GLIMPSE OF SOVIET REALITY: South Ukraine energy complex: its problems and prospects (12/25/88)

GLIMPSE OF SOVIET REALITY

South Ukraine energy complex: its problems and prospects

by Dr. David Marples

The question of the viability of the huge energy complex that is under construction in Mykolayiv Oblast in southern Ukraine has been raised by a senior engineer of the South Ukraine nuclear power plant.

In a lengthy, impassioned letter to the newspaper Robitnycha Hazeta, the engineer has suggested that the complex, which has been progressing almost covertly behind the anger induced over the grandiose scheme to build the Danube-Dnieper Canal, will lead to the ecological destruction of a wide area, and will threaten the existence of one of the republic's most important rivers, the South Buh.

The engineer, V. Bilodid, writes that the nuclear power plant is to be expanded beyond its officially designated size, to six reactors (based on VVER-1000s) and perhaps, according to its general director, to eight reactors. The original plan, however, was for four reactors.

For the past six years, he explains, the nuclear plant has been cooled with water from the nearby Tashlytske Reservoir. Today, Tashlytske and the Kostiantynivka Reservoir are being prepared for exploitation for at least four energy complexes. In addition to the nuclear power plant, there is under construction the Kostiantynivka hydroelectric-hydroaccumulation station, the Tashlytske hydroaccumulation station and the Oleksandrivka hydroelectric station. All are based on the South Buh River, the current of which has already been harnessed upstream for the cooling pond of another Ukrainian nuclear power plant at Netishyn, Khmelnytsky Oblast.

Mr. Bilodid is particularly incensed at the mixing of the "flow-off" water that will occur between the South Ukraine nuclear power plant and the Kostiantynivka station. He points out that according to the USSR Water Code, one cannot use water directly from the South Buh for cooling purposes, i.e., "direct-flow" water.

Therefore the authors of the plan have circumvented the rules by maintaining that the energy complex is an exception to the general rule, and moreover, that its water is recirculated by a pumping system. In other words, the reservoirs are being used less as cooling ponds, and more as a water circulation system that operates according to the demand of the various energy complexes.

What this means, however, is that the outflow water from the nuclear plant, which is moved back and forth between the two reservoirs, gradually heats up the water beyond permissible norms. Thus the "overheated zone," in which the water temperature is above the 28.2 degrees norm, will soon rise to 8 kilometers in Oleksandrivka and 3.6 kilometers in Kostiantynivka Reservoir. The only means of lowering the temperature would be to reduce the capacity of the nuclear plant.

As Mr. Bilodid points out, however, that solution is the last thing in the minds of the authorities. The station personnel are interested in the maximum production of electricity and therefore the overheating of the water "is an objective reality."

The system has also led to ecological hazards as the water levels keep changing to demand and seasonal weather fluctuations. The author calculates that in dry years (every 20 years on average), the level of water in Kostiantynivka Reservoir will decrease by 17 meters and in this way will cause havoc with the natural plant life existing therein. Moreover, the vibration of the turbines of the nuclear plant is also contributing to this same process so that gradually, the basic food supply for the creatures of these waters is being cut off. The evaporation caused by the overheating of the reservoirs will also raise the salt level of the South Buh by 6 percent and bring about the further loss of feed supplies for fresh-water fish. Salinization, in turn, will have an adverse effect on local agriculture.

Mr. Bilodid's article is unusual in that it comes from within the nuclear power complex. It is an indicator that there is a certain amount of discontent with the planning process for nuclear power plants in Ukraine. In his view, the Ministry of Nuclear Power of the USSR and its subsidiary planning bodies are moving ahead with plans to expend the South Ukraine nuclear power plant without consultation with the local public.

Many parts of the city of Mykolayiv will be affected by the new plans, however, since one-third of its inhabitants rely on the South Buh for drinking water. He reveals that the residents of South Ukraine sent a letter of the Ministry of Nuclear Power in early June, with 800 signatures, demanding that the plans for expansion be debated further.

The ministry reportedly did not respond until the end of July, at which time it pointed out that some signatories of the letter who were employees of the nuclear plant should conduct "explanatory work." Observes the author bitterly, "Comments... are superfluous."

In Mr. Bilodid's view, the only solution to the dilemma would be to return to the initial variant of the plan, i.e., for four reactors based on the Tashlytska Reservoir. Although even this scheme has some inherent problems, he believes that they could be overcome. Finally, he states that the planners have ignored nature for a decade and that society should now be mature enough to avoid repeating old mistakes.

The South Ukraine nuclear power plant has sparked considerable protest of late, both in terms of its planning and building operations. It was officially approved at the 25th Congress of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in 1975, and is located near the village of Prybuzhzhia, Domaniv Raion, Mykolayiv Oblast. Its electricity is being used by Rumania and Bulgaria in addition to the Soviet Union, and its first two reactors came into operation in 1982 and 1985.

It was the subject of a major protest letter from Ukrainian academicians and writers that was published in Literaturna Ukraina in January 1988. At that time, the authors were maintaining that the expansion of three Ukrainian nuclear plants beyond their officially designated size - South Ukraine, Rivne and Khmelnytsky - would pose ecological, agricultural and geological hazards.

Attention was again focused on the plant in August, when serious problems were uncovered in the construction of the station's third reactor, scheduled to come on-line in December. The most serious complaints concerned defects in building work, changes in planning decisions in midcourse and the failure to provide adequate meal services for workers of the second and third shifts.

There was said to be "constant misunderstanding" by the planners, the Kharkiv section of the Atomic Energy Planning Institute. This section was said to have issued some 260 official notes between January and early August changing existing technical decisions and issuing several new documents. Moreover, the low qualifications of many of the building workers had resulted in a delay of work for which the norm was three days to anything up to 20 days. Work on the reactor complex was said to be one to five months behind schedule, while on other objects the timetable had been set back by 50 to 60 days.

There were said to be defects on the roof of the machine room and in the work on the reactor's piping system. In order to concentrate on the latter the article stated, it was necessary to create a "clean zone" in which the welders could make inspections of the piping network, but space was being clogged up by workers from other organizations.

In mid-October, the chairman of the Mykolayiv Oblast Committee of People's Control, N. Bobyrev, responded to the criticisms and maintained that building work at the plant was now improving. He also revealed that the chaotic affairs at the building site had led to the appearance of the deputy chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, Boris Shcherbyna, at a meeting of the builders and workers of supplier-factories, which demonstrates that the situation was regarded with some concern in Moscow. Consequently, a severe warning was given to the director of the Kharkiv section of the Atomic Energy Planning Institute, V. Zaruba, for failing to ensure high quality of planning and documentation work.

The above critique, however, reflects the desire of the planners to keep the schedule rather than anxiey over the expansion of the plant. Nonetheless, it can only have added to the concern. In September, the plant's expansion was actively opposed by the Ecological Commission (Zeleny Svit) associated with the Ukrainian Union of Writers and, reportedly, there was concern even at the level of the Mykolayiv Oblast government.

Recently there have been indications that an anxious search for energy alternatives in southern Ukraine has not met with success. A solar energy station that has been brought into service in the Crimea, for example, is said to be using more energy than it produces. And what makes the South Ukrainian energy complex so noticeable - the remarks of Mr. Bilodid notwithstanding - is its size. It stands as an example of what is termed "gigantonomia" by Ukrainians concerned with ecological issues. Finally, it is located close to an area that is already badly polluted and in which rivers have become salinized by faulty irrigation schemes.

It is symptomatic of the extent of opposition to the expansion of the republican nuclear power program that vocal protests are now coming from the employees of the nuclear plants themselves.

| Home Page |