AMEC provides a forum for Norway, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom to collaborate in addressing military-related environmental concerns in the Arctic region. The AMEC Declaration and “Terms of Reference” established the framework and organization for sharing information and technology and implementing projects. The Declaration focuses AMEC activities on radioactive and chemical contamination issues resulting from past military activities in the Arctic region and stresses cooperation between the military organizations. AMEC’s “Terms of Reference” establishes the organizational structure and possible ways of financing the AMEC program. It identifies representatives (principals) from each member country’s respective department or ministry of defense. These representatives approve their countries’ participation in AMEC activities and are responsible for obtaining resources from their respective governments to ensure that AMEC objectives are achieved. An AMEC steering group recommends specific projects to the representatives from each country, prioritizes approved work, provides project management, and determines which member country will take the lead on each project. DOD’s Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment provides policy oversight for U.S. participation in AMEC. Within the United States, the Department of the Navy, which was named as the executive agent in 1998, manages the AMEC national program office. All contracting functions are managed by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Although DOD is the lead U.S. agency for AMEC, the Departments of Energy and State and EPA provide technical and policy support. In a 1999 program plan to the Congress, DOD stated that AMEC projects would support the goals of the CTR program. However, our analysis of these projects shows that only one of the eight projects established to support CTR objectives of dismantling Russia’s ballistic missile nuclear submarines did so. The remaining seven projects were either completed too late, terminated or suspended, or implemented at shipyards or sites not directly associated with CTR’s dismantlement program. Despite their limited impact on the CTR program, most of these projects can be used to support dismantlement of Russia’s general purpose nuclear submarines, according to DOD officials. Furthermore, U.S. and foreign representatives asserted that AMEC has achieved other important benefits and that continued U.S. participation in the program is critical because the United States provides significant technical support. Only one of eight AMEC projects established to support and complement CTR’s program for the dismantlement of Russia’s ballistic missile nuclear submarines has directly benefited the program. According to a program plan that DOD submitted to the Congress in 1999, AMEC was being conducted in close cooperation with the CTR program so that the two programs would benefit each other. The program plan stated that AMEC projects supported CTR submarine dismantlement activities. Some of the projects were expected to provide design and engineering support, while other projects were designed to fill gaps in the CTR program. According to CTR officials, however, only one AMEC project, the development of a prototype 40-metric ton container used to store and transport spent nuclear fuel from dismantled Russian ballistic missile nuclear submarines, was able to meet CTR program objectives. U.S. expenditures for this project totaled about $2.9 million, and the Navy chose EPA’s Office of International Programs to manage the project. The containers helped solve an immediate problem—finding adequate storage capacity for the spent nuclear fuel removed from the submarines. CTR and EPA officials told us that the storage containers solved a “bottleneck,” enabling CTR to remove more spent fuel and facilitate dismantlement efforts. According to DOD and EPA, when serially produced the AMEC container costs 80 percent less than the cost of a Russian manufactured storage container. CTR has purchased 25 containers and plans to purchase an additional 35 to transport and store the spent fuel from dismantled ballistic nuclear submarines in Russia. Russia is also using the containers to store and transport spent nuclear fuel from general purpose nuclear submarines. Figure 3 shows an AMEC-designed storage container. Regarding the other seven AMEC projects that were established to support or complement the CTR program, we found the following: A project, also managed by EPA, to develop a storage pad to hold the storage containers was completed too late to support CTR’s dismantlement efforts associated with a Russian shipyard that had been used as a CTR dismantlement site. According to AMEC and EPA officials, the storage pad’s completion was delayed due to problems identifying and obtaining all required Russian clearances and licenses to operate the storage pad; in the intervening time Russia decided it would no longer dismantle ballistic missile submarines at the shipyard. As a result, the storage pad is not used to support the CTR program but will be used for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel from Russia’s general purpose nuclear submarines. U.S. expenditures for this project totaled $2.9 million. One project, involving development of technology to prevent corrosion inside the spent nuclear fuel storage containers, was terminated before completion because the CTR program withdrew its support and did not provide liability protection. In April 2002, CTR directed AMEC to develop and manufacture a spent nuclear fuel storage container dehydration system. The dehydration system was needed to extract water from the storage containers to inhibit corrosion and increase the containers’ service life. However, in December 2003, the CTR program terminated AMEC’s participation in the project and selected a U.S. contractor, instead of working through AMEC, to design a larger dehydration system. U.S. expenditures for this project totaled $396,000. Two projects involving solid radioactive waste treatment and solid radioactive waste storage were implemented at a site where CTR is not dismantling ballistic missile nuclear submarines. These projects were designed to assist the Russian navy manage the large volume of waste generated by dismantlement of nuclear submarines. The waste treatment project identified, among other things, technologies that could reduce the volume of solid waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines and make it easier and more economical to store the material. The second project supported the development and production of 400 steel containers for the Russian navy to transport and store solid radioactive waste. Prior to the project, no Russian-designed and manufactured container had ever been certified to transport solid radioactive waste. According to the AMEC project manager, the projects introduced Russian representatives to western business practices, including improved contract management techniques. U.S. expenditures for these projects, which have been completed and consolidated at a mobile solid waste treatment facility built at a Russian shipyard, totaled about $12 million, including the cost of the facility. AMEC’s project to develop a demonstration radiation detection system to protect the health and safety of workers who dismantle submarines does not directly benefit the CTR program. The demonstration system is installed at the interim storage pad site, which is not being used to support the CTR program. U.S. AMEC and CTR officials were uncertain if the radiation detection system would be deployed at any of the CTR dismantlement sites in Russia. CTR officials said that while they support projects that protect workers’ heath and safety, they would not have funded this project and are uncertain how it promotes CTR dismantlement goals. U.S. expenditures for this project totaled $1.7 million. A related project that supplied about 125 DOE surplus dosimeters (radiation detection devices) to the Russian navy was described as a failure by the AMEC project manager. He told us that the navy would not use these dosimeters due to, among other things, technical concerns and had put the equipment in storage for a couple of years. We brought this matter to the attention of a U.S. AMEC official who subsequently contacted the Russian AMEC representative and was informed that the dosimeters would be distributed. In July 2004, Russia’s representative to AMEC notified DOD that the dosimeters were now being used. Finally, an AMEC project to develop a mobile liquid waste processing facility that could be used in remote locations in Russia was suspended because CTR did not support it. A CTR official told us that CTR never endorsed the project because adequate capacity for liquid radioactive waste treatment already existed at the facilities where submarines were being dismantled. As a result, CTR would not extend liability protection for the project. EPA, which was chosen by the Department of the Navy to manage the project, still has about $700,000 in unspent project funds that were transferred from the Navy beginning in 1999. EPA officials told us that the funds must be reprogrammed by December 31, 2004, unless the Navy provides an extension, or they will be returned to the U.S. Treasury. U.S. AMEC officials told us that ultimately several of the projects that were established to meet CTR objectives did not do so because of changing requirements and plans. However, they asserted that the projects were planned with the full cooperation and approval of the CTR program and the appropriate Russian government agencies. CTR officials told us they have no further need for AMEC assistance in carrying out their plans to continue dismantling Russian ballistic missile nuclear submarines until 2013. These officials asserted, however, that AMEC plays a useful role in helping address environmental issues and technology development and that this role should be continued. Although only one AMEC project that was established to support CTR did so, these officials believed that most of these projects can be used to support dismantlement of Russia’s general purpose submarines. The storage pad, for example, can hold spent nuclear fuel from all types of Russian nuclear submarines and will facilitate the shipment of the fuel to the centralized storage facility at Mayak. Similarly, the steel containers for solid waste are already being used to store radioactive waste from dismantled general purpose submarines, according to U.S. and Russian officials. A DOE official told us that Russia also plans to use the steel containers to store waste from older ballistic missile submarines that are not scheduled to be dismantled with CTR assistance. Figure 4 shows the storage pad, and figure 5 depicts the solid waste steel containers funded by AMEC.