Russia:  Industry Initiatives

European and Canadian nuclear industries have put forth a variety of proposals to aid Russia in its plutonium disposition campaign. All of the proposals involve government financing from Russia, the United States, European countries, or Canada.

One prominent proposal is the TOMOX fuel fabrication plant, with a plutonium handling capacity of 1.3 metric tons per year, expandable to 3 metric tons per year. The proposal has been put forth jointly by Cogema, Siemens, and Minatom. The plant would be built at either the Krasnoyarsk or Mayak plutonium processing facilities, using equipment from the abandoned Siemens MOX plant in Hanau, Germany. The estimated cost of the 1.3 metric ton per year plant is $300 million.[1]

In April of 1993, General Atomics and Minatom signed a Memorandum of Understanding and committed $1 million each to the study of plutonium destruction in a Gas-Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR).[2] In January of 1996, Framatome, a French nuclear construction firm, joined the consortium. Though touted by Minatom officials at the highest level, this option is less likely to be pursued for financial reasons, particularly since the United States has explicitly rejected calls by Minatom to help fund it.[3]

Canada has proposed that its existing CANDU reactors be used for disposition of both Russian and US military plutonium. The Russian government appears reluctant to get involved in this project, due in part to the high regulatory and political obstacles involved in the export of plutonium to a foreign country, and to the desire by the domestic Russian  nuclear industry to retain the plutonium for sale or for use in Russia.[4]
 
At an international conference at the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) Sellafield site in October 1996, BNFL expressed a strong interest in participating in the Russian plutonium disposition program.[5] BNFL operates large-scale plutonium fuel fabrication and plutonium reprocessing plants.
Sources:
[1] Ann MacLachlan, "French, Germans and Russians Aim for 1998 Decision on MOX Plant," NuclearFuel, 2 December 1996, p. 10.
[2] D. Alberstein et. al., "Using the GT-MHR for Pu Disposition," Nuclear Engineering International, October 1996,  p. 19.
[3] "Misstep Leads to Russian View That U.S. Supports HTGR," Post-Soviet Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 4 August 1997, p. 3.
[4] Dave Airozo, "DOE Pushes Ahead With CANDU Option Though Russians Are Balking",  NuclearFuel 19 May 1997,  p. 13.
[5] Derek Butterworth, "MOX Milestones for Peace," BNFL News, October 1996, p. 1.
 

 

Comments or questions? Contact Elena Sokova at MIIS CNS: esokovaATmiis.edu

This material is produced independently for NTI by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2002 by MIIS.

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  SITE MAP