Welcome
C. Paul Robinson, Planning Committee Chair

Keynote Briefing: Is Stopping Nuclear Proliferation a Human Problem, a Technical Problem, or Something Else?
Daniel Poneman, Deputy Secretary of Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE)

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy’s perspective on Proliferation Risk and Nuclear Fuel Cycles
Edward McGinnis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Nuclear Energy Policy and Cooperation, Office of Nuclear Energy, DOE

U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration’s Perspective on Proliferation Risk and Nuclear Fuel Cycles
Mark Whitney, Asst. Deputy Administrator for Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), DOE

PANEL 1– Key Issues for Nonproliferation Policy
Moderator: Sharon Squassoni, Planning Committee Member
Panelists:
Mark Whitney, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, NNSA, DOE
John Harvey, Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense
Richard Stratford, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety, and Security Affairs, Undersecretary for International Security and Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of State

Points for discussion:

•   Identify the key questions associated with proliferation policy, in your office’s view

•   How is the proliferation risk of fuel cycle/reactor choices measured

•   What other considerations are taken into account in decision-making

•   What analytical tools are not currently used but could prove useful

•   Compare the importance of fuel cycle/reactor choices vs. other government actions (e.g., government controls) that can be taken.

LUNCH

Lunch Briefing: The Threat from Low-Cost Centrifuge Enrichment and A.Q. Khan: The Genie is out of the Bottle.
Olli Heinonen, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

PANEL 2– Metrics and Methodologies for Proliferation Risk Assessment
Moderator: William Charlton, Planning Committee Member

•   Overview of methodologies
William Charlton, Texas A&M University and Planning Committee Member

•   How well do political science approaches address fuel cycle choices
Christopher Way, Cornell University

•   How well do technical (intrinsic) barriers—and assessments of these barriers—influence fuel cycle choices
Robert Bari, Brookhaven National Laboratory

•   How can safeguards effectiveness be improved
Olli Heinonen, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

•   How materials attractiveness estimates are performed and how they can be used as part of a proliferation risk assessment
Bart Ebbinghaus, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

BREAKOUT SESSIONS: Compatibility between Key Policy Issues and Assessment Methodologies

Directions to Breakout Sessions
C. Paul Robinson, Planning Committee Chair

Participants to Move to Breakout Rooms
See handout for assigned breakout groups:

•   Group A will report to Room 101 (Chair, Sharon Squassoni; Staff, Sarah Case)

•   Group B will report to Room 105 (Chair, Bill Charlton; Staff, Ben Rusek)

•   Group C will report to Room 109 (Chair, Charles Forsberg; Staff, Kevin Crowley)

Discussions of Compatibility between Key Policy Issues and Assessment Methodologies (In breakout groups)

Return to Room 100

Closing Comments
C. Paul Robinson, Planning Committee Chair

BREAKOUT SESSION SUMMARY
Led by Charles Forsberg, Planning Committee Member

•   Chairs and staff of previous day’s breakout sessions to summarize and present conclusions

BREAK

PANEL DISCUSSION 3 – Opportunities and Path Forward for Proliferation Risk Assessment
Moderator: C. Paul Robinson, Planning Committee Chair
Panelists:
William Tobey, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
John Ahearne, Sigma Xi
Joseph Pilat, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Points for discussion:

•   The potential role of technical assessments of proliferation resistance in informing real-world decision-making

•   Potential ways to make the assessments more useful, including R&D directions and suggestions

Adjourn