It has long been a concern of arms control experts that countries might use reprocessing technology to extract plutonium from nuclear waste and build a nuclear bomb. In 1974, India was able to test a nuclear weapon in this exact way, by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from a reactor purchased from Canada. Fearing that this would encourage other countries to use reprocessing technology to develop a nuclear arsenal, in 1976 the United States declared a moratorium on reprocessing nuclear fuel. As part of his October 2007 Congressional testimony, Harvard University’s Dr. Matthew Bunn said that the moratorium conveyed that “reprocessing is unnecessary; we, the country with the world’s largest nuclear fleet, are not doing it, and you do not need to either.” This moratorium has set an international standard that has played a large role in preventing the spread of dual-use nuclear technology.
In 2006, the Bush administration introduced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which reversed this longstanding moratorium. According to the GNEP statement of principles, GNEP intends to address the growing problem of nuclear waste in the United States while curbing the global spread of sensitive nuclear technology. Under GNEP, spent nuclear fuel would be reprocessed in the United States and the resulting plutonium would be shipped around the world for use in nuclear reactors. According to the GNEP planning documents, “receiver” countries would voluntarily give up nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies and, in exchange, would be allowed to send their nuclear waste to “supplier” countries for reprocessing. On February 26th, 2008, UK Business Secretary John Hutton announced that the UK would become the 21st nation to join the Partnership. At this time, it is unclear what being a “member” means. Other than signing the Statement of Principles, nothing is currently being asked of members states.
According to Dr. Bunn, this reversal of U.S. policy is sending the message that “reprocessing is essential to the future of nuclear energy, but we will keep the technology away from all but a few states.” He further describes this would create a hierarchy of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.” Recognizing that the window of opportunity to become a “supplier” state is closing, numerous countries, including South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Ukraine, and Belarus, have expressed interest in reviving their nuclear programs. Thus this proposal is actually spurring non-nuclear countries to join the nuclear club.
Facing considerable opposition in the U.S. Congress, the future of GNEP is unclear. In 2007, Congress allocated only $179 million of the $405 million requested by the Bush administration. The Department of Energy (DOE) has ignored repeated requests by Congress to provide adequate information regarding life cycle costs, proliferation implications, and waste streams. According to Congress, DOE “has also failed to produce even the most rudimentary estimate of the life-cycle costs of GNEP.”
This year, DOE has requested more than $300 million for GNEP. In May, the House of Representatives issued a report stating that it found the “nonproliferation arguments for GNEP unpersuasive” and is “not convinced that GNEP will achieve its stated nonproliferation objectives.” |
|
