Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Which Way Forward For Multilateral Approaches?

An International Expert Group Examines Options

« Previous | Next »

by Bruno Pellaud

Page 2 of 3

A Spectrum of Options

Whether for uranium enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing, or spent fuel disposal and storage, MNA options span the whole spectrum between existing market mechanisms and a co-ownership of fuel cycle facilities. As a framework, the following types have been considered:

Type I:

Assurances of services not involving ownership of facilities:

Type II:

Conversion of existing national facilities to multinational facilities.

Type III:

Construction of new joint facilities.

For each of these options and for each of the technologies (enrichment, reprocessing, disposal and storage), the Group has assessed the associated pros and cons with respect to such factors as "non-proliferation value" (diversion of materials from declared facilities, clandestine parallel programme, breakout, etc.), "assurance of supply" value (guarantees, economics, etc.), choice of host country, access to technology and degree of multilateral involvement.

For enrichment and reprocessing services, a healthy market exists in the world. Therefore, the legitimate objective of assurances of supply can be fulfilled to a large extent by current market mechanisms, possibly improved by some governmental guarantees. Furthermore, the IAEA could become a guarantor of uranium services, through assured access to the resources, in a kind of virtual fuel bank. Should a new facility be required, an MNA would take the form of a jointly owned facility, like the Anglo-Dutch-German Urenco, or provide for drawing rights based on pre-financed arrangements like in the EURODIF model in France.

The final disposal of spent fuel is a prime candidate for multilateral approaches. It offers major economical benefits and substantial non-proliferation benefits as well. The Expert Group recommends that the IAEA should assume a political leadership to encourage such undertakings. For example, the IAEA could launch a "Siteless Pilot Project of a Spent Fuel Repository" that would elaborate in detail all related technical, economical, legal and institutional aspects. Beyond the IAEA, other regional organisations should become active, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Mercosur in South America.

The system of "fuel leasing-fuel take back", as practiced by the former Soviet Union with its customer countries, is a combined option that offers major economical and non-proliferation benefits as well as assurance of supply for the full fuel cycle. The fuel could be leased to the customer and after usage and an intermediate storage time for cooling at the customers' facility, the fuel could be taken back by the supplier for storage, reprocessing and final disposal. This "fuel leasing-fuel take back" model should ideally become a "standard" product offered by all major nuclear fuel companies.

Towards Consensus

"Are multilateral nuclear approaches: an old idea whose time has come?" Surely so. Much work has been done in the past decades on the institutional, economical and technical aspects of MNAs; the findings remain amazingly relevant for the world of today. Many of the reasons for the failure of previous initiatives on multilateral approaches may still be pertinent today. However, in the light of current challenges to the non-proliferation regime, the time might be right for making progress in achieving international consensus in support of multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle. How might that be done?

Perhaps one of the most critical steps is to devise effective mechanisms for assurances of supply of material and services, mechanisms which are commercially competitive and free of monopolies. Effective assurances of supply will have to include back-up sources of supply in the event that an MNA supplier is unable to provide the required material or services. In this context, the IAEA could play a central role as a guarantor and end-user free of national consent rights.

« Previous | Next »

Pge 2 of 3