A new opinion article published Tuesday on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website argued that concerns over plutonium contained in spent fuel from Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant remain unresolved after attacks on the plant.
A Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists commentary discussed how to manage plutonium produced at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, urging negotiators to revisit safeguards and spent-fuel arrangements in future nuclear talks.
The piece follows a public debate among nuclear experts, through articles all linked in Tuesday’s commentary, over whether Bushehr’s plutonium inventory poses a meaningful proliferation risk.
Author Henry Sokolski, who heads a non-proliferation policy group, contends critics have not adequately addressed research cited in his earlier analysis warning Bushehr’s irradiated fuel could become a future source of weapons-usable plutonium if separated. His latest commentary responds directly to an article by Iranian scholar Sasan Karimi, who argued the proliferation risks associated with Bushehr have been overstated.
Among Sokolski’s recommendations is extending the International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring to facilities associated with Bushehr, saying Iran has previously accepted similar surveillance measures at enrichment facilities in Natanz. He also reiterates support for removing Bushehr’s spent fuel under arrangements Russia originally proposed when the reactor project was negotiated, arguing that doing so would eliminate concerns over future plutonium separation.
Sokolski questions why Tehran would oppose what he characterizes as modest confidence-building measures, suggesting the issue should become part of any future nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. He argues that resolving questions surrounding Bushehr’s spent fuel would close what he sees as a remaining gap in efforts to reduce proliferation risks associated with Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
The commentary concludes that the recent exchange of articles published by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has helped focus attention on Bushehr’s long-term safeguards requirements, even as experts continue to disagree over the scale of the underlying proliferation concern.