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.
{Entered 4/2501 RG}
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.
{Entered 3/2/01 RG}
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.
[Ann Maclachlan, "SGN-Eurisys Consortium Wins Bid for EC Aid to Chernobyl Shutdown," Nucleonics Week, 24 July 1997, pp. 13-14.] {Entered 9/22/97 AjP}
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.
Sources:
[1]Unian, 21 July 1997, in "Ukraine: Sole Operational Chernobyl Reactor Shut Down for Overhaul," FBIS-SOV-97-202, 21 July 1997.
[2]Sander Thoenes, "Last reactor shut for repair," Financial Times, 23 July 1997, p. 2.{Entered 9/22/97 AjP}
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]
Sources:
[1] Sander Thoenes, "Risk of delay in Chernobyl shut-down," Financial Times, 4 July 1997, p. 3.
[2] Sander Thoenes, "EBRD pressed over nuclear loan," Financial Times, 27 June 1997, p. 3. {Entered 9/22/97 AjP}
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]
Sources:
[1]"Chernobyl-1 formally closed, to be commissioned," Nuclear News, August 1997, p. 31.
[2]"Chernobyl To Shut Down Ahead of Schedule," Izvestiya-Ukraina, 1 July 1997, p. 1; in "Ukraine: Chernobyl's No. 1 Power Unit to Close Ahead of Schedule," FBIS-SOV-97-182.{Entered 09/22/97 AjP}
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.
Sources:
[1] Interfax, 21 April 1997; in "Ukraine: Talks On Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant To Be Held 22 Apr," FBIS-SOV-97-111, 21 April 1997.
[2] Interfax, 21 April 1997; in "Ukraine: Kiev Has Met 'Practically All' Terms For Chernobyl Credit," FBIS-SOV-97-111, 21 April 1997.
[3] UNIAN, 22 April 1997; in "Ukraine: All Requirements Met For EBRD Loan For Power Plants," FBIS-SOV-97-112, 22 April 1997.
[4] "Ukrainian, Western Experts Agree On Chornobyl Measures," RFE/RL Newsline, Vol. 1, No. 17, part II, 23 April 1997.
[5] UNIAR, 25 April 1997; in "Ukriane: G7 Grants $900 Million Loan To Assist In Chernobyl Shutdown," FBIS-SOV-97-115, 25 April 1997.{Entered 6/24/97 MK} {Cleared 7/13/97 JL}
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]
Sources:
[1] Interfax, 21 April 1997, in "Ukraine: Chernobyl Safety Improvement Project Begins 20 April," FBIS-TEN-97-005.
[2]"An Agreement Between the EBRD and Ukraine...," Nuclear News, December 1996, pp. 17-18. {Entered 09/22/97 AjP}
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]
Sources:
[1] Intelnews, 13 April 1997; in "Ukraine: Government Ordered To Submit Chernobyl Shutdown Plans," FBIS-SOV-97-103, 13 April 1997.
[2] Interfax, 8 April 1997; in "Ukraine: Deputies Plan To Discuss Possible Closing Of Chernobyl," FBIS-TAC-97-098, 8 April 1997.
[3] Intelnews, 11 April 1997; in Ukraine: EBRD Withholds Financial Aid Worth $150 Million," FBIS-SOV-97-101, 11 April 1997.{Entered 6/24/97 MK}{Cleared 7/13/97 JL}{Updated 10/7/97 AjP}
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]
Sources:
[1] Pearl Marshall and Ariane Sains, "Leadership Change Will Refocus NSA On Ex-USSR Reactor Shutdown," Nucleonics Week, 27 March 1997, pp. 1, 12-13.
[2] Pearl Marshall, "Chernobyl Safety, Radwaste Grant, NSA's Biggest Yet, Is Signed," Nucleonics Week, 14 November 1996, p. 14.
[3] "Kostenko Lobbying For Chornobyl Grant," Eastern Economist Daily, No. 500, 28 February 1997.
[4] "We Could Be Left Without Grants," Izvestiya Ukraina, 4 March 1997, p. 1; in "Grant Rejection Seen Jeopardizing Chernobyl Closure," FBIS-SOV-97-063, 4 March 1997. {Entered 6/24/97 MK}{Cleared 7/13/97 JL}
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.
Sources:
[1] Pearl Marshall, "Chernobyl PMU Contract Goes To Westinghouse, NNC, Kiev Firm," Nucleonics Week, 13 March 1997, p. 7.
[2] Ann MacLachlan, "Bids Sought On Work To Close Chernobyl, But Date Uncertain," Nucleonics Week, 19 September 1996, pp. 10-11]{Entered 6/25/97 MK} {Cleared 7/13/97 JL}
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].
[Intelnews, 11 February 1997; in "Ukraine: Talks Begin With G-7 On Chernobyl Shutdown," FBIS-TEN-97-002, 11 February 1997.]{Entered 6/24/97 MK}{Cleared 7/13/97 JL}
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]
Sources:
[1] Leyla Boulton and Simon Holberton, "West's policies on eastern nuclear plants 'misguided'," Financial Times, 10 February 1997, p. 2.
[2] Vladimir Skosyrev, "Zapad ne znayet, chto delat c Chernobylem," Izvestiya, 12 February 1997, p. 3.
[3] "EBRD told Ukraine nuclear plans too costly," Nuclear Engineering International, March 1997, p. 3.
[4] S. Rudenko and O. Burda, "More Than Enough Reactors? EBRD changes its tune," Eastern Economist Daily, 24 February 1997, pp. 1,4.
[5] Leyla Boulton and Matthew Kaminski, "Ukraine threatens to keep Chernobyl open after 2000," Financial Times, 20 February 1997, p. 12.
[6] Ann MacLachlan, "G-7-Ukraine Cooperation Now Said To Be Progressing Extremely Well," Nucleonics Week, 2 January 1997, p. 3.
[7] "Ukraine: Talks On Chernobyl Shutdown Progressing," Russia Today, http:\www.russiatoday.com, 18 February 1997.
[8] ITAR-TASS, 20 February 1997; in "Ukraine: Minister--Chernobyl Operations 'May Be Prolonged'," FBIS-SOV-97-035, 20 February 1997.
[9] Vladimir Skosyrev, "Zapad ne znayet chto delat' c Chernobylyem," Izvestiya, 12 February 1997, p. 3.{Entered 6/24/97 MK }{Cleared 7/15/97 JL}
[10] UNIAN, 13 February 1997; in "Ukraine: Nuclear Minister Unhappy With EBRD Experts' Opinions," FBIS-TAC-97-007. {Updated 10/7/97 AjP}
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.
[AFP, 30 January 1997; in "France, Ukraine: Chirac, Kuchma Agree To Establish Joint Economic Committee," FBIS-WEU-97-021, 30 January 1997.]{Entered 8/1/97 MK}
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]
Sources:
[1] Ann MacLachlan, "G-7-Ukraine Cooperation Now Said To Be Progressing Extremely Well," Nucleonics Week, 2 January 1997, p. 3.
[2] UNIAN, 18 December 1996, in "Ukraine: Officials Say Lack Of Funding To Delay Chernobyl's Closure," FBIS-SOV-96-245, 18 December 1996. {MK, entered 6/24/97} {Cleared 7/15/97 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 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]
Sources:
[1] Ann MacLachlan, "Ukraine Shuts Chernobyl-1, Fulfilling Promise To West," Nucleonics Week, 5 December 1996, p. 14.
[2] Peter Coryn, "Chernobyl-1 Is Shut But Ukraine Keeps Units 1,2 Restart Option," Nucleonics Week, 2 January 1997, p. 14.
[3] Yanina Sokovskaya, "Shutdown of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station First Unit. Technical Necessity or Political Gesture?," Izvestiya Ukraina, 30 November 1996, p. 1; in "Ukraine: 'All the Rules Broken' in Shudown of Chernobyl No. 1 Unit," FBIS-TEN-96-011, 30 November 1996.
[4] NTV, 30 November 1996; in "Chernobyl Director Says Shutdown Decision May Not Be Final," FBIS-SOV-96-232, 30 November 1996.
[5] UNIAN, 29 November 1996; in "Kuchma: No Plans To Restart Chernobyl's Generating Set," FBIS-SOV-96-232, 29 November 1996.
[6] Ann MacLachlan, "Chernobyl Managers Want To Reopen Unit 2 To Offset Unit Shutdown," Nucleonics Week, 21 November 1996, p.16.
[7] UNIAN, 26 March 1997; in "Ukraine: Second Reactor At Chernobyl May Not Be Reconnected," FBIS-SOV-97-085, 26 March 1997.
[8] "Chernobyl-1 shut down, Unit 2 may restart in 1997," Nuclear News, January 1997, pp. 33-34.{Revised 7/1/97 MK}{Cleared 7/15/97 JL}
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.
Sources:
[1] Pearl Marshall, "Chernobyl Safety, Radwaste Grant, NSA's Biggest Yet, Is Signed," Nucleonics Week, 14 November 1996, p. 14.
[2] "An Agreement Between The EBRD And Ukraine…," Nuclear News, December 1996, pp. 17-18.
[3] Reuters, "Chernobyl Receives $150 Million in Safety Aid," http://www.russiatoday.com/rtoday/news/96111313.html] {Entered 6/24/97 MK}{Cleared 7/15/97 JL}
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.
[Ann MacLachlan, "Ukraine Hints Delay In Closing Chernobyl If Money Doesn't Come," Nucleonics Week, 31 October 1996, pp. 16-17.]{Entered 6/25/97 MK}
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.
["Canada Grants $7.5 Million Yo Help Shut Chornobyl," Reuters 24 October 1996.]
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]
Sources:
[1] Interfax, 14 October 1996; in "G-7 Countries Reach Compromise On Chernobyl Finance Accord," FBIS-SOV-96-200, 14 October 1996.
[2] "Ukraine: Progress Reported In Chernobyl Shutdown Project," BBC Monitoring Service, 18 October 1996.
[3] Kevin Done, "Ukraine To Get $150m To Help Shut Chernobyl," Financial Times, 21 November 1996, p. 3.
[4] AFP (Paris), 9 October 1996; in "Kiev Urges G-7 To Provide Funding For Chernobyl Closure, FBIS-SOV-96-198, 9 October 1996.
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]
Sources:
[1] AFP (Paris), 9 October 1996; in "Kiev Urges G-7 To Provide Funding For Chernobyl Closure," FBIS-SOV-96-198, 9 October 1996.
[2] NucNet, 470/96, 7 October 1996; in UI News Briefing 96.40, 2-8 October 1996.
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 Ukraine: Government Bodies section.)
Sources:
[1] Ann MacLachlan, "Ukraine Hints Delay In Closing Chernobyl If Money Doesn't Come," Nucleonics Week, 31 October 1996, pp. 16-17.
[2] Ann MacLachlan, "Khmelnitski-2 Could Come On Line Without Western Aid Or Backfits," Nucleonics Week, 31 October 1996, p. 16.{Entered 6/25/97 MK}
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.
[Ann MacLachlan, "Bids Sought On Work To Close Chernobyl, But Date Uncertain," Nucleonics Week, 19 September 1996, pp. 10-11]{Entered 6/24/97 MK} {Cleared 7/21/97 JL}
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.
[Statement by Y.I. Kostenko, Minister for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety, Head of the Ukrainian Delegation to the 40th Session of the IAEA General Conference, 16-20 September 1996.]
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].
Sources:
[1] Interfax, 13 September 1996; in "European Union To Develop Cooperation With Kiev," FBIS-SOV-96-180, 13 September 1996.
[2] Interfax, 19 September 1996; in "Accord Reached With EU On Funding Chernobyl Shutdown," FBIS-SOV-96-184, 19 September 1996.
[3] Interfax, 12 September 1996; in FBIS-SOV-96-179, 12 September 1996.
[4] Nikolay Zherebtsov et al, Interfax, 12 September 1996; in "Kuchma Wants Deeper Contacts With EU Countries," FBIS-SOV-96-179, 12 September 1996.
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.
[Ariane Sains, "No Money, No Chernobyl Closure, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Says," Nucleonics Week, 12 September 1996, pp. 14-15.]
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.
["Ukraine, EBRD to Agree Payment to Shut Chernobyl," Reuters 2 September 1996.]
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.
["Resolution of the European Parliament on the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident", in INFIRC/519 29 July 1996 Received from the Permanent Mission of Belarus to the International Atomic Energy Agency.]
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.
[Eugene Iwanciw, "Senate Approves $225 Million For Ukraine," Ukrainian Weekly, 18 August 1996, pp. 1-2.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Ustina Markus, "Japanese Foreign Minister In Ukraine," OMRI Daily Digest, 2 July 1996.
[2] AFP (Paris), 1July 1996; in "Japan Promises Help in Shutting Down Chernobyl," FBIS-TEN-96-007, 1 July 1996. {Entered and updated 8/13/96 GN}
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.
[Ivan Dmytrenko, "Chornobyl As A Means Of Struggling For Our Market," Holos Ukrainy, 27 June 1996, p. 3; in "Official Claims West Competing For Country's Energy Market," FBIS-SOV-96-131, 27 June 1996.]
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.
[Chrystyna Lapychak, "Ukraine To Shut Down Aging Chornobyl Reactor," OMRI Daily Digest, 25 June 1996.]
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.
Sources:
[1] InfoBank (Lviv), 24 June 1996; in "Minister: United States Not Ready To Finance Chornobyl Closure," FBIS-SOV-96-122, 24 June 1996.
[2] "Ukraine neobkhodim mekhanizm finansirovaniya zakrytiya Chernobylskoy AES, zayavlyaet ministr okhrany sredy respubliki," Interfax, 21 June 1996.
[3] UNIAN (Kiev), 21 June 1996; in BBC Monitoring Service/Reuter Insurance Briefing, 26 June 1996.
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.
[David Lascelles, "Chernobyl Clean-up Plan," Financial Times, 14 June 1996, p. 2.]
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]
Sources:
[1] Interfax, 6 June 1996; in "Ukraine: G-7, Ukrainian Experts Disagree Over Chernobyl Shutdown," FBIS-SOV-96-111, 6 June 1996.
[2] "Financial Problems With Chornobyl Closure", OMRI, 7 June 1996.
[3] Olga Musafirova, "Bitva 'kitov' v stepyakh Ukrainy," Komsomolskaya Pravda, 9 July 1996, p. 3.
[4] UNIAN, 30 May 1996; in "President Kuchma Discusses Chernobyl Closure With Environment Minister," BBC Monitoring Service, 4 June 1996.
[5] UNIAN (Kiev), 21 June 1996; in BBC Monitoring Service/Reuter Insurance Briefing, 26 June 1996.
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.
[Aleksandr Annin, "Aleksey Yablokov: 'Chernobyl Is Forever'", Kuranty, 27 April 1996, p. 5; in "Russia: Yablokov Faults Nuclear Summit," FBIS-SOV-96-133-S, 27 April 1996.]
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.
["Canada, United States Promise Aid To Ukraine," OMRI Daily Digest, by Ustina Markus, 29 April 1996.]
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.
["Premyer Velikobritanii podtverzhdaet gotovnost Londona pomoch Ukraine v reshenii problemy zakrytie ChAES," Interfax, 18 April 1996.]
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.
[Andrew Nagorski and Marta Kolomayets, "Interview: Yevhen Marchuk On Integration, Chornobyl," Ukrainian Weekly, 14 April 1996, pp. 1, 8.]
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.
Sources:
[1] "Chernobyl Conference Sums up Known Consequences," NucNet, 15 April 1996.
[2] Interfax, 9 April 1996; in "Ukraine: Premier Marchuk Confirms Intentions To Close Chernobyl Power Plant," BBC Monitoring Service, 11 April 1996.
[3] Bart Stam, "Chernobyl Conference Supplies No Specific Solution," Technisch Weekblad, 17 April 1996, p. 2; in "Expert Analyzes Results of Chernobyl Conference," FBIS-TEN-96-006, 17 April 1996.
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.
[Interfax, 10 April 1996.]
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.
["Simku tsikavliat Chornobylski problemy. Nas--groshi na yikh vyrishennya," Holos Ukrainy, 3 April 1996, p. 1.]
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.
[Khristina Lew, "Interview: Nicholas Burns On Evolving U.S.-Ukrainian Relations," Ukrainian Weekly, 7 April 1996, p. 3.]
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.
[CISNP Communications With Ukrainian Nuclear Officials, 7 March 1996.]
3/5/96: CHORNOBYL WORKERS WILL GET RAISE
Prime Minister Yevhen Marchuk signed a decree to double salaries at Chornobyl during 1996.
["Povtorennya katastrofy nemozhlyve?," Holos Ukrainy, 5 March 1996, pp. 1, 12.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Khristina Lew, "Kuchma Completes Whirlwind Working Visit To Washington," Ukrainian Weekly, 25 February 1996.
[2] "Khto ne khoche zakryttya ChAES?," Holos Ukrainy, 20 February 1996, p. 5.
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.
[Mark Hibbs, "Chornobyl Management Tell BMU It Will Resist Closure In 2000," Nucleonics Week, 15 February 1996, pp. 5-6.]
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.
Sources:
[1] "Ukraine Needs Funds Soon To Shut Chornobyl by 2000," Executive News Service, 13 February 1996.
[2] "Kiev Says Chornobyl Repair Leaves Danger Unchecked," Reuters 7 February 1996.
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.
Sources:
[1] "Vidkryty lyst Prezydentu Ukrainy L. Kuchmi," Holos Ukrainy, 14 February 1996, p. 2.
[2] Chrystyna Lapychak, "Ukrainian Deputies To Reconsider Chornobyl Shutdown," OMRI Daily Digest, 13 February 1996.
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.)
[Intelnews, 5 February 1996; in "Conglomerate To Help Finance Chornobyl Closure," FBIS-SOV-96-024, 5 February 1996.]
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.
[Viktor Mazany, "The Rivne Nuclear Plant Director: 'Before Closing Down The Chornobyl AES, It Is Necessary To Consider Everything In The Minutest Detail," Molod Ukrainy, 19 January 1996, p. 1; in FBIS-SOV-96-015, 19 January 1996.]
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.
["Rezultaty vizytu: chek na 40 milyonov frankiv i nyzka uhod," Holos Ukrainy, 18 January 1996, pp. 1-2.]
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.
["Notatky z pres-konferentsii," Holos Ukrainy, pp. 1-2.]
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.
[UNIAN, 1/5/96; in "Moroz On Chornobyl," Eastern Economist, 15 January 1996, p. 20.]
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.
[Peter Coryn, "Ukrainian Parliament Warns Kuchma On Premature Chernobyl Closure," Nucleonics Week, 11 January 1996, pp. 1, 8-9.]
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.
[Valeriy Kukhar, Petro Shmarin, "U koli politychnykh rishen'," Polityka i Chas, January 1996, pp. 25-29.]
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.
["US-EU Expand Joint Support For Programs In Post-Soviet States," Post-Soviet Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 31 January 1996, p. 6.]
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.
["Posly pidtrymuyut nashu pozitsiyu," Holos Ukrainy, 5 December 1995, p. 2.]
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.
["UN Has Proclaimed April 26, 1996 International Day Of Chornobyl," News from Ukraine, December 1995, pp. 1-2]
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.
Sources:
[1] "Chornobyl Manager Question G-7 Plan," Nuclear Engineering International, December 1995, p. 6.
[2] "G-7, Ukraine Close In On Chornobyl Closure Plan," Nuclear News, December 1995, p. 27.
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.
Sources:
[1] "Draft Agreement Reached On Chornobyl Closure," Nuclear News, January 1996, pp. 38-39.
[2] Chrystyna Lapychak, "Update On Chornobyl Shutdown," OMRI Daily Digest, 1 December 1995.
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.
[Victor Tkachuk, "Closing Down Chornobyl Power Station. History. Facts. Comments," UPRESA, 30 November 1995.]
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.
["Parliament Chairman Denies Decision To Stop Chornobyl NPP," UPRESA, 30 November 1995.]
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.
["Parliament Chairman Denies Decision to Stop Chornobyl NPP," UPRESA, 30 November 1995.]
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.
["Chornobyl Manager Questions G-7 Plan," IDPR, 29 November 1995, p. 13.]
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.
[Interfax, 25 November 1995; in "Kuchma Says Chornobyl Closure Depends On G-7 Funds,", in FBIS-SOV-95-227, 25 November 1995.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Volodymyr Skachko, "Zakrytie Chernobylskoy AES pod voprosom," Segodnya, 24 November 1995, p. 7.
[2] Chrystyna Lapychak, "Ukrainian Leaders Say G-7 Aid Offer Is Insufficient To Close Chornobyl," OMRI Daily Digest, 27 November 1995.
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.
["Security Council Decides To Continue Chornobyl Operation," UPRESA, 22 November 1995.]
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.
[Yevhen Perehuda, "Chornobyl," Uryadovyy Kuryer, 18 November 1995, p. 5.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Peter Coryn, "Ukraine In No Hurry To Pledge Chornobyl Closure By 2000," Nucleonics Week, 16 November 1995.
[2] Marta Kolomayets, "Money, Once Again, Is Subject Of Controversy Over Chornobyl Shutdown," Ukrainian Weekly, 12 November 1995, pp. 17-18.
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.
[Interfax, 16 November 1995; in "Chornobyl Plant Likely To Remain In Operation," FBIS-SOV-95-222, 16 November 1995.]
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.
[Marta Kolomayets, "Money, Once Again, Is Subject Of Controversy Over Chornobyl," Ukrainian Weekly, 12 November 1995, pp. 17-18.]
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.
[Aleksandr Bangerskiy, "Ukraina Uzhe V Evrope," Nezavismaya Gazeta, , 11 November 1995, p. 1.]
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.
Sources:
[1] "Ukraine, G-7 Close Gap But No Chornobyl Deal," Reuters 2 November 1995.
[2] Peter Coryn, "Ukraine Agrees With G-7, Expects $3.2 Million For Chornobyl Action," Nucleonics Week, 26 October 1995, pp. 12-13.
[3] Marta Kolomayets, "Ukraine and G-7 Close To Deal On Chornobyl Shutdown Package," Ukrainian Weekly, 5 November 1995, p. 1.
[4] "Ukraine Could Delay Chornobyl Shutdown," Reuters 3 November 1995.
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.
Sources:
[1] "Ukraine To Blame For Chornobyl Delay," Ukrainian Weekly, 22 October 1995, p. 2.
[2] "Ukrainian Prime Minister On Economic Reform," OMRI Daily Digest, No. 200, Part II, 13 October 1995.
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.
Sources:
[1] "Ukraine, G-7 In Talks To Close Chornobyl," Reuters 11 October 1995.
[2] "Ukraine Draws Plan To Close Chornobyl," Executive News Service, 13 October 1995.
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.
["Ukraine Asks Canada to Press G-7 On Chornobyl," Reuters 2 October 1995.]
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.
Sources:
[1] "G-7 Balks At Chornobyl Shutdown Costs," Ukrainian Weekly, 8 October 1995, p. 2.
[2] "G-7 Offers $1.4 Bil For Nuclear Units To Replace Chornobyl Power Plant," Post-Soviet Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 13 October 1995, p. 6.
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.
Sources:
[1] Ron Popeski, "West Rejects Ukraine's Chornobyl Plan," Reuters 27 September 1995.
[2] Peter Coryn, "G-7 Rejects Ukrainian Plan For Chornobyl Plant Closure," Nucleonics Week, 12 October 1995, pp. 9-10.
[3] "Still No Breakthrough In Chornobyl Closure Talks," NucNet, 29 September 1995.
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.
[Valeriy Druzhenko, "Kuchma Seeks Britain's Help To Shut Down Chornobyl," Intelnews, 30 August 1995.]
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.
Sources:
[1] "Interview With Serhiy Parashyn, Director Of The Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant," Intelnews, 28 August 1995.
[2] Konstantin Parushkura and Roman Vershillo, "Chornobyl Atomic Power Station To Be Closed Down For $4.4 Billion," Segodnya, 14 April 1995, p. 1.
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.
["Ukrainian Prime Minister On Chornobyl Closure," by Chrystyna Lapychak, OMRI Daily Digest, no. 194, Part II, 23 August 1995, p. 1.]
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.
["Thermal Plant Proposed to Replace Chornobyl," InfoBank, 15 August 1995.]
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.
[OMRI Daily Digest, part II, no. 154, vol.1, p. 6; see also 6 August 1995.]
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.
["Ministry, Foreign Firm Examine Chornobyl Closure Options," Intelnews, 9 August 1995.]
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.
["G-7 Members Agree To Hold Nuclear Safety Summit In Moscow," Post-Soviet Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 7 July 1995, p. 4.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Allison Eadie, "Siemens proposal to shut down Chornobyl," Daily Telegraph, 7 July 1995, p. 4.
[2] "Chornobyl Closure, New Plants Remain Uncertain," Post-Soviet Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 7 August 1995, p. 2.
[3] "A Rival Proposal for Chornobyl Replacement," Nuclear News, August 1995, p. 78.
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.
Sources:
[1] G-7 Countries Offer Sympathy, But No Money," Nuclear News, August 1995, pp. 75-76.
[2] "Little Progress In Ukraine-EU Talks On Chornobyl," Reuters 28 June 1995.
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.
["Ukrainian Atomic Energy Committee Says Chornobyl is Safest Plant," OMRI Daily Digest, part II, no. 141, vol. 1, 21 July 1995.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Chrystyna Lapychak, "Ukraine Warns Chornobyl Shutdown Hinges On G-7 Financing," OMRI Daily Digest, Vol. 1, No. 117, 16 June 1995.
[2] Konstantyn Parishkura, "Ukraina Mozhet Otkazatsya Ot Zakrytiya ChAES," Segodnya, 16 June 1995, p. 8.
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.
[Ustina Markus, "...And Agree On Aid To Ukraine," OMRI Daily Digest, Vol. 1, No. 99, 23 May 1995.]
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.
[Marta Kolomayets, "Ukraine, G-7 discuss Chornobyl," Ukrainian Weekly, 21 May 1995, pp. 2, 6.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Chrystyna Lapychak, "Ukraine Holds Talks With G-7 On Chornobyl Shutdown," OMRI Daily Digest, No.95, Part II, 17 May 1995.
[2] "A Plan For Closing Chornobyl," Nuclear News, July 1995, p. 50.
[3] "Chornobyl: Closure by 2000?," Engineering International, July 1995, p. 15.
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.
[Serhiy Tikhy, "Will Ukraine Close Chornobyl?" Moscow News, No. 15, 21-27 April 1995, p. 1.]
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.
[Interfax, 4/24/95; in "Udovenko On Giving G-7 Information On Chornobyl." FBIS-SOV-95-079, 24 April 1995.]
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.
["Ukraine," Nucleonics Week, 20 April 1995, p. 13.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Ustina Markus, "Ukraine To Close Chornobyl By 2000," OMRI Daily Digest, No. 75, Part II, 14 April 1995.
[2] Alex Brall, "Kuchma Announces Decision To Stop Chornobyl Units By 2000," Nucleonics Week, 20 April 1995.
[3] "Ukraine Determined To Close Chornobyl AES By 2000," FBIS-SOV-95-077, 20 April 1995.
[4] "Kuchma: Aid Needed To Close Chornobyl AES," FBIS-SOV-95-079, 24 April 1995.
[5] Chrystyna Lapychak, "Ukrainian Experts Devise Plan For Chornobyl Shutdown," OMRI Daily Digest, 16 May 1995.
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.
[Interfax, 4/13/95; in "Kuchma, EU, G-7 Agree on Chornobyl AES Closure Date," FBIS-SOV-95-072, 13 April 1995.]
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.
[UNIAN, 4/13/95; in "Director: Plant Closure To Cost $4.4 Billion," FBIS-SOV-95-072, 13 April 1995.]
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.
Sources:
[1] "Other Contracts," Nuclear Engineering International, April 1995, p. 10.
[2] Ann MacLachlan, "SSN-AEA Group Wins EC Contract on Chornobyl Contamination Zones," Nucleonics Week, 16 March 1995, p. 8.
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.
["European Commission Ambassador Issues Warning; Ukraine Ministries Fail to Reach Consensus on Plan," Post-Soviet Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 31 March 1995, p. 7.]
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.
[Ann MacLachlan, "EU Wants Meeting With Kuchma Over Chornobyl Closure Commitment," Nucleonics Week, 30 March 1995, pp. 7-8.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Ustina Markus, "Belarusian President Visits Chornobyl," OMRI Daily Digest, No. 63, Part II, 29 March 1995.
[2] "Vzryvoopasny Chornobyl Prodolzhit Rabotu," Krasnaya Zvezda, 30 March 1995, p.1.
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.
Sources:
[1] "On the Eve of Negotiations Japan Gave Ukraine a Present," Kommersant Daily, 22 March 1995, p. 3.
[2] "Japan Will Give Money to Ukraine to Shut Down Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant," Izvestiya, 22 March 1995, p. 1.
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.
[Chrystyna Lapychak, "And Visits Chornobyl," OMRI Daily Digest, No. 53, Part II, 15 March 1995.]
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.
[Ann MacLachlan, Peter Coryn, and Alex Brall, "G-7 Resumes Talks To Shut Chornobyl Over Ukrainian Protests," Nucleonics Week, 9 March 1995, p. 12.]
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.
[Ustina Markus, "Ukraine Resists G-7 Pressure on Chornobyl," OMRI Daily Digest, No. 46, Part II, 6 March 1995.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Ann MacLachlan, Peter Coryn, and Alex Brall, "G-7 Team Resumes Talks To Shut Chornobyl Over Ukrainian Protests," Nucleonics Week, 9 March 1995, p. 12.
[2] "Ukraine, G-7 Fail To Agree On Chornobyl Shutdown," Post-Soviet Nuclear & Defense Monitor, 31 March 1995, p. 7.
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.
[Ann MacLachlan, "Ukraine Nuclear Committee Says It Won't Close Chornobyl Soon," Nucleonics Week, 5 January 1995, pp. 13-14.]
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.
[Volodymyr Shcherbina, "Yadernaya Energetika Ukrainy PostChornobyl Ili MezhChornobyl," Vestnik Chornobylya, January 1995, p. 1.]
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.
[Peter Coryn, "Ukrainians Resume Criticism Of G-7 Chornobyl Closure Deal," Nucleonics Week, 24 November 1994, pp. 8-9.]
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.
[Matthew Kaminski, "Kuchma To Discuss Chornobyl Closure," Financial Times, 21 November 1994, p. 3.]
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.
[Radio Ukraine World Service, 20 November 1994, in "Pavlovsky Opposes Chornobyl Closure Terms," FBIS-SOV-94-224, 20 November 1994.]
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.
[Roma Ihnatowycz, "Ukraine Wants Payback For Passing Non-Nuke Treaty," UPI, 18 November 1994.]
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.
[Ann MacLachlan and Alex Brall, "Ukraine Accepts Chornobyl Close But Doesn't Commit To Schedule," Nucleonics Week, 10 November 1994, pp. 14-15.]
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.
Sources:
[1] "Ukraine Agrees To Close Chornobyl Nuclear...," Reuters 4 October 1994.
[2]Stan Markotich, "Kiev To Close Chornobyl," RFE/RL Daily Report No. 189, 5 October 1994.
[3] Ann MacLachlan, "Ukraine Accepts G-7 Chornobyl Aid But Time, Price Remain Uncertain," Nucleonics Week, 20 October 1994, pp. 7-8.
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.
["Chornobyl Director Rejects Shutdown," Ukrainian Weekly, 9 October 1994, p. 2.]
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.
["Options for Replacing Chornobyl," Nuclear Engineering International, October 1994, p. 20.]
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.
[Radio Ukraine World Service, 28 September 1994; in "G-7 Experts Discuss Phasing Out Chornobyl," FBIS-SOV-94-189, 29 September 1994.]
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.
Sources:
[1] Kyyivska Pravda, 6 September 1994 pp. 1-2; in "Chornobyl Station Chief on Safety, Shutdown," FBIS-SOV-94-179, 15 September 1994, p. 41.
[2] Kyyivska Pravda, 6 September 1994.
[3] Der Standard, 3-4 September 1994.
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.
Sources:
[1] Der Standard, 3-4 September 1994, p. 28, in JPRS-TEN-94-022, 20 September 1994, pp. 50-51.
[2] Der Standard, 3-4 September 1994, p. 28, in "Official Cited On G-7 Aid For Chornobyl," FBIS-SOV-94-172, 6 September 1994, p. 57.
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.
["Options To Replace Chornobyl Include New Nuclear Generation," Nuclear Energy Overview, 11 July 1994.]
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.
[Alex Brall, Ann MacLachlan, "Ukrainians Say Proposed EU Aid is 'Obviously Insufficient'," Nucleonics Week, 7 July 1994, p. 6.]
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.
Sources:
[1] El Pais, 11 April 1994; in "Ucrania Pone Condiciones Para Fijar La Fecha De Cierre De La Central Nuclear De Chernobil," FBIS-SOV-94-069, 11 April 1994, p. 33.
[2] ITAR-TASS (Moscow), 8 April 1994; in "United States Experts Ready To Help Shut Down Chornobyl Plant," FBIS-SOV-94-069, 11 April 1994, p. 33.
Last updated 14 June 2001
 |
|
Updated June 2005 |
|
|
|