Everyone is concerned about our nuclear safety. But especially the west?

Ending. Beginning in No. 5 for 1999

The need to bury radioactive waste (RW) at sea was previously dictated primarily by the weak development of the industry specializing in their processing. Moreover, we recall that our country made its first discharge into sea waters much later than the United States, Great Britain and Japan. Estimates of Western scientists indicate that radioactive waste with a total activity of 1 million curies was dumped into the Atlantic Ocean only during the combined operations of Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Germany.

After research by domestic and foreign scientists, it became known that the radiation situation in the Arctic seas is determined by the fallout of radioactive substances from the atmosphere, their entry with river runoff, but above all - the amount of RW that has fallen with the warm masses of the Atlantic Gulf Stream. As a result of this cross-border transfer of liquid waste dumped into the North Sea, for example by the nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in Selafield (Great Britain), the share of radioactive substances "disposed" by the USSR in the waters of the Barents Sea is only four percent of the total!

After the signing of the London Convention, the Soviet Union took steps to fulfill its international norms and obligations: RW discharges by the Murmansk Shipping Company were gradually reduced and stopped in 1984, and by the Northern Fleet in 1992.

Norwegian and Russian experts are investigating the radioactive contamination of the Barents and Kara Seas. The results of their work mainly served as the necessary scientific material for the first international conference on "Environmental Radioactivity in the Arctic and Antarctic"to be held in Kirkenes (Norway) in the summer of 1993. The session was attended by over 120 representatives of the scientific community from 17 countries, including Russia, Canada, USA, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Scandinavia, as well as employees of Monaco headquarters of the IAEA. To ensure an objective assessment of the samples collected in the Arctic seas, scientists from Sweden, Canada, the United States, as well as IAEA experts were involved in their analysis in addition to the expedition participants. The conclusion made at the conference was unequivocal: the degree of radioactive contamination in the Barents Sea is higher than in the Kara Sea. And all this is a consequence of the transfer of a much larger amount of radionuclides from the West to the Barents region by the North Atlantic current. The" contribution " of Minatom's Siberian production associations to the pollution of the northern seas is much smaller. Therefore, the radioactive background in the Kara Sea is at the level of global significance. Moreover, scientists at the conference stressed that the levels of radioactive contamination in the North and Baltic Seas are higher than in the Arctic. In my opinion, this once again indicates who is the main supplier of radioactive mud in the Eurasian North.

"Our waters are clean"

And yet, six years ago, even the summary of an international environmental conference did not dampen the passions raging in the West about the Russian Arctic seas. During the propaganda campaign, the public was encouraged to believe that radionuclides brought by the drains of the Ob and Yenisei Rivers, together with the consequences of atmospheric nuclear explosions on Novaya Zemlya and the dumping of radioactive waste by our naval and civilian nuclear fleets, still poison the Kara Sea, and then migrate to the Barents Sea. There they are absorbed by fish and bottom-dwelling organisms, as a result of which they become unsuitable for human consumption.

- All this is absurd: in the western market, our fish is the most expensive, because it is the cleanest. And it is especially appreciated in America, " said Academician Gennady Matishov, director of the Murmansk Marine Biological Institute of the Kola Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to whom I turned for advice. - By the way, the level of radioactivity of fish in the Barents Sea is about one becquerel per kilogram. This is a low value. This level is lower than that of fish in the Baltic Sea. And, in addition, it is sixteen times lower than the international standards for the content of radioactive substances in food.

For a number of years, the Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI) has been conducting research, in particular, on the levels and conditions of accumulation of anthropogenic (created under the influence of human activity) radionuclides in the Kola and Motovsky Bays of the Barents Sea. One of the MMBI radioecological expeditions was also devoted to this problem three years ago. Scientists have set up about a hundred stations in the bays to study their hydrology, hydrochemistry, bottom sediments, plankton and fish. Water samples were taken to determine the amount of radionuclides dissolved in it. By the way, all the stations of the expedition were located at a distance of no more than one to four kilometers from the bases of nuclear submarines and ship repair enterprises of the Northern Fleet. They showed that Atlantic cod, haddock and other bottom fish caught in the Motovsky Bay, near Kildin Island and at the exit of the Kola Bay, practically did not contain caesium-137. This is primarily due to the fact that the process of reducing the concentration of radioactive elements in seawater takes a little time.

The main reason for the accumulation of plutonium in the Barents and Kara Seas is radioactive fallout after nuclear tests on Novaya Zemlya. But the level of radiation in seawater is low. Moreover, this indicator has been constantly decreasing since the 60s.

- So our waters are clear, - concluded Gennady Grigorievich. - Recently we examined the northwestern part of the Barents Sea, where the Northern Fleet has been draining liquid radioactive waste for a long time , but there are no traces. Oceanic, high-salinity water dissolves LRW almost completely.

According to Matishov, " the radioactive problems that exist today cannot be called unsolvable. Norwegian ecological expeditions went to Novaya Zemlya three years in a row. We were convinced that the water area of the islands is relatively clean, and we lost all interest in the archipelago." But now many people, as can be seen from the media, finally turned their eyes to their European neighbors. According to Radio Sweden, a special meeting of the environment Ministers of the Nordic Council was held in Gothenburg last March. The reason was new data on radioactive contamination of seafood and algae in the coastal waters of Norway and Sweden (in the North Sea area), as well as the intention of the British government to increase the volume of processing of radioactive waste at the Selafield complex. Moreover, over the past two years, the content of radioactive teknizium-99 in seafood has significantly increased. Scientists believe that this is the result of periodic discharges of radioactive waste into the sea by a Scottish enterprise.

The meeting participants sent a statement to the UK government demanding not to increase the volume of work at the processing complex. Two weeks later, a representative of the Norwegian Institute for Radiation Protection, in an interview with national radio, stressed that radioactive contamination from the Selafield plant can be detected in any part of the North Sea. However, the Ministry of Environmental Protection denied this report and rejected the collective request of the Nordic countries to reduce the capacity of the plant. But the Scandinavians, stung by the British impenetrability, did not calm down. In the summer of 1998, an environmental summit was held in Santarena, Portugal, with the participation of the European Community environment Ministers and representatives of Norway, Ireland and Switzerland, who discussed legal obligations to reduce pollution in the north-eastern Atlantic Ocean. During the conference, the Norwegians once again focused on the development of a schedule for the phased elimination of the practice of dumping hazardous chemical and radioactive waste into the North Sea.

It would seem that the ice has broken. At the subsequent meeting in London between Norwegian Prime Minister H. M. Bunnevik and British Prime Minister T. Blair, issues related to the program of strengthening contacts between the two countries were also discussed on environmental issues. H. M. Bunnevik still insisted on stopping the dumping of hazardous waste into the sea. The British prime Minister remained unshaken: the safety standards are fully observed-and the point is made. Thus, the problem that has arisen threatens to turn into huge losses for the Norwegian economy. The fact is that Japan - the largest importer of Norwegian fish - can significantly reduce its purchases for fear of radioactive contamination.

Plans, projects, and ... money

A comparison of the environmental problems of the Kola Peninsula and the countries of the European West does not in any way indicate that the situation in the Murmansk region, related to the problems of nuclear submarine utilization, RAW storage, etc., against the background of neighboring troubles, somewhat loses its sharpness and significance. I think the conclusion here should be different: yes, there is a problem and it is almost exactly the same as in other countries of the world.

Unfortunately, a lot of things come down to finances. In October 1995, the Russian Government approved a target program for the management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear materials, their disposal and disposal for 1996-2005. Its customer was the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation. However, according to Alexander Ruzankin, Chairman of the Committee on Conversion, Nuclear and Radiation Safety of the Murmansk Region Administration, an analysis of the materials of the coordination council meetings shows that the funds allocated for the implementation of the program from the federal budget amount to no more than 7.5 percent of the planned amount. In addition, the program suffered huge material and moral damage after August 17 last year. The plans that had seemed more or less real before suddenly turned into mirages. This is primarily due to the fact that, as Alexander Ruzankin said, no one at the top levels began to review every line of the budget. Now imagine that the state allocated only 552 million rubles in the budget for "handling" RAW, spent nuclear fuel and decommissioned nuclear submarines to the entire Navy. Of these, only the rehabilitation of four technical bases (two each in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet) will immediately take 112 million rubles. Will the remaining money be enough for other nuclear safety measures?

In the current unfavorable financial situation, the Governor of the Murmansk Region, Yuri Evdokimov, suggested that foreign neighbors create an international fund to jointly solve the problems of nuclear and radiation safety in the Eurasian North of the continent. According to the plan, the foundation's founders will be the governors of the provinces of the Barents region. Yuri Alekseyevich himself is ready to make the first payment - 20 thousand dollars to start working. By the way, the regional governor pays great attention to solving nuclear safety problems. In this regard, his position is unequivocal: such things can not be done electively.

Thanks to the active actions of Yuri Evdokimov at various levels of government, a number of organizational issues were resolved last year. The biggest achievement is that all nuclear and radiation safety facilities on the Kola Peninsula finally have one owner - the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation. By its decree, the Government of the Russian Federation released the Ministry of Defense from performing functions not peculiar to it and approved a schedule according to which thirty-nine decommissioned submarines of the Northern Fleet will be phased out this year.

At the same time, the region is discussing projects related to the prospect of creating a base for storing nuclear submarine reactor compartments, handling spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Here, as usual, there are so many experts - so many opinions. Some suggest storing reactor compartments in the old-fashioned way-underground, using unfinished mines. Others, in particular employees of the Murmansk Ship Company, who previously served on nuclear-powered ships, prove that this option is environmentally vulnerable, complex and promises fantastic costs. In turn, they offer a method for near-surface storage of compartments. It is based on the anti-corrosion properties of boat hulls, which guarantee for 300 years the prevention of the release of accumulated activity from the sealed compartment into the environment during the gradual natural decay of radionuclides. There is a similar world experience: back in 1986, practical Americans placed their first reactor compartment on an open site in Hanford, Oklahoma, and subsequently increased the storage capacity to 70 reactors.

By the way, the specialists of OKTB Voskhod and SRZ Nerpa developed the scheme of near-surface storage of RO into a model of on-line disposal of nuclear submarines, which allows cutting up ships at the production facilities of Nerpa without any intermediate options and with minimal financial investment. The designers claim that the total cost of the northern region to ensure the disposal of submarines will be reduced by 5-6 times (from 2.5 billion to 400 million rubles new).

We have not yet decided on the concept of spent nuclear fuel management. According to employees of the All-Russian Research and Design Institute of Energy Technology (VNIPIET), the "echelon" version of SNF transportation to the Mayak production association is no longer based on verified calculations, but solely on the personal preferences of those in power. According to the residents of St. Petersburg, they brought the situation to a standstill, when out of 96 decommissioned submarines, seventy (130 reactors) of the nuclear fuel was not unloaded. A not very complex "arithmetic" shows that with the estimated cost of a new storage facility in Andreev Bay at 120-150 million rubles, the savings in terms of export costs will amount, according to VNIPIET calculations, to at least 900 million rubles.

In short, all sorts of projects, options, ideas for building nuclear storage facilities, reactor "burial grounds" and everything else - a lot. You can list them and justify them indefinitely. It is quite possible that Minatom has already started such calculations, analyzing all the pros and cons of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, the territory of the Kola Peninsula. Only after careful consideration of the submitted projects will they make a final decision that is beneficial to the region both from an environmental and economic point of view. But the money that we invest in the environment, according to Anatoly Kostin, Deputy head of the State Committee for Environmental Protection of the Murmansk Region, is very small. You need to invest many times larger amounts.

Foreign countries will help us...

Princeton University estimates in the Jane's International Fleet Handbook that the Northern and Pacific Fleets store 72,000 spent nuclear elements. Of the 150 nuclear submarines that have left the Navy, 120 submarines are waiting in bases and docks on the Kola Peninsula. Of these, 104 have nuclear fuel on board. Others have their reactor compartments cut out, but they remain afloat. In general, the process of disposing of submarines is in a terrible state.

The fleet's equipment for transporting nuclear fuel from nuclear submarines is limited and old. There are strikes at ship repair plants, wages are not paid, and there is not enough production capacity. In addition to the nuclear elements, the bases of the two fleets store 1.8 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste and 529,720 cubic feet of solid radioactive waste "in conditions that, according to the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy, do not provide the necessary level of safety." I took this excerpt from an article by an American reporter, David Hoffman ,entitled "Nuclear submarines lying in wait threaten Russia's security," published in the Washington Post on November 18 last year. I took it without correcting the figures and facts. After all, it was in this, figuratively speaking, virgin version that newspaper readers in the United States saw the forerunner of at least a nuclear catastrophe in the Russian northwest. As the Murmansk ecologists explained to me, such a publication in deliberately gloomy tones was necessary. The American government needed convincing arguments for taxpayers to justify the multimillion-dollar investment that the United States is making in the disposal of Russian nuclear-powered ships. Needless to say, the end justifies the means. But it's still a shame for the state.

It is no secret that without foreign financial assistance, the solution of many environmental problems of the Kola Arctic Region would not have moved forward.

Not only Norwegians, but also Germany and the United Kingdom are ready to invest in the project to prevent radioactive contamination of Andreev Bay. The "Murmansk Initiative" - an increase in the capacity of the LRW processing plant at Atomflot RTP-brought together the interests of Russia, the United States and Norway. Following the London International Conference on Environmental Protection, the European Community will allocate 20-25 million ecus to the Murmansk Region this year. Even the notorious environmental organization Belluna, known for the case of Alexander Nikitin, was inspired by our hardships: it proposed to create a temporary storage facility for nuclear waste on the Russian coast near the border with Norway, which will protect them for 20 years.

- 30 years old. In an interview with Norwegian radio, nuclear physicist Nils Berme, a representative of Belluna ,said that 34 thousand elements from nuclear power plants of submarines and icebreakers are concentrated in the north of Russia, which are exposed to corrosion in the open air. The potential of their radioactivity is equivalent to almost 5 thousand atomic bombs that France tested on Mororua Atoll. But this did not in the least prevent, as Norway International Radio pointed out, diplomatic efforts from developing into practical cooperation. According to him, Oslo within the framework of the tripartite project in the field of environmental protection (AMEC

- Arctic Military-Environmental Cooperation-with the participation of the relevant services of the Ministries of Defense of Norway, Russia and the United States) is ready to develop and finance the construction of containers for storing spent nuclear fuel, as well as equip a tanker for transporting liquid radioactive waste.

When choosing facts of foreign investment in Russian environmental projects for the article, I often thought about the question: why would the West, where money can be counted, suddenly start investing huge sums in our nuclear security? I thank them, of course, for their help and participation. But it is interesting to hear the answer to the question, in my opinion, natural: what could be behind all this?

I have heard a lot about the phenomenon of alleged regional blackmail, elevated to the rank of state policy. Unconvincing somehow: we ourselves are sitting on this "good".

But according to the director of the MMBI, academician Gennady Matishov, the "secret" is that the United States collects much more taxes than the country needs. They just don't know where to put the money. Here and "patronize".

Alexander Ruzankin, Chairman of the Committee on Conversion; Nuclear and Radiation Safety of the Murmansk Region Administration, is more inclined to believe that environmental protection is a global problem. And even today, it is facing many countries. Neither a peaceful nor a military atom has borders. If, God forbid, something happens to us, then the neighbors will get it. This, according to Alexander Dmitrievich, encourages Western partners to sponsor Russia in the practical solution of environmental problems. Well, that makes perfect sense. But recently I heard this: the Americans, they say, finance not just the disposal of decommissioned submarines, but invest money for the cutting of certain submarine projects. As the saying goes, whoever pays, orders the music. And we are supposedly talking about strategic missile submarines of the Delta-1 project (according to the NATO classification), which, according to the strategic arms limitation Treaty, were withdrawn from the Navy's combat strength, but without cutting out the missile (!) compartments.

Maybe it's a bluff, just a "duck". Although last year the first-born of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet "Leninsky Komsomol"met his fortieth birthday in the queue for the cutter... The passion for the North continues.

Permanent link to this publication: