461 



Greenpeace Vladivostok Report 

 6 November 1991 



docutaent swearing they would not say anything about the incident 



The chief mechanic said that a friend of his who worked on the Vityaz as well, said the 

 burial site contains nothing but the bits of fuel The other pieces of metal and highly 

 contaminated materials were dumped into a little lake next to the bay where the submarine 

 exploded. 



Locals also complain that today it is not clear what is buried in the temporary waste site in 

 the trace, the more contaminated spots in the trace are not adequately marked and/or sealed off, 

 and that despite warnings people do wander through the burial site, gathering mushrooms and 

 berries in the area. 



A 15 January 1991 letter by the Chief Radiologist of the Pacific Fleet, discussing the plans 

 to move the temporary waste site suggest local residents have reason to be concerned. He notes 

 that there is "no official data on the activity of materials" in the waste site, but that it may contain 

 radioactive waste of "group TUL,' i.e. more than 1000 milli-roentgens per hour. He said that when 

 the site's fence was reconstructed in 1989, and the area was levelled with bulldozers, the burial 

 site was opened and wastes of "group n." i.e. more than 30 milli-roentgens per hour, were 

 extracted. He wrote, that until this "interference, the exposure dose on the surface of the burial 

 site did not exceed 3.6 milli-roentgens per hour." 



In a visit to the burial site in mid-October, Greenpeace found that it is poorly fenced off, 

 and there are trails through it Levels of activity are in some places higher outside the burial site 

 than at its edge. Some hot spots 30 meters from the temporary waste site registered almost 1700 

 counts per minute on a geiger counter (approximately 1 milli-remyhour), while at boundary of the 

 site it was only as high as 900-1000 counts per minute. This compares to a background of 13 

 counts per minute in the city of Vladivostok. A small lake off Chazma Bay next to the reGt 

 facility (mentioned above as having had contaminated materials dumped in it) had counts as high 

 as 309 per minute on some parts of its shore. Local residents said children swim there in the 

 summer, although it is forbidden to do so. There are no signs marking off the lake area as 

 contaminated. 



« The Navy officers downplayed the contamination to the sea-bed during the meetings. But 

 the IS January 1991 letter says that a commission that worked during 3-10 December 1990 

 reported to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy that radioactive materials on the sea flooi near 

 dock #2, where the submarine exploded, pose the greatest "radiological danger to the 

 environment" A survey in August 1989 found the situation at 125 meters from dock #2 to be 

 "unsatisfactory." At 125 meters from the dock the level was 750 micro-roentgens an hour, and the 

 letter says, "the total activity of the bottom silt is 8.6 * 10 -7 curie/kg, is 40 times higher than the 

 background (2-3 '10-8 curie/kg).* The letter notes, "with the approach to the dock the 

 radiational situation deteriorates rapidly, which indicates the presence of highly radioactive 

 materials on the bottom." 



According to the 1 1 October 1991 report by regional military and civilian officials, 



7 



