DOCSLIB.ORG

Radioactive Environment Contamination and Abilities of the Modern Radiochemistry in the Field of Nuclear Waste Disposal and Monitoring

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

International Conference on HAZARDOUS WASTE. Sources, Effects and Management 12-16 December 1998. Cairo-Ezvpt PL-2 EG0000108 Radioactive Environment Contamination and Abilities of the Modern Radiochemistry in the Field of Nuclear Waste Disposal and Monitoring B.F. Myasoedov and A.P. Novikov V.I. Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, 117975, Kosyginstr. 19, Moscow, Russia. Tel. (7-095) 137-19-17; Fax (7-095) 938-20-54. ABSTRACT The study of environmental contamination caused by anthropogenic impacts and, primarily, by radioactive nuclides is one of the main scientific problems facing contemporary science. This is known as Radioecological monitoring. Decisions regarding the remediation of polluted areas require detailed information about the distribution of radioactive nuclides in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as, knowledge about radionuclides occurrence forms and migration patterns. Different sources of radionuclides penetration into the environment appoint their interaction with nature matrices in different ways and should be considered accordingly. An overview is given of the present radioecological situation around the reprocessing plant "Mayak", which was constructed more than 40 years ago for the production of plutonium for military purposes. Some new approaches, methods and tools developed at the Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry for the isolation, concentration and determination of radionuclides in various environmental samples are discussed. Data regarding the distribution, occurrence, and migration processes of radionuciides wSr, 137Cs, MSPu and MlAm, in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of the impact zone of the "Mayak" plant, are presented. Key worlds: Radionuclides / Analytical Approaches / Speciation / Waste Disposal INTRODUCTION Ons of big challenges facing contemporary science and technology is problem of environmental protection. It is known that as result of technogenic activity of civilization a large amount of toxicants of both inorganic and organic nature have been discharged and continue entering environment Many of them are ©xtrectjely hazardous to people and living matter, but radioactive contamination of environment represents quite a specific issue and requires special consideration. • ~ Experimental nuclear tests, nuclear power engineering and numerous accidents that took place at the nuclear power plants (NPP), the atomic submarines and some other nuclear installations made artificial radionuclides a constant and unretrievable component of the modern biosphere, becoming an additional unfavorable ecological factor. The clarifying of the penetration sources, the study of the migration dynamics of hazardous radionuclides and the developing of the remediation approaches of the contaminated areas are the most serious ecological, economical and social problems. Solution of these should be based on a wide radioecologicai monitoring, which demands continual routine analysis of water, soil and various biological samples on contents and occurrence forms of radionuclides. As regards Former Soviet Union (FSU) the most unfavourable regions are Southern Ural, zones suffered from Chernobyl Accident, Altay, Novaya Zemlya, some parts of West Siberia near Seversk (Tomsk-7) and Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26). Investigation of main regularities in radionuclides behavior in environment and, in particular, at impact zones of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities is widely recognized as a very actual problem. Lack of data on radionuclides migration in the ground and aquatic ecosystems 13 nukss it difficult to assess and forecast correctly the radiational situation and to work out measures on remediation of contaminated areas. The latter, in turn, are directly related to further development of nuclear energy and safe operation of the corresponding facilities. A lot of data on radionuciides content and distribution in various ecosystems, which entered biosphere both as result of the global radioactive fallout and as accidental radioactive discharges have shown that radionuclides are getting engaged into biogeochemical migration cycles. This process is accompanied by radionuclides redistribution in the ground and aquatic ecosystems and by formation of their entrainment and secondary accumulation zones at the geochemical barriers. Direction, density and mechanisms of migration of radionuclides are greatly affected by their entering forms and forms of occurrence in ecosystems as well as environmental conditions they get into. The present report is devoted to up-to-date radioecological situation around the "Mayak" nuclear facility and description of some new approaches, methods and tools developed at Vernadsky Institute for determination of different radionuclides in the various environmental samples from impact zone of the facility. 1. Moden situation at regions of Russia contaminated by radioactive fallout The influx of artificial radionuclides into the atmosphere began with the first nuclear explosions in 1945, and grew with the ensuing development of the nuclear industry. Table 1 shows estimates of radionuclide emission from various sources (PBq) and radiation doses obtained by the population from these sources (man-Sievert). Chernobyl accident. During the Chernobyl accident of April 26, 1986, «50MCi of radionuclides were released to the environment, which comprised «3.5% of the total amount of radionucldes accumulated in the reactor of the fourth unit(2>3). The fallout of radioactive materials resulted in considerable radioactive pollution of the environment, mainly in the European part of the Former USSR (Table 2). However, the inflow of radionuclides into the biosphere due to the Chernobyl accident accounted for no more than 3% of the amount of radionuclides released to the environment by the tests of nuclear weapons. The Central Black Soil Regions proved to be the most heavily contaminated by the accident. The western regions of the Bryansk oblast received the greatest impact (some of the regions show a contamination of 40 Ci/km2, and the largest territory contaminated with !37Cs is in the Bryansk and Tula oblasts. In the latter 45% of the total area has a level of 137Cs higher than 1.0 Ci/km2. On the whole, in the Russian Federation, a 137Cs pollution of 1.0 Ci/km2 and higher is detected on the total area of 57650 km2, which equals 1.6% of the area of the country. Except for several localities in the Bryansk and Kaluga oblasts, the doses acquired by the population are controlled mainly (>90%) by the natural background and not by the precipitated artificial isotopes. Thus, according to the data of-2'4), the Chernobyl accident did not significantly increase the total radiation impact on the population of European Russia, and it may be assumed that the dose due to nuclear power will not exceed 1% of the natural background by the year 2000. Altay. Population of Altay is excited due to many nuclear explosions at the Semipalatinsk test field. But nowadays average contamination level of Altay is 0.1-0.2 Ci/km 137Cs, 10-50 mCi/km2 90Sr and 5-20 mCi/km2 239Pu. Only two relatively small areas with content 0.2-0.5 Ci/km were determined. Main part of this radiation (80%) is due to the first nuclear explosion in 1949. Western Siberia. Two of Russia radiochemical centers producing weapon plutonium are the Mining and Chemical Plant (MCP), located underground 40 km from Krasnoyarsk, and the Siberian Chemical Plant (SCP), located near Seversk (Tomsk-7), 20 km from Tomsk. There are several dangerous sources of radioactive pollution at these plants. At MCP, these are industrial nuclear reactors cooled with Yenisei River water, a radiochemical factory for the processing of irradiated uranium blocks, and set-ups for the processing and storage of active waste. The Severnyi site for the disposal of liquid MLW is located 60 km from Krasnoyarsk, downstream the Yenisei. Radioactive waste (108 Ci on the whole) is injected 14 there into sand - clay strata. Thus, this factory defines the level of hurnan-induced pollution of the environment in the adjacent territory and the whole Yenisei basin(6>7). Table 1. Estimates of the emission of artificial radionuclides and cumulative effective dose according to the data of UNSCEAR, 19930). Emission, PBq Total effective Source dose, man-Sv 3H 14C Noble 90Sr ml I37Cs local and Global gases regional Nuclear tests in the atmosphere Global 24x104 220 604 65x10* 910 223xlO5 Local Semipalatinsk 4600 Nevada 500b Australia 700 Pacific Ocean 160b Underground nuclear 50 15 200 explosions Production of nuclear weapons Initial tests Hanford 8000a Chelyabinsk 15 000* Later tests 1000 10* Nuclear energy production Mining technology 2700 Reactor operation 140 1.1 3200 0.4 3700 Fuel reprocessing 57 0.3 1200 6.9 0.004 40 4600 Fuel cycle 3x105a 105 Production and use of 2.6 1.0 52 6.0 2000 8xlO4 radioisotopes Accidents Three Mile Island 370 0.0006 40 Chernobyl 630 70 60xl04 Kyshtym 5.4 0.04 2500 Windscaie 1.2 0.7 0.02 2000 Palomares 3 Tule 0 SNAP 9A 2100 Kosmos-954 0.003 0.2 0.003 20 Tundad Juarez 150 Mohammedia 80 Goiania 0.05 60 Total 38xl04 231xlO5 Cumulative effective 235xlO5 dose, man-Sv "»rt /\ /\ ._. _ _ F~~ , m. atmosphere;d after outflow of radionuclides to the Techa River;e total dose due to extraction of 222Rn from waste. The SCP is no less dangerous in terms of possible radioactive emission. It also includes plutonium production, a radiochemical factory, and a factory for isotope separation. 15 Russia's largest field
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

    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" –
  • Becoming Global and the New Poverty of Cities

    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.
  • History of Radiation and Nuclear Disasters in the Former USSR

    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.
  • Nuclear Status Report Additional Nonproliferation Resources

    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
  • TOMSK REGION (Structure of the Electronic Investment Card) 1

    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.
  • An Assessment of the Flux of Radionuclide Contamination Through the Ob and Yenisei Rivers and Estuaries to the Kara Sea

    An Assessment of the Flux of Radionuclide Contamination Through the Ob and Yenisei Rivers and Estuaries to the Kara Sea

    NO9700007 An Assessment of the Flux of Radionuclide Contamination Through the Ob and Yenisei Rivers and Estuaries to the Kara Sea THERESA PALUSZKIEWICZ1, LYLE F. HIBLER1, MARSHALL C. RICHMOND2, DON J. BRADLEY2 ''Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, 1529 West Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, WA 98382, USA . 2Pacific Northwest Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, Richland, WA 99352, USA. Introduction Extensive radioactive contamination (about 63,000 PBq) has been discharged to the environment of the West Siberian Basin. The former Soviet Union (FSU) nuclear program has been operating for the last 50 years; most of its facilities are located in the West Siberian Basin. These nuclear facilities include three sites for reprocessing spent fuel from the FSU's production reactors: Mayak, Tomsk-7, and Krasnoyarsk-26 (Fig. 1). These are believed to be responsible for the majority of the radioactive contamination that is in the major river systems, the Ob and Yenisei, which feed into the Arctic Ocean through the Kara Sea. Extensive radioactive contamination has been reported in surface water reservoirs, and large amounts of radioactive contamination have been discharged to injection sites that are adjacent to tributaries of the Ob and Yenisei Rivers. A massive release of radionuclide contaminants could result if floods, reservoir failures, or containment failures were to occur (Foley, 1991; Bradley, 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Bradley and Schneider, 1990). The Ob River system consists of the contaminant release sites (FSU nuclear defense sites on land), the terrestrial, ground, and surface waters that link the contaminant release sites to the rivers, the Ob River, its tributaries, the estuary, and the confluence region where the estuaries of the Ob and Yenisei mix and flow into the Kara Sea (Fig.
  • 03-0312-Russian-Federation-Atomic-Energy-Reactor-Decommissioning-3.12.2003.Pdf

    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
  • 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

    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)
  • The Plutonium Challenge-Environmental Issues

    The Plutonium Challenge-Environmental Issues

    Plutonium Overview The Plutonium Challenge Environmental issues he environmental concerns about plutonium stem from its potentially harmful effects on human health. Unlike many industrial materials whose Ttoxicity was discovered only after years of use, plutonium was immediately recognized as dangerous and as requiring special handling care. Consequently, the health effects on plutonium workers in the United States and the general public have been remarkably benign. Nevertheless, the urgency of the wartime effort and the intensity of the arms race during the early years of the Cold War resulted in large amounts of radioactivity being released into the environment in the United States and Russia. These issues are being addressed now, especially in the United States. Science and international cooperation will play a large role in minimizing the potential health effects on future generations. Environmental Consequences of the Cold War The environmental problems resulting from wartime and Cold War nuclear operations were for the most part kept out of public view during the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. On the other hand, concerns over health effects from atmospheric testing were debated during the 1950s, leading to the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear testing everywhere except underground. The U.S. nuclear weapons complex was not opened for public scrutiny until the late 1980s, following a landmark court decision on mercury cont- amination at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, facilities of the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1984. In the Soviet Union, all nuclear matters, including environmental problems in the nuclear weapons complex, were kept secret.
  • 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

    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’
  • 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

    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.
  • Radioactive Contamination at Chelyabinsk-65, Russia

    Radioactive Contamination at Chelyabinsk-65, Russia

    AM". Rev. EJlerv EJlwOIt. 1993. /8:507-28 Copyrjgh' @ /993 by Annual Rrnewl III". AU righlS relerved RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION AT CHELYABINSK-65, RUSSIA Thomas B. Cochran, Robert Standish Norris, and Kristen L. Suokko Natural Rewurces Defense Council, Washington. DC KEY WORDS:radioactive waste. Mayak, nuclear accidents. Lake Kamchay. plutonium production INTRODUcnON _. 507 WASTE MANAGEMF.NI ACTlVmES _ _ _ _ . 510 Discharge of Waste Into the Tecba River _ . Sit Lake Karaehay (Reservoir 9) .... _ . 515 Lake Slame Bololo (Old Swamp; Reservoir 17) _ '. 519' WilSIe Explosion in 1951 ..•.............. _ . 520 WASTE MANAGEMENT TODAY • . • . • . • . 522 Storage ~ .Hi~LeveI Waste Tanks " _ _ '. 523 Waste VltnficatlOll ...•......•.............•••...•.•...... 523 Solid Waste Burial . • . 524 CONCLUSION _ . 52S APPENDIX-BASIC UNITS OF IONIZING RADIATION _ . • . 5~ Fifteen k.ilometerseast of the city of Kyshtym, on the east side of the Ural Mountains, sits the once secret complex of Chelyabinsk-65. home of the Mayak Chemical Combine. The Mayak facility housed the fonner Soviet Union's first industrial nuclear reactors, and produced the material for the country's first atomic bomb beginning in 1948. Over four decades of nuclear materials production and processing, the Mayak.facility discharged effluents containing more than 123 million curies (MCi) of long-lived radioactivity into an open storage lake and other sites, from which some millions have leaked into the general environment. Although the facility has adopted a number of new procedures for managing the waste, serious problems remain. 507 Chelyabinsk-65 did not receive foreign visitors, and was not on maps of the Soviet Union until 1989. Prior to about 1990, it was called Cbelyabinsk- 40.