|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Georgia: Aid Sought to Reopen Research Reactor in Nonproliferation First By Bryan Bender After three years of closure, re-opening Georgia’s only reactor would help prevent nuclear scientists from seeking employment elsewhere and would help train a new generation of experts to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, Georgian officials said. Shukuri Abramidze, director of the Andronikashvili Institute of Physics near here, said in an interview last week that the institute is seeking new assistance from the International Atomic Energy Agency and donor countries to reopen its research reactor for peaceful, scientific pursuits. If such assistance were approved and financed, under the U.S.-sponsored Cooperative Threat Reduction program or from other international sources such as the IAEA, experts say it would mark a significant departure for nonproliferation efforts, which have focused primarily on closing down former Soviet nuclear facilities and securing remaining ones from sabotage. Nevertheless, they say the possibility of funding research reactors with low enriched nuclear fuel is a subject of growing debate as nations pledge additional resources to secure nuclear know-how. “There is a big effort in this area,” Robert Einhorn, former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of discussions about providing research reactor assistance to former Soviet states and others, relying on low enriched uranium fuel to support scientific and educational pursuits. Pros and Cons “As far as I know this has never been done [using nonproliferation money] and there could be arguments on both sides,” said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard University. For example, while funding nuclear research efforts could prevent nuclear expertise from leaking to would-be proliferators such as Iran, Iraq or North Korea — and help to train a new generation of nuclear scientists in such places as Georgia where many Soviet-era physicists are reaching or have surpassed retirement age — it could also pose new proliferation problems. “On the downside there are hundreds of research reactors and that is a much larger number than needed for science, for training or for testing of materials,” Bunn said. “A very small number would do the job if there were more international cooperation.” There are also security issues involved, including the possibility of sabotage, he added. For example, the spent fuel for small research reactors tends to be small and potentially portable, unlike power reactor spent fuel, Bunn said. While only highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear bomb, low enriched uranium could be used to make a radiation dispersal device, or so-called dirty bomb. “You would have to make sure [there are] regulations to provide a level of security that is commensurate with the level of threat,” he said. “You can’t rule out a bunch of guys with machine guns showing up somewhere.” But in Georgia, the 72-year-old Abramidze and his team of 90 scientists have concluded that reopening the research reactor would be the best way to utilize the workforce, while paving the way for a new generation of Georgian scientists to receive hands-on experience in peaceful nuclear disciplines. At its height the reactor employed 400 scientists, most of whom have moved to Russia, other former Soviet states or the West. Abramidze expressed confidence that none of them has gone to Iran, Iraq, North Korea or other countries allegedly seeking to build nuclear weapons. The institute has been working on an IAEA-funded study to determine the reactor’s future, according to Abramidze. The light water research reactor was decommissioned in 1999 and its estimated 40 kilograms of low enriched uranium — both fresh and spent fuel — was removed for safe storage in Scotland as part of the U.S.-led Operation Auburn Endeavor, officials said. The reactor itself is housed beneath two meters of concrete to prevent leakage of any leftover radiation. “We are ready to provide a special report by the end of this year to outline a future role for this” reactor, Abramidze said. “We are hoping to get funds for this new project,” including a 50-kilowatt light water reactor. Others see the benefits of such a project. “They don’t have a new generation [of scientists] anymore,” said Andrei Chupov, head of IAEA technical cooperation in Europe, Africa and West Asia. “They have no tool anymore,” he said, referring to the decommissioned reactor. Bunn agreed that a low power research reactor could benefit Georgia. “On the upside, it is certainly true that many of the experts are retiring and there is a need for training another generation of nuclear experts. A case can also be made that these under-employed scientists … need useful and worthwhile civilian work [so they will] not sell them to somebody who will use them for nefarious purposes.” However, “I suspect it would make more sense to work out an arrangement where Georgian scientists could travel to a facility in Russia,” Bunn said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
