|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Nuclear Fuel Production Should be Transferred to Multilateral Control, IAEA Experts Say By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — To reduce proliferation risks, the production of nuclear fuel should be conducted through multilateral approaches, rather than by individual countries, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency report released yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 1). The report, prepared by an experts group convened last summer, outlines several approaches for transferring nuclear fuel cycle activities to multilateral control. Such activities include uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing from spent nuclear fuel and spent fuel disposal. There has been growing concern that countries seeking to acquire nuclear weapons could do so by developing the infrastructure necessary for civilian power programs — including fuel cycle-related facilities. Among the most pressing examples is the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, with Tehran claiming to be pursuing fuel-cycle activities as part of a civilian program while the United States suspects the Islamic republic is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In response, the Bush administration has proposed a ban on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to any country that does not already possess such facilities, as well as guaranteed supplies of nuclear fuel to countries that agree to forgo nuclear-fuel production. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, though, has pushed for a multilateral approach. The agency’s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has proposed a five-year moratorium on the construction of new enrichment and reprocessing facilities (see related GSN story, today). Last month, ElBaradei warned in an interview with Agence France-Presse of the dangers of allowing individual countries to develop their own fuel production abilities. “We just cannot continue business as usual that every country can build its own factories for separating plutonium or enriching uranium,” he was quoted yesterday by AFP as having said. “Then we are really talking about 30, 40 countries sitting on the fence with a nuclear weapons capability that could be converted into a nuclear weapon in a matter of months.” In its report, the agency expert group recommended the increased use of measures such as commercial fuel banks and fuel leasing agreements, in which a supplier country would agree to provide nuclear fuel on the condition that the spent material would be returned for storage and final disposal. Russia and Iran are reportedly close to concluding such an agreement for Moscow to provide fuel for the Bushehr nuclear reactor. The group also recommended developing international fuel supply guarantees, “notably with the IAEA as guarantor of supply services.” The agency could act as the administrator of an international fuel bank, according to the report. In addition, work should begin to persuade countries to convert existing fuel-cycle facilities to multilateral control, the report recommends. It also encourages the creation of “multinational and in particular regional” approaches for new facilities, such as joint ownership or co-management. USEC, the sole U.S. producer of enriched uranium, opposes placing fuel-cycle facilities under multilateral control, company spokesman Charles Yulish said today. “This is a system that works and has worked for decades,” he said. The approaches considered by the IAEA experts group were “difficult bureaucratic, political [and] business concepts,” Yulish said. He added that USEC plans to continue to work with the agency to develop “simpler approaches that can work more effectively.” The report is likely to be discussed at this year’s fifth Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference, set to be held in May in New York, according to reports.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
