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.
CONCLUSION
Q: When will a decision be made regarding the estimated 200 tons of nuclear fuel that still lies within the sarcophagus? And a related question, do plans still exist to build a new sarcophagus or at least to reinforce the existing one, which experts say is slowly crumbling?
A: Our position is that the sarcophagus will not be safe from a nuclear standpoint, much less an ecological one, until the nuclear fuel is removed. Two hundred tons of nuclear fuel in an uncontrolled state represents a severe threat to the sarcophagus and to Ukraine.
Therefore, our strategy, which has been enumerated in government decrees, is based on the need for the removal of the nuclear fuel from the ruined reactor.
Work between Ukrainian and G-7 experts is proceeding in this context. We have agreed on several concrete items. First, work on stabilizing the reactor will proceed for the next five years. The goal of the stabilization effort will be to bring the nuclear mass under control. A system will also be developed to stop a nuclear reaction should it occur.
During the stabilization effort we will also develop technology that will allow us to take the infrastructure apart and remove the nuclear fuel that remains within the sarcophagus. Unfortunately, these plans are not yet supported by a specific project or by financial resources.
Afterwards, the process of taking the reactor apart will proceed, which will take decades.
The removal of the fuel rods will be prioritized. The largest and most unstable concentrations of nuclear fuel, which have been identified, will be removed first.
Finally, when Ukraine has the resources, when it has lifted itself out of its economic crisis, we can begin planning a permanent solution to the problem; the removal of all radioactive elements, the processing of the nuclear fuel and the decontamination of the site. But this is an effort that will take decades.
Right now the main objective is to resolve the largest problems, to remove the most dangerous elements and to stabilize the situation.
Q: What about plans to reinforce the sarcophagus?
A: There are no such current plans. First of all, it is prohibitively expensive, and then it doesn't solve the problem of the nuclear fuel. Under that huge cover a nuclear reaction could still take place. And, as you understand, this would lead to a catastrophe.
Q: The director of the Chornobyl Zone, Oleksander Hrebeniuk, announced on April 17 that the exclusion zone would be expanded by approximately 1000 square kilometers, which would enlarge it by a third. What prompted such a decision?
A: Nuclear contaminants naturally keep moving outward. They are washed away by water, and carried in the atmosphere.
The zone will remain the same. However, the problems associated with radioactive pollution are not confined to the zone. As for the expansion, those new areas of contamination that have been identified are not going to become part of the original zone and will not be treated the same.
Q: Will people be asked to leave these areas?
A: Today people are relocated according to the earlier plans that were developed, but even in the forbidden areas there are places that are much cleaner than areas outside the zone. The relocation program is currently being reviewed and appropriate changes will be made.
I want to emphasize that the discussion should not be on relocation but on normalizing the situation and the life of those affected.
More than 50 percent of Ukrainians today live in areas with increased levels of radiation. The radiation is constantly diffusing from the radioactive zone.
We receive 95 percent of the dose rate not from the atmosphere but from water and food intake. There is no sense in relocating. What is needed is clean water and clean food.
Of course people should be removed from areas where there are large amounts of contamination, but relocation of itself will not solve the problem.
Q: In a recent story in the International Herald Tribune it was mentioned that some evidence exists that low-level doses of radiation might even increase life expectancy. The study cited was based on research on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many of whom live longer than the average life expectancy in Japan.
A: [Their longer life] is not tied to the radiation but to the increased and specialized medical care that has been given them. If programs are developed in the contaminated areas that provide the proper medical and social care, the people could live long lives as in Japan.
This does not mean that radiation does not affect lives and the state of people's health. It affects everything.
Low-level doses of radiation combined with chemical pollution, industrial pollution, and this does exist here, has a terrible affect. This has not been theoretically proven but it is evident.
The effect of low-level doses of radiation has not yet been proven in theoretical models, but the reality is far worse than the theory. For example, the first incidents of thyroid cancer in theory are supposed to appear about 10 years after exposure to radiation. We saw them after two to three years. The established studies did not take into account industrial pollution.
The evidence suggests that the reality is far more serious than the theory. The radiation and the other pollution when combined has a negative accumulative affect.
Second, the political and economic changes that have taken place in the last five to six years have also contributed negative factors. People do not have adequate medical care and a proper diet, they do not have access to medications and vitamins. They are constantly in a heightened state of stress, which influences their health. Today the reality is much worse than was foreseen in the theories.
Q: In your opinion what is the most serious problem that exists today regarding Chornobyl, 11 years after the disaster?
A: Problems with the technical aspect for closing the plant. The evidence we have gathered over the last 10 years shows that the situation in reactor No. 4 is becoming evermore dangerous, specifically with regard to the nuclear fuel contained within and the state of the sarcophagus that encloses it.
With regard to the ecological state of Ukraine, the major problem is the radioactive pollution which is spreading from the zone throughout Ukraine through rivers and the food chain, and the relative effect on the state of people's health.
And the third thing is the economic effect. The Chornobyl catastrophe does not allow Ukraine to escape from the economic crisis. About $1 billion a year of Ukraine's budget is annually sacrificed to deal with the aftereffects of the Chornobyl disaster. Anywhere from 12 to 18 percent of our annual budget is spent on Chornobyl.
The money for this comes from the so-called "Chornobyl tax." This in turn raises the cost of production, which along with other economic problems, makes our goods more expensive and less competitive on the world market.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, May 4, 1997, No. 18, Vol. LXV
| Home Page |