LOCATION: Visaginas
HOME PAGE:www.iae.lt:80/ TYPE: LWGR; Model RBMK-1500
Sources: [1] "World Nuclear Industry Handbook 1996," Nuclear
Engineering International. [2] Diana Medeliene, "We Are Working Together With VATESI
and INPP in Many Areas to Improve Safety," Energy News, No. 2, August
1995, p.
19. {updated 1/15/97 MEW} UNITS: Two
Unit 1: initial criticality 4 October 1983 (operational
31 December 1983)
Unit 2: initial criticality 11 December 1986 (operational
18 August 1987)
[Operational Safety Review Team, "Introduction and
Historical Context," INPP Handbook, http://www.iae.lt/iae/osart/osart01.]
{updated 2/15/98 djw} POWER: 4200 MWt per unit; present gross capacity 1350 MWe per unit.
Total units operable: 2700 MWe gross (2 units).
["World Nuclear Industry Handbook 1996," Nuclear Engineering
International.] FUEL:Enriched to 2% U-235.
Ignalina annual requirements for uranium through the year 2010 are estimated
at 516 tons. Ignalina maintains a six-month supply of enriched fuel at
all times. Fuel is supplied by Russia. According to experts of the Russian
Scientific Research Institute (VNII), Lithuania has stores of plutonium
in its nuclear fuel.
Sources: [1] NEI World Nuclear Industry Handbook 1996, p. 26. [2] Source Book: Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants in the Former Soviet
Republics, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria [3] "Uranium: 1993 Resources, Production, and Demand,"
a joint report of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the IAEA, Paris, 1994. [4] Valentin Zakharov, Andrey Sviridov, and Ildar Akchurin,
"Sostoyaniye Oruzheynogo Kompleksa V Stranakh Blizhnego Zarubezhya," Yadernyy
Kontrol, 1/96, p. 15-23. OPERATOR: Ministry of the National Economy
[Radio Vilnius Network,12 December 1996; in "Parliament
Votes to Abolish, Create Various Ministries," FBIS-SOV-96-241.] ADMINISTRATION: Director General: Viktor Shevaldin
[World Nuclear Industry Handbook, Nuclear Engineering International,
1996, p. 92] Chief Engineer: Gennadijus Negrivoda
[VILNIUS RADIO, 12/8/94; in FBIS-SOV-94, "Ignalina Security
Increased After Chechen Threat," 12/8/94.] Deputy Chief Engineer for Nuclear Safety: Boris Vorontsov (also
responsible for nuclear material control and accounting)
[Correspondence with Ukrainian Official, 6/95.] STATUS: Real-time operating status information is available from the Ignalina
home page (www.iae.lt/iae/darbo/). It is estimated that sometime early
in the next century, the fuel channels in both units will have to be replaced.[1]
However, in September 1994, the Lithuanian government promised not to replace
the fuel channels and instead shut down the plant after the fuel channels
had worn out, in exchange for a ECU 33 million ($41.6 million) European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) grant.[1]
Despite strong Western pressure to shut the reactors down early in the
next century, Lithuanian Energy Institute Head Jurgis Vilemas stated that
Lithuania may continue to operate the reactors for another 15 years.[2]
Deputy Minister in charge of energy issues for the Lithuanian Ministry
of Economy Viktoras Valentukevicius supported this decision by stating
that an early forced shutdown of the reactor at the beginning of the century
would mean an "economic catastrophe" for Lithuania.[3] Ignalina Director
Viktor Shevaldin stated that complete dismantlement of the reactors would
cost nearly $2 billion over a five-year period.[4] A draft report
on energy strategy prepared by the Lithuanian Energy Institute in July
1998 estimated that early closure of the Iganalina plant (shutting down
Unit 1 in 2005 and Unit 2 in 2010) would result in increased costs of electricity
and other costs totaling $2.28 billion by 2020, and that Lithuania's carbon
dioxide emissions would be 1.5 times greater by 2010.[5]
Sources: [1] Ariane Sains, "Despite EBRD Loan, Shutdown of Ignalina
Said Still at Issue," Nucleonics Week,
22 August 1996, pp. 6-7. [2] Ariane Sains, "Lithuania Considers
Running Ignalina RBMKs 15 More Years," Nucleonics Week, 15 May 1997,
pp.11-12. [3] Ariane Sains, "East-West Showdown
Looms Over Decommissioning of Ignalina," Nucleonics Week, 5 June
1997, pp. 6-7. [4] V.
Skripov interview with Viktor Shevaldin, "Adres atomnoy-derevnya karly,"
Pirmadienis,
no. 11, 17-23 March 1997, p. 4. {Entered 10/28/96 RD, Updated 2/3/98 djw} [5] Ariane Sains, "Ignalina closure would cripple
Lithuanian economy, report says," Nucleonics Week, 16 July 1998, p. 7. {updated
8/11/98 by FW} ENERGY STATISTICS: The following are annual estimates of Ignalina's percentage of total Lithuanian
electricity output (rounded to the nearest tenth of a TWh).
1997 - 12.0 TWh, 81.5% of total [4,5]
1996 - 14.0 TWh, 84% of total
1995 - 11.8 TWh, 86% of total
1994 - 7.7 TWh, 77% of total
1993 - 12.3 TWh, 87% of total
1992 - 14.6 TWh, 81% of total
1991 - 17.0 TWh, 58% of total [1,2,3]
Sources: [1] "Data Feature: 1994 World Nuclear Electricity Production,"
NUKEM, 9/95, pp. 25-38. [2] "Electricity Generation in Lithuania," Energy News
of Lithuania 7, 1997 {entered 5/13/97 ab} [3] "Ignalina Nuclear Plant Produced
2.5 Billion KWh of Electricity," ELTA, 13 March 1998. {entered 3/17/98
djw} [4]"Ignalina atomic plant generates
less power in 1997," Baltic News Service, 7 January 1998 [5]"Lithuania's reliance on nuclear
energy," The Baltic Times, vol. 3, no. 10, 14-20 May 1998, p. 10.{entered
8/11/98 FW} MPC&A: A number of MPC&A upgrades have been
implemented, with substantial assistance from the Swedish government.
The Ignalina plant has been the victim of both extortion
attempts and theft of fresh nuclear fuel. For more information, please see the
following developments sections: 1989-1996 Developments,
1997 Developments, and 1998-Present
Developments.
SAFETY: For more information, please see the following developments sections: 1989-1996
Developments, 1997 Developments, and 1998-Present
Developments.
SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE: During the Soviet era it was proposed that all nuclear
waste would be transported by special railroad containers to the Urals
beginning in 1993, so no permanent storage facilities were constructed
on Ignalina's territory. However, after the Soviet Union broke apart
in 1991, Russian law no longer permitted the importation of nuclear waste.
Lithuania was forced to find an alternative to waste export.[5] Having
accumulated nearly 9,000 spent fuel rods,
Ignalina's on-site storage
facility reached capacity near the end of 1994.[1,6]
According
to NuclearFuel, while the overfilled storage pools are not a safety
hazard as such, it is impossible to keep track of spent fuel.[2] In October
1992, Lithuania's Ministry of Energy awarded the Swedish waste-management
firm Svensk Karnbranslehantering AB (SKB) a contract to help resolve issues
of low- and intermediate-level waste management. SKB recommended dry storage
casks be used, and in December 1993, Lithuania concluded a contract with
the German firm Gesellschaft fuer Nuklear Behalter (GNB) for 60 Castor
casks.[3] The casks were originally to be produced in Lithuania, but no
factories were able to produce the casks to specifications, so they had
to be manufactured abroad, at a greater expense than originally planned.[4]
Lithuania paid for ten casks, to be filled in April 1997, then announced
a new tender which would include both storage casks and a storage facility
(none exists at present), in hopes of lowering the total cost.[2,4]
In July 1997 the Lithuanian government chose GNB to supply an additional
40 casks of a different design, called the Constor cask. Atomic Energy
of Canada Ltd. received a letter of intent allowing them to sell their
Macstor dry storage system to Ignalina once GNB delivers its 40 casks.[5]
Additional
data on waste storage issues is available in the 1989-1996
Developments, 1997 Developments, and 1998-Present
Developments sections.
Sources: [1] Thomas Cochran, Miriam Bowling, Elizabeth Powers,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., "Difficult Legacy: Spent Fuel
from Soviet Reactors," Nuclear Weapons Databook, 31 January 1996,
p. 19. [2] Ariane Sains, "Lithuania's Ingnalina [sic] Plant
Gets Three Bids For Dry Storage Facility," NuclearFuel, 22 April
1996, p. 12. [3] Source Book: Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants
in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Armenia, The Czech Republic, Hungary and
Bulgaria, 4th ed., Nuclear Energy Institute: 1996, p. 194. [4] Ariane Sains, "Lithuania Slated to Select Cask Vendor
for Ignalina Plant in September," NuclearFuel, 26 August 1996,
p. 7. [5] Mark Hibbs, "GNB To Supply 40 More Ignalina Casks;
Germans Cry Foul Over AECL Deal For Rest," NuclearFuel, 28 July
1997, pp. 11-13. [6] V. Skripov interview with Viktor
Shevaldin, "Adres atomnoy-derevnya karly," Pirmadienis, no. 11,
17-23 March 1997, p. 4. {updated 9/12/97 djw} CONSTRUCTION AND FUTURE PLANS: In 1995, Lithuania's deputy energy minister stated that his country might
decide on the construction of nuclear replacement capacity in 1998.[1]
Lithuania halted construction on a third unit in 1988 and the government
has contracted with the Lithuanian firm Lina to dismantle it. Dismantlement
has slowed down due to lack of funds.[2] In 1988 the Lithuanian
Green Movement successfully lobbied against the construction of a third
RBMK-1500 unit at Ignalina.[3]
Sources: [1] "Lithuania," Data Feature: World Nuclear Generating
Capacity 1993/94, Nukem Market Report, December 1995, p. 35. [2] V. Skripov interview with Viktor
Shevaldin, "Adres atomnoy-derevnya karly," Pirmadienis, no. 11,
17-23 March 1997, p. 4. [3] "An Overview of the Energy Situation in Lithuania," Energy
Alternatives for a Sustainable Europe, June 1996, p. 2. {updated 2/13/98
djw}
