Share | Contact Us | NPEC Email Alerts |
Articles Occasional Papers & Monographs Interviews Official Docs & Letters Op-Eds & Blogs Press Releases Presentations Audio & Video Testimony & Transcripts Translations Wargame Reports

  
 
More of NPEC’s Work
A chronological listing by resource:

Articles | Occasional Papers & Monographs | Interviews | Official Docs & Letters | Op-Eds & Blogs | Press Releases | Presentations | Audio & Video | Testimony & Transcripts | Translations | Wargame Reports
 
HOME > Official Docs & Letters      
Official Docs & Letters
Jul 28, 2021 Second Open Letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Mar 01, 2021 Letter to Congress on National Security Perspective on Mining Ban
Jun 16, 2020 Needed: Clear Conditions for Federal Financing Nuclear Exports
Last week, the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), a new federal financing organization that Congress created to help the developing world, announced it was lifting a prohibition on supporting US civilian nuclear exports.  This announcement triggered a 30-day public comment period. There’s only one problem:  There’s next to nothing to comment on. As I and former US Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners Victor Gilinsky and Peter Bradford note in a letter below to the House and Senate foreign affairs committee chairmen and ranking members, the DFC has yet to reveal what rules would apply to such nuclear projects.  This all but renders the 30-day comment period meaningless. To fix this, Congress needs to get the DFC to clarify what conditions, if any, the corporation plans to place on such projects. Would the DFC financially support nuclear reactor projects for countries that lacked full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on their nuclear activities or were not members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)?  Might the DFC use its new equity investment authority to purchase shares of foreign firms, such as the Saudi Nuclear Energy Holding Company based in Riyadh?  Would it matter how few American jobs a nuclear project produced compared to alternative investments? Would the DFC evaluate the energy investment it might make (nuclear or nonnuclear) by asking if it was the most economical way to meet a given country’s energy and environmental requirements?  Will the DFC secure such country-specific analyses in advance and, if so, how?  In the case of proposed nuclear projects, will the DFC rely on the assessments of nuclear lobbyists firms say? The Senate and House foreign affairs committees and their staff should find out. They oversee the BUILD Act that created the DFC. If they are still in the dark on these matters before the 30-day comment period runs out July 8th, the DFC should not proceed to make any nuclear-related decisions. This is all the more so since Congress lets the DFC operate behind closed doors.  
Oct 09, 2019 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group
Mar 27, 2019 Improving the Role of Intelligence in Counterproliferation Policymaking: Report of the "Speaking Truth to Nonproliferation Project," 2018
Aug 31, 2018 Hill, Japanese Legislators Urge Pompeo to Cut Plutonium Stocks Without Recycling
In August 2018, members of the U.S. Congress and the Japanese Diet wrote letters to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. These letters urged him to cooperate with Tokyo to reduce Japan's surplus plutonium and encourage South Korea and China to defer recycling plutonium.
May 24, 2018 Letter to Congress on Nuclear Cooperation with Saudi Arabia
On May 24, 2018, 14 nuclear security experts, including NPEC's Executive Director, sent a letter to the chairs and ranking members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The letter called on Congress "to make sure that with any cooperative agreement with Saudi Arabia, our government does what is necessary to ensure that Saudi Arabia does not reprocess spent fuel or enrich uranium, whether it buys reactors or reactor components from U.S.-based firms or not." The letter was featured in a Washington Post piece, "Pompeo: Saudis must not enrich uranium if it seeks civilian nuclear cooperation."
Nov 07, 2017 Former Bush Officials Back East Asia Plutonium Production Pause
NPEC recently asked some of the most senior Bush 41 and Bush 43 nuclear security officials to endorse the 2017 Joint Statement of the International Conference on Japan's Plutonium Policy. That statement called for Japan to indefinitely postpone Rokkasho's startup and for South Korea and China to suspend their plans to separate plutonium as well. 
Jun 10, 2016 Letter to President Regarding the Production of Fissile Material in East Asia
Letter to the President from Congressmen Brad Sherman, Jeff Fortenberry, and Adam Schiff regarding the dangers of reprocessing in East Asia. The letter references an earlier letter to Department of Energy Secretary Moniz regarding U.S. efforts to forego the fabrication of plutonium fuel from decommissioned nuclear weapons, available here.
Feb 25, 2016 NPEC's Executive Director Signs Second Letter Urging Department of Energy to Defer Plutonium's Commercial Use
13 former senior energy and national security officials sign a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Moniz to terminate a costly DOE plutonium fuel fabrication project (known as the mixed oxide or MOX program) designed to make plutonium–based fuels for US power reactors. The letter was featured in an article by Steven Mufson in The Washington Post, "Obama plan to defund Savannah River plutonium conversion plant draws fire." The letter was the second sent to Secretary Moniz, with the first being available to read here.
  1 2 3 4 5 6       Next> Last»
The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), is a 501 (c)3 nonpartisan, nonprofit, educational organization
founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues. NPEC educates policymakers, journalists,
and university professors about proliferation threats and possible new policies and measures to meet them.
Feedback
1600 Wilson Blvd. | Suite 640 | Arlington, VA 22209 | phone: 571-970-3187 | webmaster@npolicy.org