11/10/2003: FLOATING NPP PROJECT
PASSES STATE INSPECTION
On 10 November 2003, Russian Deputy Minister of Atomic Energy Vladimir Asmolov
announced that a technical and economic feasibility study for the
Severodvinsk floating nuclear power
plant with KLT-40S reactors had passed the state inspection process at the end
of October.[1] He expects plants such as this one, which is slated for
construction from 2006 to 2010, to improve the socioeconomic situation in the
northern regions by making energy systems more
reliable, reducing utility costs, and minimizing harmful environmental
implications.[1,2] Declarations of intent have already been signed for
installing such plants at Vilyuchinsk in Kamchatka Oblast and Pevek in the
Chukotka Autonomous Okrug.[1] The Severodvinsk plant is intended to provide
cheap electricity primarily for the Russian State Center for Atomic
Shipbuilding (Sevmash and Zvezdochka).[2]
Rosenergoatom Deputy
Director of Development Aleksandr Polushkin stated that Russia will not
export any floating NPPs until the first operational unit in
Severodvinsk proves its reliability.[3]
Sources:
[1] "TEO proyekta plavuchey AES proshlo gosekspertizu - Minatom," Interfax,10 November 2003.
[2] "V Severodvinske zavershena razrabotka proyekta plavuchey AES," Interfax, 21
November 2003.
[3] "Rosenergoatom ne budet postavlyat za rubezh plavuchuyu AES do
stroitelstva takoy stantsii v Rossii," Interfax, 12 November 2003.
{Entered 12/04/2003 SLK}
7/23/2003: CHINA MAY
INVEST IN RUSSIAN FLOATING NPP PROJECT
On 23 May 2003, following two days of discussion by the
Russian-Chinese Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues, a protocol was signed regarding
the future construction of a Russian floating NPP. Russian Minister
of Atomic Energy Aleksandr Rumyantsev and Chairman of China's State Commission
of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense Zhang Yunchuan
presided over the meeting.[1,2] According to
Rosenergoatom, the Chinese may loan Russia up to $150 million for the
project at annual interest rate of 5-6% a year for 15 years. The funds would either
be guaranteed by the Ministry of Finance or by future earnings of the project
itself. Oleg Sarayev, general director of Rosenergoatom,
says that the plant carries commercial promise, as it would be capable of
producing 70MW per hour of electricity and 84 Gigacalories of heat,
plus
desalinating 240,000 cubic meters of seawater per day.[3] Sarayev stated that Russia will present technical documentation and a draft
agreement to China by the end of the year, after which China will
decide whether or not to extend credit to the project. China is
interested in powering its
Bohai
Shipyard, in Huludao, with electricity from the plant. [CNS: China constructs
its nuclear-powered submarines at this shipyard.] According to Russian sources,
China
also hopes to receive desalinated water from it for resale to Asian and African
countries.[2] On 2 August 2003, according to Izvestiya, Li Bin, president of the China National
Machinery Import and Export Corporation, stated that China is prepared to
finance construction of a pilot
floating NPP for Severodvinsk, based on the working model station Russia already
has.[4] The Chinese media has also indicated that China is interested in this
project, but has not reported on any financial commitments made.[6] According to Sarayev, the plant
would remain under Russian ownership, with only the heat and energy it produces being sold.[5] The project will be implemented at the
Sevmash Shipyard in Severodvinsk. The
plant is slated to begin operations in 2008, and is expected to pay for itself
in 10 years' time.[4]
Sources:
[1] Irina Rybalchenko, "Friendship of the Peoples. Peaceful Atom to Float with
China's Assistance," Kommersant, 24 July 2003; in "Russia, China
Sign Protocol on Floating Nuclear Power Station Project," FBIS Document
CEP20030724000174.
[2] Irina Rybalchenko, "Mirnyy atom poplyvet," Kommersant, 24 July 2003;
in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru.
[3] "Kitay zainteresovan v priobretenii u Rossii plavuchikh AES dlya opresneniya
vody v stranakh s ee nedostatkom, i gotov vydelit Rossii kredit do $150mln na 15
let," RusEnergy - Novosti TEK, 24 July 2003; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru.
[4] Sergey Leskov, "Yadernaya energetika khochet uyti v more," Izvestiya
2 August 2003;
in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru. [5] "Pervyye inostrannyye investitsii v atomnuyu energetiku mogut byt
kitayskimi," Regions.Ru, 22 July 2003; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru. [6]"Zhonge jiang hezuo jianshi fudong dedian zhan," Zhongguo xinwen
wang, 4 August 2003,
www.chinanews.com.cn. {Entered 10/17/2003 SLK}
5/15/2003: GOVERNOR PROPOSES CONVERTING
SUBMARINES TO FREIGHTERS
On 15 May 2003, during a seminar on possible commercial activities in the Barents Sea region, Arkhangelsk Oblast Governor Anatoliy Yefremov suggested converting
Akula [NATO name 'Typhoon']- class submarines into commercial freighters to
transport oil, gas, and
other cargo under the polar ice. Given the shallow waters and the great draught of
the submarine class as well as its low numbers and potential tonnage, the
proposal's economic and technical feasibility were questioned. Furthermore,
environmental concerns were raised with respect to the increased risk of oil
spills and radioactive pollution from possible accidents.[1,2] [For more
information on past conversion proposals, see the 1/29/2002
and additional entries below in this section.]
Sources:
[1] Igor Kudrik, "Typhoon Subs to Ship Oil and Gas," Bellona Foundation Web
Site, http://www.bellona.no, 15 May 2003.
[2] "'Oil subs' plan alarms Norway," BBC Web Site,
http://www.bbc.co.uk, 14 May 2003. {Entered 7/23/2003
RS}
5/7/2003: ATOMFLOT TO CONTINUE
OPERATION OF ARKTIKA On 7 May 2003, ITAR-TASS reported that a
Gosatomnadzor commission has
approved the continued operation
of the icebreaker Arktika. The vessel's nuclear reactor has
already been in service for 140,000 hours, which exceeds its designed service life
by 50%. However, specialists from R&D institutions, design bureaus, and the
Murmansk Shipping Company believe that the reactor can be used for 175,000 hours
safely. The
commission was satisfied with the condition of the Arktika reactor
system. Therefore, Gosatomnadzor is scheduled to issue Atomflot a license for the continued
operation of the Arktika in the near future. [For more information on
Arktika's reactor, see the 5/22/2000 entry in this section.] [Vladimir Novikov, "Srok ekspluatatsii atomnogo ledokola 'Arktika'
budet prodlen," ITAR-TASS, 7 May 2003; in
Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru.] {Entered 7/17/2003 RS}
4/25/2003: FLOATING REACTOR
CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHOULD BE REEXAMINED-MATVIYENKO
According to
Valentina Matviyenko, the presidential envoy to the Northwestern Federal
District, the decision to construct floating nuclear power stations needs to be
carefully reexamined due to the high cost and questions concerning the financial
viability of the endeavor.
But she announced her support for the awarding of government
defense contracts to Sevmash. She warned, however, that the general
refitting of the Russian Armed Forces is not going to lead to a return to
previous levels of work.[1,2] [For more information on Sevmash, see the
Northern Machine-Building Enterprise (Sevmash) file. For more information on
floating reactor plans, see the 10/22/2002 and
additional entries, below.] Sources:
[1] "Resheniye o stroitelstve plavuchikh AES na 'Sevmashpredpriyatii' trebuyet
tshchatelnoy prorabotki, schitayet Matviyenko," Interfax, 22 April 2003.
[2] "V. Matviyenko: Vopros o stroitelstve na GUP 'PO Sevmashpredpriyatiye'
plavuchikh atomnykh elektrostantsiy predstoit tshchatelno prorabotat,"
NAUFOR, 23 April 2003; in Nord Media
Kompani, 25 April 2003; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru. {Entered 6/17/2003 RS}
4/20/2003: RUSSIA PROPOSES FLOATING
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TO INDONESIA
On 20 April 2003, following a visit to Moscow, Indonesian Research and
Technology Minister Hatta Radjasa
reported that Russia had offered his country a 40MW floating nuclear power
plant that could provide power to offset expected shortages in
2015-17. [1] If intergovernmental documents currently under preparation are
signed, construction will commence on the $200-300 million project, and should
be completed by 2015. The security and environmental safety of such plants has
been questioned by groups such as
Greenpeace, the
Bellona
Foundation, and
Ekozashchita!,
which contend that an unforeseen accident could lead to radioactive
contamination over several thousand kilometers. Critics also charge that such stations will be
targets for terrorists, as they will contain highly enriched uranium suitable
for creating nuclear weapons.[2] In 1999, Indonesia shelved plans to build an NPP
on the northern slope of Mount
Muria, a dormant volcano, due to
public pressure.[1] Sources:
[1] Agence France Presse, 20 April 2003: in "Russia Proposes 'Floating Nuclear Power Plant'
to Indonesia";
in FBIS Document UPP20030420000056.
[2] Kseniya Veretennikova, "Bomb for Mrs. Soekarnoputri," Politkom.ru,
24 April 2003; in FBIS Document CEP20030424000278. {Entered 10/13/2003 SLK}
4/17/2003: STOLEN RTG RECOVERED IN LENINGRAD OBLAST Specialists from the Leningrad branch of the Radon Special Combine
recovered a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) from the floor of
the Gulf of Finland, near the village of Kurgolovo in Leningrad oblast on 28
March 2003. In an article for Pravda on 17 April 2003, Oleg Bodrov, a physicist and
head of the Zelenyy Mir environmental group, wrote that soldiers had earlier
notified Radon that a generator had been stolen from a lighthouse. It
turned out that thieves had stolen the generator, removed about 500 kg of
stainless steel, aluminum and lead that shielded the radioactive core powering
the lighthouse, and dumped the latter onto the ice only 200 meters away.
The core, with a surface temperature of 300-400 degrees Celsius, melted through
the ice and fell into the sand on the bottom of the gulf. Radon
specialists, together with the navy and police, raised the generator core to the
surface using pitchforks and spades.[1] The core was intact.[2] They
also used an underwater video camera to evaluate the floor of the gulf in the
area where the cylinder had come to rest. The core was then transported
for temporary storage to Radon, where it will be evaluated and then sent for
final disposal at the Mayak Production Association in Ozersk, Chelyabinsk
oblast.[1] RTGs use the radioactive isotope strontium-90. The total
radiation of the 5 kilogram, 10-cm strontium cylinder was 40,000 curies.
The radioactivity 20 cm from the object was about 1000 roentgen/hr, enough to
deliver a fatal dose within minutes. [For more information on RTGs used in
Russian lighthouses, see the 09/10/2002 and additional
entries below in this section.] Sources:
[1] Oleg Bodrov,"Radioaktivnaya bomba dlya Baltiki," Pravda online
edition, 17 April 2003; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru.
[2] "Ugroza radioaktivnogo zarazheniya Finskogo zaliva," Radio Svoboda,
17 April 2003; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru.
{Entered 7/21/2003 CC}
10/22/2002: MINATOM CONSIDERING
FLOATING REACTOR FOR KALININGRAD On 22 October 2002, Minister
of Atomic Energy Aleksandr
Rumyantsev stated that Minatom is considering constructing a floating power
reactor for Kaliningrad to make up for the loss of power after the closure of
Ignalina NPP. [For more
information on floating reactor plans, see the 10/19/2002
and additional entries below in this section.] ["Atomic Energy Minister Adds To Russian Pressure On E.U."
RFE/RL Newsline, 23 October 2002.] {Entered 10/31/2002 CC}
10/19/2002: FLOATING REACTOR DESIGN
APPROVED On 19 October 2002, Minister
of Atomic Energy Aleksandr
Rumyantsev signed a decision approving the design of a floating power and heat
plant that will use KLT-40S nuclear reactors. The decision had already
been signed by
Rosenergoatom
president Oleg Sarayev
and
Shipbuilding Agency
head Vladimir Pospelov.[1]
In order for construction to begin, an order for construction must be officially
announced; such an order is expected in the next few months, after licensing
measures, now 90% complete, are finalized.[2] The project was developed by the joint stock company Atomenergo,
which was created in 1993 by the
Afrikantov Experimental Machine Building
Design Bureau (OKBM) (Nizhniy Novgorod),
the Nizhniy Novgorod
Machine Building Plant, the
Aysberg (Iceberg) Central Design
Bureau (St. Petersburg), the
Baltic Shipyard
(St. Petersburg), and
Atomflot
(Murmansk).[3] Atomenergo
is serving as the general designer and Aysberg
as the general constructor of the power plant; OKBM,
the Kaluga Turbine Plant,
the
Avrora Scientific Production Association,
and other enterprises are building the reactors, and the
Northern Machine Building Enterprise (Sevmash)
is constructing the vessel on which the reactors will be mounted.[1]
According to Igor Pluzhnikov,
deputy head of the
Russian Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear
and Radiation Safety (Gosatomnadzor)
Directorate for Monitoring Nuclear and Radiation Safety at Research Reactors and
Marine Propulsion Reactors, the vessel will be a modified icebreaker, and will
be no more dangerous "than the icebreakers...in Murmansk." He noted that
physical safety measures would be taken both onshore and on the side of the
vessel facing the sea.[4] The project has already received positive
environmental impact statements. The
Arkhangelsk Oblast parliament approved of the project as well as the siting
of the first floating power plant at Sevmash in oblast decree 279 of 28 May
2002.[1] On 28 October 2002, Gosatomnadzor issued license number GN-01-101-0914,
approving the siting of the first such plant in Severodvinsk.[8] According
to Minatom, the plant, which will produce 70MW of power and 50 Gcal/hr
of heat, will be able to meet the needs of Severodvinsk and Sevmash.[1,6] Further,
Minatom officials are interested in selling the floating plants to other
countries.[4] From 14 to 17 August 2002, a Rosenergoatom delegation headed by Anatoliy Kirichenko,
head of the Rosenergoatom Department of International Affairs, visited Chinese
financial, energy, and shipbuilding companies to talk with potential partners in
the floating reactor project; both sides agreed to continue discussions on the project.
The delegation also traveled to
Bohai Shipyard, which constructs China's nuclear-powered submarines in Huludao,
Liaoning Province,
a likely site for a floating reactor. According to Kirichenko,
up to seven floating plants may be sold to China. The power plants
would be built in Russia, the vessels in China, and the final floating power
plants constructed jointly in China, with some technology transfer.[7]
The construction of one plant will cost $100-200 million and will take an
estimated four to five years.[5] However, Rosenergoatom may not have
sufficient funds to complete the project in that period of time, while Russian
law does not allow private investors to fund nuclear projects. Therefore, Yevgeniy Kozin, director of Malaya Energetika, the firm leading the construction
effort, said he could not predict when construction might begin.[2] However,
according to Arkhangelsk Governor Anatoliy Yefremov, Minatom is financing
construction of the first plant, having earmarked 120 million rubles ($3.8
million as of 2 November 2002) in 2002, 2.7 billion rubles ($84.9 million) in
2003, and 513 million rubles ($16 million) in 2004 for the project. He
said that the feasibility study would be completed in mid-2003 and construction
would take three years.[9] For more information on floating nuclear power
plants, see the 12/18/2001,
10/12/2001, 10/10/2001, and
3/13/2001 entries, below, and the
Floating
Reactors overview. Sources:
[1] "Ministr RF po atomnoy energii
A. Rumyantsev utverdil tekhnicheskiy proyekt plavuchego energobloka
s reaktornymi ustanovkami
KLT-40S," Nuclear.ru
Web Site,
http://www.nuclear.ru.
[2] Renata Yambayeva, "Minatom voshel v vodu," Kommersant, 30 October
2002; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru.
[3] Vladimir
Kuznetsov, "Perspektivy plavuchikh AES," Yadernaya bezopasnost, No.
29-30, October-November 1999, p. 12.
[4] Yekaterina Kats, "Yadernaya energetika 'poplyvet,'" Gzt.Ru Web Site, 30
October 2002; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru.
[5] Agentstvo voyennykh novostey, 29 October 2002; in "Russian Atomic Energy
Ministry Approves Design of Floating Power Generating Unit," FBIS Document
CEP20021029000111.
[6] "Pervaya v mire plavuchaya AES budet sooruzhena v Severodvinske k 2008b. -
Minatom," Praym-TASS, 30 October 2002; in IA Intertek; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru.
[7] "Na peregovorakh v Kitaye obsuzhdalas vozmozhnost sooruzheniya do 7
plavuchikh energoblokov s yadernoy ustsanovkoy, - soobshchil rukovoditel
departamenta mezhdunarodnoy deyatelnosti 'Rosenergoatoma' A. Kirichenko,"
Nuclear.ru, 21 August 2002; in Intertek; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru.
[8] "Yevgeniy Kuzin, generalnyy direktor OAO 'Malaya energetika': 'Nam nuzhno
nayti organizatsionno-pravovuyu formu, kotoraya pomogla by ustoychivosti
proyekta plavuchego energobloka'," Nuclear.ru Web Site,
http://www.nuclear.ru.
[9] Interfax, 2 November 2002; in "Atomic Energy Minister Approves Floating
Power Plant Project," FBIS Document CEP20021102000015.
{Entered
10/31/2002 CC}
9/23/2002: LEPSE AGREEMENT SIGNED On 23 September 2002, the final framework agreement was signed to release funds
and to start working on the service ship
Lepse. For more information, please see the
9/23/2002 entry in the
Russia: Naval Foreign Assistance Developments
file.
9/10/2002: AGREEMENT ON RTG
ASSISTANCE EXTENDED
Russia and Norway have agreed to
continue the dismantlement of ionizing radiation sources, including radioisotope
thermoelectric generators (RTGs), reported Rossiyskaya gazeta on 10
September 2002. RTGs power many lighthouses along the coast
of the Kola Peninsula. In the past two years, 25 RTGs with a total radioactivity of 1 million curies
have been removed from Murmansk Oblast. This is one-tenth of the 10.5 million curies
emitted by radioactive waste
stored on the Kola Peninsula as of 10 September 2002.[1,2,3] [For more information on RTGs
used in Russian lighthouses, see the 10/06/2001 and
additional entries below in this section.]
Sources: [1] Galina Lysenko, "Milliony kyuri i milliony kron," Rossiyskaya gazeta, 10 September 2002;
in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru [2] Irina Popova, "Granits radiatsiya ne priznayet," Murmanskiy vestnik, 5
November 2002; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru
[3] Nadezhda Zaytseva, "Problemy ekologii ne imeyut granits," Polyarnaya
pravda, 5 September 2002, No. 3, p. 2; in "Gubernator Murmanskoy
oblasti Yuriy Evdokimov vstretilsya s gubernatorom provintsii Finnmark (Korolevstvo
Norvegiya) Gunnarom Khenney," Novosti-online (Region-Inform-Moskva),
5 September 2002; in Integrum Techno,
http://www.integrum.ru {Entered 3/11/2003 AV}
1/29/2002: NORILSK NICKEL REJECTS PROJECT TO
USE NUCLEAR SUBMARINES AS FREIGHT CARRIERS On 29 January 2002, the Bellona Foundation reported that,
according to Governor Aleksandr Khloponin of the Taymyr Autonomous Okrug,
Norilsk Nickel had rejected the
idea of using nuclear
submarines to transport cargo. The project was scrapped because submarines
would not be able to break the ice of the Enisey River during the winter season.
[For
more information, see the 7/26/2000 and additional
entries below in this section.]
["Norilsk Nikel Not to Use Nuclear
Submarines," Nuclear Chronicle from Russia, 29 January 2002.] {Entered
3/15/2002 EF}
12/18/2001: MINATOM TO CONDUCT FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER STATION
FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR SEVERODVINSK After attending a government meeting on 18 December 2001, Arkhangelsk Oblast Governor Anatoliy Yefremov announced
that in 2002 Minatom
would spend 130 million rubles (almost $4.3 million as of 18 December 2001)
to assess the technical and economic feasibility of building floating nuclear
power stations in Severodvinsk.
For more information on floating nuclear power plants, see the
Floating
Reactors overview.
["Novosti: 19 dekabrya 2001,"
Nuclear.ru Web Site, http://www.nuclear.ru/news/full/564.shtml.]
{Entered 1/9/2002 EF}
10/12/2001: RUSSIA SEEKS CHINESE
MONEY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FLOATING REACTOR On 12 October 2001,
Rosenergoatom's press service told
Interfax that China may provide a loan for construction of a floating nuclear
power plant in Russia, which would cost about $100-120 million.[1]
Rosenergoatom expects China to
order a floating nuclear power plant for itself,[2] and therefore predicts that China may be willing to finance the construction of
floating reactors in Russia. As of October 2001, there
were plans for construction of 11 floating nuclear power plants in the Russian
Far North and Far East.[1]
[1] "Kitay mozhet
stat potentsialnym kreditorom stroitelstva vtoroy rossiyskoy plavuchey AES -
'Rosenergoatom,'" Interfax, 12 October 2001. [2] O. Ordin, "Novosti
rynkov: Elektroenergetika," Institut finansovykh issledovaniy Web Site,
http://www.ifs.ru/body/memo/2001/Oct/151001.htm, 15 October 2001. {Entered
5/23/2002 EF}
10/10/2001: RUSSIA TO BUILD 11 FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS During an international seminar
entitled "Small Power Plants: Results and Prospects," held in Moscow on 10-11
October 2001, Minatom announced that 33 towns and villages in the Russian
Far North and Far East will receive small nuclear power plants. Eleven of
these power plants will be floating and they will be constructed for
Severodvinsk (Arkhangelsk
Oblast), Vilyuchinsk (Kamchatka
Oblast), Pevek (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug),
Sovetskaya Gavan (Khabarovsk
Kray), Nakhodka (Primorskiy Kray), Rudnaya Pristan (Primorskiy Kray),
Nikolayevsk-na-Amure (Khabarovsk Kray), Olga (Primorskiy Kray), Dudinka (Taymyr
Autonomous Okrug), Onega (Arkhangelsk Oblast), and
the construction site of the Trukhanskaya hydro-electric plant (Evenkiyskiy Autonomous Okrug).[1]
Further, construction of the first floating nuclear power plant, for
Vilyuchinsk, is to begin in 2005. The technical design of the power plant -- a
barge with two KLT-40C reactors with a total output of 70MW -- has been
completed; the project awaits a construction license. Construction of a second
floating nuclear power plant will begin in 2006 for Severodvinsk.[2] For more
information on floating nuclear power plants, see the
Floating
Reactors overview.
[1] E. Belova, "Malaya
energetika. Itogi i perspektivy," Atompressa, No. 40 (467), October
2001, p. 1.
[2] "Minatom Plans to Build Small NPPs," US Department of Energy, Moscow Office
Weekly Report, 5-9 November 2001. {Entered 5/29/2002 EF}
10/6/2001: FOURTEEN OUT OF 60 LIGHTHOUSES IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST
IN
CATASTROPHIC CONDITION On 6 October 2000, the Bellona Foundation reported
that GAN inspectors of nuclear generators at lighthouses in the Russian
Far East found that 14 out of 60 generators were in catastrophic condition. Anatoliy
Kononets, head of GAN's Far East Office, said that the problematic generators
must be removed to a safe facility to prevent radiation leaks. The condition of
another 100 nuclear-powered
lighthouses located in
remote areas along the Russian Arctic coast remains unknown. According to a
1997 decree, all generators are supposed to be
removed to the Mayak
facility after the expiration of their service lives. However, this has not
occurred due to financial constraints.[For more information on RTGs used in
Russian lighthouses, see the 05/15/2001 below in this
section.] ["Nuclear Lighthouses in Catastrophic
Condition," Bellona Foundation, 6 October 2001.] {Entered 10/1/2001 EF}
5/15/2001: THIEVES DISMANTLE NUCLEAR-POWERED
LIGHTHOUSE RADIATION PROTECTION SYSTEMS On 15 May 2001 during a check of local lighthouses, three radiation
sources emitting about 200 roentgens per hour were discovered near the town
of Kandalaksha, Murmansk Oblast. An investigation revealed that in late April
four unemployed men searching for nonferrous metals disassembled the radiation protection systems of three Northern Fleet
lighthouse
generators at Kandalakshskiy Bay. They discarded the radioactive generators
in several locations and then sold the lead generator covers at a local shop for 5,000 rubles (about $170 as of 15 May
2001).[1] All of them received high doses of radiation and two were
hospitalized in the intensive care section of a local hospital. Northern Fleet
and Kola NPP radiology experts
announced that there was no
immediate radiation danger to Kandalaksha residents; the radiation sources posed health risks only in
the immediate vicinity of the lighthouses.[1,2] A television report noted
that an area extending several
kilometers around each lighthouse was cordoned off due to radiation
levels reaching 30,000 times ambient levels.[3] On 10 June 2001, one
nuclear generator was put in a special container and sent to Mayak for
dismantlement. The removal of the radiation source had to be done manually, thus
exposing volunteer Northern Fleet officers to high radiation levels; the whole operation had to be precisely timed to prevent
any one officer
from receiving too much radiation. All of the officers have been nominated for
governmental awards to recognize their courage.[4]
Source: [1] Maksim Leonov, "V Murmanskoy oblasti iz-za
vorovstva tsvetnykh metallov s mayakov rezko ukhudshilas radiatsionnaya
obstanovka," Agenstvo
zhurnalistskikh rassledovaniy, 5 May 2001; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru. [2] "Pokhititeli priborov s mayakov v
Murmanskoy oblasti popali v bolnitsu," NTV-Novosti, 24 May 2001; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru. [3] Elena Izvarina and Oleg Nugayev, "Novosti,"
ORT; in TsRPI: Monitoring teleefira, 24 May 2001; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru. [4] Elena Izvarina and Andrey Terentyev,
"Novosti," ORT; in TsRPI: Monitoring teleefira, 10 June 2001; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru.
{Entered 6/1/2001 EF}
3/13/2001: FLOATING
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PLANNED FOR SEVERODVINSK On 13 March 2001, Russian Atomic Energy Minister
Yevgeniy Adamov announced that a floating nuclear power plant
would be built at the Northern Machine-Building Enterprise (Sevmash) in
Severodvinsk. The project will cost $109 million; the plant will produce an estimated
50MW of electricity for use by Sevmash and the city of Severodvinsk.[1,2,3] Originally designed for
use in the town of Pevek, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, financial and technical issues led to the change of
plans. In addition, Severodvinsk was given preference because it is more easily accessible
to potential foreign customers.[4,5]
The floating power plant will be equipped with modernized KLT-40 reactors,
which are used in icebreakers.[3,5] The decision has met with strong opposition
from environmental groups, which are even more concerned about the current project
than they were about the Pevek plan since Severodvinsk is much closer to populated areas of central Russia and
the Scandinavian countries.
These groups are trying to fight the power plant on the legal grounds
that Russian environmental legislation prohibits "the location, drafting and construction of nuclear power plants
... in the vicinity of bodies of water of federal
significance."[4] The international community is worried because some
reports suggest the
planned level of uranium enrichment may be as high as 60%, which is nearly
weapons-grade.[3] For more information on earlier plans for floating nuclear power
plants, please see the 6/14/2000 entry, below.
Sources: [1] "Russia plans floating nuclear power
power plant in White Sea," ITAR-TASS, 13 March 2001; in FBIS Document
CEP20010313000270. [2] "Russia to build world's first
floating nuclear plant in White Sea," Interfax, 14 March 2001. [3] Yekaterina Kats, "Floating
Atom. Reactors of Military Submarines Will Find Peaceful Life," Segodnya, 15 March 2001; in "More on Russian Plans for
Floating
Nuclear Power Plant in White Sea," FBIS Document CEP20010316000098. [4] Yevgeniya Borisova, "Russia Plans to
Build a Floating Power Plant," Moscow Times, 15 March 2001. [5] "Start khorosh. Ne spotknutsya
by," Kurs, No. 17, 15 December 2000; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru. {Entered
3/27/2001 EF}
7/26/2000: NORILSK NICKEL HOPES TO USE NUCLEAR-POWERED
SUBMARINES INSTEAD OF ICEBREAKERS In July 2000 RAO
Norilsk Nickel carried out tests for using nuclear submarines instead
of icebreakers to transport metal. The tests were performed by St.
Petersburg's Scientific Research Institute for the Arctic and Antarctic, using a
model of a modified Akula-class [NATO name: 'Typhoon'] nuclear
submarine. The tests indicated that a modified Akula submarine could
serve as its own icebreaker, breaking through ice up to 215cm thick in seawater and up to 150cm thick
in fresh water. The freight capacity of the submarine is estimated at 12,000MT.
Norilsk Nickel said that modifications
to the Akula would cost up to $80 million. Should a feasibility
study determine that the project is cost-effective, the first vessel will be launched
in 2002 or 2003 at the earliest. Vedomosti reported
that it is unclear who would own the submarine.[1] According
to Bellona, the modified Akula submarine would be operated by a joint venture
between Norilsk Nickel and the Navy. The submarine crew would work as
civilians and the navy benefit from the income of its operation.[2] [For more information,
see the 1/20/2000 and additional entries below in this
section.]
Sources: [1] Vladislav Maksimov, "Norilskiy nikel
ispytal podlodku," Vedomosti, 26 July 2000, p. B2.]{Entered 8/15/00 YF} [2]Thomas Nilsen, "Typhoon
conversion?: Navy sub for metal transport in Arctic," Bellona
Foundation Web Site, www.bellona.no, 9
October 2000.]{Modified 11/17/00 GG}
6/14/2000:
ENVIRONMENTALISTS PROTEST FLOATING REACTOR PROJECT On 14 June 2000 Trud reported that Russian
environmentalists were voicing their opposition to Minatom's plans to build
floating power reactors. Greenpeace Russia's Igor Forofontov is coordinating
a campaign against the reactors, arguing that they are dangerous and of
questionable economic and political value. According to Aleksey Yablokov,
a member of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, the possibility that the reactors might be leased or rented
out internationally increases the threat of nuclear terrorism; therefore,
Yablokov argues that floating reactors require naval protection.
The Baltic Shipyard has already been contracted to construct the first
floating power reactor, despite the fact that the project has not yet undergone
an environmental study. The environmentalists believe the project
might not receive environmental approval. For more information on
floating reactors, see the 3/24/2000 entry, below,
as well as the
Floating Reactors overview.
["Mirnyy atom rasplyvayetsya po miru,"
Trud,
14 June 2000, p. 6.]{Entered 7/2/2000 CC}
6/3/2000: UNDERGROUND NPPS
PROPOSED FOR KALININGRAD OBLAST, THE KOLA PENINSULA, AND PRIMORSKIY KRAY According to Kaliningradskaya pravda, the
Kurchatov
Institute is seeking a suitable site in Kaliningrad Oblast to construct
an underground nuclear power plant. The newspaper notes that there has
been no public discussion of the plan.[1] In a related development,
the Union of Russia and Belarus Executive Council has drafted a program to
build five underground thermal NPPs in Belarus and two in Russia in Snezhnogorsk
(Murmansk Oblast) and in Bolshoy
Kamen (Primorskiy Kray) between 2001 and 2005.[1,3] Additional underground
NPPs may also be built in Chukotka, Kamchatka
and Sakhalin.[2] The subterranean thermal nuclear electric power plant
(PTAES) project was jointly developed by Minatom
and Shipbuilding
Agency enterprises. The Baltic
Shipyard is manufacturing the underground NPPs in cooperation with other
St. Petersburg enterprises. UK-900 reactors, similar to those in icebreakers,
will be used. The nuclear waste generated by the new underground NPPs is to
be processed in Chelyabinsk
(Mayak) and the recovered fuel will be used in RBMK-type reactors.[3]
For previous underground NPP plans, see the 8/30/96 development under NPP
developments.
Sources: [1] "Underground nuclear power plant
proposed for Kaliningrad," Bellona Website, http://www.bellona.no.{Entered
4/28/2000 CC} [2] Sergey Anisko, "Nuclear Power Stations
Will Be Hidden From Human Eyes," Segodnya, 03 June 2000; in "Belarus,
Russia Planning Joint Underground Nuclear Power Stations," FBIS Document CEP20000605000171. [3] Vadim Sekhovich, "Atom Under Feet.
Subterraneous Nuclear Electric Power Plants Could Emerge in Belarus," Belorusskaya
delovaya gazeta, 31 May 2000; in "Belarus: Russia Nuclear Power Aid Offer,"
FBIS Document CEP20000602000114.{Entered 7/11/2000 NEB}
5/22/2000: ARKTIKA'S
SERVICE LIFE PROLONGED TO 175,000 HOURS On 17 May 2000 a conference took place onboard the
icebreaker Arktika with participants
from all agencies that deal with the design and operation of nuclear icebreakers.
The conference participants agreed to prolong the Arktika's service
life by 75,000 hours, to a total of 175,000 hours.[1,2] The Arktika has already worked
for 142,000 hours; prior practice limited service time to 100,000 hours. Vyacheslav Ruksha, general director of the Murmansk
Shipping Company, said that the service time for other nuclear icebreakers
will be extended as well, allowing the icebreaker fleet to operate until
2012. The Arktika conference participants have not excluded
the possibility of extending the service life of icebreakers to 200,000
hours.[1] On 27 December 1999 the Ministries of Transportation, Atomic
Energy, and Science
agreed to extend the service life of icebreakers from 100,000 to 150,000
hours.[3]
Sources: [1] Andrey Korolev, "Life time for
nuclear icebreakers prolonged," Bellona Foundation Web Site, http://www.bellona.no,
22 May 2000. [2] "Prodlen resurs raboty ledokola
'Arktika,'" Regions. ru, http://www.regions.ru,
24 May 2000. [3] "Prodlen srok sluzhby atomnykh
ledokolov," Izvestiya online edition, http://win.www.online.ru/rproducts/izvestia-izvestia-year/,
28 December 1999. {Entered 7/18/00 YF}
4/6/2000: IDEA OF STATE-OWNED
ICEBREAKER FLEET REJECTED; RUSSIAN ICEBREAKERS WOEFULLY UNDERFUNDED On a visit to Murmansk in November 1999, Norilsk Nickel General Director Aleksandr Khloponin suggested that the Russian government
form a state monopoly (gosudarstvennoye unitarnoye predpriyatiye, or GUP)
to handle Russia's nuclear icebreakers. He said that the Murmansk
Shipping Company monopoly made it impossible for other companies to provide
icebreaker service to northern enterprises in need of this service.
He suggested that companies such as Norilsk Nickel, Gazprom, and Lukoil,
that need the service of icebreakers, join the GUP and invest their own
funds in the maintenance of the icebreaker fleet.[1] On 5 April 2000 the
idea of a state icebreaker monopoly was brought up again at a conference
attended by president-elect Vladimir Putin. On 6 April, however, Nikolay
Matyushenko, head of the Shipping Policy Department of the Ministry of
Transportation, said that talk of an icebreaker GUP was premature, pointing
out that the Russian government could not afford to invest more money in
nuclear icebreakers. Matyushenko reported that in 1999 the federal
budget provided 60 million rubles toward the upkeep of state-owned icebreakers,
and that 206 million rubles would be spent in 2000. However, he pointed
out that some 500 million rubles per year were needed to maintain the working
condition of Russia's icebreakers.[2]
Sources: [1] "Generalnyy direktor RAO 'Norilskiy
nikel' vystupayet za likvidatsiyu monopolii na uslugi ledokolnogo flota,"
RIA Novosti, 18 November 1999; in Natsionalnaya sluzhba novostey, http://nel.nns.ru,
18 November 1999. [2] "Sozdaniye goskompanii po upravleniyu
atomnym flotom na sevmorputi nerealno, schitayut v Mintranse RF," Interfax,
6 April 2000.{Entered 4/11/2000 CC} 3/24/2000: GOVERNMENT DECREE
INCLUDING PEVEK FLOATING REACTOR PROJECT TAKES SHAPE On 24 March 2000 Stroitelnaya gazeta reported
that a draft government decree, On the confirmation of the development
program for the Chaun-Bilibinsk energy complex, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug,
to the year 2015, had been completed and featured plans for a floating
reactor to be constructed at the Baltic
Shipyard for use at Pevek, Chukotka. The floating reactor will
be a model KLT-40 pressurized water reactor such as those used in Arktika-
and
Taymyr-class icebreakers.[1] The floating reactor was
designed by OKBM.
The project is nearly ready, and has been included in Rosenergoatom's
primary construction program.[2] To go ahead, it requires an expert
appraisal, a manufacturing license, and an administrative act giving permission
to place a power generating facility at the site.[1] A
preliminary safety report has already been sent to Gosatomnadzor
in order to obtain a license.[3] Financing
will be provided by Rosenergoatom. According to OKBM sources, the
reactor is expected to be completed in four to five years.[2] Rosenergoatom
plans to build future floating reactors in Dudinka (a river port about
80km west of Norilsk,
Taymyr Autonomous Okrug), Vilyuchinsk,
and Rudnaya Pristan (about 50km north of Vladimir
Bay, Primorskiy Kray). As of January 2000, further potential
sites being examined include Provideniya (about 100km from Alaska) and
Egvekinot in Chukotka and Severo-Evensk in Magadan Oblast. Other
countries have evinced interest in the project, including Indonesia and
several nations interested in using floating reactors for desalinization.[3]
For more information on Pevek floating reactor plans, see the
2/18/98
entry, below, as well as the
Floating Reactors
overview.
Sources: [1] Oleg Demenin, "Pod flagom 'maloy
energetiki'," Stroitelnaya gazeta, 24 March 2000; in Natsionalnaya
sluzhba novostey, http://nel.nns.ru. [2] Eduard Demin, "OKBM: strategiya
razvitiya," Kurs, 7 April 2000; in Natsionalnaya sluzhba novostey,
http://nel.nns.ru. [3] A. Kuznetsov, "AES uchitsya plavat,"
Atompressa,
19 January 2000, p. 2.{Entered 4/27/2000 CC}
3/2/2000: 50 LET
POBEDY TO RECEIVE $10.5 MILLION THROUGH 2003 On 2 March 2000 Bellona reported that the Russian
government would earmark $3.5 million annually for the next three years
to complete the Arktika-class nuclear icebreaker 50 Let Pobedy
(50
Years of Victory). Construction, which began in 1989, was originally
scheduled for completion in 1994; however, due to a lack of funding and
a reduction of cargo shipments in the Arctic, construction was scaled back.
According to Baltic Shipyard General Director Oleg
Shulyakovskiy, $25 million
per year is necessary to finish construction by 2003. (For more information
on Russian icebreakers, see the Russian
icebreakers overview section of the database. For details about reactor
type and power output of the icebreaker fleet, see the table on Russia's
icebreaker fleet. For information on icebreaker construction activities see
the Baltic Shipyard file.)
[Igor Kudrik, "New icebreaker might
enter service in three years," Bellona Foundation Web Site, http://www.bellona.no,
2 March 2000.] {Entered 5/23/2000, GD}
1/20/2000: DECOMMISSIONED
NUCLEAR SUBMARINES MAY BE USED TO TRANSPORT CARGO On 20 January 2000, Russian
Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov spoke out in support
of plans to use decommissioned nuclear submarines to transport cargo.
Kuroyedov said that the project complies with the
Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between Russia and the United States.[1]
The idea of refitting nuclear submarines for cargo transport has been
debated in the Russian mass media for several years.[2] As early
as 1995, a Northern Fleet nuclear-powered submarine carried several tons
of merchandise to an enterprise on Russia's northern coast. One source
indicates that the submarine involved was an Antey-class [NATO name: 'Oscar
II'] SSGN, another indicates that it was the Shchuka-class [NATO
name: 'Victor III'] SSN K-388 Daniil Moskovskiy.[5,7] Conversion
of one nuclear submarine would involve the removal of missile silos and
the modification of the hull, at a cost of $50-100 million.[2,4]
The first real steps towards realizing the project came in November 1999,
when Arkhangelsk Oblast and the metals company Norilsk Nickel created the
"alternative marine transportation system with the use of submarines" project.
At the same time, the Northern
Machine-Building Enterprise (Sevmash) and Norilsk Nickel signed an agreement
on the conversion of several decommissioned nuclear submarines awaiting
dismantlement in
Severodvinsk, while Sevmash and the Rubin Central
Design Bureau for Marine Engineering signed agreements on new
projects to convert submarines into transport vessels and to build a new
class of nuclear-powered cargo transport submarines.[5,6] The Malakhit
Central Marine-Engineering Design Bureau has also been involved in
these ventures.[6] The idea was also discussed at a 23 November 1999 meeting
of the Russian Security Council
chaired by then-Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin.[5] In February 2000, Sevmash, Norilsk Nickel, and the Norilsk
Mining Company reached a preliminary agreement to refit one nuclear submarine
in order to transport metal and ore from the Arctic port of Dudinka, some
120 miles north of the Arctic Circle, to Murmansk.[3,4]
At present, Norilsk Nickel ships its cargo with the assistance of Atomflot's
fleet of aging nuclear icebreakers. Norilsk Nickel
plans to invest $80 million to refit one decommissioned Akula-class [NATO
name: 'Typhoon']
SSBN at Sevmash.[3] Norilsk Nickel commissioned
the Rubin Central Design Bureau
for Marine Engineering to carry out a technical feasibility study of
the project. The study found that the 171m submarine would be able
to carry about 10,000MT of ore after refurbishment.[3,4] As of February
2000, the Gipronikel Research Institute has been working on an economic
feasibility study for the project.[4] Arguments in favor of the project
include the continued employment of nuclear submarine crews, elimination
of the necessity of modernizing or dismantling decommissioned naval submarines,
the possibility of training submarine crews on commercial voyages, and
the possibility of earning an estimated $4-5 billion a year from foreign
companies interested in transpolar shipments. If the project succeeds,
earnings will reportedly fund the dismantlement of first-generation submarines
as well as the construction at Sevmash of new submarine tankers and cargo
transport vehicles with capacities of up to 50,000MT.[4,5]
[1] "Atomnyye submariny, vyvedennyye
iz sostava MVF, mogut byt ispolzovany v vide transportnykh sudov," Interfax,
20 January 2000. [2] Olga Antonova, "Staryye podlodki
zhdut vesny i gruzov nikelya," Vremya MN online edition, http://news.mosinfo.ru/.../VMN/01/data/vm012121.htm,
21 January 2000. [3] "Russian company considering converting
military subs to haul ore," Associated Press, 9 February 2000; in Lexis-Nexis
Academic Universe, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. [4] Aleksey Sinitskiy, "Podvodnyy nikel,"
Izvestiya
online
edition, http://www.izvestia.ru,
11 February 2000. [5] Valeriy Aleksin, "Podvodnyye transporty
dlya Arktiki," Nezavisimaya gazeta online edition, http://news.mosinfo.ru/.../NGA/01/data/ng011817.htm,
18 January 2000. [6] Yuliya Smirnova, "Supersekretnyye
'Tayfuny' budut perevozit rudu," Komsomolskaya pravda online edition,
http://news.mosinfo.ru/.../KPR/02/data/038k81.htm,
29 February 2000. [7] A.D.Baker III, The Naval Institute
Guide to Combat Fleets of the World 2000-2001 (Annapolis: U.S.
Naval Institute, 2000).{entered 4/18/00 NA}
7/13/99: AUTHORITIES ARREST FIVE FOR TRYING TO SELL STOLEN RADIOACTIVE
MATERIAL For details of this case, please see the 7/13/99
entry in the Atomflot file.
{Entered 8/11/99 TR}
5/12/99: NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
CONTINUE TO SUPPLY POWER TO KAMCHATKA PENINSULA During the early 1999 energy crisis in Kamchatka,
the reactors of several nuclear submarines were used to supply power at
the Rybachiy Nuclear Submarine
Base. There were difficulties, however, because a 5,400A current
had to be sent through power lines designed for only 1,200A. Some
of the engines and equipment overheated, presenting a constant threat of
malfunction. Although submarines supplied power to another Kamchatka
town in late 1998 (see 11/11/98 entry below) and
the navy succeeded in supplying itself with power in this case, the use
of nuclear submarine reactors is not a permanent solution. Nuclear
submarine equipment requires repair or possibly replacement after 2,000
to 3,000 hours of continuous use. The nuclear-powered communications
ship, the Ural, could also be used to provide power to the Kamchatka
Peninsula. The ship is capable of delivering 18-20MW of electricity
to shore and will be able to supply power for approximately four more years.
[Yevgeniy Ustinov, "Nuclear Power Engineering
on Kamchatka: Bluff or Reality?" Krasnaya zvezda, 12 May 1999; in
"Nuclear Subs to Power Kamchatka in Crisis," FBIS Document FTS19990513000109,
12 May 1999.] {Entered 5/26/99 HA} 3/4/99: BRITAIN TO AID RUSSIA IN NUCLEAR
WASTE DISPOSAL Citing deep historical ties between Britain and Murmansk,
UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook paid a three-day visit to Northern Fleet
headquarters in Murmansk and pledged three million pounds (approximately
$4.83 million) to aid in cleaning up radioactive waste from decommissioned
nuclear submarines.[1,2] Most of the aid is to be specifically earmarked
for removing damaged spent fuel rods from the Lepse
storage ship and providing casks to house the spent fuel rods. Foreign
Secretary Cook said that the purpose of the visit was twofold: to illustrate
the desire of the West to assist Russia with nuclear waste issues and to
urge the Russians to cooperate with Western companies who want to help
them. In the past, Western companies have voiced concerns about Russian
duties on imported equipment, a lack of cooperation in waiving accident
liability, and in some instances, denial of access to sensitive sites.
Foreign Secretary Cook's announcement of aid will bolster British Nuclear
Fuels Limited's (BNFL) work in designing an interim spent fuel storage
system, a project funded by Norway, Sweden, and the EU. In addition,
BNFL has joined Norway in order to assist the Russian Navy in repairing
radioactive leaks at the Andreyeva Bay Naval Base.[1]
Sources: [1] David Buchan, "UK Offers Russia
Nuclear Waste Aid," Financial Times, 4 March 1999, p. 2; in Lexis-Nexis
Academic Universe, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. [2] James Meek, "Cook Visits Icy Nuclear
Nightmare: Britian's Pounds 3m Is Not Enough to Clean up Russia's Radioactive
Fleet," The Guardian, 4 March 1999, p. 13; in Lexis-Nexis Academic
Universe, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.
{Entered 4/8/99 HA}
12/98: LUKOIL BUYS MURMANSK SHIPPING COMPANY For details, please see the 12/98
entry in the Atomflot
file.{Entered 4/21/99 HA} 11/11/98: NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
PROVIDE ELECTRICITY IN FAR EAST On 11 November 1998, three Pacific Fleet nuclear
submarines stationed on the Kamchatka Peninsula began providing electricity
to the Far Eastern town of Vilyuchinsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula.[1,2,3]
"Pacific Ocean," a Vladivostok radio station, reports that although the
submarines are providing an uninterrupted supply of electricity to the
town, they are also always ready for the possibility of combat. The
idea of using nuclear vessels to supply electricity is not a new one.
After Primorskiy Kray suffered an energy crisis, the territorial administration
began discussing the possibility of using the nuclear-powered communications
ship, the Ural, to meet the region's electricity requirements.
The Ural is no longer being used and on the verge of being decommissioned.[2]
Sources: [1] AFP, 11 November 1998; in "Nuclear
Submarines Provide Electricity for Siberian Town," FBIS-SOV-98-315, 11
November 1998. [2] ITAR-TASS, 11 November 1998; in
"Russian Nuclear Subs Supply Electricity to Town in Far East," FBIS-SOV-98-316,
12 November 1998. [3] "Atomnyye podvodnyye lodki tikhookeanskogo
flota snabzhayut elektroenergiyey kamchatskiy gorod," Parlamentskaya
gazeta, 12 November 1998, p. 2. {Entered 4/21/99 HA} 2/18/98: TWO FLOATING NUCLEAR
POWER PLANTS PLANNED Yevgeniy Ignatenko, managing director of Rosenergoatom,
announced that his company is studying the possibility of building two
new floating nuclear power plants, one near the Chukotka Peninsula, and
the other near the Taymyr Peninsula. He pointed out that the construction
of these power plants does not require new production facilities, personnel,
or technologies; it will based on thirty years experience with nuclear-powered
icebreaker and submarine fleets. The first nuclear power plant, to
be stationed near Pevek, is scheduled to be built in 1999 at the Baltiskiy
Zavod in St. Petersburg. All of the equipment, including two small
light water reactors, a turbine, and a generator will be mounted on a barge.
The barge will also be used to store spent fuel and radioactive waste.
The power plant will be towed to Murmansk every thirteen years for maintenance,
and will be dismantled following its forty-year service life. Ignatenko
also indicated that he thinks that Russia should think about contracts
to build similar nuclear power plants for other countries. [For more information
on floating reactor plans, see the 11/97 and additional
entries below in this section.] [ ITAR-TASS, 18 February 1998; in "Firm
mulls over building floating nuclear power plants," Inquisit Agent Report,
http://www.inquisit.com/, 18 February 1998.] {Entered 8/13/98
HA} 2/98: NEW TRANSPORT SHIP HELD UP IN UKRAINE As of February 1998, workers at the Nikolayev shipyard
in Ukraine had completed 70 percent of the construction of a Malina-class
(Project 2020) nuclear fuel transport ship. Construction began in
1990, but work on the ship stopped because the Russian Ministry of Defense
has been unable to make payments to Ukraine. Despite the delay
in construction and the lack of active duty, the ship already requires
servicing and maintenance. The Russian Navy operates three similar Malina-class
service ships, with a capacity of 1,400 fuel assemblies (or six reactor
cores). The Nikolayev shipyard built all three, two of which serve
the Northern Fleet (PM-68 and PM-12), and one the Pacific Fleet (PM-74).
[Igor Kudrik, "New naval nuclear fuel
transport ship stuck in Ukraine," Bellona: Nuclear Chronicle from Russia,
February 1998, p. 4.] {Entered 9/1/98 HA} 2/98: MURMANSK SHIPPING COMPANY CITES LOSSES IN
PROPOSAL TO DROP ICEBREAKERS For more information, please see the 2/98
entry in the Atomflot
file. {Entered 8/14/98 HA} 11/97: RUSSIAN FAR EAST TO GET FLOATING POWER
STATION The Defense Ministry and Security Council of Russia
has given permission to transform the nuclear-powered communications ship
the Ural into a floating power station. According to First
Deputy Head of the Maritime Administration Konstantin Tolstoshein, the
Ural's
nuclear reactors can provide military units and coastal population centers
with all of their electricity requirements.[1] Experts in Nizhny
Novgorod, St. Petersburg, and the Pacific Fleet combined their resources
to draw up plans to convert the ship. Reconstruction is scheduled
to begin in early 1998.[2] [For more information on floating reactor plans, see
the 8/23/1996 and additional entries below in this
section.] Sources: [1] Moscow Radio Rossii Network, 3
November 1997; in "Russian Far East To Get Floating Nuclear Power Station,"
FBIS-SOV-97-307. [2] ITAR-TASS, 4 November 1997; in
"Russian Nuclear-Powered Ship To Be Used As Power Station," FBIS-SOV-97-308.
{Entered 8/10/98 HA}
9/97: WARSHIP TO GENERATE POWER A spokesman for the Nuclear Society of Russia indicated
that striking coal miners in Siberia and the Far East were causing up to
eight hour power lapses near Vladivostok,[1] and forcing the regional administration
to request from the Pacific Fleet the use of the Ural communications
ship as a power source for the area.[1,2] Construction of the Kapusta-class
Ural,
the Pacific Fleet's largest ship, began in 1981 at the Baltiyskiy Zavod
in Leningrad.[3] The Ural, equipped with two nuclear icebreaker
reactors, sailed from Leningrad to Vladivostok under its own power but
never sailed again because it was not fully equipped. The ship is
in need of repair and has only a skeleton crew.[3,5] Following the
regional administration's request, the Ural became a likely option
for providing customers on shore with up to 20 MW of electricity.
The ship and its reactors, capable of generating electricity for three
to four years before refueling, are being kept operable, and the Navy says
that it is possible to turn the ship over to power engineers.[4]
Senior regional leaders and members of a Russian Security Council commission
have also discussed this option. Deputy Governor of the Primorskiy
Kray Konstantin Tolstoshein said that the energy provided by the Ural
would be enough to ease the severity of the energy crisis. The idea
is not new; a naval nuclear reactor was used to supply power to a town
in the area of the Northern Fleet. [5]
Sources: [1] "Russian Nuclear Ship Could Become
'Emergency' Power Station, NucNet, No. 402, 23 September 1997. [2] NTV, 18 September 1997; in "Maritime
Region Fuel Crisis; Warship Reactor May Be Used," FBIS-UMA-97-261. [3] Interfax, 18 September 1997; in
"Nuclear Warship Could Be Used as Power Source in Far East," FBIS-SOV-97-261. [4] Yu. K. Panov and N. G. Sandler,
Atomnaya
Energiya, February 1997, pp. 149-151; in "Russia: Nuclear Vessel Ural:
A Floating Electric Power Plant," FBIS-UST-97-016. [5] Denis Demkin and Ilya Bulavinov,
"Primore vspykhnet ot atomnykh korabley: Panatseyu ot energeticheskikh
bed nashli v Kapusta," Kommersant Daily, 20 September 1997. {Entered
8/10/98 HA} 8/11/97: RADIOACTIVE CARGO LOST For more information see the 8/11/97
entry in the Pacific Fleet
General Developments section.
8/23/96: FLOATING NPP CONSTRUCTION
RESUMED AFTER DELAY Vice-president of the Russian Nuclear
Society and chief of the Kurchatov Institute's international relations
department Andrey Gagarinskiy announced that construction has resumed on
the first floating NPP. Each of the two reactors have a capacity of 35-50
MW, providing the NPP with a total capacity of up to 100 MW. The plant,
which will be stationed in Pevek, Chukotka Peninsula, is being built at
the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg. Also participating in the project
are St. Petersburg's Aysberg Central Design Bureau, which designs nuclear
icebreakers, Minatom's Nizhniy Novgorod Experimental Design
Bureau, the
Kaluga turbine plant, and St. Petersburg's Avrora Science and Production
Association. [For more information on floating reactor plans, see the
06/11/1996 entry and additional entries below in this
section.] Sources: [1]"Pervaya v mire plavayushchaya atomnaya
stantsiya Rossii," Omskaya pravda, 23 August 1996, p. 3. [2] Boris Papkovskiy, "Plavuchiye AES
pomogut Kraynemu Severu," Finansovyye izvestiya, 5 November 1996,
p. VI. {Entered 11/26/96 LBN} 6/11/96: DESIGNS FOR FLOATING NPPs
COMPLETE The technical design stage of Russian
floating nuclear reactors is now complete, said officials at the Kurchatov
Institute. Design materials will be submitted for licensing by the end
of 1996, and construction of the lead plant will begin thereafter, lasting
approximately four to six years. The lead plant will operate at Pevek,
Chukotka peninsula. Plans are to build 15 such plants, each with an estimated
operating lifetime of 40 years. Operation of each plant would be interrupted
once every 13 years for maintenance and refueling, which is estimated to
take 1 year and would be performed in Murmansk. Each plant would cost $
250 million to build. The first stage of the project is being funded by
Rosenergoatom. Negotiations with regard to possible export sales are underway
with China, Indonesia and the Philippines. [For more information on floating
reactor plans, see the 06/06/1996 entry below in this
section.] [Chris Lewis, "Floating N-Plants: Breaking
New Ground in Russia's Frozen North," Nucnet News Agency, 11 June 1996.] 6/6/96: RUSSIA PLANS TO BUILD 15
FLOATING NPPS IN FAR EAST Russia is planning to build up to 15
floating low capacity nuclear power plants (ASMMs) in the Far East to compensate
for the energy shortage. The plants would be based on floating power units
with KLT-40 type reactors. Rosenergoprom placed an order with Malaya Energetika
production association for the first reactor, which should be operational
by the year 2001 near the town Pevek in Chukotka. The service life of such
a plant is 40 years. Every 13 years it must undergo maintenance repairs
and refueling. The cost of a floating nuclear power plant is $254 million.
Rosenergoatom is responsible for 55 percent of entire cost, the rest of
funding will be furnished through loans. In the estimate of the project
Minatom provided for an additional comprehensive evaluation which will
determine shortcomings of reactors and of its fuel cycle. Preliminary assessment
indicates that the project may prove to be very radioactively hazardous.
Sources: [1]"Mnozhestvo voprosov po povodu 'malogo'
atoma," Segodnya, 6 June 1996, p. 9 [2]"Po reke plyvet AES," Segodnya,
6 June 1996, p. 9.
Page last updated 7 June 2004.
This file is no longer being updated.
Please see the General Naval Developments
file for more recent developments.
Comments or questions? E-mail Cristina Chuen: cristina.chuenATmiis.edu.
This file is no longer
being updated. For more recent developments, please see the
