INSIGHT INTO THE NEWS

by David Marples

Chornobyl: The end of the saga or beginning of a new one?

EDMONTON - President Bill Clinton's brief stopover in Kyiv at the end of his European tour ostensibly has brought a major result: the promise of the closure of the Chornobyl nuclear power station, more than 14 years after the world's worst industrial accident. On December 15, 1999, the third reactor, the only one that is operational, will reportedly be decommissioned. The world is rejoicing at this news, which signals an end to the drama of Chornobyl. Or does it?

In 1995, when the G-7 signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ukraine at a meeting in Ottawa (it came into operation at a 1996 meeting in Denver), Ukraine promised to close Chornobyl by the year 2000, provided that sufficient funds were forthcoming from Western countries to close the station, render it "ecologically safe," secure a new covering for the destroyed fourth reactor, and ensure the future of the plant employees and their families, who live in the new town of Slavutych, about 65 kilometers northeast of the station. According to Ukrainian authorities, the sum mentioned was around $2.3 billion (U.S.), of which the German government led by Helmut Kohl promised the largest portion.

No such sum has ever been delivered to Ukraine. Instead the G-7 countries have frequently balked at providing such funds, arguing that Ukraine had not made any serious moves toward closure. Germany has a new coalition government under Gerhard Schroeder that is reliant on an alliance with the "Greens" and last summer began to request that Ukraine explore alternative forms of energy and abandon the idea of bringing new VVER-1000 nuclear reactors on line at two stations in western Ukraine: Rivne and Khmelnytskyi. Meanwhile, as its thermal power stations become obsolete and the supply of hydroelectricity dwindles, Ukraine is becoming ever more reliant on the nuclear alternative. At peak periods, almost half of Ukraine's electricity is derived from its five nuclear power plants.

What has Mr. Clinton promised? According to reports from both Ukraine and the West, he has offered an additional $78 million for the so-called "Ukryttya" fund (the covering for reactor 4), which would still leave about $300 million for the Ukrainian government to find to complete the task, and a token $2 million to improve safety at the other nuclear power plants. A $30 million project between the two countries will examine the technical performance of nuclear fuels from potential suppliers - thus enabling Ukraine to end Russia's monopoly on the supply of such fuel. Underneath the official euphoria there must be profound disappointment within the Ukrainian government that nothing has been promised for the closure of Chornobyl itself.

Why does it matter? Why is it so critical that Chornobyl be closed this year? It took eight years for the International Atomic Energy Agency to declare that the station was fundamentally unsafe and to recommend unequivocally its closure. In that time, and in particular during the period 1986-1989, much of the damage from radioactive fallout was done. Ironically, Chornobyl is probably the safest of the graphite-moderated reactors operating in the former Soviet Union today - the others are in Russia at Kursk and Smolensk, and at Ignalina in Lithuania and are largely ignored by international media - but the technology is obsolete and the work force demoralized. Nuclear workers went on strike several times in the past two years to demand wages that were months in arrears. Accidents are frequent at Ukrainian nuclear stations and a "level 1" accident resulting in injuries occurred at the third unit as recently as last July.

As for the shelter itself, there is scientific consensus in Ukraine that it is one of the most dangerous structures in Ukraine. If the shelter should collapse, which today is a likelihood rather than a possibility, then Ukrainian nuclear experts postulate in the recently published monograph, "The Chornobyl Accident: A Comprehensive Risk Assessment (2000)" that a dust plume would rise 100 meters above the ground and scatter some 10 kilograms of radioactive particles within a radius of 400 kilometers. Personnel in the area for 30 minutes would inhale more than 900 times their annual limit of radionuclides.

Meanwhile, the ramifications of the accident - both real and imagined - continue to affect Ukraine, Belarus and neighboring states. An estimated 2,000 children have contracted thyroid gland cancer (a consequence of the fallout of radioactive iodine in the first days after the accident), and over 5.4 million people continue to live on lands contaminated by radioactive cesium. Over 4,000 Ukrainian liquidators have died from causes related to the accident, according to Ukrainian sources. About 5 to 7 percent of Ukraine's national budget is devoted traditionally to problems related to Chornobyl. Morbidity in general has increased substantially in Ukraine and Belarus over the past 14 years, but particularly in the areas affected by radiation. Over half the population in the affected areas of Belarus was found in one survey to be affected by psychological stress and anxiety.

However, the Chornobyl station has become the biggest stumbling block in Ukrainian-Western relations since the nuclear weapons issue of the early 1990s when Ukraine proved reluctant to sign START I. Neither side emerges with much credit from these exchanges and, despite the rhetoric from Washington or Brussels, there is profound skepticism among western governments as to the seriousness of Ukraine's good intentions in the areas of democratic and market reforms, and regarding the proposed closure of its first and most infamous nuclear power station.

In the year 2000, both sides seem happier with words rather than deeds. President Clinton has secured a closure date, which will no doubt assist the election campaign of his chosen successor, Mr. Gore, and make his six-hour visit seem worthwhile. And President Kuchma can cling to the illusion that Ukraine remains a player in U.S. and European geo-strategic policy. Yet Chornobyl problems remain and the deadline, like U.S. financial commitment, will likely change very little.

David Marples is a professor of history and acting director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, July 16, 2000, No. 29, Vol. LXVIII

| Home Page |