Stafford Energy, Inc (fka SFDE)

[Wallstreetlive]

From some one at another board!!!!!!!!


Look what I found ab Mr. Valery *****ev .....He was he PLant manager at the nuclear power plant in russia in 1998...Then he was the deputy minister of energy dept in Russia for a while and he has been the CEO of this nuclear waste company for last few years.

Should visit Nucons website ...They have contracts with these monstor companies ....I have necer heard any public traded company ....esp...PINK!!!


NUCON Key Personnel:

Chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO Prof. Valery *****ev, PhD
Chief Operating Officer Alexander Stepanenko
First Vice President and Secretary Peter Goerke
Project Manager Andrey *****ev
General Counsel J. Holt Smith, Esq.

---------------------------

Posted in the International Herald Tribune on July 18, 2002 and at:
http://www.iht.com/articles/64804.html

Super-ceramics for nuclear waste
Matthew L. Wald The New York Times Thursday, July 18, 2002
NEW BRUNSWICK, New Jersey While lawyers, senators and even an occasional
geologist argue over whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada is a suitable
place to store nuclear waste, scientific entrepreneurs are focusing on a
finer detail: how the waste can be packaged to isolate it for 10,000
years.
.
The Senate's approval of Yucca on July 9 makes the question urgent.
.
So far, the U.S. Energy Department, which is in charge of Yucca, has
chosen conventional materials; its current plan is for a cask made of
steel alloyed with chrome, molybdenum and nickel, called alloy 22, and a
titanium tent above that. The department says it needs 10,000 packages,
and plans to spend about $500,000 a package, so the financial incentives
are significant. But some scientists doubt that anything metal can sit
for thousands of years without rusting in rock that has rainwater
percolating through it. A few are offering alternatives, including
recently developed ceramics and polymers. In a laboratory here at
Rutgers University, a startup company, Nucon, is showing off a scale
model made of an odd new ceramic. Ceramics are not known for strength,
but this has the same compression strength as steel, Nucon says.
Ceramics can be used as thermal insulators, but this one is cold to the
touch, a sign that it conducts heat readily. This is desirable in a
material that must isolate heat-generating waste that cannot be allowed
to heat itself to the melting point. This ceramic has these unusual
traits because it has exceptional density and has been baked in a
process called cintering.
.
Cintering gives it another odd quality. Tapped with a metal pen, the
model rings like a bell. The sound brings a smile to the face of the
company's chief engineer, Adam Khizh, who came to this country from
Russia nine years ago. "Perfect cintering," Khizh said. "The sound is
very clear."
.
Nucon's material is a spinel, or magnesium-aluminum oxide. Oxidation
(or, in plain English, rust) is the big worry at Yucca. But oxides do
not rust; they have already oxidized.
.
So far, no one has cast ceramic containers large enough to hold bundles
of spent nuclear fuel rods. Engineers at Nucon hope to do this, although
its model is about the size of half a large watermelon.
.
Jared Cohon, chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a
panel established by Congress, said that early plans for Yucca had
included a ceramic covering over the metal, and that this was dropped
because engineers doubted that the covering could withstand rough
handling. But a ceramic that could would be appealing, he said, because
it would resist corrosion far better than metal.
.
Some ceramics experts are dubious. Delbert Day, a professor of ceramic
engineering at the University of Missouri at Rolla, and a former
president of the American Ceramic Society, said it might be simpler to
protect the steel by encasing it in concrete.
.
Paige Russell, the Yucca project's technical lead for waste package
design and testing, said that no final packaging decisions had been made
and that the design of the containers so far was "conceptual." But for
now, she said, the Energy Department has come down in favor of a
material it knows better: metal. She said the project would probably
choose proven rather than experimental materials.
.
"We have to understand the performance of the material over time," she
said. "We have to understand the performance of the material in
different environments, how to manufacture and fabricate the material.
There are a lot of positives to using materials that are already known
and have been used in industry."
.
Ceramics are used to stabilize high-level nuclear waste, but only as a
matrix material, not as a wrapper.
.
For low-level wastes - as opposed to the high-level spent fuel that the
department wants to bury at Yucca - the Energy Department is trying a
new material, a polymer foam to bind up radioactive materials
indefinitely.
.
But the big challenge is spent reactor fuel, which will remain intensely
radioactive for centuries and has many components that policy-makers
want to keep out of underground water for millennia.
.
The Energy Department's early plan was for ordinary steel, but it moved
up to alloy 22 for better corrosion resistance. But alloy 22 is harder
to weld than ordinary carbon steel, and welds, experts say, are where
failure most often occurs.
.
The department's plan is for a "drip shield" of titanium over each
container. The containers would be 6 to 7 feet in diameter, and about 16
feet long, to be parked in a line, filling the tunnel like subway cars.
.
Nucon sees instead giant, elongated watermelons made of ceramic, 18 feet
long, with a wall 3 inches thick and an inner diameter of 5.5 feet. The
ovoid shape is a way to reduce the risk of cracking the ceramic if it
bangs into something; with rounded ends, the force of impact would be
better distributed around the container.
.
Nucon believes it has made an important advance in being able to cast
thick ceramics. Making a thick ceramic is a challenge because cintering
requires even heating and cooling, increasingly difficult in thick
structures. Nucon's solution is a combination of conventional thermal
heating, plus microwave energy, which heats evenly.


-----------------------------------------------


Associated Press,
23 June 2002

Russia set to build nuclear dumpsite
Arctic grounds can hold 55,000 tons of old sub fuel

Moscow - Russia will build a dumpsite on an Arctic archipelago to store spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned Northern Fleet submarines, a top nuclear official said Friday.

The dumpsite will be at the southern tip of Novaya Zemlya, which was used for nuclear tests during the Cold War, said Valery *****ev, Russia`s deputy nuclear power minister. The last explosion there was conducted October 1990.

State environmental experts have given approval for a burial ground that could hold 55,000 tons of nuclear waste and cost an estimated $70 million, *****ev said at a news conference.

*****ev said the project was vital for dismantling 190 decommissioned nuclear submarines, two-thirds of which are in the north.

Nuclear fuel has been removed from 97 submarines, officials have said, while others have languished dockside with nuclear fuel for as long as 15 years because of a shortage of funds for dismantling the vessels and storing the spent fuel.

The dismantling effort was estimated to cost from $2.5 billion to $3 billion. Some European Union nations have offered to provide funds for dismantling the submarines, but talks have been difficult because of Russia`s refusal to accept full legal responsibility for all nuclear risks, offer tax breaks and give Western inspectors unlimited access to all dismantling sites.

*****ev said the government would finance the construction of the burial ground on Novaya Zemlya. He said it wasn`t clear how long it would take to complete the project, but said that it could take from five to seven years to build the first part.


-----------------------------------------

Current Status, February 1998:

Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant

Plant Manager: Valery *****ev
Chief Engineer: Yury V. Garusov
Utility: Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant
Telephone No.: 7-812-69-61397
Fax: [phone]


Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant (LNPP) is located 80 km west of St. Petersburg on the coast of the Baltic Sea in the town of Sosnovy Bor. The plant operates the oldest RBMK-type reactors (Chernobyl type) in Russia.


LNPP is the only one in Russia which is not a part of Rosenergoatom Concern. The Concern is managing the remaining 8 Russian nuclear power plants. The "independence" of the plant does not mean social well-being. Last winter the plant was shaken by actions of protest organised by employees who did not get their salaries in time.


Having RBMK-type reactors in operation, the plant is suffering from the shortage of storage capacity for the spent fuel. RBMK-type reactor fuel is not a subject to reprocessing in Russia, thus it is stored in the onsite storage facility. The storage facility located on the bank of Finish Gulf is leaking. Attempts to increase its storage capacity by reducing the distance between each fuel channel have not solved the problem, on the contrary increasing the possibility of accidents.


Nevertheless, the management of the plant is not about to give up. As a result of the safety upgrade of the two eldest reactors funded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the management hopes that the life-time of these two reactor installations could be prolonged by 10-15 years.


The construction of reactor installations of MKER-type which intend to replace the currently operational reactors have not begun yet. On the other hand, the construction works on the prototype of VVER-640 in Sosnovy Bor were launched last year in co- operation with German Siemens.


This month Current Status focuses on the last developments at the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant, the plant of major safety concern in the Baltic region; the plant funded by the west to continue operation and threaten the north-western Europe for 15 years to come.


LNPP's priorities
Having been screwed by lack of money, LNPP's management has defined a few priorities for funding. First of all, this is purchasing of nuclear fuel. The plant spends monthly some 9,2 million USD on this purposes. The second priority is the operational day-to-day needs of the reactors. The third one is the salary for the employees. The forth priority is all kinds of maintenance and repair works on the nuclear installations, while the fifth priority is upgrading and reconstruction of the nuclear power plant. The last two priorities have not received proper funding the last two years.


Economical situation
The year 1996 was the hardest year for the LNPP so far. LNPP has some 7000 people employed and managed to produce 19,8 billion kWatt hours of electricity in 1996. The electricity was worth 500 million USD. However, the plant received only 0,9% cash of the money earned. This led to a social explosion in winter 1997. The employees organised a number of strikes, refusing to leave the reactor rooms after their shift was over. The crises was resolved by spring 1997. The plant involved itself into barter trade operations and saved the day... temporary. By the beginning of this year the plant managed to collect 4,5% in cash of the money earned. In the meantime, 5% required just to pay salaries to the employees. The management of the plant fears another crises looming this year: the problem of lacking cash has been aggravated by increased state taxation.


Life-time prolonged
Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant has four RMBK-1000 reactor units in operation. The units were commissioned in 1973, 1975, 1979 and 1981 respectively. In 1989 the reconstruction of unit no.1 started. Two years later, in 1991, the reconstruction on unit no.2 was launched. The reconstruction of these first two units was finished in 1994-1995. Unit no.3 was under reconstruction from 1995 till 1996. But once again this unit was shut down for repairs last year. It has not been put back in operation yet. The whole set of works aimed at safety upgrade (reconstruction) was to be over by 1998. The lack of funding postponed the final span of upgrading till the year 2001. Nevertheless, the management of the plant has already stated on several occasions that the planned decommissioning of the two first reactor units will not occur in 2003 as it was defined when the plant was brought into operation. The management is confident that upon completion of all the safety upgrade works the plant will be able to continue its operation for 10-15 years beyond the year 2003.


The major part of "safety upgrade" works has been funded by the west. Thus, in 1996, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) sponsored the plant with a gift of 37,2 million USD for safety upgrade programs. This was far not the only money injection LNPP received from the west. The G-7 countries, Finland and Norway have been active in granting money for safety works at LNPP.


Handling of RBMK-reactors spent fuel at LNPP
The RBMK- reactors spent fuel is not a subject to reprocessing in Russia. Back in the Soviet Union it was planned to build a regional storage facility for spent fuel of this type by the end of 70-s. In the meantime the fuel was temporary stored in the cooling water pools by the reactor units. By the beginning of 80-s the pools were filled to capacity, while the regional storage facility was still on paper. So the Leningrad NPP had to build one for its own needs.


The storage facility built in the beginning of 80-s is located in 90 meters from the Gulf of Finland. By the end of 1996 the five storage ponds of the facility were filled to capacity prompting engineers of the plant to seek solutions. The solution was found later: the distance between each fuel assembly in the ponds will be halved, something that entails a further safety risk. The storage facility is in an extremely bad state of repair, with large cracks in the walls and roof. Rainwater runs in and contaminated water runs out. For the time-being some 2000 fuel assemblies have been placed there as a result of "tightening" operation, thus making the total number of more than 24 000 spent fuel assemblies. The required reserved space for emergency situations is lacking. Hence, in case of an accidental leakage in one of the ponds there would be no possibility to transfer the fuel in order to reduce the amount radioactivity leaking out.


The longer term solution to the problem has been worked out some two years ago. Engineers have developed a new type metal-concrete cask which is applicable both for intermediate dry storage (some 50 year) and transportation of spent nuclear fuel from RBMK-type reactors. A model of such a cask has passed preliminary tests. The final tests will be held soon at a test field of Design Bureau of Special Machine Building is St. Petersburg. Upon completion of the tests successfully the cask would have to get approval from State Nuclear Inspection of Russian Federation (GAN), and then launched for serial production. The RBMK reactors fuel, including the one from LNPP, will be stored in such casks. The storage site is still a matter of discussion. One of the proposed locations is Krasnoyarsk-26 in Siberia.

Plans for the new NPP in Sosnovy Bor
The plans to start commissioning of new type MKER-800 reactors from the year 2003 are shelved. Leningrad NPP has "upgraded" safety of its RBMK-reactors and intends to live on it for 10-15 years. These years will not be wasted. The idea of constructing MKER is strong and living. The only problem is the lack of funding.


In the meantime, the construction of new generation prototype reactor of VVER-640 type was launched in Sosnovy Bor last year. To keep the construction within the frames of schedule the annual funding required amounts to some 250 million USD. In 1997, some 33 million USD were actually allocated. The reactor's primary function would be a demonstration to the potential buyers of the Russian nuclear engineering achievements.


Conclusion
Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant is a bright example of the current Russian ways to keep on with the nuclear technology development. The point of the established approach is, having scarce funding, to put some patches here and there and state that safety standards are followed.


Back in 1992, the officials from Europe, the U.S., and Japan hammered out a three- stage, 10 billion USD plan to eventually shut down the worst reactors in the former USSR and Eastern Europe. Others were to be upgraded. The energy sector was to be restructured. The initiative was supported by 1992 July summit of G-7 nations in Munich. In case of implementation, it could mark the biggest technology transfer contemplated since Henry Ford built tractors for Joseph Stalin's Russia more than 60 years ago.


A part of the plan was carried out, indeed. The Soviet reactor installations were "upgraded" to certain safety standards. At the same time, the worst Soviet reactors would never be shut down. On the contrary, they will continue operation for 10-15 years to come, been upgraded by the west. The second sufficient part of the plan dealing with energy sector restructuring was shelved.


As a matter of fact, the situation is becoming more dangerous that it used to be in the Soviet times. At least at that time the NPPs were relatively new. Today, they are run down and out of operational life-time defined by the designers, screwed by social problems. Due to the fact that the construction of the new nuclear power plants is unlikely to happen, the world will face in the beginning of the next century 9 Russian patched nuclear power plants prone to the accidents at a scale higher than ever.