Proliferation Concerns and Implications of GNEP

The March issue of The Nonproliferation Review includes an article that I wrote on the proliferation concerns and implications of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The journal and its publisher have graciously made the full article available online here.

Cutting to the chase, I argue:

In sharp contrast to its stated goals, GNEP will not solve the problems associated with nuclear waste disposal and may actually increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. The initiative has already sparked a newfound interest in a number of countries to acquire sensitive nuclear technologies, while doing little to restrict the spread of such technologies from partner countries that already possess them. And despite the “proliferation-resistant” label, all of the reprocessing technologies proposed under GNEP would actually make a proliferator's task comparatively easier.

The resumption of reprocessing domestically under GNEP would also likely have a long-lasting and detrimental impact on the nonproliferation regime. Breaking with its thirty-year position that has successfully limited the spread of reprocessing technologies around the globe would significantly hinder the ability of the United States to challenge the claim by other countries of the necessity of reprocessing. Combined with the softening of rules governing nuclear trade, this reversal threatens to further weaken the nuclear nonproliferation regime, with potentially disastrous consequences.

More than five decades ago, the United States launched an ambitious program to spread nuclear technology and knowledge for peaceful purposes throughout the world. Despite its best intentions, the program did not adequately weigh the various possibilities for misuse and consequently contributed to the nuclear weapons programs of several countries. As the United States today considers pursuing a program of comparable vigor, it must remember the lessons learned from the Atoms for Peace experience and realize that greater risk does not necessarily always yield greater reward.

You can find the full article here.

Leonor Tomero on the Future of GNEP

The Center’s Leonor Tomero recently published an excellent article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Online on the future of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

Tomero argues:

The rush to expand nuclear energy has resulted in many ad hoc developments, an increased interest in sensitive nuclear technologies, and a weakening of rules governing nuclear trade. GNEP has exacerbated the risk of nuclear proliferation while many other proposals do not offer a foolproof solution. Clear rules and a careful, concerted international approach to limit proliferation are needed. Although Congress has slowed GNEP's implementation, it may already be too late (or at least too difficult) to convince non-nuclear weapon countries to give up their nuclear ambitions. Yet, halting the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies and establishing a fair international system--rather than encouraging a system of haves and have-nots--will be crucial to ensuring that the risks associated with an expansion of nuclear power remain manageable.

Click here for the full article.

Senators Urge Committee to Cut Funding for Reprocessing

In an April 24 letter, nine senators urged Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) to cut funding for the reprocessing and reuse of spent nuclear fuel.

The letter targets funding for the Department of Energy's efforts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

The non-proliferation-friendly advocates are:

• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
• Russ Feingold (D-WI)
• Tom Harkin (D-IA)
• Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
• John Kerry (D-MA)
• Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
• Charles Schumer (D-NY)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

These senators, "expressed wide-ranging concerns about the program ranging from cost, to nuclear proliferation risks, to environmental contamination dangers to past failures in this area," according to the Center's Director for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Leonor Tomero. Their concerns include the programs' $200 billion burden on taxpayers, failures of past attempts to reprocess spent fuel, and the way in which the program undermines U.S. non-proliferation efforts.

Seems reasonable to me.

The letter responds to the administration's request of over $300 million for reprocessing in FY 2009, including $302 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. (In FY 2008, DOE requested $405 million but received only $179 million.)

For the text of the letter and the Center's press release, click here.

Nuclear Power in the UK: Still the Wrong Way to Reduce Carbon Emissions

In the latest stage of the so-called "nuclear renaissance," the British government today approved the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants. This move reverses the previous UK policy on nuclear power, which (as stated in 2003) was that "its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity."

The decision to build new nuclear power plants has been met with ardent opposition from the British environmentalist movement, but UK Business Secretary John Hutton defended the new policy as a response to global warming: "Set against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear power stations is compelling." However, as the previous British policy explicitly recognized, nuclear power is economically a decidedly "unattractive option" for reducing carbon emissions.

The chart below demonstrates that as far as investments in clean energy go, nuclear power is decidedly sub-prime. We can most efficiently reduce the carbon output associated with energy production by improving efficiency (and thereby reducing the amount of energy that needs to be produced) and by implementing alternative, non-nuclear energy technologies.

(Based on data from the National Resources Defense Council)

Moreover, nuclear power plants pose significant terrorism risks, both as targets for attacks and as potential sources of material for nuclear devices. While the United Kingdom almost certainly has the resources to prevent theft of its nuclear material, this cannot be said for countries like Indonesia, which recently announced plans to develop nuclear power despite what ABC News called a "dubious safety record." By propagating the fiscal myth of nuclear power as a solution to global warming, the UK (and other industrialized nations) are founding a nuclear renaissance on faulty principles.

Nuclear power may be profitable given today's high oil and gas prices, and in the future it could play an important role in (or transitioning to) a global post-carbon economy. But if the British government's goal really is to address the urgent threat of global warming by reducing carbon emissions, nuclear power is a bad investment.

Congress Releases Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Zeroes Out RRW and Cuts GNEP

Congress released today its joint House-Senate omnibus appropriations bill, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which zeroes out RRW and significantly cuts GNEP.

As noted in a summary from the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, the bill “prohibits the development of a reliable replacement warhead until the President develops a strategic nuclear weapons plan to guide transformation and downsizing of the stockpile and nuclear weapons complex.”

The accompanying explanatory statement details this further:

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Strategy for the 21st Century. – The Congress agrees to the direction contained in the House and Senate reports requiring the Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the NNSA, the Department of Defense, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Strategic Command, and the Intelligence Community, and other appropriate independent, non-government science and security advisory organizations, to develop and submit to the Congress a comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy for the 21st century.

Reliable Replacement Warhead. – The amended bill provides no funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), as proposed by the House. As stated in both the House and Senate reports, Congress believes a new strategic nuclear deterrent mission assessment for the 21st century is required to define the associated stockpile requirements and determine the scope of the weapons complex modernization plans. The NNSA is directed to develop a long-term scientific capability roadmap for the national laboratories to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations.

GNEP also took a significant hit. The bill funds the program at $179 million, $216 million below the President’s request, and roughly halfway between the House level ($120 million) and Senate level ($243 million). The House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, nevertheless, had some harsh words for “the controversial initiative.” In their summary, they state that “the project will cost tens of billions of dollars and last for decades, but it continues to raise concerns among scientists and has only weak support from industry.”

The bill also significantly increases funding for several key nuclear nonproliferation programs. Although the top-line figure is $1.7 billion, $14 million below the President’s request, total funding for the programs is increased by $534 million by transferring unrelated work to other accounts, resulting in a 50% increase over the President’s request.

The bill must still be voted on and is subject to floor amendments, meaning that these numbers may change, but any amendment that increases funding for RRW would likely be difficult to win. If the bill passes with the current funding levels for both RRW and GNEP intact and is signed by the President, it would represent a tremendous victory for the arms control community.

“Non-Treehuggers Criticize the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”

Catchy title, right?

Plutonium Page at Daily Kos put together a great piece recently on GNEP in which she argues that the program is “a complex domestic issue as well as a thorny international one. Political and environmental situations are not static; and regardless of how ‘friendly’ the reprocessing technology proposed by the GNEP sounds, it is not foolproof when it comes to proliferation … Whether you're in favor of storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain or Novaya Zemlya, we can all agree that something has to be done. The GNEP will not solve it... not in this lifetime.”

Click here for the full post.

Senate Subcommittee Cuts GNEP—Cites Concerns with Cost, Technology, and Nonproliferation

The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee approved the FY 2008 Energy and Water Development bill on June 26th, which includes the bulk of funding for nuclear weapons and energy programs. Overall funding for the Senate version of the bill was $32.27 billion, about $1.8 billion above President Bush's budget request.

I previously provided analysis on the nuclear weapons funding, as well as the text on nuclear weapons language from the Committee Report.

Also included in the bill is funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a Bush administration proposal that would reinstate commercial nuclear reprocessing in the United States after having abandoned it almost three decades ago. The administration believes that nuclear reprocessing, when uranium and plutonium are separated from waste materials in spent nuclear fuel rods, will reduce the amount of nuclear waste that will need to be placed in a permanent geological repository such as the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.

The Senate allocated $242 million toward GNEP. While this is $153 million below the administration’s $405 million budget request, it is also $75 million over the funding that Congress allocated last year. The House only allocated $120 million for GNEP in its version of the bill.

The Committee Report limits GNEP funding to research, development and technology demonstrations at existing facilities, meaning no funds can be used “beyond conceptual design of new facilities.” Overall, the Committee Report directs the Department of Energy to focus less on commercial deployment of reprocessing facilities, and more on demonstrating the technical feasibility as well as a proven safety track record for nuclear reprocessing.

Ranking member on the subcommittee and staunch fan of all-things-nuclear Pete Domenici (R-NM) released a somewhat modest statement to the press on the GNEP funding:

Although I share the President’s desire to address our spent fuel inventories by recycling and reducing this material, I recognize that the new Congressional leadership is seeking a more modest program that can more fully demonstrate the technical and commercial feasibility of closing the nuclear fuel cycle as other countries have done.

GNEP NOT THE SILVER BULLET

The Committee Report, a beast of a document that details the subcommittee’s reasoning for funding on every program, outlined five concerns with nuclear reprocessing: cost, pace, science, technology, and non-proliferation concerns.

COSTS

Reprocessing is more expensive than purchasing new uranium and making uranium fuel. According to the Guardian Unlimited, officials from Britain’s shut-down Thorp reprocessing facility at Sellafield stated that even when operational the plant did not make money.

There are also serious costs associated with storing the waste that still remains after reprocessing, in addition to the costs associated with cleaning up reprocessing sites after they are decommissioned. The United States stopped reprocessing in 1976 after closing its only operating reprocessing plant at West Valley, New York, where the still on-going clean-up from commercial nuclear waste reprocessing is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $5.3 billion.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The West Valley plant was shut down in part due to concerns about the underperforming technology. The facility managed to only process one year's worth of nuclear waste although the plant operated for six years, an amount equivalent to about one percent of that which is currently stored at US power plants.

In 2005 Britain shut down its only reprocessing plant after a hazardous leak was discovered. Two years later, a 2007 UK Energy White Paper reported that “The Government has concluded that any nuclear power stations that might be built in the U.K. should proceed on the basis that spent fuel will not be reprocessed." This is after a reopening of the plant scheduled for early 2007 had to be postponed when more technical problems with the facility were discovered.

NON-PROLIFERATION CONCERNS

The Committee Report also states that, “the policy of reinitiating the recycling of spent nuclear fuel in the United States is a significant issue and one that has international implications.” This statement is especially true when considering the non-proliferation concerns associated with nuclear reprocessing.

The separation of fissile materials from nuclear waste presents a serious non-proliferation concern, in that non-nuclear weapons states can use this material to build nuclear weapons. Commercial nuclear reprocessing was abandoned almost three decades ago by the United States due in part to these serious proliferation concerns. North Korea and India have both detonated nuclear weapons made in part with plutonium extracted from reprocessing reactors, demonstrating that the weapons proliferation threat associated with nuclear reprocessing is more than speculation.

CONGRESS CONCLUDES: SLOW DOWN

Given these concerns, it is no surprise that Congress is hesitant to push full ahead with expanding U.S. reprocessing capabilities. The Committee Report properly concludes, "The administration must come forward with greater scientific, technical, and policy information that examines more alternatives in the fuel cycle and recycling process."

Kyle Atwell interviews Leonor Tomero on Nuclear Reprocessing

Check out my interview on plutonium reprocessing with Leonor Tomero, a nonproliferation analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation:



Reprocessing is the process in which weapons-usable materials are extracted from spent nuclear waste produced by nuclear reactors.

Leonor provides a great summary of the administration's push for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which would reintroduce reprocessing into US nuclear waste management.

The United States halted reprocessing 30 years ago due to:

* high costs: Reprocessing and recycling the recovered plutonium would add about $2 billion per year to the cost of US nuclear-generated electricity

* environmental and safety risks: In 2005 Britain's only reprocessing plant in Sellafield had a major leak accident, spilling 83,000 liters of hazardous materials. The plant remains shutdown today

* the serious threat reprocessing poses for nonproliferation efforts: Both India and North Korea have used materials from plutonium reprocessing to build nuclear weapons

The problems are as real today as they were thirty years ago when the US initially stopped reprocessing. Fortunately Congress is wary of reprocessing as well, at least for now--as Jeff discusses here, the House Energy and Appropriations Subcommittee opted to trim funds for GNEP from $405 million to $120 million on Wednesday. While this funding allocation is not final, it is a good start to the legislative process.

Victory in House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee

The arms control community scored a major victory when the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee eliminated yesterday all $88.8 million of proposed funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) and all $24.9 million for a new plant to build plutonium pits.

The funding is a part of a $31.6 billion Energy and Water Spending Bill for fiscal year 2008, and is $1.13 more than the Bush administration’s budget request and $1.3 billion more than fiscal year 2007 spending levels.

Although its advocates claim that the Reliable Replacement Warhead program would help create a smaller, cheaper and more modern nuclear arsenal, in reality the program is entirely unnecessary and would significantly undermine U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

Better yet, the subcommittee likewise trimmed funds for the administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) plutonium reprocessing program that extracts nuclear weapons-usable material from nuclear waste from $405 million to $120 million.

Reprocessing increases the risk that dangerous material will fall into the hands of terrorists by removing many of the necessary barriers that prevent terrorist from acquiring bomb-grade material.

To top it off, the subcommittee also added $878 million for nuclear nonproliferation programs, a 74 percent increase to the administration's original request.

There will most likely be efforts in the full committee and on the House floor to at least partially restore funding for the RRW. Stay tuned.