海の豊かさを守る
3.3無料/安全性と... | 3.5汚染堆積物... >
3.4放射性汚染
3.4.1脅威
ノルウェー海域での放射能の汚染レベルは現在の状況とそれ以前の放出の両方の影響を受けている。
流入のほとんどは、1950年代と60年代、1986年のチェルノブイリ事故や使用済み核燃料のための再処理工場からの排出と核実験に由来する。
加えて、様々な天然由来の放射性物質は、油田開発や採掘の結果として、ノルウェー領海へのルートに至った。
実際の汚染レベルと同じくらい重要で広範囲にわたる放出と ノルウェー区域の汚染につながる可能性がある。
原子力船舶や潜水艦、放射性物質の海上輸送もノルウェーの海域での放射能汚染の危険性の要因だが、放出の最も深刻なリスクは、ノルウェーの目の前の地域における原子力施設や廃棄物の備蓄に関連付けられる。
セラフィールドの原子力再処理工場は、今日のノルウェー海域に影響を与える放出の最も重要な情報源です。
施設で貯蔵された大量の 液体及び固体の放射性廃棄物、また漏洩物などが 巨大な潜在力危機を表しています。
セラフィールドから排出されている放射性物質のほとんどはノルウェーの経済に影響を及ぼすテクネチウム99のです。
これらの放出は、90年代半ばには急激に上昇したこれらは、北海の海流に従い、ノルウェーの海岸に沿って引き寄せられる。
放出はスバールバル諸島の西海岸に沿ってバレンツ海で測定されています。
ノルウェーの海岸に沿って。貝や海藻などの海洋生物の海水中のテクネチウムのレベルは1996年以降急激に増加している。
英国当局は、2006年までは現在のレベルでの放出を継続する予定で、ノルウェーの海岸に沿ってテクネチウムレベルのさらなる上昇の可能性は無視できない。
ノルウェーの海域でのテクネチウムレベルは90年代半ば以来、増加しているが彼らはまだ非常に低レベルであり 環境または健康のための即時の危険を表すものではないという。
しかし、海洋生物のこれらの蓄積レベル上昇の傾向は時間によって一定ではありません。
原子力施設に向け、事故やテロ行為の結果としての主要な放出の危険性は、通常の放出よりも健康と環境へのより深刻な脅威を表すと考えられている。
近年の主な焦点は、原子力発電所、廃棄物の備蓄と旧ソ連、特にコラ半島の退役、原子力船に関連したリスクとされている。
9月11日のイベントは、昨年に続いて、セラフィールドでの再処理工場からの液体、高レベル放射性廃棄物の備蓄は、おそらく大きな脅威を表していることが明らかになった。
2000年12月に容器 "グリーンオーレ"の沈没後ハウゲスン近く Bleivikaでビルジポンプの職場での油流出に対処するため図3.7ノルウェー汚染管理局の緊急サービス。
写真：Statens Foruensningstilsyn（ノルウェー汚染管理局）
核廃棄物のセラフィールドの選択的出荷によりノルウェー沖の海域を通じて放出するようなことも懸念の主要な源である。
このような出荷はロシアへの使用済み核燃料の輸入に関連して、北東航路を経由し、西ヨーロッパで日本かの再処理工場に核燃料を出荷する計画の結果として発生する可能性があります。
ヨーロッパと日本の間のこれらの出荷台数は、今日南ルートをたどると、ルート上の沿岸諸国から激しい抗議をもたらしました。
これはおそらく 現在、代替手段 出荷ルートを検討しているという理由です。
現在 ロシアへの使用済燃料の輸入については、ノルウェーの領海を経由して西から海路で輸送されるかどうかは不明である。
西欧諸国からの使用済み核燃料のロシアの輸入は巨大な政治的論争を生成し、それが起こったことで少しの可能性あります。
旧ソ連諸国やアジア諸国からの陸上輸送は、より選択肢が高いと考えられている。
海の核燃料の輸送および高レベル放射性廃棄物は放射能の危険性を大量に含んでいます。
そこにこのような輸送のためにもかかわらず、厳格な安全要件があり、事故が発生した場合の主要な排出の危険性は、おそらく小さい。
これは、放射性物質が固体の形で存在し、極端なストレスに耐えられる特別な安全性容器に充填されているという事実にリンクされています。
事実このタイプの海上輸送がされている間、20年間全く事故は発生していません。
それにもかかわらず、沈没船や事故のリスクは依然として存在している。
しかしそれとは関係なく、汚染の実際のリスク、ノルウェーの海岸に沿って核物質の輸送は依然として海洋汚染と魚介類の沿岸地域や消費者の不確実性への恐怖を生成する要因となっています。
ノルウェー海域における放射能汚染のレベルが低く、環境や健康への危険性を表していない場合でも、すぐに削減を達成することが非常に重要です。
小さくは 長期的な影響については知られており放出がノルウェー シーフードのマーケティングのための潜在的な問題を構成している。
海の魚や他の製品の世界市場は、実際の放射能汚染と同じ位 噂に非常に敏感です。
消費者はまた、ますます≪きれい≫食品に注目しています。海の放射能汚染は、したがって、非常に望ましくな 重要なノルウェーの利害と反する。
図3.8にマップはセシウムが海流によってセラフィールドから運ばれている方法を示しています。
続くルートはテクネチウムが流れるものと同じである。
マップはまた、それはセラフィールドの施設から排出された後、それがさまざまな領域に到達するセシウムの到達時間を示しています。
ソース北極モニタリングとアセスメントプログラム
海洋環境の深刻な汚染を引き起こす可能性がノルウェーに隣接した地域では原子力施設で事故やテロ攻撃に起因する可能性の主要排出に関連する主な関心事は、大気中の放射性降下物や土地に公衆の健康と環境に対する影響である。
国際的な文脈ではノルウェーでは海洋環境への放射性物質の排出の削減のためにノルウェーの領域を汚す可能性が原子力事故の危険性を制限するための法的措置を後押している。
3.4.2対策
政府が意図：
テクネチウム-99の放出が最終的に停止するまで英国当局への圧力を維持する。
核問題に関する行動計画に関連しての努力を継続する
放射性物質の輸送に優れた国際協定や法律のために後押してください
ノルウェー海域で放射能汚染の監視をステップアップするためにの応援で
全国のソースから放射能汚染を防ぐことができます。
セラフィールドの場合について英国当局への圧力
政府は2006年までテクネチウム99の放出を継続する環境省の決定で部門を改訂することを説得しようとして英国政府に相当な圧力をかけてきた。
放出が停止されるまで、この圧力は継続します。
政府はまた、ノルウェーが国際条約の条件の下で英国に対して訴訟を提起するために持っている範囲の評価を行っています。
政府は、この点で、アイルランドと連絡をしています。
アイルランドは、セラフィールドに関して両国の海洋法とOSPAR条約に関する条約の条項の下でイギリスを訴えました。
政府はまた、セラフィールドケースに関して英国に対してアドバイスと北欧的圧力を環境大臣間の協力を継続して使用する予定です。
また、政府はOSPAR条約と英国当局に政治的圧力をを継続するために、放射性汚染に関する国際協定の武器を強化するために他の関連フォーラムの枠組みの中で北海協力と協力の使用を作ることになります。
北西ロシアの原子力施設の安全のための行動計画
ノルウェーは、原子力の安全性を向上させ、核問題に関する行動計画を経由してロシアや中央ヨーロッパの国からの放射能汚染の危険性を減少させる上での作業に貢献しています。
プロジェクトは、このような放射性廃棄物の管理が退役原子力潜水艦とコラ半島、サンクトペテルブルク、リトアニアの原子力発電所の安全性の向上の廃棄を起点として行動懸念科目の計画にリンクされています。
ムルマンスク中の液体放射性廃棄物のために処理プラントの近代化と拡張子を伴うプロジェクトが2001年6月に完了しました。
このプロジェクトは、それがロシアが海で放射性廃棄物、（すべてのタイプの）投棄上のロンドン条約の禁止に固執するために作るでしょう。
行動計画はまた、ロシアの環境保護と放射線防護当局を支援するために設計されたプロジェクトが含まれます。
政府は、原子力施設と放射性廃棄物管理の安全性に特に重点を置いて、核問題に関する行動計画のコンテキストで作業を継続する予定で、核燃料を費やした。
Report No. 12 (2001-2002) to the Storting
Protecting the Riches of the Seas
3.4 Radioactive pollution
3.4.1 The threats
The levels of radioactive pollution in Norwegian waters are influenced both by present-day activities and by earlier discharges. Most of the input stems from nuclear testing in the nineteen fifties and sixties, the Chernobyl accident in 1986 and discharges from reprocessing plants for spent nuclear fuel. In addition, various naturally occurring radioactive substances have found their way into Norwegian waters as a result of petroleum exploitation activities and mining.
Just as important as the actual level of pollution is the risk of accidents, which could lead to extensive discharges and pollution of Norwegian areas. The most serious risk of discharges is associated with nuclear installations and stockpiles of waste in areas on Norway’s doorstep, although nuclear-powered vessels and transport by sea of radioactive materials also represent a risk of radioactive pollution in Norwegian waters. The nuclear reprocessing plant in Sellafield is the most important source of discharges affecting Norwegian waters today. The large quantities of liquid, radioactive waste stored at the facility, also represent huge potential for leaks.
Of the different radioactive substances being discharged from Sellafield it is the discharges of technetium-99, which affect Norwegian interests most. These discharges rose sharply in the mid-nineties; they follow the marine currents in the North Sea and are swept up along the Norwegian coast. The discharges are measured along the West Coast of Svalbard and in the Barents Sea. The levels of technetium in seawater along the Norwegian coast and in marine organisms such as shellfish and sea weed have increased sharply since 1996. The British authorities plan to continue the discharges at the present level up until 2006 and the possibility of further rises in technetium levels along the coast of Norway cannot be excluded.
Even if technetium levels in Norwegian waters have increased many-fold since the mid-nineties, they are still very low and do not represent an immediate danger for the environment or health. However, no one is certain what the trends in these levels in marine organisms are likely to be over time.
The danger of major discharges as a result of accidents or terrorist acts directed towards nuclear installations is thought to represent a more serious threat to health and the environment than regular discharges. The main focus in recent years has been on the risk associated with nuclear power plants, stockpiles of waste and decommissioned, nuclear-powered vessels in the former Soviet Union and in the Kola Peninsula in particular. Following the events of 11 September last year it has become clear that the stockpiles of liquid, highly radioactive waste from the reprocessing plant at Sellafield probably represent a greater threat.
Figure 3.7 The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority’s emergency services for combating oil spills at work with bilge pumps in Bleivika near Haugesund after the sinking of the vessel “Green Ålesund” in December 2000.
Photo: Statens Foruensningstilsyn (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)
Like the discharges from Sellafield possible shipments of nuclear waste through waters off the Norwegian coast is also a major source of concern. Such shipments may occur in connection with the import of spent nuclear fuel to Russia and as a result of plans to ship nuclear fuel from Japan to reprocessing plants in Western Europe via the Northeast Passage. These shipments between Europe and Japan today follow the southerly routes and have given rise to vehement protests from coastal states along the way. This is probably the main reason why those involved are now considering an alternative shipping route. With regard to import of spent fuel into Russia, it is for the moment unclear whether this will be transported by sea from the west via Norwegian waters. Russian imports of spent nuclear fuel from western European countries will generate huge political controversy and there is therefore little probability of it happening. Overland transport from former Soviet republics and Asian countries is thought to be more likely.
Shipments of nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste by sea contain large amounts of radioactivity. There are nevertheless strict safety requirements for such transports and the danger of major discharges in the event of an accident is probably small. This is linked to the fact that the radioactive material is present in solid form and packed in special safety containers capable of standing up to extreme stresses. Over the 20 years during which this type of freight has been transported by sea no accidents have occurred. Nevertheless, the risk of shipwrecks and accidents is still present. But, regardless of the actual risk of pollution, transport of nuclear materials along the Norwegian coast will still be capable of generating fear of marine pollution and uncertainty in coastal communities and consumers of seafood.
Even if the levels of radioactive pollution in the Norwegian maritime areas are low and do not represent any danger to the environment or health, it is still very important to achieve reductions soon. Little is known about the long-term effects and the discharges constitute a potential problem for the marketing of Norwegian seafood. The world market for fish and other products of the sea is extremely sensitive to real radioactive pollution and rumours of the same. Consumers are also increasingly focusing on «clean» food. Radioactive pollution of the sea is therefore highly undesirable and in conflict with vital Norwegian interests.
Figure 3.8 The map shows how caesium is carried from Sellafield by ocean currents. The route followed is the same as that followed by technetium. The map also shows how long it takes the caesium to reach the different areas once it has been discharged from the Sellafield facility.
Source Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
The main concern relating to possible major discharges resulting from an accident or terrorist attack on nuclear installations in areas adjacent to Norway is atmospheric fallout and the consequences for public health and the environment on land, although this could also cause serious pollution of the marine environment.
In the international context Norway is pressing for reductions in discharges of radioactive materials into the marine environment and for measures to limit the danger of nuclear accidents, which could pollute Norwegian areas.
3.4.2 Measures
The Government intends:
to maintain the pressure on the British authorities until the discharges of technetium-99 are finally stopped;
to continue efforts in relation to the plan of action on nuclear issues;
to press for better international agreements and legislation on the transport of radioactive materials;
to step up monitoring of radioactive pollution in Norwegian waters; and
to prevent radioactive pollution from national sources.
Pressure on the British authorities regarding the Sellafield case
The Government has put considerable pressure on the British Government in an attempt to persuade it to revise the Department of the Environment’s decision to continue discharges of technetium-99 up until 2006. This pressure will continue until the discharges are stopped. The Government is also making an assessment of the scope Norway has for instituting proceedings against the British under the terms of international conventions. The Government has been in touch with Ireland in this regard. Ireland has sued the United Kingdom over the Sellafield case both under the terms of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the OSPAR Convention. The Government also intends to continue to use the co-operation between the Nordic Environment Ministers to co-ordinate Nordic pressure on the British over the Sellafield case. In addition, the Government will be making use of the North Sea co-operation and co-operation within the framework of the OSPAR Convention and other relevant fora to put political pressure on the British authorities and to strengthen the arsenal of international agreements on radioactive pollution.
Plan of action for safety at nuclear installations in Northwest Russia
Norway contributes to the work on improving nuclear safety and reducing the danger of radioactive pollution from Russia and the countries of Central Europe via the plan of action on nuclear issues. Projects linked to the plan of action concern subjects such as management of radioactive waste originating from the scrapping of decommissioned nuclear submarines and improvement of safety at nuclear power plants in the Kola Peninsula, St Petersburg and Lithuania. A project entailing the modernisation and extension of a treatment plant for liquid radioactive waste in Murmansk was completed in June 2001. This project will make it possible for Russia to adhere to the London Convention ban on dumping of all types of radioactive waste at sea. The plan of action also involves projects designed to help the Russian environment protection and radiation protection authorities. The Government intends to continue the work in the context of the plan of action on nuclear issues with particular emphasis on safety at nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
Preventing discharges from sea transports of nuclear waste
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea puts obstacles in the way of national legislation designed to stop shipping in its economic area, even if this involves the transport of substances hazardous to the environment. In addition to political and diplomatic efforts to avoid such transports being routed through Norwegian waters, the Government therefore aims to strengthen international agreements and legislation of relevance to the safety of such shipments, while also improving safety in shipping channels and national contingency plans. Norway has raised the question introducing international requirements on early warning and liability to pay compensation in connection with the transport of nuclear materials with the UN Commission for Sustainable Development and the general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Government is also planning to raise the issue at the North Sea Conference in March 2002. It further intends to raise the matter of extending early warning agreements to cover the transport of crude oil and nuclear waste with Russia.
As to measures designed to improve safety at sea and contingency arrangements along the coast readers are referred to Chapter 3.3. A series of measures in this areas will help improve safety, if the transport of nuclear waste through Norwegian waters becomes a reality.
Monitoring and documentation of pollution
An extensive monitoring programme has been established under the auspices of the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority to document trends in radioactive pollution in Norwegian waters. The maritime component of the programme is being implemented in close collaboration between the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority and the Institute of Marine Research. This monitoring is important for the purpose of being able to document trends in levels of pollution and identify sources of radioactive pollution of Norwegian areas. The monitoring also provides basic data for assessment of the possible significance of the pollutants for health and the environment. Having constantly updated and credible documentation on pollution levels is essential when it comes to preventing the circulation of unfounded rumours and speculation which leads to reactions on the markets for fish and other seafood. The monitoring programme is under constant review and is due for further improvements.
Figure 3.9 A sill fjord with sources of pollution for sediments. In fjords with submarine sills and thus a slow rate of water exchange discharges of ecotoxins will be retained and remain for a long time to come. Many of Norway’s fjords fall into this category and this is something that makes pollution of sediments a particular problem for Norway.
The Directorate of Fisheries’ Food Institute conducts constant analyses of the presence of alien substances in seafood, including radioactive substances. The results of these analyses are entered in the institute’s environment database. The number of species of fish and other seafood and the parameters covered by the analyses is being constantly increased. Documentation on the presence of xenobiotic substances in seafood is an important area for the fisheries sector and a priority issue for the fisheries administration. Seafood must be safe food. Over the past few years the institute has therefore injected substantial funds into increasing analytical capacity and improve competence in this field.
National sources
The programme for monitoring radioactive pollution is also designed to identify national sources; e.g. discharges from research reactors, isotope production and hospitals. As already explained in Chapter 3.2 produced water discharged from petroleum exploitation activities also contains some radioactive substances (radium) which occur naturally. These discharges have not been charted sufficiently well on the Norwegian continental shelf. The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority has said that there is no reason to believe that naturally occurring radioactivity in produced water represents any significant danger for health and the environment. Even so, this remains a problem and serves to confirm the need to develop new technology to reduce total discharges of produced water from the Norwegian sector of the continental shelf. Oil production also generates deposits in pipes and other equipment, which can contain naturally occurring radionuclides in concentrations, which cause the deposits to be classified as low-radioactive scale. Until a permanent disposal solution is found between 200 and 300 tons of such waste is safely but provisionally stored in oil terminals along the coast of Norway. The Government is, however, anxious to find a viable means of permanent storage for this waste on land.
Priority given to work on developing criteria for the protection of the environment from radioactive pollution
Up to now, criteria for what are acceptable levels of radioactive pollution have been unilaterally focused on preventing damage to public health. It has been assumed that this indirectly would provide sufficient protection for other parts of the ecosystems. However, in recent years there has been a growing international awareness of the fact that it is wrong to make this assumption. A number of international bodies have therefore taken the initiative in drawing up criteria for the protection of the environment from radioactive pollution. These criteria will form an important basis for an ecosystem-based approach to radioactive pollution of the marine environment. The Norwegian authorities are a driving force in this work.