A nuclear fuel bank is reserve of low enriched uranium (LEU) for countries that need a backup source of LEU to fuel their nuclear reactors. Countries that do have enrichment technology would donate enriched fuel to a "bank", from which countries not possessing enrichment technology would obtain fuel for their power reactors.
LEU banks are meant to be nuclear fuel providers "in the event of unforeseen, non-commercial disruption" to the supplies, and are regarded an important international effort to "prevent nuclear proliferation and dissuading countries from building uranium enrichment facilities by guaranteeing access to LEU for fuel use should other sources fail."
The concept of providing an assured supply of nuclear fuel, and thus avoiding the need for countries to build indigenous nuclear fuel production capabilities, has long been proposed as a way to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, eventually, eliminate them altogether.UN News Centre: Proposed nuclear fuel bank reaches go-ahead funding level, UN agency says Austria,Multilateralization of the nuclear fuel cycle paper submitted by Austria Russia,2010 Statement by H.E. Ambassador Anatoly Antonov the European Union,Multilateralization of the nuclear fuel cycle/guarantees of access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy paper submitted by EU the United States,[A Work Plan for the 2010 Review Cycle: Coping with Challenges Facing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] and others have supported various concepts of an international fuel bank. Many non-nuclear-weapon states have been reluctant to embrace any of these proposals for varying reasons.
Overview Enrichment technology is primarily used to create enriched nuclear fuel, but it can also be used to create weapons-grade nuclear material. The main goal of a fuel bank is therefore to minimize the risk of further nuclear weapons proliferation by removing the need for countries to possess enrichment technology.
The proposed fuel bank would assure a back-up supply for power reactors throughout the world on a non-discriminatory, non-political basis, reducing the need for countries to develop their own uranium enrichment technologies which could also be used for nuclear weapons development. The IAEA's former Director General Dr. ElBaradei confirmed this, saying that the importance of nuclear fuel banks is "by providing reliable access to fuel at competitive market prices, we remove the need for countries to develop indigenous fuel cycle capabilities. In so doing, we could go a long way towards addressing current concerns about the dissemination of sensitive fuel cycle technologies."IAEA: "IAEA Seeks Guarantees of Nuclear Fuel". September 15, 2006.
Advocates Dr. ElBaradei, who was director of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1997 to 2009, called for the establishment of a nuclear fuel bank to provide peaceful access to nuclear energy without raising questions about dual-use technology. "Every country that would like to get the fuel, that would like to get the technology, the reactor, will get that, but not necessarily developing their own enrichment facility. And assurance of supply mechanism should be reliable, should be apolitical, should be based solely on non-proliferation criteria," he said. In his acceptance of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. ElBaradei also said the establishment of an international fuel bank would remove the incentive for each country to develop its own fuel cycle. "We should then be able to agree on a moratorium on new national facilities, and to begin work on multinational arrangements for enrichment, fuel production, waste disposal and reprocessing," he said.
Joseph Cirincione, the director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in 2006 that an international fuel bank could start reforms at the international level. "If we handle it properly, Iran might be the trigger for resolving this problem that troubles all nations relying on nuclear power. Iran, ironically, could be the catalyst for creating a fundamentally new system of how we produce and sell nuclear fuel," he said. The Iran nuclear deal framework of 2015 did not include the idea of a fuel bank.
U.S. Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, both of Indiana, have also advocated for a nuclear fuel bank. In an op-ed published in the Chicago Tribune, they wrote that what is needed is "a new international non-proliferation standard that prevents countries from using the guise of nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons". Lugar and Bayh argued this was imperative because "the coming surge in demand for nuclear power will lead more and more nations to seek their own enrichment facilities", and jointly called for the establishment of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank, controlled by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In 2009, the formation of a nuclear fuel bank was endorsed by U.S. President Barack Obama in a speech in Prague: "And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an International Fuel Bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risk of proliferation. That must be the right of every national that renounces nuclear weapons, especially for developing countries embarking on peaceful programs."Press Release from the White House Office of the Press Secretary, retrieved on 7 June 2009.
On 29/08/2017, An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) project aimed at providing confidence to countries about the availability of nuclear power fuel reached a key milestone on Tuesday towards its establishment, with the inauguration in Kazakhstan of a facility where low-enriched uranium (LEU) will be stored.
Controversy Developing nations, including a number in the Non-Aligned Movement, have expressed reservations about mechanisms for assurance of supply and have been critical of additional criteria for accessing the fuel banks.Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Goals, Strategies, and Challenges (2009). Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Academies Press.Some nations, notably some in the Non-Aligned Movement, are cautious about mechanisms for assurance of supply and critical of additional criteria for accessing them. From this perspective, whatever advantage is offered by a fuel bank, for example, is reduced if the suppliers can deny access.
Some reasons that non-nuclear weapon states have been reluctant to embrace these proposals include:American Society of International Law: The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Taking Stock after the May 2008 Preparatory Committee Meeting a perception that the commercial or strategic interests of nuclear weapon states motivated the proposals a perception that the proposals produce a dependency on a limited number of nuclear fuel suppliers a perception that the proposal restricts their unalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
One example of such a feared political-cutoff came after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Germany halted construction of the Iranian Bushehr reactor, the United States cut off the supply of highly enriched fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, and Iran never received uranium from France which it asserted it was entitled to. Russia also agreed not to provide an enrichment plant and terminated cooperation on several other nuclear-related technologies, including laser isotope separation. China terminated several nuclear projects in return in part for entry into force of a U.S.-China civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Ukraine agreed not to provide the turbine for the Bushehr reactor. These combined experiences contributed to an Iranian belief that foreign nuclear supplies are potentially subject to being interrupted. An international nuclear fuel bank would have to overcome this perception.
History 1940–1969 The Report on the International Control of Atomic Energy, commonly known as the Acheson–Lilienthal Report, was written by a United States committee in 1946 and discussed possible methods for the international control of nuclear weapons and the avoidance of future nuclear warfare. The report was produced by the Committee on Atomic Energy, headed by Dean Acheson and David Lilienthal, and was mostly written by scientist Robert Oppenheimer.Council on Foreign Relations: Acheson–Lilienthal Report The report recommended that an international body, such as the United Nations, have control over both atomic materials and the means of producing nuclear energy.History Channel: Acheson–Lilienthal Report released Bruno Pellaud, the IAEA's former deputy director-general for safeguards, says the fuel bank idea was developed as far back as 1957.
The resulting Baruch PlanU.S. State Department: The Acheson–Lilienthal & Baruch Plans, 1946 was a 1946 proposal by the United States government, written largely by political consultant Bernard Baruch. It was presented to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) at its first meeting in June 1946. The plan proposed to: extend between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; implement control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; eliminate from national armaments both atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and establish effective safeguards, by way of inspection and other means, to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions The plan clearly announced that the United States would maintain its nuclear weapons monopoly until every aspect of the proposal was in effect. The Soviets subsequently rejected the Baruch Plan, and the United States then rejected a Soviet counter-proposal for a ban on all nuclear weapons.The History Channel: The United States presents the Baruch Plan
In 1953, the U.S. proposed its Atoms for Peace plan. In a speech to the UN General Assembly in New York City on December 8, 1953, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower called on the United States with the Soviet Union "to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency" that would then "devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind."Eisenhower Archive: Press Release, "Atoms for Peace" Speech, December 8, 1953 [DDE's Papers as President, Speech Series, Box 5, United Nations Speech 12/8/53] The plan also proposed a new International Atomic Energy Agency and “uranium bank” as simple steps to establish international trust and start a cooperative arms control dialogue.Arms Control Association: The Enduring Effects of Atoms for Peace
On July 29, 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established. However, the concept that the IAEA would serve as a bank of nuclear materials, drawing down US and Soviet stocks below the level where either could launch a knock-out blow against the other, languished. During this period the U.S. Congress preferred to supply nuclear material directly to foreign partners in bilateral agreements, thus bypassing the IAEA and applying U.S. safeguards to the transaction instead. It became clear that having the IAEA serve as a nuclear material bank had not succeeded in the Cold War. History of the International Atomic Energy Agency : the first forty years, David Fischer, 1997,
1970–1989 Through the 1970s and 1980s, further options were examined for developing a "proliferation-resistant" fuel cycle. The managerial aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle were also explored during this time and a number of unsuccessful proposals were advanced.International Atomic Energy Agency: Multinational Approaches to Nuclear Fuel-Cycles in Historical Context - Timeline of Key Events Some of the proposals included initiatives on: Technical or physical modification of the fuel cycle to restrict access to sensitive nuclear materials