- Alexander Dmitriyevich, can we say that starting from today, the residents of Murmansk region can give up all worries about their own radiation safety? Most of them had been particularly concerned about the submarine’s lifting from the seabed. At present, Kursk is being tugged to Roslyakovo dock and an increase in the radiation level seems unlikely.

        - The question of radiation safety has been vital ever since the Kursk salvage started, and it will continue to exist long after the submarine is raised and dismantled. The Kola peninsula has one of the world’s highest concentrations of nuclear power installations. Therefore, the concern of the Murmansk region’s residents is quite natural. Besides, our people have long been uninformed about the existence of problems like radiation safety. Therefore, their knowledge of the subject and terminology has been weak.

        As for the dangers involved in Kursk’s lifting, I think that unprofessional work of some media and journalists has played a big role in forming a negative public attitude. I hope you understand that one incorrect word is enough to turn everything upside down. As a result, a message that we tried to bring home to people was called into question.

        - What did the administration of Murmansk region do to explain what radiation safety means to people?

        We have never refused to give comments to the press, television or during personal contacts all through the period that followed the Kursk sinking. Any local resident could contact the committee for information. We have taken unprecedented steps to show secret military bases and installations to the public, including foreign journalists. This proves that we have nothing to hide. We just need more optimism and joint effort to solve the radiation safety problem in the Kola peninsula.

        - Could you tell us whether ordinary people who are particularly concerned with high radiation levels can afford to buy a radiation monitor?

        In fact, I do not see much sense in doing that. Organisations like the Public Health Committee, the Sanitary and Epidemiological Control Service and the Meteorological Committee are working professionally in this direction. But, frankly speaking, buying a radiation monitor is not a problem. For example, all Japanese nationals in the region walk with radiation monitors and measure radiation in everything they touch or breath: food, air or household appliances.

        - And still, how promptly and timely are local residents informed about the radiation background in Murmansk region?

        Despite being catastrophically short of time (the work had to be completed by the start of 2002), we have undertaken one vital step. We have launched a territorial radiological surveillance system which enables any resident or guest of the Murmansk region to check the radiation background 24 hours a day. You can get this information at web site Murman.Ru.

        - Do people trust official information?

        Unfortunately, we have great problems here. I do not know how it happened but local residents show great mistrust of official comments. Therefore, very little can be done in a situation when people just say: “I do not believe it, and that’s it.” I will give you a concrete example. My elder son, who is a fisherman, recently returned home from the sea and was about to take his family away on a vacation. However, I asked him to stay in Murmansk for the time of the active phase of lifting the Kursk submarine to avoid people saying: “Look, things are really not that simple if he is sending his son away from here.” That was not my noble gesture but a bare necessity whose results will work for my entourage at least.

        - As far as I understand, you think that personal examples are the only way to prove that the situation is safe?

       

        Not quite so. We have supplied a lot of radiation reports in recent days. Foreign experts confirm all the facts presented by the Russian side. The Norwegian presence in the Kursk lifting area is an unprecedented step. When we worked out an information support programme, it was absolutely clear that our people will not believe us to the end if we send a Russian academician to the Barents Sea. Unfortunately, a popular opinion in Russia is that foreigners do not lie. I personally think that they say a lot of lies too. Anyway, two experts from Norway’s Atomic Surveillance Committee have been working in the salvage area for some time. They have had access to Russian radiation reports. We even allowed them to install their own equipment. Life has proved that we were right. The fact that their measurements have revealed no discrepancies with ours - that could not be otherwise - shows that the radiological situation in the region is normal.

        - However, doubts will remain while the submarine is being towed to a floating dock and until it is not ultimately dismantled.

        At the moment, I do not see any prerequisites that some kind of loads will produce an impact on the Kursk nuclear reactor. The reactor which, as we all know, is shut down, is incapable of creating a critical mass to cause a thermal explosion under any circumstances. It has been cooled, and all the protective barriers such as the cases of the fuel separation element, the solid and light frames and other units are in a normal state. I would like to repeat it once again that creating a critical mass is impossible. This is explained by simple physics. Further, all working and emergency situations that may occur when the submarine is placed in a floating dock have been foreseen in advance. For example, missile containers will be cut from the Kursk’s hull and delivered to a coastal technical base if it is impossible to discharge the nuclear weapons by using more normal procedures.

        A final decision on how the Kursk will be dismantled will be taken after the submarine’s inspection. True, now it is impossible to say how long that will take. Experts need to inspect the submarine’s damage very carefully. But one thing is clear: the Kursk submarine will be dismantled in a way that will not radically differ from schemes used to scrap other decommissioned nuclear-powered vessels. As you certainly know, the Kursk submarine will first be transferred to floating dock # PD-24 and will then be tugged to the Nerpa ship-repairing yard in Snezhnogorsk. As I said earlier, all nuclear fuel will be discharged from the submarine before it is finally scrapped. Experts have thought of two options for the fuel to be removed. (In doing so, they gave priority to time and economic factors rather than to any technical solutions). All potential risks will be removed after the fuel is discharged from the Kursk.

        - It is clear that an operation to dismantle the Kursk will require additional investment. How is this question being solved?

        Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov is personally overlooking this issue. A separate line item should be included in the 2002 state budget. The Russian Shipbuilding Committee (Rossudostroyeniye), the Defence Ministry, the Atomic Energy Ministry, the Ministry of Economic Development and other organisations have set up a special commission to look into the problem. For example, the business of disposing of an average nuclear-powered submarine costs about six or seven million dollars. Naturally, I expect this figure to be higher for the Kursk. I think we may need about 10 million dollars. But these are approximate estimations so far, which can be specified only after the submarine is thoroughly examined in a dock and all complications that may arise during the dismantling process are considered. ends