U.S. arms control organizations criticized the proposal to resume reprocessing as costly and increasing proliferation risks.
[6] The GNEP proposal began as part of the Advanced Energy Initiative announced by President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address.
Additionally, [the] partner nations will develop a fuel services program to provide nuclear fuel to developing nations allowing them to enjoy the benefits of abundant sources of clean, safe nuclear energy in a cost effective manner in exchange for their commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing activities, also alleviating proliferation concerns.As a research and development program, GNEP is an outgrowth of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative[8][9] In April 2009 the U.S. Department of Energy announced the cancellation of the U.S. domestic component of GNEP,[3] and in June 2009 announced that it is no longer pursuing domestic commercial reprocessing and had largely halted the domestic GNEP programme.
On February 16, 2006, the United States, France and Japan signed an "arrangement" to research and develop sodium-cooled fast reactors in support of the GNEP.
[18] In 2008 Congress allocated less than half of the requested funds, supporting GNEP research but not technology demonstration projects.
The Congressional Budget Office assessed that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would cost considerably more than disposal in a long-term repository.
[22] Steve Kidd, Head of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, has explained: An alternative view of GNEP may see it as somewhat discriminatory and potentially anti-competitive.
By restricting parts of the fuel cycle to particular countries, albeit with fair rights of access to nuclear materials, there is a risk of maintaining or even reinforcing the existing NPT arrangements that have always upset certain nations, notably India and Pakistan.