels.

Protective Actions. There are limited majoroptions available to protect the public after anaccident. The most important are the following:

For early, or urgent, response: 1) sheltering,through advising people to remain indoors andclose their doors and windows, usually for lessthan a day; 2) evacuation, the urgent removal ofpeople from a specified area for periods on theorder of days; and 3) prophylactic administrationof iodine, if high intakes of radioactive iodinehave occurred or are expected to occur.

For later phases of the response: 1) tempo-rary relocation of people to a new habitat, usuallyfor no longer than one to two years; 2) permanentresettlement of people in new or existing settle-ments for the foreseeable future; and 3) controlof food and water contaminated in excess ofspecified levels.

Principles and levels of intervention

Three principles have been agreed upon bythe international community as a general basisfor intervention. They may be paraphrased asfollows: 1) Intervention to avoid serious prompthealth effects should be carried out as a firstpriority. 2) Protective actions to avoid delayedhealth effects should be initiated when they willproduce more good than harm in the affectedpopulation; and 3) These actions should be intro-duced and withdrawn at levels that produce amaximum net benefit to the population.

The first principle is critical for response toan accident producing any high doses. It meansthat any immediate threat to individuals shouldbe countered through evacuation (or, rarely,sheltering) (and, when appropriate, iodine pro-phylaxis) as a first priority, and carried out to themaximum extent of immediately available re-sources. There may be rare cases when evacu-ation to satisfy this first principle is not appropri-ate because it could cause greater harm (e.g.moving people on life support systems, or in theface of a competing disaster).

Intervention levels for minimizing delayedhealth effects are based on the second and thirdprinciples. In applying these principles, the terms"good," "harm," and "benefit" include — inaddition to health and safety and the tangiblecosts of protective actions — unquantifiable fac-tors such as reassurance, stress, and attention tosocietal values. These are not within the primaryprofessional competence of the radiation protec-tion expert. They are more appropriately the re-sponsibility of the decision-maker. He or shemay choose to consider these factors, in additionto those addressed by this radiation protectionadvice, in arriving at decisions that will producethe maximum benefit in the affected population.

Furthermore, the second and third principlesaddress only the risk of delayed effects in thepopulation as a whole. This means that they donot explicitly limit individual risks. A signifi-cantly higher than normal risk of delayed effectsto even a few individuals may be an importantfactor in national decision-making. For this rea-son authorities may choose an action level toavoid unacceptably high individual risks.Whether intervention at such a level is alwayspossible will depend on the accident's severityand nature and the resources at the disposal of thecountry. Such action levels were not consideredin deriving the generic intervention levels inSafety Series No. 109 and may lead to lowervalues for intervention, particularly in the case ofprotective actions for later phases of a response.

Protective Actions for Early, or Urgent, Re-sponse. These actions must be applied promptlyin order to be effective. Delays may lead topopulation doses that could have been avoidedand in the worst cases could lead to prompthealth effects. Rapid decisions are difficult be-cause there is usually very limited early informa-tion about an accident and large uncertaintyabout its consequences. For this reason pre-plan-ning should be carried out wherever possible sothat decisions can be made rapidly based onfacility conditions and pre-arranged patterns forresponse, rather than just on measurements car-ried out and actions hastily organized during theearly course of an accident. In the case of fixedfacilities with well-understood characteristics,response plans should prescribe action to imple-ment urgent protective actions on the basis offacility conditions, rather than rely on confirma-tion of an actual release through measurements atthe facility or offsite, whenever it is reasonablyfeasible to do so.

Sheltering means staying in buildings to re-duce exposure to airborne contamination andsurface deposits, and closing doors and windowsand turning off ventilation systems to reduceinhalation of radioactive material from outside


FEATURES

Genericintervention levels

in emergencyresponse

situationsAction

Urgent protective actions

Avertable dose (Generic intervention level)

Sheltering 10 mSv for a period of no more than 2 days

Iodine prophylaxis 100 mGy (committed absorbed dose to the thyroid)

Evacuation 50 mSv for a period of no more than 1 week

Generic action levels for foodstuffs(From the CODEX Alimentarius Commission guideline levels for radionuclides in food moving in international

trade following accidental contamination )

Radionuclides

Caesium-134, Caesium-137, Ru-themum-103, Ruthenium-106,

Strontium-89

lodine-131

Strontium-90

Americium-241, Plutonium-238,Plutonium-239

Foods destined for generalconsumption (kBq/kg)

1

0.1

0.01

Milk, infant foods, and drinkingwater (kBq/kg)

1

0.1

0.001

Long-term actions

Action Avertable dose (generic intervention level)

Initiating temporary relocation

Terminating temporary relocation

Considering permanent resettlement

30 mSv in a month

10 mSv in a month

1 Sv in a lifetime

air. Sheltering can also facilitate staging forevacuation and the prophylactic use of iodine.Because of the small penalties, sheltering may bejustified at low dose levels. However, its effec-tiveness decreases rapidly with time for moststructures (typically reducing doses to airborneparticulates by a factor of two or three in a fewhours) and is low for lightweight structures orthose with high air exchange rates. Further, thereis a limit to the time that populations can remainindoors without undesirable complications.

The generic intervention level for shelteringis 10 mSv. This value was selected based on themaximum anticipated period of sheltering (2days). Sheltering may be advised at lower levelsfor shorter periods or to facilitate other protectiveactions.

Sheltering can be effective if the exposure isof short duration and buildings are of densestructure and well sealed, as in some northerncountries. In many warm countries, however,most houses are made of light materials, andpeople cannot stay indoors in sealed houses forlong periods. These factors must be considered

when choosing between protective actionthrough sheltering versus evacuation.

Evacuation is the urgent moving of peoplefrom their normal housing for a limited period oftime. Its use should be based on the dose that canbe avoided by evacuation and would not beavoided by sheltering. The generic interventionlevel for evacuation is 50 mSv. This value hasbeen selected based on the maximum anticipatedperiod of evacuation (7 days). Evacuation maybe initiated at lower levels for shorter periods orwhen it can be carried out easily, e.g. for smallgroups of people. Under exceptional circum-stances (such as hazardous weather, or the pres-ence of a competing disaster) or where evacu-ation would be unusually difficult (for very largepopulations or in the absence of adequate trans-portation) initiation of prompt evacuation maybe deferred to a higher intervention level.

In cases before an actual release has started,and where projected doses exceeding this levelhave a relatively high probability of occurrence,preventive evacuation normally will be advis-able. Evacuation as a protective action is com-


FEATURES

monly used when people are threatened by otherman-made hazards (e.g., fire or chemical spills)or by forces of nature (e.g., hurricanes, tornados,earthquakes, or floods). In most cases peoplereturn in a short period, typically one to twodays, if their homes do not require prolongedclean-up. Because of the short time involved,primitive accommodation in schools or otherpublic buildings is typical.

Prophylactic use of iodine is the administra-tion of stable (non-radioactive) iodine in order toblock the uptake of radioiodine by the thyroid. Itmust be carried out promptly to be effective(ideally several hours before and no later than afew hours following exposure). For this reasonthis protective measure is most commonly prac-tical only when emergency planning has in-cluded predistribution of stable iodine to thepopulation at risk. It will usually be coupled withevacuation or sheltering. The generic interventionlevel for prophylactic use of iodine is 100 mGy. Thislevel applies to the dose to the thyroid that wouldbe received from intake of radioiodine. Sincethere may be complications depending on localdiet and other factors, public health authoritiesshould be involved in implementing this measure.

Protective Actions for Later Phases of aResponse. Sheltering and evacuation are short-term protective measures. If measurements con-firm that doses warrant further action, temporaryrelocation or permanent resettlement, and con-trol of food and water may be necessary.

For early protective actions, the greatestbenefit is likely to accrue if action is taken withminimal delay, based on rough predictions ofhow the accident will develop. For long-termprotective actions, there will usually be a rathersmall radiological health penalty for delaying toobtain accurate measurements for projectingdoses. Moreover, the social and economic penal-ties for imprudent decisions can be high, owingto the long period protective actions may be ineffect. It is important that a decision to imple-ment these protective actions is carried out in asinformed a manner as possible, using best esti-mates for the consequences of different options.

Temporary relocation means the organizedremoval of people for an extended but limitedperiod of time (e.g., several months) to avoiddoses from radioactive material deposited on theground, including resuspended materials, and insome cases from local food or water. Peopletypically would be housed in temporary accom-modation of a reasonable minimum standard ofcomfort and privacy. The generic interventionlevels for initiating and terminating temporaryrelocation are 30 mSv in a month and 10 mSv ina month, respectively; i.e., people should be tem-porarily relocated if the dose avertable over the

next month is expected to be greater than 30mSv. They may return when the avertable dosefalls below 10 mSv in a month. However, if thedose accumulated in a month is not expected tofall below this level within a period of a year ortwo, the population should be permanently reset-tled. Two levels are specified because there arerelatively high penalties for initiating relocationcompared to maintaining it. It is also necessaryto specify the period of time it is reasonable tolive in temporary housing.

Permanent resettlement means complete re-moval of people from the area with no expecta-tion of return for at least several years. Peopletypically would be resettled in accommodationscomparable to those vacated. This may involveconstruction of new housing and infrastructure.The generic intervention levels for permanent re-settlement are 1 Sv in a lifetime or a dose exceed-ing 10 mSv per month that persists beyond oneor two years (i.e., that does not permit return fromtemporary relocation within one or two years). Itshould be recognized that projected dose.s belowthe intervention levels for evacuation or for ter-minating temporary relocation could also, over alifetime, become high enough (i..e., exceed 1 Sv)to warrant permanent resettlement.

Control of food and water may have to beconsidered under three different circumstances:where alternative supplies are available; wherealternative supplies are scarce; and for distribu-tion in international trade. Generic action levelshave been established for use by nationalauthorities when alternative supplies of food areavailable. (See table.) The values depend uponthe type of foodstuff and the type of contaminat-ing radionuclide. The radionuclides in questionare those most likely to be of concern in foodsfollowing an accident.

In situations where extensive restrictions onfood supplies could result in nutritional deficien-cies or, in the extreme, starvation, case-by-caseevaluations will be required. In most such situ-ations relocation will be indicated, and alterna-tive food made available. However, when this isnot possible, the radiation hazard must be con-sidered realistically in comparison to competinghealth hazards, and higher action levels shouldinvariably be adopted.

Following any event that may contaminatefoodstuffs, a variety of countermeasures may beinstituted at various stages in production andmarketing. These should be implemented to en-sure that, to the maximum extent practicable,foodstuffs are maintained below the action lev-els. The generic action levels for foodstuffs willalso satisfy the requirements for distribution offoodstuffs in international trade for consumptionin countries unaffected by an accident. •


SPECIAL REPORT

Electricity, health & the environment:Selecting sustainable options

At an international symposium on comparative energyassessment, experts reviewed key issues facing decision-makers

byLeonard

Bennett andMalik Derrough

l^emand for energy, and notably electrical en-ergy, will grow significantly, especially in devel-oping countries, as the world's population in-creases. Which energy options are selected willsignificantly affect the world's achievement ofsustainable social, economic, and environmentaldevelopment.

In many countries, energy planners and deci-sion-makers are facing difficult questions abouttheir nation's energy futures, and they must as-sess a number of options and energy strategiestaking many factors into account. Many of themajor issues were addressed at an internationalsymposium convened in Vienna by the IAEAand nine other international organizations in late1995. (See box.)

In opening the symposium, IAEA DirectorGeneral Hans Blix surveyed the overall globalenergy scene. He noted that fossil fuels are ex-pected to continue to dominate global energysupply, with solar power, wind power, biomassand other renewables projected to play valuableyet minor roles. Nuclear power's contribution,which now stands at about 7% of the world'scommercial energy and 17% of its electricity, isprojected to remain significant.

He further pointed out some of the complexi-ties facing today's energy planners and decision-makers, particularly in the electricity sector.They must take into account a range of factorsrelated to the entire fuel cycle of the energysource — including their technical and economicperformance and their impact on health and theenvironment. While costs remain a key factor,they must be measured in many comparativeways — including assessing the costs for thosecountries suffering from a chronic under-supplyof electricity.

Mr.Bennett is Head of the IAEA's Planning and EconomicStudies Section in the Division of Nuclear Power, and Mr.Derrough is a staff member of the Section.

The types of analysis now required, he said,require the design of approaches that incorpo-rate all relevant elements into a comprehensivecomparative assessment of different options andstrategies, and to develop enhanced databases,analytical methodologies, and other decision-aiding tools upon which policy makers can relyto support their decisions. International organi-zations have an important role to play in helpingto meet these challenges, he pointed out.

As part of its efforts to assist national energyauthorities in analyzing and planning their en-ergy and electricity systems, the IAEA is con-ducting a programme covering comparative as-sessment and methodologies that will objec-tively support decision-making processes. Thisarticle reviews efforts in the context of the majorelectricity and related issues addressed at the1995 international symposium. It includes high-lights of keynote addresses and selected majorpoints addressed during six technical sessions.

Highlights from keynote addresses

Dr. E. Andreta, European Commission. Hestressed the importance of understanding thelinkages between electricity, environment, andthe economy (the E3 linkages). The relationshipsare very complex, and it is not possible to man-age the whole electricity system without veryreliable and efficient technologies, on one side,and without comprehensive management andplanning tools on the other side. The EC hasdeveloped a large set of energy models for plan-ning sustainable development of energy andelectricity supplies. The databases and modelsdeveloped within the inter-agency DECADESproject initiated by the IAEA are another positivecontribution, one that points out the necessity ofglobal co-operation in this field. (See box.)

Dr. R. Stern, World Bank. Primary energyconsumption in developing countries is expected


SPECIAL REPORT

to equal that in OECD countries by the year2000, and by the year 2030 to be 2.5 timesgreater than OECD consumption. The WorldBank estimates that the investment needs of theelectric power sector alone will be of the order ofUS $150 billion per year. Financing this invest-ment will require a mix of national resources andinternational capital. The World Bank recog-nizes that the appropriate mix of policy mecha-nisms and technology choices will depend on thesituation of each country, its resource endow-ment, and the inevitable trade-offs required toachieve economic and environmental objectives.

For many countries, natural gas is a veryattractive fuel. The difficulty is that gas is notalways available where it is needed; hence, gastrade via pipelines or as liquefied natural gas(LNG) is essential. This will require large invest-ments, a great deal of international co-operation,and a long time for development. Dr. Stern notedthat the burning of natural gas produces rela-tively low amounts of CO2 compared to the burn-ing of coal. However, the greenhouse gas effectof unburned natural gas (methane) is some 30times greater than that of CO2; therefore, roughlya 5% leakage rate in a gas pipeline would negatethe benefits in CO2 abatement achieved by sub-stituting gas for coal in a power plant.

Ms. J. Aloisi de Larderel, Industry andEnvironment Department of the United Na-tions Environment Programme (UNEP). Whileelectricity is available to virtually 100% of thepopulation in industrialized countries, an esti-mated 2 billion people in developing countrieshave no access to electricity. Thus, there is still ahuge potential for electrification in developingcountries. Electricity provides the possibility ofclean and efficient energy use in households,transport, and industry. However, the massiveprovision of electricity to growing populationswith increasing standards of living and expand-ing industries introduces the risk of potentiallyserious environmental impacts. Therefore,UNEP's primary role in the area of energy is tofoster environmental awareness and to encour-age greater incorporation of environmental is-sues into energy planning and policy.

Dr. A. Tcheknavorian-Asenbauer, UnitedNations Industrial Development Organization(UNIDO). UNIDO estimates that the industriali-zation process in developing countries — where60% of the world's projected population growthwill take place — will require a tripling of energysupplies by the year 2025.

Cost-effective improvements in the existingequipment using energy, and the application ofgood housekeeping measures in industries canresult in efficiency gains of up to 40%, and thiscan be achieved with small to moderate invest-

About the International Symposium

The Symposium on Electricity, Health and theEnvironment: Comparative Assessment inSupport of Decision Making was held 16-19October 1995, in Vienna, Austria. It was organizedjointly by the IAEA and nine other internationalorganizations: the European Commission (EC),the Economic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific (ESCAP), the International Bank forReconstruction and Development (IBRD), theInternational Institute for Applied SystemsAnalysis (IIASA), the Organization of PetroleumExporting Countries (OPEC), the Nuclear EnergyAgency of the Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD/NEA),the United Nations Environment Program(UNEP), the United Nations IndustrialDevelopment Organization (UNIDO), and theWorld Meteorological Organization (WMO).Some 200 experts from 53 countries and 16different organizations took part.

The Symposium was convened as part of theinter-agency project called DECADES, which theIAEA and its partner organizations are sponsoring.The project focuses on databases and methodolo-gies for comparative assessment of different en-ergy sources for electricity generation. Its mainobjective is to strengthen information sharing andco-operation between interested and affected par-ties in the field of electricity demand analysis andsupply planning, aiming towards implementingsustainable policies in the power sector, taking intoaccount economic, social, health and environ-mental aspects. Sessions addressed the followingtopics: key issues in the decision making process;assessment of health and environmental impacts;integrated framework for comparative assessment;implementation of comparative assessment; coun-try case studies; and comparative assessment indecision making. A closing roundtable focused onchallenges for global co-operation aiming towardsimplementation of sustainable electricity policies.In addition to the main sessions, poster presenta-tions illustrated results from comparative assess-ment studies carried out in different countries, andsoftware demonstrations provided opportunitiesfor participants to gain information about state-of-the-art computer tools, databases, and analyticalmodels used in decision support studies.

Proceedings of the Symposium are being pub-lished by the IAEA.

ments. Process improvements, although muchmore capital intensive, can achieve energy sav-ings of more than 50%. Thus, decision makersneed to examine all available options for energyconservation and efficiency in terms of their po-tential for helping to meet the country's eco-nomic and environmental goals.


SPECIAL REPORT

New and renewable energies, such as solarpower, biomass, and small hydropower shouldbe examined as options for decentralized supplyof electricity to rural areas, which, due to the lowpopulation density, are expensive to supply fromthe central grid. Dr. Tcheknavorian stressed theimportant role that biomass, particularly wood,represents as an energy resource for rural popu-lations and also for local industries. She notedthat biomass provides over 50% of the industrialenergy in Africa. However, the use of biomass isoften associated with inefficient conversionprocesses and the collection of fuel wood canlead to deforestation.

Also, industrialized countries should assistdeveloping ones by transferring technologiesthat are well adapted to the needs and situationsin developing countries. In order to assess andcompare various energy systems, decision mak-ers need to define technology transfer as a strate-gic component of an energy programme. Thus,the extent to which various technologies can beabsorbed, and the time and cost needed for thatprocess, need to be examined. Finally, the mainlesson that UNIDO has learned through its expe-rience in developing countries is that, in order tocontribute to sustainable socio-economic devel-opment, decisions on energy systems must takeinto account the specific situation in the countryin which they will be implemented.

Dr. L. Olsson, World Meteorological Or-ganization (WMO). In presenting a keynote ad-dress on behalf of Prof. Obasi, Secretary Generalof WMO, he reviewed issues related to energyand climate change. Production and use of en-ergy has a complex impact on the environment,including an impact on climate, and the need forenergy is normally directly related to climate andweather. Also, many energy-related activities,e.g. production of energy from biomass, hydro-power, and other renewable sources, are basedon resources that are extremely sensitive to cli-mate. Global concern over potential climatechange has increased the need for environmentalimpact assessments. In order to ensure a fairjudgement of various energy systems, it is ofutmost importance to make available relevantinformation, and it is essential to take a non-bi-ased attitude in assessing scientific, technologi-cal, and socio-economic development. TheDECADES project is making an important con-tribution towards this objective.

Highlights of technical sessions

Session 1: Key Issues in the Decision-mak-ing Process. Chaired by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri,Director of the Tata Energy Research Institute in

India, the session focused on the wide range ofissues of concern to decision makers in variousregions. Papers illustrated that there may begreatly different priorities according to the levelof social, economic, and industrial developmentin a given country. Presentations included thoseby Dr. K. Leydon, of the EC; Dr. H. Khatib,speaking on behalf of the World Energy Coun-cil's Committee on Energy Issues in DevelopingCountries; Mr. L. D. Ryabev and Mr. Y.F.Chernilyn of Russia; Ms. J. Ellis and Mr. S.Peake of the International Energy Agency of theOECD; and Mr. R. Lanari, Canada. A number ofimportant points were addressed.• Member countries of the European Union aredependent on imports for 50% or more of theirenergy, and this likely will rise to about 70%, Dr.Leydon noted. The challenge to any economist ishow to meet the environmental goals and, at thesame time, avoid raising the cost of energy as afactor in production. He stressed that it will be noeasy task in an evolving geopolitical situation todevelop new energy services in response tochanging needs; to harness energy efficiency;and to develop new technologies and products.The decision-making framework has to prop-erly reflect the complexity of the choices to bemade.• Developing countries, particularly those inthe low income category, are concerned aboutcost more than anything else, Dr. Khatib said.Therefore, they try to utilize available local fuels,irrespective of their quality, whenever possible.Also, priority is given to technologies requiringlow investment, which may lead to the use oflocal technologies having less efficiency thanstate-of-the-art technologies. In most instances,these countries cannot afford the extra invest-ment to install pollution abatement systems.However, developing countries are becoming in-creasingly concerned with environmental ques-tions, and they are trying to reduce pollution, inparticular where it is causing local impacts.

• The two largest developing countries, Chinaand India, have populations of 1175 million and900 million, respectively; a combined popula-tion of 2075 million which is almost half the totalof all developing countries, Dr. Khatib noted.The growth potential of electricity supply in bothcountries is very high, and both have large coalreserves. Therefore, both countries will continueto depend on coal as their major fuel for electric-ity generation for decades to come. Indeed, alldeveloping countries with reasonable levels ofcommercially viable coal reserves will favourcoal as their main fuel for electricity generation.To minimize the environmental consequences ofmore coal burning, clean coal technologies needto be promoted in developing countries.


INSIDETECHNICAL CO-OPERATIONInternational Atomic Energy Agency

March 1996 Vol. 2, No. 1

CONTENTS:

Cattle killer meets 1

Barley climbs the Andes . . 1

Better feeds 2

Floating rice 3

Sterile Insect Technique . . . 4

The atom and food 5

In brief 7

Zimbabwe 8

Barleyclimbs theAndesAcross the high Andean plateau inPeru and Bolivia, the diets of theimpoverished peasant communi-ties remain inadequate. Staplefoodgrains cannot be grown be-cause of the oxygen-short condi-tions, the stress of dailytemperature variations and highultra violet exposure under cloud-less skys. An early barley, perhapsintroduced from Europe manycenturies ago, does manage to sur-vive. But it is poorly acclimatizedand its yields are extremely low.

The plateau is mostly a flat plain,3400-4000 metres above sea level.Local farmers cultivate protein-rich Amaranthus, Quinaoa,varie-ties of potatoes and faba bean

Cattle killer meets itsmatchCattle normally play a crucial rolein rural economies of developingcountries, providing crop manure,domestic fuel and hides, as well asmeat and milk, while the bullock isthe tractor in the field and the en-gine of transportation. But in awide belt across central and south-ern Africa and on Zanzibar's main

Blood sampling from cattle tomonitor disease transmission.(Credit: U. Feldmann)

island Unguja, livestock rearing isseriously hampered because thetsetse fly spreads disease to theanimals. Numerous costly effortsto eradicate tsetse - using traps,insecticides, and other conven-tional methods - have failed thusfar. Now it seems that eradicationis possible, at least on isolatedZanzibar.

Unguja and a few tiny satellite islandsmake up Zanzibar, 35 kilometres eastof continental Africa. It joined theUnited Republic of Tanzania in 1964.A lone fly species lives on Unguja.Apart from it, the island has ideal con-ditions for cattle - lush vegetation,gently undulating terrain, reliableand ample rainfall. Yet some 10,000live animals plus US$250,000 of milkproducts must be imported each yearto supplement the low per capita in-take of protein on Unguja.

Tsetse flies (Glossina species) liveonly on blood. Some species carrysleeping sickness to humans, oth-ers a similar disease, nagana, to ani-mals caused by single celled

continued on page 4

which can fix atmospheric nitro-gen and naturally fertilize the soil,much the same as the ancient Incasdid. Soon they may well have asuperior barley.

The IAEA has helped Peru de-velop its capability to apply nu-clear techniques and these are now

being used to breed new high-yielding grain varieties with built-in stress resistance. They could notonly increase the food security ofthe high Andes, but promote sus-tainable grain production on alarge scale as well. A mutant vari-

continued on page 6 1

Better feeds make bountiful breedsIncreasingly throughout rural ar-eas of central and western Java,small groups of people, mainlywomen, may be seen mixing whatappears to be large loads of un-lovely and smelly muck. In fact,they are doing something botheconomically and scientificallysound, making Urea-Molasses-Mulhnutnent Blocks (UMMBs) tofeed to their ruminant animals -buffalo, cattle, goats and sheep -and provide them with some es-sential nutrients they lack.

Shortages of quality feed for live-stock is common throughoutmuch of Asia, where there is littleland set aside as pasture and fewforage crops are grown. Most cat-tle are kept by small farmers inherds of 2 or 3, rarely more than adozen, in mixed-enterprises thatinclude crop cultivation. They for-age on what they can find, suchgrass and straw by roads andfields, and residues of agricultureand food production. Yields andquality of milk and meat are low.

Improving the quality of feed forruminants in a way that smallfarmers can afford in terms of cashand labour was the task taken upin the early 1980s by scientists ledby Ms.Cornelia Hendratno at theCentre for Application of Isotopesand Radiation, which is part of In-donesia's Atomic Energy Agency(BATAN). They had funds fromthe UN Development Programme(UNDP) and the infrastructureand skills developed over many

Cornelia Hendratno received special training innuclear and related techniques in animal pro-duction at the Agency's laboratory in Seibers-dorf, and led the BATAN research group thatdeveloped the supplemental feed block. She wasresponsible for the initial field trials that broughtexperimental ingredients to rural areas whereshe worked with villagers to knead bricks intoforms. When early results of the feeds were clear she encouraged theMinistry of Agriculture to take over an extension role. Ms. Hen-dratno was also a key link with the Agency, as technical coordinatorand then principal investigator in the IAEA projects. She now headsBATAN's Animal Nutrition Research Group.

years with help from the IAEA.The technique involves the use ofbenign tracer isotopes that revealthe fate of feed constituents in thedigestive system of ruminants.

The multinutrient block, a mixtureof feeds and vitamins, that Ms.Hendratno and her team devel-oped after years of lab researchand animal tests has been receivedenthusiastically by Java's villages.It has stimulated 30% increases inmilk yield and over 100% in-creases in growth rates of beef cat-tle, goats and sheep. Perhaps thekey to its appeal is that it uses lo-cally available feedstuffs - straw,rice stubble and bran, cottonseedcake, waste from fish processingand even poultry litter - mixedwith appropriate amounts of urea,molasses and various minerals.

The mixture is pressed intomoulds and dried to make brick-like blocks. A key feature of a block

is that it must have a consistencythat enables an animal to lick it butprevents it from eating it all atonce. This has been successfullyworked out for various formula-tions so that once the mixture isprepared by the villagers it is notnecessary to thumb-test eachbrick.

The urea provides nitrogen pro-teins for growth; the molassesgives the energy and sulphurhelps utilize the nitrogen andbuild up microbial protein thatprovides amino acids. Other min-erals, like calcium and phospho-rus essential for lactating animals,can also be added. Each block ismade large enough to avoid thelabour of too frequent replenish-ment and enabling adequatestocks to be made. The aim is thateach animal licks 500-700 grams ofit per day on average.

During earlier field trials to assessthe efficacy of various formula-tions in local animals, Ms. Hen-dratno and her team found thatcommunity women in particularwanted to be trained to mix andmake the blocks. Farming familiessoon joined in cooperatives to pro-duce and use them. In the past fewyears the Ministry of Agriculturehas taken on the task of extensionwork, promoting the technique,teaching villagers to make brickswith locally available materials,and encouraging local co-opera-tive schemes.

Under a Agency technical co-op-eration project launched in 1994,BATAN started training courses

Local women manufacture UMMB's in Indonesia. (Credit: C. Hendratno) Continued on page 8

Floating rice and soaring sorghumSmallholder agriculture is the back-bone of Mali's economy. But yields ofstaples - millet, sorghum, rice, maizeand fonio - have not kept up withpopulation growth, and the rising costof cereal imports now consumes 6.5%of GDP. Crop improvement has de-pended almost solely on seed selection byindividual fanners, while systematicplant breeding lias only recently arrived.Breeding more productive nee and sor-ghum is the principal dwllenge.

Malian scientists have now producedrice and sorghum mutants that couldbenefit smallholders and the nationaleconomy if widely grown. But untilrecently strains remained in the labo-ratory. Now, with new initiatives inAgency technical co-operation, thenew mutant varieties will be taken tothe farmers through a government ex-tension programme that involves com-munity participation.

In the expansive floodplains of theNiger River in Mali farmers havegrown rice for many centuries.This peculiar "African rice", orOryza glaberrima, evolved here be-fore the arrival of humans. Itsmake-up includes genetic traits es-sential for survival. Its stalk growsin pace with the rising water, keep-ing its panicle (seed head) afloat; itcan cope with dehydration stressafter the waters recede; and it shat-ters seed when mature.

Mali's native sorghum relies ex-clusively on rainfall and has traitsthat give it resistance to drought.Farmers grow varieties that are ex-tremely tall, sometimes 3 1/2 me-tres because the stalk has manyeconomically important uses - ascattle feed and roof thatch, formaking mats and even the smallhuts in which grain is stored.

The challenge for plant breeders isto improve productivity of thesecrops, while conserving their es-sential traits. Malian scientistsFousseyni Cisse and Al HousseniBretaudeau led research teams tofind mutant varieties of rice andsorghum at the lnstitut d'EconomieRural and lnstitut Poll/technique Ru-ral, respectively. Under a recentlycompleted FAO/IAEA Coordi-nated Research Programme (CRP)funded by Italy and designed tohelp improve local and basic food

Unusually long seed head ofsorghum displayed by Malitechnician. (Credit: B. Ahloozvalia)

crops of Africa they irradiated tra-ditional varieties with gamma raysaccording to the prescribed proce-dures. IAEA technical co-opera-tion had already provided trainingand equipment to enable the twonational scientific institutions tohave the capacity to apply nucleartechniques such as mutationbreeding, to improve yields andother enhanced characteristics oftraditional food crops.

During the five years of the CRP,Cisse's rice team was not able toidentify a non-shattering variety,which was its aim, but it did de-velop some new types with whitecolor characteristics and highyields. White rice in Africa fetchesdouble the price of red; so for farm-ers the colour alone means an in-come hike, with high yield abonus. Bretaudeau's team ob-tained sorghum mutants thatgrow tall but do not lodge, andsome with increased seed; onewith 50 cm panicles, twice as longas usual (see photo).

These preliminary successesprompted the Agency to launch aTechnical Co-operation ModelProject to continue the mutationbreeding activities, to carry theachievements of the scientists outinto field trials that could eventu-ally benefit farmers and to expandrelated research and developmentcapability in plant tissue cultureby setting up a dedicated labora-tory along with top level trainingin these techniques.

Within the multi-purpose ModelProject, field performance trials onmutants of both rice and sorghumcrops have already started. Sohave some soil trials, using stablenitrogen (N ^ isotope techniquesdeveloped by the FAO/ IAEAJoint Division, mainly to deter-mine optimal use of fertilizer be-cause every new genotype has itsown nutritional requirements.Further soil/plant density trialswill establish other parameterssuch as how many plants shouldbe grown in different areas.

This effort reflects an impressivearray of high technology and so-phisticated training, but can it re-ally help the poor local farmerwho probably can't read? The ex-perts think so, and the Model Pro-ject approach is intended to focustechnology and its benefits on theend-user. Initial field tests showincreases of 10" in sorghum pro-duction and 15% in rice, and thedemonstration phase is being ex-panded significantly this year andnext. New plant breeding tech-niques that merge conventionalbreeding with new bio-technicalapproaches and mutation tech-niques are improving the oddsthat the new varieties can success-fully compete with native breeds.A comprehensive "package"of ag-ronomic practices will help guidefarmers to higher yields using fer-tilizer management techniques re-sulting from soil trials using stablenitrogen (N "") isotope techniques.One such practice would incorpo-rate nitrogen fixing legumes (seerelated story on Biofertilizer inZimbabwe) in the cropping sys-tem tor a low-cost, or no-cost alter-native nitrogen fertilizer

The extension services of the Min-istry of Agriculture will take these"best" practices to the farmers totrain and demonstrate their bene-fits. With the World Bank nowsupporting a national facility to re-produce seeds on a commercialscale, Mali's farmers could soonbegin to realize the dream of tworesearch scientists who were in-spired to push back the limitationsof native cultivars and make animportant contribution to the foodsecurity of their countrymen.

Cattle killer meets its match (from page 1)

ganisms called trypanosomes. Thesingle species (G. austeni) on theisland attacks only animals. Na-gana, first reported in Ungujaearly this century, has restrictedand ravaged the 1,650 square kilo-metre island's herds and until re-cently up to 80% of the remainingcattle were infected.

Initial efforts to eradicate the fly-using environmentally friendlymethods-began over 20 years agowith a research programme inmainland Tanzania funded by theUS Agency for International De-velopment. A laboratory and fa-

The Sterile Insect TechniqueSIT involves rearing, sterilizing,and releasing male flies of thetarget species so that they vastlyoutnumber wild males in thearea. The wild females they matewith will not be able to lay fertileeggs. Over time the reproduc-tion of the wild populationdwindles and eventually diesout. One common problem is re-infestation from outside the tar-get area.

A unique challenge with tsetseflies is that they must be fed withblood. It is not possible to main-tain large enough breeding colo-nies fed on living animals, andthe flies normally do not feed onblood any way but through skin.Scientists at the IAEA lab inSeibersdorf solved the twinproblem in the early 1980s witha technique that can maintain in-sects on a factory scale by givingthem bloodmeals through an ar-tificial membrane, thus foolingthe flies into thinking they arefeeding on live animals.

On the horizon is an automatedcomputer controlled system thateliminates the labour intensivesteps of chilling newly hatchedflies, manually separating malesand females, and then thawingthem again. This procedure cur-rently takes over 40% of the timenecessary to produce sterilemales. Chilling weakens bothsexes. Overchilling can kill or

render females sterile. Physicalhandling can damage individu-als. The new system will sex theflies in flight, as they emergefrom hatching or mating areas,and guide them into separatecages. It could be ready for usewithin three years. It would im-prove fly quality and cut timeand effort from the four skilledpeople now needed to breed100,000 flies, to half a person tobreed a million.

Further ahead is the prospect ofgenetic manipulation of tsetse sothat colony females would pro-duce only males, or the two gen-ders would react differently totemperature in the pupal stageand one or other could be killedby simple warming or cooling.Fewer females could producemore males.

cilities for mass-rearing of tsetseswere introduced at Tanga. Signifi-cant experience was gained in thiseffort but it eventually proved un-sustainable. Since then a series ofactivities on Zanzibar involvingbilateral and multilateral assis-tance have used conventionalmethods to substantially reducefly numbers and contain theirmovement.

Conditions thus seemed promis-ing for eradication when the IAEAModel Project was launched in1994. Fly density had been drasti-cally reduced, in some areas to lev-els below detectability by trapsurveys. Re-infestation was un-likely because it is far from themainland. The tsetse fly reservoirsin Unguja were mainly in threeforests in the south; and a broadenough belt of mainly rice paddiesseparated these from the north ofthe island. New techniques devel-oped in projects against other pestinsects, such as aerial release,could be introduced on Zanzibar.

The IAEA Model Project is relyingon SIT, the Sterile Insect Tech-nique, to mass-rear and releasesterilized male flies in sufficientnumbers to challenge the fertilewild males as mates for the wildfemales. SIT is well advanced andhas been effectively used againstfruitflies in both North and SouthAmerica. But its applicationagainst other insects, such as thetsetse, is an innovation being fos-tered in the Technical Co-opera-tion Programme with the supportof the Joint FAO/IAEA Division.

After just two years of sterile malereleases, females routinely caughtin the wild already show a highratio of infertility, expected toreach 65% in the first quarter ofthis year. Major advances are be-ing made (see box) in rearing andsex identification systems. To pro-mote the approach the IAEA con-vened a four-week SIT trainingcourse/seminar in Unguja late in1995 for scientists from other Afri-can countries affected by tsetse.

The Agency first got involved inhelping Zanzibar back in 1983with the training of Tanzanian sci-entists at IAEA's Seibersdorf labo-ratory in mass rearing the Unguja

tsetse species, using a membranefeeding technique developedthere. Facilities in Tanga were sys-tematically improved and ex-tended so that by the end of 1995,with a colony of 400,000 females, ithoused the world's largest tsetseproduction system. The colony willsoon be 500,000, allowing for therelease of 50,000 (60,000 with back-up from Seibersdorf) sterile maleseach week. Thanks to the supportof several donors, the project iswell on its way toward a successfulconclusion.

To rebuild Zanzibar's herds ofmixed livestock, family basedfarming is now being expanded.Farmers in areas that were untilrecently infested now have the op-portunity to obtain cattle through agovernment programme offeringvery attractive loans. Governmentinitiatives to inspire family-basedherds, in a sustainable and envi-ronmental friendly manner, arebased on the very real prospect ofthe tsetse being eradicated by theend of the IAEA Model Project in1997.

SIT will be deployed throughoutUnguja. But the early focus hasbeen on the southern forest pockets- Jozani, Central Muyuni andCoastal Muyuni - which are inac-cessible to other techniques. There-fore, since September 1994 sterilemale releases have been exclu-sively by air. Experience, in Zim-babwe and elsewhere, showsinsecticide spraying by air is oftenineffective and hazardous. But the30 milligram flies are not blownoff-target by light winds and ther-mal currents, so the aircraft can flyat a safe height above the forestcanopy, and effective air drops canbe made throughout the day in-stead of only at night when theground gets cool.

National authorities have pro-vided scientists, technicians, infra-structure, as well as cash to theproject; they also integrated it withnational development plans so thatits benefits reach those who willuse the tsetse-free land. TheZanzibar programme is develop-ing an integrated smallholder farmsystem, with help from the Interna-tional Fund for Agricultural Devel-opment (IFAD), to ensure that farmfamilies are the principal benefici-aries and that freed land is usedsustainablv

The atom and food productionDespite major advances and"revolutions" in agricultural pro-duction, many countries still faceenormous obstacles in meetingtheir current demand for food. InAfrica for example, projected de-mand will require a tripling ofthe current agricultural output inthe next 30 years. A country'scapacity to produce surplus foodremains a basic distinction be-tween developed and develop-ing countries. As the scramblefor control of global resources in-tensifies, the gap grows wider.

How will the developing world'sfanners meet these staggeringrequirements for more food?What improvements in agricul-tural systems will permit dou-bling let alone a tripling ofoutput?

These increases will only occur ifagricultural resources are ex-panded or more productive re-sources become available inagricultural systems. Such "re-sources" include land, water, thehuman knowledge base, tech-nology and institutional support.The food and agricultural pro-gramme of the IAEA is operatedjointly with FAO to assist Mem-ber States in using nuclear tech-

niques to improve both the qual-ity and quantity of agricultural re-sources. The availability ofagricultural land and water arebeing expanded through envi-ronmentally sustainable ap-proaches that include SITtechnology to biologically eradi-cate pests like the Tsetse fly thatseverely limits animal produc-tion across vast areas of Africa;and isotopic techniques to study,irrigation and ground water dy-namics. The quality of agricul-tural resources is beingenhanced through the introduc-tion of more productive tech-nologies: mutation breeding is atechnique to create new plantcharacteristics such as droughtresistance or higher yield. Im-proved farming practices such asthe use of rhizobia to inoculatecrops and improve soil fertility isan environmentally safe and eco-nomical alternative to conven-tional fertilizers. Soil moistureand nutrient management arefostered by agro-chemical tech-niques that improve crop yieldand food quality. In the areas ofanimal production and health, nu-clear techniques have unlockedmany secrets of the biologicalprocesses responsible for growth,health and reproduction of farm

animals. The growingimportance of foodpreservation techniquessuch as irradiation is re-inforced by the loss ofone quarter of world'sfood production afterharvest.

The IAEA's TechnicalCo-operation activitiesin agriculture play asmall but increasinglycatalytic role in sus-tainable agriculturaldevelopment. This edi-tion of Inside TC illus-trates how a newpartnership is beingforged between scien-tists and developmentmanagers to empowerfarmers through a vari-ety of specializedtechniques, improvedpractices and agricul-tural knowledge sys-tems.

Barley climbs the Andes (from page 1)

ety of barley, UNA-La Molina 95,began field testing last May and isnow being multiplied at severalsites in the Peruvian highlands.

Plant breeding is exacting. It re-quires persistence and care and,most of all, time. Irradiation ofseeds with gamma rays can help toaccelerate the process and leads tochanges in the genetic traits of theplants which are inherited. Thestory of the new barley mutantgoes back more than 15 years towhen plant breeder MarinoRomero Loli became head of thecereals department of the nationalagriculture university in LaMolina. A son of the high plateauhimself, Romero Loli set course toproduce, by mutation, new varie-ties of barley and wheat thatwould be viable in the highlands.

His initial aim was to improve thediet, health and economy of thehighland communities. But withsome three million hectares of theplateau (in Peru and Bolivia) con-sidered arable, the longer termprospect of intensive commercialcultivation was inviting too. Thetask may have seemed whimsicalbecause the first essential ingredi-ent to produce a mutant, local par-ent material, was missing - nowheat or oats at all and the unac-climatized barley was clearly un-suitable. But there was earlysupport from outside and the

FAO/IAEA Joint Division becameinvolved shortly thereafter.

The breeding strategy began withfield testing a wide collection ofwheat, barley and oat germplasm.Over the years some 10,000 varie-ties provided by international andnational centres all over the worldwere grown in tiny beds to seewhich did best in the inhospitableclimate. From those that showedmost promise Romero Loli's teamproduced a new barley variety us-ing conventional breeding meth-ods. It went through the requiredfield growing and selecting foreight generations, and was re-leased in 1990 under the nameBuena Vista.

The scene was set for mutationbreeding using radiation. Peru'snuclear infrastructure, equip-ment and mutation breedingskills had already been system-atically improved through IAEAtechnical assistance for morethan a decade. A US donation of$1.5 million for the region en-abled the Agency to help Perubeyond mere equipment andtraining. Plant breeding at LaMolina was co-ordinated withwork in other FAO/IAEA activi-ties including a regional pro-gramme for Improvement ofCereals through Mutation Breed-ing in Latin America, and a relatedCoordinated Research Programme.

Inspecting a barley field near Huancayo. From left to right: C. Ampuero(IPEN); B. Radischat(IAEA); L. Gamara (IPEN); and M. Romero Loli(Agricultural Univeristy, La Molina). (Credit: M. Maluszynski)

The La Molina team irradiatedBuena Vista seeds and obtainedthe mutant variety UNA-LaMolina 95. The mutant has threemain advantages over the parent.It matures some three weeks ear-lier - which will enable it to reachthe seed ripening stage when thedry season arrives. It is shorter - aprotection against being flattenedby wind or hail. It produces a na-ked (huskless) grain with higherprotein content which is easier toboth cook and feed to animals.

The three new traits make the mu-tant very promising. But the proofof viability is in the growing.When the ongoing multiplicationphase produces two to three tonsof barley seeds (expected this year)they will be delivered to demon-stration plots of selected farmerswho have a good reputation in vil-lages. They will grow it togetherwith the previous (parent) variety.Only then can the quality of themutant be gauged. It will takelonger, 2-3 years, to demonstratetrue success - after farmers havegrown it on many thousands ofhectares. But chances look goodthat the 21st Century may beginwith the first cultivable Andeangrain and new opportunities foragricultural development.

Meanwhile the private sector hasalso recognized the promise ofmutation breeding. A Peruvianbrewery company Malteria LimaSA is providing funds and mana-gerial help to the agricultural uni-versity at La Molina to multiplythe seeds of the mutant variety ofbarley it has developed and to dis-tribute them to the selected farm-ers in the high plateau eventhough it has different charac-teristics from the barley used forbeer. UNA-La Molina 95 is husk-less and has a high protein content.Brewers seek barley with proteincontent as low as possible, andtherefore always with husks. Mal-teria's reasoning is that the othertraits - early maturation and shortstature - promise intensive high-input cultivation at high altitude.If the '95' variety is successful3000-plus metres above sea leveland in other hostile conditions,then yet another variety (huskedand low protein) could well befound in the same way.

In Brief: Updates of stories and news events

AGFAX: ReachingZimbabwe Farmers

"The interview on SIT and Tsetse wasa very useful eye-opener, especiallyconsidering that in Zimbabwe, thetsetse flies are very troublesome. Thisinterview was translated into a ver-nacular programme broadcast on Ra-dio 2." — Statement by ZimbabweBroadcasting Corporation

The use of technology for develop-ment depends on attitudes andthese are influenced by informa-tion and education. The Depart-ment of Technical Co-operation(TC) is increasing public aware-ness of its Model Projects activitiesthrough a series of contributions tothe AGFAX media service. Arti-cles for the press and interviewswith IAEA staff on key agricul-tural issues are recorded and dis-tributed on a monthly basis toleading radio stations and news-papers in anglophone Africa andto major European and NorthAmerican organizations broad-casting worldwide. The Sterile In-sect Technique (SIT) to eradicatetsetse flies, the improvement of af-rican rice by mutation breedingand nuclear techniques analysis ofnitrogen in crops are among therange of topics covered.

You or your colleagues could helpus reach broader audiences. Uponrequest recorded copies and fulltranscripts of these interviews areavailable for use by national broad-casters free of charge. Each audiocassette comprising a five minutefeature is edited and ready to broad-cast. For more information, contactthe IAEA TC Programme Co-ordi-nation Section.

AGFAX is produced by World Ra-dio for Environment (WREN), a me-dia organization based in the UK.

Mutated Rice GainsGround in Asia

Nine varieties of early season rice,obtained by induced mutation oflocally grown varieties, were offi-cially released and cultivated on598,100 hectares in five provincesalong the Yangtze River in Chinalast year. The mutant varieties

Increasing rice yields is a key objective(Credit: M. Maluszynski)

now cover about 11% of the total5.5 million hectares of rice grow-ing area in these provinces. Theperformance of each mutant vari-ety varied depending on the agro-climatic conditions in particularprovinces. According to data col-lected during the multilocationtrial, yield increases per hectare forthe nine mutant varieties was onaverage 440 kg higher than for thecontrol varieties.

The Chinese National Rice Re-search Institute estimates a totalyield increase of 263,000 tonnes inthe cultivated area. At a marketprice of US $200 per tonne the gainto farmers could reach over US$ 50million. The extension process wasactively supported by seed com-panies at the provincial, municipaland county level. Because the seedmultiplication programme hasbeen so successfully implemented,an extension area of 990,000 hec-tares is planned for 1996.

In Myanmar, according to recentinformation received from theMinistry of Agriculture, the ricemutant Shwewartun showed im-proved yield, grain quality andearliness compared to its parentvariety. Over the period 1990 to1993 the mutant variety wasgrown in over 2 million acres or17% of the total rice area sown.

Close collaboration - with nationalinstitutes in both China and Myan-mar made possible through co-or-dinated research programmes andtechnical assistance projects - con-tributed to the development ofthese successful mutant varieties.The experience gained from theseprojects is contributing to similarmutation breeding in other re-

throughout Asia.

gions (see related story "FloatingRice and Soaring Sorghum").

RCA Recognized forExcellence

Late last year the Joint InspectionUnit, an independent investiga-tory body of the UN, comparedfield level impacts and results of10 U.N. sponsored intercountryprojects in the Asia and Pacific Re-gion. One of those selected was theRCA project to increase the use ofnuclear technology in regional in-dustries and encourage regionalindustrial competitiveness (see"Pioneers of regional cooperation"- Inside TC, December 1995). ThisIAEA-supported project was ratednumber one in the evaluation witha score of 96 out of 100 points, oneof the best reviews ever made fora project in the field of science andtechnology. The strong commit-ment of national counterparts andthe readiness of participating gov-ernments to collaborate activelywith the private sector were iden-tified as particular strengths of theproject, and the RCA network ofcooperating member states wasviewed as a model for TechnicalCooperation among DevelopingCountries (TCDC). This pro-ject was cofinanced with theUnited Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP) and contributionsfrom Australia, China, Indonesia,Japan, Philippines, Korea, Malay-sia, New Zealand and Thailand.RCA Members are now preparinga third generation project for sub-mission to the Agency and UNDPthat will employ isotope and ra-diation technologies for bettermanagement of the environment,natural resources and further pro-motion of industrial growth.

Zimbabwe's smallholders to benefitfrom biofertilizerMany developing countries havethe capability to use selectedstrains of legume root-nodule bac-teria to produce nitrogen, the mostimportant plant nutrient. But inmost, the benefits have beenreaped by larger farms growingcash crops such as soybean. Sub-sistence growers, who might gainmost from the technology, havelargely missed out. But now up tohalf a million smallholders in Zim-babwe will gain access to the tech-nology through an Agencytechnical co-operation Model Pro-ject set to begin in 1997.

Bacteria of the rhizobiurn "family"have been called Nature's gift to sus-tainable agriculture They form nod-ules in the roots of legumes andconvert nitrogen from the air into theform usable by plants in a processcalled "nitrogen fixation". It is a simi-lar process to the chemical one used byindustry to manufacture urea fertil-izer, but root-nodules do it for free.Though nodulation occurs only insymbiotic relationship with legumeplants, the nitrogen they 'fix' is suffi-cient to nourish a subsequent non-le-guminous crop. In recent years thetechnology to mass produce specific 'in-oculants of rhizobia strains has ma-tured. Indeed the biological route nowprovides more than a third of all nitro-gen used in world agriculture, butnearly all of that is consumed either mdeveloped countries or large commer-cial farms in the developing world.

Nearly 25 to 30 Agency agriculturalprojects around the world now havea rhizobial component. The firstModel Project dedicated to it waslaunched last year m Bangladesh(see Inside TC, September 1995). It isdeveloping commercial scale pro-duction of moculant. Assisted byIAEA pro|ects since 1988, and us-ing the stable isotope N ' tech-nique largely developed by theJoint FAO/ IAEA Division, theBangladesh Institute of Nuclear Ag-riculture (BINA) has identified rhi-zobial strains and matching varietiesof legumes that together would bestfix nitrogen in local soils.

The new project, proposed for8 1997/98, in Zimbabwe will use the

Pioneered bythe Joint Di-vision of theFAO and theIAEA, the N15

technique hasproven to be a unique tool inassessing the amounts of nitro-gen derived from air, soil andadded fertilizer. It is relativelysimple and requires growingthe nitrogen-fixing crop to-gether with a non-fixing crop.The major advantage is that itprovides a quantitative and in-tegrated measure of the nitro-gen fixed - during differentperiods, conditions and soiltypes. It is preferred to non-iso-topic methods because it givesdetailed understanding of fac-tors that influence the fixationin various legumes, and there-fore the "yield", particularly theeffects of inoculation with anelite strain of rhizobia.

N " technique to screen and selectefficient rhizobia to maximizeyields of important legume varie-ties grown locally, and possiblyalso obtain new varieties using ra-diation mutation breeding tech-niques. Zimbabwe already has alarge factory to multiply rhizobiaand put them in medium for dis-tribution to commercial farmers,and its production could be ex-panded to meet the needs of small-scale farmers for inoculants.

Zimbabwe's Country ProgrammeFramework (CPF), drawn up bythe IAEA and the Government, isfocussed on a limited number oftechnical co-operation priority ac-tivities where the technologieshave demonstrable value and thegovernment is committed to de-veloping essential infrastructure.Development of biological nitro-gen fixation for subsistence farm-ers in the communal areas is one

such activity. Levels of crop pro-duction in the small-scale farmingsector of Zimbabwe are very low,mainly due to low soil fertility -particularly nitrogen and phos-phorus. The CPF confirmed thatthe technical capability and coun-terpart structure to undertake thisactivity is strong and that previoustechnical co-operation work hasdeveloped data on nitrogen fixa-tion using three locally grown leg-umes. A multidisciplinary researchteam has already been trained andprepared to undertake the task.

Given these promising conditionsand drawing upon the ongoing ex-perience in Bangladesh, the TCDepartment is confident that theproject being formulated will makea significant contribution to foodproduction and small farm prosper-ity in rural Zimbabwe.

Better feeds (from page 2)

last year in three islands (East Java,South Sulawesi and West Suma-tra,) and field-testing of blockswith feed materials available ineach region.

Meanwhile in West and CentralJava, the Ministry has now takenthe technology to villages acrossall districts. In addition to such ex-tension activities, several hands-on training courses have beenconducted for leaders of farmersgroups One in West Java in 1995brought together 236 farmers forthree months. This course evalu-ated 395 dairy cows, 80 beef cattle,and 100 sheep. A similar one wascompleted in Central Java late lastyear and involves analysis of 180animals. Cumulative results offield trials indicates that UMMBsupplementation could increasemonthly net income by 200% fordairy and beef cattle farmers and100% for sheep farmers.

INSIDE Technical Co-operation is produced for the IAEA byMaximedia. The stories may be freely reproduced. For moreinformation contact: IAEA TC Programme Co-ordination Section,P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria. Tel: +431 2060 26005 Fax: +431 2060 29633 e-mail:[email protected]

SPECIAL REPORT

The DECADES Project: Progress Report

At the symposium, Dr. B.A. Semenov — who untilJanuary 1996 served as IAEA Deputy DirectorGeneral and Chairman of the Joint SteeringCommittee for the DECADES Project—reviewed theproject's three major areas of work.* These coverdatabases, methodologies, and training and support forimplementing comparative assessments.

Databases. A Reference Technology DataBase (RTDB) has been established, which runs onpersonal computers. It contains numerical, textualand visual information on the main characteristicsof electricity generation technologies at differentlevels of production chains using fossil fuels, nu-clear power, and renewable energy sources. Severalhundreds of technologies are characterized by adetailed set of parameters, covering technical per-formance, costs, atmospheric emissions, wastes,and other environmental burdens. In parallel withthe RTDB, some 15 countries have been assisted inimplementing Country Specific Data Bases(CSDBs), using the RTDB computer system tostore information about their electricity chain facili-ties. The CSDBs cover more than 1000 technologies.

Methodologies. Two main tasks had been un-dertaken on methodologies: 1) the preparation of areport describing already available computer toolsfor comparative assessment of electricity genera-tion options and strategies; and, 2) the developmentof a new software package for electricity systemanalysis and planning (DECPAC).

The report on computer tools is based uponinformation provided by software developers fromdifferent countries and international organizations.The new software package, DECPAC, was devel-oped with financial support from the United Statesand provides enhanced capabilities for integratingtechnical, economic, health and environmental as-pects into electricity system expansion planning. Itis linked with the RTDBs and CSDBs and enablesanalysis of costs, airborne emissions, solid wastes,and other health and environmental burdens of dif-ferent electricity generation strategies. Some 12teams from different countries are testing DECPACfor case studies, and their initial experience hasshown that it is very useful to analysts and plannersin the power sector, and that it meets a real need.

Training and Support. Training workshopsare being organized at national, regional or interre-gional level. They involve users groups that havebeen established to promote exchange of informa-tion between users and the software developers.Work was started late in 1994 on a reference bookintegrating economic, social, health, and environ-mental issues into policy making for the powersector. The book's preparation is being led jointlyby the IAEA and the World Bank, with importantcontributions by other DECADES organizationsand national experts. It addresses issues such asintegrated resource planning, external cost valu-

ation and internalization, and multi-criteria analysisand decision-aiding tools. Expected to be com-pleted by mid-1996, the book is intended to helppolicy makers in designing a comparative assess-ment framework adapted to specific requirementsand objectives and in selecting appropriate com-puter tools for carrying out decision support studies.

Case studies. Dr. Semenov pointed out thatmore than 20 country case studies have been doneon comparative assessment of alternative strategiesand policies for the electrical power sector throughthe IAEA's Co-ordinated Research Programme(CRP). Participating in these studies are experts inthe fields of electricity system analysis, macro-eco-nomics, and environmental impact assessment. TheCRP has led to an increased recognition of the needto reconcile various concerns and priorities; forexample, alleviating local and global environmentalimpacts and comparatively addressing economic,social, and security of supply issues.

Encouraging Results. Results obtained so farthrough DECADES are encouraging, Dr. Semenovsaid, and demonstrate the effectiveness of jointefforts by international organizations and nationalexperts and institutes. High interest in the projecthas been shown by national experts, in particularfrom developing countries and countries in transi-tion. While the project's first phase focuses on thecomparison of different electricity supply options,some new directions have been identified, notablyconcerning demand-side technologies. Informationon these technologies might be added to the data-bases, and an analysis of demand-side optionsmight be incorporated into the DECPAC model. Inthis regard, Dr. Semenov noted that there has beenclose co-ordination with the project on establishingan "Environment Manual for Power Develop-ment", which has been managed by the WorldBank. The results from this project could provide abasis for further enhancing DECADES tools.

Another area of greater future emphasis con-cerns comparative analysis of health and environ-mental impacts. The IAEA has done some work onestablishing a database on Health and Environ-mental Impacts of Energy Systems, but more workis required to produce a tool that can be used in thecomparative assessment process. The EuropeanCommission, in co-operation with national researchinstitutes, also has done work on the external costsof energy systems. Also useful would be nationalstudies using tools that have been developed toexamine high-priority issues, such as the cost-effec-tiveness of different energy systems and measuresfor mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and otherenvironmental burdens.

For an earlier report, see "Electricity, health, and theenvironment: The Decades Project", by Evelyne Bertel,IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 2 (June 1995).


SPECIAL REPORT

• Electricity's share in OECD energy use isexpected to increase from 18% to over 21% bythe year 2010. Electricity is an important sourceof CO2 emissions in the OECD, accounting for33% of total energy-related CO2 emissions in1993. Thus, in spite of the commitments taken inrelation to the Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change, total emissions from electricityproduction in OECD countries are expected togrow, since electricity demand is projected toincrease by some 2.1% per annum up to 2010.However, the emissions will depend on the fuelmix, which differs greatly among OECD coun-tries at present. Norway, for example, currentlygenerates 99% of its electricity from renewableenergies; Denmark uses coal for 87% of its elec-tricity and the United Kingdom, United States,Australia, and Germany also rely on coal for themajority of their electricity generation. France,on the other hand, relies on nuclear power forsome 75% of its electricity supply, while Italygenerates the majority of its electricity from oil.

• In Canada, indigenous populations are beinginvolved in the planning of a hydro-electric pro-ject. Through a process of intensive consultationwith the indigenous Inuit populations, it waspossible to identify a number of measures thatcould help to meet their concerns about potentialimpacts of the project. Also, the consultativeprocess gave community members a measure ofconfidence and a feeling of control over the pro-ject, which they otherwise would not have felt.This process showed the importance of involvinginterested and affected parties as active partici-pants in the decision-making process, and notmerely as passive spectators.

Session 2: Assessment of Health and Envi-ronmental Impacts. Chaired by Prof. MohanMunasinghe from Sri Lanka, this session exam-ined the ongoing development of tools for as-sessing health and environmental impacts of en-ergy chains for electricity generation. Presenta-tions included those by Prof. B. S0rensen ofDenmark; Prof. A. Markandya, Harvard Univer-sity, United States; Dr. N. Pop-Jordanova, For-mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Ms. D.Lin, China; Ms. N.P. Villela, Brazil; and Dr. S.Morris, World Health Organization Collaborat-ing Centre on Health and Environmental Effectsof Energy Systems, Brookhaven National Labo-ratory, United States. Major points were made onvarious issues.

• Several papers stressed the continuing need toimprove databases and analytical tools so thatuncertainties in data and results can be reduced.Putting monetary values on health impacts fromenergy systems is a difficult task and many prob-lems still must be resolved. However, the mone-tary valuation of impacts can assist in the deci-

sion-making process, both in the selection offuels and technologies and in the location ofpower plants.• The standard approach of analyzing directhealth effects caused by exposure to physical andchemical agents should be extended to includeconsideration of psychological effects (e.g.stress, anxiety, fear), Dr. Pop-Jordanova sug-gested. Her research showed there is a great dif-ference between the real and perceived healtheffects from energy systems. Objective andtransparent information from comparative as-sessments could help to reduce this difference.• All energy technologies involve some degreeof health risk. Dr. Morris noted that despite manystudies on the relative health effects of differentmethods of generating electricity, the results donot appear to have affected actual investmentchoices. However, due to the increasing publicconcern about health and environmental aspectsof power generation, it may be expected thatsuch studies would have a greater influence onfuture decisions. It is thus important that thecomparative assessment approaches are capableof providing decision-makers with scientificallycorrect and understandable information.• Scientists and analysts still have a long way togo in order to provide the type of comprehensiveinformation that is needed by decision-makers,Prof. Munasinghe stressed in his concluding re-marks. More has to be done in investigatingcomprehensively transboundary and global is-sues such as greenhouse gas emissions and im-pacts; assessing long-term' effects that mightarise from chemical and radioactive waste dis-posal for example; and exploring all potentialimpact pathways. The uncertainties that still pre-vail in data and in results from modelling studiesmake it impossible to give definitive answers toall questions. Thus, there is a need for moreco-operation and exchange between analysts anddecision-makers to transfer adequate informa-tion and useful results from analytical studies tothose responsible for policy making.

Session 3: Integrated Frameworks for Com-parative Assessment. Chaired by Mr. KurtYeager, Electric Power Research Institute,United States, this session included presentationsby Prof. P. Capros of Greece; Mr. N.J. Eyre andMs. J.E. Berry on the ExternE Project of the ECand the US Department of Energy; Prof. M.Munasinghe of Sri Lanka; Dr. S. Hirschberg ofthe Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland; Dr. Y.Uchiyama, Central Research Institute of theElectric Power Industry, Japan; Dr. I.F. Vladu ofthe IAEA; Prof. M. Chadwick, Stockholm Envi-ronment Institute, Sweden; and Dr. R. Wilson,Harvard University, United States. Selectedhighlights are featured here.


SPECIAL REPORT

• The ExternE project has shown that it is diffi-cult to achieve full comparability between differ-ent fuel cycles, since each one has unique im-pacts and the assumptions adopted in the quanti-fication can affect their comparison. Some fuelcycles have very long-term impacts, notablyglobal warming impacts from fossil fuel cyclesand the radiological impacts of long-lived iso-topes from the nuclear fuel cycle. Both the mone-tary values and the methodology for weightingthe distribution of risks to the population andover time and space remain controversial, whichadds to uncertainty. Despite some unresolvedissues, the study has made important advancesin: evaluating damages over very long time andspace scales; reporting them in a consistent man-ner for different energy cycles; identifying theremaining uncertainties; and highlighting im-portant parameters in the decision-makingprocess.

• A life-cycle analysis of electricity generationchains in Switzerland showed that nuclear poweremits some 100 times less greenhouse gases thanhard coal chains and 10 times less than solarsystems. For fuel cycles other than fossil, thepower plant contributes only a minor amount togreenhouse gas emissions, while the other stepsof the chain are responsible for the major shareof emissions, owing to energy consumption andmaterial production in these steps. In the Swisscontext, expected technological improvementswill reduce greenhouse gas emissions by some30% for the coal-fired and nuclear systems; andby a factor of five for solar systems with theintroduction of amorphous silicon panels.• A life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emis-sions from electricity generation and supply sys-tems in Japan found that coal, oil, and gas sys-tems emit respectively some 270, 190, and 180grams of carbon per kWh of electricity gener-ated. On the other side, hydropower, nuclearpower, and solar photovoltaic power emit re-spectively some 5,6, and 35 grams of carbon perkWh. Technological improvements are expectedto reduce significantly the greenhouse gas emis-sions from electricity systems. Combined cyclegas turbine plants fuelled with liquefied naturalgas (LNG) will emit 140 grams of carbon perkWh as compared to 180 grams per kWh withcurrently used natural gas fired plants. The pro-gress is expected to be even more significant fornuclear power and photovoltaic systems. Ad-vanced nuclear reactors with a closed fuel cyclewill emit some 2 to 3 grams of carbon per kWh(versus 6 grams per kWh with current nucleartechnology) and photovoltaic systems usingamorphous silicon cells will emit 8 grams ofcarbon per kWh (versus 35 grams per kWh withphotovoltaic power plants now in operation).

• All approaches to environmental risk assess-ment have difficulties in regard to quantitativeestimation; not only are the environmental ef-fects not readily quantified but there is no generalagreement on what should be quantified, Prof.Chadwick noted. A number of methods havebeen proposed in order to overcome this problemand a number of possible approaches have beentaken to comparative environmental risk assess-ment. However, more work needs to be done toreach some level of agreement on the approachwhich is most useful in the decision-makingprocess, and he recommended that this could bea fruitful area of work for the next phase of theDECADES project.• Four issues dominate public concerns aboutenergy sources, although the magnitude of therisk of each is controversial, either because theexperts do not agree or the public does not trustthe experts, in the view of Dr. Wilson. The fourare the probability and effect of a severe nuclearpower accident; the health impact of paniculateair pollution; the global climate effect of in-creased CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels;and wastes from the nuclear fuel cycle. Dr. Wil-son stressed that severe accidents can and dohappen in energy systems, and that overall nu-clear power's safety record is excellent. The ef-fects of fossil fuel use on public health are pri-marily those of air pollution, especially fromemissions of very small particles and sulphates.He noted that many studies show that it seemslikely that CO2 concentrations in the earth's at-mosphere will rise to two or three times thehistorical levels within the next century. Al-though there remains considerable controversyabout what the effects will be, it generally isagreed that we are making a large change in animportant climate parameter (CO2) which couldaffect the entire earth. Nuclear power, whoseCO2 impact is negligible, has the potential toreplace at least a significant share of fossil fuelsfor electricity generation.

With regard to wastes from energy systems,Dr. Wilson noted that many experts are of theopinion that nuclear power is the only energysystem for which society has any idea of a sensi-ble long-term solution. Coal wastes are not per-ceived by the public as a major problem, yetthese wastes contain radioactive materials withhalf lives comparable to long-lived nuclearwastes. Furthermore, the volume or weight ofwastes from coal production and burning dwarfsthat from the nuclear fuel cycle. In the UnitedStates, for example, about 800 million tons ofcoal are mined in the country each year, produc-ing some 120 million tons of ashes and 20 mil-lion tons of sulphur compounds when it is burnedfor electricity generation.


SPECIAL REPORT

Session 4: Implementation of ComparativeAssessment. Chaired by Prof. Zhou Dadi ofChina, this session included presentations by Mr.L. Bennett et. al. of the IAEA; Prof. T. Lefevre,Economic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific (ESCAP); Mr. T. Herberg and Mr. U.Fritsche, Germany; Mr. M. Amann, InternationalInstitute for-Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA);Mr. R.. Campo, Colombia; and Dr. C. Heaps et.al., Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)-Bos-ton Centre, United States.• Results were reported from some 20 compara-tive assessment case studies sponsored by theIAEA as part of the DECADES project. Thestudies sought to identify electricity generationstrategies that would meet the objectives of envi-ronmental protection, in particular reduction ofatmospheric emissions at acceptable cost. Over-all results showed that significant reductions ofemissions and other environmental burdens canbe obtained by improving the efficiency of exist-ing facilities at different levels of the energychains, including the fuel conversion and trans-portation steps. The rehabilitation of existingpower plants, in particular by adding pollutioncontrol technologies, is often a cost-effectivemeasure for mitigating environmental impacts.Improving the overall efficiency of energy sys-tems by promoting co-generation is identified asa very cost-effective option in many countries,especially where heat distribution networks al-ready exist for district heating.

In those studies where it was considered,nuclear power appeared to be cost effective forreducing emissions of SO2, NOX and CO2. Forexample, some studies showed that, althoughCO2 emission reduction targets could beachieved without nuclear power, its use wouldlead to significantly lower costs. In general, thestudies showed that the possibilities for CO2emission reduction in the electric power sectorwould be very limited without the use of nuclearpower.• ESCAP has carried out Energy Environ-mental Planning (EEP) case studies in the frame-work of the Programme for Asian Co-operationon Energy and the Environment. Prof. Lefevrestressed that, although sustainable developmentnow is widely embraced as a key societal goal, itis clear that the specification of sustainable poli-cies for the energy sector is a complex task thatposes serious dilemmas for many Asian coun-tries. Developing countries of Asia are striving toincrease energy production and/or imports tokeep up with desired energy consumption. Be-cause the countries are developing rapidly andenergy production capacity must be addedquickly, emphasis has been placed on minimiz-ing capital costs, with relatively little concern for

environmental consequences. However, thesecountries increasingly are feeling pressure, frommultilateral lenders and donor countries, to paymore attention to the environment and to sustain-able development. Also, as many of the countrieshave become more prosperous, their citizens arebecoming less willing to sacrifice environmentalquality (including public health) for cheap en-ergy. As a consequence, the countries are seek-ing technical and scientific information, as wellas state-of-the-art methodologies and tools forenergy-environmental analysis to help themmake informed decisions about their energy de-velopment strategies.• Under the SEI/UNEP Fuel Chain Project, twocountries (Venezuela and Sri Lanka) have usedthe project's software and database to examinefuel and technology options across a range offuels and energy sectors. The two case studiesshowed that fuel chain analysis can be useful inhighlighting trade-offs between local and globalenvironmental impacts. For example in Vene-zuela, the analysis found that while compressednatural gas (CNG) would be favoured over dieselin terms of local air pollution resulting from thepower plant, the use of CNG could result inhigher global emissions of greenhouse gases.

Session 5: Implementation of ComparativeAssessment: Country Case Studies. Chaired byDr. Cesar Cordoba-Salazar of Colombia, thissession included presentations by Dr. T. Larssonet. al., Sweden; Dr. A. Khan et. al., Pakistan; Dr.A. Popescu et.al., Romania; Dr. A. Das, India;Dr. M. Vielle, France; Dr. J. Geidl and Dr. S.Kanhouwa, United States; and Ms. S. Messner,IIASA in Austria.• Studies in Sweden have compared the effecton CO2 emissions from three different policieson energy taxes and subsidies. The main differ-ences were between the tax systems introducedin 1990 and 1994, as well as some difference inthe policies on subsidies for the energy sector.The results showed that the 1994 changes inenergy policy would lead to CO2 emissions be-ing reduced in 2005 to 20% below what theywould have been if the 1990 policy were still inuse. However, beyond 2005, i.e. from the start ofthe planned nuclear phase-out and beyond, CO2emissions will rise drastically regardless ofwhich policy (1990 or 1994) would be in effect.• In Pakistan, a study carried out under theDECADES project involved two possible pathsof development of electricity generation, one thatenvisaged a reasonable growth in nuclear powercapacity and the other postulating a moratorium.The two cases were compared in terms of theirassociated emissions of pollutants such as SO2,NOX, CO2, methane, radioisotopes, taking intoaccount the full energy chain of each supply


SPECIAL REPORT

option. The study showed that the increased useof nuclear power in Pakistan would not only becost effective but also would be helpful in reduc-ing environmental impacts from electricity gen-eration in the country.• In Romania, a comparative assessment of al-ternative electricity supply strategies showedthat the least-cost plan for expansion of the elec-tricity generation system would use combinedcycle natural gas-fired power plants. The casewith expanded use of nuclear power showed totalcosts (up to 2015) that were some 2.6% higherthan the least-cost plan; however, the use ofnuclear power would allow emissions of CO2and NOX to be reduced by 70% and 80%, respec-tively, up to 2015, relative to the least-cost case.• In India, a, study examined different CO2-abatement measures, such as accelerated devel-opment of hydropower, increased use of renew-able energies, and increased use of clean coaltechnologies. The power sector is the single larg-est contributor of CO2 emissions in India, andelectricity demand is expected to grow at 6% to7% per year. If the current domination of coal inelectricity generation continues, then CO2 emis-sions from the electricity sector would triple bythe years 2011-2012. The study showed that thelowest cost strategy involved the accelerated de-velopment of hydropower. It would not only leadto lower costs but also would reduce CO2 emis-sions in 2011/2012 by some 12%. The study alsoexamined an "abatement scenario" which as-sumed a 25% reduction of CO2 emissions up to2011/2012. This scenario included both the ac-celerated development of hydro and the intro-duction of clean coal technologies. Resultsshowed that this scenario would be some 7%more costly than the business-as-usual scenario.

• In France, a study examined nuclear power'seconomic and environmental impacts. It foundthat if France had not developed its nuclearpower programme, the price of electricity wouldbe some 15% higher than what exists today, andwould be highly sensitive to fluctuations in theprice of imported coal. Sulphur dioxide emis-sions would be 18% higher that the current lev-els, and other atmospheric emissions would behigher by an even greater amount.• A IIASA research project is examining long-term options and strategies for sustainable en-ergy development, in particular by assessing thepotential for reducing energy use and the carbonintensity of energy worldwide. The project hasled to an inventory of technologies for reducingCO2 emissions and the data's application in anumber of studies. The database contains infor-mation on over 1400 technologies, with morethan 70% of the entries being for electricity gen-eration and cogeneration technologies.

Session 6: Comparative Assessment in De-cision Making. Chaired by Dr. Nengah Sudja ofIndonesia, the final technical session includedpresentations by Ms. B. Reuber of Canada; Prof.R. Dutkiewicz, South Africa; and Dr. D. Martin-sen and Dr. A. Voss et. al., Germany. A numberof important points were addressed.• In Canada, Ontario Hydro has included com-parative assessment as an integral part of itsdecision-making process. Externality values (i.e.social costs, such as health effects, that are notalways fully reflected in the price of electricity)have been established for Ontario's fossil-firedpower stations and for the full life-cycle of itsnuclear power stations. Preliminary data showthat for the fossil power stations, the externalityvalues ranged from a low of 0.06 Canadian centsper kWh to a high of 1.66, with an average of0.40. For nuclear stations, the estimated external-ity costs ranged from a low of 0.0015 to a high of0.12 cents per kWh.• A comprehensive study in Germany analyzedpossible paths for the future development of thenational energy system, with the objective ofidentifying strategies for reducing CO2 emis-sions by 30% up to the year 2005 and 50% up tothe year 2020. The possible role of nuclear poweras a mitigation measure was analyzed by fourseparate 50% CO2 reduction scenarios, includingone with a build-up of nuclear capacity. Thestudy concluded that a 50% CO2 reduction by theyear 2020 is feasible, and that it can be attainedwith technologies that are already available orknown to become available in the next 30 years.The 50% CO2 reduction target could be achievedwithout the use of nuclear energy as a carbon-free energy carrier, although at considerablecost. The expanded use of nuclear energy wouldallow the target to be reached with significantlylower costs of energy supply.

Future directions

The international symposium underscoredthe importance of comparative assessments insupport of decision-making in the electricity sec-tor. It further identified a number of areas wheregreater global co-operation is needed to improvethe base of information and the analytical toolsand methodologies for conducting comparativestudies.

Through its programmes and activities, theIAEA is continuing to examine areas in which itsexpertise and support can best be applied to assistnational policy- and decision-makers in objec-tively and comprehensively assessing their en-ergy systems and strategies. •


TOPICAL REPORTS

Environmental impact of radioactivereleases: Addressing global issues

New information presented at an IAEA symposium is helpingthe global community to address radioecological concerns

by GordonLinsley

In the decade after the United Nations Confer-ence on the Human Environment, held in Stock-holm in 1972, the IAEA organized a series ofinternational meetings with themes concernedwith radionuclides and their behaviour in theenvironment. In the atmosphere of concern forthe environment which followed the UN Confer-ence, the IAEA-sponsored meetings provided afocal point for international discussion andserved to summarize the state of knowledge onradionuclide behaviour in different environ-mental media. A considerable amount of re-search was, at that time, being directed in IAEAMember States towards achieving an under-standing of the behaviour of radionuclides, andespecially of long-lived radionuclides, in the ter-restrial and aquatic environments. The last sym-posium in this sequence of meetings was held inKnoxville, Tennessee, in the United States in1981 with the title, "The Environmental Migra-tion of Long-Lived Radionuclides".

Today, there is a new and increasing concernfor the environment stemming from various evi-dences that the environment is being seriouslyaffected by the activities of human beings. Weare all aware of the effects of regional pollutionand the possible threats of global warming andozone layer depletion. It was to address these andother similar concerns that the UN held its Con-ference on Environment and Development in Riode Janeiro in 1992. In the context of radionu-clides in the environment there has also been arenewed interest; however, the stimulus in thiscase has come from a different direction. Therelaxation of tensions between the countries ofthe east and the west has allowed much pre-viously classified information on matters relatedto radioactive releases and their environmentalimpacts to become available. It is this new sourceof environmental information, together with the

Mr. Linsley is Acting Head of the IAEA's Waste SafetySection in the Department of Nuclear Safety.

environmental information from the Chernobylaccident, which has renewed interest and stimu-lated research on radionuclides in the environ-ment in recent years. In many cases, the need togain greater understanding of radionuclide be-haviour in the environment is linked to the plansfor cleaning up the environmental contaminationwhich resulted from weapons production opera-tions and the early days of nuclear fuel cycledevelopment.

It was with these developments in mind thatthe Agency organized the International Sympo-sium on Environmental Impact of RadionuclideReleases, in Vienna in May 1995.* A total of 222experts from 39 countries and five internationalorganizations participated. This article summa-rizes the Symposium's highlights in selectedtopical areas that were addressed.

Studies in the marine environment

Since the time it was revealed that high- andlow-level radioactive wastes had been dumped inthe shallow waters of the Kara Sea in the Arcticover a period of 30 years, many studies havebeen initiated to evaluate the implications of thedumping. Shortly after the revelations in late1991 and 1992, the IAEA, in collaboration withaffected countries, launched an international pro-ject aimed at assessing the current and possiblefuture impacts on health and the environment ofthe dumping. This project, known as the Interna-tional Arctic Seas Assessment Project (IASAP),is still continuing but some preliminary resultswere reported at the Symposium. Other presen-tations from Norway and the Russian Federationand from the IAEA's Marine Environment Labo-

*The Proceedings of the Internationa! Symposium on Envi-ronmental Impact of Radioactive Releases, held in Vienna8-12 May 1995, have been published by the IAEA. See the"Keep Abreast" section of the IAEA Bulletin for orderinginformation


TOPICAL REPORTS

ratory (IAEA-MEL) described the investigatorycruises to the affected area and associated experi-mental studies. The cruises have succeeded inlocating some of the dumped high level wastesand measurements have been made in situ andalso on samples taken in the vicinity of thedumped objects ( submarines, reactor compart-ments, waste containers). The studies haveshown that contamination can be detected closeto some of the objects but at distances greaterthan a few tens of meters little or nothing can bedetected. Since the wastes are located in a remoteand inhospitable region, it has been concludedthat they pose no threat to health or to the envi-ronment at the present time. However, there re-mains concern about the possible hazards whichmight result from leakage of radionuclides fromthe wastes at some future time. This issue isbeing evaluated as part of the IASAP togetherwith an analysis of the feasibility of carrying outremediation actions on the wastes.

The session on the marine environment alsocontained presentations on the analysis of theimpact of the discharges from the Sellafield re-processing plant in the United Kingdom, a sub-ject which has been controversial in recent years.The presentations focused on the historical de-velopment of discharge control at the site. Theyshowed how discharges have been dramaticallyreduced from the levels in the 1970s and early1980s by the introduction of effluent clean-uptechnology. At the same time, methods for ana-lyzing the environmental impact of the dis-charges have also developed in sophisticationand sensitivity.

Environmental model testing

The session on this subject was mainly fo-cused on the IAEA programme called VAMP(Validation of Environmental Model Predic-tions) which ran from 1988 to 1994. The pro-gramme was aimed at taking advantage of thewidespread distribution of radionuclides in theenvironment after the Chernobyl accident. Theresults of the subsequent measuring and monitor-ing programmes formed a basis for testing thepredictions of mathematical models.

The VAMP programme proved to be verysuccessful and involved well over 100 scientistsfrom many different countries. Several presenta-tions based around the results of the four VAMPworking groups (Terrestrial, Urban, Aquatic(Lakes and Rivers and Reservoirs) and MultiplePathways) were made at the Symposium. Theexercises in VAMP provided a unique opportu-nity for testing the accuracy of model predic-tions. In some cases, existing models and transfer

coefficients were shown to give a reasonablerepresentation of the transfer of radionuclidesthrough the environment. In other cases, pre-vious generic assumptions regarding, for exam-ple, dietary intakes and food sources, wereshown to be inappropriate for application to aparticular environment. A general lesson fromthe studies is that each environment is differentto the extent that it is unlikely that reliable pre-dictions of radionuclide transfer to humans canbe made without a detailed knowledge of thecharacteristics of the environment and of thehabits of the exposed population group. In themodel testing studies, there was a general trendtowards over-prediction. One of the most likelyreasons for this is associated with the use towhich models are normally put, that is, they aremost commonly used for the purpose of compar-ing radiation doses received by critical popula-tion groups from releases of radionuclides fromoperating practices with dose limits. In this ap-plication, there is a need to be sure that doses donot exceed the dose limit and so the assumptionsand parameter values in the models tend to beselected in a way which will make underestima-tion unlikely.

Another feature of the VAMP programme,illustrated by presentations at the Symposium,was the opportunity for reviewing the state-of-the-art in modelling important transfer proc-esses. Expert reviews carried out in the course ofthe VAMP programme have resulted in IAEApublications on the modelling of the resuspen-sion process (ground to air), the interception andretention of radionuclides on plant surfaces,transfer in natural ecosystems, and the effective-ness of food preparation methods for the removalof radionuclide contaminants.

Radiation dose reconstruction

Operations in the early years of nuclearweapons development were directed at produc-tion targets and so the proper management ofradioactive and other wastes was not usuallygiven a high priority. Operational releases ofradionuclides to the atmosphere occurred at highlevels from several of the nuclear weapons pro-duction facilities. There were also releases to theenvironment from accidents at some of the facili-ties and also as a result of nuclear weapons test-ing. Information on these events has becomeavailable in recent years as previously classifieddocuments have been released for public scru-tiny.

The concern of potentially affected popula-tion groups and, in some cases, the legal actiontaken against the responsible authorities, has


TOPICAL REPORTS

Annual Dose from Natural Radiation Sources in the Environment(in areas of normal background radiation)

Annual effective dose (micro-sievert)

Source External Internal Total

Cosmic raysCosmogenic radionuclides

Terrestial radionuchdesPotassium-40Uranium-238 series:238U-> 234U ->Thorium-230

Radium-226

Radon-222-> Polonium-214

Lead-210 -> Polonium-210Thorium-232 series

Total (rounded)

380

130

140

190

840

12

170

1

4

1200

50

80

1520

38012

300

1400

270

2400

Long Term Committed Doses from Man-Made Sources

Source Main radionuclides Collective effectivedose (man-Sv)

Atmospheric nuclear testing

Chernobyl accidentNuclear power productionRadioisotope production and use •Nuclear weapons fabricationKyshtym accidentSatellite re-entriesWindscale accidentOther accidents

Underground nuclear testing

Carbon-14, Caesium-137, Strontium-90, 30 000 000Zirconium-95Caesium-137, Caesium-134, lodine-131 600 000Carbon-14, Radon-222 400 000Carbon-14 80 000Caesium-137, Ruthenium-106, Zirconium-95 60 000

Cerium-144, Zirconium-95, Strontium-90 2 500Plutonium-238, Plutonium-239, Caesium-137 2 100lodine-131, Polonium-210, Caesium-137 2 000Caesium-137, Xenon-133, Cobalt-60, 300lndium-192

lodine-131 200

Most significant releases of radionuclides to the environment from human activities have been fromatmospheric nuclear weapons testing. Next in importance is the Chernobyl accident, followed by long-termexposures from carbon-14 and radon-222 associated with nuclear power production. A large part (86%) ofthe collective dose from nuclear weapons testing is due to long-term exposure from carbon-14. Someperspective on these estimated doses from human activities can be gained by comparison with those fromnatural sources. An estimated 13,000,000 man-sievert due to natural sources (e.g., cosmic rays,potassium-40 in the body, and radon gas) is delivered each year to the world population (2400 micro-sievertx 5.4 x 109 persons).

prompted investigations of the radiation expo-sures received by local populations as a result ofthe releases. At the Symposium, presentations on" dose reconstruction" themes were made in con-nection with the 1957 Khyshtym accident (Rus-sian Federation) and with nuclear weapons test-

ing at Semipalatinsk (Kazakhstan), and the Ne-vada Test Site (United States). The long timeperiods which have elapsed since the releasesoccurred have created problems for radiologicalassessment "detectives" to solve, and, for exam-ple, it has necessitated the development of new


TOPICAL REPORTS

environmental techniques for estimating thedoses received by exposed populations up to 40years ago.

Environmental remediation

The historical problems discussed abovehave also created a legacy of environmental con-tamination in many parts of the world. In addi-tion to the contamination of parts of the terres-trial and aquatic environments created by weap-ons production and testing activities, many coun-tries are affected by the residues from uraniumand thorium mining operations, and from othernon-nuclear related mining activities. Contami-nation from the Chernobyl accident still affectssome countries, especially in forested and uplandareas. Research into cost-effective and environ-mentally friendly solutions to these problems isgoing on in many countries. Presentations at theSymposium included descriptions of ameliora-tive techniques to be applied to soils, water,vegetation and cattle.

Topical discussion sessions

Discussion sessions were held on two topicswhich are currently subjects of controversy anddebate within the radioecological community.

Environmental Protection. The generallyaccepted position on this subject is that if humanbeings living in the environment are adequatelyprotected from ionizing radiations then it can beassumed that other living species are also ade-quately protected at the population level al-though not necessarily at the individual level.This is the view currently taken by the Interna-tional Commission on Radiation Protection(ICRP) and the position has been supported byan IAEA study published in 1992.*

However, circumstances can be envisaged inwhich this assumption, on its own, may be insuf-ficient to guarantee protection of non-humanspecies, for example, where radionuclides arereleased to an area where no humans are present.There could also be presentational reasons forwishing to have specific criteria for protectingenvironmental species; the accepted ICRP ap-proach might be misunderstood and interpretedas an attitude of unconcern for the environment.Explicit criteria for protecting non-human spe-cies might, therefore, be justified on thesegrounds. On the other hand, the introduction of

* Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals atLevels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards,IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 332, Vienna (1992).

specific environmental protection criteria couldcarry with it the requirement for more environ-mental monitoring and assessment than is cur-rently practiced and, overall, it could involvesubstantial extra costs for utilities and regulators.These are some of the points debated during thesession on environmental protection and it isclear that more discussions on the subject willtake place over the next few years.

The Precautionary Principle. The principleof precautionary action has appeared in variousinternational documents in recent years, notablyin UNCED's Rio Declaration (Agenda 2 l)and insome regional conventions on protection of themarine environment. It is stated in various differ-ent ways; one example, taken from the Conven-tion on the Protection of the Marine Environ-ment of the Baltic Sea is as follows: "to takepreventive measures when there is reason to as-sume that substances or energy introduced, di-rectly or indirectly, into the marine environmentmay create hazards to human health, harm livingresources and marine ecosystems, damageamenities or interfere with other legitimate usesof the sea even when there is no conclusiveevidence of a causal relationship between inputsand their alleged effects".

The final part of the definition is obviouslycontroversial and it was the focal point of thediscussion session on the precautionary principleat the Symposium. On the one hand, it can beargued that most present legislation on wastedischarge can be seen as unsatisfactory in that itrequires scientists to prove that there is an effectfrom a harmful substance in the environmentbefore regulatory measures will be introduced.The precautionary approach would require a "re-versal of the burden of proof. Such a develop-ment could be useful in cases where little isknown about the substance that is planned to bedischarged or where the biogeochemical cycleand risks of the substance in the environment arepoorly understood. On the other hand, the pre-cautionary principle, if taken literally, could im-ply that no discharges of substances to the envi-ronment should be allowed since it is likely to beimpossible to provide absolute proof that noharm will occur.

It is clear that while the precautionary ap-proach is appropriate as a general concept, itneeds to be interpreted for application to particu-lar situations. It should be applied in ways whichdo not prevent the controlled release of sub-stances to the environment whose properties arewell known and whose behaviour in the environ-ment to which they are being released is wellunderstood. •


TOPICAL REPORTS

International Centre for TheoreticalPhysics: A new institutional framework

Under a new Tripartite Agreement, the IAEA, UNESCO, andItaly strengthen their co-operative support of the research centre

by Edwin ^ • v e r more than three decades, the Interna-Nwogugu tional Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in

Trieste, Italy, has blossomed through the visionand energy of its creator, Professor AbdusSalam, and his collaborators into a leading inter-national centre for research and training. In-itially, the Centre's activities were mainly in theareas of nuclear physics and nuclear data, highenergy physics, atomic physics, fusion physicsand mathematics. Over time, they extended tobroad areas of physics related to energy, solidstate physics, environment, medicine, biology,space science, lasers and mathematics, includingcomputer science in its various aspects.

Today, under the stewardship of its new Di-rector, Prof. Miguel Angel Virasoro, the Centrecontinues to play a unique role as a forum for thetraining of scientists from the Third World and asa point of contact for the exchange of scientificexpertise between industrialized and developingcountries. Thousands of scientists study at theICTP each year, participating in workshops,seminars, training courses, and a range of otherscientific activities.

A number of important changes were re-cently made to the organizational framework ofthe ICTP. These took effect 1 January 1996,when a Tripartite Agreement between the IAEA,the United Nations Scientific, Cultural and Edu-cational Organization (UNESCO), and the Ital-ian Government came into force. On the samedate, a new Joint Operation Agreement betweenthe Agency and UNESCO also took effect.These steps transfer the administrative responsi-bility for the ICTP from the IAEA to UNESCO.This article reviews the background and thechanges to the organizational framework of theCentre which were brought about by the two newagreements.

Mr. Nwogugu is a Senior Legal Officer in the IAEA's LegalDivision.

Historical legal background

The IAEA's support of the ICTP goes backmore than 30 years. In 1963, the Agency's Boardof Governors, acting on the recommendation ofthe General Conference, decided to establish atTrieste an international centre for theoreticalphysics on a provisional basis under IAEA aus-pices. Thereafter, the Agency negotiated anagreement with the Italian Government — theAgreement between the Agency and the Govern-ment of Italy Concerning the Establishment of anInternational Centre for Theoretical Physics atTrieste (INFCIRC/51) — which was approvedby the Board in September 1963. This Agree-ment was to remain in force for 4 years subject toextension by mutual agreement of the parties.

Four years later, in 1967, the parties decidednot to renew the earlier agreement but to con-clude in its place a new one — the Agreementbetween the Agency and the Government of ItalyConcerning the Seat of the International Centrefor Theoretical Physics (INFCIRC/114) —hereinafter referred to as " the Seat Agreement".It dealt with five principal questions concerningthe Centre: the seat of the Centre; provision ofpublic services; privileges and immunities of theAgency at the Centre; liaison with the govern-ment; and settlement of disputes.

At the same time, the Agency left open thequestion of the participation of other interestedinternational organizations in the running of theCentre. In 1969, the Agreement between theIAEA and UNESCO Concerning the Joint Op-eration of the International Centre for Theoreti-cal Physics at Trieste (INFCIRC/132), hereinaf-ter referred to as "Joint Operation Agreement"was concluded. Article 1 sets out the purpose ofthe Centre, which is to foster, through trainingand research, the progress of all branches oftheoretical physics in accordance with the IAEAStatute and the UNESCO Constitution. The Cen-tre's functions were the training of young physi-


TOPICAL REPORTS

cists for research, especially from developingcountries; help in fostering the growth of ad-vanced studies of theoretical physics, especiallyin developing countries; conduct of original re-search; and the provision of an international forumfor personal contacts between theoretical physicistsfrom countries in all stages of development.

The Centre's administration was to be carriedout by the Agency on behalf of both organiza-tions. As a result, the ICTP's Director and staffwere IAEA personnel. However, decisions onthe appointment, promotion, and termination ofthe Centre's professional staff were to be takenjointly by the IAEA and UNESCO.

The Agreement also established a ScientificCouncil, jointly selected and appointed by theDirectors General of the IAEA and UNESCO.The Council's terms of reference inter alia arethe provision of advice to the Directors Generalof both organizations on the training, research,and other programmes of the Centre; the appoint-ment of the Director and the staff needed to carryout the ICTP's programmes; and the institutes oftheoretical physics in developing countrieswhich will be affiliated to or enter into federationagreements with the Centre. The Council alsoevaluates the Centre's activities and reports thereonto the Directors General of both organizations.

On financial matters, the Agreement pro-vided for both organizations to contribute to theCentre's budget, which would form part of theAgency's budget.

Changes in the ICTP's administration

Changes in the arrangements for the admini-stration of the Centre were influenced by a num-ber of factors. First, over the years, the Centrehad expanded its activities considerably to in-clude areas which were not related to the peace-ful uses of atomic energy. It was therefore doubt-ful whether it could continue as a part of theAgency, while executing activities which werebeyond the IAEA's mandate. Secondly, theICTP's activities could fit more appropriatelywithin the wide scientific mandate of UNESCO.Thirdly, the view was expressed that in consid-eration of Italy's role as the host and the highestcontributor to the Centre, it should be given amore active role in the Centre's administration.Lastly, UNESCO had indicated its willingness,as a joint operator, to take over the administrativeresponsibility for the Centre.

In 1992, the IAEA Director General wasmandated by the Board to transfer the ICTP'sadministrative responsibilities to UNESCO andto negotiate an agreement in that respect. Tripar-tite negotiations took place over several months

between the Agency, UNESCO, and the ItalianGovernment. The talks resulted in the conclusionof two agreements. The first — Agreement be-tween the IAEA, UNESCO, and the Governmentof the Republic of Italy concerning the Interna-tional Centre for Theoretical Physics at Trieste(INFCIRC/418) — hereinafter referred to as the"Tripartite Agreement", laid down a new frame-work for the Centre's administration. The JointOperations Agreement was replaced by a newand modified agreement of the same title(INFCIRC/499).

The Centre's President. As the Centre's ac-tivities grew, it became necessary to assign newresponsibilities to the founding Director, Profes-sor Salam, in recognition of his immense contri-butions. The IAEA and UNESCO as joint opera-tors of the Centre and the Italian Government asthe host state and major donor offered ProfessorSalam the position of the President of the Centrewhich he took on 1 January 1994. The functionsof the President include, inter alia, the setting upof a forum for the co-ordination of programmesof activities of the international scientific institu-tions in the area of Trieste.

Tripartite Agreement

The Tripartite Agreement which entered intoforce 1 January 1996 contains a number of im-portant provisions.

Seat Agreement. Article 1 amends the SeatAgreement to provide the framework for thetransfer of the administrative responsibility fromthe Agency to UNESCO. UNESCO replaced theAgency as a party to, and took over all rights andobligations of the Agency, under the existingSeat Agreement on the understanding that therelevant provisions on the Agreement of thePrivileges and Immunities of the Agency contin-ues to be applicable mutatis mutandis with re-gard to the Centre after its transfer to UNESCO.Consequently, the words "the Agency" are re-placed as appropriate with "UNESCO" in theexisting Seat Agreement.

The Organization of the Centre. Article 2establishes that the organizational framework ofthe Centre consists of the following: the SteeringCommittee; the Director; and the ScientificCouncil.

The Steering Committee. A Steering Com-mittee was created by Article 3 as an apexauthority for the Centre. An innovation in theorganization of the Centre, it is to be composedof the following members: one high-level repre-sentative each designated by the Director Gen-eral of UNESCO, the Director General of theAgency; and by the Italian Government; such


TOPICAL REPORTS

Prof. Miguel AngelVirasoro, new ICTP

Director, with DirectorsGeneral Blix of the IAEA

(left) and Mayor ofUNESCO (right).

Above right: Prof. AbdusSalam, founder and now

President of the ICTP.(Credit: ICTP)

other members as may be appointed by the Steer-ing Committee in order to ensure appropriaterepresentation of those countries or institutionshaving made particularly important contribu-tions to or having a particular interest in theactivities of the Centre; and the Director who isalso the ex officio Chairperson of the SteeringCommittee.

The representatives of the two organizationsand the Italian Government may be accompaniedby experts to meetings of the Steering Commit-tee. In addition, the Chairperson of the ScientificCouncil may attend meetings of the SteeringCommittee in an advisory capacity.

Article 4 sets out the functions of the SteeringCommittee, which are: to formulate the generalguidelines for the Centre's activities, taking intoaccount its objectives as specified in the jointOperation Agreement; subject to the budgetaryappropriation by the respective competent or-gans, to determine the annual level of the budget,the level of respective contributions, the finan-cial plans, and how the funds available for theoperation of the Centre are to be used; to considerthe proposals of the Director for the programme,work plans, financial plans, and budget propos-als of the Centre and to take decisions thereon; toconsider the annual and other reports of the Di-rector on the activities of the Centre; to submit areport on the Centre's activities to UNESCO andthe Agency; and to recommend to the DirectorGeneral of UNESCO the names of candidates forthe post of the Director of the Centre.

The Director. Article 5 provides for the ap-pointment of the Director of the Centre by theDirector General of UNESCO in consultationwith the IAEA Director General and the ItalianGovernment from candidates recommended bythe Steering Committee. The Director shall holdoffice for a term of 5 years renewable and is the

Centre's Chief Academic and AdministrativeOfficer. He or she is empowered to administerthe Centre; prepare proposals for the Centre'sgeneral activities and work plans taking into ac-count the advice of the Scientific Council forsubmission to the Steering Committee for itsapproval; prepare the financial plans and budgetproposals of the Centre for submission to theSteering Committee for its approval; execute theICTP's work programmes and make paymentswithin the framework of general guidelines andspecific decisions adopted by the Steering Com-mittee in accordance with Article 4. Besides theabove enumeration, the Director has such otherfunctions and powers as may be prescribed bythe Agreement pertaining to the structure of theCentre or as may be conferred on him or her bythe Director General of UNESCO.

The Scientific Council. A new ScientificCouncil was created under Article 6 on a broadgeographical basis composed of up to 12 distin-guished specialists in disciplines relevant to theCentre's activities. The members sit in their per-sonal capacity. The Council Chairperson is ap-pointed jointly by the Directors General ofUNESCO and the IAEA, after consultations withthe Steering Committee and the ICTP Director.The appointment is for a term of 4 years and heor she is eligible for re-appointment. The Coun-cil's remaining members are appointed by theICTP Director after consultations with the Coun-cil Chairperson and serve for a term of 4 years.Additionally, UNESCO, the IAEA, and the Ital-ian Government may send specialists in scien-tific programmes to attend Scientific Councilmeetings.

The Council's functions are to advise theCentre on programmes of activity, having dueregard to relevant global academic, scientific,and educational trends. The Steering Committee


TOPICAL REPORTS

and the Director may request the Council's ad-vice on specific issues.

Financial Commitments. To strengthen theCentre's financial base, UNESCO, the Agency,and the Italian Government agreed to contributeto the Centre's budget. The level of contributionsof UNESCO and the Agency (subject to budget-ary appropriations approved by their competentorgans) shall not be lower than that agreed in theexchange of letters dated 11 December 1990,augmented by the respective inflation factor em-ployed by each organization in the calculation ofits budget. The Italian Government is to maintainits financial contribution to the Centre at a levelnot lower than that specified in the same Ex-change of Letters or any higher contribution de-cided upon by the Steering Committee pursuantto Article 4(a). (The Exchange of Letters termi-nated on the date the Tripartite Agreement en-tered into force.) As of 1991, the IAEA contrib-uted just over US $1.3 million, UNESCO justover $331,000, and the Italian Government 20billion Lire annually to the Centre's budget.

Funds allocated for the Centre's operationare paid into a special account set up by theDirector General of UNESCO in accordancewith the relevant provisions of that organiza-tion's financial regulations. The special accountis operated and the Centre's budget adminis-tered in accordance with the same regulations.

Transfer Of Assets And Liabilities. UnderArticle 10, UNESCO shall take over in accord-ance with arrangements to be made between thetwo parties from the Agency all assets includingproperty and liability pertaining to the Centre.

Article 11 provides for the transfer toUNESCO of Agency staff members posted at theCentre. The transfer is to be effected by agree-ment between the two organizations taking intoaccount the provisions of the Tripartite Agree-ment and the new Joint Operation Agreement.All matters not expressly agreed upon by theParties are to be dealt with in accordance with therelevant provisions of the Inter-OrganizationAgreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment orLoan of Staff among the Organizations applyingthe United Nations Common System of Salariesand Allowances. It was underlined in the Articlethat the transfer itself should not adversely affectthe conditions of employment of the said staffmembers posted at the Centre, including the du-ration of their contracts and fringe benefits, sub-ject to the availability of the funds for the opera-tion of the Centre. Agency staff members trans-ferred to UNESCO pursuant to this provisionshall become staff members of UNESCO.

The transfer to UNESCO of Agency staffposted to the Centre was perhaps the most intri-cate exercise. UNESCO offered the affected staff

new contracts. These staff will continue to enjoythe same conditions in respect of duration ofcontracts, promotion, and recruitment policy asexisted before the transfer. The modalities for thetransfer of staff, assets, and liabilities of the Cen-tre to UNESCO were embodied in a Memoran-dum of Understanding concerning the Transferof the Administrative Responsibility for ICTPfrom the IAEA to UNESCO. This document wassigned in Trieste by the Directors General of bothorganizations at the formal transfer of the Centreon 11 January 1996.

Joint Operation Agreement. In view of thechanges in the Centre's organizational frame-work, Article 12 of the Tripartite Agreementprovided for amendments to the Joint OperationAgreement. A new Agreement was prepared toreplace the old one. In it, the purpose of theCentre was amended by providing that it willfoster, through training and research, progress inphysics, particularly theoretical physics, in ac-cordance with the constitution of UNESCO andthe IAEA Statute. The provisions on the Centre'sfunctions, its staff, and details of collaborationremain the same as in the old agreement. Thenew Joint Operation Agreement came into forceon the same date as the Tripartite Agreement.

Renewed support for the ICTP

The transfer of the Centre's administrativeresponsibility from the IAEA to UNESCO doesnot mean the termination of the Agency's inter-ests and participation in its activities. In accord-ance with the provisions of the Tripartite Agree-ment, the Agency will continue to play an impor-tant role in the operation of the Centre, includingcontributions to its budget and the determinationof the programmes of activity.

A difference can, however, be discerned be-tween the IAEA's approach to the administrationof the Centre and that adopted by UNESCO.Before the transfer, the Centre was administeredas a unit of the Agency's Secretariat and there-fore enjoyed full administrative support servicesfrom headquarters. UNESCO, on the other hand,has granted the Centre a large measure of auton-omy pursuant to which the Centre will cater foritself in terms of administrative support.

It is hoped that the ICTP's new institutionalarrangement will invigorate activities andstrengthen the co-operation of the IAEA,UNESCO, and the Italian Government in sup-porting the Centre's activities. O


, INTERNATIONAL

IAEA Board ofGovernors'

meetings

NEWSBRIEFS.At its meetings in March 1996, the IAEABoard of Governors continued its discussion ofthe second part of proposed measures forstrengthening the effectiveness and improvingthe efficiency of safeguards. It further consid-ered reports by IAEA Director General HansBlix on the implementation of safeguards in theDemocratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK) and on the implementation of UN Se-curity Council resolutions relating to nuclearinspections in Iraq. Other matters before theBoard included items related to nuclear safety.

Safeguards Development Programme.The Board resumed its consideration of thesecond part of proposed measures for strength-ening the IAEA's safeguards system. The pro-posals under discussion (Part 2 measures) arethose requiring complementary legal authority.The Board commended the Agency for re-sponding positively to several concerns that hadbeen previously raised by some Member States.While it raised a number of points about certainof the Part 2 measures, the Board emphasizedthe need to maintain the present momentum andencouraged Member States to co-operate in theinterests of finalizing the measures.

In his statement to the Board, Dr. Blixnoted the Agency's efforts over recentmonths in consultation with Member Statestowards finalizing the proposed measures. Hesaid that considerable progress had beenmade towards achieving consensus on Part 2measures, and that the IAEA is continuing tomake progress on the implementation of Part1 measures, which the Board already has ap-proved. Concerning these measures, he saidthat consultations with States have been initi-ated to discuss the implementation of specificmeasures, such as increased co-operation, no-notice inspections, and the collection of envi-ronmental samples. He further noted that theAgency's newly inaugurated Clean Labora-tory for safeguards analysis at Seibersdorfwill soon be in full operation and able toreceive and process samples.

Other Safeguards Items. The Boardauthorized the conclusion of comprehensivesafeguards agreements with Algeria and Mon-aco pursuant to obligations under the Treaty onthe Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (seerelated items, page 49).

Safeguards in the DPRK. Dr. Blix in-formed the Board that only limited progress hadresulted from technical discussions that tookplace in the DPRK in late January 1996, andthat a further round of technical talks is beingscheduled. An important issue to be resolvedconcerns the preservation of information re-quired for the Agency to verify the correctnessand completeness of the DPRK's initial decla-ration of its nuclear material subject to safe-guards. The issue of monitoring of nuclearwaste also remains to be resolved, he said.While the DPRK's full co-operation has notbeen forthcoming, Dr. Blix said that the Agencyhas been able to resume ad-hoc and routineinspections at facilities not subject to the freezeof the DPRK's nuclear programme foreseen inthe US/DPRK Agreed Framework, and that ithas received relevant accounting reports forthese facilities.

In expressing its support of the Agency'sefforts, the Board renewed its call for the DPRKto co-operate fully with the IAEA; reaffirmedthat the safeguards agreement is still in forceand binding on the DPRK; and particularlyemphasized the need to preserve intact all rele-vant information required in order to verify thecorrectness and completeness of the DPRK'sinitial declaration.

Nuclear Inspections in Iraq. The Boardreceived a report on IAEA implementation ofnuclear verification activities in Iraq underterms of UN Security Council resolutions. Amajor component of current work relates toassessing the documentation that was providedto the IAEA in 1995 following the departurefrom Iraq of a high-level Iraqi official and tofollowing up leads from that documentation.The work is proceeding in parallel with ongoingmonitoring and verification activities. In his state-ment to the Board, Dr. Blix pointed out the con-tinuing challenge of the Agency's work, particu-larly citing recent developments in Iraq and theproblems encountered by inspectors of the UNSpecial Commission (see item, page 50).

Nuclear Safety. A number of matters wereconsidered. The Board approved the revisedCode on Quality Assurance for Safety in Nu-clear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Instal-lations for publication as a Safety Standardsdocument of the Agency. The Code sets outrequirements for establishing and implement-


.INTERNATIONAL NEWSBRIEFS.ing a quality assurance programme, and for itsassessment The Board also commented uponthe Overview of the IAEA's Nuclear SafetyReview, which is issued annually as part of theIAEA Yearbook The Review discusses ele-ments of the global nuclear safety culture, no-tably legally binding international agreements,

non-binding safety standards, and review andadvisory services It also focuses on the impor-tance of information-sharing from intergovern-mental safety conferences and other meetings,and examines topical safety issues of particularrelevance to the Agency's activities and theglobal community

Ten years after the tragic Chernobyl accident,the IAEA, European Commission, and WorldHealth Organization convened an internationalconference in Vienna that summed up the acci-dent's consequences More than 700 govern-mental delegates attended the conference from8-12 April 1996, examining the scientific,medical, psychological, socio-economic, envi-ronmental, and political issues involved in as-sessing Chernobyl's impact

The Conference was chaired by Dr. AngelaMerkel, Minister of Environment in GermanyDuring various sessions, experts reviewed thefindings of work done to date, including theoutcome of two major international confer-ences, one hosted in November 1995 by WHOand the another in March 1996 under EC aus-pices in Minsk. Keynote presentations addi-tionally were made by representatives from theUnited Nations Scientific, Educational andCultural Organization (UNESCO), the UnitedNations Scientific Committee on the Effects ofAtomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the UN Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Nu-clear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organiza-tion for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment, and on the results of major projects inBelarus, Russian Federation, and Ukraine.Technical sessions particularly focused on so-cial, health, and environmental consequences.Topics included clinically observed heath ef-fects; thyroid effects; psychological effects; thesocial, economic, institutional and political im-pact; and nuclear safety remedial measures Apanel discussion further explored the public'sperception of the Chernobyl accident.

Proceedings of the Conference are beingpublished by the IAEA

Forum on the Safety of RBMK Reactors.Preceding the Conference, from 1-3 April, theIAEA and UN Department of HumanitarianAffairs (UNDHA) organized an international

forum on the safety of Chernobyl-type(RBMK) reactors. Today 15 RBMK units areproducing electricity in three States' 11 in Rus-sia, two in Ukraine, and two in Lithuania. Theforum examined remedial measures and actionstaken since the Chernobyl accident to improvethe safety of the reactors. It also addressedquestions concerning the containment structureof the protective building around the destroyedChernobyl-4 reactor (the sarcophagus).

Over the past decade, a considerableamount of work has been carried out by Russiandesigners and operators to improve RBMKsafety and to eliminate thecausesthat led to theChernobyl accident. -As- a result, major designand operational modifications have been imple-mented However, safety concerns remain, par-ticularly regarding the older, or "first-genera-tion", units

In addition to these actions, the IAEA initi-ated in 1992 a safety programme for RBMKswith the aim of consolidating results of variousnational, bilateral, and multilateral activitiesand to establish international consensus on re-quired safety improvements and related priori-ties. Through this programme, international as-sistance is provided to both regulatory and op-erating organizations involved in technical andfinancial decisions. The IAEA's activities areco-ordinated with those of an international con-sortium on the "Safety of Design-Solutions andOperation of Nuclear Power Plants withRBMK Reactors" established under auspicesof the European Commission

The IAEA has prepared a consolidated listof design and operational safety issues forRBMKs The list suggests safety upgradings ina number of areas' core design and core moni-toring, instrumentation and control, pressureboundary integrity; incident and accidentanalysis, safety and support systems, fire pro-tection, and operational safety

InternationalChernobylConference &RBMK SafetyForum


, INTERNATIONAL NEWSBRIEFS

MururoaRadiological

Study

Dr. dB Planque,chairwoman of the

IAC.

HydrologyWorkshop for

West AsianRegion

At the Safety Forum, sessions addressed thecauses of the Chernobyl accident; remedial ac-tions; national, bilateral and multilateral safetyimprovement programme; and the sarcopha-

gus. Reports also were made on the currentstatus and safety improvements of the Cher-nobyl, Ignalina, Kursk, Leningrad, andSmolensk RBMK reactors.

A four-member IAEA technical team com-pleted a reconnaissance mission in March 1996to the Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls in FrenchPolynesia to help lay the groundwork for astudy on the radiological situation there.Among its work, the team checked equipmentand facilities for future measurement and sam-pling campaigns. It also surveyed the lagoon'smarine environment, and the soil, bedrock,vegetation, and biota in the terrestrial strips ofthe atolls.

Requested by the French authorities, thestudy covers the current radiological situationat the atolls and an evaluation of the long-termradiological situation. The French authoritieshave agreed to provide the IAEA with informa-tion and data required for performing the study.In addition, the study involves the taking ofterrestrial and marine samples, work which isscheduled over the next several months. Analy-sis of the collected samples will be done by theIAEA's laboratories in Seibersdorf, Austria,and in Monaco, as well as by a network oflaboratories worldwide. The study, funded

through a voluntary contribution from Franceof US $ 1.8 million, is expected to take approxi-mately 18 months.

In April 1996, members of the study's In-ternational Advisory Committee (IAC) werescheduled to hold their first meeting at IAEAheadquarters in Vienna. The IAC was estab-lished by IAEA Director General Hans Blix andis chaired by Dr. Gail de Planque, a radiationspecialist and former member of the UnitedStates Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Othermembers include experts from Argentina, Aus-tralia, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, New Zea-land, the Russian Federation, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States. Thereare also two ex officio experts selected by inter-governmental bodies—the South Pacific Forum,the United Nations Scientific Committee on theEffects of Atomic Radiation, the World HealthOrganization, and the European Commission.The IAC is supported in its work by two taskgroups and five working groups with a total ofabout 50 experts. Project management and co-or-dination are being undertaken by the IAEA.

A group of hydrologists, geologists, and geo-chemists from water-scarce regions of WestAsia recently participated in an IAEA work-shop focusing on the methodology of model-ling groundwater systems. The workshop wasorganized by the IAEA's Isotope HydrologySection within the framework of a regionaltechnical co-operation project. Scientists fromIran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon,Syria, Turkey, and Yemen attended the work-shop. Training was provided by experts fromthe United States Geological Survey, which hasdeveloped numerical modelling methods andrelevant computer codes.

Assessments of the availability and qualityof groundwater resources increasingly applythe tools of computer technology. The work-shop is among Agency activities that seek to

accelerate the application of software for mod-elling groundwater systems for quantitativeevaluation of isotope and chemical data. Thetraining provided hands-on experience in ap-plying computer codes developed primarily tounderstand the dynamics of groundwater flow.The tools also are useful for predicting thecondition of groundwater systems at certaintime periods, and the transport of pollutants.Future training courses are expected to be or-ganized in association with participating coun-tries in the IAEA's regional technical co-opera-tion project. They are expected to assist insti-tutes responsible for water resources in improv-ing their quantitative understanding of aquifersand to develop predictive models of pollutanttransport, thereby fostering better water man-agement strategies and policies.


.INTERNATIONAL NEWSBRIEFS.

Given recent market trends in the price andinventories of uranium, world uranium produc-tion will have to increase significantly fromcurrent levels to meet future reactor require-ments. As foreseen by the IAEA in the early1990s, both the price and production of ura-nium have recovered dramatically over recentyears following a lengthy market decline.Since October 1994, the spot price of uraniumthat most utilities must pay increased 33% byJanuary 1996, and by another 40% by March1996. The spot price of uranium produced inthe Commonwealth of Independent States(CIS) has also more than doubled since Octo-ber 1994.

Before the increase, uranium spot priceshad been declining in the 1990s because oflow-priced uranium sales of excess inventoriesand supplies from the CIS. Consequently,since 1990, world production has been belowreactor requirements, as the cumulative draw-down of world uranium inventories reachedabout 113,000 tonnes uranium. Annual inven-tory drawdowns during 1993 and 1994 suppliedabout 45% of the world's reactor requirements.In 1996, the total production shortfall is esti-mated to be about 25,000 tonnes uranium.

While recent upward price trends havebrightened the picture, the imbalance between

production and demand remains, and projec-tions are that more uranium will have to beproduced to stabilize the market. Startingaround the turn of the century, part of the supplyis expected to come from uranium fuel madefrom highly enriched uranium recovered fromnuclear warheads. This fuel will probably enterthe market at a rate that meets less than 10% ofannual world requirements through 2010. Re-processed uranium may meet another 5%. Thisleaves about 85% of the reactor requirementsthrough 2010 that will have to be met from newproduction. As a result, world uranium produc-tion will have to increase by about 70% fromcurrent levels.

It is unclear whether this level of productioncan be met. While there are ample known ura-nium resources to supply reactor requirementswell into the next century, the long depresseduranium market has caused a severe shortage ofmines and mills. Developing new facilities willtake time, as well as a large investment. Cur-rently the market price of uranium is moving upto a level at which such investments wouldbecome attractive and restore a balance be-tween uranium production and demand. Moreinformation may be obtained from the IAEADivision of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and WasteManagement.

UraniumMarket Trends

In Memoriam: Robert H. A. Skjoldebrand

T h e untimely death of the IAEA's Robert Skjoldebrand in February 1996 deeplysaddened the international community that he so richly served for more than threedecades. Mr. Skjoldebrand passed away peacefully and in dignity while visiting •in Wollongong, Australia, surrounded by those he loved.

Born in Helsingborg, Sweden, in 1930, Mr. Skjoldebrand retired from theIAEA in 1990 following nearly 30 years of service to the Agency in variouscapacities. His assignments included serving as Special Assistant to two DirectorsGeneral: Dr. Eklund, from 1967-68 and Dr. Blix, from 1987 until August 1990.He ably headed sections in both the IAEA Department of Safeguards and theIAEA Department of Nuclear Energy and Safety. A frequent contributor to theIAEA Bulletin and other publications, Mr. Skjoldebrand was a talented writer witha bias for facts and a skill for presenting them in clear and understandable terms.He was an editor's best friend: thoroughly professional, thoughtful, and alwayson time. Not long before his death, he had mused about an article he wanted towrite for the Bulletin on environmental and energy issues. As usual, he was on

the search for facts and sources to update his storehouse of knowledge...his intention, as always, was to write an excellentpiece, not just a good one. The words, no less than the man, will be sorely missed.—The Editor.


.NATIONAL UPDATES

Ms. A. Nilsson,Sweden, and Mr. R.

Keeffe, Canada,present the new lens

to Mr. Pellaud (centre).

Canada & Sweden: Safeguards Support

A n ultraviolet-sensitive telephone lens for theCerenkov Viewing Device (CVD) has beendeveloped for IAEA safeguards through theSwedish and Canadian Safeguards SupportProgrammes. The lens will improve the unin-trusive verification of light-water reactor fuelby providing a larger image and more detailedCerenkov characteristics. The lens has ad-vanced light-gathering capabilities and highresolution, thus enabling more effective verifi-cation of fuel having a long cooling time andlow burnup. The CVD is a Canadian-developedinstrument routinely used by safeguards inspec-tors. The hand-held device provides inspectorswith an image displaying the ultraviolet lightresulting from the Cerenkov effect that occurswhen spent fuel is submerged in water. Inspec-tors are trained to search for specific light pat-terns during their verification of the fuel.

The new 250-mm lens was developed at theIAEA's request to meet demanding verificationrequirements. While the standard CVD lensworks well for fuel from pressurized-water re-actors, the Cerenkov characteristics of a par-ticular fuel assembly from boiling-water reac-tors or WWERs are more difficult to distinguishand required an advanced lens. When fittedwith the new telephoto lens, the CVD providesinspectors with a much larger image of thespent fuel and more Cerenkov characteristicsupon which to base conclusions.

Laboratory and field testing has confirmedthe improved performance of the new lens.Field testing of the prototype has been done in

Finland and Sweden with the assistance of theFinnish Safeguards Support Programme. TheAgency has placed an order for the new lensesthat inspectors would begin using for verifica-tion of spent fuel. On 22 March 1996, a proto-type lens was presented to Mr. Bruno Pellaud,IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards,by co-ordinators of the Canadian and SwedishSafeguards Support Programmes.

Poland: Nuclear Seminar

Safety and economic features of advanced nu-clear power plants will be presented at an inter-national seminar in Warsaw 25-27 September1996. Participating will be representatives fromthe world's leading nuclear plant suppliers andgovernmental experts involved in decisionsabout Poland's energy future. Entitled "NewGeneration Nuclear Power Plants '96", theseminar is being organized by the Polish Nu-clear Society and the Association of PolishElectrical Engineers under the patronage of theMinistry of Industry and Trade, NationalAtomic Energy Agency, and the Polish PowerGrid Company. Co-sponsors of the meeting,which is being convened in co-operation withthe IAEA, include the European Nuclear Soci-ety, Convention of National Societies of Elec-trical Engineers of Europe, the American Nu-clear Society, and the IEE Power EngineeringSociety.

The seminar is intended to update partici-pants about the types of new nuclear plants thatare being developed, and to provide status re-ports on their safety features and related regu-latory matters. Additionally, papers will be pre-sented on technical aspects of radioactive wastemanagement and nuclear power plant decom-missioning.

In Poland, which in the early 1990s decidedto discontinue its nuclear power programme, ris-ing demand for electricity, as well as replacementof ageing plants, will require construction of newelectric power plants in years ahead. More than60% of the country's existing power plants, pre-dominately coal and gas-fired, have been operat-ing for 20 years or more. More information aboutthe seminar may be obtained from RomanTrechcinski, SEP 00-043 Warsaw, TadeuszaCzackiego 3/5, Poland. Facsimile: (22) 27-5619.Electronic mail: [email protected].


. NATIONAL UPDATES

Algeria: Safeguards Agreement

The IAEA Board of Governors has authorizedthe conclusion and implementation of a com-prehensive safeguards agreement with Algeria.The agreement is in connection with Algeria'sobligations under the Treaty on the Non-Prolif-eration of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to whichthe country acceded in January 1995. TheBoard approved the agreement at its meetingsin March 1996. It covers all source or specialfissionable material in all peaceful nuclear ac-tivities within the territory of Algeria, under itsjurisdiction or carried out under its control any-where, for the exclusive purpose of verifyingthat such material is not diverted to nuclearweapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The Agency has been applying safeguardsin Algeria under other agreements covering thecountry's two research reactors that stay ineffect until the new comprehensive agreemententers into force.

Monaco: Safeguards Agreement

At its meetings in March 1996, the IAEA Boardof Governors authorized the conclusion and im-plementation of a comprehensive safeguardsagreement with Monaco. It was concluded pursu-ant to Monaco's obligations under the Treaty onthe Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, towhich Monaco acceded in March 1995.

Brazil: CWC Ratification

In March 1996, Brazil became the 49th countryto ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of theDevelopment, Production, Stockpiling and Use ofChemical Weapons and on their Destruction(CWC). The government deposited its instrumentof ratification with the UN Secretary-General 13March 1996. Since it opened for signature inJanuary 1993, the CWC has been signed by 160States. It will enter into force 180 days after thedeposit of the 65th instrument of ratification. TheConvention prohibits the development, produc-tion, acquisition, retention, stockpiling, transferand use of chemical weapons, and provides fortheir total destruction. More information may beobtained from the Preparatory Commission forthe Organization for the Prohibition of ChemicalWeapons, Laan van Meerdervoort 51, 2517 AE

The Hague, Netherlands. Facsimile: 31-70-360-0944.

Fiji: USA, France & UK SignRarotonga Treaty Protocols

France, the United States, and the United King-dom have signed protocols to the South PacificNuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as theTreaty of Rarotonga. Signed 25 March 1996 inSuva, Fiji, the protocols bind the States not t6use nuclear force or the threat of its use in theregion; ban the stationing of nuclear weaponson any territory in the region; and prohibittesting of nuclear weapons there. The world'sother two declared nuclear-weapon States,China and Russia, already are party* to the pro-tocols relevant to them. Parties to the Treaty,which entered into force in December 1986,include Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati,Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua NewGuinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu,and Western Samoa.

China: World Water Day

Beijing hosted the global observance of WorldWater Day 22 March 1996. The Day — underthe theme "Water for Thirsty Cities" — wasdeclared to focus attention on growing waterproblems faced by cities in many countries.Most of the world's future population will livein urban areas, placing even greater demands onfresh water resources. Cities will have to facethe challenge of supplying water and sanitation,while ensuring that available water is notwasted or contaminated. Already, the level of"unaccounted for" water in many cities ex-

H.S.H. Prince RanierIII of Monaco andIAEA DirectorGeneral Hans Blix inJanuary 1996.(Credit Gaetan Luct, Palais

Pnncierde Monaco)


.NATIONAL UPDATESceeds 50%, notes the United Nations Confer-ence on Human Settlements (UNCHS), whichwas designated the lead agency for WorldWater Day 1996. Water issues will be amongmajor topics addressed in June 1996 at theSecond UN Conference on Human Settlementsin Istanbul.

At the IAEA, a range of programmes andservices is supporting national and global ef-forts to identify and preserve the world's waterresources. Nuclear and related applicationsoften serve as valuable tools in ecological andhydrological studies.

Iraq: Security Council Statement

The UN Security Council on 19 March 1996issued a statement reiterating its full support tothe UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) andthe IAEA in the conduct of inspections andother tasks in Iraq under terms of resolutionsadopted by the Council. The statement wasmade in response to an UNSCOM report to theCouncil that Iraq had denied UN weapons in-spectors access to Iraqi facilities during inspec-tions in March 1996. Access was subsequentlygranted only after what the Council describedas "unacceptable delays".

Excerpts from the Council's statement:"The Security Council reiterates its full

support for the Special Commission in the con-duct of its inspections and the other tasks en-trusted to it by the Council....It recalls that,under paragraph 9 (bXO of section C of SecurityCouncil resolution 687 (1991), Iraq is requiredto permit 'immediate on-site inspection ofIraq's biological, chemical and missile capa-bilities...By its resolution 707 (1991), theCouncil also expressly demanded that Iraq al-low the Special Commission, the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency and their inspectionteams immediate, unconditional and unre-stricted access to any and all areas, facilities,equipment, records and means of transportationwhich they wish to inspect'....The SecurityCouncil considers that Iraq's delays in permit-ting the inspection team recently in Iraq accessto the sites concerned constitute clear violationsby Iraq of the provisions of resolutions 687(1991), 707 (1991) and 715 (1991). The Coun-cil demands that the Government of Iraq allowthe Special Commission inspection teams im-

mediate, unconditional and unrestricted accessto all sites designated by the Commission forinspection in accordance with the relevant reso-lutions of the Council."

Thailand: South East Asian NWFZ

Thailand and the IAEA have opened prelimi-nary discussions concerning relevant provi-sions of the South East Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (NWFZ) Treaty. The Treaty, forwhich Thailand is the Depositary Government,was signed in Bangkok 15 December 1995 by10 States: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philip-pines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam (allmembers of the Association of South EastAsian Nations or ASEAN) and Cambodia,Laos, and Myanmar.

In his statement to the Agency's Board ofGovernors in March 1996, IAEA Director Gen-eral Hans Blix noted that the Treaty, similar toother NWFZ treaties, requires its parties to con-clude agreements with the IAEA for the appli-cation of comprehensive safeguards. It alsocontains a number of other provisions, rangingfrom nuclear safety to the conditions applicableto the supply of nuclear items. These includethe requirement that peaceful nuclear activitiesin the NWFZ are subject to safety assessmentsconforming to the guidelines and standards rec-ommended by the IAEA. The Treaty, with re-spect to its control system, also makes provisionfor fact-finding missions which would be con-ducted by inspectors of the IAEA.

Egypt: African NWFZ Treaty

Unanimously approved by the UN GeneralAssembly in December 1995, the African Nu-clear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty opened forsignature in Cairo 11 April 1995. Among thoseinvited to attend the signing ceremony wereHeads of State and Foreign Ministers of the 53States that are members of the Organization forAfrican Unity, UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, IAEA Director General Hans Blix, andIAEA Assistant Director General Mohamed El-Baradei, who heads the IAEA Division of Ex-ternal Relations. The IAEA supported the ne-gotiations on the Treaty through a number ofGeneral Conference resolutions and the provi-sion of advice on technical and legal aspects.


. NATIONAL UPDATES.

The Treaty is open for signature to any State inthe African nuclear-weapon-free-zone, and itwill enter into force on the date of deposit of the28th instrument of ratification.

Russian Federation:Radioactive Waste Management

An expert group established by the IAEA onways to enhance international co-operationwith the Russian Federation in areas of radio-active waste management met in Moscow inearly 1996. Participating in the meeting wererepresentatives from 12 countries — BelgiumCanada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Re-public of Korea, Norway, Russian Federation,Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the UnitedStates — and from four international organiza-tions, including the European Commission.Among items discussed were proposed co-op-erative activities and the possible role of theIAEA in supporting the work.

The meeting is part of activities followingan international seminar that the Agency con-vened in May 1995. The seminar was organizedin response to a request of the Joint Council ofthe Nordic countries and with the approval ofthe Russian Federation. The seminar includedpresentations on co-operative programmes inareas of radioactive waste management withRussia, and reports on Russia's waste manage-ment programme, structure, and problems.One aim was to identify priority areas whereenhanced international co-operation would beuseful for strengthening radioactive waste man-agement in the Russian Federation.

Belarus, Russian Federation &Ukraine: Chernobyl Conference

The first International Conference of the Euro-pean Commission (EC), Belarus, Russian Fed-eration and Ukraine was convened in Minsk18-22 March 1996. The Conference covered arange of topics related to the social, health, andenvironmental consequences of the April 1986accident in the three States and Europe. Resultswere reported to an International Conference onChernobyl in April 1996 convened by theIAEA, EC, and World Health Organization inVienna. (See related item, page 45). More in-formation may be obtained from the EC, rue de

la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. Facsim-ile: (32-1) 296-6256.

United States: Energy Forecasts

Electricity plants in the United States produceabout 36% of national carbon emissions fromenergy production, and their share is expectedto increase to 38% by the year 2015, based onprojections in the 1996 edition of the AnnualEnergy Outlook, a report prepared by the USDepartment of Energy's Energy InformationAdministration (EIA). The rising share is attrib-uted to greater reliance on coal for the produc-tion of electricity. Currently, coal accounts for52% of total US electricity generation but pro-duces 87% of electricity-related carbon emis-sions, the EIA report states. Natural gas and oilaccount for the remainder of carbon emissions.

Nuclear electricity generation — which to-day provides about one-fifth of US electricity— is projected to decline between now and2015, the report states, by about 32%, as 37gigawatts of nuclear capacity are expected to beretired. To meet electricity demand, about 230gigawatts of new capacity will be needed. If therequired electricity is produced from fossil fu-els, carbon emissions will increase by 160 mil-lion metric tons, or 32%, over current levels, thereport states. More information may be ob-tained from the EIA, Forrestal Building,Room 1F-048, Washington, DC 20585 USA.The electronic mail address of the EIA's Na-tional Energy Information Center is [email protected].

Mexico: Public Information Seminar

Mexico's President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce deLeon is expected to address an IAEA-spon-sored public information seminar scheduled inMexico City 18-20 June 1996. The RegionalSeminar on Atoms for Development — organ-ized within the framework of an extrabudgetaryprogramme funded by Japan — is being hostedby Mexico's National Institute of Nuclear Re-search (NINR). Other speakers include Dr,Miguel Jose Yacaman, NINR Director; IAEADirector General Hans Blix; and experts fromMexico and the IAEA. Topics on the agendainclude nuclear power and safety and nuclearapplications in health and other fields.


BRIEFLY N O T E D .

NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI).The Nuclear Energy Institute in the UnitedStates has elected a new President and ChiefOperating Officer. He is Mr. Joe F. Colvin,formerly President and Chief Executive Offi-cer (CEO) of the Nuclear Management andResources Council, an NEI predecessor organi-zation. He succeeds Mr. Phillip Bayne, whocontinues as NEI's CEO until 29 June 1996.Mr. Colvin's previous experience includesseven years with the Institute of Nuclear PowerOperations where he was instrumental in de-veloping key programmes to assist the industryin achieving excellence in operations. He alsospent a distinguished 20-year career as a nu-clear submarine officer in the US Navy.

Web Site. In other news, NEI has announcedthe opening of its Internet site on the WorldWide Web. The on-line information networkincludes access to fact sheets, organizationalinformation, press statements, reports, andother products. The site is located at the In-ternet address http://www.nei.org/ NEI, basedin Washington, DC, is the trade organization ofUS nuclear industries, including electric utili-ties that own and operate the nation's more than100 nuclear power plants.

EMERGENCY PLANNING COURSE. Bel-gium's Study Centre for Nuclear Energy(SCK-CEN) is holding its sixth training courseon off-site emergency response to nuclear acci-dents 1-5 July 1996 in Mol. The course is beingconducted in collaboration with the EuropeanCommission. More information may be ob-tained from A. Sohier, SCK-CEN, B-2400Mol, Belgium. Facsimile: 32-14-321056.

NUCLEAR STUDIES AND REPORTS.The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Or-ganization for Economic Cooperation and De-velopment has published two new studies onaspects of nuclear development. A new analyti-cal study of nuclear legislation in NEA coun-tries — Regulatory and Institutional Frame-work for Nuclear Activities — provides aglobal and systematic picture of nuclear laws in25 countries. It also provides a collection ofinformation covering the institutional frame-work for nuclear energy in each country, to-

gether with the main sectors of nuclear energy,including mining regimes, trade in nuclear ma-terials and equipment, radioactive waste man-agement, and radiation protection. Another re-cent report — Chernobyl, Ten Years On: Ra-diological and Health Impact—is an informa-tive appraisal of the Chernobyl accident's con-sequences by the NEA Committee on Radia-tion Protection and Public Health. More infor-mation may be obtained from NEA, Le SeineSt-Germain, 12, boulevard des lies, 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France. Facsimile: 33-1-45241110.

CONVENTIONS ON NUCLEAR SAFETYAND RADIOACTIVE WASTE. Sixty-threeStates have signed the Nuclear Safety Conven-tion as of March 1996. Instruments of ratifica-tion have been deposited by 16 States, elevenof which are countries having nuclear powerprogrammes. Ratification of 22 States, includ-ing 17 nuclear power countries, is required tobring the Convention into force. A number ofcountries are in advanced stages of the ratifica-tion process. Progress also continues underIAEA auspices in the development of the Con-vention on the Safe Management of Radioac-tive Waste. Three preparatory meetings havetaken place and a fourth is scheduled in thecoming months. It is expected that a draft textcould be ready by the end of this year.

TRANSPORT REGULATIONS FOR RA-DIOACTIVE MATERIALS. The Agency'sRegulations for the Safe Transport of Radioac-tive Materials are being revised. They havelong formed the basis for regulating nationaland international surface, water, and air ship-ments of radioactive material. The revisedregulations are expected to be submitted to theIAEA Board of Governors in June 1996. Anumber of international organizations — in-cluding the London-based International Mari-time Organization (IMO) and the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organiza-tion (ICAO) — have collaborated in the devel-opment of the IAEA's transport regulations.Additionally, the IMO has produced a codeaddressing the construction and operationspecifications for vessels transporting radioac-tive material.


ArgentinaArmeniaBelgiumBrazilBulgariaCanadaChinaCzech RepublicFinlandFranceGermanyHungaryIndiaIranJapanKazakhstanKorea, Rep. ofLithuaniaMexicoNetherlandsPakistanRomaniaRussian FederationSouth AfricaSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUnited KingdomUkraineUnited States

World total*

Ir

No. of units

21716

21344

56204

10

511

112221

292419

125

3516

109

437

INTFF

i operation

Total net MWe

935376

5 527626

3 53814 9072 1671 6482310

58 49322 017

1 7291 695

39 91770

9 1202 3701 308

504125

19 8431 8421 632

6327 124

10 0023 050

12 90813 62998 784

343 712

* The total includesTaiwan, China where six reactors totalling 4884 MWe are in operation

LithuaniaFrance

HungaryBelgiumSwedenBulgaria

Slovak RepublicSwitzerland

SloveniaUkraine

Rep. of KoreaSpainJapan

FinlandGermany

United KingdomUnited States

Czech RepublicCanada

Aroentinani *j^ji nt i m

RussiaSouth Africa 6 5%

Mexico 6%Netherlands 4.9%*

India 1.9%China 1.2%

17 TV

11.8%11.8%

466%46.4%

44.1%39.9%

39.5%37.8%

36.1%34.1%

33.4%29.9%

29.1%25%*

22.5%20.1%i

• NATIONAL D A T A F I L E

Under construction

No. of units Total net MWe

1 692

1 1245

2 1 824

4 5810

4 8082 2 1463 3 757

5 3 870

1 3002 1 3004 3 375

4 1 552

5 4 7501 1 165

39 32 594

85.6%76.1%

62.3%55.5%

Note: Percentages and data above areas of December 1995; they are subject

to change. Other countries generating ashare of their electricity from nuclearpower are Armenia, Brazil, Pakistan,

and Kazakhstan. Additionally the shareof nuclear generation was 2879% in

Taiwan, China.

* IAEA estimates.

Nuclear powerstatus aroundthe world

/Votes to table: Data aresubject to revision. During1995, two reactors wereshutdown (including Bruce-

2 in Canada which couldrestart in the future); sevenreactors were connected tothe grid; and the constructionof three reactors was

temporarily suspended (inRomania).

Nuclear shareof electricitygeneration inselectedcountries


.AEA BOOKS KEEP ABREASTI ^ ^ H 99 *9am* « m^^^ ^^9 n # • m^^^w ^^^» " w v ^^^m m m

Reports and Proceedings

Induced Mutations and MolecularTechniques for Crop Improvement,Proceedings Series, 2160 Austrianschillings, ISBN 92-0-104695-2

Environmental Impact of RadioactiveReleases, Proceedings Series, 2480 Austrianschillings, ISBN 92-0-104495-X

Plasma Physics and Controlled NuclearFusion Research 1994, Proceedings Series,2280 Austrian schillings, ISBN 92-0-103695-7

Human Reliability Analyses in ProbabilisticSafety Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants,Safety Series No. 50-P-10,360 Austrianschillings, ISBN 92-0-103395-8

External Man Induced Events in Relationto Nuclear Power Plant Design, SafetySeries No. S0-SG-D5 (Rev. 1), 280 Austrianschillings, ISBN 92-0-103295-1

Radiation Protection and the Safety ofRadiation Sources, Safety Series No. 120,160 Austrian schillings, ISBN 92-0-105295-2

Establishing a National System forRadioactive Waste Management, SafetySeries No. 1I1-S-1, 160 Austrian schillings,ISBN92-0-103495-4

International Bask Safety Standards forProtection Against Ionizing Radiation andfor the Safety of Radiation Sources, SafetySeries No. 115-1, 1160 Austrian schillings,ISBN 92-0-100695-0

Operating Experience with Nuclear PowerStations in Member States in 1994, 2400Austrian schillings, ISBN 92-0-104795-9(STJ/PUB/999)

Reference Books/Statistics

IAEA Yearbook 1995,500 Austrianschillings, ISBN 92-0-101295-0

Energy, Electricity and Nuclear PowerEstimates up to 2015, Reference Data SeriesNo. 1, 120 Austrian schillings, ISBN92-0-104395-3 (IAEA-RDS-1/15)

Nuclear Power Reactors in the World,Reference Data Series No. 2, 140 Austrianschillings, ISBN 92-0-101795-2(1AEA-RDS-2/15)

Nuclear Research Reactors in the World,Reference Data Series No. 3, 200 Austrianschillings, ISBN 92-0-105195-6

yw A tr* A w% w^ rt ** /4%AW

(IAEA-RDS-3/09)

HOW TO ORDER IAEA SALES PUBLICATIONS

IAEA books, reports, and other publications may be purchased from the sources listed below,or through major local booksellers. Payment may be made in local currency or with

UNESCO coupons.

AUSTRALIAHunter Publications, 58A Gipps Street,Collingwood, Victoria 3066

BELGIUMJean de Lannoy,202, Avenue du RoiB-1060 Brussels

CHINA

IAEA Publications in Chinese •China Nuclear Energy Industry Corp.Translation Section,P.O. Box 2103, Beijing

CZECH REPUBLICArtia Pegas Press Ltd., Palac MetroNarodni tr. 25, P.O.Box 825,CZ-11121 Prague 1

DENMARKMunksgaard International Publishers Ltd.,P.O. Box 2148DK-1016 Copenhagen K

FRANCEOffice International de Documentation etLibrairie, 48, rue Gay-LussacF-75240 Paris Cedex 05

GERMANYUNO-Verlag, Vertriebs-und VerlagsGmbH, Dag HammarskjOld-Haus,Poppelsdorfer Allee 55D-53115Bonn

HUNGARYLibrotrade Ltd., Book Import,P.O. Box 126, H-1656 Budapest

ISRAELYOZMOT Literature Ltd.,P.O Box 56055, IL-61560 Tel Aviv

ITALYLibreria Scientifica Dott. Lucio di Biasio"AEIOU", ViaCoronelli61-20146 Milan

JAPANMaruzen Company Ltd, P.O. Box 5050,100-31 Tokyo International

NETHERLANDSMartinus Nijhoff International,P.O. Box 269, NL-2501 AX The HagueSwets and Zeitlinger b.v.,P.O. Box 830NL-2610 SZ Lisse

POLANDArs Polona, Foreign Trade Enterprise,Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7,PL-00-068 Warsaw

SLOVAKIAAlfa Press Publishers,Hurbanovo namestie 3, SQ-815 89Bratislava

SPAINDiaz de Santos, Lagasca 95,E-28006 MadridDiaz de Santos, Balmes 417,E-08022 Barcelona

SWEDENFritzes Customer Service, Fredsgatan 2,S-106 47 Stockholm

UNITED KINGDOMHMSO Publications Centre,Agency Section, 51 Nine Elms Lane,London SW8 5DR

UNITED STATES & CANADAUNIPUB4611-F Assembly DriveLanham, Maryland 20706-4391USA

Outside the USA and Canada, ordersand requests for information also can beaddressed directly to:International Atomic Energy AgencySales and Promotion UnitWagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100,A-1400 Vienna, AustriaTelephone: +43 1 2060 (22529,22530)Facsimile: +43 1 206029302Electronic mail:[email protected]


Fast, Reliable On-SiteVerification Measurements with IMCA

When taking on-site verification measurements forsafeguards, inspectors can"t afford to experienceproblems with outdated MCA technology, cumber-some user interfaces and complicated operatingprocedures. They need to set up quickly, take themeasurement and move on. They need to maximizeaccuracy and reliability while minimizing time andoperational impact at the facility.

With Canberra's IMCA (Inspector MultichannelAnalyzer), safeguards inspectors can do just that.Built on the world's smallest, full featured MCA. theIMCA offers portable, laboratory grade spectroscopywith all day operation from standard videocamcorder batteries.

Measurement procedures are built-in for uraniumenrichment and plutonium isotopic measurements.The IMCA supports multiple detector configurations- using Am-doped or undoped Nal detectors. CdTedetectors and HPGe detectors. Temperature compen-sation is built in for Am-doped Nal detectors.

Inspectors don't have to worry about setting up theMCA - setting gains or High Voltage values - in thefield. Simply select the desired procedure from amenu and the system automatically downloadspreviously defined setups and calibrations for theexact measurement and detector in use. It's fast -and the possibility of error is virtually eliminated.

Data reduction is performed using either enrich-ment meter techniques or optionally. Canberra'sexclusive safeguards versions of MGA or MGAU.All measurement and calibration data, system setupparameters, and performance monitoring informa-tion, are automatically archived for subsequent labreanalysis. Built-in QA procedures verify thateverything is working correctly.

Keep your inspectors moving - use the IMCA and getfast, accurate, dependable results.

For additional information on the Canberra IMCA,call, write, or fax us today.

* A CANBERRAIK» limn

Canberra Industries Inc.. Nuclear Products Group. 800 Research Parkway. Meriden. CT 06450 U S ATel: (203) 238-2351 Toll Free 1-800-243-4422 FAX: (203) 235-1347 http: www canberra.com

With Offices In: Australia. Austria. Belgium. Canada. Central Europe. Denmark. France. Germany. Italy. Netherlands. Russia. United Kingdom

POSTS ANNOUNCED BYTHEIAEA.

NUCLEAR/CHEMICAL ENGINEER (96-027), Department of Nuclear Energy, WasteTechnology Section. This P-S post serves asUnit Leader, carrying responsibilities for thedevelopment and implementation of pro-grammes on technologies, practices, and poli-cies pertaining to the handling, treatment, con-ditioning, and storage of radioactive wastes. Itrequires a Ph.D. or equivalent advanced univer-sity degree in chemical or nuclear sciences orengineering and at least 15 years of experience inprocessing of radioactive wastes. Closing dale:29 July 1996.

NUCLEAR ENGINEER (96-026), Depart-ment of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Fuel Cycleand Materials Section. This P-S post formu-lates, plans, and implements activities of theprogramme on the management of spent fuel. Itrequires a Ph.D. or equivalent university degreein engineering/physics, chemistry and metal-lurgy and at least IS years of experience in thearea of spent fuel management.Closing date: 29 July 1996.

HEAD OF DOSIMETRY LABORATORY(96-025), Department of Research & Isotopes.This P-4 post requires a Ph.D. or equivalentuniversity degree in physics with at least 10years of practical experience in the field ofradiation dosimetry. From these, at least 5 yearsare required in a Standard Dosimety Laboratoryor as a radiotheraphy hospital physicist. Alsorequired is experience in high-accuracy experi-mental methods with ionization chamber andTLD dosimetry at therapy and protection levels.Closingdate: 29 July 1996.

SECTION HEAD (96-024), Department ofAdministration, Division of General Services.This P-S post requires an advanced universitydegree in economic or business administrationand 15 years of progressively more responsibleexperience in the field of budgetary and finan-cial matters, inventory control, supply service,transportation or sales. Some of this experienceshould be at a senior managerial level with acommercial, national or international organiza-tion. Also required is experience with EDPapplications in financial, budget and stock con-trol systems and knowledge of the principles ofhuman resources and financial management.Closingdate: 29 July 1996.

SECTION HEAD (96-023), Department ofSafeguards, Training Section. This P-5 postrequires an advanced university degree (orequivalent) in science, engineering or educa-tion and formal training in instructional designtechnology, and a minimum of 15 years expe-rience in research, industry or the nuclear fieldwith substantial experience in directing or con-

ducting training programmes, as well as knowl-edge and experience with non-proliferation is-sues or international safeguards.Closingdate: 22 July 1996.

ISOTOPE HYDROLOGIST (96-022), De-partment of Research & Isotopes. This P-3 postrequires a Ph.D. in hydrology, physics or chem-istry, and at least 6 years of demonstrated re-search experience in the application of isotopetechniques in hydrological and environmentaldisciplines such as global changes, palaeohy-drology and palaeoclimatology.Closing date: 22 July 1996.

UNIT HEAD (96-021), Department ofNuclearEnergy, Division of Scientific and TechnicalInformation. This P-4 post requires a universitydegree in a subject area covered by INIS, and 10years national level experience in the manage-ment, production, and dissemination of technicalor scientific information. Also required is experi-ence in the management of bibliographic data-bases and familiarity with computer technology,and at least five years in a supervisory capacity.Closingdate. 22 July 1996.

SECTION HEAD (96-020), Department ofNuclear Energy, Waste Technology Section.This P-5 post requires a university degree innuclear or chemical engineering, nuclear chem-istry, physics or environmental science, and 15years of relevant experience with at least 5 yearsmanagerial experience. Also required is knowl-edge of the principles and practices of humanresources and financial management, and abil-ity to apply this knowledge in allocating andmanaging assigned resources. Closing date: 28June 1996.

HEAD PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY & IN-STRUMENTATION LABORATORY (96-019), Department of Research & Isotopes. ThisP-5 post requires a Ph.D. or equivalent degreein chemistry, with emphasis in nuclear/radio-chemistry, nuclear physics, or nuclear or elec-tronics engineering. Also required is 15 yearsof professional experience in a managementposition in multi disciplinary institutions deal-ing with nuclear and related matters.Closingdate: 28 June 1996.

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMER (96-018), Department ofNuclear Energy. This P-2post requires a university degree in computerscience or related field and at least 2 yearspractical programming experience, knowledgeof MS-DOS, MS Windows, Visual Basic,C/C++ and SQL. Closing date: 28 June 1996.

DIRECTOR (96-016), Department of Ad-ministration, Legal Division. This D-l/D-2 post

requires an advanced university degree in lawand extensive experience in the fields of inter-national law, the law of intergovernmental or-ganizations or taw relating to the peaceful usesof atomic energy. Closingdate: 7 June 1996.

NUCLEAR PHYSICIST (96-014), Depart-ment of Research & Isotopes. This P-4 post re-quires a PhD. or equivalent degree in nuclearphysics followed by at least ten years of relevantresearch experience and expertise in measure-ments, theory, evaluation or application of nu-clear data, and familiarity with nuclear data needsfor specific energy or non-energy applications.Also required is experience in computer physics,processing of nuclear date files and related pro-gramming. Closingdate: 7June 1996.

READER'S NOTE:

The IAEA Bulletin publishes short summariesof vacancy notices as a service to readers inter-ested in the types of professional positions re-quired by the IAEA. They are not the officialnotices and remain subject to change. On afrequent basis, the IAEA sends vacancy noticesto governmental bodies and organizations in theAgency's Member States (typically the foreignministry and atomic energy authority), as wellas to United Nations offices and informationcentres. Prospective applicants are advised tomaintain contact with them. Applications areinvited from suitable qualified women as wellas men. More specific information about em-ployment opportunities at die IAEA may beobtained by writing the Division of Personnel,Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria.

ON-LINE COMPUTER SERVICES. IAEAvacancy notices for professional positions, aswell as application forms, now are availablethrough a global computerized network that canbe accessed directly. Access is through the In-ternet. The vacancy notices are located in apublic directory accessible via the normal In-ternet file transfer services. To use the service,connect to the IAEA's Internet address atNESIRS01.IAEA.OR.AT (161.5.64.10), andthen log on using the identification anonymousand your user identification. The vacancy no-tices are in the directory csi\edpuh/vacancy_posts.A README file contains general information,and an INDEX file contains a short descriptionof each vacancy notice. Other information, inthe form of files that may be copied, includesan application form and conditions of employ-ment. Please note that applications for postscannot be forwarded through the computerizednetwork, since they must be received in writingby the IAEA Division of Personnel.


NEW Software NEWS RELEASE FREE 4-Color Brochure

"Put Down that 6-Pound Book!" Instead...

Use NUCLIDE NAVIGATOR, the first ON-LINE Reference for Gamma-Ray Data

For the first time ever, application-specific gamma-ray libraries may be assembled in seconds,replacing hours of searching through heavy reference books!

NuclideNavigator™, from EG&G ORTEC is the indispensable tool for the gamma-rayspectroscopist. NuclideNavigator contains an instant-access, on-line Nuclide Database Managerand the complete Erdtmann and Soyka1 nuclide database. The user may scroll through the Segrechart in any direction, or jump instantly to a specific nuclide by entering its chemical symbol.

Multiple database search constraints, based on sample origin (e.g., thermal neutron activation,fission product, or naturally-occurring isotope), may be employed for speedy and accurate gammaray identification.

For "difficult" analyses Nuclide Navigator allows instant scrutiny of possible identification candi-dates in a given energy range. Input and output data may be written in Microsoft* Access® format.Request the FREE 4-color brochure from EG&G ORTEC, 800-251-9750; FAX 615-483-0396;INTERNET: 709-6992 @ MCIMAIL.COM.

P.S. NuclideNavigator is totally compatible with any gamma analysis software you currently use!

'G. Erdtmann and W. Soyka. "The Gamma-Rays of the Radionuclides." Verlag Chemie, ISBN 3-527-25816-7, Weinheim. FRG.©Microsoft and Access are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.

YOUR LINKS ON THE INTERNETV/V—> * * * -

•IAEA Press ReleasesArticles from the IAEABulletinDirector GeneralstatementsTopical overviewsIAEA meetings

Project updatesAgency programmes andnuclear developmentScientific databasesThe IAEA Annual ReportReports and documentsConference reports

Visit the IAEA's World Atom and TecAtom World Wide Web sites athttp://www.iaea.or.at. If you want to reach us by electronic mail, the

address is iaeo@iaeal .iaea.or.at.On line, the facts are yours 24 hours a day.

ON LINE DATABASESOF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

PRIS

V \

Database namePower Reactor Information System

(PRIS)

Type of databaseFactual

ProducerInternational Atomic Energy Agency

in co-operation with29 IAEA Member States

IAEA contactIAEA, Nuclear Power Engineering

Section, P.O. Box 100A-1400 Vienna, AustriaTelephone (43) (1)2060

Telex (1)-12645Facsimile +43 1 20607

Electronic mail viaBITNET/INTERNET to ID:[email protected]

ScopeWorldwide information on power re-actors in operation, under construc-tion, planned or shutdown, and data

on operating experience with nu-clear power plants in IAEA

Member States.

CoverageReactor status, name, location, type,supplier, turbine generator supplier,plant owner and operator, thermal

power, gross and net electricalpower, date of construction start,date of first criticality, date of first

synchronization to grid, date of com-mercial operation, date of shutdown,

and data on reactor core charac-teristics and plant systems; energy pro-duced; planned and unplanned energylosses; energy availability and unavail-

ability factors; operatingfactor, and load factor.

AGRIS

Database nameInternational Information System for

the Agricultural Sciences andTechnology (AGRIS)

Type of databaseBibliographic

ProducerFood and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO) inco-operation with 172 national,

regional, and international AGRIScentres

IAEA contactAGRIS Processing Unitc/o IAEA, P.O. Box 100A-1400 Vienna, AustriaTelephone (43) (1) 2060

Telex (1)-12645Facsimile +43 1 20607

Electronic mail viaBITNET/INTERNET to ID:FAS@IAEA 1 .IAEA.OR.AT

Number of records on line fromJanuary 1993 to date

more than 130 000

ScopeWorldwide information on agricul-

tural sciences and technology, includ-ing forestry, fisheries, and nutrition.

CoverageAgriculture in general; geographyand history; education, extension,

and information; administration andlegislation; agricultural economics;development and rural sociology;

plant and animal science and produc-tion; plant protection; post-harvesttechnology; fisheries and aquacul-

ture; agricultural machinery and en-gineering; natural resources; process-ing of agricultural products; humannutrition; pollution; methodology.

NDIS

V

Database nameNuclear Data Information System

(NDIS)

Type of databaseNumerical and bibliographic


in co-operation with the UnitedStates National Nuclear Data Centre

at the Brookhaven NationalLaboratory, the Nuclear Data Bank

of the Nuclear Energy Agency,Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development inParis, France, and a network of 22

other nuclear data centres worldwide

IAEA contactIAEA Nuclear Data Section,

P.O. Box 100A-1400 Vienna, AustriaTelephone (43) (1) 2060

Telex (1)-12645Facsimile +43 1 20607

Electronic mail viaBITNET/INTERNET to ID:

RNDS@IAEA 1 .IAEA.OR. AT

ScopeNumerical nuclear physics data filesdescribing the interaction of radiation

with matter, and relatedbibliographic data.

Data typesEvaluated neutron reaction data in

ENDF format; experimental nuclearreaction data in EXFOR format, for

reactions induced by neutrons,charged particles, or photons; nuclearhalf-lives and radioactive decay datain the systems NUDAT and ENSDF;

related bibliographic informationfrom the IAEA databases CINDA

and NSR; various other types of data.

Note: Off-line data retrievals fromNDIS also may be obtained from the

producer on magnetic tape

Database nameAtomic and Molecular Data

Information System (AMDIS)

Type of databaseNumerical and bibliographic


in co-operation with the InternationalAtomic and Molecular Data Centrenetwork, a group of 16 national data

centres from several countries.

IAEA contactIAEA Atomic and Molecular Data

Unit, Nuclear Data SectionElectronic mail via

BITNET to: RNDS@IAEA1;via INTERNET to ID:

[email protected]

ScopeData on atomic, molecular,

plasma-surface interaction, andmaterial properties of interest tofusion research and technology

CoverageIncludes ALADDIN formatted data

on atomic structure and spectra(energy levels, wave lengths, and

transition probabilities); electron andheavy particle collisions with atoms,ions, and molecules (cross sections

and/or rate coefficients, including, inmost cases, analytic fit to the data);sputtering of surfaces by impact ofmain plasma constituents and selfsputtering; particle reflection from

surfaces; thermophysical andthermomechanical properties of

beryllium and pyrolytic graphites.

Note: Off-line data and bibliographicretrievals, as well as ALADDIN

software and manual, also may beob-tainedfrom the producer on

diskettes, magnetic tape, or hardcopy.

For access to these databases, please contact the producers.Information from these databases also may be purchased from the producer in printed form.INIS and AGRIS additionally are available on CD-ROM.

INIS

Database nameInternational Nuclear Information

System (INIS)

Type of databaseBibliographic


in co-operation with 91 IAEAMember States and 17 other

international member organizations

IAEA contactIAEA, INIS Section, P.O. Box 100,

A-1400 Vienna, AustriaTelephone (+431) 2060 22842Facsimile (+431) 20607 22842

Electronic mail viaBITNET/INTERNET to ID:

ATIEH@NEPO 1 .IAEA.OR. AT

Number of records on line fromJanuary 1976 to datemore than 1.6 million

ScopeWorldwide information on the

peaceful uses of nuclear science andtechnology; economic and

environmental aspects of other energysources.

CoverageThe central areas of coverage arenuclear reactors, reactor safety,nuclear fusion, applications of

radiation or isotopes in medicine,agriculture, industry, and pest

control, as well as related fieldssuch as nuclear chemistry, nuclear

physics, and materials science.Special emphasis is placed on the

environmental, economic, andhealth effects of nuclear energy, aswell as, from 1992, the economic

and environmental aspects of'non-nuclear energy sources. Legaland social aspects associated withnuclear energy also are covered.

ON C D - R O M5000 JOURNALS

MORE THAN 1.6 MILLION RECORDS

6 COMPACT DISCS

INIS (the International Nuclear Information System)is a multi-disciplinary, bibliographic databasecovering all aspects of the peaceful uses of nuclearscience and technology. INIS on CD-ROM combinesthe worldwide coverage of the nuclear literaturewith all the advantages of compact disc technology.

Call +44 (0)81 995 8242 TODAY!

The IAEA'snuclear scienceandtechnologydatabase onCD-ROM

CD-ROMmeans• unlimited easy

access• fast, dynamic

searching• fixed annual

cost• flexible down-

loading andprinting

• desktopaccess

• easy storage• saving time,

space andmoney

for further informationand details of your local distributor

or write toSilver Platter Information Ltd.10 Barley Mow Passage, Chiswick, London,W4 4PH, U.K.Tel: 0800 262 096 +44 (0)81 995 8242Fax: +44 (0)81 995 5159

IAEAUPCOMING CO-ORDINATED RESEARCH PROGRAMMES-

Dose determination with plane-parallel ionization chambers in therapeutic elec-tron and photon beamsTo investigate the accuracy of the data and procedures included in the new code ofpractice. In addition, differences with existing recommendations will be quantified toanalyze the possible impact in patient dosimetry.

Compilation and evaluation of photonuclear data for applicationsTo develop a data file of evaluated photonuclear reaction cross sections. The list ofnuclei should include natural elements and isotopes of importance in biological, structuraland shielding materials, as well as actinides, fission products and a few others.

Assuring structural integrity of reactor pressure vesselTo facilitate the international exchange of information, provide practical guidance in thefield of monitoring reactor pressure vessels and to develop and assess a uniformprocedure of testing specimens for the assessment of RPV structural integrity.

Development of radiological basis for the transport safety requirements for lowspecific activity materials and surface contaminated objectsTo assist the Agency in developing transport safety requirements. This CRP will providea basis for classifying low level radioactive matenals (such as low level waste) and formodelling potential releases in the event of transport accidents.

Development of methodologies for optimization of surveillance testing and main-tenance of safety related equipment at nuclear power plantsTo provide an exchange of experience in investigating and analyzing different strategiesto improve and optimize maintenance and surveillance testing focusing on nuclear powerplant safety, and to stimulate the exchange of methodologies and techniques to carryout such optimization processes.

Biosphere Modelling and Assessment methods (BIOMASS)To analyze and quantify the behaviour of radionuclides in the biosphere in support ofassessments of the radiological impact of practices and interventions related to nuclearfuel cycle activities, including waste management.

Modelling transport of radioactive substances in primary circuit of water cooledreactorsTo compare and improve computer codes for modelling the transport of radioactivesubstances in the reactor primary systems.

Reference Asian Man Project (Phase 2): Ingestion and organ content of traceelements of importance in radiological protectionTo obtain high quality analytical data on dietary intakes (ingestion) and body compositionof representative Asian populations, with special reference to trace elements that are ofimportance in radiological protection.

Use of radiation processing to prepare biomaterials for applications in medicineTo promote research and development of materials for use in medicine and industry,applying methods of radiation synthesis and technology.

These are selected listings, subject to change Morecomplete information about IAEA meetings can beobtained from the IAEA Conference Service Section atthe Agency's headquarters in Vienna, or by referring tothe IAEA quarterly publication Meetings on AtomicEnergy (See the Keep Abreast section for orderinginformation.) More detailed information about the IAEA'sco-ordinated research programmes may be obtainedfrom the Research Contracts Administration Section atIAEA headquarters The programmes are designed tofacilitate global co-operation on scientific and technicalsubjects in various fields, ranging from radiationapplications in medicine, agriculture, and industry tonuclear power technology and safety.

IAEA^-SYMPOSIA & SEMINARS

JULY 1996FAO/IAEA Symposium on the Use ofNuclear and Related Techniques forStudying Environmental Behaviour ofCrop Protection ChemicalsVienna, Austria (1 - 5 July)

AUGUST 1996Seminar on Nuclear Techniques forthe Detection and Management ofCancerColombo, Sri Lanka (12-16 August)

SEPTEMBER 1996IAEA General Conference, 40th sessionVienna, Austria(16-20 September)

OCTOBER 199616th IAEA Fusion Energy ConferenceMontreal, Canada (7-11 October)

Symposium on Reviewing the Safetyof Existing Nuclear Power PlantsVienna, Austria ( 8 - 1 1 October)

A Seminar on Safeguards 1996 andBeyondVienna, Austria (28 - 30 October)

NOVEMBER 1996Symposium on Harmonization of Health-Related Environmental MeasurementsUsing Nuclear Analytical TechniquesHydrabad, India (4 -7 November)

Seminar on the Use of Isotope Techniquesin Marine Environmental StudiesVenue to be announced(11-22 November)

APRIL 1997Symposium on Diagnosis and Control ofLivestock Diseases Using Nuclear andRelated TechniquesVienna, Austria

International Symposium on Applications ofIsotope Techniques in Studying Past andCurrent Environmental Changes in theHydrosphere and the AtmosphereVienna, Austria

JUNE 1997Symposium on Nuclear Fuel Cycle andReactor Strategies — Adjusting to NewRealitiesVienna, Austria (2-6 June)

OCTOBER 1997

Seminar on Nuclear Techniques for Op-timizing the Use of Nutrients and Waterfor Plant Productivity and EnvironmentalPreservationVenue to be announced

60 IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1996 96-00527

IAEABULLETIN

Published quarterly by the Division of

Public Information of the International

Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,

A-1400 Vienna, Austria.

Tel: (43-1) 2060-21270

Facsimile: (43-1) 20607

E-mail: iaeo@iaea 1laea.or.at

DIRECTOR GENERAL: Dr Hans BlixDEPUTY DIRECTORS GENERAL:Mr David Waller, Mr Bruno Pellaud,Mr Victor Mourogov, Mr Sueo Machi,Mr Jihui Qian, Mr Morris Rosen (acting)DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION:Mr David Kyd

CHIEF EDITOR: Mr Lothar H. WedekindEDITORIAL ASSISTANTS:

Mr Rodolfo Quevenco, Ms Juamta Perez,Ms Brenda BlannLAYOUT/DESIGN: Ms Hannelore WilczekCONTRIBUTORS TO DEPARTMENTS:

Ms S DaNalah, Ms L Diebold,Ms A.B. de Reynaud, Ms R. SpiegelbergPRODUCTION SUPPORT:Mr P. Witzig. Mr R. Kelleher,Ms U. Szer, Mr W. Kreutzer,Mr G. Denial, Mr A. Adler,Mr R. Luttenfeldner, Mr F. Prochaska,Mr P. Patak, Mr L. Nimetzki

Language EditionsTRANSLATION SUPPORT: Mr J. RivalsFRENCH EDITION: Mr S. Drege, translation;Ms V. Laugier-Yamashita, copyeditingS P A N I S H E D I T I O N : Equipo de Servicios de

Traductores e Interpretes (ESTI), Havana,Cuba, translation; Mr L. Herrero, editingCHINESE EDITION: China Nuclear EnergyIndustry Corporation Translation Service,Beijing, translation, printing, distribution.

The IAEA Bulletin is distributed without

charge to a limited number of readers with

an interest in the IAEA and the peaceful uses

of nuclear energy Written requests should

be addressed to the Editor. Extracts from

IAEA material contained in the IAEA Bulletin

may be freely used elsewhere provided

acknowledgement of their source is made. It

the attribution indicates that the author of an

article is not a member of the IAEA staff, per-

mission to republish other than for the pur-

pose of review must be sought from the

author or originating organization.

Views expressed in any signed article orin advertisements appearing in the IAEABulletin do not necessarily representthose of the International Atomic EnergyAgency and the IAEA accepts no respon-sibility for them.

Advertising

Advertising correspondence should beaddressed to the IAEA Division ofPublications, Sales and Promotion Unit,P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria.

IAEAMEMBER STATESIW • aa> I • I akaT akaa • > «•*• I ar^» • H

1957AfghanistanAlbaniaArgentinaAustraliaAustriaBelarusBrazilBulgariaCanadaCubaDenmarkDominican RepublicEgyptEl SalvadorEthiopiaFranceGermanyGreeceGuatemalaHaitiHoly SeeHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIsraelItalyJapanKorea, Republic ofMonacoMoroccoMyanmarNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPakistanParaguayPeruPolandPortugalRomaniaRussian FederationSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSwedenSwitzerlandThailandTunisiaTurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom

of Great Britainand Northern Ireland

United States ol AmericaVenezuelaViet NamYugoslavia

• * ^

1958BelgiumCambodiaEcuadorFinlandIran, Islamic Republic ofLuxembourgMexicoPhilippinesSudan

1959Iraq

1960ChileColombiaGhanaSenegal

1961LebanonMaliZaire

1962

LiberiaSaudi Arabia

1963AlgeriaBoliviaCdte d'lvoireLibyan Arab JamahiriyaSyrian Arab RepublicUruguay

1964CameroonGabonKuwaitNigeria

1965Costa RicaCyprusJamaicaKenyaMadagascar

1966JordanPanama

1967Sierra LeoneSingaporeUganda

Eighteen ratifications were required to bring the IAEA's Statute into forcehad ratified the StatuteYear denotes year of membership

1968Liechtenstein

1969MalaysiaNigerZambia

1970Ireland

1972Bangladesh

1973Mongolia

1974Mauritius

1976QatarUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Republic of Tanzania

1977Nicaragua

1983Namibia

1984China

1986Zimbabwe

1991LatviaLithuania

1992CroatiaEstoniaSlovenia

1993ArmeniaCzech RepublicSlovakia

1994Former Yugoslav Republic

of MacedoniaKazakhstanMarshall islandsUzbekistanYemen

1995Bosnia and HerzegovinaGeorgia

By 29 July 1957. the States in bold face

. Names of the States are not necessarily their historical designationsFor States in italic, membership has been approved by the IAEA General Conference and will take effect once therequired legal instruments have been deposited.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which came intobeing on 29 July 1957, is an independent intergovern-mental organization within the United Nations SystemHeadquartered in Vienna. Austria, the Agency has morethan 100 Member States who together work to carry outthe main objectives of IAEA's Statute: To accelerate andenlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health.and prosperity throughout the world and to ensure so faras it is able that assistance provided by it. or at its requestor under its supervision or control, is not used in such away as to further any military purpose.

IAEA headquarters, at the Vienna International Centre.

Until now, one of the biggestproblems with reading personalexposure doses has been the size ofthe monitoring equipment. Which isprecisely why we're introducing theElectronic Pocket Dosimeter (EPD)"MY DOSE mini™" PDM-Series.

These high-performance

dosimeters combine an easy-to-read digital display with a widemeasuring range suiting a widerange of needs.

But the big news is how verysmall and lightweight they'vebecome. Able to fit into any pocketand weighing just 50-90 grams,

the Aloka EPDs can go anywhereyou go. Which may prove to bequite a sizable improvement, indeed.

Model

PDM-101PDM-102PDM-173PDM-107PDM-303ADM-102

Energy

60 keV -40 keV -40 keV ~20 keV -thermal ~ fast40 keV ~

Range

0.01 - 99.99 fjSv1 - 9,999 fjSv0.01 - 99.99 mSv1 - 9,999 /JSV0.01 ~ 99.99 mSv0.001 ~ 99.99 mSv

Application

High sensitivity, photonGeneral use, photonGeneral use, photonLow energy, photonNeutronWith vibration & sound alarm, photon

SCIENCE AND HUMANITY

w////ALOKA CO., LTD.

6-22-1 Mure. Mitaka-shi. Tokyo 181, Japan

Telephone: (0422) 45-5111

Facsimile: (0422)45-4058

Telex: 02822-344

To: 3rd Export SectionOverseas Marketing Dept.

Attn: N.Odaka

Safety, convenience and a varietyof styles to choose from.

PDM-107

DM-102

PDM-173PDM-101

mSv

2/ (/ VOL.38, N0.1 J · 2020. 5. 5. · iaea / bulletin \2/ (/ vol.38, n0.1 j 1996 vienna, austria...

Documents

Transcript of 2/ (/ VOL.38, N0.1 J · 2020. 5. 5. · iaea / bulletin \2/ (/ vol.38, n0.1 j 1996 vienna, austria...