Counterfeit components threatens the military

A growing deluge of millions of counterfeit chips is posing peril to the military and the general public — and perhaps nothing illustrates it better than a scheme federal prosecutors recently revealed that stretched from Southern California to Silicon Valley.

Mustafa Aljaff and Neil Felahy, a Newport Beach pair indicted in October, have admitted importing from China more than 13,000 bogus chips altered to resemble those from legitimate companies, including local firms Intel, Atmel, Altera and National Semiconductor. Among those buying the chips was the U.S. Navy.

It wasn’t the first time the military has been hoodwinked. Separate studies this year by the Commerce Department and the Government Accountability Office concluded that the armed forces — which use chips in everything from communications and radar systems to warplanes and missiles — is alarmingly vulnerable to fakes.

Commerce officials partly blamed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for diminishing the supplies of chips the military normally uses for equipment repairs and forcing it to rely on questionable dealers for replacement parts. Moreover, both studies cited serious flaws in the Pentagon’s procedures for spotting sham components.

Whether any of the fakes sold by Aljaff and Felahy went into vital defense systems isn’t clear. The Navy declined to comment, saying the case remains under investigation. Nonetheless, recent reports have described several close calls the military has had with bogus chips.

Because the microprocessors it needed for its F-15 warplanes’ flight-control computer were no longer made by the chips’ original manufacturer, the military obtained them from a broker, only to discover they were counterfeit, according to the GAO’s study in March. Air Force technicians spotted the bad chips before they were installed on the planes’ computers.

That same month, Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania discovered it had malfunctioning chips intended for use in military communications systems. “The counterfeit chips failed during testing” and weren’t put on any equipment, said depot spokesman Anthony Ricchiazzi.

In November of last year, a Florida business that makes a device to keep injured pilots from becoming entangled in their parachutes reported finding a counterfeit chip in one of the devices and other fakes in its supply chain. None of the devices were known to have failed, however.

Fakes are everywhere

But it’s not just the military that’s at risk. Chips perform key roles in countless commercial products, as well as phone links, banking networks, electronic grids and nuclear power plants. Given the flood of phony chips, said Diganta Das, a University of Maryland expert on the subject, “we can be assured that we have counterfeit parts in all kinds of systems.”

Just ask Billoo Rataul, CEO of Paramit, a contract electronics manufacturing firm in Morgan Hill. Three years ago, his company went to a broker to buy hard-to-find chips and installed them in a Bay Area firm’s medical devices. When the equipment began failing at hospitals, he discovered the chips were fakes.

Although the problem was caught before patients were affected, “scores of machines were impacted,” said Rataul, who declined to identify the company and the medical device involved. As a result, Paramit has intensified its efforts to watch for counterfeits because “there is a lot of this stuff floating around.”

That was seconded by Don Trenholm, a New Hampshire-based chip-failure analyst. A few months ago, he bought a liquid crystal display for a computer, only to see it suddenly stop working. When he dismantled it to learn why, he found it contained several fake chips.

“It scares me,” Trenholm said. “The chance of a counterfeit component showing up on a commercial product is getting better and better.”

Security risk

From November 2007 through May 2010, U.S. Customs officials said they seized 5.6 million bogus chips. Yet many more are finding their way into the U.S. and even the military, which federal officials consider especially worrisome because it could affect national security.

To withstand the rigors of battle, the Defense Department requires the chips it uses to have special features, such as the ability to operate at below freezing temperatures in high-flying planes. And because it pays extra for such chips, experts say, it has become a prime target for counterfeiters.

The Commerce Department turned up 3,868 incidents in 2005 in which the military and its suppliers had encountered counterfeit electronics — the vast majority of chips — with each incident potentially involving thousands of phony circuits. By 2008, the most recent data sought, the number had soared to 9,356.

Counterfeiters — many of them based in China — often tear apart scrapped computers to obtain chips, which they then mislabel to appear suitable for jobs that exceed the parts’ capabilities. That can result in the components suffering dangerous glitches.

Asked whether any military equipment had malfunctioned because of fake chips, Tonya Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Defense Logistics Agency, which buys most of the military’s electronic components, said she knew of no such cases. Besides, she said, her agency “has a series of checks and balances in place to block the flow of nonconforming or counterfeit parts from entering the supply chain.”

Nonetheless, the Commerce Department study found 14 military organizations, including three with the Defense Logistics Agency, that “reported encountering counterfeit parts in some form.”

Crackdown urged

The recent convictions of Aljaff and Felahy drew praise from the Semiconductor Industry Association, which urged the government to continue cracking down on such offenses, “given the potential for catastrophic injury and damage from failure of a counterfeit microchip.” But when it formally commented in March on a federal plan to combat such crimes, the group took issue with the government’s enforcement methods.

Customs used to ask legitimate chipmakers to help it check out suspected parts. But it stopped that two years ago, fearing it could be prosecuted for revealing confidential information about the seller of the parts to another company. Since then, the association noted, there has been a “dramatic decrease” in fake-chip seizures. Customs officials told the Mercury News they are seeking a legal way to once again get help from chip firms.

Other serious roadblocks deter the detection of counterfeits within the military, according to the Commerce Department. It found the armed forces had no reliable method for tracking bogus chips and that numerous attempts to warn military authorities about counterfeits “have fallen on deaf ears.”

Source: Steve Johnson, Mercury News

Domestically produced fuel for Chinese VVERs

The first domestically produced VVER fuel assemblies have been loaded into the cores of the Russian-designed units 1 and 2 of the Tianwan nuclear power plant in Jiangsu province, China.

Tianwan Phase I (Image: AtomStroyExport)

Russian nuclear fuel producer TVEL and Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corporation (JNPC) signed a contract in December 1997 for the supply of fuel for the initial core loading of Tianwan units 1 and 2, as well as three subsequent reloads for each unit. Since signing the contract, TVEL has produced 638 fuel assemblies for the two VVER-1000 pressurized water reactors (PWRs) at Tianwan. The last batch of fuel to be supplied under that contract was delivered in March.

Fuel for the Tianwan units will now be produced at China National Nuclear Corporation’s (CNNC’s) main PWR fuel fabrication plant at Yibin, Sichuan province, using technology transferred from TVEL under the fuel supply contract. To enable the manufacture of fuel for the fourth reloads of the units, TVEL signed a contract in 2009 with China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNEIC), an international trading company directly owned by CNNC and authorized to carry out import and export trade of uranium products, nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear power and technology equipment. It subsequently supplied CNNC with billets for use in producing fuel assemblies.

Four VVER-1000 fuel assemblies produced at Yibin, together with a related component, passed an inspection by Russian experts on 1 April, clearing the way for full production of the assemblies to start at the Chinese plant.

The Yibin plant – operated by China Jianzhong Nuclear Fuel (CJNF), a CNNC subsidiary – has now produced its first 54 VVER-1000 fuel assemblies. The assemblies were recently loaded into the Tianwan units during their fourth refuelling.

Tianwan Phase I was constructed under a cooperation agreement between China and Russia – the largest such project ever. The cost is was reported to be $3.2 billion, with China contributing $1.8 billion of this. The first unit was grid connected in May 2006 and put into commercial operation in June 2007. The second was grid connected in May 2007, with commercial operation in August that year.

On 23 March 2010, AtomStroyExport and JNPC signed the framework contract for the second phase of the Tianwan plant. This will comprise two more VVER-1000 units, similar to units 1 and 2. Construction is expected to start in October 2010.

In 2008, the Yibin facility has reached an annual output of 400 tonnes per year of PWR fuel. In July 2010, the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence approved a plan to expand production to 800 tonnes per year in order to supply China’s rapidly growing nuclear industry. The plant has been manufacturing fuel for China’s Qinshan Phase I and Phase II, Daya Bay and Ling Ao nuclear power plants, as well as for Pakistan’s Chashma plant. The capacity increase is part of a planned incremental expansion, which CJNF intends to continue. Previously reported figures have suggested that the plant is likely to reach a capacity of 1000 tonnes or more per year by 2020.

CNNC’s second fuel fabrication plant at Baotou, Inner Mongolia, makes fuel for the Candu pressurized heavy water reactors at Qinshan Phase III. Although China’s goal is ultimately to become self sufficient in nuclear fuel supply, reactor vendor Areva will be providing the first two cores and 17 reloads for the EPR reactors it is building at Taishan. Likewise, Westinghouse will be supplying first cores and some re-loads for the AP1000 reactors it constructing at Sanmen and Haiyang.

Source: World Nuclear News

India finalizes Indo-US deal

India’s Parliament approved a final, critical piece of a long-delayed landmark civil nuclear agreement on Monday, a pact regarded as a cornerstone of a Bush-era effort to transform the relationship between the United States and the world’s largest democracy.

But even as supporters praised a historic victory, the end result is probably not what the United States had hoped for, nor does it seem likely to signal a new era in relations between the United States and India. Indeed, some analysts say the compromises needed to move Monday’s legislation through India’s contentious Parliament could undermine the practical impact of a political, diplomatic and economic accord that took years to negotiate.

With President Obama scheduled to make his first visit to India in early November, the governments in both countries are trying to strengthen a relationship sometimes described as a natural and strategic alliance of democracies. But drawing closer has proved complicated as differences remain on issues like trade and climate change as well as how to effectively deal with Pakistan.

The nuclear issue, putatively about India’s future, has sparked weeks of bitter political debate in New Delhi, tapped into Indian nationalism and public suspicion of foreign corporate interests while also dredging up a very different chapter in the countries’ relations: the 1984 Union Carbide industrial disaster at Bhopal, which killed thousands. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, accused of toadying to America, appeared before the lower house of Parliament to deny that his allegiance was anywhere but with India.

“We kind of assume that we will be the dominant partner in any partnership,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a former ambassador to Sri Lanka who also served as an American diplomat in India. “India does not make that assumption.”

Mr. Singh, who announced the nuclear deal in a 2005 joint statement with former President George W. Bush, has an expansive vision of the role of nuclear energy as a power source for India’s future. For decades after its 1974 nuclear test, India had refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and was subjected to a three-decade American moratorium on nuclear trade. But the deal opened a controversial back door for India to join the nuclear club while also opening an Indian market estimated at $150 billion to foreign energy companies once blocked by the moratorium.

Now the question is whether foreign or even Indian energy companies will be willing to come in to provide the expertise India needs to expand, because of the liability guidelines codified in the legislation in case of a nuclear accident. Existing international conventions place liability solely with the operator of a nuclear reactor while immunizing suppliers. But the Indian law bucks international norms and makes suppliers potentially liable, too. Indian industrial groups have already expressed reservations, while analysts warn that many private foreign energy companies may now decide not to take part.

“This makes the fruits of the Indo-U.S. deal go to waste,” said G. Balachandaran, a security analyst in New Delhi with a specialty in nuclear issues. He added: “It may well be the end of civil nuclear growth in India.”

India currently has 19 nuclear reactors, and the government wants to attract foreign and domestic suppliers to build more. The liability legislation was critical, because most private foreign energy companies need a legal framework outlining their risks and potential liabilities before entering a market. International conventions largely abide by a principle in which liability is “channeled” strictly to the operator of a reactor rather than the long list of suppliers.

During the debate before Monday’s vote in the upper house of India’s Parliament, the government’s point man, Prithviraj Chavan, said the law would make India the sole country in the world that placed some liability on suppliers. “The suppliers are not happy,” said Mr. Chavan.

The government originally proposed legislation more palatable to suppliers, but opposition parties had demanded tougher provisions, particularly after the ghost of the Bhopal disaster inflamed the debate.

In Bhopal, thousands of people were killed after an explosion in December 1984 at the Union Carbide pesticide factory unleashed a poisonous cloud over the city. India sought $3.3 billion in damages from Union Carbide, since purchased by Dow Chemicals, but would later settle for $470 million. Much of the money has not been distributed, and many victims have gotten only nominal payments.

In June — 26 years after the accident — India’s court system announced light criminal sentences against eight former executives of Union Carbide’s Indian subsidiary, one of whom had since died. Meanwhile, Warren M. Anderson, the former chairman of Union Carbide, has never been prosecuted, having absconded to the United States, which has declined to extradite him. After the issue resurfaced, the public was outraged, and the Bhopal tragedy again dominated the Indian media.

Then on Aug. 19, an Indian news channel reported that a senior American official had cautioned a top Indian official in an e-mail that the “noise” over Dow Chemicals could hurt investment in India. The official, Mike Froman, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement denying that he was making any sort of threat — but the episode further inflamed the nuclear debate.

The Bharatiya Janata Party, the main opposition, insisted on language that left open the possibility that suppliers could be sued in the case of an accident.

On Monday, Arun Jaitley, the B.J.P. leader in the upper house, scoffed at the notion that foreign energy companies would stay away from India. He said India’s appetite for new nuclear reactors would create a “buyer’s market” and the law would provide leverage for the government. He said the law abided by the principle of channeling by holding only the operator liable for claims from accident victims. The difference, he said, is that the law allows an operator to sue a supplier under certain circumstances.

Had the law not been changed, he said it would have been “a suppliers’ immunity law.”

But Indian business groups and even the government’s own Nuclear Power Corporation, which operates the existing reactors, have warned that such liability language was problematic and could dissuade private suppliers. India already has a separate bilateral agreement with Russia, and liability is less central an issue since Russian companies are state-owned. Yet Russia also has expressed concern. Private companies in other countries, including France, which also has a bilateral agreement with India, could be more exposed. And Japan, which is also negotiating a nuclear agreement with India, is likely to raise the issue since Japanese companies are heavily involved in the industry.

“It really increases the exposure of Indian and international suppliers,” said Ashley Tellis, a former American diplomat involved in negotiating the framework of the United States-India deal. “The net effect is that it is going to restrict the prime minister’s options and it could even be fatal to his vision of expanding the nuclear power sector in India.”

Source: The New York Times

Decommissioning Zion NPP

The long-awaited decommissioning of the Zion Nuclear Plant finally is scheduled to begin in the next few weeks following the announcement the other day that its owner, Exelon Corp., has reached agreement on a decade-long, $1 billion cleanup. This is nearly the same plan the utility announced three years ago, but was sidetracked because of the economy. It is a solid first step in returning the Zion lakeshore to what it was before the facility first began using nuclear energy to generate electricity in 1973, during the heyday of Illinois’ nuclear power industry. The plant, once Zion’s largest employer and tax-revenue producer, sits on 257 acres of prime lakefront property. It has been an idle behemoth since 1998.

But the Exelon plan, approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to transfer the station’s federal license next month to a Utah nuclear services company, leaves one huge problem to contend with during the cleanup: What to do with the hundreds of spent nuclear rods currently swimming in a pool yards from Lake Michigan. EnergySolutions, the company that will tackle the largest nuclear plant dismantling ever undertaken in the United States, will haul low-level radioactive waste from the site to its facility in Utah.

The plan currently is to keep the used nuclear fuel on the property under Exelon’s care in a secure facility once the decommissioning process is completed. That is because the Obama administration has decided to stop funding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository in Nevada. We’re still waiting for the administration’s future plan on what to do with the rising amount of spent fuel produced by the 104 commercial nuclear generating units in the United States, which provide 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Those concerns aside, the razing of the twin cooling towers and dismantling of the facility means an injection locally of 200 skilled workers with a peak workforce of 400 employees. The Zion job is but one of 101 projects Chicago-headquartered Exelon is launching in a $4.6 billion spending spree across Illinois. Other work includes equipment upgrades at the company’s six nuclear plants in the state to produce more carbon-free megawatts.

Exelon’s nuclear president, Michael Pacilio, called the capital spending “our own economic stimulus program for Illinois.” Indeed, many believe that private investment will ultimately bring the nation out of the Great Recession.

Considering that the total allocation under federal stimulus funding for Lake and the other collar counties, Cook County and Chicago is $3.6 billion, it would appear Exelon is doing its share to aid the economy. That begins with jobs and work in Zion.

Source: Suburban Chicago News

Vermont Yankee reports “unusual event” to NRC

Entergy’s Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vermont declared an unusual event Sunday just after 7 p.m. EST due to a loss of 75 percent of certain control room alarms for more than 15 minutes, according to an event report filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

State authorities and the NRC resident inspector were notified per procedure. The event status was lifted at 8:28 p.m. EST, after the issue was traced to a blown fuse which was replaced, restoring power to the control room annunciators without further incident.

An unusual event is the lowest of four emergency classifications utilized by the NRC, and entails that there has been no release of radioactive material requiring offsite response or monitoring.

The Vermont Yankee is currently operating at full capacity.

Source: PennEnergy

Turkey and South Korea to sign APR1400 agreement

According to a news report,Turkey and South Korea are planning in mid-November to enter into one of the most important phases of the process of building a nuclear power plant in northern Turkey worth nearly $10 billion, sources close to the project said Friday.

“This week’s talks went well, and the target of the two countries is to sign the inter-governmental agreement during the G-20 summit in Seoul in mid-November,” said one source.

The South Korean capital is scheduled to host the next summit of the Group of 20 countries on Nov. 11 and 12. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to represent Turkey at the gathering.

Top officials from South Korea’s state-controlled energy company Kepco visited Ankara on Tuesday and Wednesday for talks with Energy Minister Taner Yıldız and other Turkish counterparts on the planned nuclear deal. Continued…

Read more: Nuclear Street

China to increase nuclear power capacity by 2020

In order to fulfill the promise made at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, the proportion of China’s non-fossil energy should at least 75 million kilowatts in order to achieve the target by 2020, the Energy Research Institute under the National Development and Reform Commission said.

This includes 4% to 6% of energy provided by nuclear power, reports Qatar News Agency on Saturday citing the insitute.

Currently, China’s nuclear power installed capacity is only 9 million kilowatts.

Therefore, China expects to increase the installed capacity as high as seven to eight times in the future, the Chinese newspaper “People’s Daily” reported.

“China’s urgent need for energy conservation and carbon emissions reduction allows nuclear power, which has the advantage of stability, to become an important choice for clean energy in the short term, said Zhang Shuai, a senior analyst from the Sinolink Securities. Continued…

Read more: Asian Energy

TEPCO gets approval to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 5

Japan’s Nuclear Saftey Commission said on Monday it has given Tokyo Electric Power Co <9501.T> the green light to restart operations at one of four nuclear reactors still shut at a quake-hit plant in northern Japan.

Asia’s largest utility still needs approval from three local authorities — the city of Kashiwazaki, the village of Kariwa and Niigata Prefecture — before it can begin restart tests on the 1,100-megawatt No.5 reactor at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

TEPCO restarted the No.6 and No.7 units last year and the No.1 unit earlier this year at the nuclear plant, the world’s largest, after a major earthquake in northern Japan forced the plant of a total seven units to close in July 2007.

Source: Yahoo! News / Reuters

Iran proposes to jointly produce nuclear fuel with Russia for Bushehr NPP

Iran has submitted a proposal to Russia to jointly assemble the nuclear fuel for the country’s new power reactor and any future facilities, state media reported Thursday.

The move appeared to be an attempt by Tehran to gain some control over the nuclear fuel process at its Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant. With Moscow’s help, Iran began loading uranium fuel into the facility on Saturday.

The United States and allies lifted their opposition to the Bushehr plant after Russia pledged to handle all the nuclear fuel to make sure no material is shifted to a possible Iranian weapons program in the future. The latest proposal by Iran to have even a sideline role in the nuclear fuel process could stir backlash in the West.

“We have made a proposal to Russia to create a consortium under Russian license to do part of the work in Russia and part in Iran,” the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, was quoted as saying by state-run Press TV. “We should show the world our capability in uranium production and its conversion into nuclear fuel.”

Salehi, who is also Iran’s vice-president, said Moscow is “studying the proposal.”

An official at the Russian nuclear agency said the two countries have discussed the possibility of creating a facility to assemble the fuel rods for Bushehr. The facility would operate under Russian license on Iranian territory.

But the official said the uranium enrichment would be performed on Russian soil. Speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, the official added that Russia first will focus on commissioning the Bushehr plant, and then turn its attention to Iran’s new proposal.

Russia is currently supplying all the uranium fuel for Bushehr. That fuel is enriched to 3.5 per cent, well below the 90 per cent enrichment needed for a nuclear warhead.

Bushehr is not considered a proliferation risk because the Iranians have agreed to allow Moscow to retrieve all the used reactor fuel for reprocessing. Spent fuel contains plutonium, which can be used to make atomic weapons.

Salehi also said that Iran has produced 55 pounds (25 kilograms) of uranium enriched to 20 per cent since February. Iranian officials say the uranium enriched to 20 per cent is needed to fuel a medical research reactor.

Iran’s refusal to stop enriching uranium lies at the heart of its dispute with the West over Tehran’s nuclear program. Iran says it needs to enrich uranium to make fuel for an envisaged reactor network, but highly enriched uranium can be used to create fissile material nuclear warheads.

The United States and other nations fear Iran aims to produce nuclear weapons under the cover of its civil nuclear power program. Iran denies the charge, and says its program is peaceful.

The U.N. Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran in June over Tehran’s refusal to stop enriching uranium.

Source: Alberta Local News / The Associated Press

Indo-Japan nuclear deal is essential

An India-Japan civil nuclear pact would be critical in signalling that they would like to build a partnership to bring stability to the region at a time when China is going all out to reward Pakistan with civilian nuclear reactors, says Harsh V Pant.

Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada was in Delhi recently for the fourth round of India-Japan strategic dialogue and made it clear that negotiations on civilian nuclear cooperation pact are going to be rather difficult.

There are indications that negotiations on the pact between Japan and India have stalled and it now looks unlikely that this pact would be signed during the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Japan in October as originally planned. India and Japan started discussions on the possibility of Japan signing a civil nuclear agreement with India in June. This was a significant move for Japan that has long been critical of Indian nuclear policy. Though India-Japan ties have blossomed in recent years on a whole range of issues, the nuclear issue has been a major irritant in the relationship.

The Indian nuclear tests of 1998 marked the lowest point in bilateral relations with Japan reacting strongly to the nuclearisation of the sub-continent. Tokyo suspended economic assistance for three years as well as put on hold all political exchanges between the two nations. Japan’s economic measures against India included freezing of grant aid for new projects, suspension of yen loans, withdrawal of Tokyo as a venue for India Development Forum, a ‘cautious examination’ of loans to India by international financial institutions and imposition of strict control over technology transfers.

Japan took the lead in various international fora like the G-8 in condemning nuclear tests by India and Pakistan while the Japanese Diet (parliament) described the tests as constituting a threat to the very survival of human beings.

This strong reaction from Japan was in many ways understandable given that the Japanese are the only people to have experienced the brutality of nuclear weapons and that experience has continued to shape their world-view. Yet, many in India saw the Japanese reaction as hypocritical given that India’s genuine security concerns were brushed aside even as Japan itself enjoyed the security guarantee of the US nuclear umbrella.

As many in India see it, Japan’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in many ways, remains predicated upon its reliance on American nuclear deterrence. Continued…

Read more: Harsh V Pant, Rediff News

Next Page »