Economy of utilization

Five thousand tons of solid rocket fuel left over from the liquidation of SS-24 Soviet strategic missiles have been stored at the defense enterprises in Pavlohrad for a number of years. Needless to say, this matter is causing much public concern. Yet the disposal of this highly explosive fuel, promised by the Ukrainian government, continues to be postponed for financial reasons. No one can guarantee that Pavlohrad will not become the site of a major disaster one of these days.

Pavlohrad’s ecological organizations, along with a watchdog group for the prevention of man- made disasters, made up of rocket scientists and led by ex-mayor Viktor Romaniuk, are campaigning for public hearings for all concerned parties to be held in this city. Among the formally invited participants are officials from the National Space Agency of Ukraine, Emergency Management Ministry, Presidential Secretariat, and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. These dignitaries are expected to provide straight answers to questions that are troubling city residents.

A digression into the history of these solid propellant “deposits” in Pavlohrad, once called the “capital” of the western Donbas, is in order. Solid propellants started being manufactured by the Pavlohrad Chemical Works (PCW) in the mid-1960s. Its output peaked in 1982-90, when missiles were sliding off the conveyer belts of the neighboring Pavlohrad Engineering Works, then part of the Pivdenmash Production Amalgamation. After Ukraine became independent, the then mayor believed that our country could rid itself of strategic missiles and warheads by handing them over to Russia.

However, the United States promised to finance the liquidation process envisaged by intergovernmental agreements, so the Ukrainian leadership thought it stupid to turn down large sums offered in hard cash, all the more so as Pavlohrad’s defense officials were certain that their capacities would allow them not only to dismantle the missiles but also to dispose of the solid propellant at maximum advantage to their beloved homeland. It was decided that the fuel obtained using US water wash technologies would be recycled to produce industrial explosives.

As a result, a national missile dismantling and fuel recycling program was adopted in 1997. A pilot disposal project resulted from the program. Romaniuk recalls that “the chemical works claimed they would dispose of the rocket fuel, although they didn’t even have proper storage facilities...In the end 75 million dollars that the Americans gave us specially to dispose of the fuel had to be spent on setting up the required infrastructure, construction, and preparation of such facilities. We accomplished a great deal, but we didn’t do the most important thing; we didn’t calculate the risks. As it is, we have ICBM fuel stored one and half kilometers from the nearest homes. Should one of the missile stages blow up, the fragments would fly some seven kilometers wide (as evidenced by a similar case in Russia, although it was a bench test). Now the PCW stores over 150 missile stages and there are storage units containing 10-15 units.”

“Where are the safety guarantees?” asks the former mayor of Pavlohrad, answering his own question: “There are no suitable ones yet.”

Romaniuk believes that Ukraine’s previous political leadership made another serious mistake. Decommissioned missiles were transported to Pavlohrad, where “all of them were cut into pieces.” After that the Americans lost all interest in the fuel-recycling project and soon packed up and flew home. The Russians have acted in a more farsighted manner, says Romaniuk. They are gradually dismantling their missiles, burning fuel accordingly. Ukraine found itself back where it started after the Americans left.

Pavlohrad enterprises have been promised some 750 million hryvnias from the state budget to design and build 16 working structures to form a solid propellant recycling chain. If this is done, 5,000 tons of solid propellant will turn into 25,000 tons of hydrogen- helium explosives used in the mining industry. The ex-mayor warns, however, that these explosives will contain up to one-third of toxic solid propellant. In other words, this toxic agent will enter the atmosphere every time such an explosive charge is detonated in a quarry.

Romaniuk points out: “Ukraine doesn’t need more than 100,000 tons of industrial explosives a year. We are producing almost 150,000 tons. Who needs this helium explosive? Why are we manufacturing it? Another thing: nearly one billion hryvnias have been allocated for recycling. Yet we can expect only 80 million in the next eight years, in terms of incomes, not revenues.”

“What kind of economy do we have?” wonders Romaniuk.

This expert suggests that the rocket fuel be burned in special furnaces equipped with filters. He says that Pavlohrad used the same technique earlier, during the disposal of small amounts of solid propellant. According to experts’ estimates, the acquisition of such furnaces and their installation would cost only 60 million hryvnias. Romaniuk and his associates believe that this would allow the city to rid itself of 5,000 tons of rocket fuel within a year.

Burning solid propellant is also recommended by US experts, depending on the fuel’s condition. Solid propellant can be stored for only so long. Each storage facility is checked, tests are run, and then authorization is given for further storage. Romaniuk says that micro- fissures have started to appear on the solid propellant, so it is anyone’s guess what will happen when this solid fuel starts being retrieved. Any deviation from standard procedures, any unforeseen situation, like a lightning bolt, can trigger a disaster.

Another risk factor is the recycling of conventional munitions at the PCW. Romaniuk recalls a recent explosion that occurred when missiles were being dismantled at the Aeronautics and Space Research Center in Dnipropetrovsk. “If anything blows up at the PCW, nothing will be left of this city and the toxic cloud may reach Dnipropetrovsk,” he warns.