Nuclear Wastes in the Arctic

244 Pages·1995·3.14 MB·English

by  Environment Program

Nuclear Wastes in the Arctic: An Analysis of
Arctic and Other Regional Impacts From
Soviet Nuclear Contamination
September 1995
OTA-ENV-632
GPO stock #052-003-01452-1
Recommended Citation: Nuclear Wastes in the Arctic: An Analysis of Arctic and
Other Regional Impacts from Soviet Nuclear Contamination, OTA-ENV-623
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995).
F
oreword
O
ne of the lasting legacies of the Cold War, and the buildup in nuclear weap-
onry and military over the past 50 years, is nuclear waste and its threat to
human health and the environment. Notable examples of waste dumped into
the open environment have caused people and nations to demand information
about what was done and what health risks may result. In 1993, disclosures about Rus-
sian dumping of submarine reactors, nuclear fuel, and other wastes into the Arctic and
North Pacific Oceans brought this region and its problems into the world spotlight. Peo-
ple in the United States want to know about this dumping and other discharges of radio-
nuclides into the oceans. They want to understand the risks from Russian nuclear
activities, both past and future, and the potential threat to their health and that of the
Arctic ecosystem.
Because of these concerns, Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Defense Subcom-
mittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senators William V. Roth and John
Glenn, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Govern-
mental Affairs, asked the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to prepare this
assessment of Nuclear Waste in the Arctic.
This report examines the environmental and human health impacts from wastes
dumped into the Arctic and North Pacific regions, from nuclear contaminants dis-
charged into these environments, and from radioactive releases from both past and
future nuclear activities in the region. The report presents what is known and unknown
about this waste and contamination and how it may affect public health. Because so
many factors are involved and science cannot provide absolute answers to many ques-
tions, this study emphasizes the need for care, caution, awareness, and prudence. It also
stresses the need for a stable and enduring institutional framework and international
cooperation for long-term observation and monitoring.
OTA received considerable assistance during this study from many organizations and
individuals. We sincerely appreciate the guidance received from our Advisory Panel,
workshop participants, numerous reviewers, contributors, consultants, and contractors.
We also received help from several U.S. federal agencies, research institutions, interna-
tional organizations, the Russian Government and private institutions, the Norwegian
Government and private organizations, and others. Without this cooperation and expert
advice, OTA would not have been able to accomplish this study.
ROGER C. HERDMAN
Director
A
dvisory Panel
Robert P. Morgan, Chair Paula Garb Stephanie L. Pfirman
Professor of Technology & Researcher, Global Peace & Associate Professor and Chair
Human Affairs Conflict Studies Program Barnard College, Columbia
Washington University University of California, Irvine University
John F. Ahearne Marvin Goldman Lydia V. Popova
Executive Director Professor Emeritus of Director, Nuclear Ecology
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Radiological Sciences Program
Research Society University of California, Davis Socio-Ecological Union,
Moscow
James S. Allen Joshua Handler
Manager, Advanced Programs Research Coordinator Caleb Pungowiyi
Georgia Tech Research Greenpeace International Director
Institute Inuit Circumpolar Conference
Edway R. Johnson
Susan Eisenhower President and CEO William L. Templeton
Director E.R. Johnson Associates, Inc. Senior Research Advisor
Center for Post Soviet Studies Pacific Northwest Laboratory
John J. Kelley
Murray Feshbach Associate Professor William R. Wiley
Research Professor Institute of Marine Science Senior Vice President, Science
Georgetown University University of Alaska, and Technology Policy
Fairbanks Battelle Memorial Institute
Malcom MacKinnon III
President
MacKinnon Searle
Consortium, Ltd.
iv
W
orkshop Participants
RUSSIAN NAVAL SPENT Andrei V. Pechkurov Mark Dinneen
NUCLEAR FUEL WORKSHOP Russian Ministry of Alaska Governor’s Office
Environment
Nikolai Z. Bisovka Clyde Frank
Naval Reactors Division Vyacheslav V. Ruksha U.S. Department of Energy
Murmansk Shipping Company
GOSATOMNADZOR
Burton Hurdle
Mikhail I. Rylov Naval Research Laboratory
Jor Shan Choi
Krylov Shipbuilding Research
Lawrence Livermore National
Institute Bruce Molnia
Laboratory
U.S. Geological Survey
Yuri V. Sivintsev
Valeriy A. Danilian
Kurchatov Institute Charles Myers
Russian Navy, Pacific Fleet
National Science Foundation
Aleksandr V. Tkalin
Knut Gussgard
Russian Far Eastern Hydromet Charles Newstead
Norwegian Radiation
Institute U.S. Department of State
Protection Authority
Boris Zakharkin Jack Ramsey
Al Hoskins Russian Scientific and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Lockheed Idaho Technology Research Institute of Commission
Corporation Inorganic Materials
Stephen Trautman
John Jicha INSTITUTIONAL ROUNDTABLE Department of the Navy
U.S. Department of Energy
Thomas Armbruster Mead Treadwell
M.R. Louthan U.S. Department of State formerly Alaskan Department
Westinghouse Savannah River of Environmental
Corporation Eugene Bae Conservation
U.S. Department of Defense
Edward Washburn
Nigel Mote
Garrett Brass U.S. Department of Energy
NAC International
U.S. Arctic Research
Commission
Boris P. Papkovsky
Russian Ministry of Atomic
Energy
P
roject Staff
Clyde Behney Peter A. Johnson CONTRIBUTORS
Assistant Director, OTA Project Director
Health and Environmental Mike Bowes
Sciences Division Lois Joellenbeck OTA
Senior Analyst
Robert Niblock Lee Cooper
Program Director Bernard Lee Oak Ridge National
Environment Program Research Analyst Laboratory
ADMINISTRATION STAFF German Reyes Burton Hurdle
Co-project Director Naval Research Laboratory
Kathleen Beil
Office Administrator Kirsten Oldenberg David Nagel
Senior Analyst Naval Research Laboratory
Nellie Hammond
Administrative Secretary Beth Gerard
Research Analyst
Kimberly Holmlund
Administrative Secretary CONTRACTORS
Sharon Knarvik Gary Baham
Secretary The Baham Corporation
Babette Polzer Oleg Bukharin
Contractor Princeton University
Gretchen McCabe
Battelle Memorial Institute
Florence Poillon
Editor
vi
C
ontents
1 Summary, Findings, and Policy Options 1
Key Findings of Study 14
Policy Issues and Options 18
References 25
2 Contamination from Nuclear Wastes in the Arctic
and North Pacific 27
Background and Overview 27
Arctic Contamination from Non-dumping Sources 33
Radioactive Contamination from Soviet Nuclear Waste
Dumping 45
Research and Monitoring of Radioactive Contamination in
the Arctic, the North Pacific, and Alaska 50
Research and Monitoring: Data Gaps and Future
Needs 60
Remediation Options 63
Conclusions 71
References 72
3 Environmental and Health Effects of Nuclear
Waste Dumping in the Arctic 79
Human Health Effects from Radiation 80
Sources of Ionizing Radiation 85
Potential Health Effects from Nuclear Contamination in the
Arctic and North Pacific 86
Ecological Effects of Radiation in the Arctic and North
Pacific Regions 106
Conclusions 108
References 110
4 Sources and Risks of Potential Future
Contamination 115
The Russian Nuclear Fleet 117
Managing Spent Fuel from the Russian Fleet: Issues and
Opportunities for Cooperation 133
vii
Russian Nuclear Power Plants—Safety Concerns and Risk
Reduction Efforts 149
Conclusions 163
References 166
5 Institutional Framework and Policies 171
U.S. Initiatives and Programs Supporting Research on
Radioactive Contamination in the Arctic 173
Monitoring and Early Warning Initiatives Designed to
Address Radioactive Contamination in the Arctic 194
Institutional Initiatives and Programs Designed to Prevent
Future Arctic Radioactive Contamination 202
Current Russian Institutional Structure 215
References 221
Appendix A: Reviewers 231
Appendix B: Acronyms and Glossary 233
Appendix C: Excerpts from DoD Appropriations
Acts for FY1993, 1994 & 1995 Providing Funding
and Authority for the Arctic Nuclear Waste
Assessment Program (ANWAP) 237
viii
Summary,
Findings,
and Policy
1
Options
A
ll major nuclear nations face nuclear Protection of the environment and public
waste problems. Many also share a com- health requires careful and responsible manage-
mon history of radioactive contamina- ment and long-term control of nuclear waste. In
tion incidents stemming from inadequate recent years, as the Cold War and the nuclear
attention to environmental protection. The arms race have abated, many nations, institu-
United States and Russia, in particular, have tions, and individuals have become increasingly
some similar nuclear waste management and concerned about the environmental legacy of the
contamination problems within their respective nuclear age. Reports about nuclear waste dump-
nuclear weapons complexes. Current work on ing, radioactive discharges and accidents, and
these problems is enhanced by recently increased their potential human health effects have galva-
cooperation and improved public awareness of nized public attention and forced nations to seek
the benefits of environmental protection. How- solutions to these problems.
ever, radioactive contamination has endangered Nuclear waste in the Arctic is a subject that
public health in some cases and still engenders has been brought to the forefront by recent reve-
serious public reaction worldwide for a number lations about the dumping of Soviet submarine
of reasons. Among these are the fear resulting reactors and waste products in the sea over the
from vivid portrayals of atomic bomb victims; past several decades when the region off the
concerns about chronic and long-term health northwestern coast of Russia was a hub of
impacts from radiation exposure; distrust of gov- nuclear fleet and nuclear testing activities. The
ernments who kept most nuclear information Arctic elicits images of vast frozen expanses
secret for decades; and the presence of an envi- with little human habitation or industry and a rel-
ronmental hazard that is difficult to detect and atively pristine environment. But these images
even more difficult for most people to under- are not always accurate, and contamination from
stand. Any attempt to address solutions to envi- both military and industrial activities has brought
ronmental and human health threats from nuclear questions about its impact not only locally but in
contamination must consider both the scientific the wider Arctic region. Box 1-1 and figure 1-1
and the social realities. describe the geographic focus of this Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) study.
| 1
2 | Nuclear Wastes in the Arctic
BOX 1-1: Geographic Focus of This Study
The Arctic region is frequently defined as all areas north of the Arctic circle (66.5°N latitude), which
means it includes the Arctic Ocean, Greenland, and northern parts of the European, Asian, and North
American continents. It has distinguishing characteristics in both political and ecological terms. There are
eight Arctic circumpolar nations: the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland,
and Denmark. All are signatories to the Declaration on Arctic Environmental Protection.
Alaska’s northern coast borders the Arctic. Half of the Arctic coastline, however, lies within Russia.
That country has historically used these waters as an important transportation route, linking its western
and eastern northernmost regions, as well as providing access to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The
Arctic region is also home to two-thirds of Russia’s fleet of nuclear submarines and icebreakers. To
ensure access to harbors all year round, Russia maintains a nuclear-powered fleet of icebreakers, as well
as a large number of radioisotope-powered lighthouses.
The central core of the Arctic region—its ocean—is “a sea bordered by prominent countries, all of
which have concerns regarding security, resource exploitation, environmental protection, etc.” (11). Cov-
ering about 390,000 square miles, the Arctic Ocean is the world’s smallest. It is almost completely cov-
ered by six to 10 feet of ice in winter. In summer it becomes substantially open (ice free) only at its
peripheries. There are two international outlets: the Bering Strait, which lies between Alaska and Russia,
and the Fram Strait situated between Greenland and Norway’s Spitsbergen Islands. These two straits are
not only shipping lanes but also the principal routes for exchange of surface waters.
The Arctic Ocean is ringed by seas. Principal among them are the Beaufort (shared by Canada and
Alaska); Chukchi (between Alaska and Russia); the East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara Seas of Russia; and
the Barents, bordered by both Russia and Norway. The liquid and solid nuclear wastes dumped by the
Soviet Navy are located in the Barents and Kara Seas, in the Pacific Ocean along the east coast of Kam-
chatka, and in the Sea of Japan. In addition, an island group called Novaya Zemlya which separates the
Barents and Kara Seas was the site of most of the atmospheric and underground nuclear testing by the
former Soviet Union.
Other than Canada’s Mackenzie River, all the major rivers that flow into the Arctic’s adjacent seas are
Russian, and more than 40 percent of that flow is to the Kara Sea. Russia’s Pechora, Ob, and Yenisey Riv-
ers empty into the Kara Sea; its Kotuy and Lena Rivers, into the Laptev Sea; and the Indigirka and
Kolyma, into the East Siberian Sea. The Pechora River, already severely polluted in some areas, has been
under additional ecological threat from leaking oil pipelines, such as the Koma oil spill, which occurred
early this year. Nuclear contamination created by facilities thousands of miles south in the Urals could
possibly migrate to the Kara Sea and the mouths of the Ob and Yenisey Rivers.
The waters of the Arctic, its sea ice, and sediments are sinks for pollutants. The water, ice, and air cur-
rents serve as mechanisms for the transborder migration of pollutants (nuclear and otherwise) originating
in all rim nations. Special characteristics of the Arctic region, such as low temperature, short and inten-
sive growing seasons, a widely varying photocycle, permafrost, sea ice, and small number of species,
make it very sensitive to environmental insult (6). Pollutants have long residence times, and because Arc-
tic ecosystems are already under stress as a result of the harsh living conditions, they are highly sensi-
tive. Food chains tend to be formed from very few species: therefore, they have large natural fluctuations
and are more weakly balanced than those observed in temperate and tropical ecosystems (1).
This report examines the environmental and into these marine environments, and radioactive
human health impacts from nuclear wastes releases from both past and future nuclear activi-
dumped in the Arctic (and, to a lesser extent, the ties in these regions. Questions about the envi-
North Pacific), nuclear contaminants discharged ronmental and health impacts of these practices