TL: More Deadly Cold War Legacies: Ex-Soviet Nuclear Submarines SO: Joshua Handler, Greenpeace International (GP) DT: February 9, 1993 Keywords: nuclear weapons russia submarines navy reactors safety problems risks greenpeace gp / --------------------- In Western capitals and defense circles the fate of ex- Soviet nuclear weapons is a matter of much debate. Little notice, however, has been paid to another hazardous heritage of the Cold War: the large number of ex-Soviet decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. Yet a recent trip to the Russian Far East found that dozens of these submarines, once thought to be a threat to western navies, are now threatening the environment. Sitting in naval bases, one Russian naval officer describes them as "another 'hot spot' which can turn into a nuclear nightmare."[1] The background to this crisis was long in the making. Both the U.S. and Soviet navies launched their nuclear-powered fleets in the 1950s. Although the United States commissioned the first nuclear submarine in 1954, the Soviet Union consistently outbuilt its rival from the 1960s to 1980s. By 1990, the Soviet Navy had launched almost 230 nuclear submarines compared to some 170 for the United States. Many of these submarines have now reached the end of their 30-year service life. Between mid-1989 and 1993 some 80 Russian nuclear submarines were removed from service. Due to arms control treaties and continuing economic problems, almost 80 more boats will be retired by the year 2000. Most of these submarines contain two reactors, meaning approximately 300 reactors will need to be disposed of. Russian naval officers observe these submarines "were built without a thought to the future." Advanced planning done for their retirement was minimal, and as a result the numerous submarines which have been withdrawn from service have overwhelmed the Russian Navy's limited funds and capacity for processing them. Russia faces an acute problem at every step of the way from the removal of the fuel to the scrapping of the submarines to the safe disposal of the radioactive reactor vessels. For example, of the 35 submarines in the Pacific Fleet, only half have had their fuel removed, according to Captain 1st Rank Pavel Smirnov, who has responsibility for decommissioning submarines in the Pacific Fleet. The Northern Fleet is in an even worse position. The fuel has been removed from perhaps a quarter of the some 45 submarines out of commission. Of the defuelled submarines, Captain Smirnov says currently the Pacific Fleet can barely process 1.5 submarines a year. Only four submarines had been completely scrapped by 1993. He estimates it will take some 30 or 40 years to dispose of the 60 submarines the Pacific Fleet will retire by the year 2000. In the Northern Fleet the scrapping of submarines has scarcely begun. The lack of land-based storage sites has forced the Pacific Fleet to develop an provisional solution to storing the reactor vessels. At the scrapping shipyard at Bolshoi Kamen in the Far East the reactor compartment and two adjoining compartments are hermetically sealed. Then they are towed for storage at dockside at the Pavlovsk nuclear submarine base near Vladivostok. The storage afloat of the sealed reactors compartments is a lesser of two evils according to Captain Smirnov. Hermetically sealed reactor compartments are less likely to sink than a whole submarine which is perforated by dozens of holes for ballast tanks, weapons, and equipment. Also, the Pacific Fleet will save considerable sums by not having to maintain the submarines. He estimates a savings of some 4.1 billion roubles (1990 prices) from not having store afloat the 60 submarines to be decommissioned in the Pacific. At least the Pacific Fleet can see no near-term resolution to their decommissioning problem. The pace of defuelling cannot be accelerated without the special service ships needed to offload the fuel. These service ships were constructed in Ukraine at Black Sea shipyards and are no longer being delivered. [2] More shipyards cannot be enticed into the scrapping process without money. The previously close Navy-shipyard relationship has been fractured by the terrible economic conditions. Shipyards are now free to do profitable commercial work at the expense of Navy orders. Also, there are environmental considerations. Senior officials at the Komsomol'sk submarine shipyard on the Amur river and at the Dalyzavod ship repair yard in Vladivostok said possible radiation hazards would make them reluctant to work on nuclear-powered submarines. A land-based storage site could not be constructed until at least the year 2000. In addition, a transport system will have to be devised and constructed for carrying the heavy reactor vessels. All this will only occur if enough funds are provided now. In the interim the Pacific Fleet is, as Captain Smirnov has said, faced with a "sad triad -- there is no capacity for cutting up, no storage for reactor compartments, and no submarines capable of standing afloat for a long time and safely." He remains worried that decommissioned submarines in poor shape and manned by unmotivated crews may sink at dockside and cause an ecological catastrophe. The prospects for a long-term solution to this crisis are mixed. A Russian government program for decommissioning submarines was agreed upon in 1992. But there is a major lack of financing. Billions of roubles will be needed over the coming decade, according to naval officers interviewed in Moscow. Another complications is public opinion. A Chernobylized Russian population is wary of any plans involving radioactive material. The Pacific and Northern Fleet have already faced strong public opposition to their decommissioning activities. The Navy fears public protests will stymie the selection and construction of a final storage site. Interestingly, the Russia Navy may get help from an unexpected quarter, western capitalists. A New Jersey based company, Newcon Inc., wants to help the Russian Navy decommission its submarines and sell the scrap for profit. Proceeds would cover costs as well as be used to build housing for 30,000 former Soviet seaman. Other companies have also begun to look into this problem, lured by the $800 million the U.S. Congress authorized for use of dismantlement of ex-Soviet nuclear weapons and their launch platforms. The United States is well-placed to offer assistance based on its own experience. The U.S. Navy is in the middle of a $2.7 billion program to dispose of some 100 of its own nuclear submarines by the end of the decade. Russian naval officers in Moscow and the Far East were very interested in meeting their counterparts to discuss their common problems. Under the Bush Administration proposals by private businesses were reportedly ignored or blocked by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy. But, speculation in Washington is that the Clinton Administration's environmental bent and reorganized focus on aid to the former Soviet republics augers well for such assistance in the future. ======================== Author's bio: Joshua Handler is research coordinator for Greenpeace's Nuclear Free Seas Campaign. He visited Moscow and the Russian Far East in July-November 1992 to investigate Russian nuclear submarine problems. NOTES: 1. Captain 1st Rank Pavel Smirnov, Chief of the Department of Exploitation and Technical Service of Nuclear-Powered Submarines of the Technical Division of the Pacific Fleet, "Nuclear Privatization," Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 25 May 1992. 2. The Russian Navy is unique in the way spent nuclear fuel from submarine reactors is offloaded to a special service ship -- or floating workshop -- as they referred to by Russians. The service ship holds the cores from several submarine reactors. When its hold are full, the spent fuel is transferred to a land- based naval storage facility. After several more years, the fuel is shipped to Chelyabinsk in the central Ural region. =end=