Preventing Nuclear Entrepreneurship in Russia's Nuclear Cities

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Preventing Nuclear Entrepreneurship in Russia's Nuclear Cities Preventing Nuclear Sharon K. Weiner Entrepreneurship in Russia’s Nuclear Cities Since September 11, 2001, concern about an attack on the United States by terrorists using a stolen nuclear warhead or an improvised radiological weapon—a “dirty bomb”—has risen dramatically. In discussions about this threat, Russia is frequently men- tioned as the most likely source of black-market nuclear skills and materials. In its 2002 report to Congress, for example, the National Intelligence Council noted that Russia’s nuclear security measures are still primarily oriented to- ward external threats and “are not designed to counter the pre-eminent threat faced today—an insider who attempts unauthorized actions.”1 Reports of Rus- sian weapons experts sharing their knowledge with other countries have also proliferated.2 Whether through scientiªc exchange visits, conferences, or email, Russian nuclear experts may be sharing sensitive information with others. Al- though many of these reports are anecdotal and few have been rigorously doc- umented since the early 1990s, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has consistently reported to Congress its suspicions that Russian scientists are 3 helpingPreventing Nuclear Entrepreneurship in Russiaforeign countries pursue nuclear weapons development programs. The nuclear experts of most concern are those living in Russia’s ten “nuclear cities,” which in the late 1980s employed an estimated 150,000 people in Sharon K. Weiner is a Research Associate at the Program on Science and Global Security in Princeton Uni- versity’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The author would like to thank Oleg Bukharin, Frank von Hippel, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments. Also, she gratefully acknowledges the support of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which takes no responsibility for any statements or views expressed herein. 1. National Intelligence Council, Annual Report to Congress on the Safety and Security of Russian Nu- clear Facilities and Military Forces (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Ofªce [GPO], February 2002), p. 2. 2. Such reports are scattered throughout the popular media. See, for example, Tim Beardsley, “Selling to Survive,” Scientiªc American, Vol. 268, No. 2 (February 1993), pp. 92–100; Alan Cooperman and Kyrill Belianinov, “Moonlighting by Modem in Russia,” U.S. News and World Re- port, April 17, 1995, pp. 45–48; and Michael Dobbs, “Collapse of Soviet Union Proved Boon to Ira- nian Missile Program,” Washington Post, January 13, 2002, p. 19. One of the more comprehensive accounts is R. Adam Moody, “Report: Reexamining Brain Drain from the Former Soviet Union,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Spring–Summer 1996), p. 92. 3. See, for example, testimony of Robert Gates, director of Central Intelligence, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post–Cold War Era, 102d Cong., 2d sess., February 25, 1992, pp. 205, 234–236; and testimony of George Tenet, director of central intelligence, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Current and Projected National Security Threats to the U.S., 105th Cong., 2d sess., January 28, 1998, p. 135. International Security, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Fall 2002), pp. 126–158 © 2002 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 126 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228802760987842 by guest on 28 September 2021 Preventing Nuclear Entrepreneurship in Russia 127 weapons-related work.4 The end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the So- viet Union, and the subsequent collapse of the Russian economy brought mis- ery to many of these once-revered members of the Soviet elite. As the 1990s wore on, increasing numbers of Russian nuclear scientists, engineers, and tech- nicians were confronted with deteriorating living conditions and the threat of job loss. Many were owed months of back wages by the Russian government. As reports of the theft of weapons-usable materials began to surface in the early 1990s, the U.S. government grew alarmed that some of Russia’s nuclear weapons scientists would become “nuclear entrepreneurs,” selling their exper- tise to the highest bidder or collaborating with others to steal nuclear weapons or their components. These concerns prompted Congress, the ªrst Bush ad- ministration, and later President Bill Clinton to launch several nonproliferation programs between the United States and Russia.5 As the years wore on, however, the White House’s interest in these pro- grams diminished. Slow progress, bureaucratic inªghting, and disagreements with Russia over access to its nuclear facilities led to much congressional criti- cism of these programs, especially among Republicans. After conducting their own critical internal review, President George W. Bush and his administration seemed poised to signiªcantly reduce some of these programs and eliminate others.6 The September 11 terrorist attacks, however, forced the administration and Congress to rethink this position. Amid renewed concerns that Russian nuclear weapons, materials, and expertise could leak out to terrorists, pundits and policymakers alike increasingly called for a greater U.S. commitment and more funding for U.S.-Russian nonproliferation programs. This article analyzes U.S.-Russian nonproliferation efforts designed to help workers in Russia’s nuclear cities.7 The most important of these are the Nu- 4. Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (MinAtom), “Primary Objectives and Tasks of the Implementation of the Program on Restructuring and Conversion of Nuclear Industry Enterprises (of the Nuclear Weapons Complex), in 1998–2000,” p. 3. In addition to nuclear weap- ons–related workers, MinAtom also employs people for nonnuclear defense–related and nuclear energy–related activities in the nuclear cities. 5. Most of these programs also included cooperation with other states of the former Soviet Union that inherited Soviet weapons of mass destruction or the scientists and facilities with which to de- sign, test, or build them. 6. See Judith Miller with Michael R. Gordon, “U.S. Review of Russia Urges Keeping Most Arms Controls,” New York Times, July 16, 2001, p. 1. The Bush administration was most critical of pro- grams managed by the U.S. Department of Energy and especially the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI). 7. For a description and assessment of U.S. efforts to help Russia monitor and control its supply of ªssile material, see Matthew Bunn, The Next Wave: Urgently Needed New Steps to Control Warheads and Fissile Material (Washington, D.C.: Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and the Non- Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228802760987842 by guest on 28 September 2021 International Security 27:2 128 clear Cities Initiative (NCI), Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), and the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC). All three seek to cre- ate alternative nonmilitary jobs for nuclear weapons–related workers who might otherwise be driven to sell their nuclear knowledge or to steal weapons- related materials and components.8 I begin by describing Russia’s nuclear cities and some of the proliferation problems that they present. I also assess how these cities and their role in nu- clear weapons production have changed over the last decade and the impact of these changes on proliferation risk. Next I analyze the success of NCI, IPP, and ISTC in creating jobs for workers in the nuclear cities. I conclude with recom- mendations for ways to refocus these programs for greater effectiveness. Russia’s Nuclear Cities: Then and Now Russia’s nuclear cities contain the Soviet Union’s principal nuclear weapons research, design, and production facilities.9 Located in remote areas around the country, they began life as “company towns” with a nuclear mission. As in the past, decisions affecting the cities are made at the federal level, and the cities are funded directly by the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom).10 If there were any private businesses, they existed only for the support of the local pop- ulation. Each nuclear city continues to have a speciªc function (see Table 1). Because of the sensitive nature of their work, the cities were “closed” during the Soviet era. Each city—including housing, schools, parks, and other facili- ties—was surrounded by double fences and guarded by troops from the minis- try of internal affairs.11 The nuclear facilities themselves were cordoned off with additional fences and guards. Access to and from the cities was tightly controlled by representatives of the KGB, the Soviet Union’s intelligence Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 2000); and Oleg Bukharin, Matthew Bunn, and Kenneth N. Luongo, Renewing the Partnership: Recommendations for Accelerated Action to Secure Nuclear Material in the Former Soviet Union (Washington, D.C.: Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, August 2000). 8. Another reason to help Russia downsize its nuclear production complex is the fear that it might rebuild its nuclear arsenal. 9. Some of the Soviet nuclear weapons production infrastructure was also located in open cities. For example, Moscow was and is home to the Institute of Automatics, which works on warhead design. 10. The Ministry of Atomic Energy is the successor to the Soviet Union’s Ministry for Atomic En- ergy
Recommended publications
  • Results in I and II Cycles of the Internet Music Competition 2014
    Results in I and II cycles of the Internet Music Competition 2014 I cycle: Duo, chamber ensemble, piano ensemble, choir, orchestra, percussion II cycle: Piano, bassoon, flute, french horn, clarinet, oboe, saxophone, trombone, trumpet, tube Internet Music Competition which passes completely through the Internet and it is unique event since its inception. In first and second cycles of the contest in 2014, was attended by 914 contestants from 22 countries and 198 cities from 272 schools: I cycle: "Duo" – 56 contestants "Piano Ensemble" – 94 contestants "Chamber Ensemble" – 73 contestants "Choir" – 23 contestants "Orchestra" – 28 contestant "Percussion "– 13 contestants. II cycle: "Piano" – 469 contestants "Bassoon" – 7 contestants "Flute" – 82 contestants "French horn" – 3 contestants "Clarinet" – 17 contestants "Oboe" – 8 contestants "Saxophone" – 27 contestants "Trombone" – 2 contestants "Trumpet" – 9 contestants "Tube" – 3 contestants The jury was attended by 37 musicians from 13 countries, many of whom are eminent teachers, musicians and artists who teach at prestigious music institutions are soloists and play in the top 10 best orchestras and opera houses. The winners of the first cycle in Masters Final Internet Music Competition 2014: "Duo" – Djamshid Saidkarimov, Pak Artyom (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) "Piano Ensemble" – Koval Ilya, Koval Yelissey (Karaganda, Kazakhstan) "Chamber Ensemble" – Creative Quintet (Sanok, Poland) "Choir" – Womens Choir Ave musiсa HGEU (Odessa, Ukraine) "Orchestra" – “Victoria” (Samara, Russia) "Percussion" –
    [Show full text]
  • Becoming Global and the New Poverty of Cities
    USAID FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECOMING GLOBAL AND THE NEW POVER Comparative Urban Studies Project BECOMING GLOBAL AND THE NEW POVERTY OF CITIES TY OF CITIES This publication is made possible through support provided by the Urban Programs Team Edited by of the Office of Poverty Reduction in the Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, U.S. Agency for International Development under the terms of the Cooperative Lisa M. Hanley Agreement No. GEW-A-00-02-00023-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the Blair A. Ruble authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the Woodrow Wilson Center. Joseph S. Tulchin Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Tel. (202) 691-4000 Fax (202) 691-4001 www.wilsoncenter.org BECOMING GLOBAL AND THE NEW POVERTY OF CITIES Edited by Lisa M. Hanley, Blair A. Ruble, and Joseph S. Tulchin Comparative Urban Studies Project Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ©2005 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC www.wilsoncenter.org Cover image: ©Howard Davies/Corbis Comparative Urban Studies Project BECOMING GLOBAL AND THE NEW POVERTY OF CITIES Edited by Lisa M. Hanley, Blair A. Ruble, and Joseph S. Tulchin WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS Lee H. Hamilton, President and Director BOARD OF TRUSTEES Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair; David A. Metzner, Vice Chair. Public Members: James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress; Bruce Cole, Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities; Michael O. Leavitt, The Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Condoleezza Rice, The Secretary, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Radiation and Nuclear Disasters in the Former USSR
    History of radiation and nuclear disasters in the former USSR M.V.Malko Institute of Power Engineering National Academy of Sciences of Belarus Akademicheskaya Str.15, Minsk, 220 000, Republic of Belarus E-mail: [email protected] Abstracts. The report describes the history of radiation and nuclear accidents in the former USSR. These accidents accompanied development of military and civilian use of nuclear energy. Some of them as testing of the first Soviet nuclear, Kyshtym radiation accident, radiation contamination of the Karachai lake and the Techa river, nuclear accidents at the Soviet submarine on August 10, 1985 in the Chazhma Bay (near Vladivostok) as well as nuclear accidents on April 26, 1986 at the Chernobyl NPP were of large scale causing significant radiological problems for many hundreds thousands of people. There were a number of important reasons of these and other accidents. The most important among them were time pressure by development of nuclear weapon, an absence of required financial and material means for adequate management of problems of nuclear and radiation safety, and inadequate understanding of harmful interaction of ionizing radiation on organism as well as a hypersecrecy by realization of projects of military and civilian use of nuclear energy in the former USSR. Introduction. The first nuclear reactor in the USSR reached the critical state on the 25 December 1946 [1] or 4 years later than reactor constructed by Enrico Fermi [2]. The first Soviet reactor was developed at the Laboratory N2 in Moscow (later I.V.Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy). This was a very important step in a realization of the Soviet military atomic program that began in September 1942.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Status Report Additional Nonproliferation Resources
    NUCLEAR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, FISSILE MATERIAL, AND STATUS EXPORT CONTROLS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION REPORT NUMBER 6 JUNE 2001 RUSSIA BELARUS RUSSIA UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN JON BROOK WOLFSTHAL, CRISTINA-ASTRID CHUEN, EMILY EWELL DAUGHTRY EDITORS NUCLEAR STATUS REPORT ADDITIONAL NONPROLIFERATION RESOURCES From the Non-Proliferation Project Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Russia’s Nuclear and Missile Complex: The Human Factor in Proliferation Valentin Tikhonov Repairing the Regime: Preventing the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction with Routledge Joseph Cirincione, editor The Next Wave: Urgently Needed Steps to Control Warheads and Fissile Materials with Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom Matthew Bunn The Rise and Fall of START II: The Russian View Alexander A. Pikayev From the Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies The Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation Challenges and Solutions Jonathan Tucker, editor International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Proliferation and Defenses Scott Parish, editor Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Options for Control UN Institute for Disarmament Research William Potter, Nikolai Sokov, Harald Müller, and Annette Schaper Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes Updated by Tariq Rauf, Mary Beth Nikitin, and Jenni Rissanen Russian Strategic Modernization: Past and Future Rowman & Littlefield Nikolai Sokov NUCLEAR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, FISSILE MATERIAL, AND STATUS EXPORT CONTROLS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION REPORT NUMBER 6 JUNE
    [Show full text]
  • TOMSK REGION (Structure of the Electronic Investment Card) 1
    TOMSK REGION (structure of the electronic investment card) 1. General Information 1.1. Historical Review 1.2. Geographical Location 1.3. Population 1.4. Natural Resources 1.5. Transport Infrastructure 2. Social and Economic Development of the Region 2.1. Major Economic Indices 2.2. Characteristics of the Main Branches of Industry 2.2.1. Fuel Industry 2.2.2. Non-Ferrous Metallurgy 2.2.3. Chemical and Petrochemical Industries 2.2.4. Machine Building, Metalworking, Electrical Industries 2.2.5. Medical. Pharmaceutical Industry and Biotechnologies 2.2.6. Information Technologies 2.2.7. New Materials and Nanotechnologies 2.2.8. Light Industry 2.2.9. Food Industry 2.2.10. Timber Industry Complex 2.2.11. The Construction Complex 2.2.12. Agriculture 2.2.13. Scientific and Educational Complex 2.2.13.1.Research Institutions of the Tomsk Scientific Centre of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences 2.2.13.2.Scientific Institutions of the Tomsk Scientific Centre of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences 2.2.13.3.The Tomsk Region State High Educational Institutions 2.2.13.4.Research Institutes affiliated with the Universities 3. Investment 3.1. Why is Tomsk region attractive for investments 3.2. Investment Policy 3.3. Legal Regulation of the Investment Support at the Regional Level 4. Tomsk Research and Innovation Special Economic Zone 5. Contact Information 6. Internet Resources 1. General Information Tomsk region is a part of the Siberian Federal District of the Russian Federation. There are 16 districts and 6 towns within the region. 1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • 03-0312-Russian-Federation-Atomic-Energy-Reactor-Decommissioning-3.12.2003.Pdf
    TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-312 ________________________________________________________________________ ATOMIC ENERGY Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION Signed at Vienna March 12, 2003 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— “. .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.” RUSSIAN FEDERATION Atomic Energy Agreement signed at Vienna March 12, 2003; Entered into force March 12, 2003. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE MINISTRY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FOR ATOMIC ENERGY CONCERNING THE CESSATION OF PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION AT THE OPERATING ADE-4 AND ADE-5 REACTORS IN SEVERSK (TOMSK REGION) AND ADE-2 REACTOR IN ZHELEZNOGORSK (KRASNOYARSK REGION) The Department ofEnergy ofthe United States ofAmerica (DOE) and the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Atomic Energy (MinAtom ofRussia), hereinafter referred to as the Parties, Noting that the March 12, 2003 Amendment to the
    [Show full text]
  • Unified Register of Measures of State Support for Business Activities in Tomsk Region
    Unified Register of Measures of State Support for Business Activities in Tomsk Region Regulatory Legal Act Support Type Supporting Organization Recipient Scope of Support Measures Governing Support Financial Support Measures For Small and Medium Businesses Competitive selection of Fund of Small and Medium Small and medium business Small and medium business entities (legal entities and Regulation on Competitive youth business projects Businesses Development in Tomsk entities of Tomsk region individual entrepreneurs) applying for the Competition and Selection of Youth «Perspectiva» Region Non-Profit Organization (age of a director – under 30 meeting the following requirements. Business Projects Address: Tomsk, 7, Karla Marksa years) The subsidies shall not exceed 1000 ths Russian rubles «Perspektiva» dated street, offices 207, 211, October 20, 2014 No. Phone: +7 (3822) 902-983, 902-984 P-03-14 Е-mail: [email protected] Provision of subsidies for Department for Manufacturing Small and medium business Provision of subsidies for a part of the costs on first Decree of the equipment leasing Industry and Business Development of entities of Tomsk region (advance) payment under equipment leasing agreements in Administration of Tomsk agreements Tomsk Region the amount not exceeding 85 %/ Region dated June 09, 2011 Address: Tomsk, 41, Kirova prospect, The subsidies shall not exceed 3000 ths Russian rubles No. 170а On Provision of office 418 Subsidies to Reimburse for Phone: +7 (3822) 554-987, Phone/fax: a Part of the Costs to Small +7 (3822)
    [Show full text]
  • Marketing Management of Innovation Development Potential Concept Based on Closed Cities in the Russian Federation
    Marketing management of innovation development potential concept based on closed cities in the Russian Federation Tamara P. Danko – Doctor of Economics, Professor, Marketing Department, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics [email protected] Aleksandr K. Podzhary – Leading Specialist, AO NIKIET (Rosatom State Corporation enterprise), pakoproryv@ gmail.com Elena L. Agibalova – PhD in Philology, Head of the Academic Department of Foreign Languages №3, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics [email protected] System-wide importance of Russian territories’ socio-economic development enhances their independence; they bear greater responsibility for the results of territorial economic development. In this regard, it is necessary to identify and update the marketing stance in managing the potential of these territories. The management of territories’ potential needs to ensure high efficiency of all spheres and areas of their productive, economic and commercial activities, consideration of integration problems connected with structural development and utilization of territories’ potential in general as well as coordination of different functions and resolution of potentially critical situations: migrations, ecological aspects, etc. The standing and role of marketing management of territorially organized economic systems’ potentials are dependent not only on macroeconomic conditions or opportunities of territories themselves but also on the arrangement of competitive strengths, mechanisms of competitive interaction in managing territories’
    [Show full text]
  • Helping Russia Downsize Its Nuclear Complex: a Focus on the Closed Nuclear Cities
    Helping Russia Downsize its Nuclear Complex: A Focus on the Closed Nuclear Cities Report of an International Conference held at Princeton University March 14-15, 2000 Oleg Bukharin, Harold Feiveson, Frank von Hippel and Sharon K. Weiner (Princeton University) Matthew Bunn (Harvard University) William Hoehn and Kenneth Luongo (RANSAC) Program on Nuclear Policy Alternatives Center of International Studies and Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University June 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface 3 Executive Summary 4 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms 7 Introduction 9 MinAtom’s Downsizing Plans 10 Progress to Date 14 US Assistance Programs 17 Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Blend-Down and Purchase Agreement 17 Nuclear Cities Initiative 19 Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention 20 International Science and Technology Center 21 Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program 22 Nuclear Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program 22 A Way Forward 23 The Domenici Initiative 23 Box: Key Elements of Senator Domenici’s Draft “Nuclear Weapons Complex Conversion Act of 2000” 24 Development of a Russian Plan for Downsizing 25 Box: The Sarov Conversion Initiative 26 A More Coherent Strategy for US programs 27 Promising Initiatives 28 The Need for Increased Funding 30 Conclusion 32 Appendices 1. Downsizing Projections on a City-by-City Basis 33 2. Conference Agenda and List of Participants 48 Tables 1. Russia’s Nuclear Cities in 2000 12 2. Defense-Program (DP) Workers and Expenditures at US DOE Nuclear Facilities, FY 1998 13 3. Downsizing Projections for Weapons Workers in Russia’s Nuclear Cities 15 1 A1-1. Russia’s Nuclear-Weapon Production Complex 36 A1-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Activities
    PROJECT ACTIVITIES At present, the region members under the auspices of the Northern Forum are implementing 19 projects on various fronts including: 1. Renewable energy sources. Power supply for isolated settlements of Northern regions. (Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Gangwon Province, State of Alaska). 2. Prevention of addictions. (Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Chukotka Autonomous Okrug) 3. Infectious diseases control (Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Yamalo- Nenets Autonomous Okrug, State of Alaska). 4. Suicide prevention. (Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Sakha Republic (Yakutia)). 5. Telemedicine (Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Gangwon Province). 6. Schools Partnership (Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, State of Alaska, Lapland). 7. Bear Working Group (Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Dalarna, State of Alaska, Kamchatka Krai, Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug). 8. Youth Ecological Forum (Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug). 9. Working Group on Water and Climate Change (Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Sakha Republic (Yakutia), State of Alaska, Krasnoyarsk Krai). 10. Northern Zoos Cooperation (Sakha Republic (Yakutia), Dalarna, Lapland, Krasnoyarsk Krai). 11. Development of Specially Protected Areas (Sakha Republic (Yakutia); Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug; Krasnoyarsk Krai; WWF Russia; Natural heritage protection Fund). 12. Festival of Northern Fishing
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Facility
    Tomsk-7/Seversk, Russia Nuclear facility The explosion of a nuclear reprocessing facility in Tomsk-7 dispersed large amounts of radioactivity over an area of 120 km2, exposing tens of thousands of people to increased levels of radiation and contaminating air, water and soils for many generations to come. It is considered the most serious Russian nuclear accident after Chernobyl and the Kyshtym accident at Mayak. History Tomsk-7 was a “secret city” in Siberia until 1992, when it reverted to its historical name of Seversk. It housed several nuclear facilities for large-scale pro- duction of plutonium and uranium for nuclear fuel such as plutonium, uranium, zirconium, ruthenium, ce- and weapons, including reprocessing of spent fuel. rium, niobium and antimony, continually exposing the The closed city was home to about 100,000 workers population to radioactivity.1 According to the Bellona and their families. One of the worst accidents in the Foundation, a Norwegian environmental NGO, about history of the Russian nuclear industry occurred at the 30 major accidents occurred at the Tomsk-7 nuclear Tomsk-7 reprocessing facility on April 6, 1993. That facility, releasing about 10 g of plutonium into the at- day, workers were pouring nitric acid into a tank in mosphere each year. The NGO also documents large order to separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. quantities of nuclear waste from 50 years of plutonium It is not clear whether the accident was caused by production, which have accumulated on the confi nes human or technical error, but it is believed that a lack of the nuclear facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoecological Environmental Monitoring
    TOMSK POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY E.G. Yazikov, A.V. Talovskaya, L.V. Nadeina GEOECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Recommended for publishing as a study aid by the Editorial Board of Tomsk Polytechnic University Tomsk Polytechnic University Publishing House 2013 UDC 55:504.064 (075.8) BBC 26.3:20.1я73 Y33 Yazikov E.G. Y33 Geoecological environmental monitoring: соursebook / E.G. Yazikov, A.V. Talovskaya, L.V. Nadeina; Tomsk Polytechnic University. − Tomsk: TPU Publishing House, 2013. – 131 p. The соursebook presents materials on modern environmental monitor- ing. Classifications of monitoring, definitions and programs are under consid- eration. Methods and principles of monitoring organization are given. Moni- toring of certain natural environments is discussed on the basis of different in- structive materials, methodical recommendations and standards. Brief descrip- tion of investigation and analytical methods for monitoring organization are also introduced. The соursebook is intended for students and masters of ecological spe- cialties, but could be quite useful for lecturers, students and experts who call themselves “environmentalists” and are interested in speaking on the problems of ecology, geoecology and environment. UDC 55:504.064 (075.8) BBC 26.3:20.1я73 Reviewers Candidate of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences Junior Researcher Е.Е. Lyapina Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor I.А. Matveenko © STE HPT TPU, 2013 © Yazikov Е.G., Talovskaya А.V., Nadeina L.V., 2013 © Design. Tomsk Polytechnic University Publishing House, 2013 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4 1. CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEM ... 6 1.1. Principal concept of environmental monitoring .............................................. 6 1.2. Environmental monitoring kind classification .............................................. 15 1.3. Environmental monitoring systems and services .........................................
    [Show full text]