This is an archived page. Please visit the new Ukraine country profile
This file is no longer being updated.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.
3/5/2001: ENERHOATOM AND GERMAN FIRM NUKEM
SIGN CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY AT CHORNOBYL NPP
On 5 March 2001, Enerhoatom and the German firm
NUKEM Nuklear GmbH signed a contract to construct a radioactive waste treatment facility
at the Chornobyl NPP. For more information, see the 3/5/2001
entry in the Chornobyl Spent Fuel And Radioactive Waste
Developments file.
12/15/2000: UKRAINE SHUTS DOWN FINAL
REACTOR AT CHORNOBYL, SEEKS COMPENSATION
On 15 December 2000, Unit 3, the last operating
reactor at
the Chornobyl nuclear power station, was officially shut down permanently by
the head engineer in front of news cameras.For
more information, see the 12/15/2000
entry in the Nuclear Power Developments file.
7/24/97: FRENCH-BRITISH-GERMAN TEAM WINS
CHORNOBYL CONTRACT
The European Commission has awarded a contract to
manage decommissioning and solid waste cleanup at the Chornobyl nuclear
power plant (NPP) to a consortium headed by SGN-Eurisys. Funded by TACIS,
the project initiates an "on-site assistance team" (OSAT) to begin working
for an initial three-year period, renewable for a subsequent two-year term.
The other OSAT winners who will work with SGN include AEA-Technology and
Energiewerke Nord GmbH. The contract signifies the first time, after years
of performing off-site studies, that the companies will work on location,
as stated by Henri Zaccai, director of international nuclear business for
SGN. The consortium will focus its efforts on three main goals: development
of specifications for facilities and equipment for decommissioning; oversight
of design and construction of TACIS program waste treatment and other facilities;
and preparation for the shutdown and cleanup of Units 1, 2, and 3.
According to Zaccai, the consortium will also assist in compiling licensing
documents for Chornobyl decommissioning. The $5.4 million OSAT project
is the second part of a greater plan envisioned by the G-7, the European
Commission, and Ukraine for the proposed closure in 2000. The first, funded
by the Nuclear Safety Account and awarded to Westinghouse and subcontractors
NNC and Kievenergoprojekt, addresses interim spent fuel storage, effluent
treatment, and short-term safety upgrades. In June 1997, the G-7
allocated $300 million towards the third part of the plan, which concerns
stabilization of the sarcophagus.
7/21/97: LAST REACTOR AT CHORNOBYL SHUT DOWN FOR
REPAIR
Unit 3, the last operating 1,000 MW reactor at the
Chornobyl nuclear power station, was shut down on 21 July 1997 for intermediate
overhaul and routine maintenance. Originally expected to be out of
commission for only 70 days, Unit 3 may now stay idle for months.
Borys Kutsenko, responsible for the centralized repair and maintenance
facility at Chornobyl, asserts that maintenance may take longer than expected
because of “weak logistical support” and the unavailability of vital Russian-made
spare parts and equipment. Presently the station has only 25 percent of
the replacement materials it needs to complete the overhaul.[1, 2] The
most important tasks, according to Kutsenko, involve the replacement of
pipelines, thermal equipment, and fuel channels.[1] This present closure
of Unit 3, however, undermines Ukraine's negotiating position with respect
to postponing the closure of the entire Chornobyl facility if foreign aid
for shut down does not materialize.
7/4/97: EBRD AGREES TO NEW STUDIES
Despite the February 1997 release of an EBRD independent
study critical of the feasibility of completing Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4
as part of the overall Chornobyl shutdown scheme, G-7 nations continue
to push the EBRD towards releasing $370 million to Ukraine for the project.[2]
While the G-7 is eager for both the closure of Chornobyl and prevention
of increased Ukrainian dependence on Russian gas,[1, 2] the EBRD has specific
least-cost guidelines that the Chornobyl project does not meet and is hesitant
to release what would be its largest loan to date.[2] Adding further pressure
on the EBRD are engineering companies in the US, Germany, and France, who
are anxious for contracts to build the new Ukrainian reactors to compensate
for decreasing demand in their own countries.[1, 2] The bank's reluctance
continues to be controversial, as the G-7 and the European Commission dismissed
the 'least-cost study' as incomplete.[2] Still, the EBRD contends
that the study shows unrealistic assumptions about demand for electricity
in Ukraine by failing to acknowledge that many of the country's largest
energy consumers, specifically defense and heavy industry, are now defunct.[1]
One alternative raised at an EBRD shareholder meeting was to ease or waive
the bank's least-cost requirement.[2] Mr. Jacques de Larosiere, the bank
president, afraid of destroying the EBRD's triple-A credit rating, opposed
this option.[1] Mr. Heiner Luschin, EBRD director for Austria, asserts
that funding a non-least-cost project would mean a change of policy and
he would prefer the bank not diverge from its guidelines.[2] Instead,
the member states have agreed for the EBRD to conduct new feasibility studies
concentrating on funding for one substitute plant and on alternative fossil
fuel or conservation options. It is unlikely that new conclusions will
support plans for both nuclear plants.[1]
6/27/97: CHORNOBYL UNIT 1 FORMALLY CLOSED
On 27 June 1997 the Ukrainian government decreed
that Chornobyl-1 be permanently shut down and placed the Ministry of Energy
[sic] [Ministry of Atomic Energy] in charge of the decommissioning project.
Unit 1 closed temporarily for a detailed inspection on 30 November 1996.
Ukraine ultimately determined that the several million dollars of repairs
necessary to secure safety at the reactor would exceed the amount of revenue
from its operation until 2000, when Ukraine is obligated under the December
1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to shut down Chornobyl permanently.
Investigation of the fuel channels revealed a gap at the top between zirconium
alloy pressure tubes and graphite sleeves, which would require six months
of extensive retubing.[1] Preparations for final closure will be completed
in the next three months.[2] Minister of Environmental Protection
and Nuclear Safety Yuri Kostenko expressed concern over Ukraine's ability
to meet obligations to shut down Chornobyl completely without more money
for the $700 million sarcophagus project, above and beyond the $300 million
committed by the G-7, and without the release of EBRD loans to finish Khmelnytskyy-2
and Rivne-4.[1]
4/22/97-4/24/97: UKRAINE, G-7 HOLD LATEST ROUND OF TALKS ON CHORNOBYL
IN SLAVUTYCH
Ukrainian and G-7 representatives met in Slavutych on 22-24 April 1997
to discuss implementing the December 1995 Memorandum of Understanding on
closing Chornobyl.[1] Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear
Safety Yuriy Kostenko said that Ukraine has met "practically all" of the
EBRD's requirements for granting credits to close Chornobyl, including
the demonopolization of Ukraine's energy market, an increase in national
energy tariffs, the cancellation of budgetary subsidies, the closure of
Chornobyl-1 (on 30 November 1996), and the regulation of energy distribution
and funds collection and allocation by the National Controller Center.[2,3]
Hence, Kostenko stated, there was no reason why the EBRD should not finance
the completion of the Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4 reactors. He added that
the EBRD independent study of 19 February 1997 failed to take into account
the true state of Ukraine's energy sector.[3] Carol Kessler, head of the
Western delegation to the talks, said the meeting was "very successful,"
in that the two sides agreed on a plan to stabilize the Unit-4 sarcophagus
and remove the nuclear fuel from inside it.[4] Commenting after the negotiations,
Kostenko was also positive and noted that "for the first time" Ukraine
and the G-7 countries agreed on the execution of a program for decommissioning
Chornobyl. Beginning in May 1997, the $900 million for the program will
start to arrive in Ukraine, and G-7 experts hope for complete closure by
2005. The funds will finance Chornobyl shutdown as well as the development
of the national energy market.[5] The two sides have not yet come to an
agreement regarding the completion of Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4.
4/20/97: WESTINGHOUSE SAFETY PROJECT BEGINS
The Westinghouse project management team began nuclear
safety improvements on 20 April 1997 at the Chornobyl NPP, in accordance
with the January 1997 contract signed by Westinghouse and Chornobyl.
The ECU 8.7 million contract with Westinghouse and subcontractors Energoproyekt
of Ukraine and NNC of Britain comes from a ECU 118 million Chornobyl aid
grant initially agreed upon by Ukraine and the EBRD in November 1996, and
later ratified on 18 March 1997 by the Ukrainian parliament.[1] The grant,
funded through the EBRD's Nuclear Safety Account (NSA), represents the
first part of a greater $350 million assistance package for the decommissioning
of Chornobyl.[2] The funding will go towards obtaining bids for Unit
3 safety improvements and construction of nuclear waste storage and liquid
nuclear waste processing facilities.[1]
4/13/97: VERKHOVNA RADA APPROVES RESOLUTION ON CHORNOBYL, NUCLEAR POWER
Unsatisfied with the Cabinet of Ministers' work on
financial and safety concerns at Chornobyl, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's
parliament) passed a resolution on closing Chornobyl, the future of nuclear
power in Ukraine, and safety issues at Ukrainian NPPs. The
resolution gives the government two months to submit to the Rada a
comprehensive program to take Chornobyl off line and solve social problems
related to displaced Chornobyl employees, who largely reside in the town
of Slavutych near the Chornobyl plant. The resolution also foresees the
possibility of keeping Chornobyl NPP on line after 2000 if the G-7 fails
to meet its obligations under the December 1995 Memorandum of Understanding.[1,2]
Chornobyl Plant Manager Serhiy Parashin reportedly stated that the EBRD
suspended its ECU 118 million grant because the resolution leaves open
the possibility of keeping Chornobyl in operation after 2000.[3]
3/18/97: VERKHOVNA RADA RATIFIES ECU 118 MILLION GRANT FROM EBRD
The Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's Parliament) ratified an ECU 118 million grant,
allocated by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for improving
safety conditions and building a modern, underground waste storage facility
at Chornobyl.[1] EBRD first approved the grant, funded through its Nuclear
Safety Account (NSA), on 14 November 1996.[2] In the week preceding the
parliamentary decision, Minister for Environmental Protection and Nuclear
Safety Yuriy Kostenko the Rada to ratify the grant, saying that it represented
the first part of the G-7's financial assistance toward shutting down the
Chornobyl NPP. Without accepting this grant, Kostenko added, further talks
between Ukraine and the G-7 on decommissioning Chornobyl would be futile.[3,4]
3/13/97: WESTINGHOUSE CAPTURES ECU 7.9 MILLION CONTRACT FOR PMU AT CHORNOBYL
Westinghouse Electric Corp. and subcontractors NNC (UK) and Kievenergoproekt
won the bid to run the project management unit (PMU) at Chornobyl NPP which
will direct decommissioning work at the facility. The contract, worth ECU
7.9 million, is part of the ECU 118 million grant for Chornobyl closure,
funded by the Nuclear Safety Account (NSA) of the European Bank of Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD). Westinghouse won out over four other consortia
to get the bid; this is the first time the corporation has been involved
in an NSA-funded PMU project. The agreement still awaits approval by the
Verkhovna Rada, and the Ukrainian Minister of Justice must verify that
the contract is in accord with Ukrainian legal procedures. Bringing together
specialists at Chornobyl as well as outside nuclear experts, the PMU will
manage such operations as engineering, design, procurement, supervision,
and the contracting and commissioning of items needed for the NSA project.
Auguste Fesler, former director of Westinghouse Energy Systems Europe (WESE),
will head the PMU and Vyacheslav Fomin, ChNPP's deputy chief engineer,
will be the deputy project manager. Westinghouse representative Phil Evison
said the PMU team is ready to begin its work, directly after the Rada ratifies
the agreement, in order to keep with the PMU's tight schedule.
2/10/97-2/12/97: G-7, UKRAINE HOLD TALKS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ukrainian and G-7 delegations met in Washington, D.C. for three days to
continue negotiations related to the closure of Chornobyl NPP. The G-7
confirmed Ukraine's proposal to remove nuclear fuel from the Unit 4 sarcophagus,
and both sides plan to reconcile the issue of credits to Ukraine for completing
reactors at Khmelnytskyy-4 and Rivne-2 [sic] [should be Khmelnytskyy-2
and Rivne-4].
2/97: EBRD'S INDEPENDENT STUDY ON CHORNOBYL CLOSURE
PUBLISHED
On 19 February 1997, the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD) officially published an independent study that evaluates
the granting of $1 billion to Ukraine for completion of reactors
at Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4 in light of EBRD's "least cost" lending requirements.
The report concluded that the project was not economically feasible.[1,2]
Sussex University Professor John Surrey, along with five others, headed
the expert panel which prepared the report.[3] Surrey explained the findings,
saying, "Ukraine is probably one of only a few countries in the world where
electricity is being used so inefficiently. In order to produce £1,000
worth of GDP, Ukraine uses more energy than any other EBRD country."[4]
The report recommended a long term (20-30 years) energy conservation
program for Ukraine and enhancement of safety conditions at Ukrainian NPPs;
less down time for reactor repairs would markedly improve power output.[4]
The report also recommended that the West extend money to Ukraine in grants,
rather than loans, in order to restructure the electricity market and develop
"economically attractive projects in the Ukrainian energy sector". The
authors believe that liberalization and full-fledged market reform would
enable Ukraine to attract more private investment.[5] The study was delayed
somewhat in December 1996 by Derzhkomatom, which was slow to provide key
cost data needed for the report.[6]
Ukrainian and G-7 representatives responded negatively
to the EBRD report. Ukrainian Minister for Environmental Protection and
Nuclear Safety Yuriy Kostenko called the findings "superficial," emphasizing
that the report does not take into account the true state of Ukraine's
energy sector. According to Kostenko, the experts overestimated the
generating capacity presently available in Ukraine and failed to consider
the age of the existing facilities, which will require an annual input
of $2-3 million over a ten-year period to achieve modern standards.[10]
Kostenko also noted that the G-7 has a "political obligation" to fulfill
the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Ukraine and the
G-7 in Ottawa in December 1995. Nevertheless, despite his criticisms, Kostenko
pointed out that the report is only a recommendation; EBRD officials, rather
than the report's authors, will make the final decision on financing additional
power reactors in July 1997.[7] Accordingly, Kostenko added, Ukraine will
decide whether to shut down Chornobyl by 2000 only after the EBRD's decision
in July 1997.[8] Viktor Parkhomenko, head of the energy department of the
Ukrainian Ministry of the Economy, also reportedly harshly criticised the
study's findings. According to Parkhomenko, Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4
are 70 percent complete, and Ukraine will find a way to finance their completion
if the EBRD will not.[9]
1/30/97: CHIRAC, KUCHMA DISCUSS CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN
French President Jacques Chirac and Ukrainian President
Leonid Kuchma met in Paris on 30 January 1997 to discuss the European security
structure and the shutdown of the Chornobyl NPP. After the meeting, Kuchma
expressed confidence "that, together with France…the year 2000 will be
the year when the Chernobyl station is closed." Chirac noted that France
will honor its commitments under the December 1995 MoU between Ukraine
and the G-7 and added that France is pressing for the finalization of G-7
funding for completion of Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4.
12/17/96: G-7, UKRAINE -- TALKS ON SARCOPHAGUS AND NEW REACTORS
Ukraine and the G-7 agreed to conduct "complementary studies" on stabilization
of the damaged sarcophagus and discussed completion of Khmelnytskyy-2 and
Rivne-4.[1] Ukraine contended that it needs $1.2 billion by June 1997 to
complete and launch the two generating sets and that without them, the
Chornobyl NPP would not likely be shut down by 2000.[2]
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 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. After 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 (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 cold Ukrainian winter.[1,4] Nevertheless, Kuchma announced that restarting
No. 1 was not economic at a cost of $225 to $450 million -- nearly as much
as completing Khmelnytskyy-2 or Rivne-4 at the high end.[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 Unit 1, Derzhkomatom passed a decree sanctioning
such a measure.[2] If Unit 2 refurbishment money is allocated, it 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]
11/14/96: ECU 118 MILLION GRANT FOR CHORNOBYL SIGNED IN LONDON
Ukraine and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
signed an ECU 118 million ($147 million) grant agreement to begin decommissioning
work on the Chornobyl NPP. This grant is part of a larger $350 million
aid package to be drawn from the Nuclear Safety Account (NSA), administered
by the EBRD to help fund the closure of unsafe reactors in Eastern Europe
and the CIS. The grant agreement, signed at EBRD headquarters in London,
partly fulfills the December 1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between
the G-7 and Ukraine and will enable decommissioning to commence as early
as January 1997. Of the ECU 118 million grant, ECU 13.5 million will go
towards short-term safety improvements at Chornobyl-3 and ECU 85.8 million
will finance construction of an interim spent fuel storage facility and
a liquid radioactive waste treatment facility to immobilize stockpiles
of operational waste. According to EBRD Deputy Vice-President Joachim Jahnke,
the division of the ECU 85.8 million between the two storage facilities
will "depend on the bidding process." At least half of the remaining ECU
18.7 million will finance the creation of a project management unit (PMU)
to steer decommissioning activities at the plant, and the rest will go
towards a number of smaller tasks as needed. Jahnke mentioned that the
signatories to the agreement are "under a tight schedule" to close the
plant by 2000. Equipment procurement will be done via open tendering and
will include both Western and Eastern European companies. The Verkhovna
Rada must still ratify the agreement.
10/31/96: ECU 118 MILLION NSA GRANT TO UKRAINE DELAYED
According to head of the G-7 nuclear safety working group Claude Mandil,
a $118 million [sic] [ECU 118 million] grant to Ukraine, drawn from the
Nuclear Safety Account (NSA) should have been agreed upon and approved
in mid-October 1996. Intended for safety improvements and waste management
programs at Chornobyl, the grant has been delayed for at least four reasons.
First, some NSA contributors have refused to back the grant until Ukraine
sets a firm date for taking Chornobyl Units 1 and 3 off line. Second, Ukraine
refuses to establish a deadline for Chornobyl's closure until the West
begins advancing the necessary funds, including money for completing reactors
at Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4. Third, the Verkhovna Rada is currently occupied
with constitutional reforms and, therefore, unable to address necessary
legislation for the project, e.g. a liability bill and one affording tax-exempt
status to companies participating in the Chornobyl program. Fourth, according
to French officials, there is a strong lobby in the Verkhovna Rada opposed
to Chornobyl shutdown, given the possibility of power outages in the coming
winter due to coal miner strikes and low hydro reserves. According to Mandil,
$500 million in grants and loans have been approved, and $700 should become
available in the next six months.
10/24/96: CANADA PROVIDES $7.5 MILLION TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL
According to Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, Canada provided
$7.5 million to Ukraine to help shut down Chornobyl. Axworthy called upon
other members of the G-7 to release funds for Chornobyl as per the December
1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). He said that Canada will speak
on Ukraine's behalf concerning Chornobyl funds during the next G-7 meeting.
10/14/96: G-7, UKRAINE DISCUSS CHORNOBYL CLOSURE IN PARIS
During their 11-14 October meeting in Paris, Ukrainian and G-7 experts
drafted an agreement, stipulating that Ukraine is to receive ECU 118 million
($147 million) grant from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD) to finance preparatory work to close Chornobyl NPP. The grant is
separate from the $3.1 billion aid package, agreed in the December 1995
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).[1,2] The money will come from the Nuclear
Safety Account, created by 14 Western donor countries and the European
Union (EU) and administered by the EBRD. According to Ukrainian Minister
of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety Yuriy Kostenko, who headed
the Ukrainian delegation at the negotiations, the EBRD is providing the
funds specifically for constructing spent fuel and solid waste storage
facilities at Chornobyl.[3] The delegations drew up a schedule for funding
the completion of the Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4 nuclear reactors. Upon
the adoption of a special plan by the EBRD Board, Ukraine is to receive
$600-700 million in aid for 1997. The two sides also considered the Alliance
International report on reconstructing the Unit-4 sarcophagus and agreed
that work on the project is in its final stage. The Ukrainian delegation
reported on the September '96 neutron flux in the Unit-4 sarcophagus and
expressed hope that a plan to remove nuclear fuel and radioactive water
(nearly 3000 cubic meters) therefrom will be included in the final version
of a feasibility report on the sarcophagus.[1,2,4]
10/9/96: UKRAINIAN, G-7 OFFICIALS MEET TO DISCUSS FUNDING FOR CHORNOBYL
CLOSURE
Before their upcoming round of talks on 11-14 October, Ukrainian and G-7
representatives held a preliminary meeting in Paris on 9 October to discuss
funding Chornobyl closure. Nuclear experts from both sides discussed a
recent study, which deemed the construction of a second sarcophagus at
Unit-4 over the first expensive and environmentally unsafe, while the Ukrainian
delegation called upon G-7 countries to speed up the release of $3.1 billion
in aid as per the December 1995 Memorandum of Understanding.[1] Ukrainian
Minister of Energy Viktor Dobrev reiterated his country's position that
the EBRD's ongoing independent study could ultimately delay the decommissioning
process and may force Ukraine to restart Chernobl-2 in 1997.[2]
10/96: UKRAINE SETS UP NEW BODY FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY, UKRENERGOATOM
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma created a new reactor-operating concern
in October 1996, called Ukrenergoatom.[1] According to Khmelnytskyy plant
manager Viktor Sapronov, the new concern "will allow us to organize cooperation
in relation to the energy market in the best way." Sapronov said Ukrenergoatom
will address a number of matters, including energy rate policies, safety
issues, fuel and waste management, rules for using nuclear power, and the
development of advanced reactor design, while Derzhkomatom (the state nuclear
energy committee) will cover "general management of the nuclear industry,"
including industry development, decommissioning of nuclear installations,
etc. Western financial institutions reportedly required the establishment
of the new concern, so that there would be an identified Ukrainian borrower,
if and when funding for completing Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4, a condition
for shutting down Chornobyl, is approved.[2] (For more information on these
bodies see the html/ukraine/govt/ff_ukgov.htm">Ukraine:
Government Bodies section.)
9/18/96: DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING LETTER TO BID ON CHORNOBYL PMU
According to the December 1995 MoU between Ukraine and the West on Chornobyl
closure, the Nuclear Safety Account (NSA), managed by the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, is responsible for financing work to
decommission Chornobyl-1 and -3 and for handling related tasks, such as
radioactive waste management. To organize its activities at Chornobyl NPP,
the NSA requested bids to establish a Project Management Unit (PMU), which
would direct efforts to close the plant in the near future. First letters
of interest from those intending to bid on the PMU project were due on
18 September 1996. According to EBRD officials, the short list will include
six semifinalists, with final bids due 6 December 1996. The PMU, a requisite
part of all NSA grants to date, may begin its activities as soon as January
1997.
9/16/96-9/20/96: KOSTENKO CALLS FOR AID FOR CHORNOBYL AT THE IAEA GENERAL
CONFERENCE
During his speech at the 40th session of the IAEA General Conference, Ukrainian
Minister for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety Yuriy Kostenko
called upon G-7 countries not to postpone financial support for the first
stage projects to decommission the Chornobyl NPP. Kostenko stressed that
failure to implement the December 1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
signed by the G-7 and Ukraine will "significantly discredit the political
agreements reached through a strong and long lasting negotiation process"
and eventually halt the decommissioning of Chornobyl.
9/13/96: VAN DER BROEK CONCLUDES HIS VISIT TO KIEV, PROMISES CREDITS
AND GRANTS FOR CHORNOBYL CLOSURE
In a press conference after visiting Kiev, European Union (EU) Commissioner
for Foreign Policy Hans van der Broek said that the Commission understands
the complexity of the Chornobyl issue and will do its utmost to help Ukraine
financially and technologically to close Chornobyl. Van der Broek stated
that the EU will allocate $600 million ($120 million in grants) specifically
for this purpose.[1] Van der Broek and Head of the Ukrainian Reconstruction
and Development Agency Roman Shpek reportedly concluded an aid program
for 1996-1999, providing $700 million to Ukraine under TACIS (the EU's
Technical Assistance to the CIS).[1,2] The TACIS program for Ukraine includes
a financial protocol to the December 1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).[1]
According to the protocol, approximately ECU 22.5 million will be devoted
to purchasing equipment for Chornobyl shutdown. ECU 9 million will be channeled
to Ukrainian nuclear authorities for completing VVER reactors at Rivne-4
and Khmelnytskyy-2 to compensate for the loss in energy generating capacity,
resulting from the closure. ECU 6 million will be granted to financing
nuclear projects in Ukraine.[2] During a meeting between van der Broek
and Kuchma, the latter pointed out that Ukraine is interested in receiving
loans, rather than grants, for upgrading its nuclear reactors and is dissatisfied
with Westerm procrastination in providing financial credits for the Chornobyl
shutdown and other nuclear energy projects [3,4].
9/12/96: UDOVENKO CRITICIZES WEST DURING STOCKHOLM VISIT
During an official visit to Stockholm, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Hennadiy
Udovenko said "There has not been a penny given to us for assistance,"
despite the December 1995 Memorandum of Understanding. Udovenko added that
the plant's closure depends on Western financial assistance, but added
that contrary to opinion in some Scandinavian political circles, Ukraine
has not been using the Chornobyl problem to bargain for money. In conjunction
with Udovenko's visit, the government of Sweden granted $3.3 million to
research institutes in Kiev and Moscow -- apparently to the ISTC and ISTCU
respectively.
9/2/96: UKRAINE, EBRD TO SIGN AGREEMENT ON CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN
According to resident representative of the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD) Yaroslav Kinach, Ukraine is close to signing a deal
with the EBRD to fund Chornobyl shutdown. Money will come from the EBRD's
Nuclear Safety Account, created to help decommission unsafe reactors in
the CIS. Kinach said, "The agreement will be signed imminently." According
to a senior official at the State Committee on the Use of Nuclear Energy
(Derzhkomatom), the EBRD and Ukrainian nuclear authorities will offer joint
tenders in January 1997 to attract foreign investment for the project.
7/29/96: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT
The European Parliament issued a resolution calling for increased financial
and technical aid to Ukraine for Chornobyl safety improvements and environmental
cleanup in areas affected by the 1986 disaster, including those in Russia
and Belarus.
7/26/96: U.S. SENATE APPROVES AID TO UKRAINE, CHORNOBYL
The U.S. Senate approved the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act for
FY 1997, which includes $225 million in financial aid to Ukraine. Of the
$225 million, $25 million is for decommissioning the Chornobyl NPP, $5
million for health-related consequences of the Chornobyl disaster, and
$50 million for safety at Ukrainian nuclear reactors.
7/1/96: JAPANESE FOREIGN MINISTER VISITS UKRAINE
Japanese Foreign Minister Yukihiko Ikeda arrived in Ukraine and met with
President Kuchma, Prime Minister Petro Lazarenko, and Foreign Minister
Hennadiy Udovenko. Ikeda welcomed Ukraine's decisions to close the Chornobyl
NPP and to shut down Chornobyl-1 by 30 November 1996. He offered $55 million
in new credits to Ukraine.
6/27/96: PAVLOVSKYY SPEAKS ON CHORNOBYL CLOSURE
According to Mykhailo Pavlovskyy, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian
parliament) Commission for Issues of Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Safety,
Chornobyl has become one of the world's 10 safest NPPs. The West's insistence
on closing Chornobyl NPP is designed to help industrialized countries take
over the Ukrainian energy market by selling electricity to Kiev in exchange
for closing the plant. Pavlovskyy restated Ukraine's official position
that the Chornobyl NPP will be closed as soon as Ukraine receives sufficient
funds for decommissioning the plant, solving the problem the Unit-4 sarcophagus
problem, constructing alternative reactors at Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4,
and employing Chornobyl's specialists and workers. Otherwise, Pavlovskyy
said, the plant will remain in operation.
6/25/96: OFFICIALS PLAN TO DISMANTLE REACTOR
The Chornobyl management announced that Unit 1 is to be shut down on 30
November 1996 and dismantled over the next 5-6 years. Only Unit 3 will
be operational by 1997.
6/21/96: KOSTENKO ON VISITING THE UNITED STATES, CHORNOBYL CLOSURE
Ukrainian Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety Yuriy
Kostenko held a press conference regarding his 10-18 June 1996 visit to
the United States. Kostenko pronounced the visit a success following a
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) decision to draft legislation for funding
Chornobyl shutdown. Kostenko hopes that other members of the G-7 will follow
suit. In talking with U.S. State Department coordinator of cooperation
with Newly Independent States (NIS) John Collins, Kostenko stressed that
Ukraine is spending $800 million annually to deal with the Chornobyl disaster.
He called upon U.S. partners to participate in for-profit projects worth
$2.6 billion and non-profit projects worth $500 million connected to closing
Chornobyl and building reactors at Rivne and Khmelnytskyy. The Ukrainian
delegation asked DOE to work with Congress and develop a time table for
financing the closure. Kostenko suggested that $289 million in U.S. financial
aid to Ukraiane would be best spent on shutting down Chornobyl. Kostenko
also emphasized that the schedule of credits offered by the World Bank
and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to decommission
Chornobyl does not give Ukraine enough time to bring Khmelnytskyy-2 and
Rivne-4 on-line by 1997 and is therefore unacceptable. The United States
stressed the need to reform Ukraine's energy sector rather than to shut
down the plant.
6/14/96: 20-YEAR PROGRAM TO SHUT DOWN CHORNOBYL NPP
An international consortium of nuclear engineering companies proposed a
20-year program to shut down and clean up the Chornobyl NPP.
6/6/96: UKRAINE, G-7 -- CRUCIAL ISSUES OF CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN UNRESOLVED
According to Ukrainian Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear
Safety Yuriy Kostenko, Ukrainian and G-7 negotiators were unable to agree
on crucial issues concerning Chornobyl shutdown. Ukraine needs $840 million
immediately to complete the Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4 reactors.[1] Kostenko
said that if a mutually acceptable solution is not found, Ukraine would
be forced to revise the schedule for shutdown.[2] Kostenko also noted that
due to delays in G-7 funding, Ukrainian nuclear authorities may have to
restart Chornobyl-2. The head of the G-7 delegation reported that an agreement
was reached to disburse $1.4 billion over 10 years for the closure of Chornobyl
NPP. Both sides also agreed to a $170 million grant to build storage and
processing facilities. [2,3] It was reported that on 30 May '96 Ukrainian
President Leonid Kuchma had a conversation with Kostenko and Foreign Minister
Hennadiy Udovenko devoted to elaborating the Ukrainian position for the
6 June 1996 meeting. Ukrainian officials expected that this expert meeting
should develop a clear procedure for financing the closure of Chornobyl
which would specifically include restoring the collapsing sarcophagus over
Unit 4 and reliable social assistance for Chornobyl NPP personnel. [4,5]
4/27/96: YABLOKOV -- UKRAINE SEEKS NUCLEAR WEAPONS
According to Professor Aleksey Yablokov, Russian ecologist and Chairman
of the Russian Center for Ecological Policy, Ukraine is accelerating the
development of its peaceful nuclear facilities, including Chornobyl NPP,
to "get access to military nuclear technologies, to create an experimental
base for creating nuclear weapons." Yablokov suggested that Ukraine has
exaggerated the cost of Chornobyl shutdown and the consequent loss of nuclear
energy production in order to extract additional financial aid from the
West for peaceful and military nuclear developments.
4/26/96: CANADA TO HELP UPGRADE KRYVY RIH POWER PLANT
Canada reportedly promised $3.5 million in aid to upgrade the Kryvyy Rih
power plant and compensate for lost energy capacity upon Chornobyl's closure.
4/18/96: KUCHMA, MAJOR ON STEPS TO SHUT CHORNOBYL
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and British Prime Minister John Major
signed bilateral documents, which reportedly worked out the practical measures
necessary to shut down the Chornobyl nuclear power plant.
4/14/96: PROPER WESTERN FINANCING CAN CLOSE CHORNOBYL
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk reiterated Ukraine's "political decision"
to close Chornobyl NPP. At this point proper financing from the West is
needed.
4/12/96: VIENNA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONSEQUENCES OF CHORNOBYL
ACCIDENT
At the Vienna International Conference on the Consequences of the Chornobyl
Accident, participants concluded that it was too early for a full evaluation
of the Chornobyl disaster. Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk confirmed Ukraine's
intention to close Chornobyl NPP. However, no solution was found for shutting
down Chornobyl or replacing the Unit-4 sarcophagus. Given the disparity
between Ukraine's available hard currency and the large price tag for closing
Chornobyl's, experts think that projects related to shutdown will be difficult
to implement. European Commission specialists estimate the cost of building
a second hermetic cover over the sarcophagus at $1.5 billion.
4/10/96: KOSTENKO SPEAKS AT IAEA CONFERENCE ON CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT
During the 8-12 April '96 Vienna International Conference on the Consequences
of the Chornobyl Accident, sponsored by the IAEA with the participation
of other UN agencies, Ukrainian Minister of Environmental Protection and
Nuclear Safety Yuriy Kostenko said that Ukraine must receive financial
aid for closing Chornobyl soon. Otherwise, Kiev will be forced to consider
modernizing the two operating units at Chornobyl. According to a 3 April
1996 decree of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ukrainian government allocated
$1 million for the closure of Unit 1 and approximately $4.2 million for
reconstructing the destroyed Unit-4. Kostenko explained, the government
will renovate or close Unit 1 in 1996, and Unit 3 after 2000.
4/2/96: G-7 WORKING GROUP VISITS KIEV
The G-7 working group headed by French representative Mandil met in Kiev
with the Ukrainian delegation headed by Ukrainian Minister of Environmental
Protection and Nuclear Safety Yuriy Kostenko to discuss decommissioning
Chornobyl. Both sides discussed implementing the December 1995 Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) between Ukraine and the G-7, which extends a $3.1
billion aid package for the shutdown of Chornobyl. Other issues on the
agenda were eliminating the aftermath of the Chornobyl disaster, fixing
the Unit-4 sarcophagus, and reforming the Ukrainian power industry.
4/1/96: UNITED STATES GIVES $10 MILLION FOR CHORNOBYL CLOSURE
U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced that the United States
will give another $10 million in aid to Ukraine for closing Chornobyl.
The assistance will be earmarked for hospitals and public health authorities.
3/7/96: MINISTRY OF CHORNOBYL, DERZHKOMATOM MAY BE CLOSED
Ukrainian nuclear officials asserted that constant
repairs have kept the Unit-4 sarcophagus in good shape and replacing it
is not necessary. Steinberg added that the Ministry of Chornobyl is a dying
ministry and will likely be abolished after April 1996. He noted that Derzhkomatom
may be eliminated in the near future as well. Glukhov guessed that decommissioning
Chornobyl will take from one to ten years, although it could be done immediately
given sufficient funds.
3/5/96: CHORNOBYL WORKERS WILL GET RAISE
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk signed a decree to double salaries at Chornobyl
during 1996.
2/21/96: KUCHMA INVITES GORE TO KIEV
At the U.S. White House, Ukrainian President Kuchma proposed creating a
joint U.S.-Ukrainian commission on energy to be chaired by Kuchma and U.S.
Vice President Gore. Kuchma invited Gore to Kiev on the tenth anniversary
of the Chornobyl disaster and requested that the Chornobyl issue be raised
at the April '96 G-7 summit in Moscow.
2/15/96: CHORNOBYL NOT TO BE CLOSED 'TIL 2007
Serhiy Parashin, the Chornobyl plant manager, told German officials that
Chornobyl will not be closed until at least 2007; the MoU signed by Ukraine
and the G-7 did not set a deadline for Chornobyl's closure.
2/13/96: DEADLINES FOR DECOMMISSIONING CHORNOBYL MAY SHIFT
Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety Yuriy Kostenko
announced that as soon as the West simplifies procedures for extending
financial assistance and gives Ukraine credits it can begin the 30-month
process of closing down the Chornobyl reactors. If the credits do not come
until 1997, Kostenko warned that all deadlines for decommissioning Chornobyl
will shift.
2/13/96: LAWMAKERS APPEAL TO KUCHMA, KEEP CHORNOBYL OPEN
Fifty-nine Ukrainian lawmakers appealed in an open letter to President
Leonid Kuchma to reconsider his decision on closing Chornobyl NPP. They
demanded the removal of Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear
Safety Yuriy Kostenko as the head of ongoing talks with the G-7 on the
plant's closure. They cited experts' claims that Chornobyl is the safest
and most efficient Ukrainian NPP and that by 2007 it could produce $5.2
billion in electricity exports, after which it could be closed without
hurting Ukraine's economy.
2/3/96: RUSSIAN CONCERN ENERGIYA TO CONSTRUCT ALTERNATIVE POWER PLANTS
According to a draft presidential decree, the Russian concern Energiya
will be in charge of constructing alternative energy sources to replace
the Chornobyl NPP. It will finance the program (an estimated $15.7 billion
through 2010) with its own resources and the help of domestic and foreign
investors. Energiya will reportedly increase natural gas extraction in
Ukraine to 10 billion cubic meters a year. It was also reported that Chornobyl
will be transferred to the concern's management and privatized in 1996
(51% of the stock will belong to the state.)
1/19/96: KOROVKIN -- CLOSING CHORNOBYL UNNECESSARY
Volodymyr Korovkin, manager of the Rivne NPP, said that closing Chornobyl
NPP before schedule is unnecessary. He believes that the Ukrainian government
has now adopted a "realistic attitude" about keeping the reactors running.
1/18/96: SWITZERLAND GIVES Fr40 MILLION TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL
Switzerland gave Ukraine 40 million francs for closing Chornobyl and renovating
Ukraine's hydroelectric system.
1/17/96: CHORNOBYL CLOSURE WILL RUIN UKRAINE'S NATIONAL ENERGY
SYSTEM
Oleksandr Moroz, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, said that the government
has not made a final decision about closing Chornobyl, for closing the
plant would ruin Ukraine's national energy system. He suggested that Chornobyl's
closure would end financial aid from the West.
1/4/96: MOROZ -- PRESS WESTERN NATIONS FOR FULL FUNDING
Chairman of the Rada Oleksandr Moroz wrote to President Kuchma encouraging
him to press Western nations to fund fully Chornobyl's closure, including
social benefits, job training, and safe storage of nuclear materials.
1/4/96: WESTERN FUNDING FIRST, THEN CHORNOBYL CLOSURE
The Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) advised President Kuchma to secure
Western funding before taking concrete steps to decommission Chornobyl.
In late December '95, it postponed voting on a bill entitled "On the program
for closure of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant and principles for its
financing." Parliament insiders reportedly are sure that the Chornobyl
decommissioning bill will be passed.
1/96: CHORNOBYL CLOSURE REQUIRES THREE STAGES
According to Ukrainian and IAEA nuclear specialists, Chornobyl's closure
requires three stages. 1) Five years to build storage and reprocessing
facilities to store spent fuel and nuclear waste from the plant, as well
as to provide energy supply for the on-site work and subsequent maintenance
of the Chornobyl NPP after closure. 2) Five years to reprocess Chornobyl
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. 3) Five-ten years to dismantle
and decommission all facilities and buildings on site. Specialists have
emphasized that after the Chornobyl NPP is closed, the plant's maintenance
will require large amounts of energy to meet safety requirements.
12/13/95: G-7 ASSISTANCE FOR DECOMMISSIONING CHORNOBYL
The United States and the European Union issued a New Transatlantic Agenda,
which commits both sides to provide G-7 assistance for decommissioning
Chornobyl NPP.
12/5/95: MEMORANDUM OF COOPERATION BETWEEN UKRAINE AND EU
Yuriy Kostenko and a representative of the European Union signed a memorandum
of cooperation on addressing problems associated with Chornobyl. According
to this article, this was the first meeting at which all angles of the
issue had been addressed.
12/95: APRIL 26 IS INTERNATIONAL CHORNOBYL DAY
The U.N. General Assembly proclaimed 26 April 1996 "International Day of
Chornobyl," calling on countries to continue and increase assistance. The
resolution called on the world community to participate in creating an
International Research and Technological Center.
12/95: PARASHIN, UMANETS -- PLANS TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL
Serhiy Parashin and Mikhailo Umanets both questioned the validity of the
G-7 plan to close Chornobyl. They offered alternative plans aimed at keeping
the plant in operation after 2000.
11/30/95: KOSTENKO -- KIEV TO SHUT CHORNOBYL
2000; UNIT 4 EMISSIONS LEAK
Ukraine and the G-7 reportedly agreed on a memorandum outlining steps to
shutdown Chornobyl NPP by 2000. Given proper funding, Yuriy Kostenko said
that Ukraine has a "strict political obligation" to close the plant by
2000. The agreement has yet to be considered at the Ukrainian government
and parliament level, however. In related news, an international conference
in Slavutych revealed that radiation emission above Unit 4 reached 46 roentgen
per hour -- the same level recorded in April 1986.
11/30/95: WHY THE PUSH TO KEEP CHORNOBYL ON LINE?
Volodymyr Usatenko, a nuclear physicist and former parliamentarian, asserted
that Ukrainian citizens are being taken "for a ride"; power shortage is
not the reason for Ukraine's drive to keep Chornobyl on-line. The Ministry
of Statistics reported that in 1994 Ukraine exported $18 million worth
of electricity, while in the first nine months of 1995 electricity exports
reached $60 million.
11/30/95: UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION ON CLOSING CHORNOBYL NPP
Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Moroz asserted that Ukraine never
made a final decision to decommission the Chornobyl nuclear power plant.
However, Ukrainian legislation proves Moroz false. Decommissioning the
Chornobyl NPP was stipulated in Rada Resolution No. 1726-XII, "On Urgent
Measures In Connection With Decommissioning the Chornobyl Nuclear Power
Plant," 29 October 1991. This document required the power plant to cease
operations by 1993. The article further reports that $304 million (by the
National Bank exchange rate at that time) was allocated in the 1992 Ukrainian
state budget for Chornobyl decommissioning. On 25 March 1992, Ukrainian
state resolution No. 152 was passed, outlining procedures for Chornobyl's
shutdown. These activities were discontinued in 1993. In 1992 the Kurchatov
Research Institute in St. Petersburg (which designed the Soviet RBMK reactor)
also suggested that for safety reasons the term of operation for RBMK reactors
should be 20 years instead of the earlier designated 30 years.
11/29/95: REFURBISH CHORNOBYL NPP, KEEP ON LINE
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk stated that the Chornobyl nuclear power plant
needs to be refurbished and kept on-line.
11/29/95: CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN REQUIRES $3 BILLION
Mikhailo Umanets, Chairman of Derzhkomatom, reported that shutting down
Chornobyl NPP requires $1.4 billion for decommissioning Units 1-3, $1.6
billion to build a replacement sarcophagus, $400 million to build a high-voltage
substation for Kiev, and additional costs for replacement power. Current
plans have to take into account whether to build a new sarcophagus over
Unit 3 and the auxiliary building or just over Unit 4. Serhiy Parashin,
the plant manager, said that the auxiliary building is built on a platform,
separate from Unit 3, and is not at risk.
11/25/95: KUCHMA THREATENS NOT TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL
President Leonid Kuchma said that Ukraine would reconsider Chornobyl's
closure if the G-7 does not help Ukraine with the storage of nuclear waste
and the maintenance of the buried fourth unit.
11/24/95: CHORNOBYL CLOSURE BY 2000 DOUBTFUL
President Leonid Kuchma and Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk said that the
G-7 offer of $2.2 billion in loans and grants was not sufficient to finance
Chornobyl's closure. Both politicians doubted that the plant could be closed
by the 2000 deadline. Kuchma said that the latest offer would not cover
the costs of building the new shelter to cover Units 3 and 4 ("Ukritiye-2").
Marchuk said the G-7's offer absolutely does not meet their needs and as
it stands Ukraine will be forced to modernize at least two of Chornobyl's
units.
11/22/95: UKRAINE UNABLE TO FINANCE CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN
The National Security Council issued a proposal to continue commercial
operation of Chornobyl NPP if the G-7 does not grant financial aid for
its decommissioning. Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk supported the proposal
citing Ukraine's inability to finance Chornobyl's closure. It was also
reported that in the first 10 months of 1995 Ukraine exported $75 million
worth of electricity, compared to $18 million in 1994.
11/18/95: $2.72 BILLION PROFIT FOR RUNNING CHORNOBYL NPP LONGER
The Chornobyl leadership reportedly said running the plant until 2010 would
generate $2.72 billion in revenue. This money could be used, it argues,
for building the new sarcophagus for Unit 4, reconstructing the plant,
the social needs of Chornobyl workers, and contributions to the budget.
11/16/95: CHORNOBYL CLOSURE COSTS -- WHOSE ESTIMATE IS HIGHEST?
Diplomatic discussions between Ukraine, G-7 countries, and various international
organizations are slated for 20 November '95 to review the progress of
various projects connected to Chornobyl's closure. According to G-7 representative
and Canadian Vice-Premier Sheila Copps, the closure date, Western guarantees
of Chornobyl decommissioning financing, and evaluation of Ukraine's contributions
to the program still remain uncoordinated. G-7 negotiators reportedly cited
$349 million in loans and grants to prepare for Chornobyl decommissioning.
Russian experts reportedly estimated the cost of decommissioning an RBMK
unit at $586 million. Yuriy Kostenko, meanwhile, estimated all closure
costs would add up to more than $10 billion (see 11/5/95). Ukrainian negotiators
in Kiev insisted on western compensation to cover Ukraine's projected loss
from closing Chornobyl prior to its slated 30 year lifetime.
11/15/95: PAVLOVSKYY REPORTS ON CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN
Mikhailo Pavlovskyy, the Chairman of the Rada Standing Commission for Nuclear
Policies and Nuclear Security, warned that the Chornobyl NPP would be kept
in operation if the West does not finance its closure. He also reportedly
expressed support for the Ukrainian State Committee for the Use of Atomic
Energy proposal to construct two new nuclear reactors at Chornobyl.
11/12/95: PARASHIN TO MODERNIZE CHORNOBYL NPP
Serhiy Parashin, the director of the Chornobyl NPP, reportedly announced
that he intends to continue modernization of the plant until the last moment
of its operation.
11/11/95: MARCHUK AGAINST CHORNOBYL CLOSURE
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk, in an interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta,
stated that the Ukrainian leadership never stated that Ukraine is ready
to close the Chornobyl NPP before 2000. He stressed the high cost of the
closure and the need for the G-7 and the Council of Europe to assist with
financing.
11/1/95-11/2/95: NEGOTIATIONS TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL AND COMPLETE
KHMELNYTSKYY-2, RIVNE-4.
Negotiations were held on a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on
western support for Chornobyl's closure. Ukrainian and Western negotiators
broke off talks before reaching agreement. The MoU is to be signed in December
1995. The estimated cost for 20 projects to shut the two units still functioning
is $3.2 billion. The projects include decommissioning the reactors, improving
safety at Unit 3 (which will continue to operate until 2000), building
a long-term shelter over Unit 4, and managing accumulated waste. G-7 proposals
provide $1.8 billion in credits and $450 million in grants to Ukraine.
Ukraine is expected to provide approximately $900 million. The $3.2 billion
figure is subject to change. Ukrainian negotiators seek funding to complete
Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4.
10/12/95: G-7 WILL DISCUSS SUM AFTER CONCRETE PLANS ON CHORNOBYL'S CLOSURE
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk regretted that $4 billion was demanded for
Chornobyl closure, since this sum prohibits dialogue with international
financial institutions. Marchuk said that the G-7 will discuss specific
figures only when concrete plans and schedules for the closure have been
submitted.
10/11/95: UKRAINE ABANDONS PLAN TO BUILD GAS-FIRED PLANT
President Kuchma announced that Ukraine has abandoned the plan to build
a gas fired-plant to replace a decommissioned Chornobyl NPP. The Ukrainian
government now intends to build a recycling plant. Kuchma announced on
12 October 1995 that the final program to decommission Chornobyl should
be ready by the end of the year. However, Chornobyl's closure is only guaranteed
if Ukraine feels that it has the resources to do so. No resolution is yet
apparent in this arena, according to a Chornobyl spokesman who reported
that the G-7 had promised $207 million in assistance for the plant's closure
but had not delivered any money.
10/2/95: FRANCE, GERMANY, JAPAN PRESSURED TO FINANCE CHORNOBYL
CLOSURE
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk asked Canada to pressure France, Germany
and Japan to provide financing to close Chornobyl by 2000. Marchuk was
reported to have said that the United States and Canada have a constructive,
understanding view on Chornobyl's closure.
9/28/95: ASSISTANCE TO SHUTDOWN CHORNOBYL NPP: $1.44 OR $4 BILLION?
Yuriy Kostenko announced at a press conference that he had agreed to the
G-7 plan for Chornobyl's closure and the generation of replacement power
at a cost of $1.44 billion. He said a plan of action would be ready by
mid-October. On 29 September 1995 President Kuchma announced that Ukraine
will still require $4 billion in assistance to shutdown the Chornobyl NPP.
9/27/95: UKRAINE, G-7 -- PARTIAL AGREEMENT ON CHORNOBYL
Yuriy Kostenko, the Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety,
and Alan Culhan, the Canadian Chairman of the G-7, were satisfied with
the general principles they reached on Chornobyl closure and both hoped
that an agreement on closure would be signed in late November. At the meeting,
Kostenko reiterated his dissatisfaction that the G-7 did not meet the Ukrainian
demand of $4 billion for Chornobyl's closure. Kostenko did say, however,
that the possibility of a gas combine in Slavutych is not out of the question
because it has support in the U.S. DOE and in Canada. Officially, the G-7
sees the priority as completing two VVER-1000 units at Rivne-4 and Khmelnytskyy-2,
reconstructing Ukraine's hydropower plants, and modernizing thermal power
plants. For the first time, G-7 and Ukrainian negotiators included funding
for the sarcophagus in the overall plan for Chornobyl's closure.
8/30/95: KUCHMA ASKS BRITAIN FOR ASSISTANCE
President Kuchma asked Britain to help shut down the Chornobyl NPP. British
Prime Minister Bonsor said his country intends to provide political, technological
and financial assistance to Ukraine and noted the importance of a scheduled
visit to Ukraine by Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind.
8/28/95: PARASHIN -- WEST MUST MATCH COST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NUCLEAR
FUEL AND GAS
According to Serhiy Parashin, Director of the Chornobyl NPP(ChNPP), plant
shutdown would lead to direct losses of $4.4 billion. Plans for construction
of a steam-gas power plant at Slavutych, designed to replace ChNPP, will
require three years and $2 billion to complete. His "final offer" is that
the West not only fund construction of this plant, but also cover the difference
in cost between nuclear fuel and gas for the next ten years -- measures
totaling $4 billion. Parashin foresees the 15 EU members, the three non-EU
members of the G-7 and Ukraine each contributing $200 million to construct
a replacement power plant.
8/23/95: CHORNOBYL NPP CANNOT CLOSE BEFORE ITS EMPLOYEES GET
NEW JOBS
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk announced that the Chornobyl NPP will stay
in operation until its employees secure new jobs. Ukraine has pressured
the G-7 to provide the funds to create those jobs.
8/15/95: PROPOSAL TO SAVE 100,000 JOBS
Oleksandr Dupak, Vice President of the Association of Energy and Electric
Engineers, proposed developing nuclear and thermal power plants, instead
of a steam-gas one, to replace Ukraine's energy needs when Chornobyl goes
off-line. The Association hopes to utilize domestic power sources, improve
the condition of the environment, and create or save 100,000 jobs. This
requires $2 billion plus Western technical assistance.
8/8/95: SEPTEMBER MEETING TO DISCUSS CHORNOBYL CLOSURE?
President Kuchma reportedly wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
requesting a meeting in September to discuss plans to close Chornobyl.
Kuchma said Kiev has the "legal and moral right to alter its decision"
to close the reactors. The Presidential Commission on Nuclear Policy and
Ecological Safety recommended that Chornobyl undergo major reconstruction
and continue operation for 10 years.
8/8/95: SIEMENS SHOWS INTEREST IN SLAVUTYCH PLANT
Yuriy Kostenko discussed with Siemens constructing power units near Slavutych
to replace the electricity lost if Chornobyl is closed.
7/7/95: G-7 -- AN EXTRA $2 BILLION FOR CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN
The G-7 welcomed Ukraine's decision to shut down completely Chornobyl by
2000 and said its member states would encourage the EBRD and the World
Bank to provide an additional $2 billion for the task.
7/6/95: PROPOSALS FOR CHORNOBYL POWER REPLACEMENT
Shutting Chornobyl within three years is possible. President Kuchma responded
positively on 6 June '95 to a Siemens proposal to reconstruct the country's
outdated coal-fired power stations. The first phase would provide 6,000
megawatts of power and would cost $1 billion. Siemens expects funding from
the EBRD and private sector banks. This is an alternative to the ABB proposal
for a combined cycle gas-turbine plant. The Siemens proposal employs Ukrainian
coal rather than relying on Russian imported gas. Another advantage for
Ukraine is that the proposal calls for Chornobyl to be used to train nuclear
personnel and serve as a fuel assembly production plant. Serhiy Parashin,
the Chornobyl Director, supports the gas replacement because it would employ
former Chornobyl workers rather than move resources and jobs to Rivne and
Khmelnytskyy . ABB argues that a $2 billion gas plant would be more efficient
and would account for 5 percent of Ukraine's yearly gas consumption at
a cost of $350 million a year.
6/28/95: G-7 -- ALL WANT CHORNOBYL CLOSED BUT NO ONE WANTS TO
PAY
President Kuchma submitted plans for the Chornobyl closure which would
free up $700 million in aid from the European Union (EU). However, EU External
Affairs Commissioner Hans Van Der Broek indicated that new funds for Chornobyl's
closure would not be available until the EU Commission had completed further
studies regarding the types of resources required for the closure of the
plant. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl stated that Germany will press for
Western financial support for the closure, but noted that Germany could
do nothing on its own.
6/20/95: KUCHMA HAGGLES FOR STEAM-GAS PLANT, SARCOPHAGUS
President Leonid Kuchma has promised to close the facility by 2000 if Western
countries finance a steam-gas power generator and new sarcophagus.
6/16/95: CHORNOBYL -- TO BE CLOSED?
Volodymyr Horbulyn, presidential advisor and member of the Security Council,
said that if the G-7 does not increase assistance for closing Chornobyl,
Ukraine might reconsider decommissioning the plant. Ukraine's position,
Horbulyn said, is neither a "threat nor an ultimatum." We simply have no
other options." The G-7 has pledged $2 million but Ukraine says it needs
more than $4 billion, preferably in grants.
5/23/95: EU PROMISES ECU 200 MILLION TO UKRAINE
The EU promised to give Ukraine credits worth ECU 200 million ($254 million)
in addition to a previous EU credit promise of 85 million ECU. This credit
is extended, provided that Ukraine closes Chornobyl by 2000.
5/21/95: UKRAINE TO RECEIVE $500 MILLION IN AID BY 1996
According to the timetable drawn up for the closure of Chornobyl, Ukraine
should receive $500 million in aid by 1996 and an additional $3.5 billion
between 1996 and 1999. Unit 3 is slated to be decommissioned by 1999 and
it is only after that point that work on the sarcophagus can begin.
5/17/95: G-7 OFFER TO UKRAINE -- $400-500 MILLION IN GRANTS, $1.5 BILLION
IN LOANS
Representatives from the G-7, the EBRD, and the World Bank met in Kiev
to discuss the details of closing Chornobyl. Environmental Protection and
Nuclear Safety Minister Yuriy Kostenko provided the delegations with a
list of expenses and timetable for decommissioning Units 1,3. The G-7 delegation
offered Ukraine $400-500 million in grants and $1.5 billion in loans. The
timetable states that Unit 1 is to be shut in 1997 and Unit 3 by the end
of 1999. Unit 2 (currently off-line following a 1991 fire) is to be permanently
closed in 1996.
4/27/95: UKRAINIAN, WESTERN EXPERTS DISAGREE OVER CHORNOBYL
CLOSURE COST
Ukrainian experts place that the cost of closing Chornobyl and building
new power plants at $6-7 billion; Western estimates are much lower. Some
Ukrainians speculate that the West cares less about ecological and safety
issues at Chornobyl and more about shutting down all nuclear facilities
in Ukraine to prevent potential plutonium production for weapons. These
experts argue that Russia hopes to make Ukraine more dependent on Russian
fossil fuels.
4/24/95: KUCHMA WANTS TO ATTEND G-7 MEETING
President Kuchma asked to attend the next G-7 summit in Halifax, Canada,
where participants will discuss issues related to Chornobyl shutdown. He
wants to provide the G-7 with first-hand information on the subject.
4/20/94: KUCHMA LINKS SHUTDOWN TO OTHER ISSUES
President Kuchma tied Chornobyl's closure to fixing the Unit-4 sarcophagus
and employing Chornobyl workers.
4/14/95: CHORNOBYL CLOSURE DEPENDS ON WESTERN AID
Ukraine has reportedly assured international agencies that it will shut
down Chornobyl fully by 2000, as long as it receives $4.4 billion in Western
aid. This aid would finance a gas-fired combined cycle power plant, the
construction of a new sarcophagus, and social programs to assist the 5,000
workers who will lose their jobs at Chornobyl. Without this aid, Ukraine
plans to keep Chornobyl operational until 2011. Constructing a gas-fired
power plant allows Ukraine to receive World Bank financing; the World Bank
does not finance nuclear projects. The Verkhovna Rada supported President
Kuchma's plan to create an international research and technological center
at Chornobyl. A draft of the requisite international agreement will be
drafted by September '95. Despite the decision to decommission Chornobyl
by 2000, Serhiy Parashin has initiated Unit-2 repairs.
4/13/95: KUCHMA CONFIRMS CHORNOBYL'S SHUTDOWN BY 2000
President Kuchma, the EU and G-7 concluded that Chornobyl will be shut
down by 2000. Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security Council Volodymyr
Horbulyn said that the EU's ECU 85 million loan has been delinked from
the shutdown of Units 1 and 3. Ukraine is to draw up the required documents
by 15 May, after which the next session between Ukraine and the G-7 will
be held.
4/13/95: PARASHIN -- SLAVUTYCH POWER STATION BUYS ChNPP CLOSURE
According to plant manager Serhiy Parashin, Chornobyl can be shut down
as long as the West compensates for the losses Ukraine will incur as well
as build a 3,000 MW steam gas power station in Slavutych. He estimates
that Ukraine will require $4.4 billion in order to deal with such problems
as unemployment, power generation, and safety issues. The construction
of a steam gas power plant can be built in 40 months and would only cost
$2 billion; the G-7 already rejected the idea of building a new 1,000 MWe
nuclear reactor because of the high costs and the fact that it would take
96 months to complete. The remaining $2.4 billion will be used to build
a stockpile of natural gas, which is three times more costly than nuclear
fuel. Parashin also mentioned that an additional possibility has been proposed
by the joint-stock firm "Energy" for the construction of an underground
nuclear power plant in Chornobyl's place.
4/95: PROJECTS ON CLOSURE AND REMEDIATION OF CHORNOBYL
AEA Technology of the UK is involved in several projects related to the
closure and remediation of Chornobyl. One project's goal is to develop
technologies to rehabilitate the 30 km exclusion zone around Chornobyl.
This contract is worth $380,000 (300,000 ECU). A final study is due to
be released in a year-and-a-half but if and how the recommendations are
used depends on Ukraine's ability to exempt contractors from third-party
liability. The second project, in conjunction with KAB, its German partner,
is preparing a plan to decommission Units 1,3 and identify alternative
energy sources; the funds for this program are provided by TACIS. AEA is
also a member of the Alliance consortium that is working to solve the problems
posed by the sarcophagus.
3/31/95: UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DIFFER OVER CHORNOBYL FUTURE
Luis Moreno, the EC Ambassador in Kiev, has stated that the EU loan of
85 million ECU would not be provided until Ukraine pledges to close down
Chornobyl. Given this, President Kuchma directed Derzhkomatom, the Ministry
of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety (Minekobezpeky), Minenergo,
Minekonomik, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and the National Academy
of Science to prepare a unified government position by 15 March 1995; these
ministries failed to provide him with such a plan by the deadline. Kuchma
then instructed them to draw up a plan by 10 April 1995. Mikhailo Umanets,
chairman of Derzhkomatom, and Serhiy Parashin, director of Chornobyl, are
firmly committed to the position that Chornobyl should remain in operation;
they are supported by Viktor Baryakhtar, the Vice President of the Academy
of Science and freelance advisor on nuclear problems to the President.
Yuriy Kostenko, head of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear
Safety, has taken the position that Chornobyl should be shut down when
the "clearances in the graphite technological canals are used up;" his
position is based primarily on environmental concerns. Kostenko believes
that money would be better spent on completing Zaporizhzhya-6, Rivne-4, and
Khmelnytskyy-2.
3/30/95: OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POSITION WILL BE IDENTIFIED BY EU DELEGATION'S
VISIT
The EU plans to visit Kiev in April 1995 to convince President Kuchma of
the necessity of closing Chornobyl permanently. In the past, negotiations
were conducted by Derzhkomatom officials, whose main mission was to prevent
the plant's closure. The visit is part of ongoing negotiations regarding
the G-7 offer of $800 million in "energy-related assistance" in return
for Ukraine's pledge to shut down Units 1 and 3 before the end of their
operating life. President Kuchma instructed his government to identify
an official government position by 10 April.
3/29/95: CLOSING CHORNOBYL -- A POLITICAL, TECHNICAL PROBLEM
During Belarusian President Lukashenka's visit to Chornobyl, Ukrainian
President Kuchma stated that the closure of Chornobyl was a political problem,
but Ukraine was willing to close the plant as long as all issues related
to the closure, such as Western financial assistance, are dealt
with by the time of closure. Kuchma also stated that technical problems
stand in the way of Chornobyl's closure.
3/22/95: $200 MILLION FROM JAPAN FOR CHORNOBYL SHUTDOWN
Ukraine will receive $200 million from Japan through Export-Import bank
for the shut-down of the Chornobyl power plant and renovation of equipment
at the other nuclear power plants.
3/14/95: FINAL DECISION ON THE FATE OF THE PLANT WILL BE TAKEN
SOON
President Kuchma was at Chornobyl on a fact-finding visit. He told plant
personnel that a final decision on the fate of the plant would be taken
in the near future. This plant generates seven percent of the country's
energy and Kuchma currently opposes the closure because of Ukraine's energy
crisis.
3/9/95: UPCOMING NEGOTIATIONS ON CHORNOBYL CLOSURE; ELECTRICITE DE FRANCE
ESTIMATE OF CLOSURE COSTS
The EC is expected to hold a final round of negotiations regarding the
closure of Chornobyl in Kiev 14-16 March 1995. They plan to establish a
timetable for the plant's shutdown and to identify options for the creation
of a safer, more permanent sarcophagus for destroyed Unit 4. Since negotiations
began in July 1994, Ukraine has repeatedly "upped the ante" and requested
increased foreign assistance for the completion of VVER-1000 units at other
nuclear power plants as well as new reactors near Chornobyl, in Slavutych.
Electricite de France, a major player in the negotiations, estimates that
Unit-1 should be shut down in 1995, Unit-3 should be closed by the end
of 1997, and Unit-2 should not be restarted. The estimated cost of a new
sarcophagus and cleanup is $3 billion, including $1 billion alone for the
new covering; these funds are to be provided by the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD) and the EU.
3/6/95: UNIT-2 TO GO ON-LINE, CHORNOBYL TO STAY OPEN
After three days of negotiations with G-7 officials, Ukraine is now refusing
to close down Chornobyl. Kiev still maintains that it can not decommission
the two units in operation until alternative energy sources are secured;
additionally, it has stated that the $800 million in aid from the EU is
insufficient. Reportedly, Ukraine still plans to bring Unit 2 back into
service in 1996.
2/2-3/95: UPGRADING CHORNOBYL UNITS 1,2,3 CHEAPER THAN CLOSING
ENTIRE PLANT
At a conference with G-7 officials in Kiev, Ukrainian representatives maintained
that upgrading Chornobyl Units 1,2,3 costs less than closing the entire
plant permanently, building new reactors, and completing unfinished units.
The meeting established neither a timetable for closing the plant nor the
conditions necessary for decommissioning. Ukraine refused to shut down
Chornobyl in the 1996-1999 time frame; a more lenient time frame of 1998-2000,
suggested at the February 1995 G-7 meeting, was rejected as well, unless
there is explicit G-7 direction. The basic Ukraine's position seems to
include operation of Unit-3 until the end of its scheduled life (not less
than 30 years from the initial start-up date). Units 1 and 2 could be decommissioned
as long as new units are constructed in Slavutych prior to the actual closure
of the old units.
1/5/95: UKRAINE WANTS G-7 FINANCIAL AID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PLANT AT
SLAVUTYCH
Nur Nihmatullin, first deputy chairman of Derzhkomatom, stated at the latest
round of negotiations between Ukraine and the G-7 Task Force that Ukraine
has no intention of shutting down Chornobyl in exchange for international
assistance in completing three VVER reactors at Rivne-4, Zaporizhzhya-6,
and Khmelnytskyy-2. Instead, Ukraine wants G-7 financial aid for the construction
of a new two-unit plant near the town of Slavutych, populated entirely
by Chornobyl plant workers. In June 1994, the G-7 pledged $800 million
to Ukraine if it would close Chornobyl permanently.
1/95: UKRAINE COULD FIND ITSELF IN INTERNATIONAL ISOLATION
Volodymyr Shcherbina, the Deputy Director of the Academy of Science's Interdisciplinary
Scientific and Technical Center, reported that the continued operation
of the Chornobyl NPP and the reassuring announcements by various Ukrainian
government agencies are raising concerns among foreign organizations and
foreign government officials, which could lead to international isolation
for Ukraine. He suggested raising the level of safety to international
standards, accepting the G-7's proposal on the closure of the Chornobyl
NPP, and relying on regional and state referendums to decide principal
questions related to atomic energy.
11/24/94: UKRAINE REQUIRES $10 BILLION TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL
The Ukrainian nuclear industry has repeatedly criticized the G-7 deal to
close Chornobyl, saying the West does not comprehend the complexity of
Ukraine's situation. Reportedly, Ukraine requires $10 billion to completely
close Chornobyl. Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on the Problems
of the Chornobyl Accident, Volodymyr Yatsenko, said that the European Parliament
and the EU seek to close Chornobyl regardless of the consequences. The
EU pledged to reexamine the situation more broadly, taking into account
the inevitable unemployment and electricity crisis once Chornobyl has been
shut down. Nikolai Steinberg said that three Ukrainian reactors under construction
need not be built, since the decline in Ukraine's industrial production
lowered energy demand and created a power surplus. He stressed that the
units being built should be retrofitted with more modern equipment prior
to being brought on line.
11/21/94: KUCHMA -- CONSTRUCT WESTERN-STYLE REACTORS
President Kuchma plans to propose a new plan for the closure of Chornobyl
during his visit to Washington, D.C. Kuchma will seek $1.49 billion for
plant decommissioning, $2 billion for completing three other Soviet era
reactors in Ukraine, and $3 billion for the construction of two Western
style reactors in the immediate Chornobyl region. Ukraine would spend up
to $6 billion to cover other associated costs related to the plant's closure.
This plan does not appear to fulfill G-7 requirements that Ukraine immediately
close one of the two operating reactors at Chornobyl and set a timetable
for closing the second. Ukrainian officials maintain that the two units
at Chornobyl can not be closed until the Western type reactors are operational
and can replace the power that Chornobyl generates.
11/20/94: PAVLOVSKYY: WESTERN TERMS FOR CHORNOBYL CLOSURE UNACCEPTABLE
Chairman of the Rada Committee for Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Safety Mykhailo
Pavlovsky said Western terms for Chornobyl's closure are unacceptable.
He perceives Western insistence to shut Chornobyl as a way to force Ukraine
to fulfill its energy needs by buying from Europe.
11/18/94: UDOVENKO -- CHORNOBYL MUST BE CLOSED DOWN
Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Hennadiy Udovenko said that his country
realizes the need for Chornobyl shutdown and could do so even without Western
pressure. But, financial and technical problems are preventing Ukraine
from decommissioning the plant in the near future -- a $10-12 billion project,
he estimated.
10/20/94: UKRAINE AGREED TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL IN PRINCIPLE BUT
HAS NO DATES
The Ukrainian government has agreed to close Chornobyl, but has not yet
set a firm date, commenting that the process should take into consideration
"the technical realities of reactor decommissioning as well as the financial
capabilities of Ukraine." The G-7 wants Unit 1 to be shut down by 1996,
Unit 3 by 1997, and insists that Unit 2, which is in the process of being
recommissioned, should not be restarted. In exchange for closing Chornobyl,
Derzhkomatom wants G-7 assistance in completing the construction of Zaporizhzhya-6
by 1996, Khmelnytskyy-2 by 1997, and Rivne-4 by 1998.
10/4/94: UKRAINE -- NO TIME FRAME FOR PLANT CLOSURE
EU representatives reported that Ukraine has agreed in principle to an
international proposal to shut down Chornobyl but stressed that no time
frame has been set. Ukraine places the costs of closing Chornobyl range
between $1.4 to $14 billion. There is a wide variety of estimates among
Western experts as well. The G-7 disagrees with the Ukrainian proposal
to build an entirely new plant near Chornobyl in order to prevent widespread
unemployment after the closure of Chornobyl.
10/94: LIFE SPAN OF CHORNOBYL 1,2,3 ENDS IN 2011
Chornobyl's General Director, Serhiy Parashin, repudiated calls for closure
of the plant. He said that it would take six to ten years to decommission
the reactors, yet the life span of the three units would run out by 2011.
10/94: U.S.-UKRAINIAN JOINT STUDY ESTIMATES COST OF CHORNOBYL
CLOSURE
A joint US Department of Energy (DOE)-Ukrainian study, completed in June
1994, determined that it would cost Ukraine $1.396 billion to close down
Units 1-3 at Chornobyl; preparatory work would cost $410 million, plant
shutdown and 10 years of maintenance work would cost $376 million, and
retraining, job creation, and other social service activities would cost
$610 million. This estimate did not consider long-term measures to address
the disaster at Unit-4. This study also evaluated possible replacement
sources of energy, including fossil fuels, hydro, wind and nuclear power,
while noting the significance of reducing the demand for electricity in.
9/28/94: MASOL: IMPOSSIBLE TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL
Prime Minister Vitaliy Masol commented on the deal to close Chornobyl NPP,
if Ukraine receives Western funding. Masol did not disagree with the idea
of closing the plant, but said that it would be impossible to do so now
given Ukraine's poor economic situation and the possibility of a winter
fuel shortage.
9/15/94: PARASHIN ON WEST'S EFFORTS TO CLOSE CHORNOBYL
Serhiy Parashin noted two likely reasons for the Western preoccupation
with closing ChNPP. (1) There are only two operational units in Ukraine
equipped with RBMK reactors -- compared with two units in Lithuania and
11 in Russia -- making Chornobyl an easier target for closure. (2) RBMK
reactors can be used to make weapons-grade plutonium. He said the $200
million offered by the G-7 for closing Chornobyl was not sufficient to
compensate for Ukraine's loss of power production. He estimated the cost
to close the plant to be $1.3 billion, plus at least $700 million to compensate
Chornobyl workers and an additional $1.2-1.4 billion to construct a new
sarcophagus. $1.4 billion would be needed to finish the Zaporizhzhya-6,
Khmelnytskyy-2, and Rivne-4 reactors. Both Parashin and Nur Nihmatullin
have mentioned a Ukrainian proposal to build two new, Western-style nuclear
power units at Slavutych to make up for lost power production if Chornobyl
is closed.
9/4/94: NIHMATULLIN -- WEST'S POSITION ON CHORNOBYL CLOSURE INCONSISTENT
Nur Nihmatullin, First Deputy Chairman of Derzhkomatom, stated that the
position of the West with regard to the Chornobyl closure is very inconsistent.
He maintains that there is a reactor identical to Chornobyl in St. Petersburg
that is being redeveloped with Western aid, yet Western experts insist
that Chornobyl be shut down as soon as possible. He added that the G-7's
$200 million for closing Chornobyl only covers the technological costs
of shutdown and does not account for completing unfinished reactor blocs.
7/11/94: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY OPTIONS
The United States and Ukraine are trying to identify alternative energy
options in order to facilitate the closure of Chornobyl as soon as possible.
Suggestions include the completion of 5 VVER-1000 units, which would cost
between $34 million-$1.27 billion per unit and includes safety upgrades
prior to and after start-up. Upgrading fossil fuel plants is another possibility
and is estimated to cost between $275 million-$1.2 billion. Wind power
generation improvements might cost $150-300 million.
6/94: CLOSE CHORNOBYL NPP, BUILD SLAVUTYCH REACTORS
Financial assistance for closing the Chornobyl NPP offered by the EC at
its June meeting, has been called insufficient by Mikhail Pavlovsky, Chairman
of Ukraine's Parliamentary Committee on Nuclear Policy and Safety. Both
Pavlovsky and Mykhailo Umanets, Chairman of the State Committee on the
Use of Atomic Energy, said that closing the plant would be only the first
step. It would have to be followed by providing other jobs for Chornobyl
workers, including building two new reactors near the town of Slavutych
where Chornobyl workers currently reside. An estimated $2 billion would
be needed to build these new units.
4/8/94: UKRAINE TO SHUT DOWN CHORNOBYL ONCE ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES
IDENTIFIED
US Assistant Secretary of Energy William White and Ukrainian Deputy Premier
Valeriy Shmarov discussed how the Chornobyl NPP could be shut down ahead
of schedule. Ukraine reportedly agreed to shut down Chornobyl once alternative
resources are identified. Ukrainian power engineering specialists will
hold consultations with their American counterparts regarding the completion
of Khmelnytskyy-2 and Rivne-4 nuclear reactors by 1998. This measure would
enable Ukraine to close down the Chornobyl plant without any losses in
total electricity generated.
Last updated 14 June 2001
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.
Comments or questions? Contact Michael Jasinski
at MIIS CNS: Michael.Jasinski@miis.edu
This material is produced independently for NTI
by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies and
does not necessarily reflect the opinions of and has
not been independently verified by NTI or its directors, officers,
employees, agents. Copyright © 2002 by MIIS.
HOME | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
