Chapter 7
 

Appendix 1: U.S. Assistance Programs to Lock Down and Reduce Nuclear Material in Russia

Photo credit: U.S. Dept. of Energy Easily broken padlock securing nuclear material in Russia prior to U.S. assistance.

U.S. Department of Energy International Material Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) Program. This effort provides equipment and expertise to help secure Russian fissile material. As of mid-2006, about half of Russian fissile material had received at least minimal security upgrades under this program. Comprehensive security upgrades for all Russian fissile material, however, are not expected to be completed until the end of 2008. This means at present, about 300 tons of Russian fissile material, enough for thousands of INDs, is at risk and will remain at risk for years to come, unless the Material Protection Control and Accounting Program can be significantly accelerated and strengthened.

U.S. Department of Energy Material Consolidation and Conversion Program. This effort is designed to reduce the amount of HEU in potentially vulnerable locations in Russia by converting HEU to low-enriched uranium (LEU) and consolidating storage of remaining HEU in fewer, more secure facilities. By mid-2006, the program had converted eight tons of HEU to lower-enriched forms. However, it has failed to date to persuade any Russian facilities to part with all of their fissile material.

U.S. Department of Defense Mayak Fissile Material Storage Facility. This facility, constructed by the CTR Program at Ozersk, Russia is designed to hold 50 metric tons of plutonium from 12,500 dismantled nuclear weapons under very strict security. It also could accommodate up to 200 tons of HEU. After years of controversy during which the facility remained empty, it began accepting weapon-grade material on July 11, 2006.

Photo credit: Dept. of Energy HEU metal shavings from a dismantled Russian nuclear weapon.

USEC (formerly the United States Enrichment Corporation) "Megatons to Megawatts" HEU Purchase Agreement. Under this 20-year program, which began in 1994, Russia is diluting ("downblending") 500 metric tons of weapons-usable HEU to produce LEU fuel for nuclear power plants—material that cannot be used for nuclear weapons. The material is purchased by USEC, a private U.S. business, working closely with the U.S. and Russian governments, which then sells it commercially to nuclear power plant operators. As of October 2006, 285 metric tons of HEU (sufficient to manufacture 11,410 nuclear weapons) have been rendered unusable for this purpose. Efforts to accelerate or enlarge this program have not been successful, in part because of technical limitations in Russia’s downblending capacity.

U.S. Department of Energy Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program (also supported by the Netherlands and Canada under the G-8 Global Partnership). Russia continues to produce more than a ton of new plutonium annually in its military nuclear program at three specialized reactors, which also produce heat and electricity for their surrounding areas. This foreign-assisted program will provide Russia fossil fuel plants as alternative sources of energy, allowing the plutonium reactors to be shut down. The new facilities will not be completed until 2008 and 2011, however.

U.S. Department of Energy Plutonium Disposition Program (also supported by France, Germany, Great Britain, and Japan, under the G-8 Global Partnership). This initiative will use 34 tons of plutonium from Russia’s military program as fuel in Russian nuclear power reactors, rendering the plutonium very difficult to use for nuclear weapons. The program will dispose of two tons of plutonium annually, beginning in 2011 at the earliest.

In the near term, the most rapid improvements in securing Russian fissile materials can be made through accelerating the International Material Protection, Control, and Accounting Program.

 

Chapter 7, page 1 of 2

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 © 2006 by MIIS.