On 19 of November 2007 USA and Russia reached new agreements for excess weapons-grade plutonium. Web-site Atominfo.ru publishes its comment to this event in questions and answers form.
Is it true that USA and Russia have signed the agreement for utilization of Russian plutonium on 19 November 2007?
It isn't true. The agreement, or more exactly, the declaration under the title "Joint Statement of Principles For Management and Disposition of Plutonium Designated as No Longer Required for Defense Purposes" was signed in September, 1998 in Moscow by Russian President Boris Yeltsin and US President Bill Clinton. In July 2000 Russian and US Presidents announced the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement concerning amount of plutonium to be disposed.
The title of the current document is "Joint Statement on Mutual Understanding".
The necessity in it has arisen due to rejection of Russia to follow the principle of parity initially set for plutonium utilization.
American Side considers partially to use its plutonium in the kind of MOX-fuel for pressurized water reactor (PWR) and partially to immobilize it. Russia stands on its right to utilize plutonium in fast reactors. The Statement is intended to fix the agreement of USA with deviation from the principle of parity, when choosing way of disposition of excess weapons-grade plutonium
Is it true that USA and Russia agreed for utilization only Russian plutonium?
It isn't true. Initial agreement of 1998, more known in Russia as SOUP (Russian abbreviation) - The Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, provides that both sides utilize equal amount of own excess weapons-grade plutonium at the same date (including the Agreement of 2000 committing the United States and Russia to dispose each of 34 metric tons of surplus weapon-grade plutonium).
However, Kirienko-Bodman joint Statement, as it has been explained in answer on the previous question, concerns only to Russian quota and fixes the final refusal of USA from all claims to Russia in choosing the way of utilization of own plutonium. Since Russia hasn't raised analogous claims to USA in the last years, it isn't required to adopt separate statement for American quota of plutonium.
Is it true that signing of Kirienko - Bodman joint statement means the start of weapons-grade plutonium utilization in Russia?
It isn't true. The Statement, the results of discussions of technical experts and some other documents will serve in future a basis for introducing modifications in SOUP text. Modified version of the Agreement should receive the approval of US and Russian governments and other authorities, and only after the Agreement will enter in force.
Is it true that signing of Kirienko - Bodman joint statement will weaken nuclear weapons potential in Russia?
It isn't true. The Russian Federation has larger weapons-plutonium stocks then USA. Since the initial Agreements provides to dispose equal plutonium by each side, after its fulfillment the supremacy of Russia over USA in accumulated mass of plutonium will be unchangeable in absolute units, but increased in relative units.
Is it true that signing of Kirienko - Bodman joint statement is the successful for Russian energy nuclear complex?
It isn't true. Using the only (after decommission of BN-600 reactor) fast reactor BN-800 for utilization of weapons-grade plutonium will make difficult to work on closing nuclear fuel cycle (NFC), in particular, to restrict the opportunities of Russia for recycling reactor plutonium (accumulated in reactor), that, in its turn, to postpone resolving a problem of nuclear waste and conversion to use of almost "unlimited" resource base of 238U.
Was there damage to Russian civil nuclear sector interests? If yes - how serious it was - it would be estimated only after removal of security classification from the results of technical consultations between Russian and American experts.
SOURCE: Michael Storozhevoy, AtomInfo.Ru
DATE: December 03, 2007
Topics: Russia, USA, MOX-fuel, Fast breeders