Radioactive waste flow river. Discharge of radioactive waste. Solid radioactive waste
Kolychev B. S. Results of the meeting on the problem of radioactive waste dumping into the seas and oceans// Atomic Energy. Volume 10, no. 6. - 1961. - S. 634-635.
Results of the meeting on the problem of radioactive waste dumping into the seas and oceans
In January 1961, a meeting of a group of legal and technical experts on the legal aspects of the problem of dumping radioactive waste into the seas and oceans was held in Vienna; The meeting was hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The meeting was attended by experts from 11 major maritime powers: Brazil, Great Britain, Holland, India, Poland, USSR, USA, Finland, France, Yugoslavia, Japan. In addition, the meeting was attended by representatives of the International Maritime Advisory Commission, UNESCO and other organizations, as well as observers from some countries.
The meeting was preceded by a group of technical experts chaired by the Swedish scientist Brynielson; As a result of this work, a report was prepared, the main recommendation of which can be considered the conclusion that it is permissible to dump intermediate and low-level waste into the seas and oceans.
At the very beginning of the meeting, a group of Soviet experts made a statement about the inadmissibility of dumping radioactive waste into the seas and oceans, based on the following arguments.
1. Currently, the Earth's atmosphere is contaminated with radioactive substances and is a source of radiation. The continuing fallout from the atmosphere of the products of nuclear explosions leads to pollution of the oceans and its living resources. Due to the accumulation in the human body of long-lived isotopes from the environment, in the coming years, the content of isotopes in the human body will be close to the maximum allowable levels, and in a significant contingent these levels will be exceeded. Therefore, further pollution of the World Ocean by dumping radioactive waste into it is unacceptable.
2. Modern international law prohibits any pollution of the sea and its living resources. Consequently, states that practice the dumping of radioactive waste leading to sea pollution violate international law.
3. According to the data currently available, radioactive waste removed to the sea can quickly return to humans in a wide variety of forms. Marine organisms are capable of accumulating activity two or three orders of magnitude higher in relation to its content in water. Necessary
study in detail the food chains in the sea and the concentration and discrimination factors for at least the most dangerous isotopes, before talking about any additional releases.
4. Arbitrarily small exposure to radiation causes undesirable somatic and genetic consequences (up to death), so any excess of radiation levels above the natural one is dangerous for the life and health of all mankind.
5. Establishment of limited zones for discharge cannot protect adjacent sections of the seas and oceans from pollution, since the World Ocean must be considered as a single whole. Due to physical and biological transport, radioactivity will be carried far beyond the established zones.
6. Discharges of radioactive waste in territorial waters cannot be considered internal affairs states, since due to migration in the above ways, radioactivity can harm the population of neighboring states.
7. It is practically impossible to control compliance with discharge values for the following reasons:
A) currently there are no established maximum allowable concentrations of individual isotopes in sea water, and even more so, norms for emissions of general activity;
B) there are no data on the content of radioactive isotopes in sea water, in individual marine organisms, in various parts of the seas and oceans;
C) there are no common methods for determining low concentrations of radioactive isotopes in sea water.
Despite the statement of the group of Soviet experts, the meeting nevertheless decided to base its work on the Brinielson report, which allows the dumping of medium and low-level radioactive waste into the seas and oceans. This assumption was especially dangerous, since the Brynielson report defined high-level waste as containing hundreds of curies per liter and above, and low-level waste as waste containing millicuries per liter; therefore, for mid-level waste, the entire activity range from millicuries to hundreds of curies per liter remained.
Establishing any level of radioactivity for the wastes dumped, especially with the broad interpretation laid down in the Brinielson report, does not determine anything, and most importantly, does not guarantee against the introduction of large quantities of activity into the seas.
Whatever gradations are established, any initial level of radioactive waste can be brought to a level permitted for discharge by preliminary dilution, since the total amount of discharged activity does not decrease in this case. Even if the definition of this level is applied to waste at the time of its formation, then in this case there are no sufficient guarantees against discharges of a large amount of activity.
As is known, the waste obtained after the dissolution of fuel elements is currently evaporated to reduce the volume in order to dispose of them. In some cases (especially when dissolving fuel elements with stainless steel cladding or other sparingly soluble alloys), wastes with an activity level that corresponds to the medium level category are obtained before evaporation, and, therefore, on the recommendation of the Brinielson report, they can be dumped into the sea. Thus, determining the level of waste activity at the time of their formation does not limit the release of large masses of activity into the seas and oceans.
During the work of the meeting, discussions on all aspects of the problem repeatedly arose, during which the Soviet experts, together with the representatives of Poland, managed to convincingly defend the provisions cited in the statement of the group of Soviet experts. In addition, the Soviet delegation showed that already now there are ways to dispose of radioactive waste without polluting the environment.
At present, taking into account the results of scientific research carried out in many countries, it is fully possible to create production facilities for the chemical processing of waste of any level in order to prevent the danger of the spread of radioactivity.
High-level waste can be subjected to concentration by evaporation followed by disposal of the resulting small volumes in special tanks located underground, which, in fact, is now practiced by all countries with a nuclear industry.
For the processing of large volumes of waste of medium (about 1 curie/l and below) and low levels of radioactivity, there are now also technically and economically available methods.
Studies by scientists from Great Britain, the USSR, the USA, France and other countries have shown that the use of coagulants (iron, calcium) under a certain regime in combination with ion exchange, electrophoresis and evaporation makes it possible to achieve very high purification factors. At the same time, the bulk of the activity (99.8 - 99.9%)
It is concentrated in relatively small volumes of sediments and bottom residues, which can be safely buried there in isolated containers. The resulting waters of very low activity should be directed to technical needs within the enterprise itself. Thus, the cycle is completely closed and waste is not emitted into the external environment at all.
It should also not be forgotten that the extraction of long-lived Sr90 and Cs137 radioisotopes will noticeably facilitate the further processing of liquid solutions and provide some economic benefit from their partial use for radiation sources.
At present, the possibility of vitrification of highly active concentrates has been established, which makes it possible to securely fix the activity, preventing its further spread. Extensive studies carried out both in the direction of the development of vitrification methods and the study of the properties and storage conditions of vitrified materials confirm the promise of this method, which makes it possible to significantly reduce the volume of discharges and further increase the reliability of burial in terms of safety requirements.
The issue of waste generated by the use of isotopes and radiation sources in research laboratories, hospitals and factories is somewhat more complicated. For the processing of such wastes, it is advisable to create installations for the centralized processing of radioactive solutions. At these facilities, waste using the above methods can be brought to the sanitary standards adopted for open water bodies, and the concentrated activity is safely buried in special burial grounds. These principles have been adopted and are being implemented in the USSR.
Nuclear-powered ships must have reserve tanks for temporary storage of radioactive discharges. Processing of all waste from nuclear ships should be carried out at coastal bases in accordance with the methods recommended above.
Thus, if we accept the costs of creating production facilities for the processing of radioactive waste as a prerequisite for the development of nuclear enterprises, the problem of safe waste disposal from these enterprises will be completely solved.
As a result of a comprehensive and objective discussion of the problem, which proceeded in a very friendly atmosphere, the meeting agreed with the main provisions of the expert platform and came to the conclusion that the Brinielson report does not provide answers to a number of important scientific and technical problems, which is why the meeting cannot currently formulate or recommend a convention or other international agreement.
CRITERIA
CLASSIFICATIONS OF CITIZENS (INCLUDING TEMPORARY SENT
DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN THE LIQUIDATION WORKS
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACCIDENT IN 1957 AT THE PRODUCTION
ASSOCIATION "MAYAK", AS WELL AS CITIZENS EMPLOYED
AT WORKS TO CARRY OUT PROTECTIVE MEASURES
AND REHABILITATION OF RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED
TERRITORIES ALONG THE TECHA RIVER
1. The category of citizens (including those temporarily sent or seconded) who in 1957-1958 were directly involved in the work to eliminate the consequences of the accident in 1957 at the Mayak production association includes citizens who took part in the period from September 29, 1957 year to December 31, 1958 in carrying out the following types of work:
A) on the territory of the industrial site of the Mayak production association at the location of plants No. 22, 24, 25, 35, 37, 40, 45, 156:
Decontamination of buildings, structures, communications, equipment and jobs;
Maintenance of technological processes at industrial facilities;
Implementation of design and survey, construction and installation, repair, restoration work and transportation;
Carrying out radiation monitoring and dosimetry during the implementation of work to eliminate the consequences of the accident;
Ensuring fire safety and protection of industrial facilities;
Provision of personnel who took part in the liquidation of the consequences of the accident with preventive nutrition and medical care;
Relocation of military units and special contingent located on the radioactively contaminated part of the industrial site;
B) on the territory outside the industrial site of the Mayak production association within the established boundaries of the East Ural radioactive trace:
Territory decontamination by conventional and deep plowing;
Sanitary treatment of the population, dwellings and property;
Carrying out radiation monitoring, including by aerial sounding methods, determining the boundaries of a radioactively contaminated territory;
Carrying out sanitary and radiological control of agricultural products and food, livestock;
Implementation of research work to reduce the consequences of the accident;
Destruction of radioactively contaminated property, food, agricultural products, livestock;
Performance of work on the organized resettlement of residents from radioactively contaminated settlements until December 31, 1958, including the assessment of the cost of buildings, property and personal livestock of resettled citizens, the transportation of these citizens and their property;
Medical examination and treatment of residents in settlements exposed to radioactive contamination as a result of an accident in 1957 at the Mayak production association;
Conservation of mining enterprises, cutting down dead trees and reforestation in radioactively contaminated areas;
Implementation of reorganization measures economic activity, the mode of residence of the population and the use of radioactively contaminated territory;
Ensuring the protection of radioactively contaminated territory.
2. The category of citizens (including those temporarily sent and seconded) who in 1959-1961 were directly involved in the work to eliminate the consequences of the accident in 1957 at the Mayak production association includes citizens who performed in the period from January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1961, the types of work listed in paragraph 1 of this Appendix.
3. The category of citizens employed in the work on the implementation of protective measures and the rehabilitation of radioactively contaminated territories along the Techa River in 1949-1956 includes citizens who were directly involved in the period from January 1, 1949 to December 31, 1956 in the following types of work :
Decontamination of areas of territories by conventional and deep plowing;
Implementation of design and survey, construction and installation works, reconstruction and operation of technological and hydraulic structures (treatment facilities for liquid waste discharges, discharge lines, bypass channels, dams and locks, dams, power lines);
Carrying out research work to assess the levels of radioactive contamination of territories, surface and groundwater, agricultural products and food, according to the state of public health and the determination of protective and rehabilitation measures;
Dosimetry of the population and the environment;
Carrying out sanitary-radiological and medical control of the population;
Performance of work on the organized resettlement of residents from radioactively contaminated settlements, including the assessment of the cost of buildings, property and personal livestock of resettled citizens, the transportation of these citizens and their property;
Liquidation of buildings in settlements from which residents were evacuated;
Reforestation and other forestry work on the alienated territory in the floodplain of the Techa River;
Ensuring the fencing of the alienated territory in the floodplain of the Techa River and the protection of industrial reservoirs, hydraulic structures and the alienated territory in the floodplain of the Techa River.
The areas along the Techa River where protective measures and work on the rehabilitation of radioactively contaminated sites were carried out include:
The upper reaches of the Techa River, currently occupied by a cascade of industrial reservoirs (from its source from Lake Kyzyltash to the downstream of dam N 11);
Floodplain of the Techa River below the dam N 11 to the confluence with the Iset River;
The areas where hydraulic structures near Lake Kyzyltash and a cascade of industrial reservoirs along the Techa River.
4. The category of citizens employed in the work on the implementation of protective measures and the rehabilitation of radioactively contaminated territories along the Techa River in 1957-1962 includes citizens who were directly involved in the period from January 1, 1957 to December 31, 1962 in the work specified in paragraph 3 of this annex.
As a result of discharges of radioactive waste from the Mayak plant, the density of contamination with cesium-137 and strontium-90 of the floodplain of the river. The flow (before the confluence with the Iset River) is in the range from I to 270 and 165 Ci / km2, respectively.[ ...]
As is known, the dumping of radioactive waste into the sea was first carried out in 1946 by the United States. Then the discharges began to be carried out by Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands and the USSR. Until 1971, international organizations did not exercise control over discharges. During this time in the Quiet and Atlantic Oceans the indicated countries (excluding the USSR) dropped a total of more than 8 thousand. Later, subject to certain restrictions, the dumping continued regularly with the participation of Belgium, Great Britain, the Netherlands, France and Switzerland. Occasionally dumped radioactive waste into the sea Japan, Italy, Germany, South Korea and Sweden. The largest amount of waste (75.5% of the world's landfills) was dumped into the sea by Great Britain.[ ...]
When discussing the issue of waste discharges into fresh water bodies and rivers, it was noted that in the latter there are only minor turbulent flows that do not ensure mixing of discharges with the water of reservoirs. For this reason, the meeting of experts decided to revise and tighten the IAEA recommendations on the issue of radioactive waste discharges into fresh water bodies and rivers. In 1969, a new meeting of IAEA experts was held in Vienna on the disposal of low-level waste into rivers and lakes. It was decided for each individual case to conduct a set of studies and calculate the allowable discharge value (curie!day). Soviet experts again declared the need to completely exclude such discharges.[ ...]
After the cessation of intensive discharges of radioactive waste by 1952, the population on the Techa River received insignificant doses of radiation. Thus, according to G.N. within 6-60 mSv (the maximum dose applies to persons aged 48 years), which is 4-40 times less, respectively, compared to the population living on the river at the time of waste disposal. The decrease in the radiation dose occurred largely due to the decay of short-lived nuclides.[ ...]
The environmental imperative regarding the discharge of radioactive waste into the seas and oceans in the historical aspect is as follows.[ ...]
Soviet scientists have always stood in the position of prohibiting the dumping of radioactive waste into the ground and surface layers. earth's crust. The sorption capacity of the soil is in most cases insufficient, and radioactive isotopes can penetrate into the water network of the area. Abroad, this point of view is not supported in all countries.[ ...]
It is now clear what danger the uncontrolled dumping of radioactive waste into environment. In our country, the problems of any waste are taken extremely seriously. The report of L. I. Brezhnev at the XXIV Congress of the CPSU states: “In taking measures to accelerate scientific and technological progress, it is necessary to do everything so that it is combined with a masterly attitude towards natural resources, did not serve as a source of dangerous air and water pollution, depletion of the land ... "; “Not only we, but also future generations should be able to enjoy all the benefits that the beautiful nature of our homeland gives.”[ ...]
British scientists consider it acceptable to dump low-level liquid waste into rivers. So, for example, the official allowable levels of discharge of radioactive substances in the river. Thames was, curie / l: for p-emitters - 1 -10 9, for 226Ra - 4.5 - 10 13, for 908g - IX X Yu-11. In total, it was allowed to dump radioactive waste with an activity of up to 20 curies per month, but not more than 5 curies per day. For 0-emitters and 905g, these norms exceed the SDK established by the sanitary rules in the USSR. Attempts are being made to theoretically substantiate the admissibility of a controlled discharge of radioactive waste into open water.[ ...]
In 1983, under pressure from the world community, members of the London Convention adopted a moratorium on the dumping of radioactive waste into the sea for a period of 2 years.[ ...]
In 1992, on the basis of the recommendations of the UN Conference on the Environment on the termination of the practice of dumping radioactive waste in the sea, held in Rio de Janeiro, the following were signed: Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Area Baltic Sea(Helsinki); Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (Paris). It should be noted that the Paris Convention gives France and the UK the opportunity to discharge radioactive waste into the sea until 2018 with a phased reduction to zero. Russia is a party to the Helsinki and Bucharest conventions, it has not yet joined the Paris convention.[ ...]
Belter said that at the Hanford Laboratory, due to favorable hydrogeological conditions and the ability of soils to absorb radioactive substances, it was possible to pump radioactive liquid waste to a depth of 60 m. However, at present, they have decided to refuse to dump radioactive waste into the surface layers of the earth. An attempt is being made to bury liquid wastes by hydraulic crushing of shale by them. For this purpose, under high pressure, a mixture of liquid waste, cement and clay is injected into impermeable shale formations. Cracks form in the latter, in which this mixture solidifies. In Oak Ridge, a unit was built to inject such a mixture into a well up to 330 m deep. In some cases, injection is also carried out at great depths.[ ...]
From the appendix "List of diseases, the occurrence or exacerbation of which is caused by exposure to radiation as a result of the 1957 accident on the territory of the Mayak production association and the discharge of radioactive waste into the Techa River" to the joint order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation of January 12, 2000 . No. 6/9 (" Russian newspaper February 16, 2000).[ ...]
The North, Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas contain a large number of salts of heavy metals, oil products, phenols, other organic substances. Radionuclides, in particular cesium-137, are found in some marine areas, where radioactive waste generated during the operation of ships and ships with nuclear power was discharged.[ ...]
At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation considered the application of the resident of Brod o Kal Mak, Valery Kornilov, According to the plaintiff, the law of the Russian Federation of 1993 "On the social protection of citizens exposed to radiation as a result of the accident in 1957 at the Mayak Production Association and the discharge of radioactive waste into the river Techa does not provide benefits to all victims. The Constitutional Court upheld the demands of V. Kornilov. Following these cases, the rights to benefits were recognized by the Regional Administration Commission in respect of all families resettled from the banks of the Techa in the villages of Muslyumovo, Brodokalmak, Nizhne-Petropavlovskoye.[ ...]
The same report contains data obtained during expeditionary research in 1990, when soil samples were taken from the floodplain area of the river. Leaks in the area with. Muslyumovo. The Techa River was contaminated with radionuclides as a result of the open dumping of radioactive waste into the river system in 1949-56[ ...]
More than 40 years of activity of the Mayak Production Association has led to the accumulation of extremely large amounts of radionuclides and catastrophic pollution of the Ural region (the areas of the Chelyabinsk, Sverdlovsk, Kurgan and Tyumen regions). As a result of the discharge of radiochemical production waste directly into the open hydrographic system of the Ob basin through the river. Flow (1949-1951), as well as as a result of accidents in 1957 and 1967. 23 million curies were released into the environment: radiation pollution covered an area of 25 thousand km2 with a population of more than 500 thousand people. Beginning in 1949, dozens of villages and villages located along the Techa and Iset rivers were in the zone of radioactive contamination. Official data on the settlements exposed to radioactive contamination due to the discharge of radioactive waste into the Techa River appeared only in 1993 (see the list on p. 111).[ ...]
Attention is drawn to the fact that the flow of water from 49 km from the source to the mouth of the river increases almost 10 times, and the concentration of 90Sr decreases only 1.8 times, that is, the expected level of dilution is not achieved. This means that when water passes from the source to the mouth of the Leak, some additional amount of radionuclides enters it. There are no organized discharges of radioactive waste in the middle reaches of the Techa River, therefore it can be assumed that an additional source of secondary contamination of river water with strontium-90 is the river soil and flooded floodplain soils.[ ...]
Legal normative base ensuring radiation safety includes the following international treaties and conventions: "On the ban on tests nuclear weapons in three environments"; "Nuclear Safety Convention"; "Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident"; "Vienna Convention on Liability for Nuclear Damage"; "Convention on the Safe Management of Radioactive Waste"; "London Convention on the Prohibition of the Dumping of Radioactive Wastes into the Sea", and federal laws, Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal energy systems, nuclear power, fissile materials are under the jurisdiction of Russian Federation(Article 71).[ ...]
Stabilization of the ecological imbalance in the Barents-Kara region is possible under the following circumstances: restriction of international fishing; an annual ban on seismic sounding of the shelf for the period of biological spring; international monitoring of the Gulf Stream; organization of maritime biosphere reserves; development of pasture reproduction of juvenile commercial fish; cessation of the discharge of radioactive waste into sea waters. These proposals should be carried out in cooperation with the environmental protection measures of the offshore oil and gas industry. New ones must be created international bodies regulation of economic activity on the shelf of the Western Arctic.[ ...]
From the text of the said conventions on the international law of the sea, it appears that the only case of pollution that has been deemed necessary to be envisaged is the pollution of the high seas. In accordance with paragraph 24 of the Convention on the High Seas, each state must "develop instructions for the prevention of pollution of the seas by the discharge of oil from ships or from pipelines, or as a result of the development and exploration of the seabed and soils constituting it, taking into account the provisions on this subject available in the current contract." With regard to oil pollution, the "provisions in the treaty in force" referred to refer to the international convention for the prevention of marine pollution by oil, signed in London in 1954. Article 25, paragraph 1, of the High Seas Convention stipulates that each State must "take measures on the prevention of pollution of the seas by the dumping of radioactive waste, taking into account any norms and mandatory. Regulations that may be formulated by the competent international organizations". Paragraph 2 of the same article further states that “all States shall cooperate with the competent international organizations in taking measures to prevent pollution of the seas and the airspace above them as a result of any activities (which use radioactive or other harmful substances”. international conventions concerning the law of the sea do not contain any other direct or special provisions regarding pollution and, apart from the London Convention on Marine Oil Pollution, there are no other general instruments regulating this issue.
- 805.50 KbDischarge of radioactive waste into the sea for the purpose of disposal (dumping).
Dumping is a term with a special meaning; it must not be confused with clogging (contamination) with debris or emissions through pipes. Discharge is the delivery of waste to the open sea and its disposal in specially designated areas. From barges exporting solid waste, the latter are dumped through bottom hatches. Liquid waste is usually pumped through a submerged pipe into the ship's turbulent wake. In addition, some waste is buried from barges in closed steel or other containers.
The burial of radioactive waste at the bottom of the seas and oceans has been practiced since the advent of nuclear reactors on ships. The United States was the first to do this in 1946, then Great Britain - in 1949, Japan - in 1955, the Netherlands - in 1965. The first marine burial ground for liquid radioactive waste appeared in the USSR no later than 1964; of course, there are no official data on this.
Radioactive waste was walled up in special containers that theoretically do not collapse. sea water and deep pressure.
According to the recommendations developed by the IAEA, they should be buried at a depth of at least 4000 m, at a sufficient distance from continents and islands, away from the main sea routes and in areas with minimal sea productivity, that is, where there is no commercial fishing and other marine animals.
In the West, information about burial sites indicating the exact coordinates, depth, mass, number of containers, etc. available not only to specialists, but also to independent researchers. The calculations of official experts are quite optimistic: within 500 years, even with the existing levels of discharges at one site, individual exposure doses should not reach significant values. However, this opinion is not shared by all experts, and at the IX consultative meeting of the members of the London Convention in 1985. it was not possible to develop a unified approach to the problem of burial at the bottom of the seas and oceans.
The USSR joined this convention 15 years ago. The Goskomgidromet of the USSR was appointed responsible for issuing special and general permits for the discharge of radioactive waste (in agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries).
The burial technique itself is characteristic. It is believed that the containers are not subject to destruction by water and pressure, are completely sealed, and the contact of their contents with the environment is excluded, at least for a certain period. In practice, the containers were simply thrown into the water, and if they did not sink ... they were shot.
There is also such a technique of burial. Radioactive waste is stored on decommissioned ships of the Navy and the Ministry of Marine Fleet, and when there is nowhere to put containers with waste, the ships are towed into the ocean and - with the blessing of the USSR Ministry of Health - drowned.
That is exactly what happened in 1979. towed a barge loaded with solid radioactive waste. The captain reported an emergency: the barge had disappeared, an empty cable dangled behind the stern of the tug. The created commission could not get from the captain when and at what point he lost the barge with the secret cargo. However, the disputes in the commission were mainly about who, together with the captain, would be responsible for what happened: the Navy or the Ministry of the shipbuilding industry. The instructions that existed at that time were contradictory, so they argued for the future: who is responsible for such incidents in the future. The question of finding a barge and preventing radiation contamination of the region was of much less concern to the members of the commission.
The IAEA norm on the contents of flooded containers is also not observed. According to eyewitnesses, one of the containers contains at least a hundred spent fuel assemblies from the Lenin icebreaker's nuclear plant. In 1984 in the Abrosimov Bay near the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, a floating container with a radiation level of 160 R/h was discovered. After "refinement" it was flooded here.
It is not serious to compare with the recommendations of the IAEA and the depth of flooding of radioactive waste in the area of Novaya Zemlya. Instead of the prescribed minimum of 4000m, they range from 18 to 370m. Meanwhile, this area is adjacent to the inhabited archipelago, close to the continent, actively used sea routes pass here, fish and sea animals are fished.
Liquid radioactive waste was dealt with quite simply: they were dumped in the western sector of the Barents Sea, sometimes in squares where minesweepers fished. What an agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries! Until very recently, we considered Arctic region their inland sea and hosted there as they wanted or knew how. The inhabitants of Novaya Zemlya are very concerned about nuclear repositories off the coast of the archipelago. Fifth Extraordinary Session of the Murmansk Regional Council in August 1991 demanded that the archipelago and adjacent water areas be opened for scientific research, in which international experts, for example, from Greenpeace, could participate.
In 1992 The office of the President of Russia declassified data on pollution of the northern and Far Eastern seas: "In 1959-1992, our country dumped liquid radioactive waste with a total activity of about 20.6 thousand curies into the northern seas and solid - a total activity of about 2.3 million curies. In the seas of the Far East, these values were respectively: 12.3 and 6.2 thousand curie. According to experts, the potential danger is posed by the reactors of nuclear submarines and the nuclear icebreaker Lenin. In total, 12 reactors and their parts were flooded without nuclear fuel (including three on Far East) and seven emergency conditions with unloaded nuclear fuel (all in the North)."
These data are submitted by Russia to the secretariat of the London Convention and to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
There is no doubt that we or our descendants will have to do a lot of work to decontaminate the seas and oceans, including the recovery of sunken or flooded nuclear-powered ships, as well as containers with radioactive waste resting at shallow depths.
Disposal of radioactive waste in the seas from the facilities of the Northern Fleet and the Murmansk Shipping Company
Since 1959, the Northern Fleet has regularly buried radioactive waste in the Barents and Kara Seas. Solid and liquid radioactive waste, nuclear reactors, including those with unloaded fuel, were flooded. In addition, radioactive waste from the nuclear icebreaker fleet of the Murmansk Shipping Company (MMP) was buried in the Barents and Kara Seas. According to the latest estimates, the total activity of all radioactive materials buried in the Barents and Kara Seas was 38450 TBq. The Navy also flooded radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan, the Pacific Ocean, the White and Baltic Seas.
Liquid radioactive waste
Reactor loop waters and other LRW have been dumped into the seas since 1959. The last disposal, LRW in the sea, was carried out on November 1, 1991. This practice may be resumed if no acceptable solution is found. According to the requirements for the discharge of LRW, established by the USSR Navy in 1962, the specific activity for long-lived radioisotopes should not exceed 370 Bq/l, for short-lived radioisotopes - 1850 kBq/l. Whether these requirements were met is unknown.
An analysis of the practice of disposal of LRW in the seas shows that the most highly radioactive waste was disposed of in three regions of the northern part of the Barents Sea. LRW with a lower concentration of radionuclides were flooded near the coast of the Kola Peninsula. Map 1 shows the areas of LRW disposal in the Barents Sea.
From 1959 to 1991 LRW with a specific activity of 3.7 TBq were buried in the White Sea, 451 TBq in the Barents Sea, and 315 TBq in the Kara Sea. LRW with an activity of 430 TBq were dumped into the sea as a result of accidents in spent nuclear fuel storage facilities, on submarines and on the Lenin nuclear icebreaker. The total activity of liquid radioactive waste buried in the White, Barents and Kara Seas is 880 TBq (23771 Ci).
Since 1987, LRW from nuclear submarines of the Northern Fleet has been processed on the Amur tanker equipped with a treatment plant. After cleaning, the water was drained overboard. Since the start of operation, Amur has processed and dumped 975 tons of LRW into the sea.
LRW was also disposed of from floating technical bases with project number 1783A (Vala class) and from the special tanker MMP Serebryanka.
Solid radioactive waste
The Northern Fleet sank 17 ships and lighters in the Kara and Barents Seas carrying solid radioactive waste, including parts of reactor plants and other contaminated equipment different levels activity. Basically, SRW is packed in metal containers. These SRW are medium- and low-level and consist of contaminated metal parts of the reactor compartments of nuclear submarines, clothing and equipment used for work with nuclear installations. In addition, 155 large objects were flooded, including circulation pumps, generators and other parts of nuclear installations. Part of the SRW was placed on ships and lighters and sunk along with them.
Between 1965 and 1991 solid radioactive waste was flooded in 8 different areas along the east coast of Novaya Zemlya and in the Kara Sea. The areas of flooding in the Kara Sea are shown on map 2. In these areas, SRW was flooded by the Northern Fleet and MMP maintenance vessels.
According to the White Paper, 6508 containers with SRW were sunk in the Kara Sea, 4641 of which were sunk by the Northern Fleet. According to MMP documents, 11,090 containers were sunk in the sea. The shipping company buried 1867 containers separately and 9223 containers were placed on ships and lighters and sank along with them.
During the first radioactive waste disposal operations in the 60s, many containers did not sink, they remained on the surface. The team that carried out the burial operation, as a solution to the problem, shot containers from the ship to facilitate the process of flooding. This took place in the Abrosimov Bay on the southeast coast of Novaya Zemlya. Moreover, there have been reports of containers floating in the Kara Sea. One of them was found on the coast of Novaya Zemlya. Later, the problem was solved by the fact that the containers with radioactive waste were initially given negative buoyancy (loaded with stones).
In addition to the SRW flooded in the bays along the eastern coast of Novaya Zemlya, in the Barents Sea, near Kolguev Island, the ship "Nikel" was buried. The ship was loaded with 18 objects with a volume of 1100 m3 with a specific activity of 1.5 Tq.
A total of 31,534 m3 of SRW with a total activity of about 590 TBq was flooded: 6,508 containers, 17 ships and lighters, and 155 large objects.
Disposal of nuclear reactors
13 reactors from nuclear submarines were buried in the Kara Sea. Six reactors were disposed of with unloaded spent nuclear fuel. All reactors were removed from nuclear submarines that suffered serious accidents. The reactors were so damaged and the level of radioactivity high that it was not possible to unload the nuclear fuel. The reactors were flooded with unloaded fuel. In addition, three reactors from the Lenin nuclear icebreaker were also buried at sea.
The reactors were stored from one to 15 years after the accident, after which they were buried in the Kara Sea. 5 of the reactors cut from the nuclear submarine were filled with a hardening mixture based on furfural to prevent the release of radioactivity into the marine environment. According to the estimates of Russian NPP designers, such filling will prevent SNF contact with sea water for periods of several hundred (up to 500) years. Since there is very little information on the technical condition of buried reactors, there was a great deal of uncertainty about the assessment of their total activity. Very approximate calculations were made by Russian experts based on the data given in the White Paper, where the total activity of nuclear submarine reactors with unloaded fuel was estimated at 85 PBq. Later calculations show that the activity is 37 PBq.
Many countries with access to the sea carry out marine disposal of various materials and substances, in particular soil excavated during dredging, drill slag, industrial waste, construction waste, solid waste, explosives and chemicals, and radioactive waste. The volume of burials amounted to about 10% of the total mass of pollutants entering the World Ocean. The basis for dumping in the sea is the ability of the marine environment to process a large amount of organic and inorganic substances without much damage to the water. However, this ability is not unlimited. Therefore, dumping is considered as a forced measure, a temporary tribute to the imperfection of technology by society. Industrial slags contain a variety of organic substances and heavy metal compounds.
Household waste contains on average (by weight of dry matter) 32-40% of organic matter; 0.56% nitrogen; 0.44% phosphorus; 0.155% zinc; 0.085% lead; 0.001% mercury; 0.001% cadmium. During the discharge, the passage of the material through the water column, part of the pollutants goes into solution, changing the quality of the water, the other is sorbed by suspended particles and goes into bottom sediments. At the same time, the turbidity of the water increases. The presence of organic substances often leads to the rapid consumption of oxygen in water and not caustically to its complete disappearance, the dissolution of suspensions, the accumulation of metals in dissolved form, and the appearance of hydrogen sulfide.
The presence of a large amount of organic matter creates a stable reducing environment in the soil, in which a special type of interstitial water appears containing hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, metal ions. Exposure to discharged materials in varying degrees organisms of benthos, etc. are exposed. In the case of the formation of surface films containing petroleum hydrocarbons and surfactants, gas exchange at the air-water boundary is disrupted. Pollutants entering the solution can accumulate in the tissues and organs of hydrobiants and have a toxic effect on them. Dumping materials dumping to the bottom and prolonged increased turbidity of the added water leads to death from suffocation of sedentary forms of benthos. In surviving fish, mollusks and crustaceans, the growth rate is reduced due to the deterioration of feeding and breathing conditions. The species composition of a given community often changes.
When organizing a system for monitoring waste discharges into the sea crucial has a definition of dumping areas, a definition of the dynamics of pollution sea water and bottom sediments. To identify possible volumes of discharge into the sea, it is necessary to carry out calculations of all pollutants in the composition of the material discharge.
In some areas, urban waste is not flooded from barges, but is discharged into the ocean through special pipes; in other areas they are dumped into landfills or used as fertilizer, although the heavy metals in the runoff may cause adverse effects in the long term. Wide gamut industrial waste(solvents used in pharmaceutical production, waste acids of titanium dyes, alkaline solutions of oil refineries, calcium metal, layered filters, salts and chloride hydrocarbons) are discharged from time to time in different places.
What harm does the dumping of such materials cause to marine organisms? The turbidity that appears when the waste is dumped, as a rule, disappears within a day. The soil dumped in suspension covers the inhabitants of the bottom with mud in the form of a thin layer, from under which many animals get out to the surface, and some are replaced a year later by new colonies of the same organisms. Household sludges with a high content of heavy metals can be toxic, especially when combined with organic matter, an oxygen-reduced environment is formed; only a few living organisms can exist in it. In addition, the sludge may have a high bacteriological index. It is obvious that industrial waste in large volumes is hazardous to the life of the ocean and therefore should not be dumped into it.
The dumping of waste into the ocean, as such, still needs to be carefully studied. With reliable data, materials such as soils may still be allowed to be dumped into the sea, but other substances, such as chemicals, should be prohibited. When organizing a system of control over waste discharges into the sea, the definition of dumping areas, the determination of the dynamics of water pollution and bottom sediments is of decisive importance. To identify possible volumes of discharge into the sea, it is necessary to carry out calculations of all pollutants in the composition of the material discharge. Deep-water areas of the seabed can be identified for this purpose on the basis of the same criteria as in the choice of sites for urban landfills - ease of use and low biological value.
Interesting Facts
The most radioactive places. Top 10.
10. Hanford, USA
Work description
According to the Russian "Law on the use of atomic energy" (November 21, 1995 No. 170-FZ), radioactive waste (RW) is nuclear materials and radioactive substances, the further use of which is not provided. Under Russian law, the import of radioactive waste into the country is prohibited.
The reason for the three major accidents that occurred at the Mayak Production Association was the radioactive waste storage system. The first emergency occurred as a result of the uncontrolled discharge of liquid radioactive waste into the Techa River. The radiochemical plant commissioned in March 1949 began discharging radioactive wastewater in March 1949. Initially, the reset was provided for by the technical regulations. These were low-level wastes after preliminary treatment.
But already from the beginning of 1950, in the period from January to March, there was a sharp increase in discharges into the Techa River. In addition to regulated effluents, unforeseen waste began to be discharged into Techa. technological process unauthorized, so-called "wild" discharges with an activity of up to one hundred thousand Curies per day.
Highest values The exposure dose rates of gamma radiation were noted precisely during the period of massive discharges in 1950-1951 and reached from 50,000 μR/s at the place of discharge to 1500 μR/s on the shore of the Metlinsky Pond. Contaminated bottom sediments of storage ponds, riverbeds, and soils of the floodplain part were of particular danger. In this regard, a decision is made to flush the ponds - Koksharov and Metlinsky. The maximum possible amount of water was released into the Techa River, and along with this water, a large amount of
radioactive sludge.
In order to localize and store large volumes of radioactive waste, at the end of 1951, the discharges of the main technological waste production on Lake Karachay. The total intake of radioactive substances in the river. The flow has dropped significantly.
Despite the reduction in discharges, the content of radioactive substances in river water continued to be at a high level. This required the adoption of long-term comprehensive measures aimed at blocking the upper reaches of the river with a system of blind dams. In November 1956, a dam and a pond, the Shubinsky Pond, was built to intercept liquid radioactive effluents, which reduced the flow of radionuclides into the lower reaches of the river. Later,
under the capacity of the created pond, drawdown and flushing of Lake Berdyanish and the southern channel are carried out. About 10 million cubic meters were dumped into the Shubinsky pond. meters of radioactive water with silt, the level of the water surface of the pond rose by 107 cm, the specific activity of the pond water increased 10 times and amounted to 400 thousand Curie / l. Almost immediately, a strong filtration through the body of the dam of the Shubinsky pond was discovered, and an urgent strengthening of the dam began. And then the construction of the closing dam No. 11, with the help of which the most polluted
the upper reaches of the river were isolated from other areas.
The hydrographic picture of the territory was radically changed by the activities of the Mayak Production Association. Until the mid-1950s, the source of the Techa River was connected with Lake Irtyash, then the river passed through Lake Kyzyltash and received the waters of a small tributary, the Mishelyak River, flowing from Lake Ulagach. After 1965, the downstream of the dam of reservoir No. 11 is considered to be the beginning of the river. The regulated flow of the lakes and the Mishelyak River is cut off from the upper reaches of the river and directed through the system of left-bank and right-bank canals bypassing the technological ponds of the Techa cascade to the downstream of Pond No. 11. Since 1965, reservoir No. 11 has been operated in a non-flowing mode.
By 2004, the water level in the pond reached a critical level, and weakened zones were identified in the upper part of the dam. There was a real threat of the destruction of the dam, which could lead to a major ecological disaster. The state of the dam, which closes the Techa cascade, has become the most discussed problem, up to the presidential level. About 800 million rubles were allocated for its reconstruction. federal funds. An additional impervious screen was built in the crest part of the dam, a concrete tooth with a depth of 7 to 13 meters was installed around the entire perimeter of the dam, the dam was additionally reinforced with soil and sheet piles. The dam corresponds to the second class of reliability, this is a very high class of reliability. Activities at the Techa cascade of reservoirs, completed in 2008, were of an anti-crisis nature. A cardinal solution to the problem of the Techa cascade as a whole is needed.
Today, the radiation situation in the Techa river basin in the territory of the Kurgan region is formed by contaminated areas of the floodplain, leaching of activity from the bottom sediments of the riverbed, filtration inflows and Asanovskiye swamps.
