ALTERNATE FUEL CYCLES, ALTERNATE REACTORS, AND FUEL CYCLE SAFEGUARDS

Concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons has affected profound- ly the course of nuclear power development in the United States. The nuclear industry is paying a heavy price for the restrictions imposed by these concerns of the Administration, and in years to come the U. S. consumer and the U. S. economy may pay a far heavier price. Opinions vary as to the reality and im- portance of the concerns as they relate to the nuclear power fuel cycle. What can be said on this issue has been said. A more productive approach is to rec- ognize that, whether the hazard is indeed real or only perceptual it must be dealt with, and to ask how it can be dealt with most expeditiously in order to minimize the duration and impact of the imposed restrictions. Two programs are currently under way for the announced purpose of find- ing acceptable alternatives to the traditional reactor-fuel cycle approach which will be more resistant to weapons proliferation. One of these — the Nonprolif- eration Alternative Systems Assessment Program (NASAP) is a U.S. program; the other — the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) — is inter- national. Both of these appear to be oriented more toward the collection of in- formation than toward a direct attack upon the perceived problem. This orien- tation is illustrated by the structure of the INFCE program which is broken down into eight subdivisions for which prime responsibility is given to repre- sentatives from eight different groups of nations. The subdivisions are: — Fuel and Heavy Water Availability — Enrichment Availability - Assurances of Long-term Supply of Technology, Fuel Heavy Water and Services - Reprocessing and Handling and Recycle of Plutonium — Fast Breeders - Spent-Fuel Management — Waste Management and Disposal — Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts