[en] Since the foundation for a comprehensive nuclear regulatory program was established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the nuclear regulatory function has been broadened from its early emphasis on the health and safety of the public to include environmental concerns and nonproliferation aspects. There is a close relationship between NRC's regulatory activities and US nonproliferation objectives and policies in support of these objectives. The two should be as consistent and mutually supportive as possible. Several examples of the interaction between nuclear regulation and nonproliferation policy are cited: US Government nuclear export responsibilities; international safeguards and physical security considerations, including the US voluntary safeguards offer; spent fuel storage, including possible foreign fuel imports; Generic Environmental Statement on Mixed Oxide Fuel; and International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Nonproliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Program. The recently enacted Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, which seeks to balance proliferation concerns with peaceful uses of nuclear power and to provide a more predictable, stable and effective export licensing system, has numerous provisions affecting NRC. These include establishment of specific export licensing criteria and an expanded role for NRC in the licensing of nuclear exports

[en] New Mexico can expect to see an accelerated development of its uranium resources. The President's policy on non-proliferation will impact the degree and quantity of uranium ore mined. Environmental impacts are significant and are affected by the mining and milling phase more than any other aspect of the uranium fuel cycle. The state has begun evaluating the resource-associated impacts of uranium mining and milling, although very little reliable data are available. The information gathered, however, shows a need for state and Federal evaluation of both the impacts and the non-proliferation policy. 4 references

[en] The relationship between the front and back ends of the nuclear fuel cycle must be recognized and provided for if nuclear energy is to fully contribute to long-term national energy needs. Breeder reactors and possibly advanced converter reactors are essential to closing the fuel cycle and extending the energy available from uranium. Immediate investments in reprocessing and recycling facilities can save on later costs at the front end, but advocates of this approach have not been able to persuade policymakers that it is costly to delay until the proliferation issue is resolved. A non-proliferation policy is suggested that would take positive steps to reduce risks by improving design and technology programs and improving institutional arrangements

[en] U.S. non-proliferation policy is aimed at slowing the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities, managing the destabilizing effects of nuclear technology for energy purposes, and fostering international standards and institutions to deal responsibly with global nuclear development. These goals assume that nuclear technology has not already precluded social control and recognize the social benefits offered by peaceful uses of atomic energy. Non-proliferation policies recognize that the motivation for possessing nuclear weapons is a more-difficult problem than technical ability and will concentrate on reducing those incentives through international agreements and safeguards and by maintaining the separation of commercial nuclear fuel cycles and military uses

[en] The long-term economic development of New Mexico parallels the major energy issue of the nation - the impact of non-proliferation policy. The short lifespan and waste of energy resources in this country reflects a lack of foresight which can no longer be tolerated. The principal unknowns affecting uranium development in New Mexico are the extent and demand for uranium, the nuclear fuel cycle, and the lifespan of nuclear power plants, with or without reprocessing. Further areas of concern include the costs of reprocessing facilities, the evaluation of fuel cycles to minimize proliferation, and the impacts of waste disposal

[en] Once-through fuel cycles, without spent fuel reprocessing and recycling, have been proposed as a proliferation-resistant alternative to the baseline nuclear strategy of LWR--Recycle--LMFBR evolution. Both reoptimization of the LWR once-through cycle and other alternative once-through concepts have been suggested to improve the uranium resource utilization, the most obvious shortcoming of once-through fuel cycles. The fuel utilization characteristics for various once-through cycles and possible improvements are quantified and key technical issues are identified. The implications of the once-through cycle improvements on the uranium resource and nuclear energy supply potential are examined, and it is concluded that once-through cycles neither reduce plutonium production nor provide any lasting promise for energy production

[en] There are currently two areas on the national scene and one on the international scene that require immediate attention. The first is relief under contracts for enrichment services, an area in which the US can still demonstrate its desire to become a stable and continuous source of supply. The second national area is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1977. The United States must proceed very cautiously, however, for if discretion and very careful judgment are not used, the Act will immediately be branded as a blatant effort on the part of the US to control the energy options of other sovereign states. The international area is that of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation program. This medium exists for wise and deliberate growth of a commercial nuclear power program which can serve the global community. The next three years probably allow one remaining chance for successful containment of weapons proliferation. If we do not recognize the rights of every sovereign state to voluntarily participate and agree, we, as members of the global community, will have failed

[en] The payoff from nuclear power in terms of higher living standards is just beginning to be felt on a world-wide scale at a time when problems of uranium supplies to the fuel cycle, uncertainties about reprocessing spent fuel and recycling plutonium, and a method for permanently disposing of radioactive wastes have not been solved. US non-proliferation policy aimed at deferring and possibly eliminating spent-fuel processing intensifies the waste-management problem as inventories of both civilian and military wastes increase. This policy is judged to be an ill-advised expediency. Radioactive waste management is based on the concept of multiple barriers to separate the waste from man's environment in either permanent or retrievable storage. Disposal schemes include disposal into space, transmutation, continental, and oceanic in a variety of forms. The impact on New Mexico is concentrated on disposal of uranium mill tailings and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which could pose health and safety problems for the state and an unacceptable tradeoff in the effort to control proliferation. 9 references

[en] Among the more attractive of candidate institutions and rules-of-trade for advanced fuel cycles are: extension of full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards as a condition of fuel assurances or technology transfer; international jurisdiction over spent fuel (custody or ownership); an IAEA remote near-real-time verification system for spent fuel remaining under national management; a convention on uniform nuclear fuel identification (tagging) designed to assist safeguards planners, trace diversionary pathways, assign liability, and enhance the credibility of fuel-cycle sanctions; international nuclear service centers for bulk processing operations (heavy water production, enrichment and reprocessing); and fuel-cycle specific regulations. Some risk-reduction measures, for example on internationally managed, remote shutdown and restart-delay system for bulk processing facilities, raise questions of acceptability. Despite uncertainties about international acceptability and hazards of enrichment technology transfer later in this century, it appears feasible to reduce proliferation risks associated with nuclear fuel cycles - existing ones and those under review within the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE). 6 refereces

[en] The reason for analyzing alternative fuel cycles is to identify those characteristics which provide weak links and to develop a balanced fuel cycle in which neither the front end, the reactor, nor the back end would provide an obvious pathway to a nuclear weapons capability. This balance can be achieved with identifiable technical, institutional, and political barriers. The economics, safety, environmental, and commercial feasibility of the barriers must also be evaluated to assess national and international acceptability. The choice between systems should be based on these factors in addition to the problem of proliferation