Ukraine's environmental minister speaks on status of Chornobyl
The following is an interview with Ukraine's Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety Yurii Kostenko. He agreed to discuss the current status of the Chornobyl nuclear power station and its future on the occasion of the 11th anniversary of the explosion of Chornobyl reactor No. 4 on April 26, 1986. The interview was conducted by The Weekly's Kyiv correspondent Roman Woronowycz on April 19.
PART I
Q: Will the Chornobyl nuclear power station shut down by the year 2000 as the memorandum signed in Moscow by Ukraine and the Group of Seven industrialized states last year stipulates?
A: I can't tell you that this will happen because it is not up to Ukraine alone. It depends on whether the G-7, the European Commission as well as Ukraine stick to the program outlined in the memorandum on the closing of the Chornobyl nuclear power station. The program lays out a whole series of requirements and, only after they are fulfilled, will the Chornobyl station close. Among the requirements is the creation of energy sources to compensate for the loss of Chornobyl's resources. Ukraine's energy sector will not be able to bear the loss of the Chornobyl station without adequate alternate sources of energy. The energy sector would collapse.
For instance, this past winter we maintained adequate energy supplies only due to the burden borne by our nuclear stations. This winter they produced more than 50 to 60 percent of our electrical energy needs. To shut down two huge reactors that together produce 6 to 7 percent of our electricity and not replace them with adequate alternatives could lead to the destruction of the power grid of Ukraine and result in the collapse of the economy.
Because of this, the memorandum signed by the G-7 and Ukraine specifically denotes that before the Chornobyl reactors are shut down reactors of equal capacity are to be put in place. The two replacements, to which the G-7 agreed, are to be the Rivne reactor currently being constructed and the one being built at Khmelnytskyi. These two reactors fully meet international standards of safety, which has been verified by international experts - not Ukraine's own experts. Because they have a capacity almost equal to the Chornobyl reactors they can adequately replace them.
In order to shut down Chornobyl by the year 2000, first of all the two new reactors must be functioning. Second, a whole array of other programs must be completed. For example, in order to shut down the reactor a storage facility must be built in the zone to store used nuclear fuel rods. And problems must be resolved regarding the actual closing of the nuclear plants.
Projects are currently being developed to implement these programs, and financing is being put together. The pace at which this occurs will ultimately determine when the Chornobyl station will shut down. It could be the year 2000, it could be 2001 - it will depend on how we execute the plan.
But I have to add one thing. Work on the Rivne and Khmelnytskyi reactors has now been suspended for a year for lack of financing. That delay will lead to a corresponding delay in the closing of Chornobyl.
Reactor No.1 [at Chornobyl] has not been working since last year in preparation for the closing. But there are no plans for the people who lost their jobs. If they are not given a reason to stay, they could leave Chornobyl and the Slavutych area altogether in search of other work. Then another problem will result because we will lose the needed expertise to permanently shut down the facility.
It is necessary that we keep the work force in Slavutych and the Chornobyl zone to finish the necessary work as planned in our program. Although reactor No.1 has been shut down, there has been no compensation or financial assistance for those who worked there, and no such proposal exists.
It is strange that Ukraine is fulfilling practically all of its responsibilities as regards the Chornobyl station, and the G-7 has not yet resolved many of its problems, mostly financial ones. Yet the only question that is constantly asked is "Will the Chornobyl nuclear power plant be closed by the year 2000?"
There are three sides involved in resolving the matter: the G-7, Ukraine and the European Commission. The actions of all three will decide whether Chornobyl can be closed by the year 2000.
Q: By most accounts the G-7 is said to have promised Ukraine $2.3 billion to help close Chornobyl. Some authorities even peg that amount at $3 billion. How much of that money has Ukraine received?
A: For some reason everybody says that the G-7 promised Ukraine $2.3 billion, or $3 billion, $5 billion, whatever. No bids of any sort were made. The memorandum delineates what programs will be undertaken with the underlying principle that those resulting in the generation of money will be financed through credits. For example, the construction of energy sources to offset the losses caused by the closure of the Chornobyl station will bring income, and so this project will be funded through loans.
But to this day we haven't received the credits to finish the nuclear reactors at Rivne and Khmelnytskyi. There's a minus right there. That project, by the way, is expected to cost $1.2 billion in itself.
As for the other projects, the non-income-producing projects, they are ones in which there is no earning potential: the sarcophagus project, which will never result in income to anyone, only in expenses, or the physical closing of the plant, which will only bring expenses. These projects will be funded through grants, through subsidies. The costs of such projects have not yet been determined because specific plans do not exist. For example, we are still doing technical-economic analyses on the sarcophagus.
In the memorandum specific costs are not stipulated, merely the principles by which financing would be extended. The G-7 took upon themselves the responsibility to finance the various projects based on the principles outlined.
They have said, "when a project is ready and the costs are known we will give the financial resources." To this day we have received merely 118 million ecu [European currency units] in guarantees, which Ukraine will use to prepare the Chornobyl nuclear power station for closing.
As for other projects, only certain programs regarding energy development and rehabilitation of several thermal energy plants at the oblast levels have been financed. As for nuclear energy, you already know that thus far no decisions have been made.
So there is no need to talk about $2 billion or $5 billion. The price will be known when the projects are finalized.
Q: Given that, has Ukraine then received what it expected thus far?
A: No. We should have received at least the money for Rivne and Khmelnytskyi by the beginning of this year, 1997. The delay is already more than a year. The discussions began in April 1995 - two years of discussion and to this day we still have not received any credits.
As for plans for the closing of the Chornobyl plant, there was one major and costly plan from which nothing resulted. Now there are several other plans being prepared.
Q: Why is it taking so long? Are there political complications?
A: Financing takes place through financial organizations. For example, the Rivne-Khmelnytskyi project is to be funded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The EBRD has its own procedures for reviewing projects, a very lengthy process that involves much preparatory work. And it is interesting that the EBRD gives no guarantees that it will finance the project.
In fact, right now it is difficult to say what decision it will make. You have heard the decision of independent experts who have given negative opinions on the project. We have answered the determinations of the independent experts and have explained why the decisions are not correct: they do not accurately reflect the situation in the energy sector.
For example, they say that in Ukraine there is a large surplus of energy supply and that Ukraine does not need to build more reactors. The closing of the Chornobyl plant will simply bring the demand in line with the supply.
But their assertions are only theoretical. In reality, the surplus they see comes from thermal-electric generating plants, roughly anywhere from 60 to 90 percent of which are worn out and need to be fully rehabilitated in modernization projects. This will require $1.5 to $2 billion annually for 15 years.
So, then, how can we even talk about a closing date of 2000? What is going on here is a very serious political game, but all we hear are the question on whether Ukraine will shut down the Chornobyl plant by the year 2000.
Again I repeat that with the signing of the memorandum this is no longer simply Ukraine's problem. It is a problem of the G-7, the European Commission and Ukraine. Together will we close the Chornobyl station by the year 2000 or won't we?
Q: In London last week, when you met with members of the EBRD, you said that Ukraine has fulfilled many of the requirements called for in the G-7 memorandum. You may have already partially answered this earlier, but please enumerate specifically what Ukraine has done.
A: Again, I will reiterate that Ukraine will never shut down Chornobyl without the creation first of compensatory energy alternatives. The creation of new sources is the highest priority matter.
A whole list of demands were put on Ukraine in order to receive financing from the European bank. We were told two years ago to develop a free market in the energy sector, which did not exist in Ukraine at that time. It was a government monopolized system of energy production.
Radical reforms were undertaken to break up the monopoly. In less than two years, 27 publicly held corporations were formed and six government-run public utilities, including the national companies Elektroperedacha and Enerhohaz. The National Center for Electrical Energy Supply was created, which regulates the energy sector. These were very important undertakings by the government. It involved major decisions by the government and the Verkhovna Rada.
Regarding the energy market. In the last two years we have fully removed all government subsidies for the use of electrical energy and raised tariffs to world prices, which were important for the creation of a effectively functioning energy sector.
We implemented a system for the improvement of the management of the energy sector. We expect that the president will sign a decree any day now establishing a single Ministry of Energy.
In terms of the organizational plans, the creation of the legal basis for the energy market, we have fulfilled our responsibilities before the European bank.
We can say that today the market has been created. The fact that there is an economic crisis that has caused much of the purchase for energy supplies to be undertaken by barter is another matter. But there have been several decrees signed by the president regarding this matter, the most recent in April, and some action taken by the Verkhovna Rada. I can say that by the end of 1997, or early 1998, barter as a method of payment in the energy sector will cease.
We have created in fact conditions for competition, an atmosphere conducive for energy-creating companies to develop earnings, for them to be able to get loans and to repay them.
Another important obligation that we have fulfilled is that we have taken Chornobyl reactor No.1 off line, although we could have waited until the year 2000 to do this. We are showing that we are willing to cooperate; we do not want anybody to thing we are being deceptive; that we are ready and willing to work to close the Chornobyl station by the year 2000.
But I will reiterate that, unfortunately, the actions by our partners in this process have not been adequate. There only seem to be more and more demands, and so I need to emphasis again that if we together agreed to solve the problem of the Chornobyl station, specifically on the basis of our agreement, then it is time to move from words to actions. Then the goal to close Chornobyl by the year 2000 will be a realistic one.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, April 27, 1997, No. 17, Vol. LXV
| Home Page |