RESEARCH PAPER NNME: X27
RESEARCH PAPER MNEMONIC: XNUKE
RESEARCH PAPER NAME: Nuclear Energy & Transnational Issues
DRAFT AUTHOR: Eric Pratt
I. AbstractThis analysis paper compares ten different trade and environment cases that are related to the use of nuclear energy. Each case, in some manner, shows how the use of nuclear energy has had an adverse affect on the environment. The ten cases can be broken down into four categories: nuclear waste dumping, nuclear accidents, nuclear plant development, and loose nuclear material. Unfortunately, an entire region can be damaged from the waste of one plant or accident. In order to cut down on these problems in the future, the countries in Eastern Europe and Russia must make a commitment to improve their reactor designs and reduce their amount of pollution form their plants. Furthermore, the United States and the European Union should assist this transition with economic aid and safer nuclear technology.
II. Issue BackgroundThe issue in this analysis is nuclear energy, and its affect on the environment. Many industrialized countries depend on nuclear energy for large amounts of electricity. Nuclear reactors are a popular source of energy for many governments because it allows countries that do not have large amounts of natural resources to be energy self-sufficient. Nuclear energy has become a large profitable industry. The sale of electricity, technology, and the storage of waste all produce revenues for public and private firms. Nuclear energy is also used to produce material for nuclear weapons and to power submarines. For these reasons nuclear reactors can be found all over the globe. Although nuclear energy has many benefits the damage it inflicts on the environment has called into question whether it can be used safely.
III. Relevant TED CasesThe following ten cases have been chosen to demonstrate the negative affects nuclear energy has on the environment. These cases deal with a variety of different issues. Several of them deal with the dumping of waste into the world's oceans and the subsequent affect on fish and plant life. Others deal with accidents or how the threat of accidents can influence decisions on future development of nuclear reactors. One issue is constant in all ten cases. Environmental degradation knows no borders. One country's accident or dumping quickly becomes the problem of its neighbors.
This particular problem is dealt with in five of the TED cases below. Three of them, Sella, Japansea, and Arctic, demonstrate how nuclear waste from one country can damage the surrounding environment in neighboring states. The cases Chernob and Komso both deal with Soviet nuclear accidents in the 1980s, and how they have hurt plants, animals, and natural resources in the region.
These problems have incite d controversy concerning the development of nuclear plants in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and India. All of the plants rely, in part, on Soviet technology. However, since the Chernobyl accident, questions of reliability have been raised about Soviet nuclear technology. Fear of a major accident at one of these plants has brought opposition from adjacent countries. Furthermore, the Nukesmug and Estonia cases analyze the security and environmental problems involved with loose nuclear material being transferred across state borders.
Sellafield Nuclear Plant is located on the Northwest coast of the Irish Sea in England. It is a government owned facility that produces about one-fourth of the United Kingdom's energy. Nuclear waste from this facility has turned the Irish Sea into one of the most radioactive bodies of water in the world. This pollution threatens the health of the British people as well as inhabitants of Ireland located across the Irish Sea. This is a controversial issue because of the environmental degradation to the Irish Sea. This raises the question of how one country can protect itself environmentally against invading pollution from a neighboring state.
Since 1952, Sellafield has been spewing waste into the Irish Sea. This sea is now considered one, or possibly the most radioactive body of water in the world. Fish shellfish, and seaplants in the Irish Sea contain large amounts of radiation. This is an environmental problem as well as a trade problem. The problems and potential dangers of current radioactive waste in the Irish Sea is a particularly sore subject for the Irish Government because its citizens do not receive benefits of the Sellafield Nuclear Plant but they do incur environmental costs. Another concern that haunts the Irish is the possibility of a failure or meltdown at Sellafield. The results of such an event would be catastrophic for the British and Irish.
The former Soviet Union and, now Russia, have reportedly dumped radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan since 1950s. A report of an environmental group, Greenpeace, first revealed the surprising fact in February 1993, and Russian authorities admitted it the following month.1 Even then, the Russian navy audaciously dumped 900 tons of low level liquid nuclear waste directly in the Sea of Japan in October, 1993.2 In the face of strong resentment in Japan, the United States and other countries, the Russian government reluctantly announced that it would suspend the dumping. Since the Sea of Japan is a fertile fishing ground for surrounding countries such as, South Korea, North Korea, Japan and Russia itself, it is feared that fish and sea plants may be contaminated by those radioactive materials. Moreover, there may be possibility that such dangerous substances spread out of the Sea of Japan. In such a case, countries facing the Pacific Ocean might be threatened by the radioactive contamination through sea foods.
It is believed that "the former Soviet Union dumped as many as 17,000 containers of solid and liquid nuclear waste into these waters [Barents Sea and Kara Sea] between 1964-86, almost all of it at depths of less than 300 m."6 Thus Soviet/Russia's dumpings were not confined to far east area. The Arctic area is as much threatened by nuclear wastes as the Sea of Japan. The most immediate concern of disposal of nuclear waste at sea is the effect of radiation on the edible fish. Fish and sea plants which inhabit the area might be contaminated by the waste. The Sea of Japan is abundant in fish resources because a warm and a cold current meet there. For example, squid is very popular sea food in Japan, and much of squids consumed in Japan are caught in the Sea of Japan. If the area is really contaminated by radioactive wastes, not only the fishery industry but also consumers in general will inflict damages.10 Fishing is generally an important industry for countries surrounding the Sea of Japan.
Dumping of highly radioactive wastes at sea has been banned worldwide for more than three decades, still it has been revealed that Russia (the former Soviet Union) has been dumping highly radioactive materials in the Arctic Sea (more precisely the Barents Kara Seas) since the late 1950s. This act has international implications, especially in view of Russia's relations to the Scandinavian countries (in particular Norway), as rich fishing grounds could be threatened. The Norwegian Prime Minister said the dumping represents a "security risk to people and to the natural biology of northern waters", and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Johan Jorgen Holst stated that Russian pollution was "the biggest security problem Norway faces." Today scientists are trying to assess what possible damage the dumping might have done to the fragile environment of the Arctic region.
The dangers of nuclear waste dumping come mostly from the threat that it poses to marine life. A poisoning of the Arctic Ocean and the Sea of Japan would have enormous economic, social and environmental costs not only to Russia, but Japan and the Scandinavian countries as well. Many of these countries depend on fish harvested from these regions to feed their own populace and to export. While Russia acknowledges that dumping nuclear waste into the ocean could be harmful Moscow has warned the international community that it has run out of places to store the waste on land and if financial aid is not forthcoming Russia will have no choice but to resume dumping it into the sea. This has stained Moscow's relationship with Japan, the Scandanavian countries, and others, who feel that it's not that Russia does not have the resources to devote to the problem but rather it's a matter of priorities. They want these priorities changed.
In the early morning of April 26, 1986, workers at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, located twenty miles north of Chernobyl, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., began shutting down safety and cooling systems in order to run a turbine experiment to test an emergency turbine shutdown scenario. The shutdown of these systems inadvertently caused the reactor of the plant to overheat, resulting in an explosion which tore the roof completely off of the plant's reactor four. The explosion ignited fires in various parts of the plant and sent a huge radioactive cloud into the atmosphere. This radioactive cloud drifted over much of Europe, dumping large amounts of radioactive nuclides onto the Ukraine and most European countries. The Chernobyl explosion quickly became the worst nuclear power accident in history. The immediate effect of the blast was 31 dead from radiation poisoning, with a still unknown number of deaths that may be caused by long-term radiation sickness. The accident also caused unquantifiable economic losses for the U.S.S.R. and Europe, and weakened both the Soviet government and the global nuclear power industry.
The international implications of the disaster were severe for both the Soviet Union and Europe. For the Soviets, the disaster represented a major embarrassment for a regime that was not only in the throes of a struggle with the United States, but that had only recently began a much publicized campaign of perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness). The disaster also had the effect of closing down future construction of nuclear reactors in the Soviet Union. For Europe, both Eastern and Western, the Chernobyl catastrophe had two results. First, the catastrophe had the effect of causing wide-spread agricultural loss in a wide variety of countries, up to two years after the explosion. A wide variety of agricultural crops and grazing animals, were found to have absorbed large amounts of contaminants (through rain water or grazing in affected areas), and deemed unsuitable for human consumption. Chernobyl also had the effect of stopping, at least temporarily, the construction of nuclear power plants in many European countries (although many chose to resume construction, years after Chernobyl, of plants that had been abandoned after the accident).
On 7 April, 1989, after thirty-nine days at sea, the Soviet nuclear sub Komsomolets sank in the Barents Sea off the coast of Norway. Forty-two officers in the Soviet navy perished, while most of the officers who did survive escaped with serious injuries. The Komsomolets was unique among submarines in the Soviet navy. It was a 6400 ton forerunner of a new class of nuclear submarines. The Komsomolets also had capabilities beyond those of American submarines. It was able to dive deeper than its predecessors and the advanced nuclear reactor propelled it to speeds faster than any other submarine. It was made of titanium, a stronger metal than conventional materials, but also more expensive. On 7 April, however, none of the supposedly superior aspects of the submarine prevented it from disaster. When fire broke out in the stern of the ship, it quickly spread to other compartments. After surfacing, the intense pressure from the fire was too much for the titanium hull as high pressured oxygen ruptured the hull. The ship sank to the bottom of the sea bed, 1700 meters below the surface. In the ensuing months, specialists initially concluded that the wreck posed little threat to the surrounding ecosystem. But as the years passed evidence of potential environmental damage mounted, pushing officials to announce structural deficiencies in the wreck, and the possibility of plutonium leakage into the sea by 1995. The potential damage to the local ecosystem is enormous and irrevocable. It is one of the richest fishing areas in the world; trade in fisheries, valued at billions of dollars annually, is in jeopardy.
The effects of the Komsomolets accident go beyond ecological consequences. There are trade repercussions also. Several European nations fish in the region very close to the exact location where the wreck is submerged. Ecological consequences threaten billions of dollars in revenue from sales of fish to Russia and Europe. There has already been a decrease of fishing in the area, due to minor contamination levels and the perceived threat of future, more extensive, contamination. Once the encasing operation is completed, fishing operations should return to the area in a relatively short period of time. Russia has since been heavily criticized, not so much for the accident itself (accidents of this sort do happen), but because it could have been prevented and more should have been done to rectify the situation. Nevertheless, efforts to quash the potential ecological side- effects are proceeding. It remains to be seen, however, whether or not such efforts will be successful.
Two Soviet designed nuclear reactors in Temelin, the Czech Republic, are to be completed and renovated by I & C Energo,a joint venture consisting of Westinghouse Electrical Co. of Pittsburgh, Ceske Energeticke Zavody (CEZ), the Czech state utility, and CME, a private Czech concern. The funding for the Temelin project will be guaranteed by a loan of $317 million by the U.S. Export Import Bank (ExIm). The project has not only been approved by the ExIm, but has been endorsed by the National Security Council, the U.S. Regulatory Commission and the Clinton Administration. The Temelin reactors would generate 2000 Megawatts of electricity, of which a quarter would be available for export to Western Europe.
The opponents to the power stations are numerous and include individuals and groups from the Czech Republic, the U.S. and Austria, and the Austrian government. Although the deal includes the incorporation of Western nuclear safety measures, opponents are skeptical of any nuclear power plants primarily based on Soviet technology. The Temelin project has aroused concern primarily because it will be an untried combination of old Soviet technology and new Western technology and because of its proximity to other countries. Situated only 100 km from the Austrian border, nuclear fallout stemming from the Temelin reactors would have devastating transboundary effects.
The completion and refurbishment of the nuclear reactor at Mochovce in Slovakia is a case study of a Western response to the problem which did not meet expectations. A serious debate sprang up in Slovakia, Austria, and the European Union around conditions attached to a loan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to complete the plant. Environmental groups, especially in Austria, maintained that the completion of Mochovce as a reactor represented a serious threat to the local environment, in the form of gradual degradation or perhaps a catastrophe such as occurred at Chernobyl. The Slovaks maintained that the offer's conditions, which included certain safety regulations, were unacceptable, and thus turned the offer down in lieu of a Czech/Russian offer to finance completion of the project. There was considerable debate about whether completion by the EBRD would have met Western safety regulations, and the new Czech/Russian contract seems even less likely to respect safety standards.
Two factors motivate the Slovak government to complete Mochovce: the opportunity for energy self-sufficiency and the potential to boost foreign exchange reserves from electricity exports. However, the reactors at Mochovce are VVER 440s, of Soviet design. Numerous safety issues relating to this particular design have been identified and numerous plant systems are of questionable reliability: Reactor pressure vessel integrity is substandard, shut-down systems and accident localization systems are unreliable, backup systems lack redundancy and protection; in the event of a severe breakdown, safety systems are likely to fail.
Russian/Soviet history is cluttered with nuclear accidents and mismanagement that have thrown dozens of eco-systems into turmoil and threatened thousands--if not millions--of human lives. In December, 1994, Russia signed an agreement with India to build a 2,000 Megawatt nuclear power plant in Kudankulam, India. This agreement may have been the first in a series of attempts by Russia to mobilize its long experience with nuclear technology for the promotion of its post-Cold War economic recovery. If Russia pursues the economic benefits of nuclear trade by importing nuclear waste for storage and the exportation of its nuclear technology-- and along with it a history of dubious safety practices-- environmental disasters will not only continue in Russia but will occur in other countries as well.
It is evident that the disastrous nuclear policies of the Soviet Union have created a culture and pattern which today's Russia seems unwilling to disavow. Unsafe waste management procedures do not seem to have been replaced with modern safety formulas. The military continues to conduct nuclear operations unchecked and the Russian government is lack-luster in its efforts to assert environmental legislation. Economic urgency and a significant international demand for nuclear technology and waste storage have set Russia's course. The speed at which Russia mobilizes to accommodate this demand, in light of its historical inability to plan and manage nuclear power facilities and waste suggest that countries that contract Russia for such services may expose themselves to the legacy of Russia's nuclear carelessness
A Soviet era Nuclear Submarine training facility at Paldiski, Estonia has been storing nuclear waste at a sight in Saku, Estonia; which has been the raiding ground for illegal metals traders. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, maintenance and security at the Saku storage facility has deteriorated. Access to the 72 Hectare site is virtually unimpeded, and several highly radioactive materials, that have been found in Estonia, Sweden and Finland, have been traced back to Saku. This situation is only one example of several like sites which present a threat of nuclear contamination to the region and possibly the world, depending on the range of dissemination of the materials.
During 1994, several bars of Cesium 137- with radioactivity up to 200 roentgens per hour- were found in Estonia, Sweden and Finland. Many of these contaminants were traced back directly to the Saku facility. The largest issue regarding the Saku site is its blatant lack of security, both, on the periphery; and, within the containers themselves. The problems at Saku and Paldiski have caused Sweden and Finland to take notice and lend a hand in the clean up of both facilities. This case demonstrates how countries within a region should work together in order to protect their environment.
Since the end of the Cold War, a new nuclear weapons black market has sprung up in Moscow, Germany, and many other European countries. The growing black market, known to national security experts as the 'loose nukes' problem, has grown at such an alarming rates that it seems that just about any one can buy uranium, plutonium, and other weapons grade material on the street. U.S. allies, recognized nuclear states, and non-nuclear powers alike worry about the possible consequences of loose nukes: terrorist organizations like the Russian Mafia and the antifada becoming nuclear powers or the likelihood that some of this dangerous material being transferred to rogue states like Iran, Iraq, or North Korea. Even if the uranium and plutonium are not used to build nuclear technology, these materials are radioactive and therefore intrinsically dangerous to any one who comes in contact with them, particularly the smugglers themselves.
The table below compares the cases with regard to the product, industry, measure, and continent. The product category describes what products are involved in each case. For example, in the Komso case, due to radiation in the Barrents Sea, the fish and fishing industry were adversely affected. The industry category defines what sector of the economy the product belongs. The cases that have electricity, utility, nuclear waste, or nuclear technology have utility as their industry sector. Type of measure distinguishes the trade or regulatory procedure taken to change destructive conduct. Finally, continent describes location, which is important for finding out if a specific region has a disproportionate amount of problems. In this paper, eight of the ten cases take place in Eastern Europe or Russia.
| Case | Product | Industry Sector | Measure | Continent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sella | Electricity | Utility | Regulatory Ban | Europe |
| Japansea | Nuclear Waste | Utility | Regulatory Ban | Asia |
| Arctic | Meat | Food | NAPP | Arc tic |
| Chernob | Utility | Utility | NA | |
| Komso | Fish | Fish | Regulatory Standard | Europe |
| Temelin | Utility | Utility | Regulatory Ban | Europe |
| Mocho | Electricity | Utility | Regulat ory Standard | Europe |
| Russnuke | Nuclear Technology | Utility | Export Ban | Asia |
| Estonia | Metal | Soth | NA | Eur ope |
| Nukesmug | Metal | Metal | Export Ban | Europe |
Classification - The cases can be put into four different categories.
(Sella, Japansea, Arctic) - In each of these cases the environmental problem stems from radioactive nuclear waste being dumped into oceans. The UK is the offending state in Sella and Russia in the later two. Each instance of dumping has harmed the fish and plant life in the respective bodies of water. This dumping has had an adverse affect on the fishing industries in the Irish Sea, Arctic Sea, and Sea of Japan.
(Chernob, Komso) - These two cases show the terrible consequences of nuclear accidents. The Chernobyl accident awakened the world to the absolutely horrible level of danger people and the environment face in the event of an explosion or meltdown. The repercussions of the explosion were felt all over Europe and now people all over the continent fear the prospect of another Chernobyl type accident. The Komso case shows that military uses of nuclear energy can go wrong yet still have a negative affect on the environment.
(Temelin, Mocho, Russnuke) - In each of these cases the legacy of Chernobyl looms. The reactors that are being developed in these projects are primarily based on Soviet designs. Countries neighboring the Czech Republic and Slovakia fear a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster. Opponents to these projects point to Russia's poor safety record in their use of nuclear energy. These objections are not ungrounded. Four out of the ten cases examined in this paper deal with Russian nuclear accidents or pollution. Nine out of the ten cases deal with countries that were part of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact.
(Estonia, Nukesmug) - The issue of loose nuclear weapons or material is generally considered a security issue, but the improper use of such items would have a devastating influence on the environment. Estonia and Nukesmug both stress the point that there is lack of security or monitoring of this material in the former Soviet Union. Both cases also stress that loose material poses a threat to the entire region and that countries should work together to prevent nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands.
IV. Policy ImplicationsThe choice that states must make regarding the future of nuclear energy is between economic gain and the environment. This is a choice for countries that are already developed and have alternative sources of energy. These countries have the potential to protect their environments by reducing the use of nuclear energy or by taking steps to make it safer to use. The United States and Western Europe can afford to develop safer reactors and waste treatment plants. Other areas, Eastern Europe and Russia for example, have become so dependent on nuclear energy that the environment becomes secondary. The transition to market economies in this region is still underway which makes the economy the primary focus and environmental protection harder. This is an unfortunate problem because nine out of the ten cases studied here are in Eastern Europe/Russia. Even though steps are being made to make use of Western technology in Eastern Europe, many Soviet - designed reactors still provide massive amounts of electricity to this region.
Until these countries can improve their economic situation, the environment will take a back seat to nuclear power. Only when countries have a sound economy are they able to focus on the protection of their environment. Therefore, it would be prudent for the United States and Western Europe to increase their assistance to Eastern Europe for the production of safer nuclear plants and better waste treatment systems. U.S. assistance to the Temelin project is a step in the right direction to incorporate Western technology in Eastern Europe. Yet, these plants are still dependent on Soviet technology. In the future it is important that new development of plants in the region be comparable in design and safety as those in the United States.
This responsibility does not solely rest on the United States and Western Europe. In order for change to take place, countries that want to build new plants have to be committed to safety and the protection of the environment. In the case of the Mochovce reactor in Slovakia, aid from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was turned down by the Slovakians. Instead they accepted Russian assistance to refurbish the plant which already has two Soviet reactors. Only when developed countries and developing countries work together to cut down the risk of accidents and other practices such as dumping will there be an improvement.
V. Further Information