565 



to the establishment of multinational spent fuel reprocessing centers. 

 Such centers, it has been argued, could contribute greatly to alleviating 

 the problem of diversion of weapons material while still offering adequate 

 assurances of supply of fuel for existing and planned LWR's and the FBR 

 when it comes into commercial operation. One of the leading legal emd 

 political difficulties with sub-seabed disposal could then be turned into 

 an advantage. Since sub-seabed disposal would occur in international areas, 



it could be more easily linked with other forms of international organiza- 



66 

 tion of the nuclear fuel cycle. Sub-seabed disposal would also circumvent 



the problem of the reluctance of nuclear supplier States to provide per- 

 manent disposal within their borders for HLW generated by nuclear programs 

 elsewhere. Instead of being viewed as a use of international areas for 

 national purposes, then, sub-seabed disposal could be seen as linked to the 

 general international equity issue created by the contrasting duties of the 

 nuclear weapons States and non-nuclear weapons States under the NPT, \mder 

 which the non-nuclear weapons States have agreed to forego nuclear weapons 

 development while the nuclear weapons States have undertaken to transfer 

 nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. NPT, Art. IV(2). The provision 

 of international fuel cycle services including HLW disposal as well as re- 

 processing could mitigate demands for a further sharing of reprocessing 

 technology. Depending on the regime which is chosen for international 

 disposal of HLW and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, reprocessing and 

 waste disposal services could be provided through an international organi- 

 zation, a consortium of nuclear suppliers, or some other international 



69 

 arrangement. Recipient countries could be brought into the system through 



