3/26/97: CHORNOBYL DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL SAYS
RESTART OF UNIT 2 UNLIKELY On 3/26/97, Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) Deputy
Director-General Vasyl Omelchenko stated that bringing
Unit 2 back on line was inadvisable. He said that with
the proper financing, materials, staff, and equipment,
reactor No. 2 could be restarted no sooner than the
second quarter of 1998, at a cost of $150 to $200 million
(including $50 million for fuel). Omelchenko pointed out
that investing the same sum in fuel for coal and thermal
power plants could generate 12.5 billion kW/hrs, nearly
twice the power output of Unit 2 before it was shut down.
Or, as another alternative, the money could be used to
complete the Rivne-4 reactor, obviating the need for
foreign funding for its construction.
[UNIAN, 3/26/97; in "Ukraine: Second
Reactor at Chernobyl May Not be Reconnected,"
FBIS-SOV-97-085, 3/26/97.]{Entered 7/2/97 MK} {Cleared
7/14/97 JL}
3/25/97: RUSSIA'S TVEL SHIPS NUCLEAR FUEL FOR
CHORNOBYL-3 Despite the debt of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant
(ChNPP) to TVEL, the Russian concern nevertheless shipped
enough nuclear fuel on 25 March 1997 to keep Chornobyl-3
operating for two to three months.[1,4] ChNPP reportedly
owes $30 million to Russian nuclear fuel suppliers for
past shipments; the plant has received no fuel since July
1996. (The Chornobyl RBMK reactor uses fuel assemblies
that are produced only in Russia.) However, ChNPP manager
Serhiy Parashin noted that the plant recently paid 20
percent of its debt to Russian firms.[2,3] Due to the
reduction in power generating capacity, ChNPP produced
only 523 million kW/hr in March, 223.7 million kW/hr
short of its target production for the month.[5]
Sources: [1] Raisa Stetsyura, ITAR-TASS, 3/24/97; in "Russia:
Moscow To Supply Fuel for Chernobyl 'in 7-10 Days',"
FBIS-SOV-97-083, 3/24/97. [2] Veronika Romanenkova, ITAR-TASS, 3/25/97; in
"Russia: Firm Ships Fuel to Chernobyl Nuclear Plant
Despite Debt," FBIS-SOV-97-084, 3/25/97. [3] Oleg Varfolomeyev, "Ukraine Gets Nuclear Fuel,
Stops Oil Terminal Construction," OMRI Daily
Digest, Vol. 3, No. 60, 3/26/97. [4] V. Luhovyk, "Chornobyl Revives," Eastern
Economist, 4/7/97, p. 10. [5] Interfax, 4/7/97; in "Ukraine: Chernobyl
Electricity Production One-third Below Target,"
FBIS-SOV-97-097, 4/7/97.{Entered 7/2/97 MK}{Cleared
7/14/97 JL}
3/12/97: UKRAINE REDUCES CHORNOBYL-3 OUTPUT TO HALF
CAPACITY Ukraine reduced Chornobyl-3 to half capacity on 12 March
1997 due to a fuel shortage caused by the failure of the
Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) management to pay
the Russian joint stock company, TVEL, for nuclear fuel
shipments. According to the head of Chornobyl's
information department, Valeriy Idelson, the power plant
owes TVEL $3.5 million for past deliveries -- a problem
in part due to consumer debt to ChNPP, which now stands
at $108 million.[1] One alternative for fueling Unit 3,
proposed by the ChNPP management, includes extracting the
600 partially spent nuclear fuel assemblies located in
Unit 2; this plan could reportedly save $30 million in
the long term. ChNPP representatives have drafted a
document on using Unit 2 fuel and submitted it to
Derzhkomatom (the State Committee for the Use of Nuclear
Power) and the Ministry for Environmental Protection and
Nuclear Safety.[2,3] Financial problems notwithstanding,
Ukraine expects a fuel shipment within the month.
Otherwise, Unit 3 would have to be stopped.[1,4]
According to a representative of the Ministry for
Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety, halting Unit
3 represents an unsafe situation, since a reactor
requires a large amount of energy for safety and routine
maintenance, even when not in operation. Usually, other
units at the site provide the needed energy, but in this
case, there are no other operable units.[4]
Sources: [1] Interfax, 3/13/97; in "Fuel
Shortage To Cause Shut Down of Chernobyl Power
Unit," FBIS-SOV-97-072, 3/13/97. [2] UNIAN (Kiev), 3/20/97; in "Ukraine: Chernobyl To
Utilize Nuclear Fuel From Ruined Generator,"
FBIS-SOV-97-079, 3/20/97. [3]"Fuel Second Time Round," Izvestiya
Ukraina, 3/25/97, p. 1; in "Ukraine; Fuel From
Closed Chernobyl Unit To Be Used in Third Unit,"
FBIS-SOV-97-084, 3/25/97. [4] Raisa Stetsyura, ITAR-TASS, 3/13/97; in "Fuel
Shortage Halves Chernobyl Reactor Capacity,"
FBIS-SOV-97-072, 3/13/97.{Entered 7/2/97 MK}{Cleared
7/14/97 JL}
11/30/96: UKRAINE SHUTS DOWN CHORNOBYL-1, BUT MAY
RESTART UNIT 1 OR 2 Ukraine shut down Chornobyl-1 at 10:00 p.m. local time on
30 November 1996. The move fulfilled a vow by Ukrainian
President Kuchma, made at the April 1996 Nuclear Safety
Summit in Moscow, to take the unit off line by 2000.[1]
With Unit 1 shut down, Ukraine loses approximately 4.8
billion kW/hr per year of energy output as well as 1600
jobs in the Slavutych region.[2] Some observers have
wondered whether the decision was strictly political,
since the safe life of Unit 1 ended in early 1997. At
that time, either the management would have taken the
reactor off line anyway or replaced and modernized the
reactor's channels--an expensive procedure, the funds for
which Kiev lacked.[3] In its official application to shut
down Unit 1, the ChNPP management cited the need for a
comprehensive engineering assessment, especially of the
fuel channels, as the reason for the move. According to
Chornobyl plant manager Serhiy Parashyn, no document
prohibiting the future operation of Chornobyl-1
exists.[2,3] Speculation that the unit may be restarted
has arisen due to the plan to keep 1600 fuel assemblies
inside Chornobyl-1 for two years. In fact, both
Derzhkomatom (the Ukrainian State Committee for Use of
Atomic Energy) and Parashyn have reportedly said that
Chornobyl-1 will be maintained and, perhaps, restarted if
energy is lacking during the winter.[1,4] Nevertheless,
Kuchma announced that restarting Unit 1 is not
economically viable since it would cost an estimated $225
to $450 million. The high end of this estimate is
approximately the same as the estimated cost of
completing the Khmelnytskyy-2 or Rivne-4 reactors.[2,5]
At an estimated cost of $85 to $280 million, bringing
Unit 2 back on line for continued service presents a more
likely alternative for immediate power
replacement.[2,6,7] Shortly before shutting down
Chornobyl-1, Derzhkomatom passed a decree sanctioning
such a measure.[2] If allocated by the Ukrainian
Government, Unit 2 refurbishment money would probably go
towards safety backfits, replacement of isolation valves
on the inlets to the fuel channels below the reactor, and
borrowing turbines and fuel from Unit 1.[2,8] A recent
article, however, expressed some pessimism about
restarting Unit 2, placing the earliest possible on-line
date in the second quarter of 1998.[7] Thus, only Unit 3
remains in operation at ChNPP.[1]
Sources: [1] Ann MacLachlan, "Ukraine Shuts
Chernobyl-1, Fulfilling Promise To West," Nucleonics
Week, 12/5/96, p. 14. [2] Peter Coryn, "Chernobyl-1 Is Shut But Ukraine
Keeps Units 1,2 Restart Option," Nucleonics Week,
1/2/97, p. 14. [3] Yanina Sokovskaya, "Shutdown of Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Station First Unit. Technical Necessity or
Political Gesture?," Izvestiya Ukraina,
11/30/96, p. 1; in "Ukraine: 'All the Rules Broken'
in Shudown of Chernobyl No. 1 Unit,"
FBIS-TEN-96-011, 11/30/96.' [4] NTV, 11/30/96; in "Chernobyl
Director Says Shutdown Decision May Not Be Final,"
FBIS-SOV-96-232, 11/30/96. [5] UNIAN, 11/29/96; in "Kuchma: No
Plans To Restart Chernobyl's Generating Set,"
FBIS-SOV-96-232, 11/29/96. [6] Ann MacLachlan, "Chernobyl Managers Want To
Reopen Unit 2 To Offset Unit Shutdown," Nucleonics
Week, 11/21/96, p.16. [7] UNIAN, 3/26/97; in "Ukraine: Second Reactor At
Chernobyl May Not Be Reconnected," FBIS-SOV-97-085,
3/26/97. [8] "Chernobyl-1 shut down, Unit 2 may restart in
1997," Nuclear News, 1/97, pp.
33-34.{Revised 7/1/97 MK}{Cleared 7/15/97 JL}
9/18/96: CHORNOBYL-1 TO BE PERMANENTLY SHUT DOWN ON
11/30/96 According to Deputy Director General of the Chornobyl NPP
Vasyl Omelchenko, the Ukrainian government made its final
decision to permanently shut down Unit 1 at Chornobyl on
30 November 1996, which is several months before the reactor's
service life expires. Omelchenko said that the decision
was made not only because of the agreement signed by the
G-7 and Ukraine in Ottawa, but also because nuclear fuel
deliveries have been interrupted by the Russian nuclear
production company TVEL due to Ukraine's $25 million
unpaid bill for the supplied fuel. Chornobyl is
completely dependent on TVEL's fuel, which is produced
specifically for RBMK-type reactors. However, Omelchenko
mentioned that the management of the Chornobyl NPP will
soon find financial resources to purchase nuclear fuel
from Russia.
[Zakhar Butyrskiy, "Tretiy reactor
ChAES skoro budet ostanovlen," Segodnya,
9/18/96, p. 9.]
7/1/96: CHORNOBYL HAS NUCLEAR FUEL FOR ONE MONTH ONLY Ukrainian customers owe $50 million to Chornobyl NPP for
energy. According to the chief engineer of the Chornobyl
NPP, Vitaliy Tovstonogov, the plant lacks the financial
resources to buy nuclear fuel from Russia, because many
of the Chornobyl NPP customers are failing to pay their
electricity bills. Tovstonogov said that if Chornobyl NPP
had to operate at full capacity and the arrival of
nuclear fuel from Russia in late June 1996 never took
place, the plant would fully consume available nuclear
fuel in one or one and a half months.
[Zahar Butyrskiy, "Ukrainskiye AES
budut prodavat energiyu so skidkoy," Segodnya,
7/1/96.]{Entered 8/23/96 GN}
6/28/96: UNIT 1 AND 3 OPERATION DEPENDS ON ARRIVAL OF
RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FUEL Unit 3 at Chornobyl resumed operating at full capacity, after the
arrival of nuclear fuel from Russia on 24 June 1996 under the agreement on
supplying Ukraine with nuclear fuel in exchange for the nuclear warheads
withdrawn from Ukrainian territory. This first consignment of reactor fuel
will last until October 1996, taking into account
planned stoppages of the Chornobyl reactors for repairs
and maintenance. It is expected that Russia will provide
two more deliveries of nuclear fuel, each 50 percent
larger than the first, by the end of 1996. Before the
arrival of Russian fuel, Units 1 and 3 had been operating
at reduced capacity; 50 percent and 40 percent
respectively. Unit 1 is temporarily shut down for planned
maintenance, with its restart planned for 8 July 1996.
Sources: [1] UNIAN, 6/28/96; in "Transfer Of
Russian Nuclear Fuel Supplies Begins,"
FBIS-SOV-96-127, 6/28/96. [2] Jack Ashton, "Chernobyl-1 Faces Crucial Test
Phase," NucNet, 6/27/96. [3] "Russia ships new fuel to Chernobyl plant,"
Nuclear News, 8/96, p. 72.
6/22/96: TEMPORARY SHUTDOWN OF UNIT 1 AT CHORNOBYL Chornobyl's Unit 1 was temporarily shut down until 6 July
'96 for planned short-term repair and maintenance.
According to experts from the Ukrainian State Committee
on Use of Nuclear Energy, one of the main reasons for the
unit's shutdown was the lack of nuclear fuel expected
from Russia. During the maintenance work on Unit 1, the
power plant's specialists will check on the condition of
the unit's zirconium pipes, and report back to a group of
state experts by 30 June '96. Based on the findings of
the report, experts from the Ukrainian Ministry of
Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety will make a
final decision concerning the date of the Unit 1
shutdown.
["1 energoblok Chernobylskoy AES
ostanovlen na planovyy remont," Interfax, 24/6/96.]
5/23/96: RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN-U.S. NUCLEAR FUEL SUPPLY
AGREEMENT AMENDED In Kiev, Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin and
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk amended the
Trilateral Statement between the Ukrainian, Russian, and
U.S. presidents of 14 January '94, which provided for the
delivery of Russian nuclear fuel (1,800 fuel rods) to
Ukrainian nuclear power plants, particularly to
Chornobyl, from 1994 to 1997. According to the amendment,
instead of 155 VVER fuel rods scheduled for delivery in
1996, Russia would deliver 1,040 RBMK fuel rods by the
end of 1996.
Sources: [1] Lesya Mishchenko, "Both Stars And
Fate--In The Name Of Ukraine," Demokratychna
Ukrayina, 6/22/96, pp. 1-2; in "Udovenko
Interviewed On NATO, Bosnia, Russian Election,"
FBIS-SOV-96-126, 6/22/96. [2] Alex Brall, "Chernobyl-1 Threatened With Lack Of
Fuel, November Closure," Nucleonic Week,
6/13/96, pp. 15-16.
4/3/96: DELIVERY OFRUSSIAN FUEL AVERTS UNIT 3
SHUTDOWN Russia delivered 160 fresh fuel assemblies to
Chornobyl-3, alleviating the fuel shortage and averting a
shutdown. Unit 3 was operating at nominal power and was
expected to be shutdown by the end of March 1996 due to a
lack of $2.5 million worth of fuel assemblies from
Russia.
Sources: [1] "Nesmotrya na zadolzhennost
Chernobylskoy AES za postavlyaemoe toplivo, Rossiya
prodolzhayet ego otgruzku," Rossiyskaya Gazeta,
4/3/96, p. 1. [2] "Ukraine," NucNet, 4/3/96.
2/12/96:CHORNOBYL NPP OPERATES AT 70% CAPACITY After Ukraine was cut off from the Russian-Ukrainian
power grid, capacity utilization at Chornobyl NPP was
increased to 100% at Unit 1 and to 80% at Unit 3. The
Chornobyl NPP normally operates at around 70% capacity
utilization, which is in-line with government standards.
["Nuclear Power Plants Pushed To
Compensate For Cut From Power Grids," Post-Soviet
Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 3/12/96, p. 7.]
1/25/96:UKRAINIAN NPPS NEED $100 MILLION WORTH
OF FUEL TO STAY ON-LINE Ukrainian State Committe for the Use of Atomic Energy
(Derzhkomatom) warned that the Ukrainian NPPs need $100
million worth of fuel from Russia to stay on-line.
However, because the government is only receiving payment
for 13% of the energy produced at the NPPs, Derzhkomatom
cannot afford to buy fuel from Russia and may have to
cancel production in February or March 1996.
["U Ukrainskikh AES ne khvatayet
sredstv na zakupku topliva," Izvestiya-Finansoviye
Izvestiya, 1/25/96, p.1.]
1995:REPORTS CONFLICT ON CHORNOBYL'S SHARE OF
UKRAINE'S ELECTRIC ENERGY According to the Verkhovna Rada press service, the
Chornobyl NPP supplied 6% of Ukraine's total electric
energy at the end of 1995 while the plant's capacity
utilization was only 50%. This conflicts with other
reports citing Chornobyl NPP as having the highest
capacity utilization in Ukraine.[1] According to UNIAN,
generating capacity through October '95 was more fully
utilized at Chornobyl than any other Ukrainian NPP, 69.2%
in comparison with an average of 61.1% for Ukraine's
nuclear power industry as a whole.[2] For the first ten
months of 1995, Chornobyl reportedly produced 16.1%
(9085m kilowatt-hours) of the total output for the
nuclear industry.[2]
Sources: [1] "Zabezpechyty natsionalni
interesy Ukrainy," Holos Ukrainy, 1/6/96, p.
4. [2] UNIAN, 11/4/95; in "Ukraine:
Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant Best in Ukraine,
Performance Shows," BBC Monitoring Service,
11/17/95.
11/6/95:UNIT 1 BROUGHT BACK ON LINE Unit 1 was brought back on line. It had been shutdown
since 27 October 1995.
[IAEA Daily Press Review, 11/6/95, No.
285.]
10/23/95:RESTART POSTPONED Ukraine postponed the restart of Unit 1.
[BBC Monitoring Service, 10/23/95 in
"Chornobyl," IAEA Daily Press Review,
10/23/95, p. 2.]
10/17/95:UNIT 1 BROUGHT ON LINE AND
RECONNECTED TO THE GRID Unit 1 was brought on line and reconnected to the grid
after 39 of the unit's 1692 fuel channels were replaced.
Plant management reportedly is considering major fuel
channel reconstruction at the three viable Chornobyl
units. Fuel channel replacement would allow the units to
operate until 2010-2015.
[Peter Coryn, "Chernobyl Runs 'Dress
Rehearsal' For Operating Plant After 2000," Nucleonics
Week, pp. 5-6.]
10/11/95: NUCLEAR REACTORS MAY PROVIDE 40% OF
UKRAINE'S ENERGY IN 1996 On this date, only Chornobyl-3 is connected to Ukraine's
electricity grid. The remaining reactor is undergoing
routine maintenance and reportedly should be reconnected
to the grid the week of 16 October '95. Prime Minister
Yevhen Marchuk expressed hope that nuclear reactors would
provide 40% of Ukraine's energy in 1996.
["Ukraine, G-7 In Talks To Close
Chernobyl," Reuter, 10/11/95.]
10/1/95:CHORNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION IN
SEPTEMBER In 9/95, Chornobyl nuclear power plant produced 708.1
kWt/hrs of electricity, which fulfilled 104.9 percent of
its plan. The NPP released 647.4 million kWt/hrs into the
power system, 106.7 percent of the monthly plan.
Reportedly, only Unit 3 was operating in September.
During September '95, radiation emissions from the
sarcophagus remained within the established norms.
["Chornobyl," UNIAN,
10/3/95 in FBIS-SOV, 10/3/95.]
8/95: ONE MORE STEP TO EXTEND CHORNOBYL'S OPERATION Planned replacement of 13 of the 1600 zirconium fuel
channels began in the beginning of August '95. This may
be a step in the movement to extend Chornobyl's operation
an additional 10 years if the $4.4 billion is not
supplied by the West.
["Chernobyl-1 Fuel Channel
Replacement Begun In August," Nuclear News,
10/95, p. 46.]
8/28/95: REDUCED CAPACITY AT CHORNOBYL'S UNIT 1 Unit 1 operated at only 70-80% of its capacity for safety
reasons.
["Interview With Serhiy Parashyn,
Director Of The Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant,"
Intelnews, 8/28/9.]
8/13/95:DERZHKOMATOM IS PLANNING TO EXTEND
LIFE OF THREE REACTORS According to Mykhailo Umanets, Chairman of the State
Committee for the Use of Atomic Energy, Ukraine will
extend the life of the three undamaged reactors if it
does not receive billions of dollars in Western aid. A
Derzhkomatom plan to extend the life of the three
reactors by ten years requires no foreign aid as the
station will sell electric power at US$.03 per kWh. To
justify the continued operation of the plant, Umanets
cited a number of figures: the Chornobyl NPP fulfilled
104% of its planned quota for the first half of 1995,
producing KBV79.4 trillion worth of power, but only
received 57% of its payments. During this same period,
breaks and errors were reduced by 31%. Unit 1 operated
without errors.
Sources: [1] Serhiy Sokolovskiy, "Nuclear
Chief On Chornobyl Reactors," Intelnews, 8/13/95. [2] "Continued Operation Of Chornobyl NPP
Recommended," UNIAN, 7/28/95.
8/8/95:NUCLEAR ENERGY COMMITTEE SUPPORTS
NON-NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS The State Committee on the Use of Atomic Energy
(Derzhkomatom) reportedly supports the proposal for
steam-gas electric plants in Slavutych. The Ministry of
Energy supports the modernization of existing coal and
gas-oil power plants, which currently make up 67.6
percent of Ukraine's electrical energy capacity.
[Yuriy Orobets, Hennadiy Schastliviy, and
Oleksandr Dupak, "What Will We Have Instead Of
Chornobyl?" Holos Ukrainy, 9/5/95, p. 6.]
8/7/95:CHORNOBYL PRODUCES PROFIT Chornobyl NPP reportedly produced a profit last year. At
local festivities, the plant raffled off over half a
million kilowatts of electric power to Ukrainian
citizens.
["In Ukraine," Post-Soviet
Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 8/7/95, p. 16.]
6/15/95:NEW GAS-FIRED PLANT AT CHORNOBYL: PROS
AND CONS There were mixed reactions to the announcement that a new
gas-fired plant was to be constructed at Chornobyl as a
means to replace the electricity generated by the nuclear
units that are slated for closure. Proponents of the idea
state that it will increase Western investment and pave
the way for future Western-Ukrainian partnerships;
additionally the gas-fired plants are very efficient. One
of the drawbacks is that gas fuel is more expensive and
Ukraine is already deeply in debt to Russia for previous
gas deliveries. Minenergo is against the proposal because
nearly 40% of Ukraine's generating capacity is sitting
idle for lack of fuel; Minister of Energy Vilen Semenyuk
has stated that there is no reason then to build new
generating units. Mykhailo Pavlovskyi, Chairman of the
Rada Standing Commission for Nuclear Policies and Nuclear
Safety, and Nuclear Development Subcommittee Chairman
Mykola Dudchenko have stated that no final decisions will
be taken until a complete feasibility study is finished.
[Peter Coryn and Ann MacLachan,
"Ukrainians Have Mixed Reactions To Chernobyl Gas
Proposal," Nucleonics Week, 6/15/95, pp.
10-22.]
6/12/95:THERMAL GAS POWER PLANT : SUPPORTERS
AND OPPONENTS Supporters of the plan to build a thermal gas power plant
to replace Chornobyl's generating capacity include Serhiy
Parashin, Chornobyl's plant manager; Mykhailo Umanets,
head of Derzhkomatom; and Yuriy Kostenko, Minister of
Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety (MEPNS). The
Ministries of the Economy and Energy, as well as the
Nuclear Regulatory Administration, within MEPNS argue
that ensuring gas supplies is both difficult and
expensive. Umanets and Kostenko oppose the setting of a
definite timetable for Chornobyl's closure. First Deputy
Minister Smyshlyayev, who works for Kostenko, and
Kostenko have been at odds over this and reportedly took
their debate to Prime Minister Marchuk for mediation.
["Ukrainian Government Negotiating
Chernobyl's Future With A Divided Team," Post-Soviet
Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 6/12/95, p. 11.]
5/27/95: ABB WILL REPLACE CHORNOBYL POWER PLANT WITH
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES A Western consortium headed by ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.
will work to replace the Chornobyl power plant with
alternative energy sources and provide employment for the
plant workers. Ukraine signed an agreement with ABB for
the conversion of the station into a non-nuclear source.
President and CEO of ABB, Percy Barnevik, stated that a
gas-fired plant, the most fuel efficient and
environmentally safe alternative, should be completely
operational in three years; the first installation, 100
kilometers from Chornobyl, should be generating
electricity within 24 months. Twelve months later,
according to ABB representatives, the plant would be at
full capacity--3000 megawatts. ABB has converted nuclear
power plants into fossil-fuel burning ones in the United
States previously. Estimates of the cost of closing
Chornobyl and associated costs range from $1.4-$1.7
billion. Building a new power plant will cost $2.3
billion and the entire project will cost an estimated $10
billion. The consortium, in addition to replacing the
nuclear power plant's power capacities, hopes to maintain
Chornobyl's social infrastructure, maintain the trained
personnel and scientific potential of the Ukrainian
nuclear industry, and carry out international financing
of the project. The international consortium includes:
ABB Kraftwerke AG and Mannesmann (Germany), Stromberg
(Finland), Skansa and Vattenfall (Sweden), Danish Power
Consult (Denmark), Sulzer (Switzerland), SAE Sadelmi
(Italy), ABB Combustion Engineering and CMS Energy Corp.
(United States), and Kawasaki Heavy Industries and JGT
(Japan). The Ukrainian partners of this consortium
include: the State Committee for the Utilization of
Atomic Energy (sic), the Ministry of Environmental
Protection and Nuclear Safety, the Ministry of Foreign
Economic Relations, the National Academy of Sciences, the
Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Turboatom, Monolit,
Khartron, Dniproenergobudprom, NVP Rotor, AT Budmachin,
Energoproyekt Kiev, and Energoproyekt Kharkiv. Siemens AG
recently stated that building a gas-fired plant was not
the best option for Ukraine given its already substantial
debt to Russia for natural gas. The director of Siemens
AG predicted that the gas plant would cost $3 billion,
plus $300 million per year for fuel imports. Mykhailo
Umanets, Chairman of the State Committee for the Use of
Atomic Energy, meanwhile stated that the Chornobyl
problem will not be resolved until 2025, at the earliest.
Sources: [1] "Ukraina," Yadernyy
Kontrol, 7/95, p. 8. [2] Intelenws, 5/27/95; in "Accord On Chornobyl
Conversion To Non-Nuclear Status Signed,"
JPRS-TEN-95-008, 5/27/95. [3] "ChAES budet zakryta, esli na eto naidutsia
sredstva," Segodnya, 5/30/95, p. 4. [4] Ann MacLachan, "ABB Consortium Seeks Western
Funds To Replace Chornobyl With Gas," Nucleonics
Week, 6/1/95, pp. 6-7. [5] Serhiy Sokolovskiy, "Special To INTELNEWS,"
Intelnews, 5/27/95.
2/17/95:NEW FOSSIL-FUEL BURNING PLANT WILL BE
BUILT IN CHERKASSY OBLAST The joint-stock company ENERGY that is planning to
construct a new fossil-fuel burning plant in the town of
Chyhyryn in the Cherkasy Oblast has declared that its
main reason for building this new plant is the closure of
Chornobyl. ENERGY seeks to create conditions that would
facilitate the permanent closure of Chornobyl. This
industrial financial conglomerate is the first of its
kind to exist in Ukraine; it has 30 member firms and
institutions, including "the municipal state energy
board, Kyivenergo; Donenergo, a similar board in Donetsk;
UkrElectroProject, an educational research institution;
and DniproStroyProm, the largest state construction
association within the Ministry of Energy." This
organization was established by presidential decree on 27
January 95. The president of ENERGY Ravil Abubekerov said
that the only realistic method to resolve the Chornobyl
closure crisis is to come up with capital to cover the
costs of the construction of three 700 MWe fossil fuel
plants to replace the electricity generated by Chornobyl.
This project will cost an estimated $1.3 billion. ENERGY
is seeking Western partners for the project since
efficient and environmentally safe technology is not
available domestically. One problem with the project may
be the choice of location; Chyhyryn is an environmentally
protected site and plans to construct a nuclear plant
there during Soviet times were halted. The infrastructure
of the incomplete nuclear power station at this site is
valued at $120 million. Seventy percent of ENERGY's
statue fund consists of Ukrainian capital. SIEMENS and
IBB have expressed interest in the project.
Sources: [1] Intelnews (Kiev), 2/17/95; in
"Firm Plans To Build Fossil Fuel Plant,"
FBIS-SOV-95-034, 2/17/95. [2] "Global Group Formed To Close Chornobyl,"
InfoBank, 2/20/95.
1994:CHORNOBYL CONTINUES TO HOLD SHARE OF
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY In 1994, electricity produced at Chornobyl accounted for
7% of the total supply in Ukraine.
["Nuclear Energy Safety Challenges In
The Former Soviet Union: Panel Report," Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Washington,
1995, pp. 35-50.]
12/22/94:WILL UKRAINE WITHDRAW VERKHOVNA RADA
MORATORIUM? Nur Nihmatullin, first Deputy Chairman of Derzhkomatom,
reported that Ukraine was offered a $400 million ECU
credit to bring on-line (unspecified) units which had had
their construction halted due to a Verkhovna Rada
moratorium. According to this politician, Spain also
planned on contributing $500 million for a 500 MWt
reactor for Ukraine.
[Valentin Smaga, "Nuzhno li
Vozrozhdat ChAES?" Kyivskyye Vedomosti,
12/22/94.]
12/9/94:UNIT 1 RESTARTED Unit 1 was restarted. Returning the unit to operation was
delayed due to some problems that had been identified
during the shut-down inspection. Only one of the unit's
turbogenerators is operational; the other is still
undergoing repairs.
["Unit One At Chernobyl Back
On-line," Nucnet, No. 588-589, 12/9/94.]
10/10/94:SHORTAGE OF FUNDS MEANS NO FUEL
RESERVES AT CHORNOBYL As a result of Ukraine's shortage of funds with which to
buy nuclear fuel from Russia, the two units at Chornobyl
were forced to refuel directly from the fuel transport
car that delivered the assemblies; there were no reserves
of fuel left at the plant. Ten fuel reloads were required
for the first six months of 1994, but only two were
actually delivered. The Trilateral Statement of 14
January '94 stipulated that Ukraine receive 430 fuel
assemblies; thus far, only 180 have been received. The
250 additional assemblies should be delivered by the end
of the year, but Ukraine needs 550 fuel assemblies for
the VVERs and 800 for the RBMKs.
["Financial Crunch Puts Ukraine On
Verge Of Running Out Of Fuel," Nuclear Fuel,
10/10/94, pp. 18-19.]
2/23/94:KUCHMA'S DIRECTIVE ON DEVELOPING OF
NUCLEAR POWER Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma signed a directive,
"On Urgent Steps to Develop Nuclear Power and
Complete the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Ukraine." The
directive provides for the introduction of four new
nuclear reactors, the restart of Chornobyl's Unit 2, and
the completion of the nuclear fuel cycle in Ukraine.
[UNIAN (Kiev), 4/5/94; in "Ministries
Demand Cancellation of Nuclear Directive,"
FBIS-SOV-94-067, 4/7/94, p. 51.]
10/21/93:CHORNOBYL TO BE KEPT OPEN; MORATORIUM
TO END The Ukrainian Parliament voted (221-38) to keep the
Chornobyl nuclear power plants open past the end of 1993
and to end the moratorium on the construction of new
nuclear power stations in the country. This decision was
taken in light of the power shortage in Ukraine; nuclear
power currently generates nearly one-third of Ukraine's
energy. Given the difficulties Ukraine is having in
making its payments to Russia for energy supplies,
Ukraine's indigenous energy supplies will become
increasingly important. Units 1 and 3 will continue
operation. Unit 2, closed after a serious fire in October
'91, may be restarted. The Parliament's action reversed a
1991 decision to close the entire power station on 3
December '93 Mykhailo Umanets, Chairman of the State
Committee for the Use of Nuclear Power, said the decision
would secure increased capacity of 18,000 megawatts
within the next year. Ukrainian deputies stated that this
reversal of policy was possible due to a dramatic change
in both society's and government's attitudes. Evidence of
society's change came out in a study of media reports
that found 49 percent of all statements published in the
first half of 1993 about nuclear power "had a
positive coloring," in contrast to the five years
following the Chornobyl disaster when only 4 percent of
the reports were positive Chairman of the UkrSCNRS
Nikolai Steinberg expressed the government's current
opinion, commenting that "the current level of
operational safety at Chornobyl allows me to conclude
that operation without major risks is possible."
Sources: [1] "Chernobyl To Continue Operating,
"Surviving Together, Winter 1993, p. 51. [2] Ann MacLachlan, "Ukrainian Regulator Resigns To
Protest Chernobyl Decision," Nucleonics Week,
Vol. 34, No. 49, 12/9/93, pp. 11-12. [3] Ron Popeski, "Ukraine Votes To Keep Chernobyl
Open," Reuter, 10/21/94. [4] ENS NucNet, 12/10/93. [5] Le Point (Brussels), 11/6/93, p. 51; in
JPRS-TEN-93-027, 12/15/93, pp. 56-57.
9/93:KALNYUK REPORTS ON UNIT 2 RESTART V. Kalnyuk, first deputy to the presidential
representative in the Lviv Oblast, reported that Unit 2
would be restarted. This decision was made at the 9
September Cabinet of Ministers meeting. The power
supplied by Unit 2 should save an estimated 3.3 million
tons of coal in Ukraine.
[Post Postup (Lviv), 9/13/93; in
"Energy Outlook Detailed; 3d Chornobyl Block To
Open," FBIS-SOV-93-177, 9/15/93, p. 57.]
5/6/93:CHORNOBYL REACTORS WERE USED TO PRODUCE
IRRADIATED SILICON It was recently revealed that the Chornobyl reactors have
been used for much of the decade to produce irradiated
silicon, which is a material with semiconductor
properties. The silicon may have been produced for the
Soviet defense sector as well as for export abroad to
Eastern Europe in exchange for hard currency.
[VESTI Television Program (in
Russian), 5/6/93.]
Page last updated July 1997 This file is no longer being updated. For information on
developments in the nuclear power industry, please see the
Ukraine: General Nuclear
Power Developments section.
This file is no longer being updated. For information on
developments in the nuclear power industry, please see the
