Executive Orders Could Create Security and Proliferation Risks while Delaying Deployment of Nuclear Energy

Statement from NTI Co-Chair and CEO Ernest J. Moniz

Several news reports indicate that the White House is considering one or more executive orders that seek to accelerate a buildout of nuclear energy in the United States and rebuild the country’s role as a civilian nuclear technology provider worldwide. Scaling safe and secure nuclear energy would be a welcome contribution toward meeting growing demand for clean firm electricity. However, the reports also indicate that consideration is being given to using plutonium-based nuclear fuels, reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel, and limiting the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NTI is concerned that some or all of these concepts might find their way into an executive order. Such steps would introduce long-recognized security risks and have the unintended consequence of impeding nuclear energy expansion just as momentum builds for such an outcome.

Plutonium-based fuels and reprocessing have a poor track record when introduced in civilian nuclear energy programs. Reviving them through executive order would likely:

• Lead to the creation of additional stocks of weapons-usable materials
• Encourage states without nuclear weapons to develop and deploy technologies that are usable in nuclear weapons programs
• Produce new radioactive waste streams that must be managed, at considerable cost and risk
• Increase the cost of deploying nuclear energy, which already faces economic challenges in key markets, including the United States
• Introduce new fuels to the nuclear energy enterprise, requiring new regulatory safety analysis and approvals
• Elevate the risk of a safety or security incident at a nuclear facility.

None of these concerns have been addressed convincingly by new technology, and reviving ideas that have not worked in the past is particularly ill-timed now. As momentum builds and coalitions form to advance innovative approaches to nuclear energy, attempts to introduce plutonium fuels and reprocessing would be counterproductive.

Proponents of plutonium-based fuel and reprocessing have advanced arguments of resource efficiency and reduced waste management challenges. The first argument is refuted by the more favorable economics of uranium-based fuels and sufficient uranium reserves for the foreseeable future. The second argument does not address the fact that reprocessing creates additional radioactive waste streams that necessitate expensive and complex infrastructure—on top of the need for a permanent waste repository. There is no reprocessing solution that eliminates nuclear waste. The highly radioactive fission products must be dealt with in any approach. These realities need to be faced in the context of the very real costs and nuclear security challenges that plutonium-based fuel and reprocessing would entail.

Additionally, reorganizing and reducing the independence of the NRC could lead to the hasty deployment of advanced reactors with safety and security flaws. A major event would, like those in the past, increase regulatory requirements and set back nuclear energy for a long time.

At this critical moment, the country would be best served by continuing with uranium-based fuels, storing the spent fuel, and focusing innovative capacity and financial resources toward building a nuclear energy ecosystem that is efficient, safe, secure, and rapidly scalable.