"I find hope in the work of long-established groups such as the Arms Control Association...[and] I find hope in younger anti-nuclear activists and the movement around the world to formally ban the bomb."
IAEA Board Approves Fuel Bank Plan
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors agreed Dec. 3 to establish a nuclear fuel bank, endorsing the plan without a dissenting vote from any of the 35 members.
In the vote, which came on the second day of the board’s two-day meeting in
The just-endorsed plan would set up a reserve of low-enriched uranium (LEU) under IAEA control. In 2006 the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a private
Pledges from the
According to a background memo that the IAEA Secretariat issued in January 2010, the $150 million should be enough funding for the purchase and delivery of 60 to 80 metric tons of low-enriched uranium (LEU), enriched to a level of less than 5 percent uranium-235. That is roughly the amount of LEU needed for a full core of a typical power reactor, once the LEU is fabricated into reactor fuel.
In the months leading up to the vote, key supporters of the measure had been working on “building as broad a consensus as possible” in favor of it by explaining the motivations and rationale, NTI Vice President for International Programs Corey Hinderstein said in a Dec. 9 interview.
The
“Everyone in the
One country whose position changed between the two votes was
According to a Nov. 26 IAEA document laying out the plan for the fuel bank, one of the eligibility requirements for recipients is that the state “has brought into force a comprehensive safeguards agreement requiring the application of safeguards to all its peaceful nuclear activities and pursuant to which safeguards are to be applied to the LEU that is supplied through the IAEA LEU bank.”
In the past, issues such as the requirement for full-scope safeguards might have led
Another factor, the European diplomat said, was the IAEA board’s shift to a more “favorable composition” since the Angarsk vote, as some of the strong opponents rotated off the board and were replaced by countries that were more amenable to the idea. (See ACT, November 2010.)
Multiple Rationales
The fuel bank is intended to serve as a backup to other fuel-supply mechanisms, most notably the commercial fuel market. As the IAEA memo describes it, the bank is “designed to be used rarely.”
By providing countries with an assured supply of fuel at market prices, the bank is intended to dissuade recipients from pursuing their own uranium-enrichment programs. In a Dec. 3 press release hailing the board’s vote, NTI Co-Chairman Sam Nunn said, “If every country interested in nuclear energy also chooses to pursue uranium enrichment, the risk of proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials and weapons would grow beyond the tipping point. The IAEA fuel bank now gives countries an alternative to that choice and direction.”
In early articulations of fuel bank proposals, some supporters framed them to require recipients to forgo indigenous enrichment programs, an approach that led to objections from many of the potential developing-country recipients. According to numerous accounts, suspicions on that front persist although more recent language has not linked eligibility for fuel bank material to any kind of renunciation. In an effort to address those concerns, the November IAEA document says, “The rights of Member States, including establishing or expanding their own production capacity in the nuclear fuel cycle, shall remain intact and shall not in any way be compromised or diminished by the establishment of international assurance of supply mechanisms.”
The document reinforces that point with two additional sentences: “Thus, having the right to receive LEU from the guaranteed supply mechanism shall not require giving up the right to establish or further develop a national fuel cycle or have any impact on it. The additional options for assurance of supply shall be in addition to the rights that exist at present.”
On the issue of proliferation, the IAEA background memo says that some agency members
observed that concerns related to nuclear proliferation must not in any way restrict the inalienable right of all States to develop all aspects of nuclear science and technology for peaceful purposes, given in particular the relevance of nuclear science and technology for the sustainable socio-economic advance of developing nations, and that there should not be any attempts aimed at discouraging the pursuit of any peaceful nuclear technology on the grounds of its alleged “sensitivity.”
Addressing that point, the memo says that,
[w]ith respect to the comment made by some Member States regarding the “alleged sensitive nature of enrichment and [spent fuel] reprocessing technologies”, which are technologies in the civilian nuclear fuel cycle that could be used to produce material for nuclear weapons, it may be recalled that inter alia these two technologies were identified as “sensitive technological areas” by the Board in the context of the application of safeguards in relation to the granting of technical cooperation by the IAEA.
The State Department official said that the “tenor” of the November document “is a result of the discussions we had.” Although the nonproliferation aspect of the fuel bank was paramount for the
Hinderstein also said that countries had varying reasons for supporting the proposal. However, she said, the debate over the question of whether fuel cycle technology should be called sensitive showed how discussions at the IAEA on politically charged issues have sometimes “separated themselves from reality.” Although acquisition of enrichment or reprocessing technology does not indicate a “nefarious” purpose, the technology could be misused by a future government in the country that acquires it, she said. Also, the more broadly the technology is disseminated, the greater the chance that, through subsequent legal or illegal exports, it will end up in a country that will misuse it, she said.
With the vote now completed, it is “important to see how this is going to be implemented” and make sure it is “as smooth and efficient as possible,” the European diplomat said. Key steps will be acquiring the LEU for the fuel bank on the commercial market and determining a host country for the bank, he said.
Table 1: Fuel Bank VotesThe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors has voted on two proposals to establish a fuel bank of low-enriched uranium. The vote on the first proposal, on Nov. 27, 2009, was to establish a reserve at the Angarsk site in Siberia. The vote on the second proposal, on Dec. 3, 2010, was on a plan by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) to set up a fuel reserve under IAEA control.
|
||
Country |
Angarsk |
NTI |
|
Y |
NM |
|
N |
Abst. |
|
Y |
Y |
|
--* |
Y |
|
NM |
Y |
|
N |
Abst. |
|
Y |
NM |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
NM |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
N |
NM |
|
NM |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
NM |
Abst. |
|
N |
NM |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Abst. |
Y |
|
NM |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
NM |
Y |
|
Abst. |
Y |
|
N |
NM |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
NM |
|
NM |
Y |
|
N |
-- |
|
Y |
Y |
|
NM |
Y |
|
Y |
NM |
|
Y |
Y |
|
NM |
Y |
|
N |
Abst. |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
NM |
|
Y |
NM |
|
NM |
Abst. |
|
Abst. |
NM |
|
Y |
Y |
|
NM |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
NM |
|
N |
Abst. |
TOTALS |
Y 23 N 8 Abst. 3 -- 1 |
Y 28 N 0 Abst. 6 -- 1 |
Key:Y YesN NoAbst. Abstain-- AbsentNM Not a board member at the time of the vote |
||
*Azerbaijan later said it would have voted in favor of the resolution. Sources: Media reports, interviews with diplomats |