CongoNuke: When Does Missing Not Mean Missing? (And where else has this kind of IAEA accounting gone on?)

Authorities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002 received support from an unlikely source for their contention that no nuclear materials were missing from the small research reactor in Kinshasa. This was the final report in my exclusive series.

Nuclear officials in Kinshasa reacted with predictable outrage when I reported that not one but two fuel rods have gone missing from the research reactor and that one is still unaccounted for.

In a statement, these officials denounced the report as "absurd" and an "invention" --- even though the source of the disclosure about the missing low-enriched nuclear materials came from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Its spokesman revealed the IAEA had known about the missing rods since the mid-1970's, keeping silent about the matter until four years ago when one of the fuel elements was recovered in Italy from criminals.

It kept silent about the second missing rod until I raised questions this month (July 2002) about the additional loss.

Now the IAEA has come to the support of authorities in the Congo, explaining their denial of any lost nuclear materials.

In a statement, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky says, quoting now, "several years ago the Congolese adjusted the inventory of their material to take into consideration the two missing fuel elements."

Mr. Gwozdecky says their denial therefore, in his words, "is accurate from the standpoint of this new baseline for their inventory."

As for the IAEA's own quarter-century-long silence on the missing material, the spokesman explains that all so-called nuclear safeguards information is confidential.

But he reveals the latest inspection of the one megawatt Kinshasa research reactor took place just this past Tuesday, July 9th. He calls the inspection routine --- despite the recent publicity.

He says all nuclear materials at the facility were accounted for --- minus, of course, the one missing fuel element no longer carried on the reactor's official inventory.

Note: Hmmmmmm. Is this standard inventory accounting practice for any other nuclear facilities?